Illuminism/Communism
Yet again, the future of our species is being determined by a dogmatic mystic belief structure.
Today's "awake" are those who may realise that one can make compassion and reason into a clever costume for a goal that doesn’t benefit reason or compassion. What can policy marketers and influencers do if they perform that act successfully? They can trick us into believing stupid things that benefit the beneficiaries of our beliefs. So, it should go without saying; polling in new policy marketers or outsourcing your thinking to false idols won't solve your problem. Yet, demonising all societies that attempt to keep dangerous knowledge secret will not solve your problem either. They're not the problem. Just as our environmental problems are ultimately the result of human psychological problems, our societal problems are too. Let's look at the current psychological dilemma afflicting society's directors - Illuminism masquerading as enlightenment.
Of course, those who learn mass psychology influence others to be like their vision for a "perfect" society. Every director of a "prosperous" society believes their version is better than every other; that's their ego. To maintain the position of society director, they may feel the “need” to create scenarios that monopolise influence over the economy. Hence, the need to mass-market specific mass-consumer choices that benefit that direction. Thus, the public consumes single-mindedly toward the director's ideology of "utopia". The result? Civilisation degenerates into a meaningless obsessive materialistic wander through life — a life dedicated to centralised short-term gratification. If you believe that society is best managed by a few people, then you are also for less diverse input for the collective direction. If that’s the case, we won't observe utopia; instead, we will watch helplessly or ignorantly as dystopia continues.
This is what subversion does; it works internally and externally because your ignorance and lack of will allow it. It works to subvert good original intentions into something that self-destructs because we all lack the will to be totally lawful, and are therefore allowing self-destruction to eventuate. An unlawful state results from over-rationalisation to justify the belief; that one must compromise the truth to pursue the hypothetical greater good. The best way to subvert a society's good intentions is to:
Popularise the pursuit of a contradiction-laden belief that promises hypothetical reward.
Simultaneously rig admission into that society so that it only accepts order followers.
Influence every other society to be like yours through populism.
In no time, you'll have an echo chamber created out of the repeated and strategic use of demoralising rituals and high-level persuasion techniques. Now your society no longer works to value the mystery of life; it instead thinks, “all it knows is all that needs to be known”.
Take the growing need to be more environmentally-minded as an example —a positive solution would be to learn how mother nature creates biological abundance whilst encouraging conversations that manifest economic processes that create diverse natural abundance. In three words, pursue harmony competently. However, that's not the popular solution. Instead, we've popularised the need to decarbonise, depopulate, and de-platform conscientious objectors. Suppose you use over-rationalisation to make up down and live evil while turning societal ritual into a Stanley Milgram filter to catch the blind order followers. In that case, you doom your society/corporation/trust to dystopia.
Take Karl Marx's Communist manifesto, a sharp critique of greed within a Capitalist system interpreted as a rant-based analysis of Capitalism. Marx is one of the most popular straw man creators, but he had a point; he just missed it. Capitalism's problem is a poorly named brand that creates an unconscious pursuit of materialism. However, Capitalism is not a societal philosophy or a culture; it is economic analytics that favours the free market and supply and demand concepts. It is pro-creation; we just don’t put enough effort into discussing what the difference is between creation-supporting creation and destruction-supporting creation. Why? Because of greed.
Suppose the culture or philosophies popularised within a free economic model are those based on greed. In that case, many unconsciously view Capitalism as the radical pursuit of material wealth. Unconscious adherents will align their lives with that philosophy, even if they oppose it by waving a Communist or Marxist flag. Those guys are just lovers of slavery, the type who enjoy hypothetical-virtue-laden dominance.
However, if one were to analyse the foundational intention of Capitalism properly, one would find that greed is the problem, not Commerce. According to the Capitalist Manifesto; Capitalism is simply the analysis of the fundamental machinations of Commerce and the promotion of common-sense responses that favour a benefit. Greed doesn't just drive one toward material wealth; in fact, the worst form of greed engages in the expensive pursuit of physical immortality—a God-like status. This would beg the question; if centralisation favouring Marxists support the creation of fame-based Gods, are they also pro-greed?
What kind of Gods are the directors of the fame seekers? Ones that callously hit the reset button when their last angle on utopia fails? Worse, these "Gods" continually exchange their previous failures for another flawed model and so on and so on. Are they Gods, or are they nothing more than perfection-obsessed game masters? They might even shrug and point out that mother nature manages her "society" that way, which is a shallow point. Yet, consider this; those disaffected by your callous disregard will align your destructive behaviour with mother nature. Your hypothetical goal of getting them to care about her is suddenly in a pile of ruin. After all, she doesn’t play little games; she creates life so we can all enjoy the benefits of life’s diverse processes. She has a track record of maintaining and increasing biodiversity; the "Illuminists" have a track record of achieving the opposite. Humanity is not best managed by the same system that only serves nature; or the system that only serves society. We must find a way to encourage symbiotic humanism, lest we rob the animal kingdom of their right to evolution.
Many may not be aware, but it is the dogmatic religion of Illuminism that is driving the complete destruction of society. The Illuminati are neither a society nor a collective of secret societies; they are an inverted mystic belief structure that has infiltrated everything. They use the same influencing techniques of the Jesuits and other influential organisations, aided by more universal psychological persuasion tools thanks to mass data theft. Illuminism is Communism, the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The World Health Organisation, Transhumanism, and your governments. It is the subverted religion that is driving humanity to oblivion.
We've overcome this sort of thing before; it was the self-destruction in the Carthaginian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Mongolian/Tartarian Empire, the British Empire, the American Empire, and now the CCP Empire. It continues to change its skin so it can degenerate the evolution of consciousness by marketing shit beliefs to you. It will always do this so long as you allow it. There is no way to eliminate malevolence; one can only endeavour to consistently pay attention, identify it quicker, and address it with properly considered action. Don't be fooled into choosing political sides to ensure mutual destruction; people act out malevolence, but a destructive and contradictory ideology always directs them. Is it the religion of sacrificial self-destruction and the pursuit of deification? Or is it the religion of in-my-own image creation and monotheism? Correctly identify the dominating religion and effectively point out its flaws on mass.
agree we should be encouraging “symbiotic humanism”. wary of the idea that humans are not part of the animal kingdom (is man part of nature - i sincerely hope so, find the alternative distinctly unpalatable). contend we too should have the opportunity (not necessarily expressed as a right) to evolution.