Our aim is to attempt to understand the real motives of the elites, understanding that aside from what they may view as their own agency or intentions, are paradigmatic and formative questions in culture, of which they too are subjects of.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ

Genocide or Slavery? What do the elites plan for us? In the next several installments, we will address possible competing visions for the Great Reset’s technocratic coup against constitutional republican norms.

The present debate must take into account the status of corporate culture and corporate ideology and ideals in the transition from plutocratic oligarchical norms into technocratic oligarchical norms.

While the corporate elites of the banking institutes centered around the IMF, World Bank, Bank for International Settlements, and voiced through the World Economic Forum have a particular vision for the society they want to shape, they do not do so in a vacuum. Rather, they themselves are both shaped and severely limited by the paradigm from which they emerged, and the combined ecosphere of social views within which they swim.

While some form of 4^th Industrial Revolution is inevitable for the same reason that the Luddites of 19^th century England were doomed from the start, the particular vision of a post-financial order being now enforced by the elites only bears all of the greatest defects and birthmarks of the historical era and paradigm from which their values and visions were formed.

This piece aims to focus on that sphere of values and visions – in short, the corporate ideal.

We have demonstrated that there is a positive version of the 4IR that free citizens can fight for and win, but they must both be engaged in a fight where the freedoms they have to carry out that fight against the Bill Gates and Klaus Schwabs of the world, give shape and form to the same type of society which can be formed on those same constitutional and republican principles of freedom, community empowerment, and individual, bodily, and economic autonomy, and property rights.

The debate surrounds several end-game scenarios of western elites with this Great Rest Agenda for 2030. Primarily, these are;

Whether the eradication of the majority of humanity is preferable;

Or

Whether the enslavement of the majority of humanity is preferable;

Naturally, any varying combination of the above is within play, but we are interested in whether one will predominate over the other.

In other words, is it preferable that some 9/10ths of the world’s population figure is eliminated? Or that some number closer to the present number is sustained, but reduced to complete subservience? By this we mean regimentation, surveillance, restricted movement, and cybernetic controls over cognitive and biological processes. Or is some measure squarely in between these two the most preferable?

Another possibility, is that after some 9/10ths of the population figure is reduced, that some relatively ‘normal’ (in terms of liberal democracy) rights (privileges) are ‘given’ to the remaining global population. This much may be entertained if what we are involved in presently is a broad eugenics program, not just blind population reduction, so that the remaining population will be those who – while not a part of the present financial elite – are considered genetically or socially important in terms of the gene pool or remaining subject/underling population, as part of some idealized vision of a hierarchical society somewhat reminiscent in form of the one we are presently leaving behind. As dark as that seems, we must understand that this is the ‘light’ scenario – which doesn’t speak to any benevolence afoot, but rather to the utter severity of the very ugly and real situation at hand.

In our next installment, we will dig further into these two alternative visions. Within these, various subplots are possible.

But to really understand things, will require a deeper discussion into the nature of rulership, of power, of control, of whether pain and suffering are tools towards an end, or ends in and of themselves. And while this part of the discussion will no doubt be a more dazzling encounter with the grim, the underlying thesis will be lost without an understanding of the corporate ideology which shaped the present discourse, which is our immediate subject today.

But nevertheless it came to pass that crimes against humanity; mass imprisonment, regimentation, and human experimentation towards a type of reified transhumanist dystopia, had come to characterize the trajectory of a totalitarian societal development in the western world.

With this, of course we refer to the Covid-19 measures and the Great Reset Agenda for 2030.

The division of humanity into essential and non-essential human beings, meaning a two-tier system of rights within nation-states which resembles the two or three tiered system of rights that now exists in and between nation-states, should be a central focus for social critics capable of making a rigorous and thorough analyses of the present crisis. And yet it isn’t. Why not?

A note on the Interpolation crisis in Academia: From Critic to Enforcer

A feature of this crisis is that institutions which may educate, foster, and employ such critics have long ceased to exist. In their place, teams of compliant machine cogs whose only similarity with the social critics and organizers of yesterday, are their titles and positions.

These former critics of society, are now critics of members of society, the target being the masses themselves. From ‘punching up’ against the role of capital’s domination over social life, their roles are now to ‘punch down’. Between sensitivity trainings and the creation of ‘safe spaces’, there is no more room for an actual assessment of the real problem of society – at least not without the ceaseless ritualized preambulatory flagellations on various intersectional oppressions, and how each member of society however disempowered and actually disenfranchised is truly and chiefly responsible for them.

And naturally, they cannot in any way see their own assimilation of technocratic social norms – the Ideological State Apparatus or ISA – into themselves, in a phenomenon where the ideology of the ISA is internalized by members of society, as described by the French social theoretician Louis Althusser, in his tracts on interpolation.

The Corporate Ideal versus State Legitimacy

Centuries ago, the splendor of a sovereign state (and the status of its rulers) was a question that balanced between number of subjects, and the conditions within which they lived. This tied a type of anthropocentric principle to social relations and societal conditions and how we evaluated them. We may or may not ascribe ideas or ideals as the motivating factor here. Because of the state of technologies, including both productive and coercive technologies, and the requirement that human beings’ productive labor was a deciding factor in the wealth and power of nations and states, it was at the very least rational that a system of internalized self-discipline among the population was maintained, based upon a rationalization that society itself was generally good and organized towards the general welfare of the citizens. In that sense, society had to make, at the very least and to varying degrees of actualization, empirically observable gestures in that direction.

This view held sway until just recently. Corporate culture as it rose to challenge the authority of states, and in order to be seen as positive contributors to society in the eyes of a public, had elements of this legitimacy as well.

But corporate culture in its infancy was concealing that to the contrary, unlike the system of international states, it does not really hold either the condition of citizens or their numbers (which also has a strong military correlation), as the marker of power and success.

Corporate culture, for its part, prioritized an increasingly digitalized bottom-line; with the primary aim being to externalize costs, upwards distribute gains, and downwards distribute losses.

Incoming then was the eventual corporate culture of ‘downsizing’. This marked the final and last cleavage between how societies viewed success and how corporations viewed success.

 

Downsizing: Prologue to Genocide

Downsizing cannot be overlooked as the prologue in this process of eugenics or genocide (population reduction). It is, first and foremost, the foreshadowing of the IMF/WEF version of the 4^th Industrial Revolution as promoted by Klaus Schwab in his 250 page primer, Covid-19: The Great Reset.

The culture of downsizing and redundancies was the critical turning point in the devolution of human social organization of scale. It is a fundamentally misanthropic principle, which may subsist in a certain benign way within a cost-externalizing corporation that exists upon a broader society which, in the case of the latter, may be expected to shoulder those costs in the name of decency or legitimacy, or both. But once society itself embraces this corporate ethos, it has entered into the sort of new Dark Age thinking embodied in Kissinger’s conception that non-essential members of society are useless eaters.

Once fully introduced, no longer would General Motors, IBM, or Lockheed be seen as powerful or important based in any way upon the number of workers in its employ, the size and scope of their operations, the square footage of their productive centers, the number of floors in their corporate headquarters, the number of cars in their corporate fleet, the scale and scope of benefits and perks and corporate retreats delegated among the varying strata, and at varying levels, of its internally organized hierarchical structure – but based now entirely upon the its speculated future value in terms of stock valuation.

If all of the old markers had to be destroyed and cast aside in pursuit of an ever-more roboticized, automated, out-sourced, and down-sized bottom line, then so be it.

Their values to the political class were no longer seen as a factor relating to the number of households reliant upon its internal upstream and downstream productive economies in terms of goods and services, employment, and philanthropic endowments, but rather to its social weight to engage in new and creative forms of lobbying, with new legislative measures in place which until that time would have been illegal forms of bribery.

This stark realism-as-reality created a crisis in public perceptions of corporations and the corporate ideal. In order for a technocratic agenda to be realized, a major public relations about-face would be required for corporations to once again be seen as arbiters of moral right.

From this we find the standardization of 4^th wave feminism, critical race and gender theory, and environmentalism as corporate ideals towards a new legitimacy, concealing their actual processes of downsizing, outsourcing, and upwards wealth and power distribution.

In the same way that in the corporation, problems in the bottom line could be blamed on the laziness of workers, tardiness, apathy, a lackluster approach to work, lengthy breaks, extensive and extended vacations and sick-days, overly generous retirement plans (and not problems with the actual product and its relation to market itself), so too society could adopt this orientation;

Rather than problems of gender pay disparity, racial discrimination, prejudice and discrimination be laid upon those steering society – punching up – instead these could be transformed into personal characteristic problems of every member of society – punching down.

Conclusions

The fundamental crisis now is that all of these come together as part of a broader misanthropic and genocidal narrative which divides humanity between essential and non-essential.

With the introduction of the plague, with its entirely pre-planned and manufactured political ‘response’, it is exposed as an agenda of repression and regimentation of society into essential versus non-essential, of masked versus unmasked, of vaccinated versus unvaccinated, all while the rights of all have been suspended as if under conditions of imprisonment, military occupation, dictatorship, or all of the above.

To understand the end-game scenario in their aims – genocide or slavery – requires a discussion on the nature of power, forms of hierarchy, and whether pain and suffering is a means towards an end or perhaps the end itself. In our next installment, we will do just that.

Our aim is to attempt to understand the real motives of the elites, understanding that aside from what they may view as their own agency or intentions, are more broadly paradigmatic and formative questions in culture, of which they too are subjects of. We often view the elites as drivers of culture, and do not always adequately assess the paradigm and culture from which their own particular sense of solutions and drives stems from.

In short, the corporate culture of externalizing costs and downsizing worked for the bottom line, but as a legitimating ISA it could only lead to the final problem with its own final solution: the ‘carbon footprint’ human beings are now the redundant workforce to be done away with. With automation and roboticization, no human being will be essential. All human life is inessential.

Reach the author at FindMeFlores@gmail.com

[#item_url ]
Strategic Culture Foundation