top of page
The Right Dismisses the Problems,
and the Left Misidentifies Their Solutions
1. The Left identifies a real problem, and tries to solve it
2. Technocracy sells the Left false solutions
3. The Right rejects the false solutions
4. The Left accuses the Right of hatred and ignorance for rejecting the false solutions
5. The Right, feeling attacked, digs in ever harder, by dismissing the existence of the original problem altogether
6. The Left, feeling hopeless because of the Right's apathy, becomes increasingly radicalized in its desperation for answers
7. They fight.
The current situation, in world politics, can be summed up like this:
The Left is correct about the What, but wrong about the How.
And the Right, while all-too-often apathetic about most of the What, nevertheless has the answers to course-correct the How (if they can be persuaded to care, and/or if the Left can be persuaded to reach out to them to sincerely listen to their insight).
In other words, the Left is correct about the existence of the issues, and the dire need to solve them.
The issues are real. And they need to be fixed. Pronto.
The planet is burning, the oceans are acidifying, and species are going extinct at 10,000 times the background rate. The ecological crisis does present an existenetial threat to civilization.
Innocent people are indeed dying at the hands of hyper-militarized police.
The gap between rich and poor is corroding our society from the inside out, and poverty has become extreme.
Our society is treating animals in horrific and heartbreaking ways.
Private capital has taken over our media and electoral processes.
All of these problems are real, and it's the duty of every person on Earth to do whatever we can to solve them, as soon as possible.
But the solutions on which the Lefties have settled are wrong solutions, because they're technocratic, and such "solutions" inherently fail to understand the true nature of the problem they're attempting to solve.
The problem is not lack of technology. It's inside us. It's our inner condition. It's psychological. It's spiritual. The world-in-chaos we see on the outside is a reflection of the chaos inside of us.
And since the problems come from within, so do the solutions.
How does this play out? What are some real-world examples?
The problem with universal healthcare is not that it's "expensive" or "socialist." The biggest reason for opposition is not that people "don't want to pay to take care of others."
The problem is that the types of medicine that it involves are, for the most part, not even real medicine. The surgeries, the radiation, the pills - they're petrochemical quackery, designed by technocracy for the purpose of keeping people in cycles of sickness, to suppress the human spirit and make us less capable of resistance to the agenda. Big Pharma is the linchpin of the mind-control matrix. It exists to make people dumbed-down and compliant - not to heal anybody.
And so we don't want that stuff to spread. We certainly don't want to fund it. Not because it's "expensive" - but because it's detrimental, and doesn't solve any problem. It's not medicine.
On the other hand, if you want government-funded nutrition programs; if you want government-funded transit lines to bring people from inner cities out to hiking trails to experience the healing qualities of nature; if you want government-funded gym and yoga memberships; if you want government funded programs to teach people to meditate; if you want government-funded herbalism and psychedelic shamanism - well, that's a different story! That's real medicine!
The thing is, those solutions, with the exception of the bus lines, don't involve much tech. They are non-technocratic. (And that's precisely why they're not on the agenda in most big political activism organizations).
Now let's take the most central issue of all among Lefties:
2. The global ecological crisis.
The Left is correct about the facts that:
A. We live in an ecosystem.
B. Our own survival depends upon the integrity of the ecosystem.
C. The choices we make affect its integrity.
D. The choices we make, in relation to our ecosystem, affect our own ability to thrive and survive.
E. Humanity is currently committing an omnicide. We're dismantling the planetary ecosystem in a thousand ways.
F. The omnicide is an existential threat to our civilization, and perhaps our entire speicies.
G. It's getting critical, and we're running out of time to stop it.
The Left is correct about this problem, and its import.
But the Left is going the wrong way about fixing it.
All the "solutions" that we hear about from politicians, or from anybody on TV, are technological.
Build more machines.
Build different machines.
Build better machines.
Build greener machines.
The Green New Deal is basically a giant multi-trillion-dollar product ordering form for tech.
It's like a catalogue of thousands of machines, and all we do is select which ones we want, and order them. And this is supposed to "solve" the problem.
Solar panels. Electric cars. Driverless cars. 5g smart cities. Satellites. This is what "green" has come to mean, in recent years. If you remember bygone decades, it used to mean back to the land. You know... hippies and stuff.
But nowadays, it means you want to entrust the management of your body and world to artificial intelligence.
That's a big change. When did that happen? Were you consulted on this?
The technocratic attitude displays a failure to recognize the true nature of the problem. The problem is not a lack of machines. The reason why mankind is destroying the planet is not because we don't have enough machines.
Machines are the problem. Machines are how we got into this mess in the first place. And you can't solve a problem with more of the same thing that created it!
Many people jump for joy upon hearing the mere mention of it, because we assume that "all ideas for a better world are inherently good ideas."
But what if they're not?
What if they don't address problems at a deep enough level, and therefore end up being counterproductive?
What if they push the wrong kind of change entirely?
If you really think hard about electric cars, and self-driving cars, you can see that they're terrible ideas. Really, they're awful. Electric cars would start a new race for rare-earth mineral mining concessions and unleash terror upon the living land perhaps even worse than fossil fuel drilling, and self-driving cars are a technocratic dystopia filled with microwave radiation and utterly at the mercy of computers to a degree that's even now unimaginable to most people.
And neither of these admits the deeper truth that the roads themselves are a bigger ecological burden on the planet than the cars are! The future has to be one where we evolve beyond cars. Not by inventing some new dazzling transport vehicle that flies - but rather by restructuring society itself to be local again, so that we no longer need individual vehicles for every single little task.
We can't just go with any shiny new idea. We have to really think this through. Just because some policy or invention promises to improve our lives... doesn't mean it will.
Especially when technocracy gets thrown in.
Its promises always turn out to be empty, yet it keeps whispering to us, and enough of us keep believing it, that it keeps advancing. And it almost always comes in via the Left, which is the easier side to co-opt.
The problem has to be addressed on a level of depth sufficient to actually solve it, or what's the point?
The problem is on the inside. It's mankind's inner condition of corruption, manifesting as outer destruction. It's spiritual.
Tech is not the answer to the ecological crisis. Tech is not the answer to it. Tech is not the answer.
Because the problem is not a lack of tech. Tech is the problem. Tech is how we got into this mess in the first place. You can't use the problem to solve the problem. You can't solve the problem with more of the problem.
This approach fundamentally fails to comprehend the true nature of the problem. It misidentifies the cause of our ecological problems. It assumes that our problem is that we have "not enough technology."
It overlooks the fact that technology is how we got into this mess in the first place. How are you going to solve a problem with the very same thing that's causing it in the first place? That's like trying to cure poison with more poison. .
We mustn't rely on technology.
More specifically, the problem is un-nature. NAture is health. When you have nature and you are in tune with nature, you are by definition, healthy. And if a society is made up of people who are in tune with nature, and the society is in tune with nature, then the society is by definition healthy. And it's not going to be destroying its environment. When the soul is in good condition, we don't destroy the environment. We live in balance.
What about governmental solutions? Like a carbon tax, and more regulations, and tough emissions standards?
The entire amount of carbon targeted by the accords is eclipsed by the amount we'd sequester if we simply stop lawnmowing.
If we stop mowing lawns, we would sequester more carbon than the entire mount targeted in the paris accords. And it wouldn't cost a penny. No extra taxes, no setting up whole new big bureaucracies, no impinging on anyone's sovereignty or pocketbook.
We could by doing less work. By putting in less effort, and having more leisure time.
Yet they're not talking about that. Strange isn't it? They only want to talk about ideas that involve building big arrays of tech. Isn't that weird. Why do you think that is? Is it really about saving the earth? To them? ARe they really focused on saving the earth, or are they exploiting our desire to save the earth in order to entice us with more technology to advance technocracy?
Maybe a lot of people would still choose to mow, but most don't even want to be doing it. You wouldn't even have to ban it. That's another problem the left gets into. We think the only way to change behavior is to ban things. This is an extreemly crude tool. And it's not necessarily needed. We could eliminate almost all lawnmowing by simply removing ordinances that require it. Right now most people don't even ahve a hoice. even if they want to stop they're not allowed to because county ordinances mandate it. Most people don't like this. Especaily small gov converstivate.s You could actually build a bridge with the right, if you target th ereapeal of burdensome bureacutratic impositions like lawnmowing ordinances. You could ake common cuase with samll gov convservatives. They would be happy to help you repeal those ordinance. Many of them have been trying for years. But left standing in the way in name of being cool and hip
If you repeal the lawnmowing ordinances, and simly give people the choice to mow or not to mow, you would sequester more carbon than the entire amount targeted int hte Paris accords.
Technology cannot heal the planet. Only spirituality can do that.
Our ecological situation is a manifestation of our own inner, spiritual condition.
Ecological degradation comes from economic consumption - and 99.9% of all of our consumption is not due to genuine need, but rather spiritual waywardness.
The emptiness of modern culture has rendered us deeply dissatisfied with existence, and this void is exactly what we buy so many things to fill. Our spiritual condition is determining our quantity of consumption.
Ecological degradation is caused by greed, and greed is caused by spiritual corruption.
And greed shows up not merely in our day-to-day personal choices of entertainment, but also in the very structure of our society.
A culture's current shape is determined by the aggregate of the choices made by the people within it.
All the greedy and corrupt choices being made in our culture are contributing to the weave of its fabric, and leaving a mark in its architecture.
The systems that we use, to run our society, have come to reflect the spiritual state within us, while manifesting its consequences externally in the form of the ecological crises we see all around us.
It's not just "consumerism" or "greed." It's not just our individual choices; it's also the structure of our society itself.
Our belief systems. Our economic system. Our community structures. Our architecture. The layout of our towns and residences. Our relationship with Time, and the assumptions we're expected to have about how to manage it. Our value system for allocating labor. Our practices of how land is categorized and used. Our definition of property.
The very shape of our society reflects our spiritual state - and therefore determines how much we need to consume from the biosphere in order to be satiated.
Everyone ought to know by now that Modern Society is extremely inefficient in its resource usage - but it's more than just "the wrong kind of energy source." It's not a matter of "we have this factory, but we actually need THIS type of factory instead." No no.
Most of the inefficiency comes from something far simpler (but more humbling) than that:
Our unwillingness to share.
Sharing. And cooperating.
You know, that thing kindergartners know how to do, but adults are expected to forget?
Not doing that, is why we consume as much of the biosphere as we do.
If we could just do that one thing, 99% of our ecological crisis would be instantly solved.
But why can't we share?
Well, that's because of our inner condition. We distrust each other. We're not thinking about others' needs. We are short-sighted. We have conflict in our communities, and we need to lock everything up in order to prevent the "other" from stealing it.
And as a result, we have multiple copies of each tool and machine, when we easily could have shared them. Every house on the block has a tool-shed with the exact same machines. The same drills, the same leaf-blowers, the same hedge-trimmers, the same everything. We could have shared them - but instead, we made 50 times more extraneous copies. How much ecological damage was done to produce all of these extra copies?
Same with cars. How many fewer cars would we need, if we trusted our neighbors, and shared among them?
How many fewer lawnmowers would we need?
Come to think of it, why are we even mowing lawns at all? What purpose does that serve? In truth, it only exists to displays conspicuous consumption - a way for people of means to show off their means - in line with 18th Century English aristocratic culture. If we gave up this ego-based wastefulness, how much ecological destruction would we reverse?
Quite a lot.
These are just a few of the ways in which our spiritual condition affects our level of ecological consumption.
And focusing on technology ignores that, and therefore doesn't solve the problem at its real root cause.
And that is the Modern Left's error: it got distracted and enticed by flashy new technology, and sidetracked away from the true nature and causes of the issues.
It identifies the what - but misidentifies the how. Technology is not the cure.
We degrade the ecosystems to make consumer products - and we use consumer products to numb our pain.
Our pain leads directly to ecological degradation.
And a key source of pain in Modern Society is the collapse of the gender dynamic - the relationship between the sexes.
Medicalization of gender nonconformity. We wanna help people who have gender dysphoria, but surgeries and chemical cocktails are not the way.
We want people who are gender nonconforming to have perfect freedom to be themselves, without any fear at all. You're part of the human family.
We want people with gender dysphoria to start feeling good about themselves. You deserve to feel good about yourself, and we want you to.
But knives and chemical cocktails are simply not the way to do it. They're the wrong solutions. We don't want to give you the wrong wolution, we want to be a good friend, and a good friend doesn't enable and indulge delusions. a good friend is honest, and tells you the truth. doesn't let you get duped by con artists masquerading as doctors.
answer to racism is understanding and communication and exposure and proximity and friendships and nvc and getting to know each other and listening an comm skills. this is how you overcome bigotry.
But instead, they're trying to set up a whole new social system of categorizations, and force constant racial thinking to permeate all human interactions between everyone. They want race and color to take central stage in every interaction between two human beings, to be on everyone's mind in every conversation at all times, and that's the very definition of racism. But it seems appealing because its technocratic, and it gets people out of their heart centers and into their critical centers which prevents true human bonding. They want to seprate us and keep us divided because that helps techs agenda, because divided we cannot resist it. Divided, were' busy fighting each other, instead of the robot army.
kid in chalk squares
alreayd have paragraph
People are thining in only one side of brain, analytical deductive, insead of intuitive inductive. ignoring intuition which would tell if listed to it that you have to look at big picture and other effects of policies, and not just about beniefits, but actual costs and harms that come form those pokicies, that lead to even worse outcomes than the virus you calim to be fighting.
even if there was a pandemic, the types of actions deployed in this sutaiont are not the correct measures, and the things weve done in response to this sutiotn wouldn't help, because they don't take the big picture into account.
What happens when we buy into false solutions? The ill-thought-out "coronavirus" lockdowns showed us exactly what happens when we're too quick to believe the oligarch media and obey the orders of governments, without thinking about the actual logic and science (or lack thereof) behind those orders, and without examining the larger agendas at work, or the long-term consequences of the strategies we adopt.
A whole generation with a whole new field of trauma. It doesn't even have a name yet, it's so new. What to call it?
Many people didn't think about what kind of soulless society we were building in our panic, and whether or not a medical fascist global dictatorship, with contact tracing, medical police forces, "Immunity Passports", forced vaccinations, internet censorship, and top-down control by an un-elected labcoat mafia might actually be worse than whatever virus they were claiming to be fighting.
And it's a good thing the Right is slamming on those brakes, isn't it?
bottom of page