Excellent piece. Thank you. What a trip down memory lane. I knew one of the heroes of my younger self in the early 1970's - R.D. Laing - was part of Tavistock - but it has only been in more recent years that I've began to understand just how important Tavistock has been to the larger social shaping and social control efforts of Western oligarchy. Great to see the discussion of the connection made between Lemnitzer - Operation Northwoods - and Operation Gladio. That most Americans remain blissfully ignorant of both Northwoods and Gladio speaks volumes about the effectiveness of present day social control efforts in managing the public mind.
The issue discussed at length here and in several articles written by Lyndon Larouche over time, I like to summarise as the problem of how many genuine independent thinking minds there may exist in the world.
Is there a finite limit?
Somehow logically resembling Malthusianism's concept of carrying capacity.
Does the universe have a finite carrying capacity for independent minds?
The reason I raise that question is that so much difficulties have stood in the way for mankinds liberation to a condition where we may fulfill our potential in the way desired by the 'Platos' of the world.
I suspect that our brains may not be the whole story regarding our minds. If the brain is instead like an interface it's full capacity may be much larger than is apparent from the size of our sculls.
And our thoughts might be processed in a structure common to all living phenomena.
Such a structure would presumably have a finite capacity.
If we reach the limits the structure would not be able to add more independent minds.
Under such conditions it would be expected that collective phenomena took the place of individual highly developed minds.
The world seems to me to show signs of that.
If the oligarchy is responsible for this it may be because they are evil or because the universe really has a finite capacity.
.
There are other aspects of the universe where seemingly a finite capacity may limit the universes potential for achieving Ideal conditions with unlimited refinements to handle minute details.
.
For example at velocities approaching the speed of light all objects appear compressed in the direction of motion.
.
Likewise time as measured on such an object is dilated, slowing down to a halt when studied from an observer. This would be expected if the universe has a limited capacity for updating its configuration.
.
Several aspects of quantum mechanics add to this way in which a finite capacity limits it's potential.
.
For high frequencies Max Planck discovered that the empirically known distributions of radiative energy could be brought to agreement between theory and experiments if it was assumed that radiative energy may only be transferred in the form of quanta with an energy proportional to the frequency. Thus high frequency energy only comes in big chunks.
.
Since high frequency ought to be more difficult to update if the universe has a limit for how fast it may operate, the universe would save a lot of work by rationalising away high frequency data.
.
There is the technicality of quantum computations and philosophically it may be understood in one interpretation as a multiplication of worlds for every observed microprocess.
.
Note that observation is a decisive feature. In consequence the nonobserved parts may not contribute any workload for the universe.
.
On the other hand the more we think and observe the greater the workload for the universe.
.
The more creative original people the greater the workload.
.
While collectivism would have potential to spare resources for the universe.
One more item.
The black holes of astrophysics could be yet another example of how the universe saves itself from having to update its configuration for dense matter.
.
Too much work so by rationalising away the need to refine the details at high densities the universe would save resources for other tasks having higher priority.
.
It is conceivable that the universe would simply discard information in order to spare it's finite resources for more important tasks such as for making the rest of it's rendering of the world according to some aesthetically pleasing norm. More beauty, less boring detail.
Google “ Aldous Huxley/ Mike Wallace Interview 1958” and prepare to question whether there are prophets placed here to warn us of a dystopian future to prevent coming to fruition. Huxley laid out a series of events so incredibly, inexplicably prescient it will rattle your bones. He was frantic, Mike Wallace was condescending and patronizing. And Huxley was spot on. Every detail.
In a 1961 interview on French television, Huxley was even more profound. Brave New World Revisited had just been published and Huxley stated that his sardonic opus, Brave New World c 1931 was being used as a playbook, the technology being developed was happened much more quickly than he’d imagined and if the Pharma and tech development was not thwarted, by 2030, we’d have already reached the point of no return. AI,Transhumanism, total control. That we were walking into willfully slavery- a One World Government ruled by an elite cabal of powerful sociopathic tyrants. Where the genetically, behaviorally modified , medicated serfdom would.. drumroll..” Own nothing, have no privacy and love your servitude”.
Huxley stood against eugenics, psychotropic medications used to make one susceptible to suggestion by playing on primal, Pavlovian reflexiveness combined with and interface of technological/ human fusion.
He was brilliant, but not malevolent. He’s been my object of absolute fascination since age 17. And many decades have since passed.
Actually Gail, Aldous Huxley did promote eugenics along with his brother Julian Huxley who was also pro-transhumanism. As published in The Guardian, “Huxley was in favour of genetic breeding programmes to arrest the multiplication of the unfit. In a particularly unsavoury article, published in 1930 in the Evening Standard, he confessed anxiety about the proliferation of mental defectives and called for their compulsory sterilisation.” source: https://www.theguardian.com/books/1994/jun/15/fiction
Brave New World was written one year later in 1931.
His brother, Julian , was a eugenicist. Huxley became very skeptical and then concerned where it might lead. He wrote Brave New World to make that statement.
What starts out with some hint of good intent.. combating hereditary diseases,the UN, CIA, ACLU, SPLC, NAACP, breakthrough discovers, ie penicillin, diagnostic radiation, splitting the atom, the internet/social media, the space race, vaccines, fluoridated water,multiculturalism, globalism, taking in massive amounts of “ refugees” from conflict zones, wind turbines, preservatives, leaded gasoline- until it turns to shit in corrupt, nefarious hands.
When Einstein split the atom, he didn’t intend to annihilate entire populations and create a nuclear arms race. Marie Curie wasn’t hoping for radiation poisoning , cancer and rendering Holocaust victims sterile. Harry Truman didn’t foresee the UN and CIA becoming enemies both foreign and domestic. Nixon didn’t see a rising China so strong it would be the global power, Trump didn’t want to lockdown America, but was guilted and assured it would only be two weeks or “ everybody would die”…
We’ve crossed nearly every red line. Must have been 8 years ago or there about that I watched an interview with a social scientist who posited humanity had peaked 10 years prior and we were on the downslope of the evolutionary scale. Seems he was onto something.The law of physics is empirical. It takes a very long time to reach the top and a very short time to hit rock bottom . At this rate, we’re snowballing to the nadir.
Watch the Huxley/Wallace interview. Let me know your thoughts.
"Adorno insisted that all forms of beauty had to be purged from our culture. He wanted to encourage a mental breakdown of society on a mass scale to effectively reboot the system." Why did he think the system in the first place needed to be rebooted and secondly rebooted to then do what? That point was not clear to me.
Excellent work. Reminds me of the research I did for Dope Inc. over 40 years ago. Thomas Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow is largely based on the effects of the London V-2 bombing on the British population and how British Intelligence used it as a model for mind control.
“the process of transformation” that PNAC envisioned, “even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Brilliant 👍
This journalism is a breath of fresh air, succinct, relevant, and conclusive.
We much appreciate your good work Cynthia.
Will shift to paid subscriber this month.
God bless.
Truth, Beauty and Goodness reign forever!
This is a fantastic article. Thank you.
strange times indeed. but this is brilliant.
I'm buying your book.
Excellent piece. Thank you. What a trip down memory lane. I knew one of the heroes of my younger self in the early 1970's - R.D. Laing - was part of Tavistock - but it has only been in more recent years that I've began to understand just how important Tavistock has been to the larger social shaping and social control efforts of Western oligarchy. Great to see the discussion of the connection made between Lemnitzer - Operation Northwoods - and Operation Gladio. That most Americans remain blissfully ignorant of both Northwoods and Gladio speaks volumes about the effectiveness of present day social control efforts in managing the public mind.
The issue discussed at length here and in several articles written by Lyndon Larouche over time, I like to summarise as the problem of how many genuine independent thinking minds there may exist in the world.
Is there a finite limit?
Somehow logically resembling Malthusianism's concept of carrying capacity.
Does the universe have a finite carrying capacity for independent minds?
The reason I raise that question is that so much difficulties have stood in the way for mankinds liberation to a condition where we may fulfill our potential in the way desired by the 'Platos' of the world.
I suspect that our brains may not be the whole story regarding our minds. If the brain is instead like an interface it's full capacity may be much larger than is apparent from the size of our sculls.
And our thoughts might be processed in a structure common to all living phenomena.
Such a structure would presumably have a finite capacity.
If we reach the limits the structure would not be able to add more independent minds.
Under such conditions it would be expected that collective phenomena took the place of individual highly developed minds.
The world seems to me to show signs of that.
If the oligarchy is responsible for this it may be because they are evil or because the universe really has a finite capacity.
.
There are other aspects of the universe where seemingly a finite capacity may limit the universes potential for achieving Ideal conditions with unlimited refinements to handle minute details.
.
For example at velocities approaching the speed of light all objects appear compressed in the direction of motion.
.
Likewise time as measured on such an object is dilated, slowing down to a halt when studied from an observer. This would be expected if the universe has a limited capacity for updating its configuration.
.
Several aspects of quantum mechanics add to this way in which a finite capacity limits it's potential.
.
For high frequencies Max Planck discovered that the empirically known distributions of radiative energy could be brought to agreement between theory and experiments if it was assumed that radiative energy may only be transferred in the form of quanta with an energy proportional to the frequency. Thus high frequency energy only comes in big chunks.
.
Since high frequency ought to be more difficult to update if the universe has a limit for how fast it may operate, the universe would save a lot of work by rationalising away high frequency data.
.
There is the technicality of quantum computations and philosophically it may be understood in one interpretation as a multiplication of worlds for every observed microprocess.
.
Note that observation is a decisive feature. In consequence the nonobserved parts may not contribute any workload for the universe.
.
On the other hand the more we think and observe the greater the workload for the universe.
.
The more creative original people the greater the workload.
.
While collectivism would have potential to spare resources for the universe.
One more item.
The black holes of astrophysics could be yet another example of how the universe saves itself from having to update its configuration for dense matter.
.
Too much work so by rationalising away the need to refine the details at high densities the universe would save resources for other tasks having higher priority.
.
It is conceivable that the universe would simply discard information in order to spare it's finite resources for more important tasks such as for making the rest of it's rendering of the world according to some aesthetically pleasing norm. More beauty, less boring detail.
Google “ Aldous Huxley/ Mike Wallace Interview 1958” and prepare to question whether there are prophets placed here to warn us of a dystopian future to prevent coming to fruition. Huxley laid out a series of events so incredibly, inexplicably prescient it will rattle your bones. He was frantic, Mike Wallace was condescending and patronizing. And Huxley was spot on. Every detail.
In a 1961 interview on French television, Huxley was even more profound. Brave New World Revisited had just been published and Huxley stated that his sardonic opus, Brave New World c 1931 was being used as a playbook, the technology being developed was happened much more quickly than he’d imagined and if the Pharma and tech development was not thwarted, by 2030, we’d have already reached the point of no return. AI,Transhumanism, total control. That we were walking into willfully slavery- a One World Government ruled by an elite cabal of powerful sociopathic tyrants. Where the genetically, behaviorally modified , medicated serfdom would.. drumroll..” Own nothing, have no privacy and love your servitude”.
Huxley stood against eugenics, psychotropic medications used to make one susceptible to suggestion by playing on primal, Pavlovian reflexiveness combined with and interface of technological/ human fusion.
He was brilliant, but not malevolent. He’s been my object of absolute fascination since age 17. And many decades have since passed.
Actually Gail, Aldous Huxley did promote eugenics along with his brother Julian Huxley who was also pro-transhumanism. As published in The Guardian, “Huxley was in favour of genetic breeding programmes to arrest the multiplication of the unfit. In a particularly unsavoury article, published in 1930 in the Evening Standard, he confessed anxiety about the proliferation of mental defectives and called for their compulsory sterilisation.” source: https://www.theguardian.com/books/1994/jun/15/fiction
Brave New World was written one year later in 1931.
For more on this vein you can refer to my paper "Who Will Brave in Huxley's New World: The War on Science and the 20th Century Descent of Man" https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/who-will-brave-in-huxleys-new-world?utm_source=publication-search
You’re extremely bright, Cynthia. A pleasure to have come across. Serendipitous.
His brother, Julian , was a eugenicist. Huxley became very skeptical and then concerned where it might lead. He wrote Brave New World to make that statement.
What starts out with some hint of good intent.. combating hereditary diseases,the UN, CIA, ACLU, SPLC, NAACP, breakthrough discovers, ie penicillin, diagnostic radiation, splitting the atom, the internet/social media, the space race, vaccines, fluoridated water,multiculturalism, globalism, taking in massive amounts of “ refugees” from conflict zones, wind turbines, preservatives, leaded gasoline- until it turns to shit in corrupt, nefarious hands.
When Einstein split the atom, he didn’t intend to annihilate entire populations and create a nuclear arms race. Marie Curie wasn’t hoping for radiation poisoning , cancer and rendering Holocaust victims sterile. Harry Truman didn’t foresee the UN and CIA becoming enemies both foreign and domestic. Nixon didn’t see a rising China so strong it would be the global power, Trump didn’t want to lockdown America, but was guilted and assured it would only be two weeks or “ everybody would die”…
We’ve crossed nearly every red line. Must have been 8 years ago or there about that I watched an interview with a social scientist who posited humanity had peaked 10 years prior and we were on the downslope of the evolutionary scale. Seems he was onto something.The law of physics is empirical. It takes a very long time to reach the top and a very short time to hit rock bottom . At this rate, we’re snowballing to the nadir.
Watch the Huxley/Wallace interview. Let me know your thoughts.
"Adorno insisted that all forms of beauty had to be purged from our culture. He wanted to encourage a mental breakdown of society on a mass scale to effectively reboot the system." Why did he think the system in the first place needed to be rebooted and secondly rebooted to then do what? That point was not clear to me.
Excellent work. Reminds me of the research I did for Dope Inc. over 40 years ago. Thomas Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow is largely based on the effects of the London V-2 bombing on the British population and how British Intelligence used it as a model for mind control.
Fasse pandemic, false every thing. And Dr Reiner Fuellmich is still in prison
Project for the New American Century
Rebuilding America's defences
A new Pearl Harbor:
“the process of transformation” that PNAC envisioned, “even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”