Neo-Flagellantism and Oligarchic Projection

Introduction

Within the Western civilizational sphere, the historical paradigms of guilt have been especially shaped by Judeo-Christian concepts of “sin.” While a meaningful discussion of Christian theology is beyond the scope of this discourse, the general paradigm is one in which “original sin” due to humanity’s progenitors caused all of humanity to be tainted with sin. In most Christian ideologies, it is understood that the natural state of the human condition is one of sin and the taint of sin (even the most infinitesimal blemish) condemns the soul to eternal damnation in the afterlife. These paradigms have historically been conducive to the incurring of disproportional guilt in relation to sin and the expectation of extreme punishment for even minor infractions or violations of ethical norms. As such, much of Christian ideology concerns itself with sin and the cleansing of the faithful from the taint of sin.

Especially as it concerns the western realm of Christendom, these regions have had an extensive history of extreme religious moral strictures and practices in relation to the paradigms of sin. Perhaps the most famous case of this has been the rise of Flagellant movements beginning in the 13th century. These movements incorporated ritualistic self-flagellation in a physical “mortification of the flesh.” The concept of mortification of the flesh are acts by a believer to subdue or deaden the body or physical appetites by acts of abstinence, self-deprivation, and/or self-inflicted pain. These acts are performed either to suppress desires and physical appetites or to atone for sins.

In the case of flagellants and self-flagellation, there are no prescribed limits to the self-injury of flagellants with especially zealous flagellants capable of inflicting extreme self-injury. It should be noted that Catholic Flagellantism is not unique in terms of ritualistic self-harm; there have been many such practices that have existed throughout human history with many still being practiced around the world. These have arisen independently and have different ideological and theological paradigms and idiosyncrasies.

The history of the Christendom has seen throughout its history the weaponization of guilt and sin via theological doctrine for corrupt purposes. Perhaps the most famous case of corruption involving the instrumentalization of sin occurred with Pope Leo X and the Catholic Church in a scheme involving the of selling indulgences for the purposes of fundraising operations. Catholic indulgences are diminishments of divine punishment incurred by the guilt of sin granted to a faithful Catholic by the Church under specific conditions. In the case of the Pope Leo X, such extreme corrupt practices were understood as the selling of spiritual salvation for monetary consideration and the financial exploitation of the faithful.

Definitions

Neo-Feudalism: the contemporary rebirth of the paradigms of historical feudalism under a framework of totalitarian technocracy and scientific dictatorship. Like its historical predecessor, Neo-Feudalism incorporates the reduction of rights, liberties, and privileges of citizens in a slow and systematic transformation to a status of neo-serfdom. In this paradigm, civilians will have no meaningful rights or liberties with any permissions granted to them in limited form by state and corporate power. Like historical feudalism, in its final form neo-feudalism will involve economic exploitation and the power apparatus determining the fates of individual citizens. Neo-serfs will be beholden to corporate and state power in a manner functionally identical to historical serfs having been beholden to their feudal lords.

Projective Culpability Dispersion: projecting guilt or responsibility for an act to many innocent persons usually by the culpable party. In this manner, the culpable entity wishes to force the guilt and shame of an act (often egregiously criminal) which allows the party to absolve themselves of responsibility for the act while simultaneously taking sociopolitical advantage of the internalized guilt by innocent persons. In this manner, innocent persons who had no control or responsibility over the criminal acts are subjected to abuse or exploitation justified based on their false “responsibility” for the outcomes.

Paradigm Shifting Operations: extremely large-scale operations which involves at their core the weaponization of crisis for the purposes of sociopolitical transformation. In these operations, a contrived crisis is used as the impetus for massive sociopolitical change. The desired change is malignant with the forced changes to civilizations being tyrannical and totalitarian. These operations move civilizations from previous free states of functioning to increasingly totalitarian and oppressive paradigms of control, abuse, and exploitation.

Religious Pseudoscientism: the elevation of pseudoscience to a status akin to a false religion. Especially as it concerns the contemporary context, this involves the intentional replication of historical religious psychology and the engineering of religious-type social dynamics with the weaponization of the more dangerous and oppressive aspects of historical religious faith. It especially aims to replicate the centralized totalitarian control over thought and behavior and the social dominance over society of historical religious institutions. This is performed via:

  • The creation of the “cult of false science.” The creation of pseudoscience propaganda constructs (i.e. pseudoscientific psychological warfare specifically designed to facilitate totalitarianism) and the elevation of these constructs to the functional status of a religion. This includes the social engineering of audiences into dynamics of radical zeal and militant belief in these constructs. These engineered dynamics are antithetical to the legitimate systems of scientific inquiry which involve critical thought, logical inquiry, open debate, inherent skepticism, informed disagreement, and professional dissent.
  • The elevation of corrupted medical and scientific institutions to the status of authoritarian religious bodies. Selected institutions are given totalitarian power to dictate “dogma” and impose authoritarian policies at will. All these institutions and organizations have experienced “regulatory capture,” institutionally have financial conflicts of interests, have leadership with conflicts of interests, and in practice function only to champion and safeguard the interests of oligarchs, industry, and governments. These corrupted institutions engineer false legitimacy for government policy and industry products and practices.
  • The elevation of technocrats to the status of religious patriarchs and arbiters of absolute truth. Prominent technocrats are elevated to a status akin to a Pope, Grand Mufti, or Ayatollah (i.e. interpreters of divine will and divine law). They function as the unquestionable arbiters of “the science.” The undemocratic dictates of such technocratic patriarchs are totalitarian and crafted without the consent of the medical and scientific communities and without public input. Audiences are propagandized into blindly believing, trusting, and obeying the “expert opinion” of the technocratic leadership.
  • The creation of a pseudoscientific “dogma” which must be believed, obeyed, and must not be challenged. This “dogma” has no internal consistency or basis in science and is liable to be wildly altered by technocrats in a relatively short period of time as necessary in order to further agendas du jour. Regardless of the brazen inconsistencies and obvious internal incongruence, audiences are socially engineered not to question or disbelieve the pseudoscientific dogma.
  • The functional reintroduction of the concepts of “heresy,” “blasphemy,” and “apostacy.” Any knowledge or logical argumentation which challenges the dogma is “heretical” and any individual who challenges the dogma is functionally a “heretic.” Daring to challenge the dogma or the dictates of technocrats is “blasphemy.” Professional scientists and medical professionals who dare question the dogma are treated as having committed “apostacy” to the religion of “the science.”
  • The functional reintroduction of religious persecution and the weaponization of social dynamics for this purpose. This includes the social engineering of audiences to harass and ostracize heretics, the censorship and persecution of experts in relevant fields with differing professional opinions, the suppression of debate amongst scientific and medical communities, and the targeted persecution of experts, scientists, activists, journalists, intellectuals, etcetera, that oppose the descent into absurd technocratic totalitarianism.

It must be noted that religious pseudoscientism differs from conventional scientism in that conventional scientism has its ideological foundations in reason, legitimate scientific methodology, and a scientific worldview. Furthermore, conventional scientism champions free scientific inquiry and debate. The perversions of science and its wanton bastardization for the purposes of forcing totalitarian transformation on civilizations is inherently anathema to conventional scientism and all reason-based ideologies.

The Contemporary Context

The contemporary rise of Neo-Flagellantism is a component of the larger framework of religious pseudoscientism and the overarching agendas of Neo-Feudalism. For this reason, it is necessary to briefly discuss this collective superstructure in order to elucidate the specific role of Neo-Flagellantism within contemporary psychological warfare campaigns.

The international ruling establishment has taken upon itself the objective of forcing nations into the paradigm of Neo-Feudalism. Because the totalitarian paradigms of Neo-Feudalism are inimical to the interests of the international citizenry and highly unpalatable to enlightened sensibilities, it has been necessary to use Trojan Horse tactics and gradual acclimatization to slowly and systematically introduce these paradigms. It should be noted that Neo-Feudalism involves the collective enslavement of entire populations under paradigms of ruthless control, abuse, and exploitation. In these encroaching paradigms, citizens are slated to lose critical human rights and basic liberties and are to be increasingly managed as chattel under the dominion of corporate and political elites.

These paradigms are clearly antithetical to the historical legal and sociopolitical frameworks of human rights. For this reason it has been necessary to mask and mis-portray these ongoing campaigns in order to deceive audiences as to the intention behind Neo-Feudal agendas and present them in a palatable manner which seduces audiences into being supporters of these agendas. For the former, this has necessitated the skillful manipulation of the perception of the masses through aggressive and prolonged psychological warfare campaigns. For the latter this has necessitated the creation of entire apologetics and weaponized ideologies which justify the introduction of these totalitarian paradigms. The two primary means by which Neo-Feudalism is being introduced are Paradigm Shifting Operations (PSOs) and the international Climate Change agendas.

A key means of furthering these two major strategies is the tactic of religious pseudoscientism. Religious pseudoscientism is itself a variation of the weaponization of the psychology of religious faiths with its specific object of religious adoration being a defective misinterpretation of science. It should be noted that the “science” that is being elevated to the status of a religion is not true science but pseudoscientific chicanery that is bolstered by scientific fraud, mercenary scientific literature, and information warfare. Like other weaponizations of religious psychology, special attention has been given to the engineering of the citizenry into dynamics of ideological and behavioral control under technocratic institutions.

There is logical reason to do this: the weaponization of religious psychology was used to great effect during the 20th century to promote the rise of “political religions.” The redirection of religious impulses and the reverse engineering of religious psychology for the purposes of state power proved to be devastatingly effective in establishing and maintaining control over civilizations as well as instituting totalitarian paradigms of ideological and behavioral control. The intentional replication of such dynamics is proving useful in the contemporary context and will undoubtedly continue to be abused in the future.

The specific religions that are being replicated by religious pseudoscientism are those associated with Christianity. There are practical reasons for this: for over two millennia the Western sphere has had its ideology and culture deeply shaped by Christian religious paradigms and this precedent is easiest to replicate within this civilizational sphere. Furthermore, the different branches of Christianity have tended towards rigid ideological control. This is one of the reasons that Christian religious dynamics have been preferred as templates for Western ideopolitical control.

The Nature of the Strategy

The strategy of Neo-Flagellantism has its roots in the psychology and neurophysiology of guilt. The neurophysiology of social species generally incorporates neurophysiological processes which reward with positive emotions and euphoria prosocial behavior as well as inhibits antisocial behavior via negative emotions, dysphoria, and psychological distress. This works to promote prosocial instincts and dynamics which in turn increases the efficiency and effectiveness of group functioning. The ideal functioning of the social group in turn promotes individual and collective wellbeing.

The emotion of guilt is an evolutionary advantageous trait which contributes to group solidarity and wellbeing. The emotion is usually evoked in social species when an individually commits a transgression against a member of their social group or detrimentally impacts social functioning. The guilt emotion is the result of neurophysiological processes which culminates in discomfort and distress to an individual when they have harmed, undermined, betrayed, disappointed, transgressed, etcetera against a member of their community. The extent of the negative emotions tends to be a function of the severity of the transgression and the closeness of the social member against whom the transgressions was committed.

At a psychological level, guilt usually has to be “metabolized” in order to bring an individual back to a balanced psychological state. This can be performed through any number of ways which includes both external and internal processes. Externally, an individual may try to compensate for their transgressions by compensatory behaviors.  Conversely, an individual may feel such feelings of guilt that they consciously avoid re-committing such transgressions in order to avoid the consequent psychological distress. There is also an interplay between guilt and defense mechanisms in which an individual may try to assuage feelings of guilt either with mature defense mechanisms or immature defense mechanisms. Mature defense mechanisms produce positive attitudes and outcomes while immature defense mechanisms are generally dysfunctional and do not correct the underlying antisocial behavior. As a general principle, the failure to metabolize guilt leads to maladaptive psychological dynamics or in extreme cases to full-blown psychopathology.

When there are excessive feelings of guilt there are predictable consequences especially within a setting in which individuals are incapable of properly metabolizing the guilt and liberating themselves from the negative psychological consequences of guilt. The specific chain of psychological effects is affected by many factors and varies amongst individuals. However, excessive guilt can generally lead to a low self-esteem, an inferiority complex, neurotic tendencies, depression, and other serious and crippling psychopathological traits.

As it concerns Christian ideology, based on an individual’s interpretation of Christian paradigms there is a predictable interplay between Christian ideology and psychopathology. In certain cases, an individual may be prone to the development of pathological guilt and shame which provokes predictable maladaptive psychological processes and psychopathological complexes.

The relevant paradigms which contribute to the psychopathology are the following:

  • Humanity is often understood as being innately tainted with sin and in a natural state of sinfulness. This sinfulness can be understood as making people naturally impure and unworthy.
  • Sin tends to be perceived and interpreted in a disproportional manner which far exceeds reasonable proportionality.
  • Sin tends to be equalized at an extremely high degree. This means that minor failures or transgressions are interpreted as being disproportionally grave and by extension can produce excessive feelings of guilt associated with perceived sins. Oftentimes this means that sins such as lying can be viewed on the same level as adultery, or premarital sex can be viewed on the same level as murder. This essentially undermines proportional perspective and can disproportionally aggravate the emotions of guilt and shame.
  • In most Christian sects, any sin is understood as preventing an individual from entering Heaven regardless of the quality or quantity of sins they have committed. Furthermore, the equalization of sin is interpreted in a manner in which humans are greatly tainted by merely existing or committing minor transgressions. This means that a person whose sins were primarily innocuous will be damned to Hell in the same manner as an individual who has committed genocide. Even small sins can be perceived as having dire consequences.
  • Sin is often understood as an un-washable and unremovable stain on the individual. This perceived permanence often leads to obsessive and neurotic tendencies in an effort to mitigate, compensate for, or balance out past sins.

In some individuals these paradigms can lead to individuals feeling guilt and shame for certain sins which may permanently persist despite the individual believing that these sins have been divinely forgiven. Metaphorically this can be likened to a stain which no amount of cleansing or undoing can lift or wash away. This in turn can lead to excessive and extremely deep-rooted guilt and shame, feelings of unworthiness, low self-image, inferiority complexes, and self-dehumanization. These psychological effects can in turn lead to obsessive and neurotic behaviors which attempt to psychologically mitigate the stain of sin. However, these compensatory behaviors can never fully address the psychological burden of sin or assist in fully metabolizing the consequent distressing feelings. In an attempt to balance their psychology, such individuals can turn to religiosity, self-righteousness, extreme and highly inflexible cognition and behavior, religious extremism, etcetera.

Historical flagellantism represents one of the more extreme phenomena associated with Christian pathological guilt. While there are several principle underlying impetuses for flagellantism, this discourse will focus on those related to guilt and sin. Flagellantism is viewed by the flagellant as redemptive suffering, as self-punishment for carnal appetites, as penitence and atonement for sin, and as a way to “balance out” the natural state of sin. Suffering and pain are understood as virtuous and engaging in such behavior produces in the flagellant a temporary mitigation of guilt. In this manner, there is a psychological release from the ever-present burden of the guilt through redemptive pain and suffering.

As it concerns Catholic dogma, while forgiveness is freely given there are still ramifications for sin or divine punishments that can be either be physical or spiritual. In Catholicism there are penances and indulgences which mitigate sin and the punishments or consequences for sin. To avert these punishments, the faithful Catholic must performance penance for their sin or they may seek a more formal indulgence which mitigates the punishment and frees the individual from punishment in Purgatory. If the sin is fully atoned the Catholic attains absolution for their sin.

Neo-Flagellantism functionally recreates these religious paradigms within propaganda matrices and frameworks of religious pseudoscientism. Like Christian sects, Neo-Flagellantism seeks to promote the paradigm that human existence itself is intrinsically tainted with a “sin” and therefore intrinsically guilty in some manner. The psychology of the neo-flagellant is functionally identical to that of the historical Christian flagellant; the neo-flagellant views themselves and humanity as intrinsically tainted with this taint making human beings guilty of a “sinful” nature. This guilt shapes a worldview in which humanity is seen in variable states of filthiness and unworthiness. The neo-flagellant internalizes an oppressive sense of mea culpa, has pathological contrition for their inherent sin, and avidly engages in behavior which compensates for their natural state of “sinfulness.”

What the perceived “sin” is differs based on the specific propaganda campaign; however, in all cases there must be a metaphorical mortification of the flesh, penances, good works, and indulgences to compensate for this sin. Audiences are engineered into obsessive preoccupation with mitigating the guilt of these “sins” which are falsely understood as being intrinsic to human existence. This sin is portrayed as being disproportional egregious and meriting extreme measures to mitigate. Proper penance and “good works” (similar to the Christian sense) are conducive to mitigations of the guilt of these sins and are necessary for the neo-flagellant’s pursuit of absolution and “salvation.”

The neo-flagellant is eager in their self-abnegation, self-abuse, and self-induced suffering and is certain of the virtue of their individual suffering as well as the collective redemptive suffering of society at large. Indeed, the paradigm of the beneficence and redemptive suffering can lead to the neo-flagellant desiring greater and greater suffering, hardship, and abuses at the hand of the state if these are understood to mitigate the sin of the human condition and bring humanity closer to an elusive salvation which is promised but never materializes.

Similar to the mortification of the flesh in historical flagellantism, there is a penitence through self-injury although in the case of Neo-Flagellantism it is the immiseration of the physical self and the mutilation of the legal self. The legal self being the framework of civil rights, privileges, and liberties which the neo-flagellant readily offers up for mutilation and dismemberment in their zealous pursuit of “salvation” and “safety and protection.” In this manner, the otherwise unpalatable realities of Neo-Serfdom are reinterpreted through perception management and rebranded as necessary measures for redemption and the salvation of humanity.

The neo-serf has and will continue to endure increasingly onerous abuses such as energy poverty, rationing, invasive surveillance and tracking, the stripping away of legal rights and protections, impositions in their personal lives, “austerity” (i.e. engineered poverty and the abridgement of public services), financial exploitation (both corporate and through exploitative taxation schemes), and eventually the loss of any meaningful liberty or self-determination. And yet the propagandized neo-serf will experience psychological release with these abuses, punishments, and human rights violations as their suffering will be misunderstood as being “necessary” for individual and collective salvation.

Extremely large-scale propaganda campaigns have been employed to force these paradigms into the minds of audiences and convince them of the validity and virtue of their redemptive suffering. The citizenry is promised metaphorical salvation or redemption for their acquiescence and compliance with systematic abuse. Indeed, quite often they are urged to be active participants in their own abuse and the abuse of others. However, these promises are disingenuous propaganda necessary to engineer the consent of the abused and assuage the abused of the beneficence of their misery. With the skillful implementation of propaganda, the neo-flagellant generally does not lose faith in the righteousness of their redemptive suffering. These promises are never fulfilled regardless of how much the public has suffered. Indeed, the more the people comply with their abuses the worse and more frequent the abuses become.

Regardless of how heinous and criminal the abuses of the public may be, the public is propagandized into a paradigm of loving their abuse and revering their abusers. Psychologically, the hysterical individual desires greater and more drastic abuses which they feel bring them closer to the elusive safety or false redemption they have been promised. In this manner, the neo-flagellant is insensitive to the loss of freedoms and eager participants in their own suffering.

In some form or another the neo-flagellant undervalues or dehumanizes themselves or humanity at large. Again, this is due to the “sin” of humanity which must be violently and aggressively purged/mitigated in some manner. This dehumanization is not by accident but specifically cultivated by propaganda efforts. The component of dehumanization is necessary for the engineering of consent for the maiming of the architecture of human rights and the introductions of systems of abuse and exploitation.

In these propaganda campaigns, human rights are consistently portrayed as impediments to the “safety and protection” or the metaphorically “salvation” of the public. To this end, neo-flagellants are extremely willing to consent to the state placing a metaphorical razor to their legal-self and cutting away “as needed” for the “greater good.” Inevitably, this leaves their legal-self disfigured beyond recognition. While this may agreed to on the understanding that their rights and privileges will return to them once the “crisis” is over and “salvation” is at hand, the neo-flagellant nevertheless passively acquiesces to the permanence of their legal amputations and vociferously defends the “virtuous” nature of the mutilations of human rights.

Invariably, Neo-Flagellantism is coupled with the projective culpability dispersion by the oligarchy and ruling elites which themselves engineer the crises and frauds which are weaponized against the people. The overarching deceptions or weaponized “crises” are always carefully crafted Trojan Horse strategies with the central ruses of these overarching frauds being premeditated criminal acts by transnational systems of power. The culpability for the crimes of epic proportions is always projected onto the masses with the oligarchic cartels responsible for the crimes against humanity shielded from any responsibility or public condemnation. In this manner, the rhetoric underlying these frauds incorporates the projection of responsibility by oligarchs onto the very innocents they intend to abuse and enslave. For this reason, the contrition of the neo-flagellant is not merely erroneous but pathological and dangerous. The failure of the propagandized to understand the dynamics at play turns them into weapons against their own self-interest and recruits in a war against the paradigms of human liberty and dignity.

Case Studies

The two major applications of Neo-Flagellantism thus far have been as previously mentioned the Climate Change agenda and the Coronavirus PSO. Both of these cases merit a brief exploration to understand the application of theory in psychological warfare campaigns. It must be noted that the implementation of this tactic relies heavily on very careful framing of the central “problem,” a perceptual constriction of the factors involved in the “crisis,” and a forceful acceptance of very specific sets of “solutions” to the presented “crisis” over any other reasonable or sensible solutions. This limitation of understanding and constriction of perception is key to presenting totalitarian “solutions” as the only available course of action and engineering consent for the systematic descent into these paradigms.

The first major application of Neo-Flagellantism has been the decades long Climate Change agenda pushed internationally by major corporations, private foundations, governments, and astroturf Climate Change movements. The basic premise of the deception is that carbon dioxide emissions consequent to energy production modalities including petroleum, Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), and coal are causing irreversible climatic changes that will lead to extinction-level events. The basic paradigms of this overarching deception include:

  • Directly linking carbon dioxide (a benign gas intrinsic to biological life) to environmental damage.
  • Positing fantastical levels of catastrophic climatic changes to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.
  • Presenting an “inevitability” between energy use and carbon dioxide production.
  • Presenting humanity as a whole as a parasite which is killing the planet.
  • Presenting a fear-inducing urgency in order to radicalize audiences and foment an irrational mass hysteria.
  • Creating an obsession with very specific and limited set of “solutions” which are promised as being the “salvation” of humanity.

Ancillary paradigms associated with this agenda include:

  • Presenting a crisis of overpopulation.
  • Presenting an urgency of population reduction.
  • Presenting a “need” for “austerity” and further immiseration of the citizenry of the world in order to “save the planet.”
  • Presenting basic quality of life and basic standards of living as “unsustainable.”
  • Presenting a “need” for increasing government regulation and control over the citizen’s physical self (diet, health, movement, occupation, goods consumption, property ownership, etcetera.)
  • Presenting a “need” for the “reinterpretation” of (i.e. radical destruction of) the architecture of human rights and accepted ethical traditions.

It should be readily evident that there is an irrational conflation of “problems” which are bundled together into a nonsensical quagmire. Energy production is a single problem as is population size in relationship to land use. Furthermore, the inference of the presented evidence does not naturally lend itself to how the problem is presented nor are the proffered “solutions” logical, sensible, or acceptable.

It is necessary to re-frame the situation in a manner that better reflects reality:

  • Oil oligarchs have for over a century monopolized the energy sector and engineered a dependence on their products for transportation and energy production.
  • Oil has been critical in the American petrodollar system in which Saudi Arabia and then OPEC have sold their oil exclusively in US dollars. This has created an artificially high valuation of the US dollar and has allowed the dollar to retain its position as the reserve currency of the world. This agreement by extension has created a great incentive for the US to continue the world’s reliance on oil for energy needs which it has successfully done for over half a century.
  • For decades, alternative sources of energy such as nuclear technologies have been maligned and demonized. This propaganda has shaped public perception of these technologies. This has been critical in preventing its mass adoption which would have threatened global reliance on oil and other carbon-based energy technologies. Indeed, recent trends have seen the aggressive elimination of nuclear power by nations worldwide.
  • Oil oligarchs and the US government have aggressively suppressed alternative energy technologies and energy efficiency technologies. Furthermore, oil oligarchs, corporations, and governments have snaffled up critical patents in energy technologies. This blocks their use and eliminates the possibility of a transition to superior sources of energy.
  • The US and the neoimperial cartel have generally blocked the acquirement of nuclear power by nations of the Third World. This has significantly contributed to the dependence of large swathes of the planet on oil, has retarded economic development, and has massively contributed to pollution.
  • The US military alongside with international partners has been engaging in large-scale geoengineering. The exact initiation of these programs is indeterminate but independent researchers in the alternative media posit sometime in the mid 1990’s. This reality is slowly being admitted although it is presented as a “recent” introduction with the global scale of geoengineering is being actively denied.
  • It is the understanding within the alternative media sphere that the geoengineering technologies that are being used are incredible toxic to human health and to ecological systems. The ecological devastation that will be wrought on the planet is still uncertain at this time as is the expected toll that will be exacted on human health.
  • Any climatic dynamics are difficult to properly assess within a context of undisclosed weather manipulation involving several modalities. Any climate models that intentionally ignore geoengineering are disingenuous as these are relevant factors which materially affects observed weather phenomena.

The ultimate goals of the Climate Change agenda are as follows:

  • Technocratic Totalitarianism: technocratic systems of control in which technocrats have sweeping powers over the economy and over the lives of individual citizens. These systems are to be justified based on the need to manage resources and energy usage.
  • Neo-Feudalism: a “new normal” of greatly diminished human rights, reduced standards of living, energy poverty, rationing, diet restrictions, etcetera.
  • Depopulation: increasingly unethical and criminal means of lowering the population to fit the needs and requirements of technocrats and economic elites.

The “sin” of Climate Change Neo-Flagellantism is the dependence by human beings on energy and the consumption of basic commodities and foodstuffs. This paradigm promotes the idea that merely being alive and utilizing basic amounts of energy, industrial goods, and basic foodstuffs necessary for a healthy human diet is essentially a “sin” against the planet. All of human existence is measured within the metric of this “sin” by a “carbon footprint” which tallies the “guilt” of individual human beings against the planet based on their individual energy, food, and commodity consumption.

It should be noted that this paradigm necessarily depends on a carbon dioxide emitting model of energy production. Hypothetically, if there were a 100% conversion to nuclear energy production such a model of sin and guilt would be nullified as other forms of advanced energy production do not contribute to carbon dioxide emissions and therefore have no “carbon footprint” for energy use or the consumption of commodities and goods. Indeed, this model of climate guilt by necessity requires a forced dependence on carbon dioxide emitting energy production in order to justify the totalitarian “solutions” of the Climate Change agenda.

While “green energy” (so-called “renewable” energy production modalities such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric energy production) are touted as a solution to “Climate Change,” these energy production modalities (save for largescale hydroelectric dams) produce far less energy than is necessary for advanced industrial societies. This reality is hidden from audiences and there are great propaganda efforts to grossly exaggerate the energy production of these modalities. It should be noted that many of the key components of so-called renewable energy (solar and wind) rely heavily on favorable weather conditions.

The forceful push towards “renewable energy” is far more of public relations ploy than then genuine “solution” it is touted as. While these modalities will be increased, the continued reliance on carbon dioxide emitting energy production will not be meaningfully mitigated. Any partial transition to such modalities will merely entail a dynamic of less production of energy for a greater price. This will by necessity increase the cost of energy. This energy supply shortage is necessary for the intended agendas of deindustrialization, energy and commodity rationing, energy poverty, austerity, carbon credit economic models, etcetera.

As it concerns the psychology of Climate Change neo-flagellants, neo-flagellants generally do not understand the underlying sciences, meteorology, geopolitics, history, or any of the other relevant fields necessary to make an informed opinion on the relevant issues. Rather, the neo-flagellant has been inducted into the religious pseudoscientism of the “climate religion” and has accepted the dogma, paradigms, and tenets of this pseudo-religion. As a consequence, they have internalized climate “guilt” and accepted to varying degrees the paradigm that humanity is “parasite” on the planet Earth. In these twisted paradigms it is understood that to save ecosystems it is necessary to push for the extreme “solutions” offered by international elites. The reduction of the human rights and the culling of the human species are considered “necessary” measures to pursue the “salvation” of the planet. Climate neo-flagellants are generally willing to experience hardships and reductions in their standard of living so long as some flimsy justification is provided. Furthermore, they view these sufferings as a “virtue” in the name of “sustainability.”

Along with these basic dynamics are further frauds and exploitations that are being forced upon the public. First amongst these was the proposed “Cap and Trade” (CAT) scheme which involved setting caps on carbon dioxide emissions (i.e. energy usage) by industries. Industries would then trade “carbon credits” in a market with billions of dollars being held by the private banks of connected oligarchs. This scam is essentially the peddling of carbon indulgences which would decrease the “carbon sin” of energy intensive industries. What is conveniently left out in the presentation of this scam is that the costs of these “carbon credits” would simply be transferred directly to the consumers and that carbon emissions would not be mitigated in any way whatsoever. Furthermore, such a system would create a massive incentive to continue carbon dioxide emitting power generation as doing so is necessary to maintain the massive profits of connected insiders who would benefit from the carbon credits trading markets and the banking systems necessary to manage such transactions. Such a racket would ultimately ensure the long-term dependence on carbon-based energy sources due to the corruption and profiteering it would beget.

Next have been “carbon taxes” which aim to directly tax average citizens for their basic energy needs. As private citizens do not have meaningful energy alternatives such taxation schemes do not change energy usage, individual behavior, nor do they meaningfully affect market forces. Such taxation schemes merely allow for ruthless government financial exploitation of the citizenry while maintaining a cynical veneer of respectability and righteousness. In most cases the design of these taxation systems amounts to domestic economic warfare directed at the civilian public. These economic assaults generally raise the cost of living and disproportionally affect the middle and lower economic classes. Such schemes are not proven to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (as they do not reduce energy usage) and represent the economic punishment and exploitation of the citizenry. It should be noted that such schemes are never scrutinized with hard data and are never repealed when they are shown to be useless at their purported purpose. These carbon taxation schemes are metaphorically financial penance for the “sins” of energy usage.

Next have been the many “good works” of the climate penitent such as recycling plastics, abstinence from consuming meat, and buying an electric vehicle. These assorted “good works” are mainly intended to bolster the overarching deceptions of the Climate Change agendas and range from genuinely useful to intentionally malicious.

As it concerns recycling, there is nothing innately detrimental as it concerns recycling. However the manner in which it is presented is disingenuous. The issue is tied to the Climate Change paradigms by the contrived “carbon savings” model of recycling resources. While recycling is laudable, the practice is ultimately almost always a free service provided by citizens that does not actually benefit the citizens themselves but the companies who receive recyclables and reuse the resources. Furthermore, recycling presents an excuse for additional forms of taxation such as the “redemption value” or Container Deposit Legislation (CDL) taxation schemes in which governments tax citizens for the financial worth of recyclable material in containers. As most individuals who recycle do so through public bins or public recycling services, the majority of the taxes on containers are kept by governments at the cost of taxpayers regardless of whether they recycle or not. These taxation schemes are intended to defraud taxpayers and puts the onus on taxpayers themselves to seek out the few facilities in their vicinity which will reimburse them for the taxes they’ve paid. These taxation schemes have not been shown to affect recycling behavior but are rather a clever way of fleecing and financially abusing taxpayers under the guise of being “eco-friendly.”

As it concerns the demonization of meat, a risible model has been proposed that bovine flatulence in the form of methane contributes to “Climate Change.” Currently, the target of this has been mostly been beef but it is likely that the “war on meat” will extend to all high-quality meat protein sources. Abstinence from meat is understood to reduce human health and is expected to contribute to the reduction in the human lifespan. This component is part of larger agendas which aim at to force impositions on human nutrition and will likely eventually extend into being a contributor to population reduction.

Then there is the unnatural and forced transition to electric vehicles which are touted as being “ecologically friendly.” It should be readily evident even to the layman that electric vehicles that derive their energy from carbon dioxide emitting energy production are at the very minimum contributing to same degree as gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles. These are merely a few of relevant penances, indulgences, and good works of the climate penitent although the full extent of the Climate Change deceptions and frauds are beyond the scope of this discourse.

The second major application of Neo-Flagellantism has been the Coronavirus PSO. This was conducted in the classical structure of weaponized crisis as discussed in detail in the treatises On Paradigm Shifting Operations. The nature of the deceptions involved in this PSO are discussed in detail in the treatise The Propaganda Matrix of the Coronavirus Paradigm Shifting Operation.

The ”sin” of Coronavirus Neo-Flagellantism is humanity being a vector for the coronavirus strains involved in the weaponized crisis. Humanity’s susceptibility to this fantastical plague of purported Biblical proportions renders humanity metaphorically “filthy” and “diseased” as well as needing to be “cleansed” by radical and extreme means.

The underlying paradigms involved in Coronavirus Neo-Flagellantism include:

  • Human beings being portrayed as “germ-spreading” factories that are inherently dangerous.
  • The asymptomatic infection and asymptomatic spread deceptions posit full-blown asymptomatic infection and the ability to transmit the infection while asymptomatically infected.
  • Human beings are presumed to be infected or potentially the carrier of a potentially lethal silent infection even if they are obviously overtly healthy and clinically uninfected.
  • Great impositions, mandates, and suffering must be incurred by the masses in an effort to rid humanity of the contagion.

It is necessary to emphasize that the false paradigms and deceptions of the Coronavirus PSO are antithetical to scientific and medical principles. Much of the paradigms of this operation are complete inversions of scientific principles and involve brazen pseudoscience. The “logic” of public policy is riddled with irrationality, willful bastardization of scientific principles, logical fallacies, and obscene non sequitur leaps in reasoning. Regardless, the effectiveness of destabilizing logic via psychological terrorism has been incredibly effective at forcing the acceptance of clearly irrational paradigms by general audiences. This has led to the inculcation of millions of people into delusional frameworks of understanding and grossly distorted views of reality.

As it concerns the psychology of Coronavirus neo-flagellants, those in the “cult of the virus” believe that the inherent “sin” of humanity is being “incubators” and “vessels” for the coronavirus “pestilence.” This invisible pestilence is believed by the propagandized as having near supernatural attributes and functionally renders normal people contaminated or potential vessels for the coronavirus “filthiness.” As a consequence, all forms of pseudo-medical measures (masking, sanitizing hands, wearing face shields) must be taken to ward off the virus. Much of the adherence to overtly ludicrous and unscientific measures intentionally mimics religious belief and superstitious behaviors. Failure to abide by these faux-medical pseudo-religious “rites” can bring “damnation” onto oneself and others by incurring the dreaded disease.

Redemptive suffering must be accepted by the coronavirus penitent (i.e. abuses and exploitations by the state and powerful transnational corporations) in order for the world to attain “salvation” from the virus. It is “virtuous” to cooperate with the abuses of the state and it is virtuous to obey the mandates and dogma of technocrats to do “one’s part” in achieving collective “salvation.” Any injury incurred from experimental injections (which have essentially no clinical benefit) is virtuous mortification of the flesh necessary to mitigate the intrinsic “sin” of a normal healthy body. Injury and side effects suffered from unethical experimental injections are elevated to the status of a great “good” to be publicly showcased and touted as public proof of the penitent’s “virtuousness,” “doing one’s part,” and their faith in “the science.”

Again, it is necessary to re-frame the situation in a manner that better reflects reality:

  • Evidence points to the virus being a low-yield bioweapon. There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence pointing to the “outbreak” being premeditated biowarfare with the majority of the “solutions” to the outbreak being predetermined policies which strategically serve elite interests and further ongoing agendas.
  • The ongoing crisis is necessary for continued profiteering and the continued totalitarian transformation of societies. As such, regardless of the official statements of public figures there have been intentional efforts to continue the crisis. The presentation of the situation has been continuously mis-portrayed in order to keep the public alarmed and acquiescent to the ever increasing onerous and totalitarian agendas.
  • There was no scientific or medical precedence for the great majority of the measures and mandates implemented during the operation and no scientific basis to justify such novel practices. This rendered the bulk of the policies and mandates unscientific and overtly tyrannical. Ongoing scientific studies continue to demonstrate that the policies are unscientific and not grounded on valid scientific reasoning.
  • Governments have continuously manipulated the collection and presentation of data, promoted sham epidemiological models, and withheld crucial data which showed that official assessments and policies were unjustified.
  • The totalitarian measures and mandates never yielded the promised results. Despite this they were continuously forced upon the public in an undemocratic manner. The implementation of these totalitarian policies generally avoided input from the medical and scientific communities.
  • Information warfare was extensively utilized to force acceptance of the official narratives and the acceptance of the pseudo-medical paradigms underlying public policy. This included aggressive censorship which was used to silence dissenters and suppress public discourse. This was especially so in cases of dissident medical personnel and scientists.
  • The measures and mandates were strategically implemented to augment elite political and economic power and to decimate small to medium size businesses. This led to massive gains in wealth of selected oligarchs and transnational corporations and promoted the consolidation and centralization of economic power.

The primary goals of the Coronavirus PSO included:

  • Introduction of the Biosecurity State Paradigms: bio-surveillance, loss of body sovereignty, mandatory vaccines, vaccine passports, geofencing, medical detention, etcetera.
  • Totalitarian Technocracy: the management of medicine by technocrats and the elimination of traditional medical ethics to be replaced with totalitarian paradigms conducive to state power.
  • Profiteering by the Big Pharma Cartel: guaranteed massive yearly profits from mandatory vaccinations which have no civil liability for damages.
  • Depopulation and Engineering Ill-health: forcing the reliance on dangerous injections which cause silent pathophysiology throughout the body and are associated with hundreds of serious side effects. The diminishment of public health promotes a vicious cycle of further dependence on Big Pharma products and the increased mortality associated with the experimental injections furthers the ongoing depopulation campaigns.

Generally, coronavirus neo-flagellants are scientifically and medically illiterate yet they have displayed a religious-like certitude in “the science.” They have proudly endured all that was forced upon them by totalitarian exercises in power under the guise of public health policy. Even the scientifically trained were not immune to the psychological warfare or religious pseudoscientism introduced during the course of the operation. The coronavirus penitents readily complied with the many and repeated violations of their human rights. All the abuse, morbidity, and mortality consequent to abusive technocratic policies was held to be necessary redemptive suffering by these penitents. Furthermore, the coronavirus neo-flagellants readily gave up their bodies to criminal and unethical human experimentation and publicly rejoiced in any physical injury brought about by quack concoctions which they believed brought them all closer to “salvation.”

For the coronavirus neo-flagellant, the mortification of the legal self and the legal amputations that were demanded of them by the state were eagerly agreed to and given up as an offering to technocratic paternalism. Indeed, those that demanded the preservation of human rights, the preservation of human dignity, and participated in the defense of human liberties were viewed as sacrilegious heretics by the coronavirus neo-flagellants.

Conclusion

The current attacks on human rights conventions as well as the established record of erosions of human rights over the past half century have clearly demonstrated the critical importance of the defense of human rights and liberties. Unfortunately, this rather straightforward issue is never presented in an obvious manner but is twisted and distorted in its presentation to facilitate the systematic erosion of this legal architecture. Crisis and war time situations have been the principal means by which governments have permanently abridged many of the critical rights of the citizenry. However, it is in such critical moments in human history in which human rights are most important.

Especially as it concerns contemporary generations, the modern citizenry has been deprived of a basic education as it concerns civics, constitutional law, and human rights. When combined with psychological warfare campaigns, the citizenry thoroughly misunderstands the nature of the unfolding events and has a skewed perception of human rights. Too often, the public is convinced by psychological warfare that human rights and liberties are impediments to the “safety and protection” of the citizenry. In this manner, all that has to be performed by tyrannical governments is the adroit management of prolonged crises to slowly force newer totalitarian paradigms onto formerly free societies. Human rights and liberties should be universally understood as sacrosanct and inviolable regardless of the situation and they should be especially defended in crisis situations. In essence, the citizenry should never compromise on human rights and should be extremely hostile towards any erosion of these conventions regardless of the rhetoric or propaganda that is used to deceive the public.

In order to bring humanity further into systems of enslavement and post-human rights paradigms it has been critically necessary to rob the citizenry of their human dignity and inculcate them into paradigms of dehumanization. This is not a new realization in the study of psychological warfare, it has long been understood that in order to treat human beings like cattle, vermin, or property it is necessary to radically alter the way in which the human condition and humanity as a whole is perceived and understood. The ideological and philosophical foundations which uphold human respect, dignity, rights, and liberty must be undermined and subverted that they may be replaced with the paradigms of collective abuse and enslavement. Unfortunately, this ethical subversion and paradigm shift is exceedingly easy to engineer in the modern context due to advancements psychological warfare.

These propaganda paradigms merit historical comparisons. The de-feudalization of Europe was a long and bloody process which saw the loss of life of hundreds of thousands of peasants and serfs who rose up again and again against systems of enslavement and exploitation. In general, each step towards gaining the framework of human rights was paid for by the blood of the enslaved who fought and struggled for their liberation. This framework was fought for and won at great cost and in modernity it is easily given away by the masses of hysterical neo-flagellants in their manic pursuit of the delusional false salvation proffered by elites, oligarchs, and technocrats.

Especially as it concerns the Enlightenment, Neo-Feudalism and Neo-Flagellantism are antithetical to the paradigms of the Enlightenment. The Age of Reason saw the creation of the formal legal architecture of human rights which were understood as being universal and inalienable protections which could never be abridged or abrogated. Enlightenment thinkers asserted equality under the law and resolved to never again be subjects under nobility or monarchs. These ideological and philosophical principles have as their foundation paradigms of human dignity and respect.

In comparison to the paradigm of intrinsic human dignity, Neo-Flagellantism promotes paradigms of undignified servility and abject prostration to state power and oligarchic hegemony. The internalized inferiority and debasement of the neo-flagellant is conducive to self-dehumanization and the dehumanization of others. This in turn is conducive to a paradigm shift in which the rights and protections are offered up as sacrifice in acts of obedience to state paternalism. Such dynamics shift societies from the Enlightenment architecture of empowered citizens to the totalitarian paradigms of Neo-Feudalism. This takes the form of pernicious “new normals” and malignant “reinterpretations” of human rights which collectively form the “new ethics” of Neo-Feudalism.

There are many factors which affect the susceptibility of modern audiences to psychological warfare. Amongst these include successes in decades long social engineering campaigns which have significantly heightened the susceptibility of modern audiences to propaganda. What this translates to in real-world application is the continued inculcation of otherwise normal and ethical persons into deranged paradigms of thought which are anathema to the values and ethics of a free peoples. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, campaigns of psychological terror conducted through mass media and aggressive psychological warfare campaigns are able to fully rewrite the ethical frameworks and normative paradigms of millions of people. That so many succumb to psychological warfare is less a sign of moral failings on the part of the citizenry as it is evidence of the ruthless effectiveness of psychological warfare and social engineering.

Especially heinous and reprehensible on the part of the international ruling oligarchy and the transnational systems of power has been the reverse engineering of religious psychology and its strategic recreation for the purposes of psychological warfare. This is not merely sacrilege to those of faith but the malignant weaponization of some of the most destructive impulses which have plagued humanity for thousands of years. The use of religion and religious psychology for the purposes of political and economic power is not a new phenomenon in human history. However, the careful study and scientific analysis of the derangements in psychology and their weaponization represents an existential threat to humanity.

The totalitarian political religions of the 20th century have left little to the imagination in terms of the extreme radicalization that can be achieved by the skillful manipulation of human psychology. To inculcate humanity into paradigms in which they eagerly accept the chains of collective enslavement is a supreme crime of epic proportions. This is especially so given the betrayal of the sacred architecture of human rights as well as the condemnation of future generations who will never know the rights and liberties which are being lost during this era. Unfortunately, given the zeal of the propagandized those who are recruited into being weapons against their fellow citizen are filled with deceptive certainty in their cause and exhibit self-righteous in their beliefs and actions. Not merely are they willing participants in all manner of metaphorical self-flagellation but they are eager participants in the abuses directed against their fellow citizen. Those who have been inculcated into these paradigms of self-abuse and self-abnegation have lost their self-respect and self-dignity. Consequently, they are unable to uphold or defend these aspects in others. Such individuals have lost a core aspect of their humanity and represents a danger to the struggle to defend the ethical and philosophical foundations of republics and free peoples.

Postscript

If you enjoyed this discourse, please share this work as it helps grow the readership. You can follow these publications by subscribing to directly to Modern Montaigne or by following Modern Montaigne on Substack.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: