Chaos, Corruption, Deep Corruption, and Extension of the Domain of Struggle

Watch the speech here.

1

But that’s actually not the rule. Even in a dictatorship that is tightly run from above and uses a great deal of force, different forces can be in competition with each other that the dictator does not really have under control. With regard to the Third Reich, for example, one speaks of an ‘anarchy of offices’. But even below the offices, groups there worked against each other as well as with each other upwards against the regime. Hitler certainly did not have all this under control. And even if the competition of subordinate leaders may have been in his interest as supreme commander — the so-called playing off of actors against each other and the balancing of their interests — that did not have to be the case at all. Forces that were clearly working covertly against him need not even be mentioned here, although they were very relevant or even decisive.

As another example of a contradictory and even chaotic situation of forces, I would like to cite the situation in Iran around the so-called Holocaust Conference, which took place in Tehran in December 2006 and which I attended1 (by the way with a speech entitled ‘Save the West!’ whose call remained unheeded. Back then I was dismissed as a ‘Nazi’, but nowadays all opponents are ‘Nazis’ and the West probably can’t be saved anymore). Even in the immediate run-up to this conference, it was not clear whether it would actually take place at all, although it had been announced. The Iranian embassy in Berlin was suspicious and not helpful. Finally arriving in Tehran, one saw how different forces were working against each other even within the Iranian leadership. That the conference would take place was still on the razor’s edge until shortly before it began; we were informed of this by forces campaigning for the conference. In the end, the group around President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad prevailed over those who did not want to jeopardise a certain relationship with the West. Again, not to mention pro-Western actors and agents, who certainly acted covertly against the holding of the conference and who may have contributed to the chaos.

2

We also are currently facing a chaotic situation of forces, both with regard to the general development towards a technocracy and the prevention of such a development, as well as with regard to the entire geopolitics and a section of it: the war in Ukraine.

Edward Slavsquat, in a recent article, pointed out how in Russia there is a debate about a certain chaotic situation and about who is actually responsible for the strategic planning of the military operation, and thus who is on which side anyway.

The unclear situation in which forces that supposedly belong to one camp but are in fact not acting for this camp implies that the war in the Ukraine will probably, as Edward Slavsquat writes in another article, ‘drag on for a long time’.

This stalemate is at the expense of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples, both of whom, with their tens of thousands of dead and all the destruction, are the ones who suffer. But it is also at the expense of all other European peoples. The beneficiaries of the ongoing war are forces from outside the European area. But the beneficiaries also include Europeans, Russians and Ukrainians, who have common and at least partly overlapping interests with the non-European beneficiaries or are even in cahoots with them.

For the vast majority of these European beneficiaries, the situation is clear: they have virtually no patriotic and libertarian personality parts related to Europe.

In the individual personalities that are considered patriotic, various interests can, in the chaotic situation of forces, pass right through them, even those in the very highest ranks. Then they are not 100 per cent behind the interests of the people, but also act to the detriment and damage of the people.

Nevertheless, there may also be authentically patriotic parts within such a leader; only he is no longer fully aligned with the interests of the popular masses who are most affected by war and geostrategic manoeuvres. In these personalities, other parts oppose the patriotic parts.

3

The phenomenon of the different personality parts and of the ambiguity of the interests of the individual personalities of course refers also to the general development towards technocracy and transhumanism. In this development, freedom, personal responsibility and self-determination of individuals and of the collectives and cultures formed by them will fall by the wayside.

As a rule, patriots are also anti-technocratic freedom fighters. But patriots can have non-patriotic personality parts. Patriots can have anti-liberty parts. Freedom fighters can also have anti-liberty parts, and libertarians often have anti-patriotic parts.

The cause of the anti-parts, by its very nature, does not lie in the affiliation, but rather in the involvement of the personalities in the corrupt structures operated and financed by enemies of the people and freedom. The personalities may also be intimidated, panic-stricken, perhaps blackmailed. The personalities may also simply be corrupted by material things and unnecessary luxuries. But they can also be mentally corrupted by vanities that go far beyond a normal need for recognition. The strongest means of corruption, however, seems to be the drug hopium: people cling to very obvious illusions because they cannot stand the scale of the catastrophe and do not want to admit it.

Corruption always refers to needs that are not among the central and most important needs, if we take as our deepest need the need to want to live in peace, freedom, self-determination and balance with ourselves and our environment.

However, this deep need is often no longer perceptible. It is overlaid by secondary and superficial needs, which the corruption can address. Because the deep needs are often hardly pronounced any more, corruption not only has an easy game, but one can speak of a state of general corruptibility — which even appears as completely normal and is habitual.

4

But we must unfortunately go further and say that deep corruption is not operated and financed by enemies of the people and freedom, but that the people corrupts itself. Namely, it pays itself in the form of conveniences and a false peace (for the alternative-potential people’s leaders it is said hopium).

Deep corruption is the most important aspect when it comes to submitting to or resisting technocracy. It is ultimately also the reason why wars are kept simmering and cannot be ended determinedly.

Over thousands of years, needs have been flattened by so-called civilisation. Now the citizen is happy that he can pay without cash because counting coins is too difficult for him. Thoughts of any ‘control’ or of a possible blocking of his debit card are not part of his world. The more superficial and inessential the remaining needs and the more short-term the interests are, the more deeply corrupted man is.

But depth and superficiality are just different terms for liveliness and non-liveliness.

5

The goal of resistance against technocracy is therefore primarily the preservation of vitality. For this reason, even in the resistance itself, vitality must be the focus.

To mark and emphasise facticity and the importance of living needs, as well as to characterise the more efficient preservation of vitality, Lucien Cerise introduces the term ‘conservative materialism’. The term ‘materialism’ is somewhat unfortunate. And unlike Lucien, for me feelings are not something ‘unconscious’ just because they don’t ‘speak’ with words; I nevertheless know them very well and perceive them clearly. For me, feelings are not a priori ‘irrational’ either; they only become irrational and chaotic when they are no longer conscious and when different parts of my personality and thus different parts of my feelings are in me at the same time.

Otherwise, all needs, including emotional ones, follow a fairly clear, predictable and straight path to their satisfaction, i.e. they are rational. But we should definitely not engage in philosophical hair-splitting here; it should be clear to everyone what Lucien Cerise means with this term ‘materialism’ and how new, useful and important his advance is. His ‘materialism’ is best illustrated by how realistic, down-to-earth, lively and completely of this world a man like our host — Iurie Roșca — is.

According to Lucien, philosophical idealism and the mere recourse to spirituality would not only be insufficient as weapons against technocracy, but would even coincide to a considerable extent with the agenda of the transhumanists: namely in the fact that the transhumanists envisage for us a purely spiritual existence, freed from everything ‘material’, i.e. everything living. Our existence will indeed, if the transhumanists have their way, consist only of a chip with our mere ‘information’, i.e. pure spirituality.

And here, once again, the agenda of the transhumanists coincides with the anti-freedom personality parts and the superficial interests of large parts of humanity.

We are now to be freed and redeemed from ‘materiality’ — and thus from our aliveness: an ancient Gnostic and Kabbalistic programme (tikkun olam), of which the realisation is now finally to be progressed. Large parts of the people, as well as its own and foreign elites, saw nothing in physicality and aliveness but suffering and misery and not the source of joie de vivre, affirmation of life and meaningfulness.

In the aforementioned partial correspondence of sole recourse to idealism and spirituality with the transhumanist agenda lies, as harsh as it may unfortunately sound, ultimately the deepest of the deep corruptions.

6

But we must also try to mobilise the will to be alive and to preserve it, and to appeal to consciences to follow the deeper, living and existential needs, so that deep corruption comes to nothing.

This appeal is identical to the appeal to what is sacred to man. (And I certainly join those who call the deep corruptor ‘Satan’). But the sacred can have quite different guises, as I pointed out in my discussion of Alexander Dugin. The sacred is basically what is most alive in human beings — that which they associate with their deepest feelings.

7

In other words, we should address the human beings who still want to be human and alive, not only on the spiritual and symbolic level (which undoubtedly can be very alive) but also on the ‘material’ and emotional level. This could be another weapon against the technocrats and against deep corruption, as well as the expansion of our recipients and their mobilisation.

Turning to the non-symbolic and more sensual (‘material’) perception could also contribute to a de-chaoticisation of interests and a separation of the wheat from the chaff, i.e. to a clearer identification of friend and foe. This turn, which in a sense is also a turn towards the immanent, would to a certain extent be a complement to the accentuated spiritual and transcendental approach so far.

For the purpose of the alliance of theists and agnostics that I consider necessary, I have written the book Pan-Agnostics: For a Theistic-Agnostic Alliance in the Fight against the Great Reset and Transhumanism, which has just been published.