Saturday, 11 March 2017

Mark Passio and the Chess Game

Readers of my blog will have noticed that I make a liberal and extensive use of the teachings of independent and esoteric researcher Mark Passio from, largely because his philosophical sensibility is compatible with my own and I have hugely benefited from his input, including on the purely personal levels of well-being and freedom from neurosis. 

My discovery of Mark Passio in 2015 was the most significant event in my intellectual and spiritual developments since reading books by Hannah Arendt, Martin Heidegger and Friedrich Nietzsche and I value his work as equal if not largely superior to the aforementioned authors, at least in terms of moral, conspiratorial and esoteric enlightenments. 

That being said I have sometimes taken issue with his indictment of what he calls the 'sleeping masses' in their failure to become aware of and resist the immoral conditions that are brought to bear on us through the actions of social engineers and dark occultist controllers. 

In an interview on YouTube (the video of which I can no longer find and therefore cannot link up) concerning what he does, his history and what are his basic views, Passio states that a chess game is being played worldwide between these controllers and the people and yet, in their wilful ignorance, the latter fail to recognise that such a chess game is being played and that they are being hoodwinked and led to stalemate.

Similarly in his podcast series concerning the monetary system, Passio puts the blame for the nonsense of that system on the prey rather than the predators, because in failing to see through the system and resisting it, but in fact largely supporting it in their love of money, the prey are actually consenting in deed and often in word to their predation. 

Passio makes no qualms about his low view of the masses, which I think would offend many a sensibility, such as when he states that people are
"ignorant, lazy cowards."
In his Natural Law seminar, in a section entitled 'Know the Real Enemy', Passio goes so far as to say that the illuminati do not enslave mankind. Rather mankind enslaves the illuminati. 
"Think about that for a minute", he says. 
The gist of his argument is that the so-called 'illuminati' are not illuminated, i.e. enlightened, particularly in their lack of care for others and heart consciousness, and that much rather it is mankind itself that enslaves the true 'illuminati', genuinely moral individuals, by maintaining and even supporting in their wilful ignorance the conditions of slavery that affect everyone (see Obscuranti and Light-Concealers). 

An example of this is voters electing a 'leader' to office and thus giving their consent to political representation and being ruled, which decision will affect the lives of those who do not wish to be re-presented nor ruled from on high. 

For it is true that however free from mind control you happen to be, there are large scale conditions such as taxation and the monetary system which are extraneous to your personal will and yet still largely have to comply with, since independent of you and maintained as long as a critical mass does not resist and unmake them.

For we do depend on others and co-exist with them, no man being an island and completely self-sufficient. 

The world in whatever shape it happens to take precedes us - the world existed before we were born - and will outlive us after our death and that includes its dominant economic, cultural and social structures. 

These dominant structures are, in Passio's opinion, largely immoral and although he gives credit to nurture, i.e. environmental factors, over nature, i.e. genetic factors, in shaping the behaviours of individuals, he still believes that it is wilful and therefore blameworthy ignorance (as opposed to what he calls blameless 'nescience') that stops the majority of people from challenging those structures.

In that respect and others, Passio regularly expresses admiration and a lack of hatred for what he calls the 'sorcerers of consciousness' that are the elite controllers, particularly in terms of their unity of spirit and purpose which contrasts with the division, external and internal, present in the mass of humanity. 

Apart from the obvious point that it is easier to be 'unified' when devoid of an emotional centre and being so few in number, the chess game analogy that Passio used in his YouTube interview should be scrutinised, which is what I did in my post Refusing to Play the Chess Game.

The point I wish to reiterate and clarify here is that no one apart from these elite controllers ever signed up to this 'chess game', i.e. the chess game being forced upon us from above, and in that respect, having not consented to enter the chess game, we have no obligation to play it and therefore resist the elite's strategic moves. We are entitled to ignore it, even should we suffer as a result. 

Moreover, on top of being a one sided chess game, psychopaths are not known for 'playing by the rules' - which is arguably how they wind up having so much worldly power - and as the habits of legislators demonstrate, will make the rules up as they go along and even likely rearrange the pieces on the chess board (a form of gas lighting) while we, the people, are not looking, acting as these elitists do in secret.

Yet, to his credit, Passio is consistent enough in his evaluations to see that these elite controllers would not be able to manifest as much evil in the world were it not for what he calls 'the cult of ultimate evil': order following. Whence his utter contempt and disregard for such entrenched institutions as the military and the police, the so-called 'dogs' of government. 

Indeed it was people 'just following orders' who enabled high Nazi officials to manifest such horrifying things as racial discrimination, genocide and wars of aggression and Howard Zinn was right in stating that civil obedience is the problem, not civil disobedience. For
"obedience is to do what you're told regardless of what is right"
 (and morality to do what is right regardless of what you're told.)

This is the main and rare area in which I part company with Passio. You are perfectly within your rights to ignore the machinations of conspirators as exposed in conspiracy literature and, provided you do not harm other sentient beings (which I do as a meat eater), are not immoral in your enforced and involuntary compliance with immoral large scale conditions, since you did not sign up to them and yet are not free from them because of their large scale and entrenched nature.  

In short, not being an activist and not caring does not make you immoral but it is true that being an activist can lend credibility to your political positioning, at least if done intelligently and ethically.  

The Slowness of New Ideas

American historian Carroll Quigley in his work Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time airs the view that unlike technology that gets adopted across the globe at a relatively fast pace and is easily transferable from one location to the next, the spreading and entrenching of ideas is in fact much slower and takes many years. 

For instance, our current civilisation owes much of its material, philosophical and spiritual roots to the scientific revolution of 16th century Europe and it is worth remembering that the leaders of that theoretical revolution, such as Galileo or Descartes, were controversial not to say, in some cases, persecuted. 

My point is that lasting and significant developments in human society take a long while, such as, according to Nietzsche, the coming to prominence of modern moral feelings of good and evil, initiated as he claims they were as far back as the time Jewish sectarians decided to place their faith in Jesus of Nazareth and even before, in the shape of Persian thinker Zoroaster who first posited the dual, moral nature of the universe. 

This can be a consoling insight for researchers and thinkers who might often come to feel impatient with the slow cottoning on of the masses to insights they achieved many years prior. 

I'm thinking, as an example, of those early 9/11 sceptics who saw through the gigantic lie of the events of that day and have had to wait many years to see the fruit of their eye-opening labours and painstaking research reach a significant audience. 

Similarly, in science, the phenomenon of 'continental drift' was initially a theory which saw its proponent ostracised by the scientific community of his day only for his theory to become established fact many years later. 

In the humanities, the value of Martin Heidegger's philosophical insights, particularly regarding the topic of modern technology, has taken a while to be appreciated and it was indeed he who said
"Patience nurtures magnanimity"
understanding as he did that genuine, original philosophy finds little echo in its own time but might, after much passing of time, come to infiltrate common awareness and indeed be taken to be a self-evident truism by many people. 

All this to say that insights into natural and psychological laws as well as into factual and philosophical truth take a long time not only to gestate but to come to bear on collective consciousness and this, as so many other areas, should teach us the value of patient virtue.   

Puritans as Self-Loathers?

I wonder sometimes if those who engage in and identify with puritanical tables of evaluation - e.g. people who accuse others of self-indulgence, laziness, joblessness - are not, to a degree, self-loathing. 

It is quite likely that modern day puritanism, this sense that life is only worthy if constantly striving, producing and seeking to prove itself in conventional terms, is in fact rooted in self-loathing, i.e. in a sense of inadequacy for who or what one is by nature, without such socially recognised tokens of excellence and acceptability as being employed, having a degree or even just lots of money. 

For it has been said,
"Many of the faults you see in others, dear reader, are your own nature reflected in them."
And as I have said before, the majority of the casual reproaches we make of others are often implicitly asking them to be free of flaws or contradiction - in other words, to rise above their humanity. 

Is this reasonable? Or is it not based on a blinding and blind discontent with the crookedness and fallibility of human action and understanding?

For should you choose to judge others, expect to be judged yourself, whether for your person or the fruits, ripe or rotten, you have brought forth into the world.