Covid Totalitarianism & Technocratism

Magnus Stout

Woodpecker
Orthodox
John Waters recently wrote a fantastic article discussing the work of Belgian psychologist Dr. Mattias Desmet and the psychology of Totalitarianism.

Summary: Fear has been weaponized by mass media and government to convert a significant percentage of the population into a “mass formation,” wherein individual personality disappears, brain activity is replaced by reflex activity and a lowering of intelligence, provoking a complete transformation of sentiments, which may manifest as better and worse than those of the crowd’s constituent members.” Such sentiments—if not arrested—inevitably lead to totalitarian societies and mass casualties.

The whole article is definitely worth a read (as well as the links he provides), but I wanted to highlight some important points:

(1) Covidians are not the majority: “There are, in situations of mass formation, says Desmet, three distinct groups that manifest themselves. Only 30 per cent, he says, are really hypnotised, and cannot be reached in any way. In addition, however, there are about 40 per cent who usually follow the crowd, and from the outset go along with that 30 per cent of total believers. There is another cohort of about 30 per cent who are not hypnotised, who try to speak out and resist. This group, he says, is extremely heterogeneous and disunited. If these people could unite, he says, they could bring the whole thing quickly to an end, but this seldom proves possible.”

(2) Covidians embrace totalitarianism in order to give their lives meaning and purpose: “In these circumstances, the mesmerised acquire meaning and purpose they previously lacked. In a society in which solidarity has already been destroyed, a new bogus solidarity is formed. Once the solution/strategy is offered, he says, ‘people start a collective and heroic battle with this object of anxiety.’ This results in what he calls a ‘mental intoxication’ and it is this that makes mass formation indistinguishable from hypnosis…. This is important: Many among the mesmerised do not want their prior meaningless lives back.‘We need to avoid giving people the impression that we want them to go back to the old normal,’ cautions Desmet. We need instead to ‘show them there are other ways to change this “old normal”. We need to tell people that we don’t need a crisis like this to create a new social bond.’

(3) Mental intelligence and external authorities are no guarantee of resistance to the hypnoidal attack, but heart-seeing and intuitive knowledge are: “The chief characteristics of modern masses is that they ‘do not believe in anything visible, in the reality of their own experience; they don’t trust their eyes and ears but only their imaginations, which may be caught by anything that is at once universal and consistent in itself. What convinces masses are not facts, and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system of which they are presumably part. Repetition, somewhat overrated in importance because of the common belief in the masses' inferior capacity to grasp and remember, is important only because it convinces them of consistency in time.’ The ultimate destination-point of the totalitarianism is to effect the total acquiescence of the global population in a transhumanist project in which, in substance and effect, man will be absorbed into the world of the machine… essentially the objectors are people with an aversion to this unnatural way of seeing the human person.” This is why resisters to totalitarianism act and are sustained by knowledge outside of the System and why there is such extreme efforts to control the Narrative.

(4) This is now a “religious” war with each side holding exclusive truth claims that cannot permit the other to coexist: Covidians (and their leaders such as Schwab and Gates) “really believe in the ideology they promote, and they really believe that the best way to organise society is to treat people like cows on a large farm. They really do believe in this mechanistic, materialist, biological, reductionist ideology.” As Hannah Arendt wrote: “Totalitarianism has specific characteristics that are constructed to appear random, arbitrary and senseless, when really they amount to a complex interworking of manipulations designed to break and isolate the human person, to lead him methodically out of his ‘ordinary’ life of hoping, working, thinking, loving, into a world where his every moment is dominated by the imposed irrationality that leads to a new, dehumanised existence for others and himself, and to a new, irrational form of ‘sense-making’. For the sake of justifying and validating the ‘supersense’ — the final triumph of the ideology —Arendt declared, it is necessary for totalitarianism to completely destroy human dignity. Once the supersense is installed, men will think only what the ideology allows. They have the feeling that in the end when they have reshaped society according to their ideal image, they will end up in a technological transhumanistic paradise, almost without human suffering, and that is why they feel it is justified to inflict a lot of damage and a lot of suffering, because in the end the result of this revolution will be so marvellous that it justifies everything they do now.’

The other side of this battle lies those who reject the fear, anxiety and artificial imposition of ideologies by “Experts” who deny the dignity of Man and his ability to think and reason for himself. “This is the most chilling aspect: that totalitarianism finds its roots in some dislocated aspect of the human that is still human, that arises from actual human wants and needs —for peace, for serenity, for love.”

...

I do not think this phenomena will resolve without the shedding of blood (with victims already in the millions and growing by the day). I believe the perpetrators have committed "crimes against humanity" and that tribunals will be needed for the sake of justice. May God deliver us from this monstrous global evil one way or the other.
 
Last edited:

Magnus Stout

Woodpecker
Orthodox
I’ve been digesting John Waters’ article about French philosopher Jacques Ellul. Ellul’s central idea is that the structure of the technological society is more important than its purported ideology (right or left) or apparent political structure (democracy or dictatorship) and will lead to an inevitable conclusion. Said differently, technological assumptions in society build towards and necessarily end in totalitarianism.

Essentially, the technocratic society is built upon (1) techniques, lead by (2) “Experts,” following an (3) ideology which only values things measurable (wrongly called “science,” but is actually a form of “scientism”). The result of this apparatus is not a “society” so much as a “machine,” since it follows the rational and materialistic logic of its creators. In other words, “the idea of a society founded on mechanistic thinking, technical processes, bureaucratic process, in which the human quotient has been educated as technicians and long since to ‘think’ and function mechanistically.”

He warns us: “our cultures treat technologies as tools-with-plugs, mere addendums to the strength or scope or reach of the user [which] is a dangerous fallacy, being possibly close to the opposite of the truth. ... there is a point where technology ceases to be an adjunct of the human user, and the relationship enters a new dispensation, changing, inverting and reversing everything.” John Waters expands upon this thinking in his article: “A largely unnoticed example is the modern motor vehicle, which for a century or so continued to be something that, regardless of the centrality to its operation of the internal combustion engine, remained the servant of man. Latterly, however, in the age of the computer, a series of what at first sight appear to be ‘improvements’ have utterly changed that relationship. The primary issue, which has excited some comment, is the way the computer has turned the engine, for the typical user, into a sealed, opaque unit. Whereas in the past, the average mechanically savvy (perhaps we may add ‘male’) driver carried in his head a general sense of the functioning and inter-relationships of block, pistons, plugs, distributor, carburetor, gearbox, driveshaft, universal joint, he is now, in as far as being the ruler of his vehicle, in more or less the same situation as a retired matron driving —or being driven by — a 2021 Toyota Yaris hybrid at 35 kph in third gear. But there is worse: now, too, his progress along the highway is punctuated by a series of beeps, rings and curt instructions —he has forgotten to fasten his seatbelt, he has reached the speed limit, his tyre pressure needs seeing to —which cumulatively invert the prior master/servant relationship between the involved, competent driver and his vehicle. In somewhat disguised fashion, the vehicle has assumed control. The driver has become, in existential terms, little more than a passenger, with some limited licence to direct the car where he wishes it to go. And, in a few more years, there will be no drivers, merely human bodies transported hither and thither by self-driving cars.”

“The human being in a technical society is situated not in relation to other human beings but to technique, which inevitably draws him away from himself into the crowd…. Left to himself, the man has no place, belongs nowhere, except perhaps his workplace, where he is in the constant grip of technique. Beyond that he is lost, a ‘phantom’, in Ellul’s description…. The worker does a job he hates, which bores him. He is moderately well paid, but doesn’t feel he deserves even this level of remuneration. He carries out a single meaningless and dissociated function in a process he does not comprehend. Nothing of it belongs to his own spirit or imagination. His life, as experienced through his work, has no purpose other than to secure the wherewithal for his continuance, which has no meaning other than what is given to him by his necessity for material subsistence. Mostly, paid work exists in a crypto-totalitarian climate of dissociated authority, standardization of processes and mandatory guidelines. In a culture in which human skills and judgments have been siphoned out of all human context — patented, codified, tabulated and reduced to algorithms —there is a deep suspicion of human discretion…. The drift of the technology threatens to steal everything of us worth stealing: what remaining knowledge we may have of how to make or fix things, and the keys to all the doors this making and fixing once opened up into exhilaration — freedoms!, now lost and replaced by something called leisure, a different entity altogether.”

“The loss of these understandings has had profound consequences. Men have become reduced to, at best, supervisors of machines, many of them other humans reduced to the lowest level of technique. It is out of this disaster, Ellul postulates, that the concept of ‘human rights’ became necessary. The reduction of man rendered vital what might be called a ‘redistribution of dignity’ (my phrase, not Ellul’s), of honour, of pride, all accompanied by their individual moral schemas. And, then, Ellul prophetically cautions: ‘When these moral flourishes overly encumber technical progress, they are discarded — more or less speedily, with more or less ceremony, but with determination nonetheless. This is the state we are in today.’ Their transitional functions fulfilled, the much-trumpeted charters, declarations and conventions of rights are quietly abolished. ‘Rights mean nothing to a mankind surrounded by techniques,’ writes Ellul. ‘It is our responsibility to study man's situation vis-à-vis techniques and not vis-à-vis some no longer existent force. . . . Technique has rendered traditional democratic doctrines obsolete.’”

This “technocracy” has a final end game: creating a final form of Man shaped not in the “image of God”--that is, that Man is a conscious moral actor and co-creator with God—but that he is merely to serve his enlightened “betters,” the Davos Men (Schwab, Gates, etc…) who own the Machine. Because this Davos-servant thinks not for himself, he is incapable of creativity or rebellion. This Davos-servant man is also fearful and irreligious because any such spiritual instinct has been removed directly (as by vaccination) or indirectly (as through indoctrination). This could be called, in C.S. Lewis’s phrase, the “Abolition of Man.” A discussion video is attached below (you can start at the 13 minute mark):




What is the path forward?

We only have three choices: (1) to abandon most technology (as the Amish); to (2) consciously control and limit technologies and the scale of society; or (3) embrace becoming part of the Machine. Unless we rebel, we will be forced into the latter option. And, unless we embrace the use of some technology (unlike the Amish) we cannot defend ourselves and would be forced into the latter option as a matter of course.

There is no future worth living unless Man can express his divine nature—his spirit and soul. These gifts are unique to each person, external to any System, and are incapable of being measured and controlled. For these reasons, technocrats undermine their expression and subvert their direction. Thus, the technocrat is an enemy of Man and of human civilization.

Whatever arises after the ashes of conflict must satisfy three imperatives in order to continue human progress: (1) to educate Men to live life with independent meaning and purpose, (2) to proactively limit technologies to be the servants of Men, not their masters (ex: essential "right-to-repair" and lack of DRM or other controlling/limiting technologies); and (3) to limit the scale of society—smaller cities, roads, companies, etc...--such that technocrats and Experts are not essential to the System and parasitic elites are easier to be expelled and overcome.

 
Last edited:

Viktor Zeegelaar

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
All technology was for the purpose of installing a scientific dictatorship from the start. They gave us the impression for some decades that it was to our benefit. Now, however, they don't need the technological acceleration anymore. They are more or less at the point they want to be. Remember, what we see is decades behind of what is capable already. Technology will turn out to be the low cost, low labor intensive system to monitor every detail of society, as Huxley wrote 100 years ago.
 

Viktor Zeegelaar

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
Great topic. Yes, every man and woman need to worship something in order to find meaning. Yesteryear that was God, now that is predominantly social justice, Nike, Louis Vuitton, money, science or the vaccine. Same structure, just another thing this need is projected on. The problem, however, is that everything that is worshipped in the world can be steered by those who have the power to steer society, through culture, information, education etcetera. Second problem is that all this worship is subjective. There is no universal, objective truth as foundation to base assumptions, one's world view, opinions and actions on. In other words, the element of worship can change when something more fashionable, convenient or exciting enters the arena. Sadly wat we see now is massive use of those who steer society of this psychological dynamic in order to make people enslave themselves and essentially and eventually destroying themselves, both physically, materialistically and spiritually.
 

Padouk

Kingfisher
All technology was for the purpose of installing a scientific dictatorship from the start. They gave us the impression for some decades that it was to our benefit. Now, however, they don't need the technological acceleration anymore. They are more or less at the point they want to be. Remember, what we see is decades behind of what is capable already. Technology will turn out to be the low cost, low labor intensive system to monitor every detail of society, as Huxley wrote 100 years ago.

Yes, it is that simple so no point of all that intellectualizing like the above quoted authors.

Just study how the traditional Amish live and why they shy away from government and progress and you'll have the formula for a healthy community. They are not without faults but they admit it themselves. Successful human society should not be that complicated: keep the powers decentralized and the traditions alive. They already lead truly sustainable life by not adopting technologies whereas our foolish elite wants (pretends) to create a sustainable life via technology hypothetically in the future. Technology's main selling point is that it makes people's life easier but that's is the problem. Some level in hardship in one's life is needed.


Solutions are the problems.
 

Magnus Stout

Woodpecker
Orthodox
Thank you Viktor for your comments.

Some brief comments in response: I disagree that (1) scientific dictatorship was inevitable (that is, that mankind could not have used technology wisely) or that (2) technology was the problem per se.

I subscribe to the idea that Man is evolving in consciousness, but that we took a wrong turn. Just think about the path that was laid from Abraham until Jesus of Nazareth: part of the reason why Jesus was not accepted among the religious elite was because they were unwilling to accept this Revelation and evolution in consciousness. Even Saul--before becoming Paul--had to be shocked on the road to Damascus into the realization that Christianity was the evolution of Israel--the grafting of the Gentiles upon the branches of the Tribe and the Tree of Life. No doubt we will continue to learn and grow once we are in Heaven, but I imagine Christ wanted more from Man given the fact that we are blessed with a brain that contains more neurons than visible starts in the sky.

Instead of the path we took, mankind should have used technology (particularly since the Industrial Revolution) to enable deeper theosis in two ways: (1) broader (as in more people able to read and ponder Christ) and (2) deeper (as in our ability to refine this Truth and express deeper the mysteries and love of God). Is it too late for this realization? Maybe? But if not, then Ellul’s ideas are critical moving forward and Chris Langan's ideas are key to understanding why we must act quickly or lose the ability to act at all.

...

Finally, food for End Times thought: it is speculated that the Saints will replace the 1/3rd fallen angels in heaven. Thus, mankind was both a source of this conflict--as satan would not accept that God would be incarnated as Christ, the God-Man--but also the "fix" for this rebellion. At one time Satan was a holy servant of God; perhaps he, too, refused the evolution of his consciousness, becoming angry and envious that God's newest creation--man--was created below angels but was to be blessed with the God-Man? Perhaps something like that led to satan's delusion that he could usurp God and to the 1/3rd of angels that followed him?

Have you ever considered that God may--through the eons and eons--decide to create another species that we could bear witness to after the saga of Man has completed? Remember: the angels were created before us and we do not know much about their history. Perhaps we will stand witness to new creations as the angels did to Man in the future?

Seen in this speculative light, God's goodness is endless. Do you imagine that in heaven we will be singing the same songs, over and over again, or some fixed worship routine for eternity? Or, do you imagine that we would worship Him with all of the fiber of our being, including our intellect and creativity in endless ways? Just as Our Lord's Prayer says, "on Earth as it is in Heaven," so too should we then structure our earthly lives to reflect the heavenly reality--with our aid of technology.
 
Last edited:
Top