There's no doubt about it. We are living in testing times. All is not what it seems, but even when we realise this, it seems that others around us don't. This is a frustrating and bewildering experience; one that can take time to process and accept. The question is, when you know that things are not 'right' (from a material world perspective, at least), how do you affect positive change?
‘Divide and conquer’ is a well known, tried and tested tactic for the successful implementation of oppression, so its many faces are easily recognized in modern times. Some aspects of it are now obvious and undeniable, so to a certain extent this diminishes the power this tactic has.
As a result, new, less easily detected methods have been devised in order to keep the masses under control. Perhaps the majority of us are not aware of our own power, or rather, the power available with critical mass; but you can bet your bottom dollar that those devising such tactics are... or there would be no need for them in the first place.
First step: transcend the fear
Although these ideas often spark fear in the hearts of those who can't think of immediate solutions, we do not need to be afraid... if we are prepared to be aware and be authentic. Authenticity requires courage, however. It is our duty to the Earth and all of humanity to educate ourselves on the real issues of our time.
We must all play a part in the creation of a new, better way of life. One that does not conform to the insidious requirements of those in power. We must pay close attention and apply critical thinking to the motivations behind the supposedly useful and beneficial organisations we are asked to subscribe to in the name of positive world change.
Surely it stands to reason that in a time where so many of us are openly and consistently expressing such a need, the opposition must significantly up their game in order to keep us towing the line?
What does division look like today?
So how, in this day and age, does successful division and secularism manifest? Could it be done via the people's sect, group, race, categorization such as feminism and so on?
Firstly I would like to make something clear; long before the ‘God’ there was the ‘Goddess’ and this is something that should be acknowledged and revered. I am not an advocate of women’s rights, rights for blacks, workers’ rights or any of the other divisive labels and methodologies that garner the opposite of what these 'rights movements' are supposed to be about.
'Architecture of control' is a perfect example of this, and anyone who does an in-depth study on the WWF “World Wide Fund for Nature” (as they now call themselves) can see what they were publicly mandated to do, followed by what they actually did do.
It seems to be the case that any time a movement seeking change springs up, the masses, in a mental and spiritual malaise, jump on the bandwagon without a moment’s pause for thought. There will be rallying, banner waving and finger pointing. Yet everyone is looking everywhere but at themselves to see where the problem lies.
Transformation of the individual is the only hope
In the words of Jiddu Krishnamurti, “The only hope for humanity is the transformation of the individual”. These days, the concept of ‘being the change you wish to see in the world’ is actively embraced and those in power are well aware of this. Naturally they aspire to ensure the masses are cohesively uninformed within a collectivized group - one which is equally as uninformed but with the intention toward positive change.
As another saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Any observer sees the genuine participants, the speeches, tears and passion, and relates to this; they then give their support, believing that the public face of the movement that they have related to (and projected onto) is what that movement is genuinely about.
In fact the opposite is often true and before you know it, the worst atrocities are committed by that very same organization... after being subverted and taken over from within. Sometimes movements are controlled at inception by the same hidden hand, attracting genuine but unwitting activists who are then manipulated easily and monitored. For example, Amnesty International and Avaaz.org should be very carefully researched, and not taken at face value.
Movements often equate to divisions
Another example would be the ‘women’s movement’. As stated, I don’t subscribe to such a thing, preferring to support the idea of human rights as a whole. When approaching the majority of social issues with this perspective, it becomes simple to distinguish between the ‘fakes’ and the ‘feelers’.
This in turn exposes a lot of movements which outwardly appear to be helpful, yet under the surface are adding to the global state of decay, trauma, mental and spiritual malaise, incubation of hate and inner-angst, etc. The labeling of the women’s movement as the ‘feminist’ movement is typical of the kind of deception used to muddy the waters and cause more confusion.
Masculine and feminine are not the same as male and female
For example, feminine and masculine do not necessarily denote male and female; the idea has been put to us in this way so as to confuse the issues of self and soul. The male and female can represent the base principles, but masculine and feminine are modalities of thought - aspects of consciousness.
Both men and women, when even remotely balanced, will have both aspects in the totality of their being. Therefore with this understanding, to call the rights for women ‘the feminist movement’ is a direct insult to the intelligence of all women on the planet and mocks the position of men. It is not so difficult to see the manipulative machinations, as the corruption and misuse of words has extensive criminality behind it.
What has the women’s movement actually achieved? In general, in America before the movement, more or less half of the population were mothers at home in the wake of industrialism, corporation, regulation tax, income and so on. The mass of these homemakers were not paying taxes, so by giving them the right to vote and work, the slave based taxed systems instantly increased income.
Family connections (and society) have been destabilised
This is interesting, but the main reason for the creation of this movement (funded by the Rockefellers, like many US education systems) is that the mother being at home helped to maintain a healthy family connection.
This is not intended to suggest that women should always be at home, but to acknowledge that the mother was far more connected to the family unit - the children in particular – with dinners around the family table and full availability for the child’s emotional development. The mother was the epicentre that kept that family unit cohesive and connected, helping to maintain the integrity of the family bond.
This of course was a threat to the system, as the family unit is the prime factor in the stability of society; if in general, the family unit is healthy and expressive, it will be reflected throughout society and this is an anathema to a control system. It is the reason behind more creative divisional tactics.
Children have been left sheep amidst the wolves
Despite offering apparent financial and creative freedom (albeit a debatable concept within an extensively controlled society), the ‘right to work’ for women actually pulled apart the family unit; with both parents working there was bound to be less time for the children, higher levels of stress, no mother to do the school runs… enter the school bus.
Furthermore, the school then becomes the surrogate parent, having more contact with (and influence on) the children than their parents do. It does not take a lot of effort to analyse the historical changes and see the effects it brought. The women’s movement was part of a bigger plan to divide the family unit and leave the child more influenced by the state than the parents; add television into the mix and parents influence is often no competition.
We have a responsibility to understand
We have a responsibility to pay closer attention to the motivations behind some of the most common movements, organisations and corporations and to consider how they are really influencing our lives versus what they say they are doing or intending to do. Big name charities are an obvious example of this.
When applying the same perspective to the operations of these charities, it should be easy to see what could be gained from establishing, intercepting or controlling them. We must be much more discerning about what we give our time, support and finances to in a time where our energy could be put toward genuine endeavours.
We can not expect to solve the world’s problems by merely throwing money at them. We must start to look at ourselves and be honest about the ways in which we are naïve or living according to wishful thinking. Non-compliance is as important as positive solutions if we really expect to see the change we are clearly dreaming of.
Co-written with Robin Court