There seems a running theme we have for commemorating things, having traditions and rituals to repeat over and over. A great line I heard about traditions recently made me give it further thought “tradition is just a bunch of dead people telling you what to do”. And have already discussed here and there the need for repeated anniversaries for things, thought of again around poppy day, or remembrance day as it is called. Remembering the fallen and those who sacrificed themselves. Although with a new view, it’s a ritual remembrance of a mass sacrifice, by others for their benefit, then worshipped thereafter. As we are in an inverted world, it would make sense.

Statues and solid visual reminders of people’s and events. We have many throughout the entire realm, but it was only recently during the strange BLM riots and propaganda when statues were being torn down that I gave that more thought too. Of how we try to immortalise people with carved pieces, placed for maximum effect and to give people something to give their thought to. So it won’t be forgotten, until such time as it is no longer needed of course, then it either gets quietly replaced. Or torn down in a frenzy to appease the masses, used for a final piece of programming before it changes to the next icon to see and keep in your psyche.

Bonfire night – the burning of Guy Fawkes, keeping the story alive for generations after it happened, as is the way. And it was that ritual that really started this idea, after the Olympics and watching the latest strange instalment of their opening ceremonies, mentioned in my article A Ceremonial Revelation, and giving extra thought like in the ideas mentioned in The Main Arena. I thought, why would you want to annually commemorate someone who tried to bring down the government? From the people’s point of view, it seems obvious, to glorify and celebrate someone who tried. But it isn’t that is it? It’s celebrating failure, and of foiling a fight for freedom, as we are told. And the yearly revival of it, only helps to keep them down, repeating the failure over and over. And to keep burning the one who tried, almost as if that is the twisted extra punishment, where the people you tried to save are the ones who actually threw you on the fire. As I’m sure has happened on many occasion in times past.

It is perhaps the dedication of time and application of thought towards it that gives it form and energy, each event that has been put into the calendar as a marker, to be an instigator and harvester of whatever it generates thereafter. Even what we know as the calendar has been altered, see April New Year, Don’t Be Fooled for a bit more on that. So much of what we thought we knew is being revealed as ‘subject to change’, depending on the need and the narrative at the time, so it would stand to reason that is how much of it came to be as we know it now. It was part of a previous narrative, the previous conditioning and set of ideals they wanted everyone to have and think about. A certain history laid out before everyone to make sure they are all ‘reading from the same page’ as one might say and on the same track. Not necessarily even having to destroy everything, you can just rewrite it or let go to ruin, to a point. But clearly there are holes in the story, the timelines don’t seem to work out, and what we see versus what we are told don’t always seem to add up. So like the Jigsaw of Life, we try and do what we can, with what we think we know, and like a developing mystery, we are left to solve the rest…

(c) K Wicks

The internet, and more importantly, social media and what it was sold as, compared to what it has become.

Australia is about to roll out their legal framework bill to introduce a minimum age of sixteen for usage of social media. Meaning of course, that everyone will have to prove their age by way of I.D to be able to have an account, which I’m sure might just tie in neatly to the digital identification they talk about wanting for everyone. Not just there, but here in the UK too, which we already have for a number of things, but this is apparently just for safety. Exposure to social media is bad for kids they say, now they can see the effect of two decades of it on people.

But, as they aren’t really interested in safety in the normal sense, we know something else is afoot. Yet, the talk about the online world many spend their time engaging in, is that it isn’t how it appears. What does these days? But that its numbers are bulked up by bots, cloned accounts, corporations and agendas, rather than actual people sharing what they would naturally and developing within that. Because there is no normal or naturally when it comes to the internet, not anymore. And I wonder if there ever was, because algorithms have always been in there, and decision makers getting to decide the ‘next big thing’ moves it into place to ‘go viral’ or take the world by storm as they say. Just because they condensed the format from the physical world to fit into the specifications of the virtual world, the overall goal was the same. To capture people’s thoughts and attention, and to steer mentality, industry and Consumerism. And not just of buying things, consumerism covers all the things they would like you to ingest, have, know, think, believe and want. So very much not just physical objects you can purchase or things you can own, because while you are coveting them, something else is coveting you and what you are. And while you consume what you are meant to, it consumes you.

Now we have different algorithms being rolled out, not ones to make you, but to break you instead. To punish and penalise you for using words and phrases someone has deemed offensive and not acceptable, on a platform they encouraged you to be yourself on and say those things. So, they could then use it against you, narcissistic gaslighting at its best. Strange format really though, having a bunch of people together with different intentions, ideals, opinions, ideas, dreams, fears, and motives, just casually being ‘sociable’. Something always seemed a bit off about that, but interesting, never the less. My article, Social, But Not Really, looked at that angle a bit more.

But now it is feeling a bit worn down, a bit past its best and dwindling somewhat. People often get bored of things, or change their outlook, or what they want to spend their time doing, as they should. And do young people feel the overwhelming need to even have social media anymore? We are told yes, but maybe that’s not actually the reality. Same with older folks, many have had their time on those platforms, have grown weary of the drama and stagnant content, of the same format, same arguments, same old same old. Once something has run its course and you feel it’s time for Walking Away, then it’s probably because you should. Recent examples of citizen journalists and media journalists coming under fire and being visited by the establishment for making observations, speculations or having opinions, should be of concern to everyone. Really though what it shows, is that the system is no longer fit for purpose and hasn’t been for some time, well, the purpose of people and sociability. It’s been used now for a different purpose, and possibly the one it was always there for, to monitor and sway public thoughts, opinion and evolution. The Ministry of Monitoring can’t monitor everyone unless we are all under the same umbrella, on the same network and sharing what we think and feel.

And it may be that by putting an age limit on it does a number of things, with an ideal one being all young people are excluded, but want access just with any age restricted materials, it gives it an extra edge of being attractive to those who are not eligible, yet. And all older people register for a digital identity to be able to access that online virtual world where you can engage and ‘socialise’ with other ‘people’. In reality though, it seems it will just fracture it further as many will drop off, will realise it’s not what it says it is, and many will not be interested just as they aren’t now. People change, times change and so must the internet of things, because people adapt and change without even knowing it sometimes. And it maybe that the internet has changed without us even noticing, but sometimes you really can recognise when something is indeed, past its best…

(c) K Wicks

It seems madness, the drive for net zero and the crazy targets and ideas put forward to try and look like we are going for it. Diving straight into the mouth of madness no less and trying to make it all sound and seem normal. I guess that was the real new normal they were shooting for, that everyone just thinks it’s ok because someone said it would be. But if you then realise the person who told you it would be ok, didn’t think it through, doesn’t understand consequences, can’t forward plan or imagine anything about where it goes and the effects, would you still think they knew what they were talking about when they say ‘it will be ok?’ I wouldn’t have thought so, but that’s where we are.

I have covered this slightly already about how logic appears to have taken a backseat, and it’s all going backwards, in articles such as Reversed Good Times, Convenience or Dependence? and It Was A Piece At A Time. Of how we have been tied into systems which now no longer serve their original purpose but will not let go, or gracefully step aside for a new way that actually works. Monopoly being the one which highlights how each major section of industry and society plays their part for that bigger goal of destruction and collapse. To be followed by a ‘new vision’ of the future, but one which seems to lack actual vision, and colour, and freedom. More like a Handmaidens Tale vision if you look at it on face value.

And that face value isn’t there by accident, and the ‘conspiracy theorists’ didn’t just stumble upon an idea of that on their own, it was part of the well-placed propaganda. Which is either there as a distraction, or a heads up, so it doesn’t seem so weird to me to give those things thought, and still don’t consider myself a theorist for doing so. Because there have been a number of things that might go some way to explain why the idea of people and society being scaled back is a recurring discussion. It wasn’t until recent years I even heard of the term ‘depopulation agenda’, and it came about around the time of a certain change in society and the world was rolled out. And to be honest, there have a few ‘Freudian slips’ as some might call them, of prominent well placed people making remarks or comments about overpopulation, about reducing the number and about using healthcare as a tool to prevent the rising numbers that will collapse humanity they say. We can’t sustain such number, the resources will run out, there’s not enough land, and so on. You may have heard some of those things over the years. Although it really does seem that those numbers have been herded into groups, the resources have been appropriated and withheld, and the land has been earmarked for someone to have all to themselves, so of course, you need to make it look like there are ‘too many people’.

Yet at the same time, we have reports of breeding rates collapsing, of fertility issues, of ratios falling well below the acceptable number for people to survive and how societies will have to adapt. So, which is it, are we terribly overpopulated as an overall global landmass generally, or are we on the road to extinction? The Beautiful Mice is a glimpse at what the projected path might be with all the continued and forced societal structures and ‘captivity’ we find ourselves in. Where it goes after you concentrate the numbers somewhat into a forced environment. Nature adapts as necessary, they say, but what if the changes being observed aren’t actually necessary, and many can see it, what happens then? Because not all will follow the same path, and the results become haphazard, disjointed and separated by what is perceived as ‘necessary’ at that time.

But to an outside view, it kind of looks like people are just being persuaded or hoodwinked into dismantling current working system and technology, with the idea and dream of it being better down the line. Not noticing that nobody really expects there to be a down the line in the same way, and could indeed be because they don’t expect there to be the same numbers in the not-too-distant future. That by scaling back society first, it appears to be a mistake and will leave people will not enough. But if the future is to accommodate fewer people, then you wouldn’t need so much infrastructure, wouldn’t need so many resources and production in place for large scale operations. You would want to overwrite those with smaller, less independent options, so that when there is less, you can control them more. Or something like that, I realise that in all the strange ideas and ‘fictional’ settings for a dystopian future of systems and controlling regimes, there was always an event first which ended up downscaling everything. To give them that opportunity to take society into a disturbing phase by way of disaster. And if we go with the idea that is what they would like, some might wonder if we are indeed still waiting for that type of event to occur, or it has already been implemented and we are waiting for the fall-out to be something that can no longer be hidden. Either way, we are clearly still at the whim of madmen and an odd and dangerous set of agendas being pushed at every turn, so best to know they are, as you never know which ones just might include you…

(c) K Wicks