It’s sometimes easy to forget the core battle that is being waged in the face of the spread of globalism. Some people think it’s about the political left versus the political right. Some people think it’s about “capitalism” versus socialism. Some people think it’s about west versus east. And still other more colorful subsets of people seem to think it’s “the Jews” versus everyone else. None of these assumptions is correct.
People get caught up in the conflict of agendas, or they get caught up in their own biases, and they tend to forget that there is a more metaphysical war being waged, and that this war is perpetuated by specific people with specific moral inclinations.
While globalism is often presented as a noble and rational cause designed to save humanity from itself, the elitist minority behind the agenda are not noble or rational in the slightest. This becomes clear in their actions, which represent an “end justify the means” approach to economics, geopolitics and social discourse. It also becomes clear in how they attempt to obstruct or even demonize people who try to act outside the system.
The truth is that the core battle being fought today is as old as history itself — good versus evil.
Now, there are many people (globalists included) that will attempt to dismiss this notion. They will construct any number of distractions, manipulations and subversions in order to keep the public focused on anything other than the questions we should be asking.
The most common disinformation tactic is the use of moral relativism. They will argue from a position that good and evil are merely social constructs the same way that some people argue that gender is merely a social construct. This is based on the Freudian model of psychological function, in which human beings are seen as blank slates that are imprinted on from childhood. But the people that push this snake oil have long ignored evidence to the contrary, from everyday observations to scientific studies showing moral inclinations even in infants.
The psychologist Carl Jung, often attacked for his anti-Freudian stance, established through numerous studies that most human beings have innate characteristics of personality as well as an inborn orientation to a moral compass. As Jung noted in On Eros Theory:
“Morality is not imposed from outside; we have it in ourselves from the start — not the law, but our moral nature without which the collective life of human society would be impossible.” –Carl Jung
Jung’s observation is one of science and of common sense, for if humanity had no internal moral compass, we would have self-annihilated thousands of years ago; we would be extinct. He also notes in his book The Undiscovered Self that there is indeed a minority of people that are essentially born without a conscience, or moral footing.
The archetypal image of evil is usually one of destruction; or destructive acts done either without forethought or done quite deliberately and without remorse. Another definition of evil would be action without empathy or conscience.
Most people have an inherent relationship to both good and evil concepts and are capable of either good or evil actions according to the choices they make. The vast majority of people feel guilt or remorse when they do something for their own personal gain that ends up harming others. But there is a narrow percentage of people that do not seem to have any inherent conscience whatsoever; they feel absolutely nothing.
I have written extensively on the subject of narcissistic sociopaths as the source for what I would call “organized evil.” This is a far different issue from individuals that make terrible decisions thoughtlessly — this is about a highly structured cult of people born without inherent moral compass or conditioned over time to suppress their moral compass.
The strategies commonly used by narcissistic sociopaths match almost exactly with the strategies used by globalists in the pursuit of their agendas. This includes painting good people as villainous in the public eye, and even manipulating good people into thinking their empathy is a weakness or a crime.
Narcissistic sociopaths can be adept at blending into normal society through various means of camouflage. They mimic the character traits of others and construct elaborate public images that are approximations of human behavior, but they grow tired of always being forced to adapt. They see themselves as far superior to the common man, so why should they have to hide their true nature?
Narc-sociopaths seek to demonize moral behavior because they want to mold the people around them, or society itself, to be more like them. They imagine a world in which they would no longer need to hide; a world in which they are worshiped for their “superior” predatory traits.
Identifying these people individually is not difficult. Most narcs are discovered by people close to them within about six months as their projected image begins to fall apart under scrutiny.
The problem with organized evil is that it uses the system, from government to media, to protect the identities of narcissistic sociopaths. Organized evil is often presented in an honorable and righteous form. Every evil action is glossed over with moral intent.
To put it more simply, evil people assert that they actually want to do good, but that good must be achieved by force.
This might not sound like such a terrible thing to some. Our society today constantly entertains the notion that the highest form of morality is when we pursue the “greatest good for the greatest number.” I have seen this attitude on the left and right side of the political spectrum in the form of statism. Meaning, there are many on the left and right of the political spectrum that believe good can be enforced through the use (or abuse) of government. In this regard, the two political sides are not very different. They both agree that government is a tool to be used to enforce the “greater good”; they only disagree on how government should be used to attain that end game.
This is the first great trap that is exploited by the establishment to turn otherwise good people into useful minions for evil designs.
Like the “one ring” in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, many people think that in the right hands, their hands, government can be used for good. But the power of government corrupts, and those with honorable intentions inevitably lose their moral compass. Establishment elites, organized narcissistic sociopaths, pass the one ring from one side of the political spectrum to the other. They then sit back and watch as it putrifies and corrupts the souls of the participants. Whether left or right, each side thinks they have the power to change the world when they control government. The reality is they have no power, and only the elites benefit.
The next great trap used by the establishment is to use disinformation and faulty logic to turn good deeds into evil deeds; to turn positives into negatives.
I witnessed this mentality recently after I posted an article by FEE.org on the criminalization of food charity for the homeless. The majority of responses I received in emails were supportive of the article’s position that state criminalization of food charity is wrong and represents an expansion of the nanny state to the detriment of those people who have the least. However, other emails were surprising.
Some people argued that the average person is not competent enough to give food to the homeless in a way that is safe, therefor the government is justified in legislating laws that would fine or jail non-sanctioned charity workers. This is of course a common thesis among statists, who claim that we are all children that need to be carefully monitored by government, which is the only “professional” source of aid to the citizenry.
Restricting charity work is in part an effort to expand the nanny state, but I believe there is something deeper going on here. Governments and narc-sociopaths hate non-sanctioned charity because it is a form of self-determination on the part of the public. Charity groups not licensed by government prove that much of what government does is unnecessary, because the citizenry has the ability to do it all themselves.
Food in particular is psychologically equated with life. The political elite want to be the only“givers of life;” they want a monopoly. The attack on food charity groups is an attack on the public psychology, making good people out to be reckless and dangerous. Just as governments want you to believe that only they are “professional” enough to protect you from physical harm, they also want you to believe that only they are professional enough to administer alms.
Another even more insidious argument I received in emails was that the government should be used to stop charity work because the homeless represent a “parasitic” presence in society that should not be enabled or encouraged. The claim being that these people want to live the way they live and are feeding off others through trickery.
Frankly, I’m not sure how this is relevant. Even if it were true that all homeless people are grifters looking for an easy meal, it is up to individuals to determine if they want to give these people charity, it is not up to government. But it is a classic position of the narcissistic sociopath to claim that people in need are actually all conmen, and the people that help them are evil or stupid for enabling the con. Evil people project their own inner darkness onto others, taking good deeds and twisting them into harmful to the “greater good.”
And this is where we find the root of the matter. If the sociopathic establishment can convince us that everything our conscience tells us is wrong, then they can create a world in which their fringe sociopathy becomes the norm. This will obviously lead to catastrophe, but organized evil lives most comfortably in the midst of catastrophe. As long as sociopathic narcissists think they are maintaining their own control over the chaos, they see the end game as justified. The pointlessness of their lives and existence is never considered.
