9th symphony, 4th movement. . .Swastika. . .Close Up Of The Human Eye. . .Hmmm

It would appear they want to abolish the natural immune system and replace it with a synthetic therapy. So they can rent the human body back to its personality, spirit, soul, whichever. Who is 'they'? You know, 'them'. The elect. For more about 'them' read Gravity's Rainbow, though the rules to their discover are quite clear:

"1. You may never get to touch the Master, but you can tickle his creatures.
2. The innocence of the creature is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master.
3. If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
4. You hide, They seek.
5. Paranoids are not paranoids because they're paranoid, but because they keep putting
themselves, fucking idiots, deliberately into paranoid situations."

And in being a fucking idiot, I would say that given oppotunity for growth within industrial society has become far and few between, it would follow that there just simply isn't much left of mother earth to rape other than her human bodies.

But we aren't really talking about vaccines here, although we are, since they changed the definition. Because what we are really talking about is Gene Therapy, although we aren't, since they changed the definition. The definition of words have been changing hard and fast recently. We have symantics to thank for that. Probably the single biggest retardation to the evolution of the Western thinking, as it has removed the ability for people to be able to discuss things. Which is to say, collectively make sense of them. I needn't provide proof of this, as it can be readily observed. If people cannot agree on categories, then words are meaningless. See Aristotle was in fact the very first victim of cancel culture.

The cycles of civilisations can be conceptualised as cycles of cultural growth. A society begins in a primitive but harmonious state of stasis within its natural environment. It is primitive because its culture has not grown to a certain threshold of detachment from nature. Because of this it is compelled to persist congruently with nature. This is not bad or good. It just is.

When culture grows past a certain threshold, primitive society transcends its natural environmental to become civilised. This threshold is not bad or good. It just is, just as it is arbitrary.

The burgeoning of culture between a society and its natural environment is the growth of civilisation. This growth cycle is, obviously, cyclical in our conceptualisation of it, as if it were the solar or lunar cycle. The dawn of civilisation rises like the sun, reaches its peak before setting into dusk, entering into a 'dark age' before rising once more.

But since culture transcends nature, as it is emergent from humans, who live in a state of culture as opposed to nature; humanity can to some extent unconsciously or not, control their own civilisational cycle – because it is to a degree, synthetic. This is what philosophy for the most part attempts to address in providing societies with common outlooks which shape the ways in which human culture develops over time.

However, culture and thus civilisation(an intensity of culture to some degree), can only grow in the area between humanity and its natural environment. Which means civilisational growth, as defined here, is the detachment of humanity from its natural environment. And one problem arising from this is that human beings have needs given to them by nature, which they seeks to fulfil through purposeful behaviour.

Eventually a civilisation can grow between humans and nature to a point where culture isolates them from their natural human needs. Industrial civilisation has grown to such point through the synthetic innovations of scientific reductionism. But there can be no synthetic solutions to what are natural needs. Unless of course, these needs are suppressed, and instead dealt with synthetically.

Synthetic in this sense means taking something which is a byproduct of nature, so organic, and synthesising it through the application of technology and knowledge, into something which is foreign to the natural environment, even though it is obviously emergent from it. There is a spectrum to such a process, as a house made of wood is still substantively wood, just in an unnatural form. But a house made of steel is neither in a natural form or substance, as steel is the application of knowledge and technology to what is the natural substance of iron ore. On the other hand, a house made of plastic is a further substantive removal from nature in this process.

Each house – wood, steel, plastic - is further removed from nature. This can be good or bad. A wood house eventually recycles itself back into nature. A plastic house will not. But because of this a wooden house may recycle itself back into nature at the expense of the human need for shelter, when a plastic one will not.

This is to say, humanity has more control over its synthetic creations than it does nature. And that the process of replacing the natural environment which a synthetic environment is all about control. Since humans are natural creations, such a process can be extended to humans too. Which is currently being done with mRNA gene therapy, which seeks to replace the natural immune system with a synthetic one. Which we will come back to.

The philosophical evolution of how humanity should conceptualise its power relation with the natural environment, as it relates to modern western civilisation, is as such:

Sympathetic magic (paganism) – that natural cycles, such as weather, which effected human activities, such as agriculture, were controlled by spirits. That humans needed to instruct these spirits as to what the pattern of these cycles should be to benefit human activities. That this was to be done through rituals which mimicked the actions of natural cycles. For instance, blowing at the sky if it was raining too much to inform a spirit of the human desire for dry weather. Or dipping tree branches in water to shake them and mimic rain. Obviously this didn't work, so the priesthoods responsible for rituals over time conformed them to the patterns they observed in the natural cycles themselves. Thus human culture was subservient to the will of natural cycles, and cultural festivals of this pagan legacy remain fixed to certain times of year.

Monotheism – in opposition to paganism, monotheism developed into a philosophy of dualism, which separated the spiritual world from the physical world. This abstracted in various different ways, but for the most part it defined nature as responsible for evil behaviour, and in opposition to spiritual behaviour, which was good behaviour as it was Godly. This lead to the idea that human nature was evil, leading to such practises as self-flagellation, the punishment of the flesh(human body) for its natural desires which were in contradiction with the Godly behaviours of the spirit within the body. This was a failed attempt to control human nature by suppressing it through a spiritual will, which is to say psychological means in the modern secular sense.

Enlightenment (Secularism) – rejected the dualistic separation of the spiritual and physical world through the rejection of a spiritual world entirely. It believed there was a natural order of things, which was objective, and that this order could be discovered and understood through the scientific method of experimentation and observation. Thus industrial civilisation began a process of replacing the natural order of things with a new one of synthetic replicas which could be completely understood and controlled.

The natural laws of Science failed to understand the internal nature of human beings. Scientific theory reckoned human behaviour could be dealt with objectively, even though human behaviour is subjective to a large degree.

When they realised this nature was at odds with the potentials of scientific theory, they decided to suppress the subjective aspects of human behaviours by creating an order of objective human behaviours which could be easily understood, with any human behaviours outside of this order being disorders, which required treatments to bring them within order, being scientific understanding, generally through suppressing them with medicines that synthetically altered human biology. Thus the scientific solution to human nature was the same as its one for the natural environment, the creation of a new synthetic human nature.

The natural environment was at odds with the will of industrial civilisation, so through scientific ingenuity humanity transformed nature into a synthetic replica of its culture. This put human nature at odds with its own culture, so the scientific solution was to make a synthetic replica of humanity congruent to a synthetic culture.

In an attempt to dominate nature through the growth of our culture, we have submitted human nature to it as well. As scientific reductionism has now decided that the only way to control human nature is to alter it synthetically, namely through the pharmaceutical industry.

Everything synthetic is about control over nature. Just remember, this extends to the human body too.