See what they want, is to establish a pure state impervious to change. Not an empire, that’s been tried and failed. Not a single State, as in world government, but the single state, as in reality; a world in absolute order as to its arrangement. They want to do this because whichever institutions collaborate in bringing this pure state about, will retain their power until it changes, which in theory would be never.

Reality is chaos containing a conspiracy for order

If chaos is constant change, order is the eradication of change

To prevent change, is to prevent mixture

Purity does not change its state

When the state is pure, it does not change its order

There has been, since 500 BC, an international oligarchic conspiracy to overthrow democracy and establish a totalitarian state impervious to change. This conspiracy, much like the legacy of democracy, has carried into the present within our cultural lineage. The origins of it are found in the Brotherhood of Pythagoras, which begun in Croton, southern Italy around 500 BC. This brotherhood relocated to Thebes in Boeotia in 510 BC, after the Greek Cylon led a democratic revolution against it.

The legacy of this oligarchic totalitarian conspiracy lives on within a particular philosophical school of thought called pythagorean rationalism, which believes in mathematical authoritarianism. Its principal philosophers were Pythagoras, Socrates, especially Socrates student Plato, Xenophon, and Pindar. They believed reality could only be understood through logic and reason, that the senses could not be trusted. Thus they thought the only way to understand reality was through mathematics. They believed reality was absolute, that there was a correct form of every phenomenon which could be expressed perfectly in numbers. This is the ideal of Plato’s perfect world of forms, a world where every form is in its correct state. Since they believed reality was absolute as opposed to relative, upon discovering each ‘correct’ form of reality, they went about ‘correcting’ all the other ‘incorrect’ forms of it. By doing this they were creating order from chaos. Which is fine and good and helpful so long as it isn’t followed to its end, which is what Plato’s perfect world of forms is, and what many these days unconsciously seek to do. The Greek oligarchs supported this of course, as it could be used to legitimise themselves as the 'correct' form of a ruling class, and so they allied with the pythagoreans to establish the pythagorean brotherhood. The brotherhoods symbol was a tetractys triangle, they worshipped mathematics and its orderly units of numbers, particular those that made up tetractys triangles.

The pythagoreans set about 'correcting' reality by converting it into numbers, which they used to calculate the perfect forms of it. This is a conspiracy because they claimed to believe reality was rational. By this is meant that every phenomenon of human experience could be expressed and understood, not just in part, but perfectly and absolutely with numbers. And that since this was true, through converting reality into numbers and performing maths on it, the perfect forms of the world could be determined unquestionably. But reality wasn’t rational, which the pythagorean rationalists themselves proved using their own mathematical rationalism, upon their discovery of irrational numbers, such as Pi. That they continued to adhere to the infallibility of mathematical rationalism as the end all and be all indicates it was not because they believed it to be true. And given they were allied to oligarchic interests, it is quite clear that what they actually believed in, was not the use of mathematics to determine truth, but its use to control it.

This pythagorean brotherhood was also closely associated with the Orphic tradition and its cult of Dionysus. Pythagoras himself is speculated to have been an initiate of the Orphic school of teaching. So the brotherhood could’ve been an actionable political sect of the Orphic tradition representing oligarchic interests.

So in 500 BC Greece there was a secret society called the Pythagorean Brotherhood. Its sacred symbol was a triangle, at the top of which was the point they called ‘the monad’. They worshipped mathematics and sought to convert the chaos of reality into the order of numbers. Its philosophical outlook was backed by oligarchs because of its view of reality was absolute, meaning the authoritative view for something could be definitively discovered and proved through mathematics, which meant once such a thing was found, it wouldn’t change. So they sought to create a solitary unchanging state of perfect forms through purifying reality of all its ‘incorrect’ ones. The ‘incorrect’ ones were any that weren’t the ‘authoritative correct one’ determined by the oligarchs and their mathematicians.

This is why Plato is such a significant figure in Greek philosophy, and his work blatantly outlines what the perfect form of society should be in his, The Republic. Which is a three tier society in the state of a few elites making strategic decisions, below them moderate amount of managerial enforcers making tactical implementations, and at the bottom a mass of worker producers acting as operators following orders.

But more essential here is the idea of society, not as a collection of individuals working together in a common interest, but as a literal monolithic organism without self-identification. Plato just fitted this concept into the shape of a triangle, gave it three distinct roles, and deceptively called it a Republic. It had a small tier at the top, its monad. A broader tier in the middle. And a very broad tier at the bottom.

This is still used today to illustrate corporate governance. One could even argue this is the current form of ‘democratic’ governance, or what a Republic is in America and France. At the strategic level are a collection of a international policy institutes acting as an information authority on behalf of a financial oligarchy. Which informs the decision making process at the managerial level made up of government politicians. Who in turn manage the affairs of a mass producing society.

The Council on Foreign Relations and Chatham house are at least responsible for the coordination of foreign policy within the anglosphere. These being Commonwealth nations such as the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, as well as a collection of smaller former British colonies now apart of a network of banking secrecy jurisdictions operated out of the City of London. These are governed by Chatham house. The United States is treated as a more distinct entity, given a dedicated policy institute, the CFR. But both these institutes were formed by the Cecil Rhodes Society and initially funded by its trust, managed by some familiar names, a Rothschild being one in the 1890s, but later a group known as the Cliveden set. This isn’t to digress, but to illustrate what policy institutes close to government actually are. They are strategic level information authorities set up by oligarchs, which are used to inform politicians in government, not necessarily how they do things, but what things they should do. Which is why opposition parties in modern political systems often work towards similar ends and only differ in means. This is no secret. The Bilderberg group was established by the Rockefellers for this reason, and openly so. There is no conspiracy here. They are above the law and do not care what the few who are aware of their existence think, as these few do a pretty good job of discrediting themselves when attempting to spread the word.

What these groups are trying to create, is the same pure state their oligarch ancestors in Greece attempted but failed. And they failed because this totalitarian theory of pure mathematical rationalism was moderated and/or overthrown by an opposing philosophy of relativism, which believed that reality was relative and that there was no true or correct form of it, only what people agreed on. From this was reasoned that reality should be defined not by a ‘correct’ form of it, but by a majority view of it. And that further more, since this majority view was not the ‘correct’ view, only the majority view, it was thus subject to change, meaning that it must tolerate the diversity of minority views that coincide with it. This tolerance of minority views worked simply because they were not ‘incorrect’, which allowed them to harmonise alongside the majority in what became known as a democracy. Which is simply a majority view rule, which tolerates the participation of minority views, and it does this in exchange for minority views tolerating being governed by a majority view they disagree with.

A minority view in democratic society only tolerates being governed by a majority view if it believes it has a fair opportunity of some day becoming the majority view itself. It is given this opportunity through a number of rights protecting its ability to express views in the hope of convincing others. These are what allow it to buy into a society it disagrees with.

These are:
- Right to free speech
- Right to protest

These are fundamental to democracy because if they are removed by a majority view, there is no longer any means for a minority view to express itself peacefully. Which means there is no reason for minorities to peacefully comply with majority rule. This should be taught in schools. But of course, like most things, it isn't, leading to adults not understanding this simple concept which is easily understood by child, should they be taught it. It is much more difficult to teach an adult this.

When the majority view forgets these tenets, or as more often is the case, intentionally ‘forgets’ them, what happens is the following transition towards totalitarianism:

1) Right to free speech is removed from minority views by the majority view because they are determined incorrect, that is to say dangerous, which is what they are all eventually called through the use of rationalists logic based on mathematical equations of cause and effect.

2) Minority views will take to the streets using their bodies to protest the removal of their mouths.

3) Right to protest is removed, but minority views continue to protest because they have nothing to lose. This enviably leads to violence between minority view protesters and police representing the majority view.

4) The majority uses this escalation of violence as proof that the minority views are dangerous. The state is given the majority views consent to escalate the elimination of minority views from their society.

5) At which point a society is no longer a democracy, and has entered into the political spectrum of totalitarianism. As the minority views either ‘correct’ themselves to the majority or are ‘corrected’.

Corrected means a societies rationalism has evolved to the point where it has begun using ‘greater good’ logic to justify actions contrary to ideals it still at that point self-identifies with. For example, identifying as a humane society which must perform inhumane actions to remain humane. This is also collective cognitive dissonance, a condition certain schools of psychology attempt to address, and by that is meant, circumvent and allow to continue.

The prime mover behind such antidemocratic trends are the same ones that originated in Greece, the vested interests of institutions with established powers within a given society, or perhaps on a grander scale, a civilisation. The primary objective of any institution is to protect its vested interests. If this were not the case, it wouldn’t be an institution, but some other form of organisation still serving its purported purpose in society.

Civilisations are defined by their institutions of power. The rise and fall of civilisations is the rise and fall of the institutions which define them. This is not disputed by civilisational historians, and has lead to a general theory of rise, decline, decay. Behind his trend is the rise, decline, decay of institutions.

Institutions don’t start out as such, they begin as organisations serving society. As they grow they become more and more institutionalised, which is to say that an insular culture begins to develop within the organisation, that begins to serve its own interest over that of societies. This eventually reaches a critical point where society and its institutions have become so misaligned that they begin to fight against themselves. This is decline, and leads to either institutions suppressing society, society reforming them, a more complex system of circumvention, the institutions being over throw in revolution, or the gradual weakening of the society to the point another stronger society invades it. This cycle repeats just like any other.

Self-awareness of such a historical process has been around for a while. Oswald Spengler wrote on it, as did Toynbee, and Quigley after that. Though their theories did not first identify these things, only attempted to unpack and diagnose them.

Eventually, in order to protect their vested interests, institutions came to accept change was unavoidable, and that it was better handled with gradual control than outright suppression. From this developed strategies of gradualism and controlled opposition, or what many would be familiar with in the form of Hegelian dialectics. Just like in chemistry, two things mixed together create a third. And that there can be a formula for controlling what this third may be through informed selection of the two things mixed. So developed a practise of defining the kind of opposition which arose against established institutions, in an attempt to control the form in which they would reform themselves. Much of this took place through setting the breadth of political ideologies somewhere on a spectrum between two carefully chosen things, of instance: Capitalism – Socialism. Both these things are democratic. However, if you follow either to its extreme end, what you get is either Fascism or Communism, with are both totalitarian. Preventing this from happening is democracy, granting either one protection when it is a minority view.

Mixing things together is a strategy of a state of controlled impurity. Many different environmental variables are created which are difficult to control and will become a threat to established institutions, but at least some attempt has been made at ensuring to are less dangerous ones.

On the other hand there is the strategy of purity. Where instead of controlling the addition of things to the mix, the removal of them is instead controlled. This is what Hitler did.

The ‘1000 year Reich’ was one strategy for reaching a state of purity impervious to change, as to allow the Nazi party that brought it about, to remain the institution of power for the longest period any ever had. The Nazis rationalised the best way to do this was through correcting the variables of both nurture and nature; that is, the natural state of people, being ethnicity, along with the environment they are raised in, being external conditioning. They believed that a pure state could only be achieved through a pure race raised in a pure environment, so they went around correcting other races after they had corrected the environment. Of course it didn’t work. And this was just one short-lived attempt at creating a pure state. It failed precisely due to the inherent and irrational arrogance found in the belief of oneself as the ‘correct’ form of human to occupy nature. The Nazis attempted to rapidly hijack Western Civilisation in the matter of a few years, thinking they could achieve what others had spent centuries at and failed. They didn’t even get close despite what many think. They launched a successful blitzkrieg fuelled by standard oil in the panzers and pervitin in their drivers, which was an early form of German methamphetamine. This was always going to burn out. The whole gameplan was finished by 1942, and the war only extended due to the disillusion they had about being the ‘correct’ race. To them, it wasn’t logical that they should be losing, because they were superior, and so they weren’t actually losing, but slowly winning. That reality was simply misleading them in the appearance of defeat. What they did was ‘correct’ the fact they were losing inside their heads, but couldn’t correct the environment around them, which was the reality of their defeat.

Which brings us to environment. If people are byproducts of the environment they live in, then the environment is a variable forming different types of people. If different types of people, developing different types of views, create the diversity in a society responsible for its impure state of change, then for totalitarians, the real issue isn’t people, but the environment that shapes their volatility of forms. This is what neo-totalitarianism figured out.

The environment controls people. So there is no need to control people if you control the environment they interact with. Controlling people is what is called external control. You directly control them with force or threat. Controlling the environment is internal control. You control how people internalise the regulation of their own behaviours.

Have you, for instance, noticed the modern environment around you becoming more and more the same? Copies of things everywhere. Franchises. Universal standards. Best practises in non-safety related industries. Educational frameworks that don’t help you understand anything, only remember sequences of operations to be performed rigidly. Do you know the popular opinion on things will be just by casually following trends in metropolitan newspapers of record?

All of this is the gradual purification of the global environment into a pure world state. I’m not talking about State. This is about culture. And it is totalitarian! No one can recognise it because it celebrates a diversity of people being conditioned within a conformed environment. This is not a diatribe against cultural diversity, rather the opposite. It simply points out there is no cultural diversity. Different cultures are being mixed together into a single corporate culture, which encourages people to identify diversity in bio-metrical differences, as opposed to their ideological or behavioural differences. They look different, but behave the same and believe the same things. A diverse workplace isn’t actually diverse if its culture is defined by a single corporate policy. It’s quite simple to see this when pointed out. There exists a culture where all people identify as what they are, and view this as diversity, and this is so the identification of culture can be reserved for one which is not diverse, and stringently governed by a corporate policy. Ethnically diverse people all believing the same thing is not a diversity of views, and when they interact in any environment governed by corporate policy it is not a diversity of culture.

What’s behind this corporate purification of the environment is an international fraternity of oligarchs trying to prolong the reign of their institutions, their primary ones being mostly financial, as these control the distribution of surplus wealth in society, and they are doing this through a number of information authorities.

These information authorities collect information on reality. They turn reality into data, then use it to inform the decisions of other institutions which govern our lives. This is the legacy of the pythagorian brotherhood. I cannot track the lineage, nor am I claiming there is an unbroken lineage of a solitary network, constant in its organisation and operation dating back to 500 BC. That would be ridiculous. But what is happening now is characteristic of what the pythagoreans were trying to achieve. So there is a link through some kind of philosophical legacy, which appears to pop up, in modern times, during the French Revolution and has been here ever after. Events surrounding the French revolution are discussed in part here. And I would go so far as to say that this philosophical legacy is what the symbol of a pyramid with an eye at its peak signifies, as to those responsible for its use in institutional symbology.

It signifies the three tier society outlined in Plato’s Republic, societies structure wide at its base tapering upwards narrowing into a tip upon which sits an information authority, which is symbolised by the monad as an all seeing eye, because it focuses lights on the areas of reality it wants us to see, while leaving the rest of the chaotic state of things it cannot control in darkness. It controls the spectrum of light through which we view the world as a shared reality.

The eye, the monad, or what we will normalise and just call it what it is, the information authority, collects as much information on our environment as it can, so that it can rightly claim to be the most informed, which it is, so it can use the implicit authority this grants to either omit or amplify bits of information it shares with us, and in doing so controls everyone’s perception of reality. They are essentially middle men between us and reality. It is true they are the most informed, but they don’t believe in any truth inconvenient to their authority. So what we get is false reality, clearly observed in current media trends, and culture telling people they cannot trust their senses or what they observe through their own experiences.

There is an information authority for central banks, this is the Bank for International Settlements. It is used to control central banking monetary policy. Which is covered here and here.

There is an information authority for foreign policy, with is a network of foreign policy institutes such as the The Council on Foreign Relations. It is used to control governments by informing them on the reality of foreign policy.

There is an information authority for corporations which is two fold. The first are custodian banks which have proxy voting rights of aggregates of corporate stock pooled together by mutual funds. But also emerging ESG institutes, such as Inclusive Capitalism, that collect information given to it by corporations and informs them on policies related to their Social and Environmental governance. Inclusive Capitalism even calls their corporate sponsors ‘Guardians’, which is the same name Plato used for the managerial class in his three tier republic. This is covered here and here

There is an information authority for national security, which is the national intelligence agency. It is used to control governments by informing them on the reality of national security threats.

There is an information authority for Scientific and Academic institutions, particularly public health related policy, which is the philanthropic foundations of oligarchs, such the Rockefeller Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates foundation etc.

Notice how none of the above make decisions or apply direct force! None. They only ‘inform’ decisions, merely give advice, offer suggestions, and of course, have nothing to do with the decision making process directly, which is left to our autonomous public authorities representing democracies. But every important decision made, will be an ‘informed’ decision. And an informed decision can only be made using information provided by an information authority that defines reality. Since the information authorities are institutions controlled by oligarchs, all informed decisions are made using information carefully curated to present reality in a way which serves the vested interests of the oligarchs these decisions will effect.

This is the conspiracy, if it is one. The whole thing happens out in the open, it’s just no one knows what they are looking at. They are looking at the idea of something as opposed to the reality of it. And by reality, all I mean, so that it can be proven, is that each information authority is directly controlled by oligarchs through links which are easily provable. None of the following is even controversial and is hardly disputed:

They all do the same thing. Convert and collect reality as data. Do stuff to it. Return it as information informing on what reality is. Various institutions within these six types of information authority even subscribe themselves to this iconography, and use the pyramid, eye, or both as their logo.

National Security information authority

National Monetary information authority

National Security information authority

International Monetary information authority

Media information authority

Media information authority

Committee of Public Safety, French Revolution governing body.

'purity surveillance activity' - english translation

This isn't the symbol of the illuminati. It is the symbol of the information authority. Which self-describes itself as an institution of 'purity surveillance activity' in the final example. Purity. Surveillance. Surveillance=Purity. Get it?

What’s happening to the world currently is twofold, as an action and response. There is the action of a virus called covid19 which has become pandemic. And there is a response to this pandemic called public health policy. Public health policy is distinct from the reality of the pandemic, as it is shaped by the arbitrary conversion of reality into data, upon which is then performed mathematical operations creating paintings of it, that in turn serve as a basis for interpretations of informed beliefs to the nature of this reality and the appropriate responses to it. This process is of course controlled by an information authority serving the vested interests of oligarchs at least as much as it does the public health. Arguably less so.

There are three distinct things within a three step process being used currently to understand the reality of this pandemic:

  1. There is the reality, which is defined by a common sense, being a universal sensory acknowledgement that a virus exists in a collective experience of the world we share through our sense, and that its spread is pandemic.
  2. Then there is the arbitrary conversion of this reality into data, which are orderly units defined as numbers, upon which mathematical operations are performed.
  3. And finally there is the interpretation of the data which forms beliefs that govern how people are to understand what pandemic reality is, which in turn warrants human responses to it.

By ‘what pandemic reality is’--is meant questions seeking to understand what the existence of it means for us. Is it dangerous or is it safe? Should we do x or should we do y? Followed by the ‘how’ questions. How dangerous or safe is it. How should we do x or y.

The answers to these questions are not informed by reality, and nor are they often claimed to be by the people converting reality into data at step 2. The people at step 3 however, often do claim their interpretations of the data equate to reality.

This is not a diatribe against a particular process for understanding reality, nor is it the view we cannot understand anything expressed through data. It only demonstrates reality, whatever it is, becomes malformed through two arbitrary interventions when dealt with this way, these being its conversion into data and the interpretations of this data.

Put simply, data ≠ reality. Views informed by data ≠ views informed by reality. This does not mean views informed by data are accurate or inaccurate, as that would be a question of ‘how’, not ‘is’. How has reality been converted into data? How has the data been interpreted?

The current beliefs for understanding the pandemic exist on a spectrum between two extreme boundaries. At one end of the spectrum is the belief covid19 is an extremely dangerous virus which requires the indefinite use of extreme responses to suppress it. At the other is the extreme belief that covid19 doesn’t exist and requires no response at all. In between is a range of moderation meeting at some point between, which perhaps believes covid19 is a moderately dangerous virus, meaning it is also moderately safe, which requires moderate response to stop its spread.

The belief governing us is the one that the virus is extremely dangerous. This is reasonably forgivable given the developing situation with the first strain, but now is blatantly fraudulent in the era of the delta strain, where the only evidence offered as to its danger is anecdotal and provided to people primarily through the media.

Why would this be happening? Because oligarchs want to make a pure state. The state of no change. They want to do this because civilisations rise and falls according to the corruption and reorganisation of the institutions which govern them, primarily those controlling the surplus wealth, and they want to avoid this. Beyond this are other factors, such as the instigation and expedition of the transition from a quasi-manual mode of production, one in which incorporates the nerve and muscle of humans with automation of machines, into a fully auto mode of production. This requires a complete reworking of the economic system, which is currently in process through central banking monetary policy which will reset itself eventually onto a global CBDC system. And finally people are being culturally repurposed into producers of data as opposed to products and services. This is because data is the resource required to teach self-learning algorithms how to automate human activities and replace their labour. Human at the operational level are in large part no longer required to work with the machine, but act as the source of behavioural inputs to teach it.

All this is why pandemic policy is a mess, becasue it in large part has nothing to do with public health, which is just its consent.

If there’s any hope, it’s that the nature of reality contradicts the ability of those trying to control it. This pure state they try to achieve, consciously or unconsciously, isn’t real and can never be. Reality is irrational and infinite. Those trying to control it will always have to control more and more of it. Such is the nature of growth. And they will eventually grow to control more of it than can be controlled.

States come and go, societies will remain. All things growing, only grow towards their death. So life is a means, rather than an ends. Because the truth unfolds in time, through a communal process, that is never complete.

We by Yevgeny Zamyatin