The self-imposed “global shapers” do not want society to move forward. Rather, they want to MOVE US forward, and they demonstrate that at the World Economic Forum’s site outlining The Great Reset initiative. In the words of Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum,“We must not miss this unique window of opportunity.” In the same video (linked above), Prince Charles chimed in, “We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis. Its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change.” He continued, “Think big, and act now.”
In my opinion, this rapid movement and evolution into the future — this “momentum” — is anything but organic. I suggest this is ALL by highly calculated design. Problem. Reaction. Solution. Not a new concept for POM readers.
Chasing Their Tales and Our Tails
I’d like to piggyback on MT’s recent post with respect to the Cuban Missile Crisis being a hoax. One of the most helpful documents I have ever come across (in my preoccupation with hoaxes) is Fakeologist’s list of psyops — the Psyop Histogram. Since discovering this work of art, I have echoed this by creating my own charts involving presumed staged events.
I get this question ALL the time, “How do you know that (insert person, place, or thing) is fake? How do you know it’s a hoax?” Well, for starters I think I understand how the controllers operate. The reason being, because I have learned from their material, as well as other researchers who peer into the nature of reality and simulation (see Endnote 1). The controllers typically don’t hide this stuff. They just don’t expect us to read and observe keenly, and they think so little of us that they don’t expect us to put all the pieces of the puzzle together.
By grasping these concepts, I can place manufactured events within an expansive context, and thus, call out the stagecraft that much quicker. Also, by infusing this needed context into my consciousness, I wonder about the potential positive effects, and how much more impactful these potential effects could be if people expanded their awareness within this rich context. If we can all spend less time on the nitty gritty aspects of fakery embedded within hoaxes, then maybe we can stop these psyops in their tracks, or collapse their tracks before the train even departs. It’s kind of like collapsing a wave (see Endnotes 2 and 3) — or collapsing a “second wave”, perhaps?
We could certainly continue to analyze this likely orchestration of “pseudo-events” and its distractions, and debate over the details of precisely which elements were or were not faked, if at all. Admittedly, I am guilty of this intense analysis. I willingly play in this arena. It’s very seductive to say the least. I am suggesting, however, that we transcend the tales that have been scripted to further distract, divide, derail, and degrade us — keeping us in the endless loop of chasing our tails — and do our best to avoid the trappings of the script (the simulation) by observing it from a bird’s eye view. Perhaps we can help one another find our way out of this labyrinth of implanted rabbit holes, and transmute them into tunnels that have productive ends in sight. My hope is that we begin to write our own collective script (AND individual scripts) — to propel us out of chaos and fear, and into clarity and heightened awareness of our genuine potential (both individual and collective). Heck, who even needs scripts, when the potential could be to have life unfold organically? What a concept.
Moving forward, I think it would be best for all of us to climb into our captains’ seats, and reclaim (or rather, claim?) our lead at the helm. In order to do this though, I suggest going backwards — just slightly and temporarily — to explore material that the controllers fully comprehend and utilize in their reality and culture creation.
So if you can just grin and bear this analysis that is somewhat tenuous and pedantic (and yes, lengthy), I will do my utmost in the very near future to ground this material in a more tangible and applied manner. Can you stick with me on this?
If you already have a solid handle on the concepts of hyperreality and HyperReality, then that’s awesome — you may simply pass “GO” and collect your $200. But for some, it may be helpful to get a stronger background on these notions. I know that understanding this material helps me to envision what the controllers do, and why and how they pull off psyops. I plan to get into more detail in future installments. Let’s just say, for now, they have gamed these scenarios in every which way imaginable. But if we could explore, untangle, and tackle this framework from which they operate, then couldn’t we avoid the traps, and perhaps even prevent these perps from executing their perverted and psychopathic psyops in the first place? Like I said, maybe we can collapse their “waves” . . .
It may be helpful to read my Part 1, before embarking on this next stage of the journey into the simulation. Herein, I resume discussion based on my position that we have been subjugated to experiencing and living within a simulated overlay represented by a manipulated story of a potentially imaginary or contrived virus.
Now let’s get into Jean Baudrillard — French philosopher and sociologist “extraordinaire” . . .
The main gist put forth by Baudrillard in Simulacra and Simulation is “Simulations have become ‘a real without origin or reality’ — a hyperreal.” Essentially, he is saying that simulations no longer refer back to a reality, but instead have meaning and effect on their own.
Following is a commonly shared excerpt from Simulacra and Simulation:
“Whereas representation tries to absorb simulation by interpreting it as false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation as itself a simulacrum.
This would be the successive phases of the image: it is the reflection of a basic reality
– it masks and perverts a basic reality
– it masks the absence of a basic reality
– it bears no relation to any reality what[so]ever: it is its own pure simulacrum.”
Does this resonate at all with any readers here? Does this remind you of the current masking of our faces, or the masking of society — or perhaps, the masking of authentic reality amidst this collective delusion we are observing?
As MT emphasized in his recent post (linked above), the controllers govern by fear — manufactured fear, of course. In his The Illusion of the End, Baudrillard aptly stated, “All the media live off the presumption of catastrophe and of the succulent imminence of death.” Thus, we are targeted by campaigns of fear (“fear porn”), and the unsuspecting masses are simply passive spectators and consumers. As Kingsley L. Dennis prophetically set forth in Bardo Times (2018), “Thanks to global technologies of communication . . . Emotional impacts can now be synchronized globally . . . literally playing with . . . the fire of human fear . . . We now share a communal engagement with catastrophe . . . we are now collectively catastrophized.”
This academic study on Baudrillard’s work is prolific and instructional, and it mirrors my perspective on his work. Here are a few select quotes:
“Although Baudrillard was the first to popularize the concepts of simulation and hyperreality, there are a number of other authors who explored similar ideas. In particular McLuhan in the 1960s, “the medium is the message”. In addition, Boorstin in “The Image” talks of the increasing spread of pseudo-events. Umberto Eco wrote in some detail on hyperreality, which he called vicarious reality or proxy reality.
. . . even by the 1970s, he sees societies organized and based on electronic simulations through computer interfaces, TV, virtual reality . . . People live in a hyperreality of images, spectacles and the interchange of signs. Hyperreality is realized as the inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from a simulation . . . the masses are also at the same time obliged to conform to be dependent, childlike, infantile and passive . . .”
The academic study continues:
. . . Baudrillard draws on the narratives of J G Ballard in particular the book/movie “Crash” and Philip K Dick’s “Simulacra” as the worlds of Sci Fi are by definition hyperreal. And to take a Baudrillard viewpoint these worlds are reflected back to us through the movie [The] Matrix. Not only is a character shown reading Baudrillard but the premise is that the real is in fact physically hidden but can be accessed through a transformative ingestion of a pill.”
I would add here that in another iconic and dystopian sci-fi movie, “They Live”, the real can be accessed, or “seen” through the “Hoffman Lenses” — the sunglasses worn by Roddy Piper’s character in the film.
Following are excerpts from a review on Goodreads of Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation that I include for your reference. The review applies Baudrillard’s provocative and prescient theorizing to what we are now collectively experiencing in our current culture, stating in part:
“TV is watching us, TV manipulates us, TV informs us” says Baudrillard, in 1981 . . . We now find ourselves in the era of Twitter and social media, where the ‘medium’ has become the message, the source of truth in itself. Within our collective, it is the medium, rather than the reality, which renders most true . . . and this new paradigm is of the ‘hyperreal’ . . .
In Simulacra and Simulation . . . Baudrillard unveils this model of the hyperreal, a world in which the the precession of simulacrum (a copy without an original), leads to postmodern landscape where the medium is confused as the real . . .
. . . this simulation . . . has now permeated and merged with reality, leading to this cybernetic hyperreality . . .
We now find ourselves led into this 21C-era . . . where your digital avatar is increasingly more ‘real’ than its physical counterpart.”
The Vital Illusion
In Baudrillard’s later work, The Vital Illusion, he examines herein what he calls “the murder of the real by the virtual.“ He profoundly states: “In a world of copies and clones in which everything can be made present in an instant by technology, we can no longer even speak of reality . . . our virtual world free of referents is in the process of exterminating reality, leaving no trace: “The corps(e) of the Real — if there is any — has not been recovered, is nowhere to be found.”
Notably, it’s what Baudrillard professes in The Vital Illusion that I feel is timely and relevant, “the enormous enterprise we living beings ourselves undertake today: a project to reconstruct a homogenous and uniformly consistent universe — an artificial continuum . . . unfolds within a technological . . . medium, extending over our vast information network, where we are in the process of building a perfect clone, an identical copy of our world, a virtual artifact. . .” That eerily echoes the concept of Sentient World Simulation (described in my Part 1).
Now, for those who may be thinking, at this point, “Well, that’s all interesting in theory” or “That’s just sci-fi stuff”, I would like to draw attention to one more book — HyperReality: Paradigm for the Third Millenium edited by John Tiffin and Nobuyoshi Terashima. Not only does it read like a playbook, it was written nearly twenty years ago to help “effect the future.” So we are all well into that future, and I get the sense after reading this book, that the scientific contributors therein do not consider their work fiction. In fact, they are highly regarded in their respective fields which culminate in the larger sphere of work that is HyperReality (HR) — and it’s very real — just in a more expansive definition of “real.”
Terashima defines HyperReality (HR) as “. . . the technological capability to intermix virtual reality (VR) with physical reality (PR) and artificial intelligence (AI) with human intelligence (HI) in a way that appears seamless and allows interaction.”
Tiffin proposes, “As time goes by, the difference between what is really real, and what exists in effect, but not in fact, could blur. People could come to live in a world in which they cannot readily distinguish whether what they see, hear, smell and touch is derived from the physical world or mediated by information technology.” I stated something very similar to this in Part 1 —but in my case, I offered it from a cautionary perspective. Herein, Tiffin seems quite giddy about the possibility.
Tiffin notes the link between Terashima’s concept of HyperReality (HR) and the term “hyperreality” as described by both Umberto Eco and Jean Baudrillard. He explains that not only do the two terms resemble one another, Terashima’s HyperReality (HR) is the very technology that enables hyperreality. Tiffin emphasizes that “HyperReality means a reality in which there is the extra dimension of virtual reality within normal physical reality . . . For the human species it will be a fundamental reformulation of their perception of reality and of the world they live in.” This places the whole concept of “perception management” in a whole new light, doesn’t it?
I end with this HyperReality book excerpt: “We can imagine the development of virtual objects and life forms for a virtual planet earth that match our image of the physical world . . . Will it be possible to create a virtual person from a database of their DNA?” Tiffin continues, “ . . . we will begin to populate [the virtual world] with virtual objects, virtual plants, virtual creatures and virtual people . . . ” Prior to this, one of Tiffin’s colleagues, Katsunori Shimohara, stated, “ . . . we can postulate a digital organism in which genetic information is just a self-replicating program composed of a series of machine codes . . . resembling the world of self-replicating ribonucleic acids (RNAs).”
Can you say, “virtual virus?”
I did not plan for Baudrillard’s Simulacra to encompass most of my Part 2 discussion, but his work forms the basis and rich context with which to grasp the nebulous influence of the nature of simulation in our culture, and to move forward in navigating it. From my perspective, the controllers seem to be intent on presenting layers upon layers of superimposed synthetic realities — designed to steer us away from our center compass, such that we lose our bearings that root us to the core reality in this universe, and to the core essence of ourselves.
So this concludes Part 2 of this series on the concept of simulation and superimposed reality — AKA the hyperreality, or HyperReality (HR). Thanks for sticking it out with me, for those who are still here. I am planning in Part 3 to address the books, Social Physics by Alex Pentland, and Growing Artificial Societies by Joshua M. Epstein and Robert Axtell. I also plan to add Joshua M. Epstein’s Agent Zero to the discussion, in which he explores the R-naught (RO) of fear, and mechanisms of fear contagion. I think we can all agree that the only pandemic that currently exists is the pandemic of fear.
Endnote 1: Recommended Reading
Simulacra and Simulation by Jean Baudrillard
The Vital Illusion by Jean Baudrillard
HyperReality: Paradigm for the Third Millenium edited by John Tiffin and Nobuyoshi Terashima
Bardo Times by Kingsley L. Dennis
Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media by Michael Parenti
Life: The Movie – How Entertainment Conquered Reality by Neal Gabler
Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman
The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America by Daniel J. Boorstin
Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord
Event Power: How Global Events Manage and Manipulate by Chris Rojek
Internet Celebrity: Understanding Fame Online by Crystal Abidin
Endnote 2: How to collapse a wave through observation and create new realities in Psychology Today (2011)
Endnote 3: More food for thought on how consciousness may collapse waves – plenty to chew on here – A recent academic paper by David J. Chalmers (New York University) and Kelvin J. McQueen (Chapman University)
On a side note, but no less relevant: Early in May, it was reported that a researcher from the University of Pittsburgh, Bing Liu (link now shows “Error: 404”), was a victim in a murder-suicide, by someone he knew, Hao Gu. In the linked article, Bing Liu was described as being on the “verge of making very significant findings” relating to COVID. Intriguingly, Liu (through his academic pursuits) brings us back to Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh, both of which I referenced in Part 1. According to Bing Liu’s bio, he had “developed high-performance computing techniques and advanced machine-learning approaches. Accordingly, Liu developed these computational modeling, simulation and analysis techniques to study the dynamics of biological systems.” Bing Liu did his postdoctoral studies in the lab of Professor Dr. Edmund Clarke, while at Carnegie Mellon’s School of Computer Science. You can read more about Edmund Clarke here.
Liu received his Bachelor and PhD in Computer Science under the supervision of Profs P.S. Thiagarajan and David Hsu from National University of Singapore. Hsu is known for his work in robotics, AI, and computational structural biology, and is currently serving on the editorial board of Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research.
According to Bing Liu’s research statement (link now shows “Error: 404”):
“My work builds mathematical models to describe biological systems and employs artificial intelligence and formal verification techniques to analyze their dynamical behaviors. I use probabilistic frameworks to address the stochasticity in biological systems, and develop algorithms to construct model structure, estimate unknown parameters, discover new biology, as well as design precision medicine. I also leverage the power of high-performance computing techniques to enable the modeling and analysis of large-scale multicellular systems. As an integral part of my research, I collaborate closely with biologists and clinicians to study various systems and tackle real-world biological problems that are crucial to medicine and healthcare. I believe that my research will help move the state-of-the-art of systems biology forward and will have a substantial impact on our healthcare, food supplies and many other issues that are essential to our survival . . . A dozen years ago, a major contributor of the Human Genome Project stated that the ultimate test of understanding biology would be to create a computer model of a cell.”
In discussing his future research plans . . .
“At present, we are ideally positioned to extend our models and build a novel comprehensive virtual immune system (my emphasis) that could help the development of personalized immunotherapies, having extensive experience in using computational methods to gain biological insights . . . I believe the proposed computational framework . . . can play a very helpful role in terms of modeling the whole immune network and performing in silico experiments to answer “what if” questions, generating hypothesis and sharpening the choices for experimental design.”
I suggest reading this link for an explanation of in silico experiments. Briefly, Wikipedia states “In silico (Pseudo-Latin for “in silicon”, alluding to the mass use of silicon for computer chips) is an expression meaning “performed on computer or via computer simulation” in reference to biological experiments. Digital genetic sequences obtained from DNA sequencing may be stored in sequence databases, be analyzed (see Sequence analysis), be digitally altered or be used as templates for creating new actual DNA using artificial gene synthesis.”
How could the digital alteration or digital creation of DNA (or perhaps an RNA virus?) be utilized? I’m not a scientist. Eh, what do I know?