[Morgoth gives us his working hypothesis on what he thinks is going on in the world, using the analogy of the “elephant and whale“, as two competing forces in geo-politics, with the elephant as the old nation state, and the whale as technology driven globalism.
Although his “hypothesis” makes much sense at a lower level, its weakness is that it omits another creature that is controlling the elephant and the whale, which is usually referred to as the “elephant in the room“, but since that is already taken, we can call it the “octopus“, aka, Organized jewry.
The Elephant &
Sep 16, 2021
Click here for the video:
Published on Sep 16, 2021
0:18 / 36:22
The Elephant And The Whale (And Technocracy)
Sep 16, 2021
The inspiration for this video
Buy me a pint here:
Buy me a coffee
Thanks to Theberton for the intros and outros
Thanks to Theberton for the intros and outros
[Intro music and imagery by Theberton.]
Well, hello again there folks. Well I thought the time had come for me to kind of lay out what I think is going on in the world, or some of the dynamics at play.
So it’s a huge subject. And this is a sort of, … Think of it as a working hypothesis, to try and so we’ve got some kind of framework to understand what’s been going on recently. And I thought I’d get back in me armchair, General Armchair, and pour myself a whiskey, get the chess board out. Which is something that I’ve actually done for a long time.
People who remember when, all the way back to the early blog days, and I used to do a post, here and there, where it was a more of a strategic perspective. And I thought I would do it again here, looking back on what’s happened in the world.
Because it’s as if everybody’s struggling for a narrative. It’s as if what’s been happening for the last couple of years. It doesn’t quite fit into so many kind of framings.
And so this is my attempt to try and put some kind of order into what’s going on. Now there’s some there’s some issues which. I’m going to skip over, because YouTube doesn’t like it regarding medical issues. But I’ve covered all of that before on my Odysee Morgcast. And I actually don’t need to, because what I want to get into here is “Power”. Because I think it’s all very well when people are trying to explain this stuff and it always amounts to sort of out of context, gotcha quotes, or these kinds of things. And I think when we a better way to understand things in the world is just through power. And how power functions. And it’s also probably better than the economics. But you have the different people coming at this from a different perspective.
So what I think’s interesting is that if we go all the way back to the Peloponnesian War, because this is where, to set up this framework. And if you look at the dynamics in the Peloponnesian War, you’ll see that Athens and Sparta are at war with each other. Sparta is very much land based. Obviously the Spartan land fighting force is legendary. Athens very much a sea force. And you can see it on the map that it’s reflected here the Athenian League is scattered around the coastlines, which lends itself towards being a sea power. Which means they can go, … They’ve got a lot more fluidity of movement than the Spartans do. But the problem is what you get is the Athenians don’t have the manpower to take on the Spartans on their own territory. But at the same time the Spartans struggle to meet the Athenians on the sea.
So what you have is this kind of conflict which is the dichotomy of the “elephant and the whale”. Where one is obviously in the water and one is on land. And they are both kings of their own domain. But the problem is these kinds of wars tend to be very long and very drawn out. Because essentially they’re operating in completely different elements.
And so that you can move that on to a bit more here. And you can go to the Napoleonic War. Now, in actual fact, this is also like the whole history of Britain. The British Empire, the English power, and that kind of thing. Is long up for obvious reasons, has long been the whale in this scenario, with various people, power actors, empires, on the continent acting as the elephant.
And so what we see in these cases is the British would then have the ability to move again just like the Athenians, move around and be a lot more fluid. But they wouldn’t have the manpower to actually like set foot on the empire on the mainland and wage war against them. So the most obvious example would be the Napoleonic Wars where he is absolutely dominant, the elephant on the main continent of Europe, and the British can’t do anything about it for a long, long, time.
And so Britain really is in the mode of going around the world and trying to find allies, trying to hamper the economic systems. And all of that kind of thing.
And this lends itself naturally to free trade and economics. Because you can, you’re in the position where you can ship more people more goods around the world. And over time it didn’t do the Athenians any good. But this actually tends to tip the scales in favor of the sea power, over time. Because they’ve got this ability to move around and gather up more resources, go hunting for allies, while they can’t really be attacked. And that it is as if the elephant is surrounded and in a constant mode of trying to defend itself, or ward off an invasion.
But it does have its own strengths. I mean, the land power will be centralized power. It’ll have a huge access to men. And in some cases resources. Because it will just marshall all the resources on the land.
You can then go in so more towards modern history here. And you can see the same thing again. So you see the Anglo, old Anglo strategy of the United States in opposition to the Soviet Union. And you see to see it same dynamic again.
And this is where I think it actually gets quite interesting, because on top of all the usual strengths and weaknesses of both sides, what you can see again, which is important for where I want to go here, is that they get strategic positions and they defend them.
So if you think of the British getting something like the Rock of Gibraltar, on the face of it, it doesn’t seem like the greatest thing to have. It really is just a little town with a huge rock there. But in terms of power, it’s strategic power, having the Rock of Gibraltar is a great boon for the British Empire.
You can see that the Americans carried on this trait for a long time as well.
And, in fact, when you go back through history you’ll see that the sea power, the whale, is able to do that. It has the freedom of movement to kind of go around locking down all these strategic positions.
And what this means is that the it actually has a very bad long-term effect on the land power, because it finds itself locked in, on all sides.
So one of the things that I’ve been asking myself over the last couple of years, is where does power actually lie in a globalized world? Who has power? What has power? And I don’t just mean in terms of geographic blocks. Sort of trying to get one over each other. Trying to cling on to Afghanistan, or trying to block the, … All of the more traditional roads to power.
Because it’s true enough, America still does have the biggest military. It still does have all of the ships. And all of the nukes. And all of this kind of thing. China is rising as well.
But when you look at the world. And you’ll see what’s going on in the world, there seems to be another layer of power, which has been kind of coated over the whole planet.
And this is why I think the traditional nation state, and the traditional way, geostrategic world view, is itself in danger of being outplayed, and outsmarted, by something else.
And what it’s being outplayed and outsmarted by, … And this is an idea, is a network of powerful institutions across the world which are all connected and all have a similar agenda. So in this, we can look at something like the United Nations, or the World Health Organization, or the IMF. In actual fact, it just goes on, and on, and on. Now in theory they are all relatively benign organizations and institutions. There’s like this sort of endless sea of NGOs, which are funding other NGOs, which are funding institutions.
And what I’ve noticed is that when it actually comes to having policy implemented, and agendas implemented, they are able to do that! They are able to dictate that to all of the nation states! Some may wince, and some may baulk a little bit. But by and large, what you get is this uniform attitude all around the world. And that to me is on whatever issue it can be as well. That seems to me to be like an enormous amount of power to have!
But the thing is, it isn’t actually rooted to a city, or to a nation, or anything like that. So what you can see is that there is an internationalized, globalized elite, sort of cadre of technocrats, who through having the all of these institutions under their thumb, are actually able to warp and dictate policy to all of these nation states, who may well have million man strong armies, standing there.
But, at the end of the day, they are being subjected to the whims of what amounts to a kind of a whale. And this is why I mentioned that at the beginning. Because what you see then, is that in this sort of digital, technocratic world, they can use that as the, in times gone by, a country like Britain would use the sea, and the sea lanes.
So then we can think:
“Well, okay, so what are their strategic locations? What is their version of Gibraltar, in this scenario?”
So if you take something like the United Nations, or the World Health Organization, those institutions, and the way that they have power and influence over those institutions would be the equivalent of having key geographic locations which dictate policy. Which can impose their will on the nation states.
So the obvious question here is, why is it that the nation states go along with it? And it’s, because they are the specialists. They have the knowledge. They are seen as being relatively benign. They mean the best.
So if you take the World Health Organization, it’s supposed to be there to do what’s right. It’s to solve, … If there’s a starvation crisis somewhere, I don’t even need to touch on what’s going on at the moment, because it’s dangerous.
But if you look at there’s a disease going on here, or there, the World Health Organization is able to come in and give out some medicines, give out some, … Poverty in Africa, whatever, malaria. They’re able to come in and help deal with that problem.
All of this is based on an idea that they are in it just to do good in the world.
But the problem is, if you look at them it may not be the case. The first thing if you look at something like the United Nations, it was set up with a specific ideology in mind, by a specific set of elites. And so the United Nations is another example of having this huge, huge, node of power which can then impose it’s will on the world.
So all of a sudden instead of having these benign organizations and institutions, meaning what’s good in the world, all of a sudden what you see is a kind of network of extremely powerful organizations, NGOs, and institutions, which actually have an agenda.
And they, because of the way they function, and, because of the way they work, it’s kind of blinding! So down at the nation state level, if they want to have an expert, or they want expert opinions, they want to know what policy to pursue on whatever it happens to be, I’m sure your mind is going in certain directions, then they turn to these organizations. They’ll turn to the United Nations. The IMF will be there with the money. The World Health Organizations will be there with whatever treatments is available.
So then you say:
“Okay. So who actually funds these organizations?”
And then well, what sort of institutions do those institutions back? And what you’ll go to is who at the nation level they are turning to for advice? So all of a sudden you begin to question in what is true, and how you can believe what we’re being told at all levels. Because when you’re looking for information you’re getting it from the people who may well be corrupted, may have an agenda. So how does that actually happen? It’s very easy! You just follow the money!
And so what you end up with is this kind of web around the whole world, which isn’t just these kind of stuffy old organizations which are trying to do their best, but actually they have an agenda. And they are powerful. And they are using that power to shape the world. The nation state can’t really react against it, because it’s kind of tangled up in the web.
An example of this, imagine a scenario where Google and France, the nation of France, went the war. How would that actually play out? You’ll see straight away we’re back in the territory of the elephant and the whale. Because in this scenario Google would obviously be the whale, because it can swim around through the internet and through financial institutions, and do whatever it wants. The French, as has always being the case, are kind of locked down on a land mass. And so you think:
“Well, could they then disconnect Google? And how would that affect [Google]?”
Could Google get all of big tech on its side, because France was going rogue against the digital world? Would Amazon cut off supplies to France? Would there be a meddle around in the internal affairs of France? Crush the economy? Would it be that France is operating in the real world and would then maybe send out some kind of special forces, to start taking out the CEOs and the technicians who operate all of the big tax systems? So all of this kind of thing that you see coming into play but who would actually win out there? I don’t know. Because you’re back in the scenario of the whale and the elephant.
So what happens if it’s not just Google against France, but an entire network against what you can think of as like the normal world, in that regard? It’s possible that this explains the weird retreat of America from Afghanistan. Because the holding on to Afghanistan was traditionally how the sea power would go about geo-strategic affairs. Because Afghanistan is, you know, it’s right out there, it’s far away from America, it’s just above Iran, it’s just by Russia, it’s by China. That would be a very handy place for the Americans to turn into a sort of giant military base. And yet you can see that it’s kind of collapsed.
And a lot of people are completely confused by it, because it seems to run against the traditional interests of the neocon, warhawk types, who were operating in the American Deep State. And when they did that it came out that Afghanistan may well be home to resources, billions, or trillions of dollars, worth of resources of lithium.
Now why is lithium valuable? Lithium is valuable because it’s going to power the electric batteries, the cars. Because the United Nations climate change agenda which is 192 countries, or something, are signed up to, is changing the world.
So how is that happening then? Well, the United Nations dictates from on high that this is going to happen. You get all the nation states to sign up to it. And then, when people see the writing on the wall, such as Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, or Bill Gates. They then begin to see the value in lithium. So they begin to invest very heavily in lithium, and try and get the hands on it. Because. They know that in a few years down the line, everybody’s going to be clamouring for it.
But is it then in the interests of the sort of the technocratic clique, is it then in the interests for the American military, or the American nation, in general, to have all of that lithium in Afghanistan? In actual fact, it isn’t! Because it doesn’t really make any difference to them who produces the batteries.
So if the Chinese go in and get a hold of all of that lithium and the Chinese start producing the batteries, it doesn’t really make much difference to them. In fact, the Chinese will probably be able to do it cheaper than what it could be done, … If they sent it all to the Rust Belt and sort of brought the Rust Belt back to life on these electric powered cars, that would probably end up costing them more than just having the Chinese go in and do it. Maybe that’s the case, maybe it isn’t.
But the point that I’m making here is that the interests of the international globalist elite, this new kind of brand of technocrat, it doesn’t take into consideration national interests, whatsoever! They are higher and above that. They don’t care about that.
And so it’s a sign of power being flexed, if the way the Americans have just left Afghanistan. And it’s also a sign that the traditional like geo-strategic perspective from the Americans, is just being overridden by the interests within the American administration itself. So in that case what you have as an example. And there’s many of them, some of them ongoing at the moment, of the, let’s say, the technocratic internationalists being able to draft a policy, have that policy implemented, and the actual material means by that policy is going to materialize, and be monetized, they will make sure they get that as well. And all the way down they are dictating it, they are benefiting from it. And they are shaping policy. And what’s more is that they don’t care if it runs against the traditional interests.
And you can see that the main means by which this can be achieved is their ability to move around the world via institution to institution, which is in this sort of video, amongst the power, and get things done! And outstrip and outplay the traditional nation state, at every turn. And again it’s the same as the old “elephant versus whale”! This is what it must have been like for somebody like Napoleon to try and take down the British navy, which was just appearing and disappearing. And just a constant headache.
Except, of course, what we find is that the institutions of government across the West have all been captured already. The politicians, nobody is putting up a fight. And the reason why they’re behaving cand have behaved as they have in the last couple of years, is because they don’t answer to us they answer to them!
And now people are going to chaff, especially when it comes to, … Let’s say a traditional American neocon policy and their interests in the world. Because when you see who’s getting what treatments around the world, it does look like they are on the out here. It doesn’t look to me is if they are really calling the shots. And I know this is very controversial to say in some circles.
But what I would also say is that if you have this ascendant clique, this ascendant power structure, then you’re going to find that a lot of people are going to jump ship, and throw their lot in with it, because they want to be on the winning side. If this is the way things are going to go then they:
“I don’t want to go down! I don’t want to be stuck on the losing side of this! And maybe if we get our people in there, we can manipulate it. And we can make it more friendly to our interests!”
And all of that kind of thing. The point here is that it is a new dynamic, and a new way of power imposing itself on the world. Which is something like Spectre from the James Bond, the Daniel Craig movies. Which funny enough, are all about this!
It’s all about how the security services will no longer run in the interest of the nation, and by the nation. They’ll be outsourced to some private NGO. And it will be all about surveillance, and digital facial recognition. And all of this kind of thing. Putting chips in people. Rather than the old boots on the ground, sort of Bond’s chasing people through markets in Africa, or whatever it happens to be.
So this emerging, what we can only call “New World Order”, is primarily using the internet as a “sea” to move everything around.
And then it functions by having a few key institutions, like the World Health Organization, the IMF, well there’s a lot of institutions and there’s even more NGOs, all funding each other, all providing each other with data. And data and information is key here! And it floats around the world on this the sea of the internet. But the key institutions, the World Health Organization, all of these, they are kind of like the strategic choke points in the same way the Rock of Gibraltar, or Hong Kong would be, or the Suez Canal, or the Panama Canal. All of these things.
Instead of that, in the new emergent world order, it will be powerful institutions who dictate truth! And have all of the data, and have all the science, who have all the algorithms sorted. This is how power’s going to function. When you move on to something like digital IDs, which, you know, we go forward a little bit. What I think’s horrible about them is that what you see is that you will then, the citizen, the global citizen, will then face directly, come in direct contact with the “Technocracy”! And that middle layer of government will be slowly kind of dissolved.
So again, like it’s complete defeat for the elephant! It’s complete defeat for the old nation state, and the traditional geo, sort of, strategic way of thinking that we’re so used to! And have been used to, for hundreds of years.
That will dwindle away. And what you’ll be left with is this kind of “everywhere, and nowhere, technocracy”. Where how you live your life will come straight from them! And you won’t be able to kind of blame it on a local government.
I mean, you could say that:
“Oh well, this can’t happen, because we’ll vote our way out of it.”
Well, good luck with that! Because I haven’t even seen any politicians anywhere kicking up any kind of a stink.
And, in actual fact, I think I know why that is, as well. And it’s what we have to look into is the ideology of the thinking, the philosophy, which is driving all of this. Which appears in what they’re doing as well. Which appears in something like the United Nations Climate agenda. Which is like the capstone of it all. Which is also coming quickly down the pipeline. You’ve probably seen it everywhere. It’s again, it’s everywhere and nowhere! It’s in the local councils. There’s propaganda going on left, right, and center, reduce the carbon emissions! And all of this idea that carbon is some kind of toxin that it has to be removed from the world.
So, what’s all this about then? Well, when you actually dig into what their world view is, … Traditionally the post-war order was the United Nations. It was liberal and humanist. And so what you would have would be the human individual, you can see, it’s like very liberal, the human individual and would have a certain set of rights and be allotted a certain set of dignities, and this kind of thing.
But the problem with that, is that it does kind of imply a one-world human. And you can begin to see the breaking away of the nation state, just in that. But even then, that is essentially humanism. Everybody on earth should be accorded equal rights. And all of this kind of thing. One world, one people, one humanity!
So whereas humanism has humans at the center of all ethics, and of all world affairs, “post-humanism” actually steps over that. And it’s not to be confused with “transhumanism”, which is something they’re also interested in, but slightly different. Post-humanism actually goes further and says:
“Well humans should not be at the center of everything! Instead we should be looking at the planet as a whole!”
Now, it’s important to draw a distinction here that they don’t mean some kind of deep ecological takes that somebody like Pentti Linkola on the Right would come out with. Which is much more idealistic, it’s much more poetic and Romantic way of viewing the world. The post-humanism is purely technocratic.
And so if Pentti Linkola will look at a woodland, and he’ll kind of wonder on like the difference between having a woodland and having fifty thousand trees.
The technocrat will just see the fifty thousand trees. They’ll not see the idealism, or the poetry of the woodland. And what the difference is between a woodland, and having 20,000 trees, or whatever. Because they just see the world in “data”, and in algorithms, and information.
Whereas the sort of the Right wing more reactionary types have a much more Romantic world outlook and philosophy. The technocrats view everything just through data and through numbers.
And so when it comes to post-humanism what they’re saying is that the world as a whole should not be seen as this organism, but more like a machine. It’s more like it’s all just data! Everything!
So this is why the United Nations is actually going to try and audit the entire planet! How many humans are on I? How many human? What do humans consume relative to other creatures? How much, how many fish are in the sea? How many trees are there? How many species of snake are there? How many flies are there? Everything they want, absolutely everything will be reduced data and go in the cloud!
And because human wants and needs are no longer at the center of it, … And we are just part of this larger machine, because it’s just unbelievably materialistic, that they may turn around and:
“Well, there’s too many humans!”
For example, which is one of the more controversial aspects to all of their ideology.
But you can begin now to see how it’s this cold mechanistic, purely numbers, and data driven, ideology. And you can see it in what they’re trying to do in the world today.
So this is like the post-humanism which all of the elites currently have in common. You can see that there’s other factions in the elites with their own particular interests, but the emergent one is this. And it is this, it is to be seen in something like the UN Climate Change agenda, which is exactly this.
You can also see it in how the digital IDs are going to function. How everything is going in the cloud. And all of that. All of your data. What is your carbon footprint? What are you eating?
The bugs, for example. If you think of the idea of the propaganda about how we’re all gonna eat bugs, it’s because it doesn’t really make much sense for everybody on the planet to be able to eat beef, because if humans are no longer, human wants and human desires, if we’re now moving past that.
And we have to actually organize a planet in a different way according to what the algorithms, and according to efficiency, then from that perspective it does make sense to, well, I’ve got to be careful. But then maybe there are too many humans? But if even then, what are they going to eat? Why can’t they eat this cheap and efficient tinned market product that we’re going to make?
So the point that I’m trying to make is this is post-humanism! It’s no longer centered on humans. Humans go off to the center. It’s kind of similar to some of the Critical Race Theory stuff. But instead of being just about White people, it’s about all of humanity.
I mean, this may also explain why they come across as being so aloof, and so cold, and hard-hearted. Because when you’ve got people protesting on the streets, because of the pandemic, then essentially what they’re doing is trying to use the liberal rights that they thought they had, especially after World War II, was that:
“Well, you can’t do this to us!”
And you hear people coming out with this thing about the Nuremberg code.c And all of this.
Well, the problem that you’ve got is that you’re making a liberal appeal. You’re invoking your rights, whether your rights to free speech, your rights to bodily autonomy, and your rights to this, and your rights to that.
But the problem is it could very well be that they just don’t even recognize those rights anymore, because they then they don’t agree with the philosophy behind them! They don’t believe the liberalism behind them, if that’s the liberal humanism of post-world war era. And they have now become post-human, in which humans are just one of many species on the planet. And they have to be viewed at in a similar way, then they’re not going to recognize that!
Now I realize this is unbelievably dark with the implications that it has. But I want to stare this straight in the face, and try and understand what it is that we’re dealing with. And so, I think that’s kind of how I’ve come to view this it’s a decentralized set of power structures which doesn’t belong to any particular place on earth. And they are using a multitude of NGOs, and powerful institutions, to propagate their own worldview as nodes of power! As strategic points of power, to then implement their world view! Which appears to be post-humanism.
And I think it’s dark! I really do!
But I’m actually not that black pilled. Because I don’t think it can work. And I think in the short term everybody’s gonna run around scrambling, trying to use whatever rights they’ve got.
And in the long term I see something else emerging which I’ve begun to think of as “Grim Dark Nationalism”, which would be movements which would be socialistic in flavor, looking for ways to simply seize their assets, through their own force.
But that would also mean cutting themselves off from the technological wonders which are currently on offer. Which of course, which is why I think it could be called Grim Dark Nationalism.
So that’s some thoughts on what I think’s happening at the moment. Chin up everybody! And take care! It’s interesting times.
See you later.
[Outro music and imagery by Theberton.]
[Readers: If you see any errors (however minor), or ways to improve things, in the transcript, please let me know in the Comment section. Also please share the link to this transcript, so others can benefit. Thanks.]
* Total words = 5,800
* Total images = 7
* Total A4 pages = xx
Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):
Version 1: Sep 21, 2021 — Published post.