Because humanity as a whole shares a single planet, it is often said that we are all in this together. From this foundational thought, mental scaffolding is erected toward the notion of the common good. This is the ultimate seduction.
It is very, very difficult to deconstruct the deceptive lies and false premises contained within the concept of the “common good” because on its face it sounds so real and appealing. The very words themselves tend to evoke a sense of empathy, that we as human beings do share certain things in common, and therefore it is within our mutual interest to work toward this idealistic notion of the common good.
Who can argue with that?
Perhaps rather than arguing with this idea, a better approach would be to put it into context. Can we deny that different people have different ideas of what those words “the common good” actually mean? It seems undeniably true that different people will inevitably define the term differently, which brings up the question:
Who’s ideal common good are we talking about?
Before we dive into that, I think it would be wise to shore up this tentative premise—that the common good is defined differently by different groups of people—because, as you will see, it becomes a touchstone of truth. Thus, we must make the bold declaration: There is no universally agreed upon definition of the common good.
Do you agree that there is no universally agreed upon definition of the common good?
If you don’t, you should.
Denying the universality of subjective definitions is a foundational aspect of logic and rational thinking. Think it through: is it even possible to systematically question every peasant on the planet and ask them to define the common good?
The obvious answer is no. That is impossible.
Besides, long before you got to the end of the line it would have become readily apparent that different people define the common good differently. FACT.
Do we share a single planet? Yes.
Does that imply we must work together toward the common good? NO.
We must answer in the negative because not everyone on the planet is going to agree with what this common good actually looks like, and invariably, disputes will break out when clashing convictions are attempted to be imposed on those who disagree.
For a simple example, consider one man decides, in a moment of hunger, to grab a sharp stick and set out to kill an animal. As his stomach is growling, prey steps into sight. Suddenly, another man leaps in front of him and shouts, “STOP! You must stop eating meat, it’s for the common good!” As the prey scampers off, you might imagine the less than friendly debate that would ensue.
The point is, in order to work together toward the common good, we must first define what the “common good” actually means. Then we must agree to the means of promoting, protecting, or otherwise pursuing this common good on behalf of ourselves, our posterity, and others in our community.
Now, many people will tell you, with the utmost sincerity and a stone-cold serious expression, that we must work together to “save the planet,” because this is clearly in the interest of the common good. To them this is so obvious as to be undeniable. How can humanity survive if we continue to destroy the planet?
Clearly saving the planet is in our mutual interest, and therefore, saving the planet should be a shared task that necessarily rests within the scope of the common good.
That is the underlying premise of the entire globalist agenda.
To demonstrate just how seductive this way of thinking is, and how much sway it has over the majority of global leaders, I suggest watching this 4:43 clip (now or later) from the 2023 World Government Summit, held in Dubai earlier this year:
In theory, the assembly of a World Government should make every American’s skin crawl, but we are way past that point now. Please note that the lady on the screen is a social psychologist, which is a telltale sign of the socialist memetics at work here. It is no accident that all of the leaders on the stage use similar patterns of language, or how every bit of the agenda is aligned toward the ever present “common good.”
As I have argued elsewhere, these gatherings of global elites for intense and inspiring person-to-person interaction, are where the seeding of this mind virus occurs. Think of it like a potent combination of ecstatic hypnotism and Neuro Linguistic Programming, all wrapped up in a New Age hippie cult-like feeling of kumbaya.
It’s exceedingly difficult to think for oneself and resist assimilation in such an environment, and this fact has been well studied and understood for decades.
The outcome, of course, is that all of these global leaders leave with the belief that they are working toward the ultimate common good, and this ultimate common good is nothing less than saving the planet—because after all, could there be a more existential threat to our shared well-being? Just think of the children!
As the leaders leave the event and return to face their people, they remind themselves, in somber tones, that despite their many differences, humanity only has one planet, and therefore everyone must work together for the common good.
Furthermore, drastic action must be taken, before it’s too late.
The lingering sense of urgency felt within the chambers remains palpable.
The people might not like what’s coming, but it’s necessary, for their own good, because it’s for the common good. We must do whatever it takes.
We have to save the planet.
Pause. Take a deep breath. What’s real right now? Where is your awareness? Can you feel your heartbeat? What are you grateful for? What’s right in front of you? What are you doing and what needs to be done? What happens next? Let’s finish the game.
No doubt it was obvious I was setting the stage for a contrarian point of view. The purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate how seductive the pull toward groupthink can be, especially in carefully choreographed events like the World Government Summit, the AI Governance Summit, Bilderberg, Davos, and the rest.
Every imaginable emotional button gets pushed, egos get stroked, heartstrings get plucked, and the collective minds of the ruling class get lulled into delusions.
We the peasants of the world are then left to coax our leaders off the ledge of collective suicide—or democide, as the case may be, which is “the murder of people by a government that has power over them.” Try to imagine if Jim Jones wielded the whole-of-government authority to force everyone to drink the Kool-Aid, under threat of penalty, imprisonment, or death, and you’ll understand the subtle difference.
Cult leaders crop up from time to time, but when the government becomes the cult, we’ve got a major problem on our hands. When government officials, unelected bureaucrats and billionaire elites begin referring to themselves as “enlightened” leaders, and openly speak of plans to reduce the human population, because they “just don’t need the majority of humanity,” the days of tragedy are not far away.
Indeed, democide is a historical trend that has a tendency to repeat itself.
Quite ironically, when governments decide they have the need to off the surplus of unnecessary or unnecessarily pesky peasants, the justification is always democracy.
As the article above explains, “the Nazi rise to power took place within, and took advantage of, the very democratic processes which it would go on to systemically dismantle and repudiate.” Other examples abound, but so as not to get lost in the weeds, I want to make two simple points:
Democracy is mob rule, mobs are known to be mad, and thus democide as an extension of democratic rule seems at least reasonably predictable.
It is no coincidence that to “win the battle of democracy” is the first step in a communist revolution, as the mob is then steered to cheer for democide.
And just to be clear, democide is not the death of democracy (as some liberal intellectuals have attempted to reframe it), democide is the death of people at the hands of government. Here too, examples abound. Many have pointed to the pandemic as democide, as governments systematically withheld life-saving medications, promoted toxic injections, locked people indoors, forced self-contamination loops with worthless mask mandates, and otherwise “offed” millions of peasants.
But that too is getting lost in the weeds.
Let’s get back to saving the planet.
Whether the Climate Cult has successfully assimilated global leadership, or whether global leadership has simply co-opted the Climate Cult, is a matter of debate.
Regardless, the rise of total global tyranny is being lifted by the swelling sentiment that we must save the planet, at all costs, by any and all means necessary. Despite the numerous and obvious flaws in that opinion, the majority of global leaders and a high percentage of the population have accepted and internalized this premise.
In other words, a great many people believe that doing whatever it takes to save the planet is the epitome of the common good. One step further, those who have succumb to this seductive lie believe that anyone who disagrees with them is a threat to the planet and an enemy of the common good. Therefore, be a good human.
What’s more, as we’ve seen this week, they are now using advanced AI to accelerate reprogramming the public psyche to self-sacrifice for this cause.
They are programming people to accept their definition of the common good.
They are advancing their Common Agenda.
(Hint: their strategy includes the “use of digital surveillance and manipulation to influence behavior and control populations.”)
So, how do we overcome this seductive lie?
Recall the touchstone of truth: we all have our own definitions, people certainly disagree, and forcefully imposing one’s will upon another will always lead to conflict. Perhaps we can agree that mutual respect is the real common good.
Perhaps we can agree that government control over every aspect of our lives isn’t really in our mutual interest as free human beings? Perhaps we can agree that government officials and global leaders are just fallible human beings too? Perhaps we can collectively call out their hypocrisy in calling themselves enlightened?
Perhaps we can call a cult a cult?
The ultimate common good rests between you and I.
Stretched beyond that, the concept quickly gets distorted. Tyranny ensues.
This simple fact can unlock many conversations.