As the pandemic narrative disintegrates, there is much talk about punishment for the guilty. This video from Alexis Flavian Bugnolo explains how those at the top of the pyramid of power seek to take control of the narrative while minimising the punishment of those sacrificed to maintain the centralised power structure.
HOW SKULL & BONES PLANS TO CO-OPT WORLD-WIDE RESISTANCE TO THE PLANDEMIC (video 7 minutes)
In spite of the value in the video, there are at least two flaws in this analysis:
Alexis refers to the killing of 2 billion. Granted, that is a possibility in the long term but in terms of current numbers, it doesn’t withstand any sort of scrutiny. For example, the global population is c. 8 billion. 2 billion represents a quarter of the global population and if a quarter of the UK’s (or any other) population had died in the last 2 years, we would have noticed. Furthermore, it is likely that not everyone “vaccinated” received the most toxic versions of the so called vaccines.
The second flaw is more insidious because it demands punishment for the guilty, i.e. retribution. In so doing, Alexis refers to Nuremberg 2.0, suggesting that Nuremberg 1.0 didn’t go far enough. There is the not insignificant issue of the fabrication of the “holocaust” narrative that doesn’t withstand scrutiny.
However, the idea of punishment of the “guilty” is even more problematic. We are all guilty because we all subscribe to the structure that administers poisons to the global population; we may claim ignorance but in law, that is no defence. It is the criminal structure that induces people to behave in a criminal manner. Who are we, the guilty, to point the finger at and judge those we deem “more guilty”?
Irrespective of our own innocence or guilt, how are we empowered to administer punishment? Given the source of this video (the Roman Catholic church), the clamour for revenge is even more problematic.
Romans 12:19 – 12:21
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
Here, we are straying into fundamental philosophical territory. The idea of a vengeful God, in which the Church claims authority to act in his name versus everything being God. Rather than God being judgemental, as such, there are rules that govern everything (the universe). In its simplest form, “do no harm” is fundamental and is exemplified in dharmic philosophy.
Coincidentally, my recent reading explores this in depth and for anyone interested in exploring the nature of belief and how to resolve conflicts between Abrahamic religions and eastern philosophy, it is a good introduction.
Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism by Rajiv Malhotra
For complex reasons, which are analyzed at length, the dharmic traditions have been a particular target of digestion into the West, and Being Different challenges the uncritical acceptance of this process by both Westerners and Indians.
Consequently, the way forward is not to seek revenge or punishment but to create alternatives, to the criminal structure, that abide by universal law. In this context, we cannot rely on institutional hierarchy.
Distributed, autonomous but interdependent self-organisation is how we make the pyramid of power irrelevant. The key to transformation is moving beyond simple, exchangeable money. The guilty will either conform to the requirements of these new ways of living or suffer the consequences. As for judgement, that will come to them in its own way.