Romanian writer, philosopher, and member of the Von Mises Institute, Ninel Ganea interviewed me concerning my own thoughts surrounding a variety of issues. Ninel runs Karamazov.ro and is posting the interview in 3 installments. Below is part 3.
Part 1 here
Part 2 here
What is the philosophical/economical/esoteric argument for reduction of the population? We see all the powers that be (Club of Rome, for example) obsessed with this issue.
For those who adhere to the “left-hand path” as they term it, it is the natural order of things. In that perspective, at least for those that are high level occultists, the goal of esoterism is godhood, and the path to godhood necessarily involves the destruction of those that are in opposition. It is all viewed in alchemical terms, so the forces of chaos, disorder and destruction are viewed as a kind of technology that leads to progress. One can see this in the revolutionary notion of necessary evil where something like the French Revolution was a good, since the bloodshed and chaos led to the outbreak of other revolutions and “progress.”
Alchemically, the idea is that the Great Work had progressed through destruction, and the Great Work is the deification of man through the long process of history. In this view, technology and transhumanism are the means to that godhood that will be the purification of base metals into gold: immortality through Promethean, rationalist means instead of through God. On another level, some of those occultists would see the death of the masses as a fulfillment of the Crowleyan dictum, “the slaves shall serve.” Or, the slaves shall die, actually. The masses, in this view, are sacrificed because they are precisely what holds back progress. Their sacrifice must be accomplished so that the elite may leap forward. Darwin, Marx and Mao all had the same idea that destruction is a form of creation. Incidentally, this is what Graham Greene says in The Destroyers, as quoted by Donnie in Donnie Darko.
Do you see any fracture between traditional monarchies and the modern political regimes? How do you rate Prince Charles conservative tendencies in this context?
The revolutions from 1789 onwards effectively wiped out the outward face of the monarchs, with the British monarchy retaining its somewhat public power, and without a doubt the Queen of England and her house retain a lot of power, despite many people mistakenly thinking they are mere figureheads. I think the revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries were a mixed bag: are we really better off going into a technocratic slave state than having monarchies? I also suspect that the royal houses are still very powerful, but from behind the scenes.
Queen Beatrix and Bilderberg is a good example, but a lot of people are unaware that the European black nobility are powerful and do have elite meetings in Malta, for example, though I don’t want to really delve into the generally goofy Jesuit/Malta conspiracies. If one is interested, histories of MI6 sometimes discuss Malta and its use in this regard. As to what degree the monarchs, royal families and black nobility intersect with modern republics and political regimes, I am probably not well educated enough on the topic to speak knowledgeably. Much of what Fritz Springmeier has written in Bloodlines of the Illuminati does tend to be verified. Continue reading