In first two articles we have asserted that there is a big bad Deep State that's controlling large parts of our world, running it in evil ways, and it wants to capture the whole world and run it in way more evil ways. We have asserted that Deep State is the hidden empire of British Monarchy and other royal colonial feudal families. We have not proved these specific assertions yet because these are introductory chapters to the concept of Deep State itself. Today we ask a basic question. Irrespective of whether it is British Monarchy or someone else, is a Deep State some kind of inevitable outcome in the game of human civilization? Would someone or the other always want to form a Deep State? Why does the Deep State exist, and that too in the form and manner it exists?
Since most readers at this point aren't yet too familiar with concept of Deep State, let's ask the same questions in more familiar terms. Why and how do monarchies emerge among humans? Why do empires arise? What is the ultimate aim of monarch of an empire and why? In the final phases towards achieving this aim why would a monarch prefer to make the empire hidden and turn it into a Deep State? What place does democracy have in all this monarchy empire game? To answer these interesting questions, we have to go into the very fundamentals of existence of humans and civilization. As we will see, the motive for everything is economic, for better and better chances of one's own survuval, with better and better quality of life.
This article is long yet intersting because it is condensed and truncated version of a book I was writing in later half of 2018 but had to put on hold because of many reasons. I might post the unfinished form of that book on another blog. In that book I explain progress of human civilization, survival, communities, work, trade, war, technology, democracies, monarchies, etc right up to modern global geopolitics and future possibilities, all built up and explained from first principles economic perspective. Early in that book I have very logically, step by step, arrived at a very simple and basic, yet very general and universally applicable definition of wealth:
"Wealth is anything and everything that contribuites to life and its goodness."
In that book I also identify different types of wealth and their high level heirarchies and dependencies. Natural resources are definitely wealth, in fact most important wealth in the heirarchies and dependencies. But for this much shorter article, when I say 'natural resources' I mean the very raw resources available in nature, and when I say 'wealth' I mean something that we have created out of natural resources to consume or enjoy. With that background, let's jump into the thick of things!
In order to stay alive and be wealthy we need natural resources. But raw resources cannot keep us alive and cannot typically be directly enjoyed as wealth. We must work to turn the raw natural resources into life-giving wealth (like food, clean water) as well as other enjoyable wealth. But to be able to do that we also need knowledge about what kind of work must we do, and on what resources, to produce what kind of wealth. Thus we a need a combination of at least three things to be alive and wealthy: natural resources, knowledge and actual work done using them both. Let's try to understand all three in greater depth.
Some elite villains, especially prominent members of British Royal Family (who I assert are the main villains behind global Deep State too) have often stated that human population is too high to be sustained by our natural resources. Such sentiments are also expressed by Mr.Thanos, the fictional villain of Avengers Infinity War. He then kills half the people in the universe justified by this belief of over-population. If you ask me, Thanos looks a lot like hardened purple version of Prince Williams to me. Are these Thanoses right?
Nature has provided enough natural resources for each person. Even with current 'high' global population, if we divide all the land area on Earth equally among all humans, each individual person (not even each family) would get around two and a half football fields of land area, along with all the resources above and below it. In addition we have vast resources of the oceans and of the earth below those oceans for humans to share. Now space explorations are also starting. So per capita resources is hardly a problem and they can actually increase further. Mr.Thanos Windsor is wrong. But we will see later why he would like you to believe such lies.
Apart from generously bestowing us with natural resources, nature has also generously given us wonderful abilities. We have the gift of observing, thinking and experimenting using which we can build knowledge. We have also been given the gift of communication, much superior in complexity compared to communications among other living beings. In addition to natural communication abilities we keep developing better and better artificial technology to communicate as well as store knowledge. Using natural and artificial means we can share knowledge built by one person or group with other persons or groups or even entire humanity. So available knowledge is immense and it can actually grow.
When it comes to work, we have ability to do much more complex work than other creatures, helped by our bipedalism leaving our hands free, our opposable thumb giving us lot of dexterity and of course our evolved nervous system to guide the body, and evolved thoughts of that brain to guide the overall actions. Apart from our own work ability we have harnessed nature itself to do our work. We have built knowledge of utilizing animals. We have built knowledge of natural phenomenon (science) to build working machines(technology). So the ability for work is also immense and only increasing.
So natural resources, knowledge as well as ability for work are abundant and only increasing. Hence the potential for joyful existence and well-being of humanity is immense and only increasing. Then why is our actual world far more miserable? Let's understand what goes wrong.
Let us start with a happy assumption that each human has a fair share of resources from vast bounties of nature. We make this assumption because it was naturally true in the initial situation where man lived in the wild and no one had captured anyone's resources. In such situation, nature is available for anyone to use up to any extent they can. With this, an average person with the right knowledge can work at full capacity to stay alive, keep family alive and also additionally build a lot of surplus wealth for security and enjoyment. At the other extreme, the person may work on those resources just enough to survive but not build any surplus wealth. Then we have the more common in-between situation where person chooses to work a little less than full capacity, hence has some leisure, and yet builds wealth, though not as much as working at full capacity. A decently happy situation.
But problems start arising in this happy picture because some people or groups may work to not only build more surplus wealth than others, but it could be aggressive type of wealth in form of physical strength, weapons and other kinds of fighting or attack abilities. Then this type of persons or groups can and will attack the other type of persons or groups to capture their raw resources as well as their built wealth. With successful attack, they end up with more wealth as well as more surplus resources, maybe even more than they can convert into enjoyable wealth by working on them. On other hand their victims face impoverishment or death
The conqueror group now has more resources than what they can convert into wealth by work themselves. So they may choose to keep conquered people alive after surrender, under one condition. The conquered people must agree to work on the conquered surplus resources, but for building wealth for conqueror rather than for themselves. In exchange they would be granted life and the basic resources or wealth needed for their survival. Thus slavery is born. It is not out of any hatred or psychopathy but in strategic pursuit of wealth by plundering resources and harnessing surplus work productivity of weaker people. When the slaves work for the slave masters, slave masters themselves don't have to do basic work as much, and hence have more time for leisure, recreation, intellectual pursuits and higher level work. This gives them a leading edge in next conquest campaign
However if conquered people are allowed to stay alive as slaves, they may some day regain strength, re-organize or just get fed up of the slavery, especially if it worsens to intolerable levels. So in future they may revolt and fight back. To avoid this future, the conqueror may choose to kill them all right away. Death comes upon conquered people in many ways. Many defenders as well as regular civilians will of course be killed during conquest, as a playing card to force a surrender. But if conqueror has decided to take no prisoners or slaves, they may all be killed after surrender too. A recent pop culture example of this was Daenerys Targaryen in Game Of Thrones, who ordered her dragons to burn people of King's Landing even after enemy military had surrendered and all Seven Kingdoms belonged to her. Another way to kill the conquered people is to plunder and destroy so much of their wealth and resources that they die of hardship and hunger, suffering and starvation. Conquerors may even unleash some epidemic if they have a way of themselves staying safe from it. On the whole an idea of purposeful killings and genocides is born. It is born not out of any hatred or psychopathy but by strategic pursuit of gaining and securing resources and wealth, by permanently eliminating other claimants of resources and wealth.
But if all conquered people are killed instead of enslaved, what happens to the extra conquered resources? Who converts them into wealth by knowledge and work? That can wait, as long as conquerors have the ability to protect these resources for later use. The conqueror population can grow with these resources and as the babies become adults, they become the bigger work force that can turn these resources into wealth to enjoy. And of course the conquerors being wealthier can invest more time, work and resources to develop more knowledge. Knowledge results in technology that can itself do work and build wealth for existing population, without growing the population. And of course much of this additional wealth built would again be aggressive weapons, for more conquests.
But even if all conquered people are not killed but rather kept as slaves/subjects, the conquerors get wealth produced by the slaves from resources and hence flourish. So either way their 'gene pool' of the conquerors grows in numbers or gets better standards of living or both.
From discussion so far it may seem like barbarianism is the main path to greater wealth other than your own hard work on your own resources (which itself can be robbed by someone else in barbaric ways.). Winning side forcibly gains what the losing side unwillingly and helplessly loses. That's a zero sum game. But typically there is also destruction on both sides. So the net gain on winning side is less than net loss on losing side. So it is even worse than a zero sum game. It's a negative sum game. Plunder of resources and ready wealth is always a zero sum game or negative sum game. But what about plunder of work surplus through slavery? Again it would seem like surplus work of a person either builds own wealth or of the controlling slave-master. So again a zero sum game. But it does not have to be a zero sum game. We have talked about work & resources but not yet seen the magic of knowledge.
Work is done using both resources and knowledge. So if a person gets to work with better quality or quantity of resources, better quality or amount of knowledge then same amount of work can produce more wealth. This is why the quest for more wealth can also be through the peaceful quest for knowledge rather than barbaric means of conquering more resources and surplus work ability of other people. And once you have better knowledge, others may willingly offer you resources as well as their work. They will willingly do it because you can produce more wealth from it, give them more wealth than they could themselves produce with their resources and work. Even after giving them greater wealth you still keep some or lots of that additional knowledge based wealth for yourself. Everybody wins. This is the emergence of investment (Offering resources) and employment (offering work ability). Of course instead of such direct involvement of other people's resources and work, you could produce your own special kind of surplus wealth with your own special knowledge, work and resources. It is surplus for you, and even if you want to enjoy it you can enjoy it in limited numbers or quantities. So you can produce extra and offer it to others in exchange for their resources which you need, their work ability, or their such specialized wealth for which they have the knowledge, work ability and resources but you don't. This is the emergence of trade.
Of course I could have also claimed trade emerged after conquest when one group had extra resources or work ability while other had less so they would be willing to trade something for it. But in the early stages of human civilization, due to limits of transport and communications, the interacting groups would have lived near each other. So it would be difficult to trade the resources or work surplus with the same group you looted from. Other nearby groups would also be aware that you are the plundering villains and would not like to trade with you. And living in the same general territory, the extra looted resources you have available for trade would be similar to the resources possessed by the looted or unlooted tribes you are trying to trade with. Basic work abilities would also be similar. So there is neither peace nor differentiation of offerings needed for trade. Hence I assert local trade would have likely emerged only with peaceful pursuit of skills and knowledge which produces specialized offerings, not from conquest of more of the same stuff that everybody has.
So trade emerges from knowledge, but unfortunately knowledge advantage can also come from war. A conqueror has more leisure time and surplus resources as a result of conquest. This can be utilized to develop skills and knowledge from which special things can be created which others want to trade. This development of skills and knowledge obviously takes time so there is peace in the meantime. So others see the conqueror less suspiciously over time and are more willing to trade. They would especially like to trade those fancy or useful special things which only the ex-conqueror has been able to develop. They do not realize or conveniently forget or ignore that this 'peaceful' development of advanced things became possible due to the earlier plunder. Even if they remember the past wars, these better and useful goods or services add value to their life so they bypass their grudges and distrust. If you think about it, this is how the previous conqueror and colonial nations are way more advanced in science and technology today and sell that stuff to those they vanquished or enslaved earlier. Colonization was for exploitation of their resources and work productivity while building own knowledge and wealth. It was like a less intense war, but on a continuous basis.
Of course the previous conquest surplus and the new surplus from trade will be used by conqueror to develop knowledge which enhances war capability too, not just marketable goods. So the others should not be fooled. They should expect these conquerors turned traders to once again come for conquering resources, labour, wealth built-up by the poorer peaceful groups in peace years.So it's a vicious circle. This is why 'developed' countries we see in the world today are not so because their people are superior but because their leaders calculatively set them on a continuous path of barbaric conquests and colonization. The poor or 'underdeveloped' nations are not so because they are inferior but because they got caught on wrong side of the vicious circle.
We can imagine that first groups may simply be blood relatives forming a large family or clan. Within itself or across clans first 'war' may have simply been an stronger person beating up or even killing a weaker person to rob a food (resources + specific knowledge of fruit + work of picking the fruit) or say for choice of mate. First trade may simply have been two people exchanging different fruits. The trade of sex for something else is seen in animals too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_among_animals.Vampire bats give regurgitated blood food to those vampire bats who had given them in their time of need. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/11/151117-vampire-bats-blood-food-science-animals/ First employment or slavery may have simply been one person doing work (say of fruit picking) for another stronger or smarter person in return for protection or something else.
Even in the conquering or victor group, all persons do not do equal work or have equal knowledge and all persons also do not get equal resources or wealth. That doesn't even mean the person who does more work gets to enjoy more resources or wealth. Typically the person who works with more knowledge does get relatively better share because that knowledge is crucial. But again typically one person has some kind of power over others and can order them around This person keeps a repository of all knowledge the clan has, controls all resources and directs the clan about what work they should do. This person works less (at least physically) and enjoys a bigger share of resources or wealth that the others would capture, build and serve them. So the phenomenon or creature called 'leader' is born. The leader has one aim, to increase own wealth with help of the group and hence has an incentive for maintaining well-being of the group too.
For small groups, leader might typically be the family patriarch or matriarch of the clan or someone who is proven stronger and smarter, who works for well-being of the clan. This may be established by seniority or by some fight among contenders or say democratic vote of the clan, etc. But by any of these ways, the leader is a leader because of some kind of charisma. Such charisma starts faltering when the clan expands by conquest and reproduction. You cannot really impress and order around a large number of people with mere charisma. That's when the leader needs to get more sophisticated and device mechanisms to maintain the leadership (and hence be the wealthiest group member whom others serve, which don't depend on mere charisma.
So if you were the leader of a large group, what would you do to stay as leader? The harshest or least sophisticated way to make people work for you (leader) is of course threat of violence, on your own clansmen and on conquered people. However this "Do as I say or else..." method produces lot of resentment and so your leadership is constantly under internal or external threat. A more sophisticated way would be to capture resources and make people work for getting a share of them. Guarding resources with your military would feel less harsh than threatening people directly with military power. People might even consider you their benefactor for providing resources or wealth in exchange of work, ignoring the fact that they were first robbed of these resources which were freely available in nature. Another pleasant way would be to provide them knowledge in addition to natural resources, which increases the productivity of their work. As we have seen earlier, knowledge advantage also comes from military. Further people working for you produce additional knowledge which you can collect in a centralized way and disseminate as needed.
However some may still resent you ordering them around by the leverage of control over resources and knowledge. So you invent religion, which is just 'relatable stories' and 'wise instructions' attributed to some supernatural god being which cannot be proved, cannot be disproved, but which people have an instinctive sense or desire to believe in. Religion allows you to rule by similar carrot and stick, incentives and punishment as use of military strength earlier, but mounted from shoulders of 'god'. You no longer have to be the villain who says "Do this because I want you to do it, or else I will punish you!". You can now say "Do this because some powerful magic god being wants you to do it. If you don't, that god being will punish you and your loved ones, in this life or after-life or next life!" Note however that people usually already have notion of god, spirituality or maybe have their own religion. So giving people religion and that too of your choice itself may initially need military might or gift of resources & wealth or both. Other option may be to co-opt the conquered people's religion.
But not all will get fooled by the god gimmick even under military pressure or lured by gifts. Instead what if you had more direct control over what work people do, that too without using force? So you invent money which can represent value of any goods or services, and which only you can issue as the leader. The lure of money and its acceptance as a medium of exchange makes people do what you want them to do. Money doesn't directly grow on trees so the person who controls which industry or individuals the big money flows to controls to a large extent what work people do. Rest of the economy falls in place by trickle-down effect particularly if there is enough food for all.
However when money is created to be used only as a payment by the leader, much of the money stays in the economy and small part returns as taxes, Since there is money flowing in circles in the economy which leader no longer controls, control is lost over lower levels of economy. So how about devising a mechanism in which instead of part of the money returning to you the entire money returns back after stimulating economic activity? Thus the concept of loan and banking is born.
The etymology for 'bank' says it came from the word 'bench' used by banker but I feel it may be much more interesting. Think of a river & river bank. The water in the river is turbulent and, chaotic. The water molecules and other particles would be performing random motion but ultimately the river bank lays the outline of how river flows. Similarly banking decides the main features of economy even if each human is doing complex random activity for own survival and wealth. So you see even without usury or charging interest, banking puts the leader (and bankers who serve the leader) in charge of controlling people's work. So leader can make them work to increase leader's own wealth and power, even without interest/usury. They will not even realize that they are slaves because the slavery is now more sophisticated.
First we consider banking without usury (asking interest) where the amount returned is same as amount lent. But wouldn't returning same amount of money as was lent create vacuum or liquidity crunch/loss in economy? It could, but it doesn't get that much problematic. The lender/leader gets part of the loan money back and uses it to spend for own needs, wants, luxuries, or investment, particularly in infrastructure. So the money is back in economy while actual material wealth of the lender increases. That money will again circulate and will help the economy payback rest of the loan. Again when it returns to the banker it can be lent or spent or invested. So overall economy keeps running and leader/banker gets richer with real wealth not just the notional money. Since the amount returned is same as amount lent, this system seems fair and leader doesn't get a bad name if he/she doubles up as banker too.
Now consider that a person has $100. If the person lends $100 at no interest, the person mainly gets to control what activity would happen in the economy worth that much amount but in the end gets back $100 only. On the other hand if that person purchased goods worth $100, the person can sell them at a neat profit, get back more than $100. So in this situation there would be a greater incentive to be a trader than to be a banker. Banker also gets back the money much later than a trader. To solve this, a decent amount of interest is desirable. Thus 'usury' is born.
Of course high interest rate for loan would be similar to price-gouging for other goods and services. But even if it's decently low & fair, usury seems unjust because nobody thinks like the $100 example above used for lending vs trading. People narrowly view it as more money asked in exchange of less money. Hence they resent it. So the leader distances self from usurious banking and allows other people to do it. Thus a creature called banker is born.
However banker or bank cannot exist without military/police protection. Otherwise a needy but violent person or group would simply rob the bank/banker instead of taking loan. Borrowers may also not pay back. Even the money that bank or bankers take as deposits needs to be protected. So overall, the leader who holds control of the military/police still controls the bankers.
Once banking is legitimized and protected by leader, that too with usury, many wealthy people would get interested in being bankers. The leader can neither control nor protect so many people. The leader also cannot individually allow or ban a banker because in that case the direct link between the leader and the usurious bankers would become visible to the common people, which is undesirable. So once again religion card is played. Among the Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam prohibited usury. So the incentive among wealthy people of these religions goes away. In Judaism the interpretation was that they could lend to people of other religions with usury, but in lending to person of their own religion, usury is not allowed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking#Religious_restrictions_on_interest. So only usurious banking business of Jews remained viable and at the same time they gained a bad name for being greedy. In Ancient India too Brahmin and Kshatriya varnas or caste were forbiddent to practice usury while vaishyas/baniyas were allowed. The shudras or lowest caste was not prevented from banking but probably didn't have that kind of wealth. So like the Jews, the Baniyas/Vaishyas got a bad rap as greedy money lenders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_India#Ancient_India.
Since only Jews practiced banking with usury, they got a bad name. This can be seen in popular culture too, for example in Merchant of Venice written by Shakespeare. Yet Jews didn't have many other avenues of making a living because they were legally prohibited from owning land.had no other avenues of making a living because they were prohibited from owning land.
Jews that lent to the leader or monarch were called Court Jews. Since Jews had a bad image among public, this was further advantageous for leader to maintain leverage on their bankers/Court Jews. I am not a banking expert or historian but it is said that most Court Jews generally suffered a bad fate, sometimes at the hands of monarch, or people, or both. They could rarely pass on their wealth to their descendants. I found this when investigating about the Rothschilds as Court Jews. It is said that one Rothschild pioneered institutional banking instead of personal banking and was hence able to pass his fortunes to his children. Most Court Jews before that could not do so, being trapped as the 'bad guy' between the ruling class and the plebs and inability to own land. Let me know if this is factually incorrect. Or if it is true, let me know your sources.
Banking itself underwent many changes especially as nature of money changed. With each change, the bankers have bigger lending power and greater grip on the economy. Early on the merchants provided grain-money banking or food cattle money in exchange of right to the farm produce. Then came lending with precious metals money without and with usury. Then came paper based money backed by actual precious metals like gold. This made way for only paper fiat money backed by government decree and guarantee. Then came digital fiat money where money is just numeric information created and maintained in a computer system. If all money becomes digital then it may even give rise to negative interest rates. Or at least that's the dream endgame of Deep State's bankers, nightmare for rest of us because our money kept with banks would go on reducing rather than increasing.
So now you see how starting with basic clan or group and its leader, civilization has grown into sophisticated kingdom of a monarch in quest for maintaining leadership and becoming wealthier. It's all about power over others and getting wealthy, through a sophisticated combination of military, religion and banking. In this 'kingdom' model the military protects and physically controls subjects and resources and also protects religion and banking. Religion exerts control on the thoughts as well as actions of the subjects and carves out a minor group of bankers that can lend with usury. Banking further controls economic activity of the subjects and shapes the civilization as the monarch wants. Thus there is a trinity of military, religion and banking through which the monarch rules. This is the secret of the (((three brackets))) some (((globalists))) put around their name on social media. They are servants of a hidden, almost global empire which we call Deep State. The agenda of Deep State is same as that of a visible leader or monarch - to gain wealth from other people's work upon captured resources with available knowledge and to grow all three resources, knowledge, wealth. A trinity of Military, Religion and Banking to capture wealth produced by trinity of surplus resources, work and knowledge. To summarize:
- Military: Physical control (resources).
- Religion: Mind control (knowledge).
- Banking : Economic activity control (work).
As indicated in brackets, these three are close analogues of resources, knowledge & work control which is needed for wealth.
In modern world, religion is not so prominent in setting the rules or being a repository of knowledge. Governments, typically legitimized by 'democracy' & 'Constitution' set rules about central bank and other banks that are allowed. It is said that the olden era Court Jews, particularly Rothschild have a large stake in many central banks and other banks. Let me know if this is factually incorrect. Or if it is true, let me know your sources. In modern world religion is also not the primary institution where knowledge is stored. It is the domain of libraries, universities, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, online or offline archives, etc. Further, if Deep State has its way, mind reading and mind control may become more direct with psychotronic weapons, computational abilities, psychiatric medicines, brain-reading/controlling implants etc technologies that have been researched by deep state (knowledge itself resulting in mind control).
So we started with how groups or individuals indulge in actions like war, genocide, slavery, knowledge & skills building, science & technology development, trade, colonization, etc everything in pursuit of wealth. We ended with how monarchs of kingdoms strategically lead their people in all of these by combination of military might, religion and banking.
Such ideas of ruling cannot remain isolated or insulated within a clan or kingdom. If one kingdom flourishes, others would also copy such ideas. They would do it not just for wealth but also to save their own group from attack by mightier group. A competition gets set up among nearby kingdoms. The leaders/monarchs of these kingdoms know it's all about power and wealth through control of resources, knowledge and work, of own subjects as well as others by trade and war.
However common people even on the side of conquerors don't necessarily understand this game of conquest its relationship with wealth. Common people dislike violence and death. They will likely be against violence and death even if they realize their own current well-being is a result of violence and death by their earlier generation or current military prowess. Further it is also dangerous for leader of the conquerors to tell people how exactly the conquests are tied to wealth, because in that case the people may revolt against the leader itself who is the biggest (and perhaps unjust) beneficiary of the wealth plundered by sweat and blood of the civilians and soldiers. So the leaders instill the will or desire to fight by other means.
The easiest way to do this is to make your own people believe they are a 'superior race'. Tell them they are flourishing, have a better standard of living, are more 'civilized', and have 'higher ideals' all because of their 'better genes'. Portray other people as violent inferior barbarian races with primitive way of life who are a threat to your your life and to your 'ideals' and civilized way of life. If you have a keen sense of irony and historical context you will realize that this situation is more often than not precisely the result of more 'civilized' people attacking the others barbarically, depleting their numbers, taking their resources and wealth, and destroying their knowledge and standard of living. Because of this yes they actually live more primitive lifestyle and may also be trying to attack to take back some of their stolen wealth or just as a sort of payback or revenge.
But most people will not sense this irony and will wholly swallow this narrative of 'inherent' superiority vs barbarism, hook line and sinker! People like to feel 'inherently superior' that too when circumstantial reality also seems to match that narrative. So you have transformed reluctant non-violent civilians into willing enthusiastic fighters who kill and plunder for 'self-defense' and 'higher ideals', instead of realizing that the are fighting because the leader wants enemy's resources, wealth, slave labour and perhaps stored knowledge too. Of course sometimes some of them may have a passing epiphany like the below movie clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU But it's just in the passing and hardly spreads to more people.
What we have just described is how racism was invented for the sake of violent quest for wealth. It is not born out of some natural animosity from genetic differences. We have seen that genocide and slavery were invented for the quest of wealth and to facilitate those atrocities, racism got encouraged. Racist people happily kill and enslave other humans. That improves their wealth while makes others impoverished, miserable and perhaps vindictive. That makes them feel even more superior and racist. Racism feeds conquest and conquest feeds racism. A vicious circle. A happy vicious circle for the leader of these racist fools, who just wants to conquer and subjugate more and more resources and people with their help.
Of course racism works best when the fighting groups look a lot different physically. So typically leaders like to lead a more homogeneous 'race' group against another homogeneous 'race' group. Most present day European monarchies are from Germanic ruling families who have understood the principles of ruling, organizing people and conquest, all for wealth of course. They picked the European white populations to lead, particularly because they also look closer to them. But it could have been any other group and then we would have some other 'supremacy' instead of 'white supremacy'. And now that the monarchies pretend not to run the show, there seem plans to damage white people too the same way as they do to other people.
When the fighting groups are too similar in looks and other directly perceived characteristics, racism trick does not work so well. So other tricks get invented such as religion, language, nationalism, some ideology, etc. But basically the leader wants the people willing to attack 'other' people so that the leader becomes wealthier. 'Otherisation' is the name of the game. Divide and Rule is the name of the game. Wealth and power is the aim of the game.
Own or other people or groups would agree to work for the conquering monarch if they themselves lack resources, or ability to protect resources, or knowledge to convert resources into wealth or they value something else being provided for the work. This resulted in work economy. By such combination of conquest and work economy wealth and power concentrated in hands of a few, who gradually became rulers of kingdoms and empires. Of course other than a ruler capturing resources from rival rulers, ruler also sits on resources of own territory and makes people work for survival. Too much exploitation would be a cause of resentment and internal revolt. Either to avoid resentment, or as a result of revolt, humans also had democracies or republics, where in theory people rule, people have a say on how administration and economy is run, how resources are used, etc and thus people are not exploited and prosper more.
But where would it end? Even if some rulers or democracies are pacifist, happily ruling over and profiting from their own territory, other rulers would still like to get more and more wealthy and powerful by controlling more and more resources and people. So rulers would keep conquering territories of other rulers or eliminating other rulers altogether, capturing their populations, resources, knowledge and existing wealth. Logically it would only end if one ruler has captured all resources and people. But even that's not necessarily the end of the story. Conquered people may resent new ruler merely out of loyalty to the previous one, or because of deaths and destruction during conquest or because the new ruler is more exploitative than the previous one. Even if the rule of such 'One World Government' is not initially too exploitative or torturous it could become so over the years or over successive generations of rulers, thus risking revolts of the future. Also some of the vanquished rulers or their bloodlines may try to rise again using their old loyals as well as general disgruntled population.
So what should the final moves of global domination look like? First, consider that your family ruling any part of the world same as you ruling, as long as they agree to be subservient to you. "It's all in the family." To make this a reality, set your own bloodline to rule various parts of the world by conquest as well as marriage alliances, over generations.
Of course in some parts of the world people may be racially too different and not find such ruler acceptable. There you make the local ruler obey you by carrot and stick principle. It's probably better this way having subservient relatives and other rulers rather than singlehandedly ruling the world. It's easier delegation of administration and just in case people suspect world is ruled by just one person, they have many answers to choose from not just one possible definite answer.
Next, go into hiding or at least go out of visible limelight as rulers and pretend to be weak while ruling and conquering the world by covert methods. At one level this can be done by giving people 'democracy' and use various tricks to put your own puppets to rule. Then use these puppets to exploit the people as well as to conquer more territories while you stay hidden. In case of resentment among people, replace the puppets, or come to 'save' the people from the puppets such that they welcome you as the new ruler. So this can be a positive way of conquest where conquered people welcome you rather than resent you. But mainly because you only gave them bad puppet rulers earlier. A dirty trick.
But this is suitable only for intermediate conquests because if the final conquest is also done this way there is still a visible conqueror and ruler that people can later revolt against or try to defeat. For final conquest ideally there should be no visible conqueror. Stay hidden and use very stealthy weapons that can be attributed to natural or supernatural phenomenon. You need not actually hide, as long as you can cover your tracks or create enough disinformation propaganda that nobody knows it is you who is doing this. Once the full global conquest is complete, you can let puppet regimes to continue to rule while you stay hidden, or even better create a tech dystopia where artificial intelligence or technologically enhanced transhumans or maybe even more fantastically some 'space aliens' seem to dictatorially rule like the big bad boss while you stay hidden.
By keeping the Empire hidden at the final conquest you gain many benefits. First, you face no opposition from your own citizens or subjects about your aggression because they simply do not know. Further, after your global conquest is complete your Empire is much more stable if it is hidden, because the exploited people of the world do not truly know whose tyranny to revolt against. Any popular revolt or uprising will be against your visible puppet rulers. Even any rising enemy who wants to bring your Empire's downfall or to usurp it partly or wholly doesn't know where to really strike, and will likely again attack some puppet ruler.
So not only are you and your Empire actually safe from your subjects as well as enemies, but you profit from such skirmishes. Disorder, violence, death and destruction are profitable for the Empire as we will see in many later articles. Further, as you are hidden and hence immune from people's wrath, you can maximize your power and profits by exploiting populations up to their breaking limits, or even killing them with impunity if you no longer need them. Another aspect is that power and wealth of Empire's boss increases maximum by war, not by peaceful economic activity. You can't have wars if you run a visible global Empire because parts of the Empire attacking other parts of same Empire would be absurd. At best a visible Empire can have internal crimes and clashes between various sorts of groups or communities. But if your Empire is hidden, your puppet leaders who rule different parts of it can be forced to be enemies going to fake wars with each other. The fake wars and their outcomes are fixed, but the deaths, the overconsumption profits and the rebuilding profits are real and common people stay fooled that wars and threats are real and thus stay far away from imagining that these are fake wars between parts of a hidden single Empire.
So to summarize, old monarchies under leadership of a dominant monarchy transformed them into a Deep State because
- When you try to ensure survival and build wealth, it automatically results in hierarchies and ultimately forms kingdoms and empires.
- In a game of kingdoms and empires, the endgame is a single global empire.
- The stability of such an empire is greatest when hardly anyone suspects it exists.
- The power and profits of such an empire are also greatest when it can control and exploit secretly.
- when the empire is secret, parts of it can go to war with each other for maximizing profits from trade of military weapons and overconsumption.
That's why the surviving monarchies, under leadership of the top bully monarchy pretended to fold up their visible empires and transformed themselves into a hidden 'occult' Deep State.
Before we finish this topic, let me make a remark because the word 'occult' has come up. You will hear this word a lot in conjunction with Deep State and various 'Secret Societies' and 'Cults' it operates through and it may give a sense of supernatural or metaphysical, but the word basically means 'secret'. What seems like supernatural or metaphysics is just some secret phenomenon of nature or physics which they use, not known in wider circles. Or some secret conspiracy which produces results nobody expected. Or controlling politicians of the world secretly by secret carrot and sticks, and so on.
Now that we understand why there is a global Deep State, let's understand what such Deep State wants to do with us. We spoke of Thanos and Windsors wanting to reduce human population. I also say Windsors are the ruling monarchy of Deep State. How much do they want to reduce human population? If we go by Thanos, then half the humans will be gone. If we go by Georgia Guidestones, global population will be reduced to and maintained at only 500 million people. Why do they want to reduce human population so much? Because their use for us is nearly over. You need a large population of military, scientists and technology experts if you want to conquer the world. To support these people you need even more people, for example to do their laundry, cook their food, make their clothes, shoes, house, furniture and so on. So until the whole earth gets conquered, Deep State needs a lot of people. But once the whole world is conquered these people have no use left so Deep State would kill this lot without any regrets. If they are left alive, they have a claim on resources and in future they might even revolt. Deep State needs smaller military and supporting populations not only because the global conquest is nearly complete but also because they now have big weapons that can destroy all life on earth or destroy earth itself. So now that we know why Deep State exists and what plans it has for us in the endgame, we must all unite against the occult Deep State of Thanos Windsor for our own sake.