How is our world going to be re-shaped and why? The industrial revolution

[Emma Robertson]

As I announced in my first post:

https://postflaviana.org/community/...-1-the-futurist-apocalypse-is-now.2022/page-9

I have some important insights to share (or at least they so appear to me at the moment), that basically I haven't found mentioned by anybody.

To understand what is going to happen and why, we need to go back in history about 3 centuries, in what appear to be the crucial century when the decision to stage an "end of the world" was taken: the 18th century.

I am not an historian and this research would greatly benefit from the help of some good independent historian.

Anyway, I have a degree in Economics, which helps, and I'll share my own understanding so far:

the change we are being forced and manipulated to undergo does not look like a periodical programmed change towards a more desiderable outcome for the elite.

It rather seems born as a reaction by the governing elite to something that was happening in the 18th century, outside their control: the industrial revolution.

If the industrial revolution had not occurred, probably we would still be "happily" living in the feudal system, that is the elite would still be happily letting the feudal system work forever and ever, without the need of an "end of the world" action, including all what has happened in the last three centuries and what is about to happen.

Before the industrial revolution took place, which triggered all sorts of revolutions as a negative reaction, not as a positive consequence, as we will see, the Western world was dominated by the Church and by the noble landowners (or land borrowers, as all land belonged to the Church).

As you know these classes lived on heavy taxation upon the lower classes, and on donations to the Church, a highly manipulative and highly remunerative business.

It was the same as the old Roman Empire, with the addition of donations. The "profit system" was based on conquering other countries and inflict a heavy taxation on the conquered people. So the elite class employed some nobles also as military high officials.

During the feudal time, conquers were called "spreading of the gospel to bring salvation to the conquered people".

The lower classes included: the serf (basically slaves working the land), the merchants (selling goods), the artisans (producing handmade goods), the money-lenders (only Jews, allowed by the Church, as Jews were not allowed to own land or do other activities, and money-lending was something forbidden to Christians), the soldiers, lower monks, nuns, priests.

The Roman elite (and so the Church afterwards) did not like commerce. They did not need it as a form of earning, they had other means as we have just seen. That's why merchants were a lower, and much less rich, class. And so artisans and money-lenders as well. The first money-lenders were payed in kind, just to make a living, far from the idea we have today of Jews as loan sharks that our minds have been shaped to believe.

Factories did not exist: in the textile sector, one of the first, if not the first to be transformed, manpower worked on commission in their homes and the merchants passed to collect the manufacts to sell.

It was some of these home workers who started to implement changes to their machines so that they could be automatized. An invention followed the other, small changes building on each other, as we can read in this article:

Into the dark, satanic mills

Why this happened in 18th century in England? They say because of a confluence of positive factors: the lack of wars, period of peace, and the great abundance of cotton coming from the American colonies.

So the first factories were built and started to produce in greater and greater quantities, reducing the cost of textiles because of scale economies. The lower classes could begin to buy products that before they could not afford, reserved to rich people.

If you are quite intuitive you can start to guess what kind of reaction this fact triggered in the ruling elite and what plan they devised.

If not you can follow me in my next posts

They started by calling the new factories "the dark satanic mills", as you can read in the article above, which I repost here:

Into the dark, satanic mills

 

[Emma Robertson]

Actually the article above does not explain why factories were called "dark satanic mills".

The answer is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_did_those_feet_in_ancient_time

It's thank to William Blake and the poem he wrote:

‘And did those feet in ancient time’ is a poem by William Blake The date of 1804 on the title page is probably when the plates were begun, but the poem was printed c. 1808.[1] Today it is best known as the hymn "Jerusalem".

The poem was inspired by the apocryphal story that a young Jesus, accompanied by Joseph of Arimathea, a tin merchant, travelled to what is now England and visited Glastonbury during his unknown years.[2][3] The poem's theme is linked to the Book of Revelation (3:12and 21:2) describing a Second Coming, wherein Jesus establishes a New Jerusalem. Churches in general, and the Church of Englandin particular, have long used Jerusalem as a metaphor for Heaven, a place of universal love and peace.[a]

In the most common interpretation of the poem, Blake implies that a visit by Jesus would briefly create heaven in England, in contrast to the "dark Satanic Mills" of the Industrial Revolution. Blake's poem asks four questions rather than asserting the historical truth of Christ's visit. Thus the poem merely implies that there may have been a divine visit, when there was briefly heaven in England.[4][5]

Blake's poem

And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold:
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green & pleasant Land.


Emma: So Blake was pissed off at the new factories. There was one a short distance from his home, and had a sad fate:


Wikipedia:

"The phrase "dark Satanic Mills", which entered the English language from this poem, is often interpreted as referring to the early Industrial Revolution and its destruction of nature and human relationships.[8] This view has been linked to the fate of the Albion Flour Mills in Southwark, the first major factory in London. This rotary steam-powered flour mill by Matthew Boulton and James Watt could produce 6,000 bushels of flour per week.

The factory could have driven independent traditional millers out of business, but it was destroyed in 1791 by fire, perhaps deliberately. London's independent millers celebrated with placards reading, "Success to the mills of Albion but no Albion Mills."[9] Opponents referred to the factory as satanic, and accused its owners of adulterating flour and using cheap imports at the expense of British producers. A contemporary illustration of the fire shows a devil squatting on the building.[10] The mills were a short distance from Blake's home.

Blake's phrase resonates with a broader theme in his works, what he envisioned as a physically and spiritually repressive ideology based on a quantified reality. Blake saw the cotton mills and collieries of the period as a mechanism for the enslavement of millions, but the concepts underpinning the works had a wider application:[11][12]

Revolution
Several of Blake's poems and paintings express a notion of universal humanity: "As all men are alike (tho' infinitely various)". He retained an active interest in social and political events for all his life, but was often forced to resort to cloaking social idealism and political statements in Protestant mystical allegory. Even though the poem was written during the Napoleonic Wars, Blake was an outspoken supporter of the French Revolution, and Napoleon claimed to be continuing this revolution.[21] The poem is followed in the preface by a quotation from Numbers ch. 11, v. 29: "Would to God that all the Lords people were prophets." Christopher Rowland has argued that this includes

"everyone in the task of speaking out about what they saw. Prophecy for Blake, however, was not a prediction of the end of the world, but telling the truth as best a person can about what he or she sees, fortified by insight and an "honest persuasion" that with personal struggle, things could be improved. A human being observes, is indignant and speaks out: it's a basic political maxim which is necessary for any age. Blake wanted to stir people from their intellectual slumbers, and the daily grind of their toil, to see that they were captivated in the grip of a culture which kept them thinking in ways which served the interests of the powerful.[23]
The words of the poem "stress the importance of people taking responsibility for change and building a better society 'in Englands green and pleasant land.'"[23]


Emma:

Here you have it. In those few Wikipedia's paragraphs about William Blake you have a condensation of the elite strategic reaction to the industrial revolution and the future re-shaping of this world. I have highlighted the strategic points in bold. Other strategic actions are missing but I will mention them in other posts.

1) burning factories (boicot)

2) create a workers organization against the new factories, calling the organization independent, while hiding behind them as the authors of the fires.

3) spread false myths that the new factories are using adulterating ingrediends and other negative practices

4) spread the false idea that the owners of the factories are going to enslave mankind and that it is necessary a revolution against them to build a better society, which implies without the factories.

One thing that strikes immediately as a contrast about Blake is that he is a conservative British man but also an outspoken supporter of the French Revolution.

This contrast is another unmistakable element in my eyes that he was working for the boicot of the industrial revolution in full scale. Why? Because the French Revolution is another strategy to boicot the industrial revolution, as we will see.

 

[Richard Stanley]

To understand what is going to happen and why, we need to go back in history about 3 centuries, in what appear to be the crucial century when the decision to stage an "end of the world" was taken: the 18th century.

If the industrial revolution had not occurred, probably we would still be "happily" living in the feudal system, that is the elite would still be happily letting the feudal system work forever and ever, without the need of an "end of the world" action, including all what has happened in the last three centuries and what is about to happen.

What then to make of the Jesuit construction of a Futurist Second Coming (simultaneous to their Preterist Second Coming)? What then to make of the massive globalism built into both the OT and NT canons? Why make claims to take possession of the entire Earth if there is no plan to do so, simply waiting for factories to arise by happenstance, from the bottom up?

From Wikipedia:
Churches in general, and the Church of England in particular, have long used Jerusalem as a metaphor for Heaven, a place of universal love and peace.[a]

The Della Rovere popes, Sextus VII and Julius II, were Franciscans, and under their aegis the Sistine Chapel was built ... to replicate the Jerusalem Temple, which was thought to be an Earthly microcosm of the cosmos. One of them even rode a donkey to the first celebration of Passion events there, symbolizing Jesus entering the Temple.

These popes also divided the New World domains between the Spaniards and the Portuguese. All of which I see as a cyclical pattern embedded into the Western system, which we have termed the Conquest, Colonialization, Consolidation, and Schism (CCCS) Model. And thus a rationale for millenialism, also embedded into Revelation.

https://postflaviana.org/community/...ival-space-jesus-anyone.1847/page-2#post-6883
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/dueling-michelangelo-codes.2009/#post-7239

 

[Emma Robertson]

What then to make of the Jesuit construction of a Futurist Second Coming (simultaneous to their Preterist Second Coming)? What then to make of the massive globalism built into both the OT and NT canons?

When is the Futurist Second Coming construction spread? Is it not a coincidence that:

Two Catholic Jesuit writers, Manuel Lacunza (1731-1801) and Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), proposed the futurist view. Lacunza wrote under the pen name "Ben-Ezra", and his work was banned by the Catholic Church. It[clarification needed] has grown in popularity in the 19th and 20th centuries, so that today it is probably the most readily recognized.[3 (Wikipedia).

Ribeira is a bit earlier than the industrial revolution of the 18th century, but there could be other reasons why he came forward with his theory and the theory could have been taken again by Lacunza as part of the plan to counterract the industrial revolution. It's a big plan, that I have just begun to expose, so it might not be still evident why they planned the second coming of Jesus to counterract it.

Why make claims to take possession of the entire Earth if there is no plan to do so, simply waiting for factories to arise by happenstance, from the bottom up?

Waiting for factories to arise by happenstance? If factories had not been invented yet how could they know about factories?

The Flavians had their own tried and tested and working system to proceed with the conquest of the world, that I reminded at the beginning:

conquering other countries with armies and then spread the gospel. That was their system. It was not something that belonged to them to start a global scale producing-selling system to make profit, as they did not like commerce, they considered themselves superior to that, they were nobles, they did not work, they were good at fighting and conquering, making laws, and inventing religions to exploit with taxes and donations the poor people.

Who is claiming to take possession of the entire Earth? Satan. That is part of the plan to counterract the industrial revolution, that I'll better explain little by little.

 

[Jerry Russell]

What then to make of the massive globalism built into both the OT and NT canons? Why make claims to take possession of the entire Earth if there is no plan to do so, simply waiting for factories to arise by happenstance, from the bottom up?

Perhaps the Egyptian Pharaohs initially envisioned this ideal of taking possession of the entire Earth, long before it was even possible to detail out a concrete, actionable short-term plan to do so. Perhaps they enjoyed the process of expansion, and the grandeur of the imagined future triumph, more so than they hoped they would ever actually achieve this objective. Perhaps they had no idea how many millennial cycles would be required, before the goal was achieved.

The Romans, for the most part, believed that they had conquered all of the globe that mattered. They didn't care about a few barbaric northern tribes, nor about the vast expanse of southern Africa. They probably didn't even know that the Americas existed.

Who is claiming to take possession of the entire Earth? Satan. That is part of the plan to counterract the industrial revolution, that I'll better explain little by little.

In the New Testament, both Satan and Jesus claim to take possession of the entire Earth, trading off on a thousand-year basis. Or do we share that understanding?

As to the reaction of the feudal elites to the Industrial Revolution, I would not be surprised if there were factions. Perhaps some nobles and royals embraced commerce and the industrial revolution, while others opposed it as Emma says.

Emma: would you agree that in the long run, the elites that embraced the Industrial Revolution are the ones that prospered, and became the elites of today?

 

[Richard Stanley]

Waiting for factories to arise by happenstance? If factories had not been invented yet how could they know about factories? The Flavians had their own tried and tested and working system to proceed with the conquest of the world, that I reminded at the beginning:

conquering other countries with armies and then spread the gospel. That was their system.

OK. When I read your argument about the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution I didn't place it in your wider context. My bad.

Ironically, it does fit in with my notion of the printing press and the effect that this had it conditioning the minds (cultural engineering) of the previously illiterate that they could be a new Chosen People, the religious wars helping motivate them to immigrate to the new Promised Lands.

And yes, factories for a long time where nightmarish places to work, so the analogy to a Satanic Mill does indeed seem apropos. In any case, I've been in a lot of factories (and laboratories) and they aren't all so today. But the early factories employed such as serfs who had left their lords' estates, and their new employers didn't think much differently about them being expendable chattel.

It was not something that belonged to them to start a global scale producing-selling system to make profit, as they did not like commerce, they considered themselves superior to that, they were nobles, they did not work, they were good at fighting and conquering, making laws, and inventing religions to exploit with taxes and donations the poor people.

Yes, Jerry's reservations aside, this is generally correct. Traditional Monarchists have a deep disdain for modernity and the relative chaos induced into their previous comfortable ways.

When is the Futurist Second Coming construction spread? Is it not a coincidence that:

Two Catholic Jesuit writers, Manuel Lacunza (1731-1801) and Francisco Ribera (1537-1591)

Yes, again. My purpose in bringing up those examples was to point out that such eschatology was already in existence (based upon my failure to fully grok what you were pointing to).

Perhaps the Egyptian Pharaohs initially envisioned this ideal of taking possession of the entire Earth, long before it was even possible to detail out a concrete, actionable short-term plan to do so.

It may be that 'those' Egyptian kings didn't originate the idea, but that some cuckolding shepherd-kings entered their polity (and the Mesopotamians') and put them up to it? Like DeVere says.

I'm sure its possible that the Late Bronze Age civilizations all collapsed spontaneously, from a 'Perfect Black Swan Storm' of natural calamities, and that its timing coming after the Amarna business is purely coincidental. That Akhenaton and his dad set up a synthetic monotheistic dialectic to the religion of Amun then becomes synthetically replicated in Egypt's immediate northern buffer region (Canaan) is also possible coincidence. But I'm not going to say that.

If you want to claim that memes, embedded into these religions, play a role I'm fine with that. But the memes are created and protected by certain people, and the more I look the more I'm convinced that the genes generally perpetuate themselves.

Perhaps they enjoyed the process of expansion, and the grandeur of the imagined future triumph, more so than they hoped they would ever actually achieve this objective. Perhaps they had no idea how many millennial cycles would be required, before the goal was achieved.

Meaning what?

The Romans, for the most part, believed that they had conquered all of the globe that mattered. They didn't care about a few barbaric northern tribes, nor about the vast expanse of southern Africa. They probably didn't even know that the Americas existed.

Your first assertion precludes that maybe some Romans, at least, understood that they had logistical limitations on their contemporaneous ability to project themselves. This was the general case with Augustus, and one reason that the term Pax Romana came about, i.e. they were in a relatively dormant consolidation phase.

This applies to your second assertion as well. If they didn't care about a few barbaric northern tribes then why spend so much effort there, including making alliance marriages. And eventually succeeding (wildly) in Romanizing Europe and beyond. They stopped at the Rhine and Sahara because they didn't have enough elite Romans (aka Sabines). And when they pushed outwards again they did so towards the achievable East, to reach the Persian Gulf, and they even reached out to China.

As to whether they were aware of the Americas, that's debatable. They used to say that humans can't fly and that is true today, they need artificial wings. They used to say that the ancients (before Christianity) thought the Earth was flat, but today we know this is wrong.

 

[Jerry Russell]

It may be that 'those' Egyptian kings didn't originate the idea, but that some cuckolding shepherd-kings entered their polity (and the Mesopotamians') and put them up to it?

I'm not denying this, or any of the following LBA scenario that you're proposing. But if indeed such a cuckolding took place, then wouldn't the two strains of kings have thoroughly interbred by now?

Meaning what?

In general, I was supporting Emma's view that feudal elites were not highly motivated to replace the old agrarian regime with a new industrial one, and that the industrial revolution originated as an externality or unforeseen event as far as they were concerned.

Your first assertion precludes that maybe some Romans, at least, understood that they had logistical limitations on their contemporaneous ability to project themselves.

I don't see that my first assertion conflicts with this at all. Of course they had logistical limitations, and understood them.

They stopped at the Rhine and Sahara because they didn't have enough elite Romans (aka Sabines). And when they pushed outwards again they did so towards the achievable East, to reach the Persian Gulf, and they even reached out to China.

So we are agreed that they stopped territorial expansion at the Rhine and Sahara? They may have reached out towards China, but made little if any progress there. And these failures didn't prevent the Romans (or at least some of them) from considering themselves a world empire.

As to whether they were aware of the Americas, that's debatable.

I'm aware of some debatable evidence that Romans and/or other ancient peoples left artifacts in America, implying that some pioneers found their way to America. I don't know of any evidence at all, that any of those pioneers were able to return to Rome to tell their stories.

 

[Jerry Russell]

To understand what is going to happen and why, we need to go back in history about 3 centuries, in what appear to be the crucial century when the decision to stage an "end of the world" was taken: the 18th century.

One of our long-running debates here is whether this "end of the world" scenario is merely being "staged", or whether it is an actual apocalyptic extinction event which has gotten way beyond anyone's control, even the elites who are idiotically planning to survive armageddon in their bunkers.

I myself am a neo-Malthusian pessimist, of course; and I don't really expect to survive in my bunker for more than a few months longer than anybody else.

It does seem likely that the unfolding of the planetary catastrophe is being accompanied by a resurgence of fascism.

I ran across this beautifully written article this morning, making a case that the rise of fascism is an inevitable consequence of the collapse of industrial capitalism. The author is obviously channeling Claude Badley. And Emma as well, in making a case that the catastrophe has been pre-ordained since the 18th century.

https://abeautifulresistance.org/site/2019/2/28/jthe-future-is-fascist

THE FUTURE IS FASCIST by Rhyd Wildermuth​

​

The abrupt appearance of fascist, ultranationalist, racial separatist, and authoritarian movements throughout the world in the last five years—and their success in coming to power through “democratic” electoral processes—is truly terrifying. At no time since the 1930’s have we seen not only a comfort but a deep lust for authoritarianism in so many people: closed borders, immigration raids, direct and brutal violence against political opposition, flagrant displays of racism and male chauvinism, popular referendums towards national separatism, and an almost jubilant erosion and revocation of civil protections for minorities.​

​

[ ...]​

​

Fascism—by which I also mean authoritarianism—is a way of managing civilizations during emergencies. Laws against dissent or political opposition during war time, for example, are justified as necessary because the very existence of the government is under threat from foreign powers (real, or as in the cast of the “wars against terrorism,” mostly manufactured and imaginary). During both World Wars, the United States (and all other major governments involved in the war) implemented increased surveillance, incarcerated or interned entire people groups, and harshly prosecuted property crimes and other offenses by the poor. Similarly in the last two decades, authoritarian power-grabs in response to “terrorism” such as the Patriot Act in the United States were used to prosecute environmentalists, war-dissenters, and civil-rights activists, a practice that continues up to the present day.​

​

So if this increasing trend towards authoritarianism throughout the world is a reaction to an emergency, we must ask ourselves what that emergency is. Here we need to drop all pretenses that our Liberal Democracies are marching towards some utopian future of equality, or that there is any real progress being made to better our material conditions. Instead, we are forced to look at those very material conditions themselves and realize that they actually cannot get better.​

​

Several hundred years ago, the way most humans had lived (relatively unchanged for thousands of years) shifted abruptly with the birth of factories and the exploitation of coal and oil. This led to explosions in population growth accompanied by massive deforestation, desertification, and most of all an exponential growth in carbon dioxide expelled into the air. All of this was seen as “progress,” the factory was the future, and because the earth on which we live possesses a deep resiliency, few of the effects this destruction caused became evident until last century.​

​

No one should be surprised that the modern-nation state and the birth of surveillance and policing technologies also occurred at the exact same time. Such an explosion of economic and population growth required new strategies for maintaining power against the poor, especially since they were promised liberation through the illusions of democracy.​

​

But here we are now, having reached the limits of earth’s resiliency and the resources used to build our civilizations—especially oil. There are no other easily-available energy sources to maintain—let alone expand—modern society, and anyways the time to have transitioned to more sustainable methods was several decades ago. So now every people group in the world sees the certainty of impending scarcity and in some cases genocide through starvation, flooding, drought, or war.​

 

[Emma Robertson]

And yes, factories for a long time where nightmarish places to work, so the analogy to a Satanic Mill does indeed seem apropos. In any case, I've been in a lot of factories (and laboratories) and they aren't all so today. But the early factories employed such as serfs who had left their lords' estates, and their new employers didn't think much differently about them being expendable chattel.

I don't deny that. The time was what it was and there was not yet a mentality in defence of workers' rights. We cannot expect that the new entrepreneurs behaved differently from agrarian nobility.

Yet a question arises: why during all the serfdom time (feudal time) and before for centuries and centuries, no organization of workers existed to defend their rights and improve their working conditions? Instead these organizations grew strong and loud in opposition to industrial entrepreneurs?

My point is that one of the ways the ruling agrarian elite used to sabotage the industrial revolution was exactly to create unions. By doing that they fueled workers insatisfaction and demand for better working conditions.

At the exact opposite, when Constantine in the 4th century AD decreed that peasants owners of the land they worked be transformed in serfs (peasants destined to work the land of their lord all their life and from father to son), the Christian religion was used to convince them it was God's will that their status was changed, becoming worse, their duty to serve their lord, and nobody arised against that.

By growing workers ostility towards capitalism they are going to easierly achieving its burial. Many people have been brainwashed to wish the collapse of capitalism, the collapse of the old paradigm, and to embrace a life of poverty, but happy, back in nature.

 

[Emma Robertson]

In the New Testament, both Satan and Jesus claim to take possession of the entire Earth, trading off on a thousand-year basis. Or do we share that understanding?

Yes, we agree. Something that should make believers think: how can they trade control of the Earth? Are we puppets in their hands? When I believed in Jesus and was trying to understand what was true from what was not true in the bible, one thing hard to accept was that God had thrown Satan on Earth to tempt us. As if life wouldn' have been hard enough without that.

 

[Emma Robertson]

Emma: would you agree that in the long run, the elites that embraced the Industrial Revolution are the ones that prospered, and became the elites of today?

I do. Anyway I also believe that the new elites are the old elite. That is another point of my thesis that I was about to expose.

Most probably the agrarian elite (Church and nobility) first tried to boicot the new factories as we have seen: burning them, raising people against them by spreading false rumors and highlighting their negative aspects, scaring people that the new entrepreneurs would enslave them.

When they saw that that was not enough to stop the industrial revolution they hopped on top of the horse and rode it, or on top of the Ferrari and drove it, but with the final end to make it crash against a wall, or against the people themselves, which is what is about to happen.

They could not certainly allow that the new entrepreneurs got rich and powerful, becoming a threat to their long established power. The exponential growth of the population was another problem for them caused by the industrial revolution. And maybe the wellbeing produced by it would have made it harder to keep people faithful to the Church, as they would feel less a need for comfort and hope in a future paradise, this way also dropping donations.

So I guess they went on to "buy" the new entrepreneurs and also the new banks. They no doubt control the economic and financial world today. It's long past the time when the Jews were the only bankers. When the Jews started to become rich, the holocaust of World War II was planned, to seize their money and belongings and take over their banks, besides killing them.

The Jew Rothschilds, portrayed today as one of the top families of the conspiracy to conquer the world, and portrayed as owners of half if not all Israel, are no longer among the richest families, many of their belonging also seized during the holocaust, and certainly not allowed to grow again. They are still rich, but much less than the richest families and organizations.

 

[Jerry Russell]

The Jew Rothschilds, portrayed today as one of the top families of the conspiracy to conquer the world, and portrayed as owners of half if not all Israel, are no longer among the richest families, many of their belonging also seized during the holocaust, and certainly not allowed to grow again. They are still rich, but much less than the richest families and organizations.

Thank you so much for saying that. I think the facts are clear, that the Rothschilds have been eclipsed since their heyday.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Waiting for factories to arise by happenstance? If factories had not been invented yet how could they know about factories?

The Flavians had their own tried and tested and working system to proceed with the conquest of the world, that I reminded at the beginning:

One might argue that such elite forces, for the reasons you have discussed, wittingly held back innovations that might generally be foreseen, given the relatively advanced state of Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Mesopotamian engineering feats of their day. Hence the destruction of libraries and that which brought about the Dark Ages (which I know are debated). And the irony that is was via Islamic society, in the main, that Science was restored to the West.

Such thinking as in the mind of Da Vinci before the IR seems destined to lead to such as the IR. As such, it seems debatable as to what might be projected as possible. The Chinese had invented rapid-fire crossbows before this time.

the change we are being forced and manipulated to undergo does not look like a periodical programmed change towards a more desiderable outcome for the elite.

It rather seems born as a reaction by the governing elite to something that was happening in the 18th century, outside their control: the industrial revolution.

There are various places in Europe, such as Scotland, where the nobles took to pushing the common man off the land, because these nobles decided there were more profitable returns to be made than via feudal agriculture.

If "necessity is the mother of invention" then perhaps the IR was inevitable from the desire to optimize returns from the prior conquests of the New World. What is one going to do with all that raw cotton coming in. Colonies were forbidden to manufacture certain things like various tools. All so that manufacturing could be a domestic profit center.

The lower classes included: the serf (basically slaves working the land), the merchants (selling goods), the artisans (producing handmade goods), the money-lenders (only Jews, allowed by the Church, as Jews were not allowed to own land or do other activities, and money-lending was something forbidden to Christians), the soldiers, lower monks, nuns, priests.

Jews had other occupations the Church allowed to them besides banking, which they took over from such as the Templars (who did international banking). As such, they were allowed to be merchants, especially when involving foreign trade, given their wide distribution in the world.

The Roman elite (and so the Church afterwards) did not like commerce. They did not need it as a form of earning, they had other means as we have just seen. That's why merchants were a lower, and much less rich, class. And so artisans and money-lenders as well. The first money-lenders were payed in kind, just to make a living, far from the idea we have today of Jews as loan sharks that our minds have been shaped to believe.

The Medici were famous merchants, later becoming bankers, popes, and royals. Of course, you can say that because they were so involved with the Renaissance that they were thus exceptions. But whatever the case, perhaps they drove a form of tit-for-tat escalation of competition among royal and noble houses, leading to pressures to 'innovate'?

 

[Emma Robertson]

The Medici were famous merchants, later becoming bankers, popes, and royals. Of course, you can say that because they were so involved with the Renaissance that they were thus exceptions.

After reading The Medici history what seems reaffirmed to me is that merchants were seeking power too through the classical institutions of feudal nobility (popes, royals, emperors etc.). That's why merchants were perceived as rivals by the nobles (but deadly rivalry was also within each class), unless the nobles received a good amount of money from them. The Medici could become popes and royals because their bank had grown the strongest in Europe and with that money they made strategically marry some sons and daughters to papal and royal families. After all, obtaining a noble title for a bourgeois was the biggest prize and necessary to consolidate power, even at the cost of buying it. And nobles, on their side, were not always full of money, so selling titles was a source of revenue.

The first Medici pope, Leo X: Leo X's fun-loving pontificate bankrupted Vatican coffers and accrued massive debts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Medici

If that is true, it tell us that the power of the Vatican went up and down.

And it may also tell us why the Reformation was concocted.

The dates are striking: Leo X lasted as a pope from 1513 until 1521, when he died (killed?) and the Reformation started in 1517.

So Leo was pope when the Reformation started.

The Church needed money and because of corruption, scandals and relaxed habits, it had lost its grip on faithful people. The Reformation was the system to bring back people to the Church, and money with it. Although on the surface Catholics and Protestants may appear opposed and in contrast, I believe they share the same financial budget: what Protestants earn goes to the Vatican coffers as well.

Exactly the same had been done with Saint Francis of Assisi earlier in 13th century, who was far from the saint the Church portrays. He deceived people pretending to be poor to receive donations, and became very popular among the masses. He was a curandero, a witch doctor who healed people and made spells for the abundance of crops. The Vatican, which was not as much loved because of its luxurious way of living and complicated rituals far from the agrarian mentality of people, seized the opportunity and established the Franciscan order of monks, followed by other mendicant orders based on the vote of poverty. Since then these orders have been a powerful way to raise money for the Church, through donations. Mother Theresa of Calcutta another fund-raiser for the Church and a big scam.

 

[Richard Stanley]

If that is true, it tell us that the power of the Vatican went up and down.

And it may also tell us why the Reformation was concocted.

On Mondays through Saturday, the Church is the pliable business and political corporation of the noble families descended (mostly) from the Sabines, Hasmoneans (the extended family of Josephus), and Herodians.

It is my theory that the Reformation's main purpose was to provide the visceral motivation (endless sectarian, religious wars) to the common man to emigrate from once comfortable settings to the various lands of the 'barbarians'. Such as the indulgences seem the perfect pretext for what Luther came to do. If one reads Luther's narrative on how all that came about it seems 'off', like a lame cover story.

Webster Tarpley recounted that a bishop of Venice was encouraging such as the Calvinists at the same time that he was sponsoring the formation of the Jesuits - to counter the Protestants. Later John Calvin turned the non-Trinitarian Michael Severtus over to the Inquisition to be burned at the stake. Calvin and Loyola knew each other as students at the Sorbonne, and interestingly, both their names were alias code names, much like the later Bavarian Illuminati used.

While I'm not so sure about the money flows as you suggest, I think the systems are otherwise well connected .. as controlled opposition. Same goes for Freemasonry, which is a mostly Protestant phenomenon (You should search for our link on Saussy's Rulers of Evil).

 

[Emma Robertson]

There are various places in Europe, such as Scotland, where the nobles took to pushing the common man off the land, because these nobles decided there were more profitable returns to be made than via feudal agriculture.

This confirms what Jerry said, that there were probably factions: nobles open to the Industrial Revolution and nobles who were not. With so many actors in play, reality is always more complex than what we try to outline.

But whatever the case, perhaps they drove a form of tit-for-tat escalation of competition among royal and noble houses, leading to pressures to 'innovate'?

It's hard to say. I wish I had the answer. Anyway, driven by the desire to make money or the desire to make life more comfortable, it seems to me that innovation is always a leading force for humanity, only repressed by those who perceive it as a threat to their power or just to their making a living.

In the Roman empire innovation had been strong, probably as long as it did not represent a threat to the power that be. By building big engineering works they could reaffirm their power and have citizens more happy to contribute taxes (maybe).

My suspect is that when the empire was at the apex of its expansion maybe the merchant class was becoming rich, too rich, but I don't have evidence for that. Maybe even too many patrizi, nobles, parasitically living in Rome, and that's why the Western part was allowed to collapse. The result was a contraction of commerce that only expanded again with the Renaissance, after the "discovery" of the Americas. They knew that that would happen. Maybe they even knew that innovations would sprout out, as you suggested:

One might argue that such elite forces, for the reasons you have discussed, wittingly held back innovations that might generally be foreseen, given the relatively advanced state of Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Mesopotamian engineering feats of their day. Hence the destruction of libraries and that which brought about the Dark Ages (which I know are debated). And the irony that is was via Islamic society, in the main, that Science was restored to the West.

And they have used the innovations and the industrial revolution to take control of the whole world through economic imperialism and also through new weapons, and now that they have achieved their goal they are going to eliminate the undesired side effects of the industrial revolution: population growth, too much wealth in the hands of inferior classes and benefits of new inventions too much spread among the populations.

What they want to achieve with the "end of times operation" seems to have all people poor, no more classes, besides them the elite and the people. To reserve only to themselves all the benefits of innovations, new technologies, while having the people live on a self sustained survival economic system similar to the agrarian economy that existed before the industrial revolution.

I have collected many elements that seem indicate that direction.

 

[Suchender]

....When they [old elite] saw that that was not enough to stop the industrial revolution they hopped on top of the horse and rode it, or on top of the Ferrari and drove it, but with the final end to make it crash against a wall, or against the people themselves, which is what is about to happen.

Which is the condensed version of the industrial civilisation we are in now.

If true, today's elite is rather a strange one, which once posessed control over all developments inside the system, but at some point was outmaneuvered (by other members ?), and was about to lose control over the entire system ?!

To me it sounds like a bad novel stuff rather than a description of a (dynamic) historical process !
I cannot make any sense of this......

 

[Richard Stanley]

What they want to achieve with the "end of times operation" seems to have all people poor, no more classes, besides them the elite and the people. To reserve only to themselves all the benefits of innovations, new technologies, while having the people live on a self sustained survival economic system similar to the agrarian economy that existed before the industrial revolution.

That does seem quite possible.

And, the Book of Revelation and others discuss an Elect, or elite, that stand closer to God than the rest of us. The Elect are to bypass the Tribulation, etc.. This is not unique in the Bible, as the narratives of the Patriarchs down through Jesus are really discussing nobles, cleverly veiled to appear more common. It's a very effective ploy, and why such as Trump successfully use it today.

The current attack on Western Liberalism (including its paleo-'Conservatives') by the likes of Trump and Putin, as with the 20th Century Fascists, are in line with the desire to restore the Order (however defined) when once under the old feudal regimes of Monarchy. That which Rome imposed upon Europe was modeled upon the regime imposed upon Egypt by Joseph and his pharaoh (Genesis 47).

Whether fact or fiction, would you agree that Joseph (technically not a Jew) colluded with pharaoh to use (crony) Capitalism to corner all the markets (taking advantage of 7 years of plenty and 7 years of drought) to cause the free people to happily sell themselves into feudal slavery? I wonder if Constantine et al. used a similar ploy to get the farmers of his day to go along?

In the Roman empire innovation had been strong, probably as long as it did not represent a threat to the power that be. By building big engineering works they could reaffirm their power and have citizens more happy to contribute taxes (maybe).

Besides big engineering projects, the Romans understood the primitive basics of mass manufacturing, particularly when it came to the production of military goods, like shields and ballista catapults, etc.. They also used the legal construction of a corporation as a form of capitalist investment. This is where we get the term 'equities' from, the Roman 'equestrian' class.

My suspect is that when the empire was at the apex of its expansion maybe the merchant class was becoming rich, too rich, but I don't have evidence for that. Maybe even too many patrizi, nobles, parasitically living in Rome, and that's why the Western part was allowed to collapse. The result was a contraction of commerce that only expanded again with the Renaissance, after the "discovery" of the Americas. They knew that that would happen. Maybe they even knew that innovations would sprout out, as you suggested:

I'm not sure what the rationale was for pulling back inwardly into the Feudal Dark Ages, if it is not part of the cyclical phenomenon Jerry and I have advanced. International trade (aka relative globalization) was going on like gangbusters before the collapse of the Late Bronze Age. And then a complete decline for centuries, another 'dark age' (the libertarian age of the Biblical Judges). Then came Donald Trump ... errr ... Samson (the Nazarite) whose Chaos soon led to a new order, monarchy. But if one follows the various breadcrumbs, Samson the Danite had his origins in Egypt, via Mycenaean Greece (Egyptus v. Danuus). Samson liked to screw with the Philistines, and now Trump is screwing with ... the Philistines.

As I'm re-reading my Ellis books on the Christian experience, the exact same script was followed there, if one accepts Ellis' case for Izates (Islam's Isa) and Helena the Nazarite (as Jesus and Virgin Mary) as typological pairings. Samson's mother had a strange run-in with an 'angel'.

 

[Suchender]

...What they want to achieve with the "end of times operation" seems to have all people poor, no more classes, besides them the elite and the people. To reserve only to themselves all the benefits of innovations, new technologies, while having the people live on a self sustained survival economic system similar to the agrarian economy that existed before the industrial revolution.

This does not make sense at all !

'All people poor' means no innovation and almost no benefits for the elite.
This means a much less comfortable life for the elite as well !

NO WAY !!!
.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Which is the condensed version of the industrial civilisation we are in now.

If true, today's elite is rather a strange one, which once posessed control over all developments inside the system, but at some point was outmaneuvered (by other members ?), and was about to lose control over the entire system ?!

To me it sounds like a bad novel stuff rather than a description of a (dynamic) historical process !
I cannot make any sense of this......

I don't believe that there has been any loss of control by the elites in question.