I just got to thinking... how far back does the baby-eating go? And, did his idea for his satire come from dark legends/rumors/truths?
People were horrified by the satire.
Anyway, it just popped into my mind. Any Jonathan Swift experts able to share any insights?
My research suggests the baby-death-eating magic ritual goes back millennia. Same with the sex magic. Having sex with children is (within the scope of the religion) a method of stealing their life force. The consumption of their body and blood is also a consumption of their soul, their essence and energy. These rituals goes back to the beginning of recorded history, which means it likely goes back before that.
The Cabal recruits from within, i.e., they recruit from the Aristocracy. The Aristocracy is itself groomed, every one, to be potential Cabal members. Some families (Rockefeller e.g.) are more likely to get automatic entry than others, but it is a Meritocracy, with multiple levels of knowledge that can be imparted through the grooming, initiate and adept processes that every Aristocrat goes through if they pass the level before on Merit.
When I first read A Modest Proposal, I thought it was all about the satire: a proposition of the absurd to elucidate the other absurdity that the starvation problem was not already solved with some simple economic policy changes. I thought it was a comment that incorporated the separation of the social classes, giving voice to the voiceless lower classes.
Now I think it was something else.
Jonathan Swift was himself a member of the Aristocracy. I think it is highly likely Mr. Swift knew full well that the rich were consuming children, and I think it is entirely possible that he himself was a member of the Cabal. Basically all of the influential people in history that I have investigated have telltale signs of that association, and Jonathan Swift is no different. Society is led by these people. Our thoughts are led by their work, what they say, their influence. The "pamphleteers" or "printers" etc. of the day performed the exact same function as the Media does today. They play the part of the presentation of different "sides" of thought to lead us to the conclusion the Aristocracy desires. These people and their publications are Controlled Opposition, presenting opposing schools of thought, all of which are offerings of the Cabal, intending on a specific goal; Social Engineering.
This Social Engineering system of Controlled Opposition is a practical application of the Dialectic of Kant (later adopted by Hegel and Marx), where by a Thesis, and Antithesis are created, set in opposition to each other, and out comes the Synthesis, which brings us a step closer to Utopia, the "Perfect Society." Whose Perfect Society? The people running the program. The people who eat babies.
I think Mr. Swifts writings were intended to be one side of a step in the Thesis/Antithesis program. He was a member of the Aristocracy, yet he was speaking against the Aristocratic class. I don't mean he was speaking against eating babies. I mean he was the purposeful Aristocratic mouthpiece against the Aristocrats. No one of lesser birth than the 1% had any voice at all. They had no avenue to voice their opinion. The printers AKA the thought controllers, were strictly owned by the 1%.
I think Swift's use of the "eating babies" trope may very well have been an "Alex Jones" type of maneuver, where it is intended to cater to the "conspiracy theorists" of the day, through the use of Satire to turn Reality into Comedy, thus diffusing the Truth and making it "pure fantasy." This is how the Cabal uses comedy and/or Hollywood and the Conspiracy Theorist leadership (like AJ) today. Why would we assume it would be different before? There is a ton of evidence for it, once you realize that every single person who is in our history books "acting in opposition" is themselves a member of the 1%.
Awesome explanation! Thank you
that’s so interesting^ It’s been a long time since I’ve thought about Jonathan Swift…my normies don’t like to read;) and I always wondered why we had certain books, and this explains it, they performed the job of the media back then. it also explains the differences in generations/how we react; our thoughts were influenced by the content/authors/textbooks presented to us
Yes. Each generation performs a functional part of the Dialectic progression by design. It is not coincidental that each successive generation of recent history is "more left" than the generation before. However, that suggests that our current ideas of "leftism" are the ultimate goal. I do not think so, or rather, not entirely. Indeed, in the 1920s society was very left oriented, close to what we have today. The generation after them became the starting point for a purposeful "new right" push. This led, a couple generations later, to hippyism and the new left, where we have progressed, in a back and forth manner, since.
But this has happened before, many times. Once you realize that society is led by propaganda, and all propaganda is controlled by the Cabal, it becomes easily appreciated that the "social cycle" is just as contrived as the business cycle with an end goal in mind.
The end goal, of course, is "Utopia." The dialectic was first put forth as an organic social process. The idea was that society would automatically oppose any idea put forth, and these debates would lead organically to a Utopian world. But what if you have a specific end goal in mind? What if you take that goal, then turn the dialectic on its head, starting with the Utopia of your design, and working backwards, filling in each "Thesis" and "Antithesis" as a purposeful design to lead to the "Synthesis" you desire at each step. I think of it like working a maze backwards. It's a lot easier to work it backwards than forwards. I suggest it is the same with the dialectic.
I think the ultimate goal of Utopia isn't really what we think of as "left" or "right." Perhaps more left than right, but also... not really. I think the real goal is more inline with where "the left" and "the right" agree. The things that no one argues about at all.