That there is blanket mind-control is obvious to the minority who are not a part of it. How it works - and how it is both comprehensive and increasingly detailed - is a worthy subject for theorizing.
Secondly (especially since the birdemic coup of early 2020) there is the suppression of specific dissenting views from mainstream mass and social media.
Since the Fire Nation affair of 2022 there has been added the general exclusion of whole categories; other major sources that differ from the Western monolith (such as Fire Nation sources).
And, because neither control nor exclusion can be complete; and both can be overcome by those who make some effort - there is also an extra layer of deterrent from the demonization of those who make the effort to overcome these restrictions. Those who access alterative, or prohibited foreign, mass and social media are now regarded as a species of proto-terrorist.
Reading, or otherwise accessing, information/ theories/ opinions out-with the official-media monolith is now regarded as de facto evidence of dangerous - probably criminal - activity; or being an agent of enemy powers.
(Or - if not evil; then such behaviour is regarded as insane or mentally-defective.)
Thus, although is not difficult to discover the truth behind the propaganda; doing so, or even by simply attempting to do so, is quasi criminal activity - and expressing such views is actually criminal. And even when not legally criminal, such behaviour may be sanctioned with extreme (and unbounded) severity by The System through multiple other mechanisms: loss of employment, education, income, by setting virtual/ actual mobs on institutions or people etc.
This situation is what the modern consciousness confronts, looking out onto the world.
There is a single master-choice that the choosing agent makes - either one is an in-grouper, a System-believer - which happens by default.
Or else one actively steps into an out-group; which act, in itself, is sufficient 'evidence' for a wide range of exclusions and persecutions.
Not to be mind-controlled is therefore a decision to become a social pariah and paint a target on one's own back.
Such a step is a particularly strong deterrent for women-in-general - who are highly motivated to be accepted in a peer group (as big as possible). For men, such a step is often ruled-out both for those who aspire to ascend the social hierarchy (by successfully competing in socially valued hierarchies, by leading alliances); and also for the larger proportion of insecure men who feel the necessity to appease the social hierarchy.
Regarded thus, it is hardly surprising that the majority are mind controlled.
Why not be mind-controlled; when all the social benefits accrue to those who are controlled?
Well, there probably needs to be a strong inner motivation. And this motivation needs to be personal, individual - not groupish; since all Western groups of significant size, power or prestige our 'converged' parts of The System.
What are the possible causes of a strong inner motivation? There are fewer and fewer of these inner motivators that are out-with The System and also sufficiently effective.
Furthermore, suitable potential strong inner motivators increasingly need to become explicit - or otherwise they will passively be eroded by mounting adverse pressures to conform and converge.
And on top of all this; the inner motivators need to be explicitly chosen - including by being rooted in metaphysical intuitions different from those of The System. Otherwise, alternative ways of living will surely be wedged and expanded and subverted piecemeal (as happens when failing one, then more, of the Litmus Tests).
At bottom, it is (as usual) about ultimate motivation; and the decision of whether we want to be mind controlled the by monolithic totalitarian System - which itself depends substantially upon who we believe is ultimately doing the controlling. And then upon whether we believe that we ought-to-be controlled At All - or ought, instead, to be self-controlled, as free and responsible agents.
Note: the above was stimulated by a topic thread by Bill Ryan, at Project Avalon.
6 comments:
What really hit home for me in this post is where you say "inner motivators need to be explicitly chosen - including by being rooted in metaphysical intuitions different from those of The System." When asked recently if I believed in climate change I found myself wanting to not be strongly confrontational so said in a ruful tone: "No actually I don't, but I have come, over time, to believe in the Resurrection." My sense is that the extremeness of today's situation has often happened before - I am reminded of Lott's situation in Sodom where he could find no righteous men to make the city worth saving. I have willfully "chosen" - to use your word - wrongly most of my life, but I have repented enough so that I just can't go along with The System any longer. I also think that the fate of Lott's wife who is turned into a pillar of salt when she looks back, is a good metaphor for what happens to me when I look at almost all forms of media. It is just that sticky curiosity about what is in the news, to give the obvious example, that can pull one right back into inert paralysis.
The spiritual epidermis of the masses is damaged and permeable enough that millions are susceptible to coordinated communications from Hell.
@Igude - "My sense is that the extremeness of today's situation has often happened before"
While there is wisdom to be gained from studying the past, I believe that our situation is unprecedented. We ourselves are different from Men of the past, and there has never been anything remotely like the current global System in the past.
@Epi - "The spiritual epidermis of the masses is damaged and permeable "
Well, it is permeable to System lies; but extremely resistant to penetration by (what used to be) obvious common sense, direct personal experience and the deep truths of intuition.
No, I meant it literally. What if people are directly exposed to spiritual communication from Hell - a kind of Unholy Spirit -- and the system's propaganda is simply reinforcement? I guess the idea sounds kind of schizophrenic (or maybe I'm just Captain Obvious)
It seems access to knowledge is driving an unprecedented social divide between the socially motivated and the less-so. The less socially motivated can easily seek out the work of non-system believers. However, rather than cause a 'mass awakening' it seems to have caused a 'mass ensleepening' as the gulf becomes the system believer and the non-system believer becomes too great to bridge. In the previous world of relatively controlled mass media (whether network television or the press) the information world available to the system-skeptic was much the same as that available to the system-believer. The believer and the non-believer continued to shared the same worldview, albeit a flawed one, allowing for low-level, albeit unproductive, conflict of views in daily social life. Also, because the mass media expected a fraction of its audience to be system-skeptic, it *may* have enforced a minimal level of plausibility on mainstream narratives (though I'm far from sure that) Speaking for myself, I have utterly given up on discussing most prevailing topics with those who trust mass media. What would be the point?
By the way, in this post-peckish world, Ryan's estimate of 50-60% controlled sounds **way** to low to me!
@C - "Ryan's estimate of 50-60% controlled sounds **way** to low to me!"
Yes, I agree for the UK - but I think Bill actually meant in the whole world. He lives in Ecuador, and maybe things are very different in such places.
Post a Comment