data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/67f7a/67f7a8c6a7790b1dd48055db01513ea6e699ce34" alt=""
Now, cultures often have very different outlooks on the world. Some believe in God, others in Nirvana. Some practice divination by reading the cracked lines in a burnt tortoise shell, others forecast climate change with elaborate computer models. Some teach that America won the war of 1812, others insist it was the British Empire, yet others shrug and call it a draw. Some believe in goblins, others in djnni, others in greys, and others in none at all.
Whatever the particulars, the accuracies and the curious blind spots, so long as various points are agreed upon by enough people, you have a more or less coherent culture. The world-views of two cultures might well differ dramatically, especially if separated by millennia of mutual isolation, but so long as they remain internally self-consistent, they can survive as the collective lens through which a human group observes reality.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/863f7/863f70c1d95e7150ca55b2b5ed2abc7f72acc121" alt=""
Now, we've got a particular problem in our society. It's called secrecy. Governments do it, and corporations, and individuals. When the culture does more or less what its world-theories tell it to do, you can exert a lot of power if you can control those theories, and the best and easiest way to exert control of information is to lie. Indeed controlling information and lying are virtual synonyms. Most societies are in some sense built of lies (for absolute truth is an incommunicable state), but in our society the Lie has been institutionalized to such a degree that much of our cultural programming consists of very deliberate lies, put there for one purpose and one purpose only: directing the actions of vast numbers of people in the most subtle and efficient ways possible. What need of force? when most think slavery freedom, and love their servitude.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/18d48/18d4850961ce02b0ba08f0bc9b1990b132bf5c70" alt=""
There's just one thing: the theories are built to account for the day-to-day, but fail entirely when presented with the extraordinary or miraculous, unless it is the extraordinary miracles of its own creation. This is because the theories are built to explain the world without recourse to fantastic things, the a priori assumption being that they do not exist and therefore need not be accounted for. Of course, if they don't exist that's a logical presumption ... but one might also take the opposite tack, and question whether that presumption is precisely the reason those theories exist?
So long as a truth can be suppressed, so long as control can be exerted over a piece of information, its effects upon the world-theories of the mass mind can be obviated. Once it slips through, however, its effects can be quite dramatic. Uncontained truth is a powerful thing; if too much of it leaks out, the whole clanking contraption will come to pieces. Each truth that slips its bonds is like a bolt popping off or a bullet being fired through the engine block.
There's a schism in our culture, for all intents and purposes already here, and though small the crack that's appeared will continue to grow. The internet has catalyzed things: too much of that truth has gotten out, and spread to every corner of the globe. It takes the form of the extraordinary and the miraculous: government black projects and UFOs, secret prisons and crop circles, fluoride poisoning and alternative medicines, ghosts and telepathy and past lives and precognition, all those singular phenomena for which the mainstream theories that keep society together cannot account. Without the internet, very few of us would have the opportunity to gather so much of what's out there, to question so many of the theories we've been taught, to pull back all the way up to a high altitude and take it all in and say ... "Wait a minute...."
It really all comes down to the belief in a single Great Lie. Precisely what form the Lie takes is irrelevant; only it's size is of consequence. 9/11 is one pretty staggeringly obvious example of this: everyone who bought it, bought the need for the War on Terror and made a deep personal investment in ignoring the growing signs of global fascism with all their might. Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is another: built on shaky foundations from the beginning and by now demonstrably false, it channeled the energies of the world's environmental movement away from any of a wide selection of desperately needed efforts and towards the cause of supporting the same globally metastasized meta-state the Terror War was intended to create. There are no doubt countless other examples I could name, now and in the past, but the one thing they all have in common is that their sheer audacity enables them to hijack whole societies.
So long as that Lie is believed, you're lost.
Once the Lie is perceived, well, you're not found, exactly. But from that point on the search can begin in earnest.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dd7d7/dd7d7dd937233d7ca54f242e8b826986ae3ba077" alt=""
5 comments:
Again, excellent vision. The new dreamtime approaches, for those with the eyes to see it.
I have a quibble with the misdirection of the environmental movement. I have long seen the environmental movement itself as a massive and very successful misdirection.
The problems are not environmental so much as they are rooted in the harmful paradigms, goals, and actions of government and business. The protests and attempts at alternative models of society of the 1960s were a serious threat to TPTB. People were beginning to realize that the problem was the pigs, top to bottom, but mostly at the top.
Once the Tavistock/Fabianist goals of convincing the moderately aware and caring that non-violent marches could solve all problems, and after the beginnings of the multi-racial multi-cultural societal mishmash were in place, what to do with all of this awakened energy and outrage?
Addling their brains with drugs only helped a little; many found new insights through psychedelics instead of burning out on speed or smack or becoming apathetically stoned on pot. A certain number of those awakened, and the younger people growing up, were threatening to carry the struggle forward and actually begin to address the sources of the problems rather than the symptoms. Those in control couldn't have that; they needed a red herring, an uncatchable wild goose.
The misdirection chosen, as I see it, was environmentalism. A brilliant "radical" young person out in the forest counting endangered fungi was no threat to the MIC or the bankers in control. They could even fund the large environmental organizations relatively openly through their various trusts, and by controlling the money, control their direction and decide who was in charge.
At the same time, across the USA, alternative campuses, shcools, and even whole colleges were set up in higher education. These schools served multiple purposes: they provided a place to put the radical professors and the radical students, and they allowed control and oversight of what the primary agenda would be.
What we ended up with was not simply the misdirection of potential troublemakers into enviromentalism, but also into other areas where their passion could be channeled in directions harmless to the controllers or even beneficial to their goal of the destruction of traditional society and morality. Examples would be homosexual "liberation", "gender studies" aka women's lib, racial "equality", marxism/socialism etc.
As a side note, much the same was done with those questioning the control of religious establishments and searching for alternatives; the New Age had something for everyone and presented no real threat to the establishment.
It's worth noting the severe restrictions on freedom of speech and thought that were and are imposed upon the participants in any of the above if they are not to become pariahs. Also worth noting is the meme of ridicule that most aspects have been given.
All harmless misdirection, harmless to those in control anyway. In the case of environmentalism, perhaps some were getting uncomfortably close to addressing real problems and rocking the boat, so global warming had to be invented and sold.
Have you noticed the violently angry reaction and name-calling that is evoked from the true believers in global warming (or anything listed above)when one questions their assumptions? Quite similar to the reaction we have discussed previously against those who dare to question the populist/marxist heroes that the same establishment has set up as sacrosanct. And largely from the same people.
One could easily make a hierarchical list of those things that may not be openly questioned if one is to retain their credentials as an enlightened progressive.
All of this must be open to question and examination, and the only ones who will progress or be of real value in creating a better world will be those willing and able to question their programming; ALL of it.
It's a rare quibble that generates a whole essay in response. -grin-
In a way, any special-focus movement that arises will suffer from a structural myopia that renders it incapable of seeing the winder picture, and thus easily managed and misdirected by organizations and entities that are looking down on things from a higher level. In this sense virtually all of the fragmented New Left mini-movements are examples of misdirection. It's all rather similar to the fools aboard the ship that Kaczynski wrote about.
The problem, though, with this method of control is that people within those fragmented interest groups can't be prevented, at an individual level, from becoming aware of wider issues. The brilliant thing about what the internet has done, and is continuing to do, is that people of such awareness are starting to network together and create a comprehensive worldview that counters the consensus in virtually every direction. The forces prompting conformity (and yeah, ridicule's a big one) are still very strong, but their influence is undermined by the growth of a very Big Tent alternative, one that doesn't even really have a name yet but is undeniably there. So what if you can no longer participate in ridiculous LGBTQ marxist dialectics with your unemployed grad school friends? When the opportunity to participate in something that might actually change the world presents itself, rejection by the old in-group loses a lot of its force.
Like you say, though, full participation ultimately means a willingness to question all of your assumptions, to examine all of your programming and set about modifying or removing those aspects of it that were put there in order to hurt, delay, undermine, or misdirect you. Hard thankless work, and few enough will take the time to do it. Ultimately, however, only a few will be necessary for them to have a great effect. If enough minds break their own way out of the shell, the cosmic egg might just crack for the mind that all of us share.
Oh, and the violent, angry reaction? I know it well. I've gotten to know it so well that I kind of enjoy it, sometimes. I can often see it coming, and every once in a while it's fun to let it happen. You never know, no matter how violent the reaction, the other person just might learn something.
The internet is our only hope; but it's a big hope.
BTW, I was accused of being a chavista on a Venezuelan blog the other day. I made the politically incorrect error of stating that no matter how corrupt they think their legal system is, that in the USA is worse. I just can't seem to please anyone.
Excuse me for a second.
-rolls on floor, laughing-
So you're an anarchist chavista CIA agent with a thing for soil chemistry and an interest in esoteric philosophy. I've heard of conspiracy theories that stretch credibility but you, sir, are reaching for new heights. I wonder what nobody would say to that....
It's all part of the multi-tasking thing, y'know. Comes with the territory.
Post a Comment