People that claim they are “open-minded” simply do not tell the truth. Belief systems are formed in the earliest developmental stages of life and, when set; each rehearsed dogma needs a battle to be disbelieved. Our core beliefs are usually so strong they will remain valid even when believers are convinced otherwise. “Oh, they told me UFO’s were real but I knew that wasn’t true” is your typical reverse validation. Deep down, if the message doesn’t fit it won’t fit no matter what. Therefore, I have one paragraph to capture the imaginations of an audience. You are allowed to reach out and, providing comments are not unnecessarily rude, criticism is welcome. It would be nice to know a few of you actually had the chutzpah “to be”.
Considering the sheer weight of information to be found on the net these days, if my message deviates an inch from those beliefs’ comfort zone, I’m gone, finished, put in the trash can, offended readers likely never to revisit. Some, due to narcissism, won’t even refer to “unknown sources” which assures logic assesses references as must bespurious. So, I lost them before I even put pen to paper. Articles with ambiguous or neutral titles are avoided perhaps because time poor people waste not, but as likely, given the mindset of psychosis, readers might also do everything in their power to avoid being confronted with truth. Truth, contrary to erudite populism, is inflexible and consistent. People, in general, do not want their opinions challenged or ruffled in any way, so factual legitimacy all too rarely finds sanctuary in popular theories.
It was the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that reputedly first coined the phrase conspiracy theorists in 1967; a slur aimed at faceless critics distributing “evidence lacking” conjecture. Any more than two parties that join forces conspire. All statements are theories. The expression, conspiracy theorists, would be acceptable when used as a witty metaphor camouflaging the derogatory attack on simple minded enemies. Targets are gossipers that peddle myths lacking substance. The term conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is ambiguous and nonsensical. Does this reflect statements that coordinate the joint efforts of multiple parties? If conspiracy is a euphemism for gossip, it is a poor one.
Nevertheless, the hybrid term is understood because it validates the mindset of psychosis, i.e. being right always trumps honesty and due diligence. Conspiracy theories, as labelled, can contain high levels of truth. We have already noted people like flexible authenticity and arbitrary verisimilitude. No black and white. Only shades of grey. Per faceless man reasoning, therefore, conspiracy theories should be avoided where possible. Back in the 1960’s I would like to think the majority of activists were sincere, their concerns just and their actions vigilant, whilst honourable. If this is correct, then logic dictates alternatives to official historic accounts were not frivolous. That philosophy doubtlessly has changed, for the internet has a down side. Sheer volume encourages mass production of the worse kind, bad habits and sloppiness. Views that contradict the mainstream can now be more corrupt than wayward accredited sources. We might find a suitable analogy in the espionage industry. Double agents are conceptually similar to “double conspiracy theories”.
Periodically, I reflect on something I call the human condition. Years ago, before I attempted to put thoughts to writing, perhaps forlorn, perhaps devout, I wandered the vast internet as a lonely hermit seeking identity for purpose. This journey look me before Jon Rappoport and, as a subscriber of his instructional blogs, I listen to what he has to say very carefully. We are not always in agreement on issues, but most of the time we are, well, the expression “of one mind” impresses me. Jon has asked me, us subscribers, to watch Sydney Lumet’s film “Network” more than once. Not a movies person, I reluctantly set aside 15 minutes discipline a week and have been gradually been working my way through the 2 hours of footage.
The central character is a disgruntled news broadcaster who first has a meltdown on air and then is picked up and promoted by unscrupulous elements looking to improve corporate ratings, which is an impeccable irony (e.g. the network’s toxic critic is their golden cash calf to salvation). Howard Beale exposes the inadequacies of news broadcasts reduced to fantasies that pander to “highest bidder” stakeholder interests better than our current best conspiracy theorists. Rather underwhelming his thunder, he asks his viewers to “do nothing” but just “get madder than hell”. Though the dialogue sizzles with strategically placed F bombs, a novelty for 1976, the movie cannot avoid overstating the human condition. Indeed Beale’s big soccer punch does nothing more than expose that television does not report, but rather politicises. In fact, he highlights ongoing deficiencies in the population at large by his own lack of remedial direction. The mindset of psychosis is an ocean of problems with no solution in sight. It should be no surprise that buoyant stagnancy is the only feasible response.
Beale made an example of those that read newspapers (we presume serious copy, rather than tabloid smut). A paltry slither of the populations at large was representative, but how many of those really understood and “delved”? We know, today, that newspapers cannot be trusted as well as all are either the mouthpieces of corporate advertisers or governments. Even books (that sell) are invariably written to support given opinions backing corporate or government interests, so to ascertain absolute neutrality (truth) is almost impossible.
I have only worked through an hour and a quarter so there is 45 minutes of movie unseen. There may be surprises to come, but, thus far, nothing has shocked me (though, back in 1976, this sort of overt criticism would have been very unusual and, in my limited scrutiny, I think watered down by any other vague comparisons). In exposing the deficiencies of the system, Beale inadvertently revealed two much greater defects in the populations at large. They (his followers), the script intimates, would not be prepared to revolt (to get mad is a form of protest). Their televisions’ make believe had largely become the basis for reality because of the academic redundancy of the majority. Neither did the people know any facts nor would they contemplate the issues in any meaningful way.
This, to the greater degree, correlates with today’s situation. Whereas the perceived total reliability of information offered by “the news” is not what it was, because people have such limited knowledge, the void is mostly populated by doubt. That means, of course, peoples’ familiarity with truth is more or less absent, so doubts simply fester, unchallenged for the most part. People judge “the news” on what sounds believable and not on merit. Of course, that which satisfies social programming (i.e. “education”, government/corporate standards, widely promoted philosophies that justify what it is to be socially acceptable) is delivered by the very same forces that engineer “the news”. So we have a self-perpetuating circle, broken only by geniuses (oracles that see beyond “the bubble”).
To a fashion this has encouraged a kind of mass psychosis which morphs as the mindset of populism. Though the mindset changes with political trends, the populist view is always activesanity even when reason or logic individually applied might demote certain views as insane. Thus, if the populist tradition is “vaccines are the sane choice”, to go against vaccines would be insanity, if that makes sense. Nevertheless, breakaways from the mainstream have calculated such a sizeable collection of swayable minds; it is noted that alternative dichotomies are strong enough to stand alone and, in that capacity, would usually predetermine that “sanity” is the precise opposite of the mainstreamers’ position. For alternatives, therefore, to back vaccines would be sheer insanity. The mainstream Media, as Jon Rappoport regularly illustrates, are masters at promoting populism. They control left and right, mainstream and alternative and everywhere in between. Only very occasional prophets (or geniuses, if you prefer), mostly misunderstood, remove the veil of hypocrisy.
The three main aspects of human character that drag group potential down to the gutter are greed, laziness and selfishness. These traits, particularly in the modern age, are the rule rather than the exception. This is partly because the true value of words has been deliberately twisted or obscured by corporate miscreants that direct mainstream Medias. Spinelessness, pusillanimity and treachery are celebrated as evidence of qualities purveying patriotism, virtue and honour. Devout cowards are regularly called brave. Oxymoron after oxymoron crafts normalcy. “The machine” wants submissive slaves, whining as they work and just about everyone obeys the system, hook, line and sinker. “The machine” wants sulking protestors. The more the merrier. You good peopleaffirm social apathy. You are not a threat to them and they will destroy you at their leisure.
Those that dare to take on the system never protest. They act wisely, cunningly and discretely, conjuring and deploying the most plausibly destructive, clandestine strategies against their foes. The “masses” great and only advantage is being “faceless”, so anonymity is strength. Corporate order knows this well and that is why their hired trouble makers are always in plain clothes when all-too-rarely in focus. In fact the powers have manufactured invisibility in industrial quantities. How many unknown government agencies or outsourced third parties have contributed to the all-encompassing globalist agenda of Zionism? Thinking laterally, are those [Skype and] e-mail scammers (banking shams, cheap medications and other rip-offs) the coordinated product of a consolidated “op” dedicated to manufacturing “mistrust of strangers”? If so, that would satisfy the wider interests of Zionism which has three fundamental wishes.
Family members must be held perpetually accountable. Public opinion is designed to gravitate around mainstream views calculated by the architects of our governance systems. Parents are both exalted and threatened. Pro-system whistle blowers, snitches, eves droppers are encouraged. Per this tyranny, children are commodities with no rights or personalities. As arbitrary tokens of justice, sensationalising the removal of children from bad broods is used to keep borderline recalcitrant families in line. For their part, families must systemise children. Parental, administrative (schools and so forth) oversight is crucial to the Zionist objective. There are no exceptions to diktat. There is no way out. Government is to be respected, feared or both and, as such, is answerable only to itself.
Mischievous deceptive hyperbole dressed as paedophilia, terrorism and intoxication has been used to paint “the stranger” into a corner. Bad parts of families that aren’t bad broods are rejects or black sheep. Estranged family members may as well be strangers. This all came about because “stranger” is used as a code word in the bible. The Hebrew word it replaces is “Goyim”. Thus, fundamental populist ignorance must be the mindset of modern psychosis, because just about everyone follows the script like lambs to the slaughter.
The process does not stop with family programming. Systems (currently ad hocZionism, but that chic could rebrand) thrive on absolute control. They (the system architects) are attempting to regulate God. Ultimately God, the spiritual entity, cannot exist, because if He existed it would permit free thought and free thought does not work in programmed societies. Therefore the de facto science-atheist alliance (conspiracy?) that presumes authority is at constant loggerheads with nature. If nature is the cooperative essence of God, then regulation and proscribed order can only promote “chaos”. True anarchy (prescient order), proto-Zionism, has etched the mindset of psychosis which is man, the automaton. Zionists do at least live up to their name, for the Pharisees were the original usurpers of order. “Jesus”, it seems, died in vain.
In other news
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.” -Frantz Fanon”
It is much easier to fool someone than to to convince them they have been fooled … Mark Twain