Lately I have been diving a lot into the major deceptions of our age again, revisiting concepts I once discovered that carry a lot of merit, in order to relate to my girl how I see the world and to double check how solid these viewpoints actually are.
And a certain pattern seems to emerge out of the specifics, a general trend or - dare I say - strategy that seems to be omnipresent in literally all areas of inquiry I come across.
We think we basically have a grasp on the truth today. Most people regard their education as a representative image of how things actually are and we cannot fathom that we are prone to unimaginable levels of deception.
And as we go out with an open mind and explore topics that we always took for granted we find curious things and mind-bending ideas we have never heard about, and often concepts that have been ridiculed by society for centuries on purpose.
But all these deceptions have something in common. They require not only our faith in them to work at all (as they are ususally built on very soft and shaky ground when it comes to the facts)... they also build upon themselves. Those lies need each other like a mutually supportive framework.
As Rupert Sheldrake likes to point out in his lectures, mentioning his old friend Terence McKenna, Terence had always referred to the big Bang as "the limit case of credulity. If you can swallow that, you can swallow anything." Because if the basis for our whole cosmology, for our entire understanding of our universe, our own existence and our purpose on Earth starts with a giant fairytale that is ultimately fictional and that bears no relation to the truth whatsoever then we are liable to derive endless ideas and interpretations that do jive with their basis but which are still factually wrong.
It's much like solving a math equation for a school test. We can give it our all and calculate correctly all the way through the test, line by line. But if there is even a slight mistake in the first line we wrote then the entirety that follows will turn out completely wrong even if the entire thing is correct in itself.
It's like the whole basis for the conversation has been shifted initially, and the subsequent focus has been altered so much that the end results of our efforts make complete sense as related to our basic premise but we never discover that the basic premise was where the fault had crept into the equation a long time ago.
And so I observe repeating strategies that tend to focus solely on selling us on a faulty premise, and doing so in the most stunning manner imaginable. audaciously so. It's so eloquent and delicate at times, so well thought-out that I find myself speechless at the level of diligence and devotion by whomever started it all to get the societal mind train rolling in the wrong direction, thinking ahead of time of all the contingencies and alternative narratives for those people asking a handful more questions than the average individual. Questions which ultimately still serve to protect and reinforce the faulty initial premise we simply overlook because it is too well hidden and watered down over the centuries of indoctrination...
How dedicated can people be to deceive their brothers and sisters with such stunning audacity and devotion? A lot. A mighty lot. I still underestimate it all the time.
And so, we may think we have found a nugget of truth on youtube that opens our eyes to an actuality while all we get is another derivation of the same old faulty premise we are too blind to recognize as false.
It would explain why certain narratives are outright allowed and wanted in youtube land despite seemingly being at complete odds with the established narratives - maybe because neither can help you to see things clearly and are therefore in direct interest of the control structure safeguarding the actual basis of factuality.
A mundane example I briefly want to mention is the Kennedy assassination. Not to tell you what happened or didn't happen, but to point out that most narratives focus on how the man died. Was it a lone gunman? Was it a group of gunmen? Who is responsible for killing Kennedy? His wife? The deep state? A madman? The Russians?
Well, we can dive in and find ample amounts of reasons to doubt or believe aspects of all these narratives, some likely, some maybe not so likely. But the further we dive into those the more we lose sight of other possibilities that replace our basic premise or even make it completely redundant.
Maybe the man was never killed at all. Maybe it was all a big show to move the agenda at the time forward and to seed endless pointless debates about details concerning a non-event in the years and generations to come.
Were this the case it would be in the best and most direct interest of the control structure to seed, care for and nurture both narratives over the decades and centuries that follow, simply because it firmly the frame of discussion in the hand of the same control structure who told us the official narrative, never enabling us to come closer to the heart of the matter.
It's the same with anything else really.
I always thought damage control in hindsight is a classical control-structure move but I have started to come around to the idea that all these major narratives have been minutely laid-out from the very beginning for us to fall into (sometimes centuries later), by people knowing full well that the mainstream narrative and the most-fought counter narrative are best both kept under direct control so as to be able to steer the masses into factual noman's land and also the few people who dare to ask more questions than the masses do. And then to keep them all right there.
It would mean that whoever put these narratives out there has an unimaginably good grasp on human psychology and can calibrate the level of mass dynamics and the collective consciousness to such a prophetic degree that it seems rather non-human. Still not sure how I see it but the suspicion keeps creeping up in me more and more the more I realize how many of my old basic premises have been totally beside the point factually.
And so I have made it a habit to always try my best to come back to my basic premise and question that. Not regardless of the observable or discernible but because of it. Knowing that all too often I had swallowed the counter narrative that may turn out to just have been prepared by the same gang who gave us the mainstream narrative.
This would mean that from the very beginning, it was all factored in...
I never considered this as likely but I gotta say that view is growing on me, fast.
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
coindesk.com
activistpost.com