No man is an island.
We can, I’m sure, agree on the fundamental importance of our connection to other people. Aside from their emotional support, there's strength and productivity in numbers. Shared values and behaviors define the many, nested groups we’re in, that hold us together – our family, club, religion, work, our society at large - as distinct from other groups, and groups of groups.
So let’s explore this a little,
because the feeling's abroad that something’s amiss. Group membership requires sacrificing
competing values, beliefs and behaviours, in the expectation of resulting benefits
which, if realized, strengthen our group identity, and foster loyalty. Loyalty, when you come right down to it,
equates to habit. It's economical - we don't want to be continually
reinventing the wheel. What's tried and tested becomes habitual, and that’s pretty
much everything we comfortably share with our group. Whatever’s habitual is the
way "things are supposed to be", because habit attests to what
endures, what works, whatever is able to run on automatic, i.e. effortlessly.
Habit repeats by rote what someone initially learned by experience. That the
vast majority of what we do is automatic testifies not only to its success, but
also to the imperative of economy (what Bertrand Russell, as I recall, dubbed “the
law of cosmic laziness”). And as it is for the individual, so it is for
the group.
Gossip aside, because we’re
social beings the habit out of which we in fact overwhelmingly operate
approaches new information not as something to be thought about, but by the shortcut
of who said it. “Is this a reliable source?” we ask, i.e.,
did it come from one of us and our shared belief system, or from outside our
group? From friend, or "foe"? New information can thus be ignored, or
easily dismissed as false, or at least suspected as such unless and until
endorsed by our paid thinkers – our designated authorities. Conversely, new
information from our authorities will be accepted as “independently verified”
and factual, even though independent verification is prohibited by the
very terms of our group membership, as outlined above. Fact checkers
themselves must align with the beliefs espoused by those in authority, or be
deemed untrustworthy! A fact checker is anything but independent. He or she is,
precisely, a card-carrying adherent to our belief system, whose job it is to
ferret out deviance. In China or North Korea we’d recognize him or her as a
member of the Thought Police.
Without thought we intuitively
know that entertaining unauthorized advice is ipso facto an act of
betrayal of our group. Facts are not free-floating objects that exist on their own
terms, detachable from us and from each other; they are facts because we and our
designated authorities have assigned particular, agreed
values to them. Facts are attached to us. They are ours. This is how the group
holds together as a group. Groups are and can only be echo chambers
of habitually shared values, beliefs, and thoughts. In all this our separation
of truth from lies is primarily a process of discrimination between us and
them. If a pronouncement by a designated authority conflicts with a
previously accepted “fact” we humbly accept the former and quietly ditch the latter.
It can, I hope, readily be seen
that group membership is not rational in any classic, intellectual sense.
Rather, it’s based on mutual trust. The rational part resides right there, in
the trust, which exists because repetition produces the predictable results
we call “facts”, from which habits can be formed. What is deemed true is
what endures. (Interesting factoid: the ancient, Indo-European root of
the word “true” is “dru”, or “duru” meaning “hard”, or durable,
hence reliable, predictable - enduring). Trust engenders loyalty, and is
the basis of the habits we need to run our daily lives. We do not question
what or whom we trust! On the contrary, we feel good, i.e. right, secure,
confident, proud, supported and affirmed by our membership of and participation
in our group, and most especially by the recognition of those in authority.
Our trusted authorities
accordingly seldom need to signal their disapproval of competing narratives by
marshalling rational arguments against them. The falsity of competing
narratives from external sources is deemed self-evident by virtue of their origin,
confirmed by their conflict with accepted truths as defined by our group. Invitations
to, for example, debate with pushy outsiders are either rejected as a “waste of
time”, “lacking merit”, and “not worthy of consideration”, or, if accepted, invariably
fail to achieve resolution for lack of fundamental agreement about whose
authority to accept on each and every issue tackled. To keep group members on track,
external threats to authority are fended off not by rational counter-arguments,
but by censorship, shadow banning, and ridicule. Would-be dissenters from
orthodoxy within the group are similarly dealt with; by shaming,
punishment, and ostracism. Repeat offenders are summarily expelled. In none of
this is independent thought encouraged, or necessary. Like any self-determining organism, all group
thought runs upon, turns in upon, is nurtured by its own self-generated parameters
and limits.
All this I see as the way in
which societies actually work. To which you may well respond “So what’s
new? I know all that! Why the fuss?”
Because it reminds me we’re mostly
visceral. That’s why. Which makes us more vulnerable than I would like to admit
to manipulation and control by people who may not have the interests of our
group at heart. Technology has put unprecedented power
in the hands of such people, and we are consequently, right now,
in my view, the victims of subterfuge and subversion as never before. I’m therefore trying to illuminate what I see
as the Achilles Heel of human social organization that is allowing this to
happen, so as to give breathing space to what I also see as legitimate,
alternative views that can shine a light on where we are, and provide a basis
for constructive push back.
OK, I hear you: How do we discern
if voices coming from outside the perimeter fence of our belief system are more
legit than those of our esteemed authorities? Good question! The outsider
begins from a position of weakness: he’s viewed with hostility and suspicion. A
simple mannerism or tone of voice can obscure the value of even the most
important message. Words and phrases themselves can be a tripwire that slams
the door shut on further engagement. I know; I’ve been there. And once you dare
to question the soundness of the platform you’re standing on it’s hard to know
where to stop, which can put paid to the entire exercise: What does this
outsider stand to gain from holding this opinion? What are their credentials?
What are their sources? Where do my best interests lie? Is this outsider’s a
lone opinion, or widely held? Widely held? OK, but by what caliber of people? And – oh dear!
- by what standard now is “caliber” to be measured? Is it class? No way! Wealth? Let’s pretend not! Academic attainment? But from what accredited institution? Awards
received? Ditto! Help!
Slow down! Maybe “outsiders” gave
the wrong impression. OK, heretics then. No, that sounds too religious. Turncoats? That'll do. These
turncoats were previously with us, and of us. They’re not aliens! Very much to
the contrary, they were mostly once highly esteemed, respectably credentialed,
often multi-awarded members of our society, as measured by our
standards – who have fallen foul of our shared authorities. My painful
point is that, at least from my POV, they’re on our side by every measure
except that last one. I submit to you that it’s our authorities that are,
by the standards they themselves erected, off the rails.
Attempts are being made to
explain our acceptance of the enormous cognitive dissonance now upending our
lives as a kind of hypnosis. (viz. the “mass formation psychosis” posited by Mattias Desmet of
Ghent University). In sheer scale that may be true, but what I’m suggesting is that historically
the wagon-circling, self-protective defense reflex exhibited by people in
response to external threats is entirely natural. This is how we’ve
evolved to operate. What is unnatural now is, yes, the sheer scale of it, and, more
importantly, the disturbing fact – ok, call it a suspicion if you like - that
it’s being engineered from within our own belief system. Our necessary trust in
our authorities is being exploited to socially engineer and channel novel myths that
run counter to those that have throughout history until very recently held us
together. That last sentence was a roundabout way of saying we are being lied
to, because by lies I mean the violation of our collective myths, not
the misrepresentation of the supposedly independent objects we mistake “facts”
to be. As I have tried to tease out above, what we hold to be truths are temporary
constructs manufactured from collective agreements about the way the world
works. Our evolving, collective mythology is what we experience as goodness.
Truth and goodness are two sides
of the same coin. Associated words that come to mind are oneness, integrity, innocence,
openness, generosity, humility and love. Words I associate with lies include
secrecy, greed, certainty(!), cynicism, contempt, cruelty and alienation.
Understanding that all indirect knowledge is in the manner of collective myths, or agreed interpretations expressing a necessarily limited, relative, human perspective, facts
can be seen as deeply personal, albeit shared, and perennially provisional; they are the best interpretation of the
situation of which I am sincerely capable from my perspective at the
present moment. (Whew!)
And now for a practical test. Here’s a list of links to a number of recent articles and videos that
illustrate different facets of the above thesis in relation to “where we’re at”.
The first link (also in the text, above) expands on the overall theme. The rest
are to targets of censorship, and the information being censored by our authorities. I found all compelling. Please take a look and
see if there’s anything there that piques your interest, and see where it leads.
Pablo
____________________
Alastair Crooke tracks our “descent into Madness”, in
this, the third of a series. Thanks to Sergei for this illuminating article. (12-15
minute read. OK, ten, if you skip the italicized intro.) –
https://strategic-culture.org/news/2022/08/22/descent-into-madness/
Pre-eminent U.S. cardiologist and
virologist Dr. Peter McCullough, addressing Members of a Pennsylvania Senate
Hearing. Don’t skip this! (Video, 55 information-packed minutes!) -
Dr. John Campbell: More media silence as Swiss study of Moderna booster shots shows 1 in 35 of 777 subjects suffered post-jab cardio-vascular injury. Disturbing, hard data. (Video, 5 minutes) –
https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1684206667494203392?s=20
Sasha Latypova, former
pharmaceutical executive, whistleblower, and deep researcher, on deaths from
“non-compliant injectables”. A deeply disturbing dive. (Video, 52 minutes) –
Jimmy Dore: Lancet review of 225
autopsies of jab-related deaths removed after 24 hours. Indicative of the
extent of capture of the medical information space. (Video, 11 minutes) –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUOCeV33Aw0
Ed Dowd, ex-Blackrock financial
analyst, on unprecedented 60-standard deviations increase in the incidence of blood abnormalities linked to C-19 jabs. Important! (Scroll down to video, 1 hour… 52 minutes
if you start at 8-minute mark) -
Dr. Paul Thomas’ medical license suspended by the Oregon Medical Board for answering their request to publish proof of his claims concerning child vaccination. Significant. (2.25 minutes) –
https://www.bitchute.com/video/RGJ9ruoQOsLS/
RFK, jr. describes how the CDC committed scientific fraud, and attempted to bury the data when they discovered a link between the Hepatitis B vaccine and autism. Yes, the vaccine damage saga is a long one. (3 minutes) -
https://www.bitchute.com/video/xOFNHWpMdK3l/
Chase bank closes account of
Mercola Marketing for owner being actively critical of the C-19 jabs.
Indicative of totalitarian social credit system already unfolding – (6-minute
read) -
Ex-NZPM Jacinda Ardern has
acquired a new censorship role at Harvard! (6-minute read) -
