One reason I don’t much care for Marx is because he appears to operate within a system designed by and for the exploiters, or dystopians, as I call them. The notions of ‘class’ and ‘ownership’, after all, are not natural constructs. They have been imposed on humanity by these dystopians for the purposes of division and psychological control. Once upon a time, so to speak, such notions were unknown to humanity. Marx simply replaces one set of ‘owners’ with another set.
So, although I have never been a big fan of Marx, I would acknowledge that he was correct about one thing, namely the existence of exploiters and exploited. However, one shouldn’t accept this as a structural phenomenon. It’s not natural, in other words. One would do better to think in terms of psychology. Whilst it is true that there are often ‘leaders’ or ‘social decision-makers’, especially when a species is young, and that these groups will exist as such simply by virtue of their more mature psychological differences and intelligence, it does not at all logically follow that this group would necessarily exploit the people under their charge. In my species’ history, for example, the Karidel, who formed the social decision-making ‘class’, would’ve thought exploitation an absurdity. They were benevolent. Why wouldn’t they be? And that’s similar for most species when they’re young.
It was like this on Atlantis, by the way.
Psychologically, or socially, it’s simply not beneficial for that group to exploit. It’s a sign of weakness, fragility and fear, the need to control. Which, of course, suggests that they are not the ‘elite’ at all, but actually the opposite. Dangerous and deadly, for sure, but not elite. One only needs to look at the state of the world they have created and which they perpetuate in order to understand this truth. The solutions to the world’s problems are, after all, extremely simple and common sense. And yet they are not being put into practice by the social decision-makers. So either they are stupid, and do not know what these solutions are, or they do know, and deliberately do not do them. Obviously, they would like people to believe it is the former – they like hiding behind the myth of incompetence. But rest assured, reader dear, they are not incompetent, and they know exactly what they do (so don’t forgive them). But their continued position depends upon the populace believing in their ‘well-meaning but incompetent’ façade.
But it is a lie. Like so many of their attributes and utterances.
In order to understand this lie, a little psychology is in order. Or, to be more precise in this little essay, basic neuroscience.
The two main methods dystopians use to promote their propaganda and belief in their conspiracies and their own conspiracy theories (official narratives) are storytelling (narratives) and bombarding people with emotions (usually negative ones) in order to control their thoughts. They do not, as it happens, need to directly control people’s thoughts, because the structure of the human brain does that for them. When a human is bombarded with emotions, that’s to say, along with a narrative, those emotions and stories determine their thoughts. The individual creates the subtext, not the propagandist.
Incidentally, it is an insightful thing to realise that one common factor amongst those who can see through all this propaganda, who have a kind of immunity to dystopian conspiracies, is the ability to meditate. Coupled with this, inevitably, is a strong sense of the spiritual. When one meditates one is essentially shutting off the connection between the emotion-processing part of the brain (the amygdala) and the pure-thought part (the prefrontal cortex), thus allowing thoughts to be clear and lucid and unadulterated. Obviously, meditational practices should be taught to children as standard, but that’s for another essay. One thing that is interesting, however, is that brain scans (such as fMRI) do show marked differences in neural architecture between those who routinely meditate, and those who do not.
Storytellers themselves amongst my dearest readers will, I hope, be quite intrigued by what I’m about to say. So perk your ears up.
The amygdala is, in fact, split into two distinct parts, right and left. The right amygdala is responsible for, amongst other things, the processing of negative, or fear-based stimuli and emotions. The left, by contrast, processes positive emotions (including the reward system). The amygdala is also strongly related to memory-retention and processing.
So you can probably see where I’m going here. Bombard a person with negative and fear-inducing situations and you will induce fear-based emotions which, in turn, will fill up a person’s memory and dictate their thinking processes sccordingly. If you do this over an extended period of time (repetition) then those processes and the responses to them will become conditioned, because they will be reinforced in the brain’s architecture.
You may have also noticed how dystopians like to portray themselves as saviours. For example they create the problem then pretend to provide the solution (i.e. freedom from the object of the fear). So long as you are obedient and vote for them, obviously. That aspect of their strategy is directed at the left amygdala, which is also responsible for processing rewards.
This is also, naturally, the kind of thing known as ‘coercive control’ – essentially a two-step process of ‘threat’ followed by ‘reward’ (for good behaviour and submission). That reward could simply be the absence of threat.
The second aspect of propaganda and conditioning is contained in the notion of narratives/stories. Human beings see the world through stories, it is how they make sense of the world around them (and their own place in it, including their social group). You can see this at work in children quite readily. Which, naturally, places a significant degree of responsibility in grown-ups to tell the right stories.
The dystopians, of course, do not tell the right stories. Well, they do from their point of view, but not from humanity’s point of view. Remember also that what they call ‘scientific opinion’ is equally a story. ‘Scientists say such and such’ is not a statement of fact, it’s a story. People have been conditioned to think of the word ‘scientist’ as ‘authority on a subject who can be trusted as telling the truth’. And so if ‘scientists say such and such’ then, as far as the listener is concerned, it ‘must’ be true.
Unfortunately, of course, it often isn’t. The same applies to historians.
But I don’t wish to get sidetracked. If you take a step back and examine how current events are framed and presented to you (by the mainstream media) you will quickly see how all they are doing is telling you a story, in which they carefully regulate which side of the amygdala they need to appeal to. They are not, actually, telling you facts. They are telling you emotions and stories (often engaging your natural empathy – example: fake atrocity stories from Ukraine). It is then you, the reader, so to speak, who creates the subtext yourself and transforms it into ‘facts’ in your brain (or your brain’s memory). If your brain perceives this ‘stimulus’ as ‘fact’, then it will ‘categorise’ it as a fact in its memory. This then requires ‘reinforcement’ – the story is told over and over (by so-called ‘experts’) meaning that each time you hear it the ‘fact’ becomes more embedded.
This has the added bonus of getting ordinary people themselves to repeat these stories/‘facts’ to everyone else in their little social groups. Thus you end up with ‘groupthink’. Once you, as a propagandist, have let this story loose, your avid audience will unwittingly repeat it for you on your behalf. How neat.
Remember, it’s not the ‘author’ who creates the subtext, it’s you, the reader. All a skilful writer (or propagandist) needs to do is provoke you into creating the subtext they want you to create (often framed by cultural conditioning).
So if someone like me comes along and tries to tell you ‘no, actually, they were lying to you, it’s not a fact at all’ you will react against me, because as far as your brain is concerned, it is a fact and therefore it’s me who is the liar. Likewise I must be threatening and fear-inducing because I’m genuinely threatening the architecture of your own brain and trying to get you to distrust your own memories, not to mention your identity as a person, which is largely framed by your shared cultural history (storytelling). So if I threaten your cultural history, I threaten you personally. Then for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Example – you watched the Twin Towers collapse on 9/11 whilst being bombarded with scary emotions – then some ‘experts’ came on the TV to tell you a story – who the bad guys responsible are, and how the Twins collapsed (‘structural failure’). The rational part of your brain is telling you you’re watching a controlled demolition, but the emotions (the right amygdala) overrides that. So of course you trust them, they’re experts, aren’t they? Why would they lie? Aren’t they the good guys? Now this gets reinforced over and over, and anyone who tells you a different story is associated with negative-inducing emotions and therefore, for your own survival, to be avoided, shunned and, if necessary, violently persecuted.
Ask any honest, unconditioned genuine expert on physics, architecture and engineering, however, and they will laugh at the official narrative. They will tell you the only way, according to those laws of physics, that those buildings could have collapsed is by controlled demolition.
But you may have noticed why those thousands of experts haven’t really had any impact. The reason is simple – they are not telling a story. Human beings don’t see the world in facts, they see ‘emotional resonances’. There’s no point in simply telling you it was a controlled demolition, because that’s just an abstract fact. But the consequences of that fact, well, that is emotional.
So, what if I was tell you a story about a girl called Katrina who, in a parallel world, helped stop 9/11 and expose the bad guys by deactivating most of the demolition charges and leaving them for the New York Fire Department guys to find? Then all the bad guys – let’s say it was lots of people in the Bush administration – were arrested, put on trial, and then left to rot away the rest of their lives in ADX Florence. Then they revisited the hanging chads in Florida and proclaimed Gore the winner. So there was no terrorist threat after all – it was the CIA (as usual). So no invasion of Afghanistan, no invasion of Iraq killing a million or more innocent people. Let’s say the 8 trillion dollars America will have spent on the so-called ‘War on Terror’ was instead spent on amazing things like free healthcare for everyone, a von Braun space station, a massive space telescope that detected a biosignature at Alpha Centauri, a maglev network, a cure for cancer, fusion power, and so on. Now that’s a positive story. It might just work! Which version of history, after all, would you rather live in?
For most people, of course, this ‘it was a controlled demolition’ is too frightening to consider because of the implications – simply ‘your own government is capable of murdering its own people – i.e. you and your family, if they decide to’. But you voted for them! They said they cared! They told you all the right words and made you look over there at the ‘other’ for the enemy. Mummy I want to go home! People like me tell scary stories – of course you’re going to reject those stories.
So you have been conditioned to fear people who bring scary and threatening messages to you. You hurt the messenger, and thus you push the message away. Better to believe in your safe world in which your government loves you and will ‘take care of the bad buys’ for you.
That’s just one example. ‘Climate change’ is another obvious one. Although that seems to have lost its impact in recent years – most people aren’t concerned about it because there’s no ‘seeing is believing’ factor involved, despite desperate attempts to portray any remotely unusual-seeming weather as ‘extreme weather events resulting from scary climate change which you – yes you! caused! You’d best change your behaviour just like we tell you to!’ Essentially the climate change fearmongering has run out of steam, because – inevitably – people can’t, in all honesty, see anything happening.
‘Covid’ is the most recent. But I’m not going there or we’ll be here all night.
You can probably think of other examples, I’m sure. Like if I told you I’m in full support of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine this would induce negative emotions in you (apologies if you’re already clued up about what’s really been going on). Examine those emotions. Where do they come from? Who gave them to you? And why? What benefit do they get from you thinking like that?
You don’t get any benefit, by the way, but they do.
They do in the grand narrative sense. A new Cold War with a perpetual (Orwellian) enemy for you to fear. And so it starts again.
These people will not stop. Ever. They’re like the Terminator – you can’t reason with them. Or bargain with them. They don’t feel pity, or remorse. They have no conscience.
All they have is a pathology.
In a sane, healthy world, children and young people would be taught how to recognise that pathology and ostracise it.
Children would be taught the right stories. Like in the Steiner education system, their upbringing would appeal to their left amygdala, far more than the right. Taught that the world and life can be good and beautiful and full of wonder to be curious about and worth living.
I may write something later about where this all started in your (psycho)history. Where it went wrong, I mean. Once upon a time, humanity was taught the right stories and they were spiritual.
But then the anti-spirit came along. Sorry to go all Nietzschean on you, dearest readers, but that’s the root of this evil matter.
But that’s for another story.