Inaction

say what

I like soft things...so soft!
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4..maybe?
I recently had a discussion with someone about the state of the world and passivity of society. I was mentioning that if society as a whole become more informed about their rights, the actions of governments (international and domestic), and came together to fight a common cause - we might be in a better space. My perspective was that me becoming educated on what's happening around the world, and hearing grass root stories and going beyond syndicated news stations, that I was becoming educated and this as an action towards helping. For example, learning about the Gaza conflict- while it doesn't directly impact me, knowing about it, understanding the dynamics of the politics, and hearing the first hand stories of the people is important to me, so that I know what's happening. However, the individuals I was chatting with basically said 'Why bother knowing about all the stuff you can't do anything about? It's just going to worry and stress you out." And when I said that the act of knowing and learning about it, was action towards 'doing something about it', they simply said "No. You're not doing anything. Name one thing you're doing to help them out?" ...and I couldn't.

I'm left feeling that they're right...why worry about all this stuff that I can't do anything about? What is educating myself on all the strife and conflict in the world going to do, especially if I'm not going to help out? In fact, what can I do to help (without giving up my life as it is now?)

What do you guys think? Is knowing what's going on active or inactive? Should we bother learning about it if we can't do anything about it?

I keep going back to the idea that if everyone felt/said they couldn't make a difference, than a difference would never happen.
 
I am comfortable doing nothing to help people in other Nations who have existed centuries or even thousands of years before my own country was established. What can we REALLY know about their government, their traditions, their religions, their cultures, their people's values, their struggles and history when most of us live in a place that's considerably more liberal, safe and free? Our ideas of what is right and wrong may be vastly different than the countries we're judging and think we're trying to help.

I read a great article about people going to third world countries trying to help in relief efforts and how it's all fucking garbage bullshit and we really do more harm than good:

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/20/157105485/missionaries-in-africa-doing-more-harm-than-good

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1024865/pg1

http://www.ilovejamaica.org/10ReasonsNOTtoDo.htm

http://www.sharefaith.com/blog/2014/02/reasons-short-term-mission-trip-harm-good/

TL;DR don't go on a vacation to a different country to "help." You just get in the way unless you can bring something revolutionary to their medical community or to their economy.

To me, awareness is also garbage. I don't know how many times I've seen people try to bring "awareness" to the table with any number of gimmicks and tricks. The truth is people don't want to know and people don't care. I think partly people in privileged countries have an idealized view of what they can do to help, and others think that the failing nations and people should figure out a way to sort their own shit out.

We've all seen what happens when America wants to impose their views on other countries. It ends badly and people die, so why do we always feel so moved to "help?"

We don't even want to help ourselves by voting in our own elections or volunteering or doing something in our own countries and communities to help our own neighbours. It's nice to look overseas and see those poor, starving Ethiopians and want to send them food, but we don't want to help the homeless on our street corner or make sure there are enough resources for people who need it.

Then you have to consider that people have to WANT to be helped. And there has to be a way to help or to teach and train them to care for themselves without everything being filtered through corrupt governments.

So yeah, awareness about other countries does nothing because it's not up to us to tell ancient nations and people what they "need" according to our own very limited experiences and values, especially when we turn a blind eye to what's in our own backyard.
 
I would say that educating yourself prepares you to help even though at this moment you can't. Maybe in the future an opportunity will present itself, but if you aren't educated to what's right, you won't know to act.
Don't let yourself be passive. Keep your interest. However don't let it worry you. If there isn't anything that you can do within reason, then accept that. But also don't just not worry about those things because then you become closed minded among many other reasons. It's easy to just worry about your life. It's better to expand your understanding to include more than is just what is in front of you or relevant to you. From that you gain understanding and empathy. At least that's my two cents :) lol
 
There's an interesting quirk with human beings

often when you are telling them something they don't want to hear they will reply to you in such a way that shows that they simply haven't listened to what you just told them

This is because we don't see reality....we see perceptions of reality

Controlling perceptions is 'magick' all though nowadays it is given newer names such as 'psychology', 'neuro-linguistic programming', 'propaganda' etc

So for example Orson Welles once narrated an adaptation of H.G.Wells famous story 'the war of the worlds' on radio in a format that gave the impression that it was an actual news bulletin telling everyone that the world was under attack from martians. Those listeners who missed the start of the show didn't hear the disclaimer at the start and as a result a small panic was caused where for a while at least some of the listeners were living in a reality...or rather with a perception of reality that they were under attack from martians.

They weren't under attack from martians but in their minds they were living in a reality where they were

So obviously propaganda works on the same principle....you create a perception of reality in your target audience so that they then believe that version of reality. What people believe will of course then affect how they behave. So if you control what people believe you can control how they behave

This is a trick that has been known about for millenia by religions, priesthoods, monarchies, governments and secret societies

Lets say for example that you are a neo-con and you want to invade Iraq so that you can gain control of its oil fields, raid its museums for babylonian tablets and stop its leader from trading oil in non dollar currencies

You have to find some way to convince the public that going to war with iraq is a good idea. But you know that most of the public couldn't even put a pin on iraq on a map let alone have any sort of anger towards the country.

So you need to weave a bit of magick....you need to cast a spell......you have to create a perception in the minds of the public that the Iraqis are an enemy and a threat. So you get your various agents to start saying in press conferences that the Iraqis were involved in 911 and that they are building weapons of mass destruction that they could use against you and your allies.

Suddenly the public who previously hadn't even heard of iraq were foaming at the mouth with anger! ''Those damn iraqis attacked us on 911 and they're getting ready to hit us reeeall good with some WMD's...we'd better get in there and bomb them into the stone age''

The public are suddenyl living in a totally different reality (perception of) where they are not only under attack but under direct threat from people who are doing them no harm. This illusion then allows you to attack the iraqis with the full support of your public

This process happens at all levels. Maybe you are in your workplace and another person is competeing with you for a promotion and they tell you a lie about the position which suddenly makes the job post seem less attractive; you pull out of the process and you miss out on the job.

Or you might be listening to the corporate media who are telling you that its a good time to buy a home when in fact a housing bubble has been built and is ready to pop! Because you did not see through the perception they created you buy the house and then lose it in the ensuing economic downturn as interest rates rise.

So its really a process of being fooled and it happens to us at EVERY LEVEL affecting us all the time in a world where people are competing and trying to get one over on others.

So the question is: ''to what degree do you want to be conscious of various manipulations?''

You want to know if the job promotion is a good one, you want to know if it really is a good time to buy that house but do you want to know if your country should go to war or not?

Well if you don't get informed about what your government is upto because you think it doesn't really affect you then their behaviours can begin to affect you through indirect means.

So lets say that you don't object to your country going to war and as a result the government spends huge amounts of your taxpayers money to fund their war games and as a result the government makes an agreement with the banking cartel who run the federal reserve to get more money printed. This extra money in the system then causes inflation which then drives down the purchasing power of your money so suddenly you can't afford those payments on the house you bought and you desperately need that job promotion but are too pressured and flunk it etc

So its naive to think that the big issues don't affect us...they will come back to bite us in the ass one way or another

For example because the public doesn't object to corporate power there are now massive leakages of toxic waste into the water suipply and radioactive waste into the sea which is all affecting us directly and indirectly and so on

You could give lots of examples of why a refusal to take responsibility by the public allows bad things to happen
 
Last edited:
I recently had a discussion with someone about the state of the world and passivity of society. I was mentioning that if society as a whole become more informed about their rights, the actions of governments (international and domestic), and came together to fight a common cause - we might be in a better space. My perspective was that me becoming educated on what's happening around the world, and hearing grass root stories and going beyond syndicated news stations, that I was becoming educated and this as an action towards helping. For example, learning about the Gaza conflict- while it doesn't directly impact me, knowing about it, understanding the dynamics of the politics, and hearing the first hand stories of the people is important to me, so that I know what's happening. However, the individuals I was chatting with basically said 'Why bother knowing about all the stuff you can't do anything about? It's just going to worry and stress you out." And when I said that the act of knowing and learning about it, was action towards 'doing something about it', they simply said "No. You're not doing anything. Name one thing you're doing to help them out?" ...and I couldn't.

I'm left feeling that they're right...why worry about all this stuff that I can't do anything about? What is educating myself on all the strife and conflict in the world going to do, especially if I'm not going to help out? In fact, what can I do to help (without giving up my life as it is now?)

What do you guys think? Is knowing what's going on active or inactive? Should we bother learning about it if we can't do anything about it?

I keep going back to the idea that if everyone felt/said they couldn't make a difference, than a difference would never happen.

Unless you're going to mastermind or join some manipulation, educating other people is one of the only things you can do, or protests, unless you're going to go to some of these places, and frankly being inside Gaza doesn't seem like the best place to help them, and local aid seems more like a band-aid than a fix. For recurring problems, looking for the cure seems like the best way to me. In order to actually do something, getting more support seems like a logical first step to me. Or, we could just pretend that everyone knows everything they'll need from birth and just watch 1k years of development go backwards.
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting one, its been a long time coming but its dawning on a lot of people that having an opinion, often a strong opinion, about something isnt going to change anything, you could try and persuade someone to the same opinion but that may not necessarily change anything either, if you were successful you could have two people sharing an opinion but that would be it.

The right wing has been a lot more successful in organising and activism, in the US certainly, but globally, probably because there have been much less crisis, second thoughts and serious doubts among the right wing than the left, I think there's a lot of different reasons for that and they are worth discussing alone but not right now, anyway, because the right's "first principles" or "vision" has pretty much been settled for a long time they've spent longer on winning hearts and minds, campaigning and activism. They've got good "templates" of how it is done from other cultural back drops and conventional or habitual norms too, for instance evangelism, norms of spreading and upholding an opinion in one respect travel to other spheres of life.

The guys defending privileges, directly or indirectly, have a lot of great books out, Claire Wolfe is a great author on the radical milita capitalist right, all her books are light(ish) on theorising, leave that to Ayn Rand kind of thing, but dense on what to actually do, there's a hell of a lot of simply good advice for life mixed in with the politics, so if anyone who's not that enamoured with any political picks it up and realises, hey, yeah, that makes sense, that makes for success, they're likely to adopt the rest of it.

I think all of this is worth knowing about, ignoring oppression elsewhere or far away leaves you hopelessly unprepared when it comes to your own door, however having an opinion and being prepared to argue about it is insufficient at best to avoid oppression being visited on you or to making the world a place in which oppression is less of a feature, at least of government, politics, working life.

The whole way in which activism and "do something, do anything" thinking effects individuals and public life deserves a deeper discussion though too, there's a lot of toxic effects from that, people support the worst elements in a society sometimes because "they are doing something", instead of thinking is that the best idea? Abbie Hoffman was smarter than a lot of his readers when he said why waste even a brick? As in what's the point of rioting if it achieves nothing other than permitting a lot of riot police to flex their muscle? Likewise there's a lot of really bad legislation and thinking supported with the very, very best of intentions and people with "good hearts" behind it all, like the attempts to redefine marriage as something other than what its been historically or what it means to most people (and in all likelihood always will). All of that is a wasted effort and doesnt help or benefit anyone.

Its something that deserves some thinking about.
 
There's a really good TED talk called three myths of behaviour which relates to this topic, watching it right now.
 
I complain a great deal of all the crap that people are subject to in the world. All of the injustices etc much like you. And much like you I am told why worry about what you cannot change? I worry of course about having it show up one day on my doorstep and then of course at that point its too late.

I would say you are right to worry. However I would also say that you could fight your entire life and possibly change one thing out of a thousand that need to change. You would look up after that one thing and realize you had spent your entire life in pursuit of change. Is that a more worthy life than that of a person who dedicates themselves to fun and whatever else? I cant say. But I can say that I am one person, I am human. Even the person who apparently had god on his side "jesus" couldnt change the world in all the ways it needs to change. Even Einstein, mother Teresa, gahndi, budda etc... couldnt change the world in all the ways it needs to change.

If being on your death bed and saying " at least I tried" is important than maybe dedicating your life to changing things is what you should do. If on the other hand you want a happy life, look elsewhere.
 
The point is not to be the next Einstein or Ghandi! heck thats a huge amount of pressure to put on yourself!

I mean...to have expectations that YOU alone might change the world! No one can live upto that...you will be dissapointed and dejected

The point is NOT that one person can change the world

The point is that millions of people together can change the world

This does not require one person to do something amazing. It requires enough people to do their bit and all those small efforts add upto a lot

Ghandi did not resist the british on his own. he was simply a figurehead of a MOVEMENT of people

The idea here is not to put yourself under impossible strain and worry. The idea is that if we all become more conscious of what is going on in the world we will all begin to make small changes in our attitudes and behaviours and lives that will then when combined add up to a massive change

naturally the more people who become conscious and begin making small changes the more impetus the movement gains

Don't spend all day stressing about the situation in palestine or the middle east in general. just know that it is wrong for people to bomb each other and state that view publically

Speak that truth, let it resonate out across the world and it will become more and more unacceptable and less and less tolerated until there is no more room for it

Don't stress about the economy, learn how the game is played and make smart decisions. If you have wealth invest in tangible hard assets NOT paper money

Don't sit around complaining about the corruption of the banks....take your money out of the banks and put it into a community credit union

Don't sit around complaining about the two main political parties...stop voting for them and vote for a different party that isn't dominated by money

Don't whine about consumerism...stop consuming so much

Don't complain about the corporate takeover of our world...boycott the corporations as far as you can

Don't complain about poor health when you eat and drink processed shite.....learn that organic food has 60% more anti-oxidants and start eating it instead of the processed crap

Think of your money as a vote. Every penny you spend is a vote of support for something. Think about who and what you are giving your money to at all times

etc etc

But to know what small changes you can make and why you should make them requires you to be informed

If everyone begins to make these changes it will change our world

You CAN make a difference...a small difference that combined with everyone else will add upto a BIG difference...but only if enough people make a small difference
 
Last edited:
There's an interesting quirk with human beings

often when you are telling them something they don't want to hear they will reply to you in such a way that shows that they simply haven't listened to what you just told them

This is because we don't see reality....we see perceptions of reality

Controlling perceptions is 'magick' all though nowadays it is given newer names such as 'psychology', 'neuro-linguistic programming', 'propaganda' etc

So for example Orson Welles once narrated an adaptation of H.G.Wells famous story 'the war of the worlds' on radio in a format that gave the impression that it was an actual news bulletin telling everyone that the world was under attack from martians. Those listeners who missed the start of the show didn't hear the disclaimer at the start and as a result a small panic was caused where for a while at least some of the listeners were living in a reality...or rather with a perception of reality that they were under attack from martians.

The War of the Worlds radio broadcast was a myth perpetrated both by competitive interests from newspaper publishers and by the radio network as well by which they gained immense notoriety.

In the days following the adaptation, however, there was widespread outrage in the media. The program's news-bulletin format was described as cruelly deceptive by some newspapers (which had lost advertising revenue to radio) and public figures, leading to an outcry against the perpetrators of the broadcast and calls for regulation by the Federal Communications Commission. Despite these complaints–or perhaps in part because of them–the episode secured Welles's fame as a dramatist.
source: War of the Worlds (radio broadcast)

Oct. 28 2013 11:51 PM
The Myth of the War of the Worlds Panic

Orson Welles’ infamous 1938 radio program did not touch off nationwide hysteria. Why does the legend persist?
By Jefferson Pooley and Michael J. Socolow

Wednesday marks the 75th anniversary of Orson Welles’ electrifying War of the Worlds broadcast, in which the Mercury Theatre on the Air enacted a Martian invasion of Earth. “Upwards of a million people, [were] convinced, if only briefly, that the United States was being laid waste by alien invaders,” narrator Oliver Platt informs us in the new PBS documentary commemorating the program. The panic inspired by Welles made War of the Worlds perhaps the most notorious event in American broadcast history.

That’s the story you already know–it’s the narrative widely reprinted in academic textbooks and popular histories. With actors dramatizing the reaction of frightened audience members (based on contemporaneous letters), the new documentary, part of PBS’s American Experience series, reinforces the notion that naïve Americans were terrorized by their radios back in 1938. So did this weekend’s episode of NPR’s Radiolab, which opened with the assertion that on Oct. 30, 1938, “The United States experienced a kind of mass hysteria that we’ve never seen before.”

There’s only one problem: The supposed panic was so tiny as to be practically immeasurable on the night of the broadcast. Despite repeated assertions to the contrary in the PBS and NPR programs, almost nobody was fooled by Welles’ broadcast.

How did the story of panicked listeners begin? Blame America’s newspapers. Radio had siphoned off advertising revenue from print during the Depression, badly damaging the newspaper industry. So the papers seized the opportunity presented by Welles’ program to discredit radio as a source of news. The newspaper industry sensationalized the panic to prove to advertisers, and regulators, that radio management was irresponsible and not to be trusted. In an editorial titled “Terror by Radio,” the New York Times reproached “radio officials” for approving the interweaving of “blood-curdling fiction” with news flashes “offered in exactly the manner that real news would have been given.” Warned Editor and Publisher, the newspaper industry’s trade journal, “The nation as a whole continues to face the danger of incomplete, misunderstood news over a medium which has yet to prove ... that it is competent to perform the news job.”

The contrast between how newspaper journalists experienced the supposed panic, and what they reported, could be stark. In 1954, Ben Gross, the New York Daily News’ radio editor, published a memoir in which he recalled the streets of Manhattan being deserted as his taxi sped to CBS headquarters just as War of the Worlds was ending. Yet that observation failed to stop the Daily News from splashing the panic story across this legendary cover a few hours later.

From these initial newspaper items on Oct. 31, 1938, the apocryphal apocalypse only grew in the retelling. A curious (but predictable) phenomenon occurred: As the show receded in time and became more infamous, more and more people claimed to have heard it. As weeks, months, and years passed, the audience’s size swelled to such an extent that you might actually believe most of America was tuned to CBS that night. But that was hardly the case.

Far fewer people heard the broadcast–and fewer still panicked–than most people believe today. How do we know? The night the program aired, the C.E. Hooper ratings service telephoned 5,000 households for its national ratings survey. “To what program are you listening?” the service asked respondents. Only 2 percent answered a radio “play” or “the Orson Welles program,” or something similar indicating CBS. None said a “news broadcast,” according to a summary published in Broadcasting. In other words, 98 percent of those surveyed were listening to something else, or nothing at all, on Oct. 30, 1938. This miniscule rating is not surprising. Welles’ program was scheduled against one of the most popular national programs at the time–ventriloquist Edgar Bergen’s Chase and Sanborn Hour, a comedy-variety show.

The new PBS documentary allows that, “of the tens of millions of Americans listening to their radios that Sunday evening, few were tuned to the War of the Worlds” when it began, due to Bergen’s popularity. But the documentary’s script goes on to claim that “millions of listeners began twirling the dial” when the opening comedy routine on the Chase and Sanborn Hour gave way to a musical interlude. “Just at that moment thousands, hundreds, we don't how many listeners, started to dial-surf, where they landed on the Mercury Theatre on the Air,” explained Radiolab this weekend. No scholar, however, has ever isolated or extrapolated an actual number of dial twirlers. The data collected was simply not specific enough for us to know how many listeners might have switched over to Welles–just as we can’t estimate how many people turned their radios off, or switched from Mercury Theatre on the Air over to NBC’s Chase and Sanborn Hour either. (Radiolab played the Chase and Sanborn Hour’s musical interlude for its audience, as if the song itself constituted evidence that people of course switched to Welles’ broadcast.)

Both American Experience and Radiolab also omit the salient fact that several important CBS affiliates (including Boston’s WEEI) pre-empted Welles’ broadcast in favor of local commercial programming, further shrinking its audience. CBS commissioned a nationwide survey the day after the broadcast, and network executives were relieved to discover just how few people actually tuned in. “In the first place, most people didn’t hear it,” CBS’s Frank Stanton recalled later. “But those who did hear it, looked at it is as a prank and accepted it that way.”

The legend of the panic, however, grew exponentially over the following years. In 1940, an esteemed academic solidified the myth in the public mind. Relying heavily on a skewed report compiled six weeks after the broadcast by the American Institute of Public Opinion, The Invasion From Mars, by Princeton’s Hadley Cantril, estimated that about 1 million people were “frightened” by War of the Worlds. But the AIPO survey, as Cantril himself admitted, offered an audience rating “over 100 per cent higher than any other known measure of this audience.” Cantril defended his reliance on AIPO data by noting that it surveyed homes without telephones and small communities often overlooked by radio ratings agencies. But this cherry-picked data set was clearly tainted by the sensationalistic newspaper publicity following the broadcast (a possibility Cantril also admitted). Worse, Cantril committed an obvious categorical error by conflating being “frightened,” “disturbed,” or “excited” by the program with being “panicked.” In the late 1930s, radio audiences were regularly “excited” and “frightened” by suspenseful dramas. But what supposedly set Welles’ show apart was the “panic,” and even terror, it instilled in its audience. Was the small audience that listened to War of the Worlds excited by what they heard? Certainly. But that doesn’t mean they ran into the streets fearing for the fate of humanity.

And yet such behavior has become part of the War of the Worlds myth, as highlighted by the PBS program. “As Welles ran out the broadcast, the deluge of calls continued to light up switchboards across the country,” narrator Oliver Platt explains. “In some quarters there were even vague reports of suicides and panic-related deaths.” But just as the size of Welles’ audience has been exaggerated, so have reports of audience hysteria. Wire service reports did relay sensational stories of (unnamed) panicked listeners saved only by the timely intervention of friends or neighbors, but not one newspaper reported a verified suicide connected to the broadcast. Researchers in Princeton’s Office of Radio Research, working under the direction of Cantril, sought to verify a rumor that several people were treated for shock at St. Michael’s Hospital in Newark, N.J. The rumor was checked and found to be inaccurate. When the same researchers surveyed six New York City hospitals six weeks after the broadcast, “none of them had any record of any cases brought in specifically on account of the broadcast.” No specific death has ever been conclusively attributed to the drama. The Washington Post reported that one Baltimore listener died of a heart attack during the show, but unfortunately no one followed up to confirm the story or provide corroborative details. One particularly frightened listener did sue CBS for $50,000, claiming the network caused her “nervous shock.” Her lawsuit was quickly dismissed.

“By the next morning ... the panic broadcast was front-page news from coast to coast, with reports of traffic accidents, near riots, hordes of panicked people in the streets, all because of a radio play,” the PBS documentary recounts. But did armed citizens and National Guardsmen really assemble throughout America? Did mobs rove the streets? Not really. While newspapers made Oct. 30, 1938, a memorable night in the history of the United States, in reality it was a normal fall Sunday evening throughout North America. Four days after its initial, sensational report, the Washington Post published a letter from one reader who walked down F Street during the broadcast. He noticed “nothing approximating mass hysteria.” “In many stores radios were going, yet I observed nothing whatsoever of the absurd supposed ‘terror of the populace.’ There was none,” the reader reported. The Chicago Tribune made no mention of frightened mobs taking to the Windy City’s streets.

If War of the Worlds had in fact caused the widespread terror we’ve been told it did, you’d expect CBS and Welles to have been reprimanded for their actions. But that wasn’t the case. It’s true that Federal Communications Commission chairman Frank McNinch quickly obtained informal agreement from the radio networks that fictional news “flashes” would not be used again, but no official rulings or regulations were promulgated. Nor were CBS or Welles sanctioned in any manner. (In fact, the FCC prohibited complaints about the program from being used in license renewal hearings.) For the FCC and the networks, the sensationalized newspaper reports were at worst a nuisance. Janet Jackson’s 2004 “wardrobe malfunction” remains far more significant in the history of broadcast regulation than Orson Welles’ trickery.

In 2012, Cathleen O’Connell, the producer and director of the PBS documentary, telephoned one of the authors of this piece (Michael Socolow) to discuss the recent scholarship questioning the scale of the panic. The documentary does acknowledge this new work but relegates it to one line, late in the program: “Ultimately,” Oliver Platt intones, “the very extent of the panic would come to be seen as having been exaggerated by the press.”

But that one line fails to balance the accounts of hysteria peppered throughout the script. Director and Welles collaborator Peter Bogdanovich tells us that Welles “scared half the country.” The documentary further claims that “newspaper coverage about the broadcast ... continued unabated for two full weeks and amounted to some 12,500 articles in total.” Yet in his comprehensive analysis of contemporaneous reporting on the panic, American University professor W. Joseph Campbell found that almost all newspapers swiftly dropped the story. “Coverage of the broadcast faded quickly from the front pages, in most cases after just a day or two,” Campbell writes, arguing that had the hysteria truly been widespread, “newspapers for days and even weeks afterward could have been expected to have published detailed reports about the dimensions and repercussions of such an extraordinary event.” Much like the broadcast itself, newspaper coverage was dramatic and sensational–but ephemeral. The PBS documentary, like so many accounts of War of the Worlds before it, can’t resist the allure of the myth.

Why is this myth so alluring–why does it persist? The answer is complicated, most likely reflecting everything from the structure of our commercial broadcasting system and of our federal regulation, as well as our culture’s skepticism about the mass audience and the fear that always accompanies the excitement of new media. Even today, broadcast networks must convince advertisers that they retain commanding powers over their audiences. As such, CBS has regularly celebrated the War of the Worlds broadcast and its supposed effect on the public. In 1957, Studio One, a CBS anthology series, dramatized the panic as “The Night America Trembled,” and when the network celebrated its 75th anniversary in 2003, War of the Worlds was a noted highlight. On the other side of the coin, federal regulators must still persuade politicians that there exists an important protective role for the guardians of the airwaves. For both broadcasters and regulators, War of the Worlds provides excellent evidence to justify their claims about media power.

Some portion of the blame must also go to Hadley Cantril. His scholarly book validated the popular memory of the event. He gave academic credence to the panic and attached real numbers to it. He remains the only source with academic legitimacy who claims there was a sizable panic. Without this validation, the myth likely would not be in social psychology and mass communication textbooks, as it still is today–pretty much every high schooler and liberal arts undergraduate runs across it at some point. (Both the American Experience and Radiolab segments rely on his work.) Though you may have never heard of Cantril, the War of the Worlds myth is very much his legacy.

But the myth also persists because it so perfectly captures our unease with the media's power over our lives. "The ‘panic broadcast’ may be as much a function of fantasy as fact," writes Northwestern’s Jeffrey Sconce in Haunted Media, suggesting that the panic myth is a function of simple displacement: It’s not the Martians invading Earth that we fear, he argues; it’s ABC, CBS, and NBC invading and colonizing our consciousness that truly frightens us. To Sconce, the panic plays a “symbolic function” for American culture–we retell the story because we need a cautionary tale about the power of media. And that need has hardly abated: Just as radio was the new medium of the 1930s, opening up exciting new channels of communication, today the Internet provides us with both the promise of a dynamic communicative future and dystopian fears of a new form of mind control; lost privacy; and attacks from scary, mysterious forces. This is the fear that animates our fantasy of panicked hordes–both then and now.
source: The Myth of the War of the Worlds Panic

This theme came back around in Orson Welles' celebrated Citizen Kane by no small coincidence. These were both set into the socio-cultural context of sensationalism in the media.

Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.

Joseph Campbell defines yellow press newspapers as having daily multi-column front-page headlines covering a variety of topics, such as sports and scandal, using bold layouts (with large illustrations and perhaps color), heavy reliance on unnamed sources, and unabashed self-promotion. The term was extensively used to describe certain major New York City newspapers about 1900 as they battled for circulation.

Frank Luther Mott defines yellow journalism in terms of five characteristics:
1.scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news
2.lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings
3.use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts
4.emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips
5.dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.

The term originated during the American Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century with the circulation battles between Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal. The battle peaked from 1895 to about 1898, and historical usage often refers specifically to this period. Both papers were accused by critics of sensationalizing the news in order to drive up circulation, although the newspapers did serious reporting as well.

Pulitzer's approach made an impression on William Randolph Hearst, a mining heir who acquired the San Francisco Examiner from his father in 1887. Hearst read the World while studying at Harvard University and resolved to make the Examiner as bright as Pulitzer's paper. Under his leadership, the Examiner devoted 24 percent of its space to crime, presenting the stories as morality plays, and sprinkled adultery and "nudity" (by 19th century standards) on the front page. A month after Hearst took over the paper, the Examiner ran this headline about a hotel fire:

HUNGRY, FRANTIC FLAMES. They Leap Madly Upon the Splendid Pleasure Palace by the Bay of Monterey, Encircling Del Monte in Their Ravenous Embrace From Pinnacle to Foundation. Leaping Higher, Higher, Higher, With Desperate Desire. Running Madly Riotous Through Cornice, Archway and Facade. Rushing in Upon the Trembling Guests with Savage Fury. Appalled and Panic-Striken the Breathless Fugitives Gaze Upon the Scene of Terror. The Magnificent Hotel and Its Rich Adornments Now a Smoldering heap of Ashes. The Examiner Sends a Special Train to Monterey to Gather Full Details of the Terrible Disaster. Arrival of the Unfortunate Victims on the Morning's Train – A History of Hotel del Monte – The Plans for Rebuilding the Celebrated Hostelry – Particulars and Supposed Origin of the Fire.

Hearst could be hyperbolic in his crime coverage; one of his early pieces, regarding a "band of murderers," attacked the police for forcing Examiner reporters to do their work for them. But while indulging in these stunts, the Examiner also increased its space for international news, and sent reporters out to uncover municipal corruption and inefficiency. In one well remembered story, Examiner reporter Winifred Black was admitted into a San Francisco hospital and discovered that indigent women were treated with "gross cruelty." The entire hospital staff was fired the morning the piece appeared.

The story goes that the Spanish-American War was started in part or in whole based on sensationalist propagada:

Pulitzer and Hearst are often adduced as the cause of the United States' entry into the Spanish-American War due to sensationalist stories or exaggerations of the terrible conditions in Cuba. However, the vast majority of Americans did not live in New York City, and the decision-makers who did live there probably relied more on staid newspapers like the Times, The Sun, or the Post. The most famous example of a claim is the apocryphal story that artist Frederic Remington telegrammed Hearst to tell him all was quiet in Cuba and "There will be no war." Hearst responded "Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." Historians now believe that no such telegrams ever were sent.

But Hearst became a war hawk after a rebellion broke out in Cuba in 1895. Stories of Cuban virtue and Spanish brutality soon dominated his front page. While the accounts were of dubious accuracy, the newspaper readers of the 19th century did not expect, or necessarily want, his stories to be pure nonfiction. Historian Michael Robertson has said that "Newspaper reporters and readers of the 1890s were much less concerned with distinguishing among fact-based reporting, opinion and literature."
source: Yellow Journalism

The historical interpretation of Citizen Kane being "about" William Randolph Hearst is generally accepted without question.

The story is a film à clef that examines the life and legacy of Charles Foster Kane, played by Welles, a character based in part upon the American newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, Chicago tycoons Samuel Insull and Harold McCormick, and aspects of Welles' own life. Upon its release, Hearst prohibited mention of the film in any of his newspapers. Kane's career in the publishing world is born of idealistic social service, but gradually evolves into a ruthless pursuit of power. Narrated principally through flashbacks, the story is told through the research of a newsreel reporter seeking to solve the mystery of the newspaper magnate's dying word: "Rosebud".

After his success in the theatre with his Mercury Players, and his controversial 1938 radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds on The Mercury Theatre on the Air, Welles was courted by Hollywood. He signed a contract with RKO Pictures in 1939. Unusual for an untried director, he was given the freedom to develop his own story, to use his own cast and crew, and to have final cut privilege. Following two abortive attempts to get a project off the ground, he wrote the screenplay for Citizen Kane, collaborating on the effort with Herman Mankiewicz. Principal photography took place in 1940 and the film received its American release in 1941.
source: Citizen Kane

What's truly interesting about all this is that it is ultimately ambiguous and up to interpretation as is the cultural impact and the impact that the preceding radio broadcast had on society which is the real reason why they're so fascinating.

Citizen Kane relied on the same ambiguity and power of suggestion that media, even today, may or may not possess. If the media makes the claim that it is highly influential amongst its readers, how questionable is that assertion and how measurable is it?

The marketing on the Citizen Kane movie poster itself states that "Everybody is talking about it!"

The movie's central premise of determining the meaning of Kane's dying word, 'Rosebud,' was a purposeful fabrication. The movie BOTH opens and closes on a sign hung outside the gates of his mansion which states, "No Trespassing," and where he dies alone after uttering his last word. Nobody was there to hear his utterance except the audience vis-à-vis the film.

Opening Scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r0b_XeRkG4

Closing Scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP0O1BKu3zk

George Orson Welles (/ˈwɛlz/; May 6, 1915 — October 10, 1985) was an American actor, director, writer and producer who worked in theater, radio and film. He is best remembered for his innovative work in all three media: in theatre, most notably Caesar (1937), a groundbreaking Broadway adaptation of Julius Caesar; in radio, the debut of the Mercury Theatre, whose The War of the Worlds (1938), is one of the most famous broadcasts in the history of radio; and in film, Citizen Kane (1941), consistently ranked as one of the all-time greatest films.
source: Orson Welles

There is alot of rumor and rampant speculation regarding the movie which is why it is so enduring. I've heard myths ranging from Welles and Hearst sharing an elevator together to 'rosebud' being a euphemism Hearst used in regards to his mistress's clitoris. How any of these are confirmable or reliable is part and parcel of how interesting half-truths can get. They don't have to be confirmable if there is some plausability to them or imaginable confirmability. They could be true!

They weren't under attack from martians but in their minds they were living in a reality where they were

There is just so much irony here. So...very...much...
 
I apologize for the length of the preceding post.

To bring that back around to the original topic: Belief in the power of one's own influence on society-at-large is largely an unanswerable question. There is a theory called the Great Man theory that reflects the belief in important historical figures or heroes who symbolize and/or effect a great historical event.

The Great Man theory is a 19th-century idea according to which history can be largely explained by the impact of "great men", or heroes: highly influential individuals who, due to either their personal charisma, intelligence, wisdom, or political skill utilized their power in a way that had a decisive historical impact. The theory was popularized in the 1840s by Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle, and in 1860 Herbert Spencer formulated a counter-argument that has remained influential throughout the 20th century to the present; Spencer said that such great men are the products of their societies, and that their actions would be impossible without the social conditions built before their lifetimes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory

The contrast being that these figures are only representative of or happened to be at the forefront of a larger cultural movement that would have occurred regardless of their influence.

This is an even older historical theme, but I cannot recall it at the moment (maybe later).

This ties into an individual's desire to leave some sort of historical impact or legacy in which they acquire meaning for their lives.

The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of our mortality, which in turn acts as the emotional and intellectual response to our basic survival mechanism. Becker argues that a basic duality in human life exists between the physical world of objects and a symbolic world of human meaning. Thus, since humanity has a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we are able to transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, a concept involving our symbolic halves. By embarking on what Becker refers to as an "immortality project" (or causa sui), in which a person creates or becomes part of something which they feel will last forever, the person feels they have "become" heroic and, henceforth, part of something eternal; something that will never die, compared to their physical body that will one day die. This, in turn, gives the person the feeling that their life has meaning, a purpose, significance in the grand scheme of things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denial_of_Death
 
The War of the Worlds radio broadcast was a myth perpetrated both by competitive interests from newspaper publishers and by the radio network as well by which they gained immense notoriety.


source: War of the Worlds (radio broadcast)


source: The Myth of the War of the Worlds Panic

This theme came back around in Orson Welles' celebrated Citizen Kane by no small coincidence. These were both set into the socio-cultural context of sensationalism in the media.





The story goes that the Spanish-American War was started in part or in whole based on sensationalist propagada:


source: Yellow Journalism

The historical interpretation of Citizen Kane being "about" William Randolph Hearst is generally accepted without question.


source: Citizen Kane

What's truly interesting about all this is that it is ultimately ambiguous and up to interpretation as is the cultural impact and the impact that the preceding radio broadcast had on society which is the real reason why they're so fascinating.

Citizen Kane relied on the same ambiguity and power of suggestion that media, even today, may or may not possess. If the media makes the claim that it is highly influential amongst its readers, how questionable is that assertion and how measurable is it?

The marketing on the Citizen Kane movie poster itself states that "Everybody is talking about it!"

The movie's central premise of determining the meaning of Kane's dying word, 'Rosebud,' was a purposeful fabrication. The movie BOTH opens and closes on a sign hung outside the gates of his mansion which states, "No Trespassing," and where he dies alone after uttering his last word. Nobody was there to hear his utterance except the audience vis-à-vis the film.

Opening Scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r0b_XeRkG4

Closing Scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP0O1BKu3zk


source: Orson Welles

There is alot of rumor and rampant speculation regarding the movie which is why it is so enduring. I've heard myths ranging from Welles and Hearst sharing an elevator together to 'rosebud' being a euphemism Hearst used in regards to his mistress's clitoris. How any of these are confirmable or reliable is part and parcel of how interesting half-truths can get. They don't have to be confirmable if there is some plausability to them or imaginable confirmability. They could be true!



There is just so much irony here. So...very...much...

You haven't read my post have you?

I didn't say it was a 'nationwide panic'...i said some of the listeners believed it to be real...and they did

So you have created a strawman and then attacked it
 
Last edited:
I apologize for the length of the preceding post.

To bring that back around to the original topic: Belief in the power of one's own influence on society-at-large is largely an unanswerable question. There is a theory called the Great Man theory that reflects the belief in important historical figures or heroes who symbolize and/or effect a great historical event.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory

The contrast being that these figures are only representative of or happened to be at the forefront of a larger cultural movement that would have occurred regardless of their influence.

This is an even older historical theme, but I cannot recall it at the moment (maybe later).

This ties into an individual's desire to leave some sort of historical impact or legacy in which they acquire meaning for their lives.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denial_of_Death

People react to their environment

If it starts raining you move under cover

if someone starts oppressing you you either move away from them or you make a stand against the oppression

When oppression grows individuals and groups begin to resist that

Our governments are becoming more oppressive and more and more people will react to that...and react they should!

The only question now is: ''what is the best way to respond to the oppression?''
 
I complain a great deal of all the crap that people are subject to in the world. All of the injustices etc much like you. And much like you I am told why worry about what you cannot change? I worry of course about having it show up one day on my doorstep and then of course at that point its too late.

I would say you are right to worry. However I would also say that you could fight your entire life and possibly change one thing out of a thousand that need to change. You would look up after that one thing and realize you had spent your entire life in pursuit of change. Is that a more worthy life than that of a person who dedicates themselves to fun and whatever else? I cant say. But I can say that I am one person, I am human. Even the person who apparently had god on his side "jesus" couldnt change the world in all the ways it needs to change. Even Einstein, mother Teresa, gahndi, budda etc... couldnt change the world in all the ways it needs to change.

If being on your death bed and saying " at least I tried" is important than maybe dedicating your life to changing things is what you should do. If on the other hand you want a happy life, look elsewhere.

Worrying doesnt change anything, although I would argue that wild action and doing per se doesnt change things either, in fact it can change things for the worse and set back good campaigns by years, possibly generations, until things can be recovered.

If you consider some of the big political trends and evolving nature of modern political ideologies there's a lot of instances of this, consider socialism, at its outset it didnt consider the state a means to introduce or further its goals at all, then there's the welfare state interlude, in the west, and command economies, elsewhere, in many ways disatisfaction with that reality was used to wipe socialism of the face of the earth and its still used, despite the fact that there's not really been anything worth calling a credible socialist movement or example to anyone for a long, long, long time, if ever, to be honest.
 
The only question now is: ''what is the best way to respond to the oppression?''

I think this is the key to my thinking...what is the best way to respond? But not only that, what is the most feasible way for one person, to respond? Is educating ourselves a response? or is it actually inaction?
 
I think this is the key to my thinking...what is the best way to respond? But not only that, what is the most feasible way for one person, to respond? Is educating ourselves a response? or is it actually inaction?

Imagine that from birth you are put into a maze.

Now because you have been in that maze from birth you don't know that it is a maze and you don't know that there is a world outside that maze.

So you turn this way and that and you keep hitting dead ends. The maze is constructed in such ways as to control and direct your behaviour, thought and energies in certain directions. Everyone around you is conforming to those programmed behaviours and thoughts.

But something inside you is nagging you. You feel that the direction you are constantly directed in are not in alignment with how you feel. You feel there is something more to the whole story.

One day you do not follow the signs in the maze and you walk in the opposite direction to everyone else. After a while you find a passage that you never knew was there and you go through it into the outside world

This is pretty much how the perception prison works. It is ingenious because people are imprisoned by their own thoughts which have been implanted into their head through conditioning.

However the day that you fully realise the extent to which you have been lied to is the day that the walls of the prison come tumbling down. Its like a switch going in the head. The world becomes a totally new place as you are faced with a whole new set of perceptions which are radically different to your previously held perceptions.

When you speak to people you are able to quickly tell if they are operating under the old operating system of perceptions or if they have upgraded to the new one.

But the 'educating yourself' part of the process is essential to first escape the maze.

Imagine a perception to be a slide held up in front of your eyes. That image is all you know. But if you get some information that contradicts that reality then it puts a crack in the perception. One piece of information is easy to dismiss though becase as human beings we are able to warp our perceptions of reality. If however we continue to receive contradictory information then more and more cracks appear in our perception until eventually it breaks revealing a new perception behind it.

However....we have to allow the perception to break; others can offer us lots of information that contradicts our old perception but only we can then assimilate it....because as i said we are able to warp our perceptions of reality to fit the ideas that we want to believe.

What i've realised from discussing and debating with thousands of people in a number of places online and offline over a number of years is that for a person to see a new perception of reality they have to WANT TO DO IT. I'll come back to that in a moment...

But to go back to the educating ourselves aspect of this.....we have to get that information that will contradict our perceptions in order to break down our current perception. An example of this process happening early in a persons life is the lie of santa claus where children are told that if they behave a magic, jolly man will come down their chimney at christmas time and leave them presents. However over time the children get information to contradict that perception. They begin to hear whisperings in the playground that santa isn't real and they stay up late, pretending to be asleep on christmas to try and catch a glimpse of santa but instead they see their parents dropping off the presents. Enough cracks exist in the perception now that they have enough suspicion to confront their parents who finally admit that santa does not exist. The childs perceptions of reality then undergo a radical change.

The santa myth is really just the beginning for that child though. As they grow older they encounter many people weaving myths and various perceptions of reality. They get it from the church, the government, the education system and the media all of which tell them a variety of perceptions.

If you think about the mainstream news....what they are doing is weaving narratives with good guys and bad buys just like the old hollywood westerns with their white hat (goodguy) v's black hat (bad guy) stories. But who decides who is a good guy and who is a bad guy when each side in each conflict calls the other the 'terrorists?' hence the saying: 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter'.

So the educating yourself part of the process is about YOUR liberation from the maze of false perceptions. Once you realise you are in that maze it alows you to begin questioning the narratives/perceptions that are being offered to you by the groups mentioned above. This then allows you to make your own mind up about whats going on and to then strategise YOUR response to the web of lies.

So going back to what i was saying about people wanting a new perception before they will accept a new one....the people who weave the narratives in for example the mainstream media KNOW this about people...they rely on it for the maze to exist.

By knowing that people have to want liberation from the maze before they will take that step the engineers of perception weave narratives that are comforting to those people...that coset them. You could see the maze also as a form of SLEEP from which many people do not want to awaken.

A good film analogy of this would be the film 'the village' where a group of parents are so hurt by the world that they agree to set up a community in some woods that are cut off from the outside world in order to escape what they call the 'darkness' of our society. They set up their village and they raise their children there but they don't tell their children about the outside world so the children grow up in the village knowing only that world (they are in a perception bubble that the adults have woven around their minds)

In order to keep the children within the village the adults decide that they need a bogeyman to scare the children into remaining near the village so they say that there are creatures out in the forest that will kill them if they stray and they dress up as those creatures to frighten the children. This fear acts as a powerful perceptual bubble on the youngsters and curbs their natural inquisitiveness that would otherwise take them from the village to explore the wider world.

This film was made in the climate of paranoia that existed in the wake of 911 and the Iraq war which was fought under the pretext of fighting 'terror'. 911 created a bogeyman which was 'terrorism' which then kept the public terrified of a perceived outside threat, so that they would respect their government (the adults in the village) and obey them.

This process of creating outside bogeymen has allowed the wealthy in the west to stop the workers from turning on them by giving them an outside threat to worry about so that they instead obey the wealthy.

Howard Zinn expressed this as follows:

“American capitalism needed international rivalry—and periodic war—to create an artificial community of interest between rich and poor.”

However many people do not understand this or how their perceptions are being created for them. You can speak to people even on this forum who will speak as if they are expressing their own mind when in fact all they are doing is regurgitating the narrative that has been given to them by FOX news. Their ideas are not their own but rather ones implanted into their minds by outside agents.

Just as a person can't quit smoking until they want to....a person cannot let go of old perceptions until they want to. I have not had trouble letting go of old perceptions because I WANT TO FIND FAULT WITH THE SYSTEM. I lost faith in the system a long time ago so i have been looking to find fault with it. This has allowed me to seek out, with an open mind, alternative perceptions. However many people are snuggling into the bosom of the sytem and they don't want to wake up.

Not many people seem to be happy within the system but some still do not want to let go because they are afraid; they often say ''better the devil you know'' as a philosophical justification for holding on tight to the system. Theroux (and later pink floyd) described that condition of holding onto a horrible system as ''living a life of quiet desperation'' (usually involving lots of navel gazing but not much looking up at the wider picture)

I as an individual am not content to live a life of quiet desperation so i willingly shed redundant perceptions on an ongoing journey of evolving perceptions, but some people are in a state of arrested development where they do not want to look beyond the narratives that are woven for them in the mainstream media, which usually revolve around a form of nationalistic, racial or religious tribalism.

The tribalist perception maze revolves around creating identities for people that lump them into groups so that those groups can then be pitted against each other. This keeps the people of the world divided and antagonistic towards each other. So from birth people are given a 'nationality' and taught to love a flag and to obey their government and worship a particular brand of religion.

Many young people will sign up for the military and hand over all decision making (and personla responsibility) to their 'superior' officers because they think being blindly loyal to their government is the right thing to do. By snuggling into the bosom of government however they have stopped themselves from thinking independantly. They are not stopping to think if their government is behaving morally or responsibly....they just keep that perception of their government being the 'good guy' because it cosets them...but in reality it is ignorance at best and at worst it is moral cowardice.

This is why many soldiers later switch from being right wing, flag waving, war mongerers to being left wing, peace protestors because they begin to see through the web of lies their government has woven in order to exploit them and take its pound of flesh from them and their buddies who are left questioning what it is they have bled and suffered for.

A clear example of the weaving of perceptions can be seen at the moment with the various conflicts in the middle east. For example the mainstream media weaves one narrative where we are told that some defenceless yazidis are trapped on a mountain and need to be rescued from a larger military force bent on destroying them but at the same time another narrative is woven where another group, the gazans, are also trapped in a small geographical area and are being menaced by a larger, stronger military force do nopt need to be rescued despite being attacked by a larger military force.

So we are told it is terrible and morally reprehensible to bomb the crap out of one defenceless group but it is ok to bomb the crap out of another defenceless group!

An awakened person who is able to look beyond the narratives knows that it is wrong to bomb the crap out of any defenceless group

So self education frees a person from being manipulated into supporting things that are morally reprehensible or harmful to themselves or others

So educating ourselves is really the beginning of the journey and from then on it becomes an ongoing process that never really ends

I was watching a clip by an ex KGB guy recently where he explains that there has been a deliberate process in the west of feeding the public lots of contradictory information and of splitting people down into groups to the point where people are no longer sure of the ground that they stand on anymore. This demoralises them and makes them easier to manipulate; he calls it 'ideological subversion or psychological warfare':

[video=youtube;R3nXvScRazg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3nXvScRazg[/video]

Full length talk on how to brainwash a nation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5It1zarINv0

Once a person is awake and aware then they are in a position to begin trying to share information with others that will contradict the official narrative in oreder to provide those people with the opportunity (if they want it) to escape from the maze

As i said earlier in the thread...one person is unlikely to be able to change much in the world but large groups of people can. So one person escaping form the maze is not going to change anything. That person must go back to the maze and assist others to leave the maze in order to affect real change.

Only large numbers of people waking up will be able to change the system.

So stage 1: educate yourself (this process continues from that day forward)
stage 2: share what you have found that helped you breakdown your old perceptions in order to then grow the movement of awakened people
stage 3: use your new understanding of how the world works to begin to pro-actively taking steps towards making change in your life to be the change you want to see in the world

I'm at stage 3 now but i am encountering barriers. The system is designed to make it difficult for people to escape the maze and the system has been refined over many generations to contain previous generations of people like me. So it really is like trying to climb out of a pit of quicksand! However if large groups people try to do it and help each other then it will happen much easier and much quicker....which then returns us to the importance of step 2: spreading awareness (we can't do much alone so we need others who can see what we see)

The internet is providing people with the opportunity to undergo this process on an unprecedented scale. The powers that be who control the maze are threatened by the internet and are seeking to control it more and more so people need to use this window of opportunity now to educate, inform and organise

So to go back to the theme of 'inaction'.....educating yourself is only part of a process. However once you are aware it becomes difficult to not then act on what you know in some way. People will respond to that urge in different ways. Many will take the internet to talk about what they are finding out and by doing so they are moving to stage 2 which is a vital form of action. They will of course meet resistance from those that are hanging on in quiet desperation.

So is it justifiable to unsettle those that want to hang on in quiet desperation? There are a couple of aspects to that....first of all the system is evolving all the time and it is now trying to evolve into an even more draconian prison (totalitarian system) and if people don't wake upto that then their desperation will grow...so the ''ignorance is bliss'' approach will actually make things much worse for them....ie the 'bliss' won't last. The other aspect is that by burying their head in the sand and being inactive they are going to allow you to be dragged deeper into the quicksand of the system because you are going to need their help to resist the system...it's a numbers game
 
Last edited:
Thanks, [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]!

I find your stages really interesting:

So stage 1: educate yourself (this process continues from that day forward)
stage 2: share what you have found that helped you breakdown your old perceptions in order to then grow the movement of awakened people
stage 3: use your new understanding of how the world works to begin to pro-actively taking steps towards making change in your life to be the change you want to see in the world

At stage 3 you mention taking steps towards making change in your own life. But what about others'? Take the Gaza conflict as an example. What am I, one person miles away, able to do to help that situation? Is educating myself doing anything except causing me stress? :)
 
One solitary thought will change things. Will you notice it in your lifetime? Perhaps not. But it's how we got to where we are and it's how we'll get to wherever it is we're going.
 
Say What, you're asking the questions I wish more people would, I agree with you that the whole crack about educating yourself is often just spin on a whole lot of nothing, people sitting around talking about their pet theories.
 
Thanks, @muir !

I find your stages really interesting:



At stage 3 you mention taking steps towards making change in your own life. But what about others'? Take the Gaza conflict as an example. What am I, one person miles away, able to do to help that situation? Is educating myself doing anything except causing me stress? :)

There are a number of things you can do about the gaza situation as a 'westerner', the least of which would be verbal condemnation on or offline

There is an international boycott of israeli goods at the moment; you could research that and participate (i put some avacados back down recently that had a 'made in israel' sticker on them). There are protests being organised in various cities, so that's another form of expressing your disagreement

But imo the most important thing a person can do is to realise how the situation in gaza is connected to the economic and political situation in YOUR country

There is ample evidence out there now that is readily accessible that shows why there is so much support from western governments for israel.

If people can understand the role of the international bankers such as the rothschilds in their western economies and in the israel situation then they know that ANY action that is against the federal reserve system, the military industrial complex and the corporatocracy is an action against the violence in gaza

IT IS ALL CONNECTED!

The vision of the bankers is to centralise power more and more, globally under their control

So anything you do to contribute to a decentralisation of wealth and power is working to undermine their efforts (have a look at my solutions to the worlds current problems thread to see some ideas about for example how to decentralise the internet and finance eg crowdfunding: http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27053)

Have you ever read that book 'freakanomics'? It talks about an 'information assymetry' which means an imbalance in the concentrations of INFORMATION

So we have seen the occupy protests where people were protesting an imbalance in wealth where they were chanting about the 99% v's the 1%....but that wealth imbalance has been enabled by an information imbalance. All the banking frauds that have been made public recently have all involved 'insider trading' for example which means when an insider uses their greater inside knoweldge to their own financial benefit at the expense of others. Politicians have also been cashing in on inside information by cosying upto the corporations

So the educating yourself and others aspect is about closing the knowledge gap (knowledge is power) between the people and the ruling class

For example if you understand how money is made and about what the 'business cycle' really is and about who is behind the federal reserve systema dn what their vision for the world is then you are less likely to fall foul of it all and instead will be better postioned to make informed choices about how to engage with the system.

So the awareness thing is vital to share the information around, lessen the information assymetry that gives the ruling class their advantage over the rest of us and to make us all more politically, economically and spiritually savy so that we are less easy to be duped and taken advantage of....that's empowerment

So going back to your question about gaza....if you take your money out of the big banks then you are denying oxygen to the war machine that funds and arms the israelis....you are denying oxygen to the beast....IT'S ALL CONNECTED!

If you buy certain CFR linked papers such as the New York Times then you are helping to fiund their propaganda wing. So by voting with your feet and rejecting their propaganda (ie not buying it) you not only deprive them of money and psychic energy but you also stem the flow of their missinforming poison to your mind

I think we are all ready now for a paradigm shift in terms of how we perceive society, ourselves and our place in society. That revolution is a revolution of information not bullets
 
Last edited:
Back
Top