The other manifestation of this fear is on a deeper and more intractable level. It has to do with differing levels of consciousness is humans, and the vast majority of humans are utterly driven by this fear.
Have you ever noticed the negative reaction is normies when you tell them, say, that the Moon landings were faked? The more evidence you provide, the more intense the reaction gets.
Same thing goes if you suggest to someone religious that the Bible is not quite what they think it is. The more examples you give them and the more carefully you explain them, the harder they resist.
Conspiracy theorists are not exempt, but only operate one level higher. Try to tell them it isn't all down to the Jews or the Freemasons or the rich or whoever else they have "figured out is really behind it", and they will object more and more aggressively and less and less objectively.
What is really going on? It's the same phenomenon in all these cases: fear.
You see, in each of these, the person's subconscious has quickly decided that what you're saying is plausible and, further, it is a threat not only to their worldview, but to their very sense of self. If they were wrong about these very basic things, then what else might they be wrong about? Has their whole life been lived under deep deception? What are they now vulnerable to?
Exposure to such information is as fearful to them as telling a child he or she was adopted and that their mommy and daddy are not who they think they are. IOW, it is terrifying.
With bears and COVID and Republicans, they have to keep reminding us incessantly that these things are to be feared. Without that, the threat dissipates and the fear is forgotten because it was almost totally phony all along.
The fear I'm talking about never fades. No one told anyone to be fearful of these things because it is self-generated on a primitive level. There is essentially no way to talk anyone out of it.
The basic conditions generating it can be altered, but that's a story for another day.
The reaction itself is not a matter of choice. It is as unavoidable a reaction as hunger or thirst or fear of heights. It's not a choice and you can't tell anyone to choose to feel some other way, or to fault them when they fail to.
Normies don't hold it as a dear principle that men did or did not walk on the Moon. They way they work is that the "authorities" have all said that men walked on the Moon, and thus it is true.
When you say it isn't true, what they're hearing is that everyone they have put their faith in to run the world in an orderly way is either a dumbshit or a liar. Nothing Big Daddy and Big Mama say can be trusted, and who knows how malevolent and powerful they may be given that they have gotten away for so long with such a grand deception.
Of course they reject that. It's the only "sensible" thing to do. And it's as easy as snapping their fingers and telling you to go away.
It's not about changing how other people work, any more than you could walk into an insane asylum and tell everyone to "snap out of it", but you can change yourself.
Once you accept and internalize this understanding, you will see the world and other people differently. You will think differently and take different actions than you otherwise would have. In exactly what ways I could not possibly predict, but it will be myriad and inevitable. Margaret Mead once said:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
You see, she recognized the functional application. I have only explicated the principles behind it.
But how does one accept and internalize this understanding? You must know it is very difficult for people to do this. Even if they see what you say is true and tell others to question everything, they are likely to still get mad when you argue with them. Is that just showing they failed to internalize it? I don't know.
Well, let me give you a subtle example of something like "the best you can do":...
I'll start with this question: Why does Donald Trump still talk to the mainstream press? None of them are friendly and almost all are openly hostile. Why doesn't he kick them all out and fill the press briefing room with, say, Adam Carolla and Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson and the like? Even if they don't agree, at least he'll get a fair hearing, right?
Now, don't ask me if Trump knows this next part as clearly and precisely as this, but he senses it on some level.
The vast majority of the public will never accept those "alternative" people as "authorities". They have none of the hallmarks that most people use to tell who they should get their truth from: fancy clothes, talk like lecturing schoolteachers, slick production, big organizations with long histories, impressive titles, and so forth. None of those things has the slightest direct bearing on the truth of what they say, but that is exactly what people really think.
So Trump keeps talking to these people because he knows that if he is ever going to be "heard" by the masses, it will have to come through those channels. There is no alternative. He takes all the abuse and just keeps plugging away.
As proof of this technique, check out this interview with Mike Lindell on Jimmy Kimmel from 5 years ago. Mike just stayed cool, acted normal, and stated his case. The key is in the YouTube comments: Jimmy's normie liberal audience torches Jimmy.
So in the end, I think the best play is to stay cool, keep studying, tell the truth as best you know it to anyone who wants to hear, and anyone who might ever stand any chance of actually listening to you will ask for more.
Frankly, the alternative is to try to think, "How can I manipulate people into thinking how I want them to think?" But that is exactly and precisely the mindset of all those we're struggling against, isn't it? Don't fall into that trap.
Same thing goes if you suggest to someone religious that the Bible is not quite what they think it is. The more examples you give them and the more carefully you explain them, the harder they resist.
Heh heh. Sure, there are many misunderstandings about the Bible, but how would you go about coming to the truth of the matter with a common agreement on the means of pursuit so that an outside party can objectively tell where any "resistance" might lie?
I like the fear angle, it's valid up until the point that you realize the truth is responsible for itself and will not deceive, so you need have no fear of exploring it. "Who fears is not perfected in love."
The subtle effect is that these people do not want the truth or, more precisely, will find or invent a way to reject any claims that cause destabilization as being something other than the truth.
You might as well try to decide which is the better football team in a game where both are cheating. The issue of "better" ceases to exist.
This is all subconscious and not subject to direct inspection. It has never been studied academically for certain reasons. Very few reflect honestly on themselves because very few even can.
It's quite common that people don't like pictures of themselves or the sound of their recorded voice. They find it deeply disturbing, and that's because it does not match how they think they look and what their voice sounds like to themselves.
That's gross physical appearance and easily shown to onesself. How much more difficult is it to to examine one's own consciousness, let alone one's own subconscious. And how objectionable would one find it? It is all easily avoided.
Wonderful. What if the Bible is part of the reality of truth, how would you know you're trying to dodge it rather than sophisticatedly debunking something false when you reject it? What's the baseline for reality if it isn't something outside you and something inside you both in agreement?
The other manifestation of this fear is on a deeper and more intractable level. It has to do with differing levels of consciousness is humans, and the vast majority of humans are utterly driven by this fear.
Have you ever noticed the negative reaction is normies when you tell them, say, that the Moon landings were faked? The more evidence you provide, the more intense the reaction gets.
Same thing goes if you suggest to someone religious that the Bible is not quite what they think it is. The more examples you give them and the more carefully you explain them, the harder they resist.
Conspiracy theorists are not exempt, but only operate one level higher. Try to tell them it isn't all down to the Jews or the Freemasons or the rich or whoever else they have "figured out is really behind it", and they will object more and more aggressively and less and less objectively.
What is really going on? It's the same phenomenon in all these cases: fear.
You see, in each of these, the person's subconscious has quickly decided that what you're saying is plausible and, further, it is a threat not only to their worldview, but to their very sense of self. If they were wrong about these very basic things, then what else might they be wrong about? Has their whole life been lived under deep deception? What are they now vulnerable to?
Exposure to such information is as fearful to them as telling a child he or she was adopted and that their mommy and daddy are not who they think they are. IOW, it is terrifying.
With bears and COVID and Republicans, they have to keep reminding us incessantly that these things are to be feared. Without that, the threat dissipates and the fear is forgotten because it was almost totally phony all along.
The fear I'm talking about never fades. No one told anyone to be fearful of these things because it is self-generated on a primitive level. There is essentially no way to talk anyone out of it.
The basic conditions generating it can be altered, but that's a story for another day.
I think you're right. Do tell how you think this type of fear can be prevented.
The reaction itself is not a matter of choice. It is as unavoidable a reaction as hunger or thirst or fear of heights. It's not a choice and you can't tell anyone to choose to feel some other way, or to fault them when they fail to.
Normies don't hold it as a dear principle that men did or did not walk on the Moon. They way they work is that the "authorities" have all said that men walked on the Moon, and thus it is true.
When you say it isn't true, what they're hearing is that everyone they have put their faith in to run the world in an orderly way is either a dumbshit or a liar. Nothing Big Daddy and Big Mama say can be trusted, and who knows how malevolent and powerful they may be given that they have gotten away for so long with such a grand deception.
Of course they reject that. It's the only "sensible" thing to do. And it's as easy as snapping their fingers and telling you to go away.
It's not about changing how other people work, any more than you could walk into an insane asylum and tell everyone to "snap out of it", but you can change yourself.
Once you accept and internalize this understanding, you will see the world and other people differently. You will think differently and take different actions than you otherwise would have. In exactly what ways I could not possibly predict, but it will be myriad and inevitable. Margaret Mead once said:
You see, she recognized the functional application. I have only explicated the principles behind it.
But how does one accept and internalize this understanding? You must know it is very difficult for people to do this. Even if they see what you say is true and tell others to question everything, they are likely to still get mad when you argue with them. Is that just showing they failed to internalize it? I don't know.
Well, let me give you a subtle example of something like "the best you can do":...
I'll start with this question: Why does Donald Trump still talk to the mainstream press? None of them are friendly and almost all are openly hostile. Why doesn't he kick them all out and fill the press briefing room with, say, Adam Carolla and Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson and the like? Even if they don't agree, at least he'll get a fair hearing, right?
Now, don't ask me if Trump knows this next part as clearly and precisely as this, but he senses it on some level.
The vast majority of the public will never accept those "alternative" people as "authorities". They have none of the hallmarks that most people use to tell who they should get their truth from: fancy clothes, talk like lecturing schoolteachers, slick production, big organizations with long histories, impressive titles, and so forth. None of those things has the slightest direct bearing on the truth of what they say, but that is exactly what people really think.
So Trump keeps talking to these people because he knows that if he is ever going to be "heard" by the masses, it will have to come through those channels. There is no alternative. He takes all the abuse and just keeps plugging away.
As proof of this technique, check out this interview with Mike Lindell on Jimmy Kimmel from 5 years ago. Mike just stayed cool, acted normal, and stated his case. The key is in the YouTube comments: Jimmy's normie liberal audience torches Jimmy.
So in the end, I think the best play is to stay cool, keep studying, tell the truth as best you know it to anyone who wants to hear, and anyone who might ever stand any chance of actually listening to you will ask for more.
Frankly, the alternative is to try to think, "How can I manipulate people into thinking how I want them to think?" But that is exactly and precisely the mindset of all those we're struggling against, isn't it? Don't fall into that trap.
Heh heh. Sure, there are many misunderstandings about the Bible, but how would you go about coming to the truth of the matter with a common agreement on the means of pursuit so that an outside party can objectively tell where any "resistance" might lie?
I like the fear angle, it's valid up until the point that you realize the truth is responsible for itself and will not deceive, so you need have no fear of exploring it. "Who fears is not perfected in love."
The subtle effect is that these people do not want the truth or, more precisely, will find or invent a way to reject any claims that cause destabilization as being something other than the truth.
You might as well try to decide which is the better football team in a game where both are cheating. The issue of "better" ceases to exist.
This is all subconscious and not subject to direct inspection. It has never been studied academically for certain reasons. Very few reflect honestly on themselves because very few even can.
It's quite common that people don't like pictures of themselves or the sound of their recorded voice. They find it deeply disturbing, and that's because it does not match how they think they look and what their voice sounds like to themselves.
That's gross physical appearance and easily shown to onesself. How much more difficult is it to to examine one's own consciousness, let alone one's own subconscious. And how objectionable would one find it? It is all easily avoided.
What is truth?
It is that characteristic of reality that only a handful accept they shouldn't try to dodge.
Wonderful. What if the Bible is part of the reality of truth, how would you know you're trying to dodge it rather than sophisticatedly debunking something false when you reject it? What's the baseline for reality if it isn't something outside you and something inside you both in agreement?