The oceans are being poisoned, rainforests are being destroyed, crops are being patented, food is being sprayed with chemicals, unemployment is rising, countries are being exploited, fanaticism is flourishing, and people are being surveilled. Yet neither the political parrots in suits nor the religious repeaters in robes will solve these problems.
Leadership with a sense of aesthetics would not allow architecture to be disfigured and culture to be dumbed down in the way it is today. People are crammed into gray concrete buildings where they eat the wrong food, drink the wrong beverages, and grow fatter every year. Multinational corporations in both rich and poor countries exploit the countryside, and people are crowded into dirty cities where, at best, they find a low-paid job and try to compensate for their lost sense of community and culture through fast food, nicotine, alcohol, and other destructive substances. Disillusioned and overweight, they sink into their TV couches and consume one mindless program after another. Then they sit at the computer or hunch over their phones for hours, only to be further dumbed down by the endless stream of internet trivia, celebrity hysteria, and superficial chatter.
As if that were not bad enough, they consume enormous amounts of sugar and processed food while exercising too little. Consequently, high blood pressure, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other health conditions continue to increase. Instead of preventing disease by informing people about healthy nutrition and lifestyles, we wait until the symptoms appear. Then we visit a doctor who, rather than asking how we are doing mentally or encouraging us to review our diet and exercise habits, prescribes various expensive medications with different side effects. After that, we stagger on until retirement, the nursing home, and the hospital bed before, usually completely unaware of how the world has functioned, we say goodbye.
How did it come to this?
”That’s just the way life is,” they say. Considering all the problems we see around the world, human beings are apparently neurotic, selfish, and rather aggressive creatures, at the mercy of the whims of their bodily fluids and genes. According to the same logic, the best we can do is rely on the expertise of our rulers, the clergy, and the pharmaceutical industry to manage our lives. If someone suggests that human beings are fundamentally decent by nature, want to cooperate, and have the potential to create something better than the prevailing ideologies, but that the systems under which we have lived—and continue to live—have created a stress that gives rise to precisely these neuroses, selfishness, and conflicts, they are said to have lost touch with reality and to be chasing utopias. Consequently, those who have a different perspective on existence than the one presented by the prevailing ideologies and dogmas are dismissed as dreamers and tinfoil-hat wearers.
Let us pause for a moment and reflect:
We were born on the most beautiful planet in the solar system—perhaps in the entire universe. Thousands of years ago, we created magnificent architecture, art, and literature, and laid out breathtaking gardens. We have survived countless natural disasters, years-long epidemics, and numerous famines. Today, more people than ever have access to knowledge and means of communication, and it is no longer unknown how important both the inner and outer environment are for health and well-being.
Despite this, substance abuse, mental illness, and sick leave are increasing dramatically, while epidemics, environmental destruction, conflicts, and wars continue. Moreover, privacy is being steadily eroded, and with reference to growing security threats from various heavily armed groups that just ”happen” to appear everywhere, the surveillance society is taking on increasingly extreme forms.
At the same time, the media attack the ”crackpots” who dare to suggest that the measures introduced to address the problems described above may be part of an agenda aimed at undermining democracy and centralizing power.
The technique employed by the elite’s zealous opinion police and their often unwitting accomplices among the conspiracy-allergic to silence people who do not fit the consensus mold is, for the most part, ridiculously predictable. To discredit those who refuse to fall into line with politically correct thinking, they often use an argument that consists of identifying one or a few individuals on the far right (or far left) who hold similar views on a particular issue. They then attempt to associate the ”conspiracy nuts” with these individuals, or with some rabid antisemite, preferably spiced up with a bit of nonsense about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
If that method does not work, they can always resort to the old UFO trick to make people roll their eyes at the ”crank” in question. If the ”lunatic” who expressed the ”wrong” opinion about, for example, 9/11 has absolutely no interest in UFOs, that is of secondary importance. After all, they can always find another ”tinfoil hat” who also questions the official 9/11 narrative and genuinely believes that extraterrestrials are visiting us.
The ”scientific” formula for exposing ”crazy” conspiracy theorists in the politically correct parrot’s world is then as follows:
A questions the official account of 9/11.
B also questions the official account of 9/11.
B believes that extraterrestrials visit our planet.
Therefore, B is not a credible person.
Conclusion:
Since B agrees with A about 9/11, and B believes in extraterrestrials, then A probably believes in such nonsense as well. But even if that is not the case, A is still not credible, because B—who is definitely not credible—believes the same thing as A regarding 9/11.
While the spokespeople of the academic world, most often shaped by consensus trance and an almost panicked fear of ostracism and the loss of their paychecks, are increasingly being used to bring the public into intellectual conformity and acceptance of the establishment’s version of reality, more open-minded free thinkers continue their persistent search for puzzle pieces in their attempts to make the world more understandable. Such a project naturally places great demands on the individual, who must be able to trace, identify, analyze, and, above all, filter out nonsense and disinformation from the available data concerning the game behind the scenes, in which most politicians are uninformed and, with the best of intentions, usually function as ”useful idiots.”
Added to this is the challenge of trying to communicate information in an appropriate and engaging way to people who have begun to look beyond the boundaries of the sheep pen. The average person will usually react in accordance with what he or she has learned from the system and will find it absurd and far-fetched if someone presents facts that run counter to what they have been fed since childhood through school, television, and newspapers. For when people are born into a system, they will perceive it as normal, even if the system runs contrary to their nervous system. This is because most people accept the existing order of things and act according to the information, self-confidence, and chances of survival available to them.
Therefore, it is not uncommon for people, in accordance with what they have been taught by the system, to defend the prevailing state of affairs and the accepted version of reality, and to reflexively shake their heads at what they contemptuously call conspiracy theories. As a bonus, and entirely in keeping with quackademia, those who attempt to present alternatives are often dismissed as idiots.
The process can be illustrated as follows:
When people are presented with information suggesting that they have been deceived, they are confronted with a situation that turns everything they have been taught upside down, giving rise to an inner conflict.
The individual is then forced to make one of the following choices:
- Persistently question the information and refuse to believe it.
- Ignore the information and continue as before.
- Examine the information with an open mind.
The most common response is for people to choose either alternative 1 or 2, both of which can be said to result from cognitive dissonance—that is, when different thoughts are in conflict with one another. For example, when we intuitively feel that what we are doing is not really what we want to be doing, but we are too afraid to do anything about it. We then rationalize the situation and convince ourselves that it is probably the best option after all, whereupon a sense of cognitive balance sets in, which, although largely based on illusions, nevertheless provides a certain feeling of security.
It is therefore not uncommon for those who have begun to see through the veneer of lies and want to talk about it to become frustrated, as they often find themselves speaking to deaf ears. But becoming angry with people who live in a consensus trance, or with rabid ”realists,” is like becoming angry with children who have not yet learned any better. And trying to argue with someone who has not even taken the first step toward seeing through the illusions with which we are constantly fed is, in fact, nothing more than a waste of time and energy.
The most important thing when taking an interest in the ”alternative” version of history, however, is to remain attentive to your own emotions and motives. The more sorrow and anger we carry within us, the more likely we are to react irrationally when confronted with uncomfortable facts. I believe that everyone who has experienced betrayal as a child carries an element of paranoia within them, and when we encounter setbacks, become involved in conflicts, or discover historical or political lies, it is easy for that to be triggered. We may think, ”I knew it—the world is evil and you can’t trust anyone,” and then begin to see the world in black and white, believing that conspiracies lie behind virtually every misfortune that occurs.
Of course, that is not how things are, but the betrayed child within us may interpret it that way, giving rise to conflict. Rather than allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by anger, which usually leads to irrational conclusions, we should seek ways to balance our mental and physical health, and arm ourselves with knowledge rather than weapons.
A first step is to examine our self-image and learn to be kind to ourselves. That usually leads to becoming kinder to others as well.
A second step is to study history more deeply and read new information with a critical yet open mind.
Self-awareness, healthy eating, good sleep and exercise habits, combined with an attentive and alert mind, are the key ingredients. Add a healthy measure of curiosity and solid self-esteem, and the conditions are favorable for an individual who is not easily deceived, but who approaches life’s journey with curiosity and optimism. As a bonus, there is a good chance that he or she will discover that reality not only surpasses fiction, but surpasses it by a wide margin.
It’s high time to wake up, people!
