On the present artificial limit to public dialogue ~and~ Why we should discuss what we can do about it

 We claim free speech is free, and that is still mostly true. But how thankful are we for it? In our freedom, we rarely talk about the rights that free speech entails, to make changes in our world. Free speech is about the free exchange of not just abstract ideas but useful ideas about the world we live in. The fact that any ideas are vilified and labeled “extremist” because they relate to violence is antithetical to the realization that we live in a world that is physical, is violent and we should be able to talk about it in order to control our relationship to that violence. Hence, the concept of “extremist” thought is antithetical to the notion of free speech.

The idea that extremist thought should be prosecuted and changed with extremist thought is the position of the media. We should explore that topic more. The psychopathic method seems to be to talk about controlling the human relationship to violence in terms of controlling violence itself: dominating violence, creating violence and using violence in order to prevent its direction toward the self until one is too weak to resist and faces fate. That is not called an extremist position by the media, but it is in fact just a variation of the jihad or crusade or Zionist or other super-tribal positions. What is the media’s motivation for constantly promoting the most extreme positions and pitting them against one another? Perhaps it is an exercise in venting steam built up by a human proclivity for violence. Perhaps this also explains the high prevalance of sports in the selections of mainstream broadcasts available in the most heavily promoted media.

But let us examine this and see if it really is the best idea for people who lead extremist positions to maintain control. In fact our free speech and the useful demonstration of different approaches is increasingly constrained by the extremist view point that we don’t have room in our public dialogue for anything but discussions of A vs. B, black vs. white, yin vs. yang, baseball sports teams, Red Sox vs. Yankees.

We can observe only a few major extremist dialogues of any significance in our present dialogue that have escaped the media’s direction. I hold a conviction that we shouldn’t be clamoring for more amongst ourselves unless it is one that allows us to escape the quagmire of all of them. We have the power to escape the typical dialogues and we have the power to craft our own.

Therefore, the most useful extremist position to hold is that we should avoid extremist positions, including those posited by the media. We could go into a metaphorical scenerio where putting one’s self in a situation where “kill” or “be killed” are the only options is itself on the same level of evil as murdering. But I am assuming you are intelligent and you understand the point already, and you could even argue for or against this idea effectively.

Back to those dialogues that have escaped the mainstream media’s patient attention. As I presently see it, there are only a few that are not specifically tribal or specific to cultures.

Yes, there are only a few of any universal relevance which have been ostracized by the media or at best featured as jokes, and therefore promoted only in the sense that considering them means the one doing the considering is a childish insane fool.

Because there are only a few of these universal ideas, though they happen to be important, is to me the main reason why most people do not consider the mainstream media to be biased. It is because the media carefully selects that which they wish to inexplicitly downplay that – for most people – the media is mostly a hero of free speech and is only (at worst) guilty of what they call “spin”. That is, the common myth is that the media allows discussion of all topics except a few. And these few they will happily dismiss because both the left and right channels of the mainstream stereo treat these ideas with equal derision.

The average person is too bombarded by information to make time to consider those derided ideas, because of the limited time and patience of the average person to conceive of things that aren’t immediately socially useful. Regardless of longterm social relevance of an idea, if it does not help someone navigate the extremist positions blasted at us from all angles, it is actually considered “dangerous”.

The mainstream media makes no mistake in calling peaceful concepts dangerous. They actively and willfully do it with the tacit understanding that they have forced on all people inside earshot of a speaker that considering peace leaves less time for considering danger, and therefore less time considering how to navigate the artificial and largely fictional war metaphorically dangled over our heads.

So the concept of peace, and the pursuit of it, is one of the ideas that is downplayed by the media. They will call some things peaceful, such as the triumphant ends of drama movies in which the male hero is rewarded with fame, popularity, sex or other exciting ideas for the largely artificial male imagination. They will also call peace that which depicts people bonding over some particular ostracization of a group or group member. Peace through hierarchy. These are not useful concepts of peace because they are not really REAL concepts of peace or what peace could and should look like in our era. There are plenty of books written on what real peace looks like, but there is no time given to it in movies of today, except under the guise of sneaky escapes from a dominant message of constant fear and war.

Useful navigations toward peaceful pursuits are also demonized as that all-consuming force of post-post-modernity: boredom. Peace is boring from the perspective of a mind in “war mode”, therefore it is universally boring in our culture. The idea that we must check our brains out of “war mode” and enter “peace mode” is not considered.

Another idea that is ridiculed by the mainstream is that the mainstream does in fact censor these ideas, or any ideas. It protests adamantly that it is free and allows discussions of all topics, but when you point out topics that are not discussed, it reaffirms the idea that these non-extremist positions are absurd to hold, let alone hold dialogue over.

Another idea practically humiliated and vilified more than the others is the concept of false flags, mass scale hoaxes and ongoing media lies using fictional characters or the characters of real-life chronic liars in the form of actors, celebrities and computer animated entirely made-up people. The idea that synthetic events and synthetic characters are treated real is absolutely either taken for granted as if to force consent on the beholder, or denied rabidly to the point of making the denier appear disgusting for even discussing the topic. The topic becomes disgusting to talk about because of the manner in which the media talks about it. Two of the only places on the entire Internet where discussions about fakery technology do not sound utterly disgusting and can be considered on their own merit are very near you, speaking in terms of links.

I was asked to be an administrator at CluesForum by Simon Shack, and we created the site together. That is one of the sites. I am composing this essay for use on the Fakeologist audio program by Ab. Ab’s site is the other one I mentioned. The reason I am writing this is to attempt to use my words to sway people in a way that I haven’t attempted before.

Normally, I write in essay format under the handle hoi.polloi in response to posts on CluesForum, typically related to my friend and fellow administrator Simon’s pronounced goal of spreading the word about media fakery technology. We created this forum in response to public demand for a place to discuss these subjects without unnecessary reprisal or distraction. It’s not as easy as it sounds: setting up a forum and expecting discussions to happen based on interest.

The truth is that people are docile and lazy and almost totally bombarded by A vs. B dialogues rather than frank discussions and considerations of modern scientific concepts and evidences. For most people, the most exciting debates and discussions that the public talks about with basic assumed interest are the result of Public Relations assignments to put those topics into the minds of every person within ear shot of a speaker. The debate is pre-debated and pre-digested for easy feeding, the left is pre-lefted, the right is pre-righted, the undiscussible is pre-repulsivized, the frame is pre-framed and the main opinions of the sponsor are well prepared.

This power of controlling dialogue through drama is real. This power is real because people have a limited capacity to handle stress and drama in their lives; and simulation technology is increasingly, acceleratingly capable of replacing direct human experience with completely – I repeat – completely artificial, human group or corporation or other group-interest-designed dramas that attract and hold human attention for being partially relevant to almost all walks of life.

Access to the pre-conceived opinions expressed as artificial drama is not only undeniable but begged for and paid for by the public. We pay for TV access, newspapers, magazines and even weather information. We become excited to even participate in the slightest broadcast event for the sake of being the drama rather than being subjected to it. We are increasingly paying for Internet access, but I believe this could be a good thing if it continues to remain freer in speech than the increasingly obsolete and extremist alternative.

For all the drama we pay to be a part of (or often, at best, a target of) created by the most promoted artists, the knowledge we acquire about the world comes with a price. In exchange for providing us the wide world in tiny consumable YouTube packets, the prepared opinion is backed by hoaxes like the Nuclear Bomb race, the Space race, the race for control of drugs or the race to own and control all extremist thoughts.

This is a barter we did not intend to sign up for, but it is one made for us by our politicians and elected officials who claim to represent our interests. This is why we should do something about this. We may be able to make a more peaceful world if we simply choose to believe we can, but to do so means discussion and debate about what options could be agreed upon by those interested.

Instead of looking at the actual evidence for such things, it is taken for granted by the mainstream that we have all made this agreement to be manipulated and that they will work to put a stop to the nasty, invented nightmares and boogeymen they created. Two of the only places that these ugly, artificial competitions for attention are examined for clues about what they might actually be, are CluesForum.info… and Fakeologist.com…. On these sites, the former of which I help moderate and on the latter of which I have sometimes been a guest discussion participant, we have never – to my intent or purpose – fought for an extremist position or for some extremist control over all dialogue. Instead, I have only argued, if sometimes passionately or hotly, for my right and the right of every person to have this discussion.

As such, the topics in question – fakery technology, fraudulent events, lies from trusted celebrities or lies from trusted strangers that appear and disappear within a single news article – sometimes lose place to the discussion of the merits of even holding the dialogue.

I don’t want to spend too much time on that any more. To me, the fact that so often our families’ and friends’ main public positions are pre-crafted, staged or otherwise the result of steering committees is enough to simply cry, “Enough of that here, for now!” and move on to the important topics being discussed, and now, finally, with our established forum, their implications.

Many forums of all kinds in this world happen because of sponsorship.
The fake debates and superficial digging of people like Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper and others are literally a product of the mainstream military intelligence community carefully herding the left into a predictable shape. Its ally ‘The Daily Show’ purports to be a satire but in fact, it is the best imitation of a satire by those who would prevent fake events from being truly satirized for what they are. All of this is sponsored by the typical media owners, who won’t have their media effectively mocked but will have it ineffectively celebrated by shill-in-a-can John Stewart, even while ostensibly representing the interests of people within “the feeling of belonging” product as defined by the media-intelligence complex. The more hopeful and more independent ‘The Onion’ takes an almost neutral position on everything popular of consequence due to its truly neutral or philosophical position on most everything that isn’t immediate pop or hype. Its sponsorship relies on the harmless and superficial consumerism of our culture, and its desperation for attention, its ads and interests are suit to match. The Coast-to-Coast, Alex Jones and David Icke media empires are helped similarly, by sales of books, trinkets and tickets to gatherings. This itself does not seem too suspicious a crime, since it’s just about the most innocuous way to ask for financial support of an idea from the average rich Westerner that could hold the reins of its own government if it grew some balls. However, even these groups find it hard to argue with the mechanisms of their control of the popular dialogue, so they find themselves offering platitudes and ignoring the most informative evidence of our world’s functions. Not to mention the “cross over” appeal when they interview one another or define the next big PR release, false flag non-event as a real problem created by some evil, perpetually new order. One is reminded of the invincible fictional enemy of Big Brother when these types of people discuss. While some dialogue is allowed on conspiratorial sites like Democracy Underground, We Are Change, Above Top Secret, Flat Earth Society, God Like Productions, David Icke and Alex Jones forums, many of them eschew examination of evidence and allow people to be insulted for even bringing up the idea of actors, liars or the powers of simulation and how it connects to grand political plays sparked from the very invention of each technology of illusion.

In contrast, Simon and I and occasionally some members actually pay for the existence of the CluesForum space on our own, with absolutely no patron, sponsor, lobby or even much of a social group. And that loose social group hasn’t even attempted to direct the religion of consumerism to itself. We probably could try, and I do think Simon is working on a book to basically spread the information in case the Internet is demolished by a policy passed through the next false flag event, but we really do not succeed at marketing. And I think the reason is that we are not in the same kind of cultural place as where the majority of western thought has found itself captured and controlled.

We don’t fully believe in marketing because it is connected to the extremist position of arguing for everyone’s minds with a sort of intellectual violence, not to mention physiological weapons experiments by the military. Where does that leave us? If we are pacifists in the war of information, how do we hope to change the world for the better? This is the topic I want to bring up and stick with for this show.

We must realize we are part of some kind of weird, unique culture of intellects spawned solely by the spare time with which we express that we are people who like people and who like peace, and want to see an end to the addiction to extremist paradigms. We can believe this has happened before and it will happen again. But we have no proof of either, only the false assurances that such a belief would give us in moving forward with little knowledge of what lays ahead. I say we go forward anyway, as blindly as we are, but boldly and bravely in the interest of truly making a better place for the generations ahead.

What has been considered so far? Well, not much.

Some of us seem to think marketing like Alex Jones or David Icke would be beneficial and we have entertained ideas of this. Some of us seem to think a revolution of some kind is in order, even though most also have the sinking feeling that most revolutions are controlled military intelligence-sponsored events to coalesce power structures we have no interest or business in considering. Some of us are artistic and we have written words of poetry or lyrics that might explain to future generations what it was like to create what may ultimately be an obscure cultural artifact. Or even a popular one, which perhaps delays obscurity by a meager number of lifetimes at best.

Some of us think we should do nothing but keep talking about it amongst ourselves and occasionally pray and feel gratitude for what allies we have, and this seems to be the most effective solution since it expects no actual result to come about. In any case, the latter is a healthy place to rest while we consider what, if anything, we might actually do to change things without resorting to the typical power plays of our intellectual enemies that would treat everyone as insentient sheep.

All of us has a warrior in us, just as all of us has a peacemaker, bargainer, deceiver, leader, follower and many other archetypes. But with conscious patient effort we can work to design our own curiosity about this world and take the reins on it. We can literally make ourselves less curious about a violent world and more curious about a peaceful world and therefore transform the world in the interest of what that peaceful world looks like. We have the proof it is worthwhile. The question now is how to go about it.

It is with this consideration or accession or for lack of a better English word, this “understanding”, that I would ask you to join me, join us, me – I go as hoi.polloi, and my host who goes as Ab – on his show today to help us start a new kind of dialogue that freely and  playfully explores answers to questions such as: “What can we do to reduce our addiction to fighting words, to promote peace and collaborative human happiness, and to reduce conflicts, while acknowledging and honoring our full human spirit?”

In the interest of avoiding perfectionism in framing a question we could debate forever at the expense of our tiny sample of eternity, I choose to hope you know what the fuck I’m talking about and let’s chat.

Hoi Polloi of Cluesforum   Sunday, January 18, 2015

1 comment:

  1. Brilliant article which he should edit and put in Simon's book but he's preaching to the choir. In other words, maximize the win-win, minimize the win-lose and always balance individual creativity with group synergy but the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and to you can't have vigilance without vigilantes. The word vigilante has been co-opted and corrupted to have connotations of 'taking the law in your own hands.' Only when the 'law' is the tyrant's will:

    "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." (Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816)

    So, taking 'the tyrant's will' (major win-lose) into your own hands and neutralizing it by putting the promoters of tyranny into the slammer where the rot they create in other people's lives awaits them and they only, is the very DEFINITION of self-defense.

    This phobia of violence has got to end. Sometimes you have to physically kick some ass when all else fails. You can't go on wishing forever that there will some 'peaceful' solution to things while the boot if pressing against your neck harder every day. Self-defense force is your birth-right and fully justified. To not promote forceful self-defense of the innocent and the royally screwed over is IMMORAL and anti-life.

    ~ Negentropic