Control via Beliefs

[Mageant]

IMHO the current system of control functions mainly by controlling people's *beliefs*. It is basically a set of ideas/memes that propagate through society which allow and enable the controllers to control and remain undetected.

These disempowering or illusionary beliefs are often spread and reinforced unwittingly and unquestioned by the mass media and often by the people themselves. Whenever you read or spread one the following ideas please stop and ask yourself if you really think this is true:

- Money has to be issued by a central bank.
- We have free markets.
- Governments are incompetent.
- Governments cannot keep a secret.
- Conspiracy theories are crazy.
- People in power do not coordinate their actions.
- Opposing institutions/parties/nations have opposing goals.
- The truth will never be found out.
- It's impossible to change things.
- Without government society would not function.
- We need government to protect us from danger.
- The current system is the best there is.
- Mass media report the truth.
- Mass media is independent.
- Science is always objective.
- When people in power mess up it is more likely due to incompetence than malice.
- The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one
- People can not be manipulated.
- If there was some big conspiracy we would know about it by now.


Feel free to add anything more.

[1714026668]

1714026668

[1714026668]

1714026668

[1714026668]

1714026668

[1714026668]

1714026668

[1714026668]

1714026668

[NghtRppr]

Governments suck at everything, including keeping secrets.

[hugolp]

I would change this one:

- Science is always objective.

to

- Scientists are always objective.

Science by definition has to report reality. If it does not its not good science.

[The Script]

IMHO the current system of control functions mainly by controlling people's *beliefs*. It is basically a set of ideas/memes that propagate through society which allow and enable the controllers to control and remain undetected.

These disempowering or illusionary beliefs are often spread and reinforced unwittingly and unquestioned by the mass media and often by the people themselves. Whenever you read or spread one the following ideas please stop and ask yourself if you really think this is true:

- Money has to be issued by a central bank.
- We have free markets.
- Governments are incompetent.
- Governments cannot keep a secret.
- Conspiracy theories are crazy.
- People in power do not coordinate their actions.
- Opposing institutions/parties/nations have opposing goals.
- The truth will never be found out.
- It's impossible to change things.
- Without government society would not function.
- We need government to protect us from danger.
- The current system is the best there is.
- Mass media report the truth.
- Mass media is independent.
- Science is always objective.
- When people in power mess up it is more likely due to incompetence than malice.
- The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one
- People can not be manipulated.
- If there was some big conspiracy we would know about it by now.


Feel free to add anything more.

- Everything you read on the bitcoin forum is true

[Mageant]

Governments suck at everything, including keeping secrets.

Governments only appear incompetent because they are unable to do what people *think* they should be doing, that is, to serve the will of the people.

If you consider though what their actual purpose is, namely to serve the will of the elite, they are indeed quite competent.

[Mageant]

I would change this one:

- Science is always objective.

to

- Scientists are always objective.

Science by definition has to report reality. If it does not its not good science.

Science in an ideal form would report reality, and it often does, but not always. In fact it has to correct itself quite often. It is a result of iteration. What I want to convery is that scientists and their results are just as subject to human error, desire for manipulation and political pressure as any other human endeavor.

[Hawker]

Hmmm.  So you list things you don't agree with and call them "illusions" and say they control people.  Which seems to be true...if not from beliefs where else could political action come from.

Why not list ideas of your own as alternatives?  I'm particularly interested in your alternatives to conspiracy theories and to Occam's Razor.

[cryptobard]

Chomsky has been harping on belief control in democracies, particularly through media, for decades now.

Additional examples can be found in domestic attitudes towards American foreign policy, particularly war, as he thoroughly demonstrates

[GideonGono]

Governments suck at everything, including keeping secrets.

Governments only appear incompetent because they are unable to do what people *think* they should be doing, that is, to serve the will of the people.

If you consider though what their actual purpose is, namely to serve the will of the elite, they are indeed quite competent.

+1. I couldn't agree more.

[FirstAscent]

Science in an ideal form would report reality, and it often does, but not always. In fact it has to correct itself quite often. It is a result of iteration. What I want to convery is that scientists and their results are just as subject to human error, desire for manipulation and political pressure as any other human endeavor.

Science is about as good as anything can be, as compared to political 'think tanks' masquerading as experts within a domain (can you say Heartland Institute?) denouncing science because it does not agree with their political ideology. Please review this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40283.0

Science, as published in the peer reviewed journals, such as Science and Nature, is a peer reviewed process, where a scientist can gain significant stature and elevate his career if he can do either of the following: present an alternative and better theory that withstands peer review or augment and strengthen an existing theory.

Science works, otherwise, you'd be hard pressed to explain the existence of cell phones, microwave ovens, and satellites.

[NghtRppr]

If you consider though what their actual purpose is, namely to serve the will of the elite, they are indeed quite competent.

Not really. Just off the top of my head, see Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby, Kenneth Lay or Ted Stevens for examples. They aren't even good at being corrupt.

[JeffK]

If you consider though what their actual purpose is, namely to serve the will of the elite, they are indeed quite competent.

Not really. Just off the top of my head, see Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby, Kenneth Lay or Ted Stevens for examples. They aren't even good at being corrupt.

Also: 90% of what the CIA has done

[Mageant]

Science in an ideal form would report reality, and it often does, but not always. In fact it has to correct itself quite often. It is a result of iteration. What I want to convery is that scientists and their results are just as subject to human error, desire for manipulation and political pressure as any other human endeavor.

Science is about as good as anything can be, as compared to political 'think tanks' masquerading as experts within a domain (can you say Heartland Institute?) denouncing science because it does not agree with their political ideology. Please review this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40283.0

Science, as published in the peer reviewed journals, such as Science and Nature, is a peer reviewed process, where a scientist can gain significant stature and elevate his career if he can do either of the following: present an alternative and better theory that withstands peer review or augment and strengthen an existing theory.

Science works, otherwise, you'd be hard pressed to explain the existence of cell phones, microwave ovens, and satellites.

I agree, but there are two aspects to this I would like to emphasize.

Certainly the things that science has proven to work, do work. But that does not mean that there might also be things that might work despite having not *yet* been proven by science. For example, cold fusion or machines that extract energy from the vacume. People often make the logical error of thinking that things cannot exist because they haven't been proven by science yet.

The second point is there are also more "softer" sciences such as psychology, meteorology, economic theory, political theory, and even medicine which are not so "hard" like physics and more prone to manipulation and interpretation. For example you can manipulate the outcome of a clinical drug trial by giving placebos to a control group which contain harmful substances. Another example is the manipulation or false representation of climate data by the IPCC.

[Boussac]

I would not mix things up: science is just one way to describe reality and try improve it.
It has proven to be the most effective in many disciplines, including medicine and economics.
Yet people can manipulate the results fo a drug trial or keep the lid on some side effect.
That is not science: it's a crime.

As far as econmics, I believe we would be much better off if a scientific apporoach was taken in lieu of so much dubious, irrelevant research sponsored by banks or following a political agenda.

[FirstAscent]

Science in an ideal form would report reality, and it often does, but not always. In fact it has to correct itself quite often. It is a result of iteration. What I want to convery is that scientists and their results are just as subject to human error, desire for manipulation and political pressure as any other human endeavor.

Science is about as good as anything can be, as compared to political 'think tanks' masquerading as experts within a domain (can you say Heartland Institute?) denouncing science because it does not agree with their political ideology. Please review this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40283.0

Science, as published in the peer reviewed journals, such as Science and Nature, is a peer reviewed process, where a scientist can gain significant stature and elevate his career if he can do either of the following: present an alternative and better theory that withstands peer review or augment and strengthen an existing theory.

Science works, otherwise, you'd be hard pressed to explain the existence of cell phones, microwave ovens, and satellites.

I agree, but there are two aspects to this I would like to emphasize.

Certainly the things that science has proven to work, do work. But that does not mean that there might also be things that might work despite having not *yet* been proven by science. For example, cold fusion or machines that extract energy from the vacume. People often make the logical error of thinking that things cannot exist because they haven't been proven by science yet.

I can point you to plenty of scientific research on cold fusion and Casimir forces, vacuum fluctuations, and Mach effects. Research in those fields exists, is published, is peer reviewed, and when and if such energies can be harnessed, then science will be the method by which it is done. Peer review works. Nature, perhaps the most respected and prestigious scientific journal out there, recently published some material on Casimir forces. But that isn't unusual - it's normal. Just read the scientific literature regularly.

[Mageant]

I can point you to plenty of scientific research on cold fusion and Casimir forces, vacuum fluctuations, and Mach effects. Research in those fields exists, is published, is peer reviewed, and when and if such energies can be harnessed, then science will be the method by which it is done. Peer review works. Nature, perhaps the most respected and prestigious scientific journal out there, recently published some material on Casimir forces. But that isn't unusual - it's normal. Just read the scientific literature regularly.

I agree. There is no general scientific consensus though on this subject so there is still the widespread notion that it is impossible.

But actually the first people to harvest these energies are inventors and tinkerers who have built working prototypes using intuition and trial-and-error without a scientific model.

[cbeast]

Thought control is easy with broadcast communication, but not so easy on the internet. The internet is allowing exponential access to the sum knowledge of mankind. Those that choose to use it for that purpose will have the lenses and filters that allow them to see beyond the edges of known reality.

[im3w1l]

Thought control is easy with broadcast communication, but not so easy on the internet. The internet is allowing exponential access to the sum knowledge of mankind. Those that choose to use it for that purpose will have the lenses and filters that allow them to see beyond the edges of known reality.

Alex Jones would never have gotten a following without the internet. Propagating stupidity is very possible with the internet

[cbeast]

Thought control is easy with broadcast communication, but not so easy on the internet. The internet is allowing exponential access to the sum knowledge of mankind. Those that choose to use it for that purpose will have the lenses and filters that allow them to see beyond the edges of known reality.

Alex Jones would never have gotten a following without the internet. Propagating stupidity is very possible with the internet

Just because he's paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get him.