This weekend, both Alex Jones and Ron Paul have been banned from public platforms (Twitter, Facebook and Youtube). I value their presence and ability to speak alternative views. This is political censorship, masked in the humanitarian frame of “banning hate.” Both Jones and Paul oppose key elements of the AngloZionist empire’s power: Jones in his description of 9/11 as a false flag and Paul with his explanation of 1) the Federal Reserve as a tool of the oligarchy and 2) his identification of the neocons as the fire behind the push for wars.
But these public platforms are not actually public. Each is owned privately. And the platform owners have the power to shape content according to their own goals.
Such is the danger of a “free public” forum.
The idea is first to confuse, then create a climate of acceptance, and finally do away with every form of liberty that stands in the way of power.
It is my current understanding that the oligarchy controls public conversation using 3 major mechanisms. These mechanisms pull the strings hardwired into us humans by our own evolutionary biology.
1. Ownership of the communications platforms. This allows a small group to set the content and limits of the conversation by including and excluding. They “guide the day’s conversation” [by offering the public] “borrowed thoughts” each morning in the newspaper (to paraphrase Edward Bernay’s Crystalizing Public Opinion).
2. Supplying alternate “facts” and interpretations that are clever enough, and widespread enough, that that only a few of the brightest and best informed can detect these deceptions. [ex: Russia invaded Crimea] (But these observations of the best and brightest cannot be discussed widely as the communications avenues are controlled, see #1). The alternative facts are then repeated in the MSM as if “everyone knows” that they are a given. Readers are moved through uncertainty about what happened (confusion), to self-doubt and into acceptance of the new “facts” without conscious awareness of the bamboozle.
3. Camouflaging measures to increase oligarchic control as humanitarian. This enables selling the changes to GREEN Meme thinkers. (“to protect the children,” “promoting love,” “banning hate,” “defend the rights of women,” to over-throw “monsters who abuse their own people,” “bring democracy,” surveillance cameras which “keep us safe,” defining political violence –but only when directed against the status quo— as “terrorism.”) An absolute master of this deception is provided in the writing of Thomas Friedman on the Iraq invasion (links far too numerous to list).
Bombing Iraq to “protect the people” and “defend the rights of women.”
These external control mechanism would not be enough without the inborn characteristics given to us by our evolutionary psychobiology. Tribal coherence and subservience to parental figures (intergenerational tribal coherence) seem to be fairly universal instinctive human imperatives. The oligarchy pulls on these strings.
A. The fear of ostracism. A terrible loneliness threatens when we believe something regarded by our tribe as crazy. The comforting tribal belonging sense is ripped from our hearts. [I believe that this is biologically based as coherent herds have survival advantage.]
B. The danger to survival from being ostracized gives an intra-psychic pain spike. To be labeled a despised defective in ancient times endangered one’s life. A lone animal is easily outnumbered and picked off by predators and does not have assistance when needed such as during an illness. The herd self-polices, expelling members who are deviants / defectives seeking to maintain a comfortable coherence of a shared viewpoint. Family and friends, who remain loyal tribal-consensus members, ostracize deviants to keep the tribal viewpoint coherent. Every one of us (including me) has experienced how hard it is to simply let another person have his or her own different viewpointwithout pressing for coherence or pushing them away.
C. There is a prohibition against doubting or opposing parental figures. This is a continuation of the need for tribal coherence –but between generations. In the book “Thou Shalt Not Be Aware” Alice Miller discusses the biologic imperative to accept our parent’s goodness and rightness. Children are hardwired with a prohibition from seeing that their parents are not right or good. This is the mechanism that causes an abused child to conclude that the abuse is due to his own badness. (The movie Good Will Hunting gives an example of this, and the redemption possible, as a new and kind-hearted surrogate parent figure, the therapist Robin Williams, leads Matt Damon to understand that he is not bad and the abuse he suffered was not his fault.)
By extension, “parents” here generalizes to parental figures: our opinion leaders, legitimate authorities, authoritative scientific bodies, leaders in finance, prestigious think tanks, all those who lead our society. We do not easily accept that they might not be altruistic.
In the concluding paragraph of the novel 1984, Winston Smith experiences the relief of returning to the tribal consensus belief system and finding comfortable subservience to parental authority.
“He gazed up at the enormous face [of Big Brother]. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother”
The relief from re-joining the consensus viewpoint eases Winston’s conflicted psychobiology. The rightness of parent (big brother) and peace from coherence with the tribal viewpoint is re-discovered.
All that he must give up is his own independent thinking.