In response to
Naive empiricism, terrorism & Ebola
“No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda (directed risk assessment) is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.”
~ Alan Bullock, in Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Whether or not the narrative is true or not as presented is secondary to the establishing of 'accepted public discourse'. The risk of penalty as a result of questioning the ebola or terrorist narrative is such that very few do - with the explanation that a consensus reality operates the unquestionable 'truth'.
But no matter how many accept a fallacy and act as if it is true by investing and adapting within its social identity - it necessarily conflicts with true - and will demand sacrifice of true to maintain 'continuity' against risk of exposure as false.
Society is being organised around and predicated upon fear and guilt. Perhaps this is nothing new - but the technologism that brings globalisation is the amplification and extension of such identity construct.
Truly fulfilling being is not a strategic risk assessment - but an optimum fulfilment recognition.
I would say that the former can serve within the latter - such that when engaging in an act or a relationship - we release presumptions of 'knowing' to take a fresh perspective - as an open awareness that is also accessing past learning but not running blindly in its conditioned response.
Because the latter is so pervasive and systematic to human-doings the human being remains as a potential context for experience while 'thinking' operates the fleshing out or modelling of its experience as 'world'. (talks to itself).
The fear agenda operates destructively under the illusion of a fixed and controlling identity - which deals with the living in terms of a fragmentation or incoherence (chaos) upon which all the king's horses and all the king's men (power struggle) attempt to put Humpty together again (futility). However - if that is the accepted and believed reality - then working to reintroduce sanity into such a thought system will work with the current beliefs to enable them to be revised in the light of an expanding and integrative wholeness of being.
However (by whatever means) Humpty became broken is an association signifying brokenness that then takes (is given) meaning over lost connection, communication and wholeness of being. Innocence lost becomes the basis of sacrifice of (and to) an asserted and applied guilt.
Drone assassinations kill many who are put on a list for suspected or anticipated threats or who happen to have their old phone - or be in the vicinity or attend first response for the second hit. Perhaps it doesn't matter who gets killed as long as the precedent is set loud and clear that anyone can be 'taken out' remotely - regardless of where on Earth - for being perceived as a threat to the US of E. Acts of terror and impending terror 'plagues' operate on many levels to disempower by all and any means - such that the 'protection' racket can find (hack) access and acceptance.
Is our skin in the game the fear of pain and loss - or is it an investment in a true appreciation? Is the outsourcery of pain and loss to 'OTHERS' a basis for a true profit?
Or is divide and rule the illusion of control that rules out any perspective of a true Sanity?
#2 - In reply:
Your argument holds if the attribution of agency is flagged to true cause. However, if false-flagged terror initiates 'eye for an eye' it 'succeeds' as an emotionally backed justifiction for (escalation or further) acts of war.
Also, a widespread media focus upon 'pre-set' narrative outcomes fuels or empowers the uptake or induction of its 'meme' - which may encourage 'copy cat recruitment' from some who are already set in 'eye for an eye' desire for vengeance/justice - but lacked encouragement, or 'the courage of their commitment' - and so modelling 'jihadis' as boogeyman to some operates the reverse conditioning to others.
The fact that full and open investigations and questioning debate is not encouraged or allowed indicates the 'emotional blackmail' of a subtler 'terrorism' that the overt actions operate as the adjuvant or shock by which to associate a directed or preset 'antibody' response.
The evil is a result not only of confusion believed - but of confusion sown with intent to deceive. The ability to use the mind to deceive is a two edged weapon. The probability of abiding in self-honesty amidst the sowing of deceit is - I suggest - zero. However truth is not contingent on narrative identity - but awareness of and alignment in true rests on an 'openness' or embracing of all that is present so as to accept the relational wholeness of a true appreciation within being.
The nature of which embodies true witness for what you consciously and currently accept as truly meaningful or desirable in the situation at hand - rather than drawing false witness to support an identity set against the feared or hated outcome of a negative self appreciation.
What is attracted to acceptance in minding is not random. The focus of attention is intention - whether consciously accepted or gaining acceptance by unconscious emotionally conditioned reaction.
#3 In reply
Do events 'gain' media attention? Or are they given it? How and why are the questions that come to mind. How to gain and manipulate or direct media becomes how to set and maintain narrative control - that frames interpretation and reaction - ie: programs thinking.
Belief (reaction as if true) and investment (skin in the game) in any set of ideas operates a sense of 'self-protection' to the 'reality assertion - regarded as a self-evident experience. Probable outcomes or future events are results of current readings - and if our reading of the current is distorted by filters and blocks of accepted or invested belief - then the nature of such belief sets the nature of the outcome. Fear is a self-fulfilling prophecy when accepted as the basis from which to think and act - but fears consciously owned and brought to curiosity allow a change in the 'template' of such beliefs - hence releasing us from otherwise predictable negative outcomes.
There is considerable expertise applied to the arts of manipulating the 'mind' as mind-control or mind-capture. Perhaps even using a noun for mind is already such a 'mind-trap' - for minding is a verb and in any current moment - what is accorded investment or released is a choice with consequence that can be seen as a process of unfolding meaning amidst (infinite) probabilities that the limiting 'mind' of a linear narrative identity is not equipped to assess or reliably makes 'sense' of - but operates out of learned responses and past conditioning so as to recreate the past in the future as the idea of continuity of asserted and invested meanings rather than a free association within the unfolding meaning of present - or indeed Presence appreciation.
But the risks arising from narrative capture as a result of deceit is incalculable. Any threat to our ability to discern and evaluate our true relationship with ourself, each other and our world is that of a captured and manipulated 'reality' subjection. Iatrogenic 'disease' (sic) is one of the major ascribed causes of death and illuminates the nature of a captive revenue stream.
The nature of the sickness of deceit is hidden by the defences of the deceived against exposure - because there is a believed pay-off of carrot or mitigated stick - for the deceit to appear 'attractive' and make truth seem ugly by association with fear.
'Steal a kingdom and they call you king' has another level: 'steal the mind and they think your thoughts and enact your agenda. This was famously depicted by the story of the Emperor who had no clothes - and in alignment with the symbol I bring in fig-leaf thinking. The 'deceiver' is the risk of losing appreciation of Everything for promise of a special 'something' - that invokes a sense of chaos or adversity, enmity and attack to the a tempt to conform reality to the imaged forms (and concepts) of self. It is backwards.
Once a defence is established - chaos, adversity, enmity and attack are needed to justify and maintain it. This is markedly illuminated by the cartel of military industrial complex - no less than the trillion dollar pharm for the sick.
Fear chemistry - the sympathetic nervous response - pushes all else to the background to give focus to the 'threat'. Persistent or chronic fear distorts, diminishes and destroys the consciousness and functionality of the living organism under the illusion of 'control', as a continuity over 'chaos'.
Our language (currency) is debased. The subversion of language to form of 'control' makes communication easily lost to confusion.
The parasitic thinking within what you call 'western' culture is globalist or perhaps 'transhumanist' in intent and effect. It defines us without (rules out) freedom of choice or indeed sovereign will - as robotic systems to exploit or use by its priesthood of 'definers' or programmers - who 'freed' from moral illusions operate unchecked gratification upon the use and abuse of others seen as sub-human or of no inherent worth - perhaps because under some diversion, they are willing to accept their subjection as a saviour from a worse fate.
They are called the 'dark' arts because they can only operate in a condition of lack of transparency and accountability under ruse or activation of justified defence. Fear of the dark is both hiding in and masking from. Unconscious fear is no less active in determining outcomes for being 'shadow power' operating under cloak of plausible deniability. Fear works contagion - unless brought to light.
its an opinion - whatever that is worth to your evaluation and acceptance or disregard. What is it with drawing opinions? Is it part of checking to see if someone passed an acceptance test? Obama the human being, Obama the politician, Obama the acquired and trained asset, Obama the perceived phenomenon?
What could an opinion of another offer but the refinement of your own? (As a fixed position of judgement upon). But is opinion 'about' (anyone or anything) the same as a quality of accepted relationship 'with'? (Which is the capacity to grow or expand).
Do we truly stand upon opinions - can they actually be made stable? Do we trade them for ever shifting outcomes?
I obviously noticed in your question - a variety of statements or assumptions that of course I find in myself or I couldn't illuminate such a response. What you find may be determined by how willing you are to release opinions in order to relate better (more clearly) to whatever is resonant and relevant to the themes and explorations you are the living of.