Political Polarization, Unmitigated Rage, and the Unbridgeable Divide

[Bubu]

I agree with you people see things differently and we must show respect. But how about those people who deliberately "slings mud everywhere, poisons your food and water, sprays your air with contaminants and then waterboards your wife and kids" Are we going to choose respect than "call them out" as Daozen said. We have those kind of people here on avalon. Shall we flush them out or continue to pretend that they are nice and be nice to them. Look at the main page, who are deliberately posting the useless threads to your opinion. Those are the ones who bring mud to this forum. We are lucky to have this kind of thread once in while now. And how about those who are caught sneaking subliminal very often.

I am lucky to be a member of this forum. I can positively say that I have grown with the help of grown ups here. too bad now the goodness is dying slowly being buried into mud, by whom? Sorry its difficult to show respect to people who...perhaps our niceness out of proportion is to be blamed.

[Hym]

For me, it's good that this is being discussed here. People here are much more of the ass kickers, ones that I find friends, then some would perceive. Allowance for varying viewpoints, within my understanding of my own review of past experiences, is like looking at myself under different influences, at different times in this life. Restraint within this forum is a recognition of it's members self-worth and if there is an ideology it is based upon a very strong balance of the heart-centered warriors way.

Most discussions founded on political opposition as the basis for expounding on a viewpoint seem very superficial and cartoonish to me. That's why I rarely engage in these subjects. When common experiences are discussed, those that have distinct value apart from politics, then I see grounds for growing a humane connection that empowers both to live beyond the manipulators grasp.

Personally, when I am hearing the surface repetition of a well known viewpoint it means I have not shared enough of my experience to create a space where people really feel comfortable enough to share theirs. I look deep into the heart of my time in that moment with anyone and I always see an entrainment through some self-serving source that has temporarily taken over their focus, their humanity, their worth. It is up to me to prompt their sharing, valuing the listening and the expression, often times more than hearing the subject matter or the details, even details which I have an eidetic memory for.

I ask myself what in that person's life is really bugging them and what thought process are they attached to that has attached itself to them, limiting their breath and preventing them from living in the moments we are sharing? What is their personal story and why are they here with me now?

Many often miss the core of a problem and neglect to discuss or even evaluate the influence of those who profit from the divisions they share. Look there for solutions if you are not already in the habit of listening to others. In fact cultivating, prompting the personal experiences from those who share common understanding creates an openness and real empathy of everyone, even those who seem to have extreme viewpoints, seemingly not based on any reality we know of.
Common ground is always a good thing when it does not seek a common enemy beyond the lie, the manipulation, the profit, yet works for a wider understanding. As well, in the same light, it has to call out the problem in order to remove the manipulative influence.

I know it seems like a difficult thing to do, but experiencing the illusion of the difficulty is the reward. The holographic illusion of overwhelming odds is just a paper tiger, especially in the often useless world of words and impressions, stories, and symbols. Overvaluing the importance of words diminishes their ability to represent the truth.

Granted that words, impressions, stories and symbols have been used for the good of many but their misuse has been exposed. These present exposures are now providing the opportunity for all of us to examine our use of those words for our own positive benefit and the benefit of others.

Along those positive lines I would emphatically say there is no political correctness. For whose political correctness is this mild, fear-based, diminutive, soul-squeezing and creativity killing dogma serving? I know it is invented only by those who work hard to impose some political and social constriction, imprinting their guilt and the emotional tyranny that they feel they have been a party to, or those psychopaths who revel in their twisted story telling that seems to guide much of the imagery seen these days. Someone is moving that dialog along in an easy to see and overtly orchestrated way.

Without a deeper understanding of those seemingly opposing viewpoints there is no common ground found. When found, that common ground often reveals to both parties the manufactured conflict as it exists, in the naked construct that some third and deeply influential provocateur has given it's energy and resources to.

I always ask who is funding the provocation and I look for the payouts, financial, ego-inflating, political, tribal.

Daozen's new thread brings understanding to this subject:

"Some articles on forum manipulation"
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...63#post1293963

[T Smith]

Posted by Bubu (here)
I agree with you people see things differently and we must show respect. But how about those people who deliberately "slings mud everywhere, poisons your food and water, sprays your air with contaminants and then waterboards your wife and kids" Are we going to choose respect than "call them out" as Daozen said. We have those kind of people here on avalon. Shall we flush them out or continue to pretend that they are nice and be nice to them. Look at the main page, who are deliberately posting the useless threads to your opinion. Those are the ones who bring mud to this forum. We are lucky to have this kind of thread once in while now. And how about those who are caught sneaking subliminal very often.

I am lucky to be a member of this forum. I can positively say that I have grown with the help of grown ups here. too bad now the goodness is dying slowly being buried into mud, by whom? Sorry its difficult to show respect to people who...perhaps our niceness out of proportion is to be blamed.

We need to call out those who are deliberately poisoning our water and spraying our skies. Empathy need not apply, unless one subscribes to the notion that social engineering and herding the sheep is necessary with diet, injections, and injunctions (among other things), and is not only necessary, but also a moral and noble pursuit. I don't buy it -- but that's just me. The problem is, in my view, those who are deliberately orchestrating the discord to suit their agendas are elusive entities at the very top of the social structure; they are few and far in-between. But they also have the power to shape the narrative via propaganda, indoctrination, and through various institutions that propagate culture. They are sucking in droves of unconscious observers to do their bidding, including family and friends and many innocents who may not fully understand they are but unwitting participants, and with whom we should have empathy. People don't necessarily have ideas -- ideas have people, and this is the dynamic that seems to foment the rage and polarization we are seeing today.

[Satori]

It was not my intent to suggest that we necessarily empathize with the wrongdoers. (However you may define wrongdoing.) I'm suggesting that if there was more empathy across all sectors, there would be less wrongdoing. Along the lines of: "Do undo others as you would have them do undo you."

[Bubu]

Posted by Satori (here)
It was not my intent to suggest that we necessarily empathize with the wrongdoers. (However you may define wrongdoing.) I'm suggesting that if there was more empathy across all sectors, there would be less wrongdoing. Along the lines of: "Do undo others as you would have them do undo you."

Yes I agree but it does not mean that we don't call them out as they are. there are new members, new to this awareness. I was ones like them and was thankful to the learned ones who call them out. Saved me a lot of time and headache.

[Brigantia]

T Smith, that was a wonderful and heartfelt post.

Manners today are appalling and there is so much lack of respect for others. I used to hear this from my parents and grandparents 40 years ago and I'd roll my eyes, but it's something that I agree with today. Learning more from them in later life, I discovered with astonishment that my parents and grandparents had sometimes been disobedient and naughty, so it's nothing new. Instead of being a phenomenon of our times it has been a slow process, a drip-drip-drip over the course of at least a century, and I believe that has been directed culturally by TPTB.

I can't believe what is going on in this country over Brexit - mild-mannered people that I know shrieking about it, friends falling out over opposing positions. I keep quiet unless I know that I'm in like-minded company as I have no wish to have a hysterical person in my midst.

One thing that I have thought about - I think that 9/11 has cast a huge psychic scar over the world. I don't think it matters if you believe the official version or not, but a lot seemed to change in my observation from that time on. The 1990s was a fun decade, and there has been no return to that since.

I hope that my random musings make sense!

[Mark]

No witch hunts.

If there are agents here, oh well, there are agents everywhere. In every walk of life. There are gas station attendants that are agents, CEOs, coffee shop barristas, politicians, revolutionaries, even just regular folks who are just being themselves, having no idea that others perceive them to be agents of anything other than an unpopular opinion. Dealing with them is often easier than dealing with that within ourselves that responds negatively to the provocation and acts out, contributing to the divide.

Breath. Settle down and contribute. Get in where you fit in, anyone who is suspicious, if you do not have absolute proof of their agent-hood, will just have to be engaged with according to the merits of the moment.

[T Smith]

Posted by HikerChick (here)
T Smith, that was a wonderful and heartfelt post.

Manners today are appalling and there is so much lack of respect for others. I used to hear this from my parents and grandparents 40 years ago and I'd roll my eyes, but it's something that I agree with today. Learning more from them in later life, I discovered with astonishment that my parents and grandparents had sometimes been disobedient and naughty, so it's nothing new. Instead of being a phenomenon of our times it has been a slow process, a drip-drip-drip over the course of at least a century, and I believe that has been directed culturally by TPTB.

I can't believe what is going on in this country over Brexit - mild-mannered people that I know shrieking about it, friends falling out over opposing positions. I keep quiet unless I know that I'm in like-minded company as I have no wish to have a hysterical person in my midst.

One thing that I have thought about - I think that 9/11 has cast a huge psychic scar over the world. I don't think it matters if you believe the official version or not, but a lot seemed to change in my observation from that time on. The 1990s was a fun decade, and there has been no return to that since.

I hope that my random musings make sense!

Our elders often chided us about manners (to which we invariably rolled our eyes) but what I tell my kids and those who are younger and believe they already know everything, is why manners are so important. Manners are actually a sort of "language" of sorts shared between generations and cultures of disparate tradition and origin. Every generation grows up in a world different from the generation before them, and vastly different from a couple generations before. So manners serve to bridge a communication gap between generations (and differing cultures). Manners are a common tool we can all employ to communicate between age groups and cultural tribes whose experiences may otherwise be too disparate to forge effective communication. That said, I don't mean to confuse manners with political correctness, which is something entirely different.

[T Smith]

Posted by Rahkyt (here)
No witch hunts.

If there are agents here, oh well, there are agents everywhere. In every walk of life. There are gas station attendants that are agents, CEOs, coffee shop barristas, politicians, revolutionaries, even just regular folks who are just being themselves, having no idea that others perceive them to be agents of anything other than an unpopular opinion. Dealing with them is often easier than dealing with that within ourselves that responds negatively to the provocation and acts out, contributing to the divide.

Breath. Settle down and contribute. Get in where you fit in, anyone who is suspicious, if you do not have absolute proof of their agent-hood, will just have to be engaged with according to the merits of the moment.

What about those you may suspect are unwitting agents? I agree with you very few are knowing agents of any certain ideology or cause or movement. But almost all of us carry the water for something greater than ourselves, or for some cause, even every day folks who are gas attendants, baristas, etc. And it would seem one of the underlying dynamics of the rage and vitriol characteristic of the political polarization of our times is a subconscious recognization of this dynamic in each of us. There is so much ignorance and programming and indoctrination prevalent in our present day world. There is our neighbor or brother-in-law or professional associate (who otherwise is a good person) but who is unknowingly carrying the water for our Luciferian overlords bend on enslaving the human race (to allude to earlier posts in this thread), or for the White Supremest Patriarchs who are just as happy marginalizing the rest of us in the name of the status quo. These are the people we rage against--to hell with their ideas and thoughts on the matter--to let them know just what the hell they're doing and how horrible it is.

I often times find myself asking someone who tickles a trigger in me something along the lines of, "you do realize you are carrying the water for such-and-such, right?" And if said person realizes it and owns it and is okay with -- suddenly I'm okay with it. We simply agree to disagree. We can have a rational discussion on the matter and I proceed via the merits of persuasion and argument to convince them why they are misinformed, etc. But it's when they know not what they do when I find tempted to the dark side of the divide. That's what triggers the emotional side of things...

[Mark]

Posted by T Smith (here)
What about those you may suspect are unwitting agents? I agree with you very few are knowing agents of any certain ideology or cause or movement. But almost all of us carry the water for something greater than ourselves, or for some cause, even every day folks who are gas attendants, baristas, etc. And it would seem one of the underlying dynamics of the rage and vitriol characteristic of the political polarization of our times is a subconscious recognization of this dynamic in each of us.

It is true, we do carry water for ideologies and causes beyond us and that is right and good, insofar as those moralistic expressions go in characterizing reality, which is often at its base level beyond relativistic perceptions. Rage and vitriol are emotive expressions that have their place in life, in human interactions that serve the purpose of those who engage them. That we see a lot of it lately is indicative of the times. Is anybody else paying attention to the Schumann Resonance these days? It has been off the charts.

Posted by T Smith (here)
There is so much ignorance and programming and indoctrination prevalent in our present day world. There is our neighbor or brother-in-law or professional associate (who otherwise is a good person) but who is unknowingly carrying the water for our Luciferian overlords bend on enslaving the human race (to allude to earlier posts in this thread), or for the White Supremest Patriarchs who are just as happy marginalizing the rest of us in the name of the status quo. These are the people we rage against--to hell with their ideas and thoughts on the matter--to let them know just what the hell they're doing and how horrible it is.

Yes. According to our perception of what is right. To them, people are different and some are superior to others. How many times have you ever walked by a homeless person on the street and looked the other way knowing they were going to ask you for money? How did you feel about that person, or perhaps some other person in a fleeting instant of visceral and automatic responsiveness to the awareness of the difference between you? My point is that the relativism of perception is related to so many ingrained and indoctrinated perspectives that we each hold that form the very basis of our understanding and interpretation of the world around us and that we are slave to these perceptions even as we seek to transcend them.

Posted by T Smith (here)
I often times find myself asking someone who tickles a trigger in me something along the lines of, "you do realize you are carrying the water for such-and-such, right?" And if said person realizes it and owns it and is okay with -- suddenly I'm okay with it. We simply agree to disagree. We can have a rational discussion on the matter and I proceed via the merits of persuasion and argument to convince them why they are misinformed, etc. But it's when they know not what they do when I find tempted to the dark side of the divide. That's what triggers the emotional side of things...

And that leads to good times and a productive discussion which will allow all of the participants to leave the interaction feeling like they have made a connection and have found a higher way through the morass of polarity. I would say it is all ok. It is all good. The reason why it is so is merely because it is so and it is what is. Perhaps simplistic and overly zen, but effective to recognize difference and allow it to be, to exist as what it is, purely. And to extrapolate that understanding to every level of materialization, of worldly interaction is to cultivate a perspective that allows for things to just be, no matter how they fit within our own personal belief systems.

[Gemma13]

Thank you T Smith for this great thread and comments.

[AutumnW]

People are polarized right now, but as AI gains traction, technocrats and all kinds of white collar professionals are going to be as displaced as factory workers were in the 1970's. It will become an across the board disenfranchisement. Massive poverty lies ahead. Social capital and reaching across traditional divides may be the only way forward.

[Cara]

An interesting study on “information gerrymandering” has just been published.

“gerrymandering: (politics) The practice of redrawing electoral districts to gain an electoral advantage for a political party.” (Wiktionary)

‘Information gerrymandering’ poses a threat to democratic decision making
Subtle features of social network structure can lead to biased outcomes in group decisions.


Information gerrymandering can change the way we think about political decisions, as depicted in this image of a gerrymandered mind. People must integrate disparate sources of information when deciding how to vote. But information does not always flow freely; it can be constrained by social networks and distorted by zealots and automated bots. Researchers showed that certain structures in a social network can sway the voting outcome of towards one party, even when both parties have equal size and each player has the same influence, a phenomenon they called “information gerrymandering." (Image: Alexander Stewart)

September 4, 2019

Electoral gerrymandering, in which political districts are drawn to favor one party, has attracted renewed attention of late. The centuries-old practice operates to bias the outcome of elections.

Now researchers led by Penn biologist Joshua B. Plotkin and the University of Houston’s Alexander J. Stewart have identified another impediment to democratic decision making, one that may be particularly relevant in online communities.

In what the scientists have termed “information gerrymandering,” it’s not geographical boundaries that confer a bias but the structure of social networks, such as social media connections.

Reporting in the journal Nature, the researchers first predicted the phenomenon from a mathematical model of collective decision making, and then confirmed its effects by conducting social network experiments with thousands of human subjects. Finally, they analyzed a variety of real-world networks and found examples of information gerrymandering present on Twitter, in the blogosphere, and in U.S. and European legislatures.

“People come to form opinions, or decide how to vote, based on what they read and who they interact with,” says Plotkin. “And in today’s world we do a lot of sharing and reading online. What we found is that the information gerrymandering can induce a strong bias in the outcome of collective decisions, even in the absence of ‘fake news.’

“This tells us that we need to be cautious about relying on social media for communication because the network structure is not under our control and yet it can distort our collective decisions.”

The researchers’ analysis revealed that information gerrymandering could easily produce biases of 20%. In other words, a group that was evenly split into two parties could nonetheless arrive at 60-40 decision due solely to information gerrymandering.

“The idea is akin to electoral gerrymandering, where one party can gain an advantage not by sheer number but deciding who votes in which district,” Plotkin says.

The question of whether this influence could lead to biased outcomes was one that felt particularly salient to Plotkin, given concerns about how the flow of information has been changed by social media.

“Right now, we need research about the effects of social media on the health of liberal democracies,” he says.

To begin, the researchers built a simple game in which players were assigned to competing groups, or parties. Placed on a network that determined whose voting intentions each person could see, players were incentivized so that the best outcome would be for their party to “win” the election. The second best outcome would be for the other party to win, and the worst result would be deadlock.

“What we found in a nutshell,” says Plotkin, “is that, even when two parties have an equal number of members and everything seems fair—everyone in the network is equally influential—the structure of the social network can still bias the outcome toward one party or another.”

The reason has to do with the way that the two parties interact with each other. When members of a single party are talking almost exclusively to one another and not across party lines, it can lead to what is known online as a filter bubble, where someone’s views are reinforced by those around them. Put two such groups together, each on the opposite side of an issue, and deadlock ensues.

When information is gerrymandered, however, a few members of one party end up in a conversation dominated by members of the other party. There, they have the opportunity to persuade the other side, or to be persuaded.

“The party at a disadvantage,” Plotkin explains, “is the one that has divided its influence—with most its members talking only to their own party, while a few of its members interact in bubbles dominated by the other party, where they are likely to be flipped.”

Working with coauthor David Rand at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and colleagues, the team conducted more than 100 online experiments with more than 2,500 human subjects to test the effects of information gerrymandering. The games entailed the same scenario as the mathematical model: Teams of 12 players each were assigned to “vote” for either the yellow party or the purple party and incentivized to favor their assigned party with consensus as a second-best outcome. The experiments varied the structure of the social network and confirmed the predicted effects of information gerrymandering on vote outcomes.

“We can swing the final vote in these experimental games by 20% or more just by the structure of the social network,” Plotkin says. “Even if one party has a 2-to-1 size advantage, we predict the minority party can win a majority of votes through information gerrymandering.”

Curious whether they could induce information gerrymandering using automated bots, the researcher also inserted “zealot bots” that refuse to compromise. Sure enough, the appropriate placement of only a few zealots could also induce information gerrymandering and undemocratic outcomes.

To assess real-world networks for the presence of information gerrymandering, the researchers analyzed data on bill co-sponsorship in the U.S. Congress as well as European legislatures and networks of social media users participating in political discussion.

They found that information gerrymandering was extremely common in these real-world networks.

The researchers see this as the beginning of a new avenue of study focused on how social networks impact collective decision making.

“There has been a lot of attention on fake news and online trolls, which are certainly disruptive,” says Plotkin. “What we’re studying is something different, which depends on the overall network structure—a more subtle but possibly more pernicious problem for democratic decision making.”

Joshua B. Plotkin is a professor in the Department of Biology in the University of Pennsylvania School of Arts and Sciences. He has secondary appointments in the Department of Mathematics and in the School of Engineering and Applied Science’s Department of Computer and Information Science.

Alexander J. Stewart is an assistant professor at the University of Houston.

Plotkin and Stewart coauthored the work with Mohsen Mosleh, Antonio Arechar, and David G. Rand of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Marina Diakonova of the University of Oxford.

The study was supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency NGS2 programs (Grant D17AC00005), Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence Initiative of the Miami Foundation, Templeton World Charity Foundation, Army Research Office (Grant W911NF-17-1-0083), and David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

From: https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/pen...ecision-making

[T Smith]

Posted by Cara (here)

“We can swing the final vote in these experimental games by 20% or more just by the structure of the social network,” Plotkin says. “Even if one party has a 2-to-1 size advantage, we predict the minority party can win a majority of votes through information gerrymandering.”

Curious whether they could induce information gerrymandering using automated bots, the researcher also inserted “zealot bots” that refuse to compromise. Sure enough, the appropriate placement of only a few zealots could also induce information gerrymandering and undemocratic outcomes.

I would argue this phenomenon isn't just happening on social media, but within all media networks, and especially within mainstream media networks. The information gerrymandering is presently on overdrive, which is programming the masses (literally) and fueling the divide.

The divide appears to be between "establishment" vs. "anti-establishment" interests, where anti-establishment has the 2-1 advantage among the people, as described above, and thus the MSM gerrymandering modus operandi is to "flip" the vote, or sentiment among this demographic back into balance with the establishment agenda. In this sense establishment interests have a massive advantage and utilize technology to shape public opinion against their own interests. This is nothing more than a 24/7 propaganda campaign to program the public to "stay in line and keep things as they are," i.e., perpetual wars, central banking control system, and to maintain a brand of democratic politics in name only, but effectuated in practice via the oligarchic interests of corporate globalism.

We might define the "establishment," then, as a duel party system that swings to and fro between ideological left and right in rhetoric only, but which is driven ultimately by a single underlying agenda that has nothing to do with the political right or left, but rather shaped by and for the interests of Big Pharma, Big Tech, the military industrial complex, and corporate globalism.

For the most part, in its present iteration, the political right has embraced the anti-establishment narrative. The left--and MSM--has embraced the establishment. The establishment, as defined above, represents the minority, but this demographic can secure a majority of votes and the public opinion by co-opting the left and via the efforts of information gerrymandering described in the article above.

The entire process is a violent psyop that confuses people and renders the political psyche of the average observer, no matter what their political leanings, to a state of cognitive dissonance.

[Andre]

Posted by mpennery (here)
It’s a bit ugly right now because there is a war ongoing for the soul of this planet. The people are in this new age of information, learning things only dreamt of a few decades ago and the elite/corporations/governments are pulling out all the stops to keep the people down, keep them uninformed and keep them sick and dependent on the system. Most of the issues with my family and friends come down to a basic question: are they aware or not? This could also be phrased as “do they blindly trust their establishment authorities or not?” Because the difference between actual reality and the establishment version of reality is huge and impacts everything and every conversation. At some point something will have to give. I don’t believe the powers that be can hold back the flood of truth much longer and from what I have seen they don’t look to be willing to lose honorably with a handshake and a cold beer after. Yes, I’m big on empathy but our opponents are not. It might just be to get the world we know is possible, with us as peaceful enlightened stewards of this beautiful planet, living an advanced, but non polluting existence, and exploring our universe, we may need to dig our heels into the dirt, look our oppressors in the face, tell them “no more!” and be willing to fight for it. I hope it doesn’t come to that, though.Matt

Apart from T Smith's starting post, I very much resonate with your post.

Yes, as the global movement seeking truth continues to gain momentum, the cabal is getting more and more desperate and we can indeed expect their desperation to get even more ugly. I would add that their is a deeply emotional component to humanity's awakening and that is the surfacing of long held Survival Rage. This rage has not moved in a very long time. It has been sitting in our collective sub-conscious for eons and it is very raw and almost primitive emotion that we're beginning to see move on a global scale, taking to the streets in Chile, Ecuador, Hong Kong, Catalonia, France and many other places. So for the moment, their raw expression appears to be very intolerant of others. IMO, as we struggle to handle these deeply repressed emotions, they will continue to cause all kinds of temporary aberrations. it will take time to transform this Survival Rage so for the moment, these feelings will not be "reasonable" for fear of being judged as unacceptable once again. On a personal level, how often do we hear things like "get a grip", "don't be so emotional", "control yourself", "You're so angry right now". These are some of the ways we have continued to repress feelings that are not socially acceptable and this repressed anger has now been pushed down all the way to the survival chakra. it can't go down any further and must now begin a relentless move upwards again, seeking Light. As one HK activist recently remarked, "We are fighting for our lives here". He ain't kidding! We just have to be careful not to let the cabal to co-opt this rage until our emotional intelligence has a chance to blossom and these feelings transform enough to believe they can create the life they deeply desire but have never believed they could have.

[Chester]

Posted by T Smith (here)
What is going on here?...

...I am reminded of George Orwell’s Two Minutes of Hate, although it would seem Orwell’s prophetic dynamic of mob mentality more accurately describes a sort of 24/7 kind of rage prevalent in our current political discourse. Is this balkanization manufactured? Is it a psyop? Or is this just an organic ramification of our violent and warring proclivities as a species? Are some differences truly irreconcilable and is war and violence inevitable? As a final question, for those of us who believe all human conflict is ultimately reconcilable—preferably without violence--what can we do about it?

My opinion? For what its worth... There appears to be an overall rise in the darkest of energetic intentions, simply put... demonics.

I would be surprised to know if ever there were a larger percentage of humanity with such vulnerability to targeted demonic attention in centuries, maybe millennia. And in too many cases, it is largely self inflicted.

I hope folks don't take this lightly.

[T Smith]

Posted by Sammy (here)

Posted by T Smith (here)
What is going on here?...

...I am reminded of George Orwell’s Two Minutes of Hate, although it would seem Orwell’s prophetic dynamic of mob mentality more accurately describes a sort of 24/7 kind of rage prevalent in our current political discourse. Is this balkanization manufactured? Is it a psyop? Or is this just an organic ramification of our violent and warring proclivities as a species? Are some differences truly irreconcilable and is war and violence inevitable? As a final question, for those of us who believe all human conflict is ultimately reconcilable—preferably without violence--what can we do about it?

My opinion? For what its worth... There appears to be an overall rise in the darkest of energetic intentions, simply put... demonics.

I would be surprised to know if ever there were a larger percentage of humanity with such vulnerability to targeted demonic attention in centuries, maybe millennia. And in too many cases, it is largely self inflicted.

I hope folks don't take this lightly.

Delight crystalizes it for me here... She is absolutely correct. It's programming...

[Chester]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by Sammy (here)

Posted by T Smith (here)
What is going on here?...

...I am reminded of George Orwell’s Two Minutes of Hate, although it would seem Orwell’s prophetic dynamic of mob mentality more accurately describes a sort of 24/7 kind of rage prevalent in our current political discourse. Is this balkanization manufactured? Is it a psyop? Or is this just an organic ramification of our violent and warring proclivities as a species? Are some differences truly irreconcilable and is war and violence inevitable? As a final question, for those of us who believe all human conflict is ultimately reconcilable—preferably without violence--what can we do about it?

My opinion? For what its worth... There appears to be an overall rise in the darkest of energetic intentions, simply put... demonics.

I would be surprised to know if ever there were a larger percentage of humanity with such vulnerability to targeted demonic attention in centuries, maybe millennia. And in too many cases, it is largely self inflicted.

I hope folks don't take this lightly.

Delight crystalizes it for me here... She is absolutely correct. It's programming...

I understand, but isn't programming just one tool in a basket of tools used by various parties acting as agents of darkness? IMO, regardless of whether the result of demonic intention is delivered directly or via a third party, the root is demonics.

Demonics (to me) is the supreme anti-life force that permeates all levels of experiential reality.

For me, the word, "programming," points out one of many forms of demonic influence. It appears to me that demonic influence can manifest in many forms and be generated by one or more beings within one or more groups at any of these levels of experiential reality. Surely it is easier to manipulate a being that is heavily programmed so to that end, programming increases vulnerability. Yet demonics is multifaceted.

I certainly agree that deprogramming is a critical task to perform. Speaking for myself, I am certain I am only partially "deprogrammed." Hopefully more so today than 7 years ago. I can never emphasize enough the significance of the role this forum has played with regard to what I have learned.

How does one find oneself "programmed?" For me, the key to answering that question relies most heavily upon my ability to accept my own personal responsibility in getting in this predicament. I find this rarely emphasized in these communities so maybe I am wrong. But I bet I am right.