In my last post I remarked at the disgust I felt towards a woman who is so emotionally overwhelmed that the concept of critical and rational logical thought is completely anathema to her and her psychological type. Q has labelled these people as “emotionally vulnerable”, and as a group they are certainly identifiable via their Myer’s-Briggs Personality Type – they would be the types most unlike the rationalist INTJ, for example.
Now while we might like to lay blame of the world’s problems on these people, the point which Q made that they are “emotionally vulnerable” is an extremely important one. In the context of Ontological Mathematics and all of our soul’s journey to becoming rationally enlightened, it is obvious that not all souls incarnated have the same level of developed rational faculty.
And so we should take note of something extremely telling which the woman also said in that video clip. When told by others that she should stop watching mainstream news and listening to their narrative, she retorted:
“What media do you then suggest? That is saying ‘Don’t trust knowledge, operate in darkness!’.”
That’s a remarkable statement for an emotionally-directed person to make, is it not!? It’s incredible. What does it demonstrate?
It demonstrates that these type of people are entirely brainwashed by the mainstream media narrative. It demonstrates that if they knew the truth, that they would probably have an entirely different outlook. Her, and others like her, narrative is entirely created and entirely manufactured by the mainstream media.
Take a look at this video too:
There is nothing factual that Trump has ever said or done that can quantifiably or qualitatively demonstrate that he is a racist. Nor the vast majority of his supporters. And while we may rightly criticize the people in the video’s duplicity in not caring so much if it is a Democrat who is clearly the provably racist by the Left’s current standards of such, while if it had’ve been Trump in those pictures there would have been riots and chaos in the streets and mass calls for resignation, we must remember that that is entirely within the modus operandi of an emotional type (to be rationally and yes even emotionally inconsistent), it is good again to note that these people’s mental cognitive space has been entirely crafted by the mainstream media who these people seem to implicitly trust and for whom are unable to examine actual source material or alternative Press sources.
The point being that it is entirely the “Free Press”, i.e. the corporate conglomerate globalist ultra-predatory-capitalist controlled press, which is responsible for the degree of misinformation that these emotionally vulnerable people suffer under. The fact is that there is no responsibility in the Press to tell the truth, or to ask meaningful questions, or to do anything. The “Free Press” allows the Press to do and to pretend whatever they want, without consequence. The Free Press can simply pretend that Trump is racist, or whatever other scenario they want in any reference frame, and by such pretense then manufacture and sustain that very idea in the minds of the emotionally vulnerable with no evidence at all.
Some emerging systems of thought have thus stated that Press must be held accountable to lying, as in a court of law. The Press must be punishable for lying or for feigning pretenses that create lies. And that seems reasonable, like it should work.
However, we have this lesson from climate alarmism, that even with review from peers and so-called governing bodies and an entire apparatus designed supposedly for ensuring rational discourse, lies and simulacra can still enter and take everything over and become a sole-governor of what topics are allowed to be discussed, etc. And as we have seen, the Press begins to take entire control over what is allowed to be said and in what way it can be said, etc.
Thus, has anyone considered simply not having any Press at all? What if these emotionally vulnerable people only had source material to reference? What if instead of relying on other people to tell you what to think, while you never make contact with actual source material at all, everyone and especially the emotionally vulnerable only ever had access to direct source material?
Wouldn’t that result in one of the most radical transformations of collective human consciousness which has ever occurred? Why have a Press? What really is the need for it? Why do you want other people to tell you what to think, while they know that you will never go check the source and thus giving the opportunity for them to outright lie to you?
Do you think that could work? Instead of papers and television and YouTube personalities telling you what to think, what if the only thing that the media was allowed to present to you was unedited transcripts and recordings of source material?
We can have freedom of speech, entire freedom of speech, but NO Press. Not limited Press, but no Press at all. Only source material.
These emotionally vulnerable people simply never hear Trump and the border control agents talking about human trafficking through the open border, and the horrific stories that the agents encounter, etc. Truly horrible, disgusting stuff that goes on with an open border. Emotionally, let alone rationally, sickening stuff. And so what if the emotionally vulnerable people finally got to listen to this stuff, without the superimposed and fake narrative that a border is “racist, misogynist, whatever-ist” etc. Well, emotionally vulnerable people would of course immediately become enraged and upset and horrified at the damage that an open border causes once they hear how innocent people are physically and mentally harmed by it, and of course they would immediately demand that something be done about it.
All of this stuff about “racist” MAGA hats and “racist” borders is 100% manufactured lying narrative from the mainstream Press. Given that the existence of a Press will always allow for an open door to fakery and lies, as we have even seen with mainstream science adopting flat Earth theory in a most clandestine but emotionally compelling manner, what if we simply did away with Press and everyone only ever had access to source material to consider for themselves?
Now what about people who, say, simply have a YouTube channel and want to talk about world events with their friends, and there are others who share the same opinions about such events anyway? Well I guess that would be fine…you just can’t have any organized, monetized, advertiser-supported, profit or charity oriented enterprise of a Press. And then, add a provision that any such group and/or individuals which still discusses things in a Press-like manner can be subject to fines for spreading misinformation when source material does not support false pretenses or actual claims.
Or maybe it could be lightened up a little to have viewer-supported “Press personalities” only, and disallow any form of external paid-advertising, etc.
Isn’t Fake News Media and constant advertisement through it two of the worst aspects of modern human life? They really are the worst. So why not just get rid of it?
Allow people to talk to each other again, after they’ve watched or listened to what actually happened. Rather than people talking to each other after they’ve been misinformed and lied to while they never actually go check source material.
So, freedom of speech for the individual, but not freedom of speech for advertiser-funded corporate predatory capitalist globalist “news” agencies.
Well, what do you think? How do you solve the problem of lying Press which manipulates emotionally vulnerable people and which capitalizes upon their ability to be neither rationally or emotionally consistent? Wouldn’t emotionally vulnerable people be far, far less of a problem for the world if they weren’t allowed to be so openly and brazenly emotionally manipulated in the first place?
It’s a big deal because it even goes as far as flat Earth theory finding it’s way into modern science among our so-called intellectuals. In my book I stated that we must hereonforth base everything upon the Principle of Sufficient Reason.