∙I.e.2 – An elementary (reassuring) approach of “dissident information” – The need to make a qualitative leap in making information “dissident”

Today things are getting worse and worse: institutions commit “mistakes” that create ever greater social problems. This happens despite the fact that there is irrefutable evidence of the wrongness of these choices.

This worsening of the situation indicates, among other things, such as who is trying to develop an Information “dissident” than that of the dominant thought, actually commits fatal errors.

That is,

today, those who convey dissident information
must recognize that they too
– albeit unintentionally –
contributes to maintaining the public
in a dimension of inability to understand
the meaning of information
which is in itself unquestionably valid
from a scientific point of view.

.

So

those who today want to be out of the chorus of the Media deployed in support of the Institutions (of fake news)
MUST STOP FOR A MOMENT
TO REFLECT ON THE MISTAKES
THEY ARE MAKING,
AND START AGAIN
WITH A DIFFERENT APPROACH.

The problem for dissident information is that it is not only ineffective, but if it continues on this path, sooner or later it will be put out of action by laws and censorship.

THE POINT ON THE CURRENT SITUATION (OF DISINFORMATION)

ANALYSIS OF THE “PROBLEM” TO BE SOLVED

The situation: today

although scientifically valid information is available that refutes the institutional choices that create serious damage to the Society, the Institutions enjoy the support of a large part of the population

(if that part of the population became aware of the wrongness of the institutional choices, the institutions would be forced to abandon their current top-down policies such as anti-Covid measures).

causes: this situation is due to the lack (1) of Information and (2) of a Culture that allow people to understand what is actually happening.

solution: it is a question of proposing the Truth. But in new modes (the mode they are using now works little or nothing).

It is a question of changing (radically) approach, otherwise not only are they unheard, but with the worsening of the situation, THEY ARE MARGINALIZED, AND FINALLY ELIMINATED.

(it must be understood that if we do not intervene in the correct way, the “regime” continues to strengthen and, as happened in the US in 2020, assumes an unstoppable power).

.

It is a question of substantially
rethinking the way information is disseminated.

In other words, it is necessary to continue to spread the truth, but fundamentally changing the way of exposing it. That is, with regard to “dissident” information, it is necessary:

<see my Article “Operational considerations on dissident information innovation”>

(the topics are discussed further below)

● communicate in a more understandable way to the majority of people: today information is understood only by those who have already guessed that there is something wrong with mainstream information.

It is therefore necessary to develop a new form of communication that is able to make understand what is happening even to those who today are completely subservient to the “dominant thought”.

.

● communicate in an organic way: creating a new ecosystem of Culture

One of the fundamental problems of “dissident” information is that

today they insist on “journalistic” information which continually dispenses new data, but in fact, it “does not remain” in people’s minds

(this information is not transformed into knowledge, but is lost in the chaos of the overabundance of information typical of our society – in which only those who are in tune with the institutions succeed).

That is, the current way of providing information that is not aligned with the narrative of the institutions does not “create culture”. And therefore any alternative culture disappears in fact in the comparison with the institutional “Culture”.

(we repeat that it is not a question of informing those who “already know”, but of making the situation understood by those who are mentally dependent on institutional information, and are frightened by any information that is in conflict with it – see next chapter ” armor of minds (bigotry)”)

∙[excursus]Psycho-Politics- the armor (mental barrier)of the minds: bigotry

<see my Article “Hypno-governance: Mass hypnosis”>

The problem of the ineffectiveness of “dissident” information also derives from the fact that today the mental (psychological) condition in which people have been brought into account is not taken into account – with the subtle psycho-political strategies developed throughout the 1900s. <see mi text “Handling the masses: the strategies of manipulation of consciences”>

Today, whoever really knows how things are going, thinks “we are right, and we can make people understand”. But in reality – as long as the current information approach continues to be used – there is an insurmountable obstacle to understanding information that does not conform to the mainstream: the “armor” (mental barrier) of the minds of most people that prevents them not only from understand things thoroughly, but also just listen to what is said by sources that are not “certified” as institutional.

That is, it is necessary to understand that the current problem of the difficulty of disseminating dissident information is, at the basis of everything, a “cultural question”: the loss of human culture capable of making people understand how things actually go in our society. Loss caused by years of indoctrination (School and Media), and which has led to the development of a mental barrier that prevents most people from understanding the actual reality.

.

ç_bigottism

This barrier to understanding is due to that quality of ideologies defined as bigotry: the current high level of “bigotry” of most people places them in an emotional (irrational) condition that leads them to an emotional (neurotic, hysterical) reaction: for this reason it is not possible to establish a dialogue on a rational level with people who adhere to an Ideology (with such people it is possible to “reason” only on an emotional level).

In other words, in the dimension of bigotry, a thought different from that of dogma simply does not exist: it is not taken into consideration because, according to the mind absorbed by ideology, it is not something rational, but a “provocation” of those who want spreading evil (anything that does not conform to the Dogma is evil).

.

ç_shock

This mental condition is obtained by inducing a state of continuous underground shock in people. In this condition – typical of sects – any attempt to explain theses that do not conform to Dogma creates panic: reality is terrified, and all they need is a message of hope from the institutions.

An underground panic that prevents them not only from understanding what is being said, but also just from listening.

One of the psychological strategies developed by the Communist Parties is that of agit-prop: agitation and Propaganda, which consists in “agitating” the masses, putting them in fear (with times such as global warming, fascists, Covid, white supremacy) The terrified masses will be easier to convince <see my test “Fear as a factor of submission“>

.

The problem is that acting – as dissident information does now – in a context of mental subjugation of the masses with traditional information methods is inevitably doomed to failure.

In the traditional information mode (the one practiced today by dissident-stream) they are in fact placed on the same level as the mainstream media, where rational arguments (and “scientific data”) do not work: they end up on the level of “my word against his”, on which level the winner is the one who is considered to be the most authoritative (and today the institutions are able to make any source authoritative with a simple official “blessing”).

It must also be understood that on that level not only is it ineffective, but the power of institutional culture is able to set a large part of the public against dissident thought, triggering a sort of civil war (for now developed at a “soft” level). And the result is the disappearance of dissident information (which is censored, suppressed, with the consent of the people).

<see my articles “How to define a new approach to dissident information“>

Summary of the Project

<See also a more detailed description of the project “Operational considerations on dissident information innovation”>

So basically in this document we propose ways of information able to make the most of the nature of the Web. First of all, these are characteristics such as:

– “visual design” in which textual, graphic and multimedia elements can be integrated into a single information.

– hypertextual structure of the information, today substantially ignored by the “dissident-stream” channels.

.

In more technical terms, it is about integrating into an organic system that increases the value of a single piece of information:

● information (eg news) developed in a new way that is more assimilable to most people.

● a knowledge-base that allows to deepen the single topic and to verify the truthfulness of what is stated.

This knowlegde-base is formed:

– largely by parts of the information transmitted by the same channel (for example a TV service) which is divided into topics and cataloged.

– from external contributions, which allow for in-depth analysis of the single information.

.

It is believed that only by radically innovating the way of making information can make it possible for most people to understand the truthfulness of “dissident” information.

.

Note that

this knowledge base can become a reference for any channel or author who today divulges dissident information.

The need to make the most of the qualities of Web communication

So for the “dissident-stream” to continue disseminating information in the current way, which does nothing but resume the ways of the mainstream, it is not only a waste of time because such information will never be understood by most people. But it is also a form of self-destruction, since by acting in this way one continues to be in conflict with the majority of people, and the institutions feel supported in increasing repressive actions (censorship, closure).

For this reason,

for “non-aligned” information channels it is necessary to radically change (innovate) the way of providing information.

That is, it is necessary for them

to develop a new form of communication that is able to make things understand even to those who today are totally dominated by the dominant thought.

.

This chapter analyzes some characteristics of Web Communication.

communication in the days of the Web

Current communication is inadequate as it is based on the pre-Web mode in which there are two separate layers:

● the news flow

● the “encyclopedia” (the reference for in-depth analysis of the topics).

These two levels today are not integrated at all, as the Web would allow to do (integration does not mean just making a few links).

.

While the advantage of the Web is represented by the power

integrate the two parts
– News and “encyclopedic knowledge” –
into an organic system that allows the user
to deepen their knowledge on specific aspects

(or, allows to verify the truthfulness).

.

Today, another advantage of the Web is not exploited, which is to greatly improve the “visual” aspect (once only possible with “illustrations”). In fact, on the web it is possible not only to make references to static images or videos. But it is possible

to create pages in “visual” formats that make the subject exposed much more understandable.

the two basic qualities of the Web in displaying information

Technically speaking, the Web is based on two elements of communication:

► Hypertext: a text that contains references to other parts of text or multimedia ..

► a hierarchical system of synopsis and in-depth analysis, in which the topics are first presented in a synthetic way, and can gradually be studied in depth thanks to links to other parts of the Web.

So an “information” (for example a News), when you are able to exploit the potential of the Web, becomes:

– a series of parts ranging from simple to complex: the more “simple” parts must be developed in a distinctly “visual”, info-graphic mode (“a clipped compound of” information “and” graphics ” intended to present information quickly and clearly. “Wikipedia)

– an organic system that also integrates external parts, which can allow you to thoroughly investigate the topic to which the information refers (and also allows, with the connection to the sources, the truthfulness of the statements).

The problem with dissident information is that today these modalities are applied in a very partial way: if you want to be able to propose a more effective communication, then

it is necessary to innovate
the way of making information in a radical way
BY MAKING BETTER USE OF THE QUALITIES OF THE WEB.

.

Summing up

the new way of making information
must therefore be an organic integration
of the two levels
of encyclopedic knowledge and of the News.

A different quality of information

As illustrated in this chapter, so that it can be assimilated by most people

information must present data
on a purely human scale
(and with “elementary” arguments).

(On the Web in-depth studies, as mentioned, take place in successive stages at the first level, thanks to hypertext links)

It is important to remember that the confrontation of “dissident” information does not take place on a rational level, since the minds of people aligned with the dominant thought are characterized by mental barriers that lead them to reject any information that goes against the current. That is, it is important to take into account that in this case we are not confronted on a rational level, but on an emotional level.

For this reason it is necessary to develop information that offers an elementary, reassuring approach (the qualities described below).

For greater comprehensibility of information: simplicity, set of understandable examples, “human scale”

For there to be an effective understanding:

● the information must be very simple to understand

The information must be “tangible”.

For example, if you want to demonstrate the lack of meaning of anti-Covid measures, it makes no sense to talk about problems of unconstitutionality of these measures, since these are abstract issues compared to the minds of people who are not familiar with matters related to the Law;

In this case, however, it can be effective if the essence of the “Covid-19” problem is demonstrated: in 2020 there were no more deaths than in previous years. This last datum represents a real, tangible “fact”, which therefore anyone can understand (and can reassure, or put the user in the condition of being able to open their mind to listening to what is said).

● Explanations must always be accompanied by examples that are very easy to understand

Explanations must always be supported by examples familiar to readers: this is how the information becomes “tangible”.

● the information must be expressed on a “human” scale <see my article “The incorrect assessment of an increase in the spread of Covid (real and relative data)“>

The problem is that

what does not fit into a “human scale” is considered an abstract question, that is, at a level in which the connection of information with actual reality is not perceived.

(the connection of a concept with actual reality is the sine qua non for its assimilation).

For example, the number of deaths at the national level is an “off-scale” figure for most people. That is, the data resides for them at an abstract level, very difficult to perceive.

While expressing the number on a scale linked to a typical size of a district of a city makes the data more understandable.

● authoritativeness of the message: – it is always necessary to demonstrate the authoritativeness of the sources: the information must come from people and institutions of proven reliability (the sources of information and data must always be indicated, and the profile of the person providing it).

For example, for Covid-19 it is essential to report the information that – despite coming from “Institutions” such as Dr Fauci / CDC, WHO, national governmental institutions, – sanction the non-dangerousness of the virus.

.

The problem is that at an “out of scale”, abstract level, people feel the need to rely on “experts” to get an “explanation” (basically in this case we rely on the word of the institutions, which obviously provide “explanations” which are nothing more than justifications of their Policies).

The problem of non-Web-compliant communication

The absence of the qualities described above leads to the following problem:

in the absence of a communication that fully exploits the qualities of the Web, one is a loser, since most people will always believe in “authoritative” sources

As mentioned, it is always necessary to bring communication to a level of “tangibility” in which people can understand the actual meaning of the data so that they can relate them to concrete, real situations (that is, people must perceive the reality of the facts conveyed with the information).

Unfortunately, by continuing to provide an obsolete level of information – which does not take into account the need to overcome people’s mental barriers – “dissident” information continues to be misunderstood (and even perceived as dangerous).

The problem of presenting data of which most do not understand the real meaning

There are many cases in which communication is not brought to a “human scale” level.

And in these cases

● lacks the ability to make sense of given numbers displayed due to the size of the scale against which the data is exposed.

An example: the conscience of a person with an ordinary life is not able to understand what it means to have to walk 100 km, since what he can imagine is only a walk of at most 10 km.

Similarly, it cannot understand what it means to have a public debt of $ 1 trillion.

.

● there is a lack of understanding of the weight that numerical data have in themselves; that is, there is no understanding of the implications that such data have in reality.

In the case of the $ 1 trillion debt, a debt of this magnitude escapes the understanding of the people, who are therefore unable to judge the economic policies of a country (they see these figures as an abstract game, which must be left to the “experts”, who obviously take advantage of the situation to develop strategies that may also conflict with the interests of citizens). (see next chapter “The abstractness of !academic topics”)

If, on the other hand, this debt is related to each inhabitant of the country (therefore to the reader), it will be easier to understand the weight of the thing.

Similarly, a number of 60,000 deaths means little or nothing, while if this number is compared to the typical population of a neighborhood, it can be included in its real weight.

[excursus] the abstractness of “academic” topics

To understand how difficult it is to make most people understand something that resides at the level of “abstract topics” (those pertaining to scholars) we must take into account, for example, that the systems of Law (including the Constitution) and ‘Modern economics” are not on a human scale: that is, these parts of human culture are not part of the essence of the human being.

In other words, these sciences have not been part of the original culture of man: for tens of thousands of years the human being has lived without the support of them, without missing them (and perhaps then life in small communities humans was even, in many respects, better than the current one). <see my text “The Financial Market and the Modern economy: a disconnection between the “management” of the Society and the real needs of people“>

These sciences were born solely to manage the current top-down governed complex systems (state management, companies, etc …). But they slowly took over other more “natural” ways to manage the life of the human community when the centralized government mode took over the government “by the Citizen, for the Citiizen” (the Democracy that operated, for example, in the USA at the level of small Towns). <see my document “Beyond the social-Demcoracy”>

We recall that the life of the Villages developed spontaneously: it was based on the real economy within anyone’s reach; and there were no “legislators”, but the rules were implicit in the local culture, and justice was based on the courts that operated on the basis of the direct judgment of the Citizens (even the King was not a legislator, but limited himself to applying the rules of tradition).

The modernization (“rationalize”) of life in human society has brought people’s lives to a level at which they are unable to conceive the functioning mechanisms:

and for this reason today people must rely on those who declare themselves an expert in matter.

The problem in the “rationalized” society arises when, for example, the rules that are the fundamental condition for achieving the objectives of civil society are not included in their importance (this is the case of the Constitution, which is the basis of the functioning of Democracy: today most of the people do not realize that in a Democracy either one adheres to the Constitution, or one enters a dictatorial dimension from which it is impossible to escape).

Similarly, people, in a system in which it is said – by the modern economy – that “you can spend more than you have in your pocket” (administrations) are no longer able to make cost/benefit assessments of government spending (and therefore are not more able to evaluate the validity of an institutional economic policy).

Why it is possible to understand the whole truth only by starting with an elementary (reassuring) approach

In summary, when exposing a problem to people who do not have a “specialist” culture (who have not deepened the study of a specific “technical” topic), it is necessary to pay close attention to how the topic is approached. Indeed, for such people this type of argument turns out to be abstract, devoid of a “tangible” meaning.

So in this case (the great majority of cases) the first approach must be elementary, bring developed elements on a level familiar to them, which can provide them with a real sense of things (at the following levels of study, more compressed arguments can be developed).

.

In these cases, that is, we have to do with the problem of the “armor” (mental barrier) of the mind of people brought into a dimension of terror – a real state of shock – which inhibits their ability to understand. <see my test “On ideological ideas is armored against forms of self-criticism“>

Therefore

THE FIRST STEP MUST BE TO FREE PEOPLE FROM THIS MIND-CLOUDING TERROR

.

For example, if you are used to tackling the Covid-19 problem, it is necessary to approach the topic based on “tangible” arguments for most people: essentially on the fact that the number of deaths in 2020 is the same as in previous years.

This elementary approach can be understood by most people (if the message is developed in compliance with the qualities of the Web-compliant information illustrated in other points).

And this understanding not only allows people to clarify to themselves what the essence of the matter is. But since that understanding

it relieves them of the sense of alarm
in which they were previously confined,
allows them to open up
to the understanding of more in-depth topics.

(at least in people’s minds a doubt begins to enter, that is questions like “but so ..?”)

Therefore, with an “elementary” approach, which does not create a conflict with the dominant theses (because, for example, the institutions are not criticized, but only factual data are exposed), a cultural basis is therefore constituted that allows to convey the most complex arguments which otherwise are not assimilated.

(It must be remembered that with the highly ideological public one does not operate on a rational level because it is confined to an emotional level in which rational arguments are not included, and therefore no reasoning can be made. One must therefore follow the idea that it is necessary to illustrate, and not try to prove!)

.

Summarizing the steps of an authentic Web-compliant Information:

● Doubt about the truthfulness of institutional information creeps into people’s minds

● frees them from the sense of terror in which they are currently confined (the information must first and foremost be reassuring). That is, it frees them from the current mental slavery towards institutional information (in this new condition people’s minds become open to listening to alternative information).

In a first phase then the mind freed from the condition of panic will then be able to understand the trick (the scam) operated up to now by the institutions. And then he will begin to ask himself questions, for example, about how justified the alarm against Covid is.

.

The current problem of “dissident communicators” is that they makes the mistake of wanting from the very first approach to try to make people understand the complete picture of the situation (also the aspect of economic and legal problems).

But in this way, in fact, the minds of the majority of people are led to curl up in a ball, to react in a violent way to the attempt to disseminate information “not in conformity” with the dominant thought (in this way a minority of the population is convinced, which however is not at all significant in order to improve things).

.

In summary, in the case of Covid, in practice, it is therefore a question of developing a gradual approach in which:

► at a first level a solid basis of awareness is created: with an “elementary” communication, people are reassured (the state of shock in which they have been placed by the institutions and by the Mainstream media is attenuated). In practice it is about illustrating

– the fact that the number of deaths is the same as that caused by the ordinary influences of previous years: making it clear that Covid is no more dangerous than a normal flu, a collapse of the whole castle of falsehood built by the institutions is caused.

– the tests (swab ) are actually not significant, as they do not distinguish between a normal flu and Covid. And the “cases” that terrorize the population are nothing but positive swabs, and not sick people.

.

► only in a second phase will it be possible to reveal the faults of the institutions in the problems experienced by people in 2020 (spread of falsehoods from a scientific point of view, errors in the management of public health, manipulation of the economic system, etc …).

At that point, it will be possible to demonstrate the incompetence and bad faith of government institutions, and therefore begin to observe an actual change in things towards a recovery of the quality of life before 2020.

That is, without a gradual approach that firstly frees the mind from the condition of terror in which it is held today by the institutions, and begins to delineate a doubt about the correctness of what is happening, people’s minds will refuse to listen to any “specialist” topic. ”(Laws, economics, reading of statistical graphs,…) not aligned with the dominant thought.

.

In this way it will be possible to keep changes in government policies since at this point most people withdraw consent from the Rulers.

<vedi “Towards a Democracy Reboot (synopsis)”>

<vedi “Why the development of authoritarianism represents an opportunity it is not just a drama“>

Series Navigation

<< ∙I.e.1 – Dissident Information (and Politics), what to do now: the need to redefine strategies