PART II Chapter 4b

Creating the NWO citizen 1: Indoctrination in the 'modern' world

Some indoctrination 'backstory'
So - you make a good argument, in some ways, with the pseudo-democracy, corporate-propaganda media, and debt scam stealing literally trillions from us, that people must be indoctrinated to believe or be unaware of such things when the evidence is so clear that we are being lied to quite a lot, or having very important information withheld, in ways that have a very serious effect on our country and lives, and if we actually understood widely about such lies and gatekeeping we would surely have to take some serious action to rectify the wrongs being done. But the process is still unclear as to how all this came about, from the days of freedom and optimism you also speak of in the 60s and 70s, when presumably the people were a little less indoctrinated, and should have been alert to any attempts to do this to them. So again - how did we, or so many of us, just imagining for a moment you're actually right about all this, get indoctrinated? Even if the television is a great propaganda tool, you don't just point your finger at somebody and say 'Zap! You're indoctrinated!!' - that happens in movies when our Terrible Enemy wants someone indoctrinated, but not Canada of the 70s and 80s and on, when (you say) this was all beginning, and when the unindoctrinated people of the time in their free and joyous democracy-creating lives should have seen any attempt to indoctrinate them coming, and resisted it fiercely. So what happened? How did so many people stop thinking critically during these years, and get to a point today where most of the descendants of that generation, the 'progressive' types, allow themselves to be quite passively led around by the media, esp the CBC, with the propaganda and gatekeeping and gossip and spectacle-mush that is most of what they do today? (along with a bit of quality programming still, in terms of scientific or historical or artistic things that serve to keep some of the progressives believing the CBC is still high-quality in all ways, but these things present no challenge to the power structure, so again the CBC is simply acting to protect power ..)

Once again, I remind you, of the most important thing that needs to inform your deliberations here - we are dealing with a very, very experienced and intelligent and completely ruthless and morals/ethics-free opponent, desiring to increase and consolidate their power by whatever ways they can, with full access to all of the tools of mass population control, and the desire and willingness to use them, and the money to do whatever they want.

They built a box - and you were in it: The tools of indoctrination - a little deeper down the rabbit hole

As noted in the last chapter, the fact that most people are indoctrinated about a couple of very important things in our society, things that then shape their/our lives in a very fundamental way, is pretty much beyond argument, when you are able to get your brain out of the television-induced modern childish fantasy world/indoctrination matrix of debt and terrorism and spectacle and pablum and compelling gossip, and just look at the completely untenable things so many people profess to believe that are so demonstrably not true about what is going on in our country and world, and the somewhat amazing ignorance they have of some things they really should know about, as adult, informed, engaged citizens in our modern world - things that are the very antithesis of 'trivial', as they have allowed those who rule us to shape this violent, chaotic, unsustainable world around us, when we could, and should, be living in a very much more peaceful and secure and sustainable country and world. And this very much includes Canada - we are currently living to a very large extent on our 'past achievements', but the great things that once defined Canada, not only actual things like world class health care and education and CBC but 'attitude' things like joy and confidence in the future and the ability to intelligently consider options rather than gather in propaganda-incited mobs screaming threats and insults at the few among us who are able to think clearly to 'shut up and get with the program!!', are being very quickly 'degraded and destroyed', as the rulers are very clearly set on removing such things from our country, and returning us to much darker days.

All of these things are quite openly clues about what is happening in our modern world to anyone able to rise a bit above the endless 24-7 mush and spectacle cycle they anesthetize our brains with all day and night and year long (aka the 'news' cycle) - and yet the resistance to the idea that most people are indoctrinated to be unable to see such things is also quite understandable, when you also observe that most of our citizens in Canada seem to be reasonably intelligent, and have pretty much unrestricted access to all kinds of information, and are allowed to talk freely among themselves, and most of these upper 20% that Chomsky speaks of as those most requiring indoctrination for the rulers to rule have also gone to university and received a degree of some kind, in the once-at-least high-quality Cdn education system - so really, how could such people possibly be indoctrinated? How, indeed, might it be that you yourself are indoctrinated, when you sure don't feel that way?

(of course, again I repeat, as it is a quite natural inclination when facing 'intellectual dissonance' things to just forget whatever inconvenient facts are causing the dissonance, that you also need to keep the question on the table - Just how would a well-indoctrinated person behave? Would a well-indoctrinated person know or at least suspect they were indoctrinated?? Would a well-indoctrinated person wander around worrying about their indoctrination, and talk with their friends about it, and hear speculation about it on their trusted information sources like the CBC, and wonder what they could do to get themselves unindoctrinated, like it was a problem others had, like being addicted to chocolate, and they could find support groups for, etc??? - ponder a bit, it might inform your understanding of what is going on here ... - if you were indoctrinating someone, how would you want them to feel at the end of your program...??)

(oh ho, the clever, more aggressive ones might say - so if I 'deny' I am indoctrinated, that proves I am??? lose-lose situation for anyone in your sights, Dave? - no, of course not, any more than a non-drinker claiming he is not an alcoholic 'proves' he is an alcoholic. Actually, there are relatively easy-to-assess empirical signs of either alcoholism or indoctrination in our 2010s Canada, for those, as Morpheus said, who are ready for the red pill - I don't want to go into a lengthy tangent right here on that, so I've added a kind of appendix on how to assess if you are indoctrinated in 2010s Canada after this, for those who have this kind of question. Read on. Or not. Adult content.)

The first thing is to recall, to never lose sight of, once again, as I have been pointing out throughout, that our modern rulers are very, very sophisticated and clever and utterly ruthless and rules-uninhibited gamesplayers, whose only objective is to win, who have been running 'civilisation' for most of the last few thousand years in one form or another, who are very practiced at getting what they want, through very clever deceit as well as very commanding and ruthless violence when trickery fails, and have been refining their methods for hundreds, even thousands, of years, one such method of which is the physical and mental control of those they consider their 'subjects', and always, always have the best advice that money can buy, and the most talented people to do what they want done, and the money to make pretty much anything they want to, happen. Think the strategies of Sun Tzu, or Machiavelli, combined with the power of the farmer to make the animals go where he wants them to go, and further combined with the power of a church to make its people believe in some false god. Don't assume you are smarter than they are, a hubristic conceit that gets many people in trouble, and has a lot to do with why we are where we are - continually losing. The rulers know that letting the cow assume she is smarter than the farmer as she demands her carrots, as the farmer holds out the carrot that entices her into the stall, and pats her on the bum saying what a smart cow she is as she settles down in front of her tv content for the night as he locks the stall gate behind her, is a much more successful strategy to follow than trying to beat her into the stall with a 2x4, and have her glaring at him determined to escape as soon as he leaves the barn.

Modern citizens want to assume they are in control of their lives and countries - so wouldn't the clever strategist allow, even encourage them, to believe that, whilst carefully steering the citizens in the direction the rulers want them going, and keeping any dangerous (to the rulers) paths along the way carefully hidden?

The sophisticated management of our modern, western democracies through organised 'population management' goes back to the first years of the last century - if you are unfamiliar with them (as you will be if your education has been of the pretend variety offered in modern Canadian universities or getting additional stuff from the media, as widespread understanding of mass population management and indoctrination techniques is a *very* dangerous area of knowledge to be allowing a population you are doing your best to indoctrinate to), check out these guys for starters - Edward Bernays and Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman's Manufacture of Consent, for some introductory self-didacticism in how elites manage their citizens in the modern world, and how they have been refining that management over the last 100 years.

But the management moved up a notch or 3 during the 70s, when the current 'total control indoctrination' plan was initiated as part of the CRR, to deal with the new problems the rulers had to deal with, in the awakened citizenry of the times as talked about earlier. An attempt to create an Orwellian 'Big Brother' would not have been tolerated during the 60s, as 'the masses' were showing clearly that they were willing to gather in huge numbers during the 60s in antiwar demonstrations, and black emancipation protests, numbers much too great to be dealt with by violence (in the English speaking countries), and the rulers were forced to up their game a few notches, with the very powerful new tools also becoming available back them, notably the television, to go along with their historic tools of unlimited wealth to allow them to implement any strategy at all they decided to implement, and no sense of 'fair play' or 'ethics' at all when faced with a foe they wanted to subjugate.

And of course they had time, like a chess master planning many moves ahead. Open defeat was not necessary, nor wanted - remember also, it is necessary to maintain the illusion of democracy, which overt massive violent repression would destroy. So a holding pattern, while a big strategy is put into place - back off a bit, make pacifying noises, and make and implement plans for the 'big transition' as talked about earlier.

One of the moves of a clever master of war is to weaken their enemy before engaging in the final battle - weaken them physically, through interrupting their supply lines, and weaken them emotionally or intellectually, by doing whatever can be done to reduce the will to resist, or even before that the intellectual/emotional ability to understand that an attack is underway. If you detect a cancer early, there are various possibilities for fighting it - if you leave it long, and it has metastasized throughout your body, you don't have much of a chance. Sophisticated and clever war masters understand such things, the simple unworldly villagers of the countries they have in their sights rarely do. Another of the central Sun Tzu strategies is to try to have your enemy down and bleeding and chained before they even know they are in danger - the best victory, for the predator, is one in which your enemy does not even realise they are under threat until they are lying beaten on the ground wondering what happened.

All these strategies, and more, were used in the CRR.

Here, I just want to look in a bit more detail at one of the central strategies the CRR applied against the population of our country, a long term strategy, as most of the big ones are, beginning back in the 70s that they knew would take at least a generation to be effective, but at fruition through the next and ongoing generations would be very effective indeed - as we are seeing today.

This was the longterm 'dumbing down' strategy.

In a country like Canada, which you plan to take over even more thoroughly than you had run it previously, but the citizens are proud of their country, the citizens are standing taller and free-er and feeling strong and prosperous, and not going to be any kind of easy foe to defeat, a direct attack, especially from an enemy much smaller in numbers even though vastly more wealthy, even controlling the police and military forces, is not going to have high odds of success. Sun Tzu would surely advise - be patient in this situation, and undertake to wear those you desire to control down, wear them down in every way, physically, emotionally, financially. Also, undertake some divide-and-conquer programs from within, to further weaken any resistance that might develop - start suspicions and distrust between old and young, wealthy and poor, blue collar and white collar workers, men against women, people from one region against another, people with conformist sexual desires against those who have different desires, and any other differences you can find to exploit - an enemy fighting chaotically within its own ranks is going to be easy to defeat, as they won't see you coming, and when they do realise they are under attack will be unable to trust one another to organise any kind of effective resistance against a well-organised and determined attack. Physically weaker opponents are obviously easier to defeat. An emotionally insecure and immature opponent equally so. And go after their prosperity, if they feel financially secure - someone in 'great democratic' Canada worrying about where food is going to come from, or about losing their job, with a family to support, is going to have other things on his or her mind than early signs of a hostile takeover of their government. Go after their intelligence, their ability to see and think and work together for the betterment of all - where do they get their inspiration, their leadership - what can you do to degrade and infiltrait that leadership? The great CBC of the 60s and 70s, bringing together the great writers and artists writing and singing of freedom and peace in a great joyous national discussion about how great we are as a strong voice for democracy and freedom in the world, and how we can be greater - this strong and trusted voice, if it can be taken over, could be the very heart of achieving all of these objectives, actually becoming a mighty weapon *against* the citizens.

We (those running the CRR) need to replace the dialogue of greatness and freedom and democracy for Canada into a new dialogue, a dialogue of defeatism, a dialogue of fear and danger, and, very importantly, a 'dumbed down' citizenry engaged primarily in the shallow, myopic dialogue of children, children at a level of intellectual development who can be more easily fooled, and manipulated, and incited into fearful reactions to stimuli, than on-their-guard, fully engaged and intelligent adult citizens who would, as an observant, independent community looking out for themselves intelligently, be more likely to see such an attack coming and develop an effective resistance.

So let's have a look at how they managed all this.

Some refs:

Gatto - Weapons of Mass Instruction

Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip, but the really well-trained dog is the one that turns his somersault when there is no whip. -- George Orwell

- beginning of 'process writing' in the 60s talked about here - this could easily be part of the dumbing down process

' ... the Matrix is not some futuristic film, it's a documentary ...' Yanis Varoufakis

'..all of this comes out of the activism of the 60s, which is why it's so denounced, and condemned..' - Chomsky, Chomsky again (at about 31 minutes) (similar remarks around the 1 hour mark, concerning the demonisation of government in general since that time)

- for all those who resist the idea of indoctrination, or 'being dumbed down', I think this little graphic is a very good potential eye-opener - how many sports stars or 'entertainment' stars could you recognize from their picture like this - and how many of the great thinkers trying to create a better world in their lives like Carl Sagan?? I will wager for most Canadians, the knowledge about completely irrelevant sports/entertainment figures would vastly outnumber their recognition of people like Sagan - and why would that be? Where do you learn about who you should know about, and who doesn't matter much? The media of course, and that is the CBC for 'progressives'.