I've got a new thought for you B(2)

It occurs to me that Fear and Collectivism are very closely related. Most of what is being forced on society that we instinctively want to fight against, is driven by Fear. Fear of losing one's pension, fear of ridicule, fear of some difficult consequence of actions that go against the norm. I believe many people instinctively gravitate toward the easy path, that of least resistance, when they have no moral compass. Nothing earth shattering there.

In this way, the 'easier' path becomes the 'Collectivist' path. Many (most?) people instinctively don't want to rock the boat. It is easier then to seek out 'consensus' views that enable them to justify going with the crowd. I know many, many smart people who do this. Family members too. Society rewards them, because the direction the herd is traveling has all kinds of rewards. Job advancement, kudos and social cred on Twitter….you get farther in life when you are a round peg fitting in a round hole.

The risk of course is that this mentality carries with it the fatal flaw of not seeing the looming cliff coming, as all the lemmings run over the edge. The rest of us cannot fathom why so many would choose the collectivist path. But from their point of view, 'getting along' with each other is a huge relief. Get along and you don't have to think. Get along and you don't have to fight or struggle. You can convince yourself all kinds of evil are actually beneficial….murdering children in the womb comes to mind….taking a vax just because everyone demands it….rushing into Bitcoin because all the smart people did it…..

Maybe we are just doomed to repeat the Turning cycle, and destroy society once again through Collectivism. Maybe only then will we realize the value of living without Fear, of trusting in Christ, and of not ceding our sovereignty to the Master class at every turn. I'm not sure why we have a kind of societal amnesia on this issue, since it has been written about since the oldest accounts.

It is my current belief that the majority of US citizens would actually prefer a system like the CCP is using. I don't know what hope we actually have util the bottom is reached.

>>14883793

As it happens I began pondering this question 'how to provide a source' some years back. The trouble I saw around 2013, confirmed now with each passing year, is the Gatekeeper problem. When Obama relinquished ICANN, it set us up for technocratic control of all comms. One could argue it was already that way, but certainly the Europeans running the show has accelerated the slide toward Collectivism and the managed narrative. My first thought was something along the lines of a Timeline website that would track noteworthy events from the moment they became news. Linking articles and archives to each date in the timeline of a story, say the Jan. 6 'insurrection', and you would be able to track back what people were saying the day after. What were the cops saying on the day of the event. How did the story change over time. It would be a great way to counter the fact checking culture…big IF…if it could actually stay online. As we have seen though, the Gatekeepers quickly thwart threatening websites and sources of Truth.

And that gets more at the technical nugget of your question. Secure comms must be assured. Digital 1st amendment as some are saying. I think to a large extent this is what Space Force is for, and maybe we are seeing the first rollout with Truth Social. I'm too cynical to believe that will be the answer that saves us all. The fact is right now we have no way of corroborating information, of ensuring what we post and type reaches the audience uncorrupted, etc. We have less solid information that our great grandparents had in the early 1900's sad to say. Everything is suspect until this issue is solved.

Once unfiltered comms are solved, then I think a Source based news / info repository could be possible. Something along the lines of a Heritage foundation. A library of Alexandria online. This would not be easy to do since the very sources of information we are supposed to trust have been compromised for easily 100 years or more. The new problem would be how to ensure the system wasn't overtaken by an AI, or infiltrated by the CIA, etc. I don't know if there is an answer, which leads me to keep coming back to the Bible. With each technological advancement, it seems the trust of the information gets less. And yet the Word shines through over time.

I wish I had a better answer to the dilemma. Ponder this logical experiment: if we discovered a piece of uncorruptible Alien technology that dispensed Truth, would it improve mankind? I think the answer is no. The rich and powerful would seek to destroy it, control it, prevent us from using it, etc. They would elect themselves the Gatekeepers, and then tell us what it said. They would sell corrupted versions of it. The point I keep reaching is that mankind is not salvagable without divine intervention. I think the more advanced we get, the less likely we are to be free and solve the big problems. Greed and the psychosis of Power will always prevail over the rest of us who just want to keep to ourselves.