The Stupidity Of The Mass

reply to post by TheDarkestHour


i have been personally exploring the idea that not all humans are actually self-aware. The moment when an individual decides to... "think about what they are thinking," is possibly when such a self-aware entity is formed. To clarify, by "entertain" i mean i have simply thought about it as a possibility and not an inevitability. Certainly many people would not openly accept such an idea, and i have to admit, its not a comfortable idea to this one either. Interesting though..

Such an idea is based in my own explorations of the actual avenues that things manifest here. This led me to see our body (and its products) as one part of our being, and the "spirit" or "observer" being the other half. By "being" we allow both sides to balance and co-exist, but as we get caught up in one or the other, or specific resultant systems (most commonly, thought processes) as being the sole experiential form of "being," balance and growth can not occur. i see that the observer is an electromagnetic body that exists here, in this material world, only through the magnetic bonds formed through what has been referred to as "chakras" throughout some religions. i suspect that such things, if they exist, are EM pools that are created by the chemical/electrical impulses of our body. These magnetically link the observer into the action, or the body. i also feel that these EM bodies (spirit/observer) follow the same orbital structure pattern as everything else we can observe at the "edges" of our scaled perspective, though perhaps in a different area of time and space (not the best analogy, but i think it gets the "concept" across for those who are willing to go beyond their own context to try to understand what i am saying).

So,a little explanation to get to the point

The magnetism and "pull" of some systems can easily string along others that are not conscious of their own movement. Just as many are not able to feel the earth moving around the sun, many are not able to feel their own movement on many levels. There is no "balance," or base state. Decisions about what we see are already defined in such systems, which i personally refer to as the "yea/nay" phenomena. This could be a result of "being" solely in one part of our system, which is relegated specifically to duality. Most frequently this is the mind, and other resultant experiences of that system. Structurally, i feel this can be compared to the difference between say a planet or a star, and an asteroid belt. When a body (say a comet) moves through an asteroid field, it picks up many "followers." In this way the orbits of the involved systems (the "stupidity of the mass") may be a result of actual pulling and moving by some systems that have more pull, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes done intentionally, sometimes not. When many systems get together, the pull of the overall system tends to drive the "experience" for all partial systems involved.

When one is not able to be "self-aware," in this context, the decisions have already been made and there is no room for growth. Such systems will simply be swept up by other systems orbits, as we may similarly see with the formation of various celestial bodies.

To control the masses, all one needs to do is present a well-thought out yea/nay scenario that is designed to create division instead of co-operative exploration.

Bright as in the sense of they can follow what a book tells them to do, or bright in the way that they freely think for themselves? It's the critical thinking skills that really matter. If one can't critically think for themselves, then they just accept what answers are already there.

Bright in the sense that they can receive, interpret and exchange information. Perhaps they don't bring the desired propensity for critical thinking to the table, but since they are the products of an educational system which promotes rote memorization over critical thinking; I don't think it reflects upon their inherent degree of intelligence.

Doesn't this mentality kind of strike you as dangerous? The whole group think? It would allow disgusting and intolerable acts to be committed and than celebrated.. Kind of like the people celebrating outside of the White House cheering on for Osama Bin Ladens death.

Group think is dangerous, no debate. However, the majority of people I personally spoke with on the subject of OBL were concerned that the hype was distracting the public from real problems. In fact, I have yet to meet a real-life person who professes to be overjoyed about the death of OBL. And I'm talking about co-workers, friends, students, strangers in the bar and on public transportation (I like to talk to people. ). Perhaps our perception of the "masses" as ignorant and dangerous is a partially fallacious concept which serves the current paradigm.

Is the party on the white house lawn a side-show engineered to encourage adherence to the OBL narrative, or is it there to promote an unflattering representation of the American public? Maybe both, either way, I suggest talking to as many real-life people as possible to get a more accurate reading on our collective intelligence.