Why can't people see that they're being played?

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: RomeByFire
Why can't we wake up?

We can...

But most choose not to.

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." ~ Herbert Agar

• People who are pretending to be asleep will resist being awakened because they have something to lose by ending the charade.

• People who pretend to be asleep can often lose track of what is real and what is pretend and thus cannot respond normally to situations.

• People will act as if nothing is happening when they don’t want to face the reality of the situation by pretending to be unaware or unsure despite being presented with the evidence.

You Can’t Wake A Person Who Is Pretending To Be Asleep

I cut some of this, but thank you for the links, I will definitely check them out. This is the kind of human behavior I'm curious about.

What's caused this?
Is it part of us, has it been brought on, etc etc

Awesome post, thank you.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: RomeByFire

Let's start with a revolutionary idea and see where that goes...

Thou shalt not kill.

Crazy. Hairless. Apes.

(To quote an ATS member, can't remember who)

I suppose I answered my own question...

I just don't understand what is wrong with the human species sometimes, I swear I'm an alien.

originally posted by: reldra

If you think I don;t like you or I am being snarky, you are imagining it.

I hope that's the case, because there's no reason we can't disagree amicably ... and you and I tend to disagree quite often.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
To answer your question about the word that you used, 'cowardess', the word you want is cowardice, but your point is taken.

People don't want to really wake up because if they do, they'll have to actually take responsibility for themselves and for those dependent on them.

It's so much simpler to be ignorant.

In retrospect, the blue pill would be better. But it's the reality of the naive. I am who I am and I can't conform, "it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

Sure, "we are society," but I (as others do) strive for a healthier, better, kinder me everyday and society does not mimic this behavior.

And thanks, I knew cowardice was a word but I couldn't spell it, damn tricky ones.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos

originally posted by: reldra

If you think I don;t like you or I am being snarky, you are imagining it.

I hope that's the case, because there's no reason we can't disagree amicably ... and you and I tend to disagree quite often.

Yep. I tend to look at details. And the sheeple comment was a bit snarky, I will admit it. But I usually click on reply before I even see who posted it.

I have given the same comment about awake/asleep/sheeple to about 20 different people in the last 3 months lol.

originally posted by: neo96

Why can't we, for once - take a new approach. Third party. Fourth label. Whatever it's called. If it fails? If it sucks?

Because in a 'democracy' there can only be two.

The majority. The minority.

Our elections, and legislative system is predicated on the premise.

The 'new' approach is actually an old approach to return to what this country was originally meant to be.

A republic.

Unfortunately, there is no going backwards. I was born far, far too late on Earth, I would have loved life in the 50's and 60's (not that I love life now), but it at the very least was innovative and hadn't succumb to the octopus that is our government today.

I agree with your post entirely. Couldn't have said it better.

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: neo96

Why can't we, for once - take a new approach. Third party. Fourth label. Whatever it's called. If it fails? If it sucks?

Because in a 'democracy' there can only be two.

The majority. The minority.

Our elections, and legislative system is predicated on the premise.

The 'new' approach is actually an old approach to return to what this country was originally meant to be.

A republic.

Unfortunately, there is no going backwards. I was born far, far too late on Earth, I would have loved life in the 50's and 60's (not that I love life now), but it at the very least was innovative and hadn't succumb to the octopus that is our government today.

I agree with your post entirely. Couldn't have said it better.

The 50s had McCarthy and a lot of horrible things. If you lived then, better hope you didn't work on films in any way shape or form
Sorry I watched "Guilty By Suspicion" last night IMDB

Confederate flag? How about a world with no flags. No colored rags on a stick to rally round, because we have outgrown childish games. We don't fight anymore, we cooperate with each other and the results are astounding....

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: neo96

Why can't we, for once - take a new approach. Third party. Fourth label. Whatever it's called. If it fails? If it sucks?

Because in a 'democracy' there can only be two.

The majority. The minority.

Our elections, and legislative system is predicated on the premise.

The 'new' approach is actually an old approach to return to what this country was originally meant to be.

A republic.

Not quite true, if Bernie Sanders was going to run as Independent, I would have changed my affiliation to Independent in order to vote in the primaries, a requirement in my state. Since he is running as a democrat, I didn;t change it.

Now, there are not only 2. In the race for president, it is normally 'between' 2 parties, but you will see candidates running under different parties. On the national scale, this often doesn't work. There are very few people in the senate or congress that don't fall under the 2. There have been 14 presidents that were neither.

In local elections, I see where I live, often the candidate that runs under the party "Working Families' wins.

You have made my point exactly.

Even if Sanders were to become ____, it still would be 1 or 2. Why?

Have you ever heard of gerrymandering? I'm not asking in a condescending why by any means, simply asking.

It is comprised almost entirely (if not, I cannot remember exactly) of R/D.

Again, why?

It just itches my brain how so few folks feel so little compassion, understanding, or will to understand these things.

As to another poster mentioning a comment about being "awake," it is a real thing.

Being around people everyday for work, and many of them, being all ages, genders, etc etc, you can tell by a persons walk how they carry themselves (it is not an outright key to who they are), but it is telling. Certain folks will give you a smile as soon as they make eye contact, others won't. Almost all of the ones who do, are very pleasant and typically strike up conversation first or aren't hesitant to ask questions versus those who make little eye contact or have defensive/standoffish body language.

Those who are "awake," are not judge mental, and do not care to meddle in the affairs of other. I would consider myself to be awake - to be awake to my beliefs, my heart, my happiness, my self.

Not everyone is this way and no one has to - it is my choice, and I harm no one.

The ones who don't like the idea of "awakening" or whatever new age thing we're trying to corroborate are typically the first ones to become nasty about it.

THAT, is quite telling.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
There's a poo to butterly ratio that the ruling class knows all too well. As superior predators to the lower classes, they gauge this perfect ratio since youth.

Now, this poo to butterfly ratio must be tweaked in times of depression and recession, and in times of prosperity and peace. They done crunched the numbers, used the slaves to game the theory for all of it's exceptions.

What results is what is, enough people to keep the tech advancing, raise standards of livings the whole world over, and keep much more for the few crackin the whip.

How do you see this? Is this a win-lose, or a win-win scenario? Who is truly the loser, and are you sure you're thinking this through?

It seems those who most want to put in their own supposed better ideals and play dictator under the guise of hero are bothering to make much fuss. Everyone else unconsciously knows their rank, and follows line.

So which truth is it? I'm pretty sure many are at play, and nobody is aware of them all at once.

It depends on how you look at it, but this is more philosophical and philosophies can be quite complex and often paradoxical.

Layman terms - they can be a mindf.

I can see it as a win-win, at least in our ranks we have privileged things to bide by time that we enjoy doing with others, by ourselves, our collectively (many people).

Or a win-lose. Our ranks, again, come with privileged things. But how important are these things? How much time should we spend on them? How much love should we put into them? Are these things ours, or are we these things? At least, we can bide our time in the small happiness we can find with our things, and with each other.

Lose-lose. Our ranks, again, come with privileged things. But these things control us. They distract us from the reality that shapes every choice we ever have, or ever will make. These things will become our reality, and reality will belong to those who have created our things.

I attempted to make it relevant, but it's all how you see it, or that's how I see it.

I've heard that quite often though. Those who want to put their better ideals want to play the dictator under the guise of hero, why do you say that?

I believe you when you say that, it's classic Orwellian doublespeak/think.

Talking about the "collective" while only caring about the self.

Is it because this is the way our society and government is shaped, that there is a certain allure to it? Are we engrained to act this way because of the system that operates above us acting in that way?

I've always wondered this myself.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: RomeByFire

As this thread progresses....

It will answer your question. Watch the sides form, the bickering and finger pointing start, watch the partisan BS take over,
The intransigence thought forms manifest, and those that feel victimized will start playing the crybaby card.

Looks like it's started already....

People cant wake from a dream because they think it's the right thing to do and they are hard wired to think that way.

Thank you for your reply.

The victim card. You're the first person to mention it, surprisingly.

That's actually why I started this thread, dealing with personal and family matters that, from what I believe, to be the victim mentality.

The pass the baton of blame for my shining ego and unscathed armor cannot take a blemish.

I do not understand it.

The yelling, incessant inability of avoiding blame at any costs yet simultaneously shifting the blame to anyone yet one's self.

It is the exact mindset of so many who claim to be interested and educated in politics.

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: neo96

Why can't we, for once - take a new approach. Third party. Fourth label. Whatever it's called. If it fails? If it sucks?

Because in a 'democracy' there can only be two.

The majority. The minority.

Our elections, and legislative system is predicated on the premise.

The 'new' approach is actually an old approach to return to what this country was originally meant to be.

A republic.

Unfortunately, there is no going backwards. I was born far, far too late on Earth, I would have loved life in the 50's and 60's (not that I love life now), but it at the very least was innovative and hadn't succumb to the octopus that is our government today.

Yeah, those were the good old days when women, blacks and other minorities knew their place.

If we could only go back in time to when life was simple.....for some!!

You probably don't remember this.....


www.manythings.org...

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
Confederate flag? How about a world with no flags. No colored rags on a stick to rally round, because we have outgrown childish games. We don't fight anymore, we cooperate with each other and the results are astounding....

Simple, really, and it'd be effective.

But a unified world and citizenry is "OMFG11!! ItZ socialism!!"

I understand cultural difference. I understand some cultures will murder young girls if not consenting to an organized marriage. There are too many legal atrocities in this world, too many illegal atrocities that are technically legal, but are committed by institutes who are too powerful to be challenged and whose challengers are also in their pocket, on their side, etc.

Cartels.

Nasty people. Inhumane. Not human. Or maybe too human.

There are always ongoing efforts to combat these atrocities. But it's telling that our CIA has connections and possibly assists in controlling one of the largest Mexican cartels, "in order to monitor and control all of the smaller affiliations connected within the network."

Nationalism is a huge problem in our world. We hardly take on the real, deep chasms that divide our world and each other, because we're too busy comparing, competing, and killing one another.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: neo96

Why can't we, for once - take a new approach. Third party. Fourth label. Whatever it's called. If it fails? If it sucks?

Because in a 'democracy' there can only be two.

The majority. The minority.

Our elections, and legislative system is predicated on the premise.

The 'new' approach is actually an old approach to return to what this country was originally meant to be.

A republic.

Unfortunately, there is no going backwards. I was born far, far too late on Earth, I would have loved life in the 50's and 60's (not that I love life now), but it at the very least was innovative and hadn't succumb to the octopus that is our government today.

Yeah, those were the good old days when women, blacks and other minorities knew their place.

If we could only go back in time to when life was simple.....for some!!

You probably don't remember this.....


www.manythings.org...

Wow, I actually didn't take that into consideration. Honest mistake, it didn't even cross my mind.

Never mind, I would not like living back then, nor would I be very popular. If I were the same person I am today - I'd give some racist assholes a taste of their own medicine.

Police wouldn't kill your dog and beat you while begging to stop, however, which would be cool.

We aren't in an information age, we are in an entertainment age.

Tony Robbins

originally posted by: all2human


We aren't in an information age, we are in an entertainment age.

Tony Robbins

And in the age of information, ignorance is a choice.

Dr. Ron Paul

But it is true, we do live in the entertainment age. The "Ooh's" and the "Aah's" of the technology that's leading us blind.

a reply to: RomeByFire

Find out who the 100 richest people on Earth are...these are the people that control this planet.

originally posted by: caladonea
a reply to: RomeByFire

Find out who the 100 richest people on Earth are...these are the people that control this planet.

100 people?

1,000, easily, could lynch them - hang them from the nearest tree.

But these 100 have the minds and the hands of hundreds of millions that will do their defending, their bidding, their killing.

We, collectively, defend that that attacks us.

a reply to: RomeByFire

What you did in this post is something that I think all of us struggle to understand or agree with.

It is very easy to think a specific group of people are at fault, however, it is hard not to notice that such observations rarely include the individual making the statement. This bias blind spot can be (and is) used to sell everything from politicians to candy bars.

It's easy to see how our own daily actions do not impact the world as a whole. So, at a certain level of consensus, such pursuits cease. In this same line of thinking, lack of impact can be seen to have an inherent lack of responsibility. If it seems like I don't have an impact, how can I feel any responsibility for the state of the world? We know blame and responsibility must lie *somewhere*, so we are automatically led to make assumptions. If I am not responsible for the state of the world, it is a relatively easy assumption that those who are like me probably bear less responsibility than those who are not. At this point, examples which confirm this assumption are given more weight than those that do not. This can be (and is) used to sell everything from politicians to social causes.

In my opinion, the issues reside in how ideologies interact rather than what is stated in the ideology itself. Once we start to categorize others according to what we think, it becomes immensely easy to extend our own perspective to all like minded individuals. And then "we" become right and "you" become wrong. Any perspective that differs is logically lumped into "you," since they are not in my perspective, or where I assume my perspective extends.

And then the dance goes on.. Though I feel we can choose differently, perhaps the scope of the reality of our social interactions surpasses our ability to define what is the most effective avenue.