reply to post by beezzer
My work is based on the principles outlined in my book, The Collective. Per the ToC, I won't try to sell it to anyone, but my name (the author) is
William R. Herr if anyone ever cares to look it up. I'm enjoying good sales to India, atm.
My son's godfather is an astrophysicist (and a long long close friend), and he constantly harangues me to document my theories in equation form. For
the hell of it, I started work on an equation to accurately describe Mental Unity, or the tendency of individuals to sublimate their own desires for
the good of the collective whole. What I ended up with was a relatively simple equation that seemed to work nicely for historical data. Then I tried
applying it to more recent history and it fell apart... nothing worked right.
I was about to toss it out and start again, when I decided to change some of the assumptions. I added an additional variable, in the form of a
collective which had no leadership, and suddenly everything started making sense. This is what led me to start figuring in other, more chaotic
variables (such as economic data) and checking validity against their historical data. Again, it works if I include a collective with no leadership
as a directing influence.
Finally, I managed to typify the types of groups with which I was dealing, and came up with the following:
1. CNN--The Collective with No Name: This is a leaderless collective. Its members don't realize they are members. They think with the same image
set, and tend towards anarchist results. This collective has membership in the multi-millions.
2. The Machine--This is a bureaocratic collective which is very very good at coercing action from others. It is very short sighted. It thinks it
leads the CNN, but is actually led by suggestion. As a group, it represents a small percentage of the population. It exerts, however, enormous
3. The Other Guys -- This is a loosely associated group of individuals who probably would beat each other silly if they all got together at once.
They hold opposing viewpoints and are fiercely independent, but under crisis tend to band together and forgo differences.
Given these three variables, things made sense. Then I started asking myself, 'why would you want to set things up in this manner?' after all,
we're on track for a huge sense of mental unity. What would it be good for?
Mental Unity is necessary when nations go to war. Remember the Lucitania. Remember the Alamo. Keep the world safe for Democracy. Nationalism is a
good example of Mental Unity. So if we're about to plunge the world into a state of Mental Unity, it really can only mean that we're preparing for
the prospect of war. There's no other good reason to do it. After every war, Western Society has tended to further centralize (League of Nations,
followed by United Nations after the respective world-wars).
So, that's where my equations have taken me. Sometime in the very near future (I guestimated two weeks, and that was about a week ago) we are going
to get the Mental Unity event. And the response will be seen as a good thing. Our congress will act as one. We'll all be behind our president.
And then... boom.