About Doug Michael
3 comments
  • I jotted a few notes as I was listening so I’ll elaborate on them a bit here.

    1. The shootings and the dynamic changes from empathy for others to fear for self. People don’t actually know how to deal with the barbarism of mass shootings and the horrific devastation they cause. As they continue, I don’t think people are able to accommodate the repeated distress. so their own body protects them by psychologically moving them through it more quickly than the previous time. As was seen after the two world wars, there’s a self or species preserving mechanism in humans which translates as ”pick yourself up, dust yourself down and start all over again”. The kick in the gut when they hear the reporting of a mass shooting still knocks the air out of people, but they have to carry on in this sense of ‘life goes on’. I remember an old lady biting into a scone at my grandpa’s funeral and remarking…. ”mmm… the scones are delicious, who made them?” For a moment I was shocked that she could make such a trivial remark in the context of my grandpa’s death, but then I realised that ‘life goes on’ and her comment symbolised the start of that necessary forward momentum. People’s hearts don’t harden to the repeated shootings, rather the psyche finds the most expedient ways to assimilate the horrors, including a shift in the post reactive momentum…ie. the ‘life goes on’ after the news bulletin. The mass of humans could never ‘normalise’ to horrors inflicted on their fellow humans, but they’d crumble and fall if they didn’t have this innate ‘moving on’ mechanism. Fear is a different matter because a very present sense of fear is something the psyche can’t deal with as the brain and the nervous system are designed to be alert to threats. The levels of chronic fear these shootings inevitably create in people damage more than quality of life, the chemicals that are aroused harm the physical body over time.

    2. Questioning yourself. I use a ‘devil’s advocate’ technique which means I try to find something which opposes or disproves whatever I’m studying/believing. For example, I recently revisited the subject of the holocaust, listening again to David Irving, whom I find to be intelligent and rational. My way of devil’s advocating was to think about Viktor Frankl’s book, ‘Man’s search for Meaning’, which contains Viktor Frankl’s account of surviving years in Auschwitz, including mention of the gas chambers David Irving controversially seeks to disprove. To devil’s advocate the book I googled ‘Viktor Frankl debunked’ and up came an article saying that the records show that Viktor Frankl unequivocally spent no more than three days in Auschwitz. I found a couple more articles on the same lines. So… down the rabbit hole. As the subject isn’t particularly relevant to my life, I left it at that with the thought that the truth is extremely elusive… and more than that, it’s controlled in ways which most people never even think to question. Tell you what, it’s like heresy to even hint that nothing like six million jews died in the holocaust… people are OUTRAGED if you mention it. ”Were you there? Did you see it with your own eyes?” has become my question to the herds and hoards of people who vicariously create what they do and don’t believe from the propaganda and lies that are perpetually promulgated through screens everywhere. I tried bringing the holocaust into question with my sister. ”How dare you say that? I’ve been to Auschwitz!” she yelled at me. On a fucking coach trip…. how sick is that? Take in Aushwitz before lunch…. dear God…

    3. I think Greg’s perspective on flat earth theories is profoundly sensible… and leaves no room for aggressive arguments in either direction, round or flat. ”I don’t know” is a phrase that seems so hard for people to say, yet in freeing us up, it can actually serve as a launching pad into vistas new.

    4. Creativity…. HUGE SUBJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Perhaps you can do a couple of hours (at least) on creativity and the crushing it in the bud which the consortium has attended to so effectively.

    5. Darwinism has been used to insidiously serve the purpose of underpinning capitalism with its competitive ‘survival of the fittest’ ethos. However, it wasn’t ‘competition’ but ‘cooperation’ which Darwin spoke more strongly about. For example, before it flies to safety, a bird that has sensed danger will risk its own life to warn others in the surrounding environment.

    6. I think it’s unlikely the consortium galvanised the truth movement… I doubt they’d want to put such concepts into people’s minds. I think it’s most likely that after they’d said a collective ”oh, fuck”, they quickly and strategically infiltrated the truth movement with some ‘mistruthers’.

    To be continued….need a breather…

Leave a Reply