The foundation of social indoctrination is pressure to relate to certain activities as inherently glorious and to relate to certain activities as inherently deplorable (shameful, deserving of scorn and contempt and perhaps a public ritual of human sacrifice). In other words, intimidation is central to the whole dynamic. However, if “bullying” is defined as shameful, then whatever “the good guys” do cannot be bullying. Why? Because we may have identified some folks as “fundamentally good,” like because they are “our guys.”
For instance, if there is some kind of anti-government controversy in Kuwait, but then the army of Iraq goes in to fulfill a promise made in a treaty to “provide assistance to their official ally who officially invited them to provide such assistance,” then that might be labeled by some as an “invasion” and a “violation of the border.” But if the British army goes in to “defend” Kuwait from the “invading Iraqis,” then that is a case of the British “providing assistance.” If there was no treaty in which the Kuwaitis had already invited the British to “defend” them, then of course the British will find someone in Kuwait to thank them for “providing assistance.”
Was there a “human rights violation” in Kuwait (to which the Iraqis were heroically responding)? Even if there was, how exactly did that get to be the “business” of the Iraqis (or the British)? Well, some people “just make it their business.”
So, imagine that someone in Kuwait makes up some definitions of “human rights,” then concludes that the British royals are “violating the human rights” of the British subjects. What should they do next? Should they bomb some British civilians “in order to protect the civilians from being bullied by the British royals?”
The point here is that when there is a primary commitment to reinforcing the idea that certain people are “fundamentally good” (or that certain people are “fundamentally bad”), then that “commitment bias” will organize all the commentary that follows. The commentary will predictably support the “core narrative.”
Details that support the primary commitment will be emphasized (or invented). Details that are contrary to the primary commitment will be ignored or minimized or even ridiculed.
So, “our guys” are fundamentally good. In fact, our guys are fundamentally the best guys of all guys who have ever been guys.
But then there is an “isolated case” in which it is clear that our guys were not good “that one time.” Well, we will resist that idea for a while (while pretending not to resist it) and then eventually erupt in outrage and regret, demanding justice.
Did you know that one major bank had a policy that allowed for lots of cases of corruption? HSBC (which is a British-owned Chinese bank) was caught *illegally* laundering drug money.
However, I am sure that it is an isolated case. Other banks do not do similar things of course, right? Further, HSBC is obviously not a bank that was set up for the specific purpose of laundering money from sales of opium and heroin by the British to the Chinese, right?
Keep in mind that when we “already know” that certain people are “fundamentally good,” then that means that all of the behaviors that we have been programmed and intimidated in to labeling as “fundamentally good” must be perfectly descriptive of the behaviors of that entire group of people. HSBC must be honest. I do not mean just in the future. HSBC must have always been honest. Sure, there was that one isolated case when they repeatedly broke their own rules, but that was an isolated case.
They even formed a committee to investigate whether or not anyone in HSBC had ever been involved in any wrong-doing and of course the conclusion was “not even a little.” Okay, fine, maybe a century or two later we can admit that HSBC was set up from the beginning as a business enterprise to help the British conduct sales of opium to the Chinese, but I am sure that they have totally reformed such awful practices, right? It’s not like the British royals are still involved in the international trafficking of heroin or cocaine, right?
Okay, fine, maybe they have not “reformed” such practices (and maybe they have no intention of changing the foundation of their business model). However, as someone blindly loyal to the social indoctrination about honesty and good intentions, WE *must* reform our local government here in Iraq so that our government is more like “how our government should have always been” (according to the doctrines that our governments spread in order to distract us from the fundamental practices of their business model).
I mean, of course our government has always been the best ever, because I know that our guys are good guys and our flag is a good flag and our national anthem is basically the best national anthem in the entire history of national anthems. For instance, our government (unlike ALL of the others) is against propaganda and indoctrination and intimidation and extortion.
Plus, those are just a few examples. I could give a VERY long list of examples of things that (our government has told us that) our government is “against.”
I was talking to an undercover cop the other day about how deception is wrong. The cop totally agreed with me. I mean, that was before I knew that they were a cop pretending not to be a cop, but keep in mind that our guys are fundamentally good guys, right?
Our government (here in Kuwait… or wherever we are) would obviously not program us to relate to slavery as shameful in order to shame us in to not noticing our own slavery, right? We are NOT slaves!
However, we are pumped with social hysterias. Poetically, it might be more accurate to compare us to zombies than to compare us to slaves. Maybe we are slightly hypnotized or brainwashed or “spiritually asleep.” Probably not, but of course it is technically possible.
So, we may have been just slightly programmed to identify ourselves with slaves (like in a sympathetic way). However, that does not make us slaves. That just glorifies the idea of being a slave who is unjustly victimized and deserves sympathy and probably some external salvation (like the Kuwaiti armies gloriously going to Britain to liberate the people of Britain from slavery).
Plus the evil Iraqis were trying to support the British royals in their unfair concentration of wealth. So, when the Iraqi troops arrived, that was obviously an invasion since they are fundamentally bad. So, then the Kuwaitis basically had to come in to Britain to assist the people of Britain in resisting the invading Iraqis. When the Kuwaiti troops arrived, they were liberating the British from the tyranny and injustice of the British royals, who are slightly more wealthy than the average British citizen although the British royals have never had to work an 8-hour day in their entire life.
As for the accusations that the Kuwaitis were only liberating the British in order to sell them oil and opiates (like morphine, oxycontin, and heroin), I do admit that the accusations might be true. However, those accusations are also clearly ridiculous since we already know that all of these Kuwaiti guys are fundamentally good. Why would the Kuwaitis go all the way to Britain to liberate them and then just sell them opiates? It just doesn’t make any sense.
Why would the Kuwaitis set up a bank to assist in the sale of oil and opiates to the British? That is silly.
Sure, there was that one time, I think it was like 1829, when the Kuwaitis sent their navy to make sure that the British were unable to criminalize the importation of opium by the Kuwaitis. But that was obviously just one isolated case, plus they even sent an apology letter (along with a big shipment of opium AS A GIFT).
When the Apache tribe invaded Kuwait in 1674, the Kuwaitis did not have a single leader in whom they would give the power to sell the entire nation of Kuwait in to slavery to the Apaches. However, the Apaches are fundamentally good guys who love democracy, so they found a Kuwaiti who they were confident they could control and then they set up elections so that the people of Kuwait could empower someone with the ability to sign a treaty with the Apaches
to basically sell Kuwait to the Apaches.
I know that sounds a little shady, but keep in mind that the Apaches are fundamentally good guys because something about democracy. Also, consider this important point: something about justice or injustice or whatever.
Liberation by military force is what the good guys do. Invasions are only done by bad people.
For instance, when the British asked the US to invade Germany in “the first World War,” that was an act of liberating the British. Even though there were no British people actually in Germany, that was still an act of liberation because the US was promoting the INTERESTS of the British in regard to control of the German territory and resources and population.
See, that is totally different. Plus, honesty and democracy and justice are fundamentally good and that is why our guys are the best guys ever at being guys. Also, keep in mind something about bravery and heroically killing people who obviously deserved to die.
It is shameful to just kill civilians out of like greed and stuff. That is why our guys are fundamentally good and are basically the best liberators ever.
Also, it is important to reform our system to reverse the slightly corrupt things that have happened in the last 64,000 years. For instance, our money is fake, which it should not be, because it should be real.
Sure, you may have also been programmed to label some money as “fake,” but if a court system imposes debts on people and then demands payment in a certain form, then that can create real demand for that payment form. Also, our good guys are good guys, and since propaganda is shameful, our guys never use propaganda to trick you in to thinking that only certain kinds of money are real.
So if you take a confederate dollar, it is real money, but has no court system of extortion to create public demand for that sacred object (or that once-sacred object). It is now basically worthless in terms of purchasing power (except as a rare collector’s item to be kept in museums as a piece of historical trivia). However, it is a real instance of money, even though there is no court system of extortion creating widespread public demand for that kind of sacred object.
If the court warlords demand payment in silver, that increases demand for silver. Same if they demand diamonds. Same if they demand confederate dollars.
However, the holy extortion specialists no longer demand confederate dollars for the debts that they invent “out of thin air.” So, there is NO LONGER any widespread, steady public demand for that sacred object (although a long time ago in a particular section of planet earth, those sacred objects were the objects that were the best sacred objects ever in the history of sacred objects).
So maybe the rulers have brainwashed a lot of folks that we could poetically call zombies or even slaves, then hysterically argue about which labels are the most sacred. I will leave such arguing to those who insist that they should not be zombies because that is shameful. Plus, we already know that the good guys that are in charge of our holy government would never do something so unholy as to indoctrinate us as to which doctrines are sacred and which doctrines are not even doctrines because they are just fundamentally true.