Does anyone understand the idea of controlling the antithesis? 
To do this efficiently, the powers that be must plan to work against themselves in a way that will allow them to manufacture consent about the things which they’re also warning about. I want people to understand this at a base level because it’s really a bit of a bubble burster. You can go from not quite getting it, to suddenly understanding it in full, with not much effort needed.
If you have something which you want to control, for instance, some new technology which is emerging, then you must enact a certain strategy. Let’s take Blockchain technology as an example. You desire to control both sides of the narrative. Those who love the technology, and those who hate it. Many people will naturally sit on either camp, so there’s many potential conduits to choose from.
There are many people who are champions for advancing blockchain, some are very passionate players who will fight tooth and nail for the implementation of the technology. For the entity which wishes to implement and control the technology, supporting these people is obviously a no brainer. Those who naturally support an Establishment narrative get boosted up the algorithmic chain, they are often given pride of place on various mainstream platforms, and they will be well marketed by big name accounts.
But we're talking about total control, and if you want to control both sides then it goes without saying that you must have direct control over the antithesis of those who already support blockchain technology. If you want to implement this technology successfully, then you must not simply be in control of its most vocal supporters, you must also become most vocal opposition.
To do this, you must tell people all of the time why the technology is dangerous, why it should have major safeguards, how it should be regulated, and you must become the number one expert on the negative aspects of the technology. In this role, and by using this method, you will slowly but surely become the antithesis of the manufactured status quo.
Then, when the technology is ready to be implemented in any meaningful way, the people will panic and they will predictably demand that the safeguards you’ve already mapped out are introduced. They will look for the people who are most likely to champion the safe implementation of such a technology, and essentially, they’ll demand a safe pair of hands.
As someone who has warned about the tech and opposed it to a degree, you become the most obvious choice to become the person who safely introduces the technology, because you are one of the few who have described in great detail how to implement it safely. However, all you’ve really done is create yourself to be the expert to go to. Most of the top experts in various areas of research are experts because they understand the dynamics of an evolving paradigm, and once the paradigm evolves, they are often the ones who are handed the baton to drive the technology forward.
The people who follow this method, go from being the antithesis of the status quo, and then they synthesise into the new status quo. This is why controlled opposition exists. It’s not as simple as someone opposing the implementation of a certain technology or a specific ideology and then being paid by some nefarious money man to go against what they believe. In fact, the vast majority of debates start with someone pretending to be on the opposing side, and then they are eventually handed the baton and merge into the status quo.
This is how oppositions are controlled. They are manufactured from the start rather than being co-opted during their development.
You should be wary of talking heads which tell you exactly what you want to hear. You should question the narrative when it could be switched around in this manner. If someone starts off by telling you how dangerous something is, and then they go through a process which is identical to manufacturing consent for the exact thing they’re warning people about, then it’s time to put on your thinking cap and be discerning.
These people gain your respect and loyalty by pretending, and then once they have you, they make you support what you originally oppose.
To do this efficiently, the powers that be must plan to work against themselves in a way that will allow them to manufacture consent about the things which they’re also warning about. I want people to understand this at a base level because it’s really a bit of a bubble burster. You can go from not quite getting it, to suddenly understanding it in full, with not much effort needed.
If you have something which you want to control, for instance, some new technology which is emerging, then you must enact a certain strategy. Let’s take Blockchain technology as an example. You desire to control both sides of the narrative. Those who love the technology, and those who hate it. Many people will naturally sit on either camp, so there’s many potential conduits to choose from.
There are many people who are champions for advancing blockchain, some are very passionate players who will fight tooth and nail for the implementation of the technology. For the entity which wishes to implement and control the technology, supporting these people is obviously a no brainer. Those who naturally support an Establishment narrative get boosted up the algorithmic chain, they are often given pride of place on various mainstream platforms, and they will be well marketed by big name accounts.
But we're talking about total control, and if you want to control both sides then it goes without saying that you must have direct control over the antithesis of those who already support blockchain technology. If you want to implement this technology successfully, then you must not simply be in control of its most vocal supporters, you must also become most vocal opposition.
To do this, you must tell people all of the time why the technology is dangerous, why it should have major safeguards, how it should be regulated, and you must become the number one expert on the negative aspects of the technology. In this role, and by using this method, you will slowly but surely become the antithesis of the manufactured status quo.
Then, when the technology is ready to be implemented in any meaningful way, the people will panic and they will predictably demand that the safeguards you’ve already mapped out are introduced. They will look for the people who are most likely to champion the safe implementation of such a technology, and essentially, they’ll demand a safe pair of hands.
As someone who has warned about the tech and opposed it to a degree, you become the most obvious choice to become the person who safely introduces the technology, because you are one of the few who have described in great detail how to implement it safely. However, all you’ve really done is create yourself to be the expert to go to. Most of the top experts in various areas of research are experts because they understand the dynamics of an evolving paradigm, and once the paradigm evolves, they are often the ones who are handed the baton to drive the technology forward.
The people who follow this method, go from being the antithesis of the status quo, and then they synthesise into the new status quo. This is why controlled opposition exists. It’s not as simple as someone opposing the implementation of a certain technology or a specific ideology and then being paid by some nefarious money man to go against what they believe. In fact, the vast majority of debates start with someone pretending to be on the opposing side, and then they are eventually handed the baton and merge into the status quo.
This is how oppositions are controlled. They are manufactured from the start rather than being co-opted during their development.
You should be wary of talking heads which tell you exactly what you want to hear. You should question the narrative when it could be switched around in this manner. If someone starts off by telling you how dangerous something is, and then they go through a process which is identical to manufacturing consent for the exact thing they’re warning people about, then it’s time to put on your thinking cap and be discerning.
These people gain your respect and loyalty by pretending, and then once they have you, they make you support what you originally oppose.