Getting outside the box and acting autonomously

I subscribe to David Icke's newsletter (free version that gives you an excerpt of what is in the full version). I love David, not because I subscribe to and agree with everything he says, but because he, more than anyone else I can think of, has been effective at getting people (including me) to break out of paradigms - our mental and emotional prisons - and freeing ourselves.

I got this one last night and thought it was worth passing on, and expanding on in the context of Civil Informationing, which is really what David has always been about. He doesn't hammer you and insist that he is right, he shares with you, passionately but articulately, what he has discovered in his research and on his path: his Truth. But he doesn't insist that you believe him or trust him, or change anything you are doing. He does not rile you up and urge you to go out and confront anyone else, or change anyone else. He just says, "here is some information for YOU to think about. Do with it what you like! I don't care what you think - just think".

RULES RULE ...

... OKAY?

Dis*cre*tion. n. Freedom to act or judge on one's own - Thefreedictionary.com

"When a few wish to control the many they have to get members of the many to enforce the rules that give them the control they desire. There are nothing like enough manipulators, working in full knowledge of the agenda, to police and pen the masses. They have to get the masses to
police and pen each other.

To do this they need to target and develop the rule book mentality which concedes all rights to free thought to whatever someone they have never met, and probably never heard of, has decided the rules will be in any given situation. Such people are the unconscious made manifest and without them the few could never control the rest.

These blueprint minds almost always appear in uniform, which is the physical, outward expression of the uniformity that exists between their ears. Look the same, obey the same (with honorable exceptions).

With each passing day, I can see more clearly the parting of the ways between those who are awakening from the trance and those who are going ever-deeper into it. In the small town where I live I observe the zombies-in-uniform and the luminous-jacket-Mafiosi as they, ever-more
conspicuously, ply their robotic trade with rule book-in-hand and rule-book-in-head. "

- David Icke (excerpt from his most recent newsletter)

********

There are many rules, written and unwritten, for the way things are "supposed to be done" according to "conventional wisdom". This is also true for protesting and demonstrating, or revolting for that matter.

Well, who says that a protest MUST consist of more than one person, in the same place, at the same time, to have any meaning or value? Who says that one MUST hold up protest signs on a stick? Who says you MUST look the same (same ages, hair styles, black shirts, slogans, mottos, piercings, tattos, etc) ? Who says that one MUST yell, chant or sing, use bullhorns and look / act really pissed off? Where does it say that one MUST confront the perceived wrong doers? Or that one MUST defy someone? Who says that one MUST be disruptive, or do something illegal to make a point, to be seen, heard and really listened to (get arrested, tasered, hauled away and jailed)? Or worse, set oneself on fire? Granted, 'civil disobedience', in the traditional sense, can be an effective tool of last resort, and I have no problem with that.

You don't even need a pc or digital video camera, though a website helps to let people know how to find you and get more info, get involved etc. In fact, I think the YouTube stuff is overblown and too many people spend too much time on it. It has it's place and it is great to have to expose stuff that gets little or no coverage on TV, but the real message has to made to the uninitiated, out on the street, in a way that is effective. We will discuss that later.

Generally, the protest models of the past have limited or no effect today, as a stand alone method (you can't afford or can't get access to TV like Green Peace or some others do with which you can balance your message, get sympathy), and often has the opposite effect from what one had hoped, ensuring that it remains 'fringe' or even shunned. This is partly because of the way that media has changed and the way people get their information today, because media is now so controlled. As Robin Hordon points out, we are in the age of information. We no longer have to rely on the old media, but can actually BE the media (in many ways), and thereby, potentially reach millions. The old ways also put you 'in a box' and make you 'sterotypical' and 'predictable'. Boxes benefit someone. But who? Certainly not us!

The 9/11 Truth Movement, given that we have a very 'uncommon' issue, and few of us have the money for expensive advertising campaigns, has been successful and gained much ground because it has been largely unconventional. It has been essential fr it's survival. Sure, it might be good to hold a peaceful, mass demonstration on occasion to demonstrate our numbers and our solidarity, but how effective are they in changing anyone's perception of the issues? At getting them to have a second look at what you are saying? I think it is largely symbolic and a "feel good" and "feel strong" exercise, but not one that sways many people who are opposed or on the fence. It is also a place where infiltration can take place and which media can then use to smear everyone with, especially if everyone looks the same, acts the same, talks the same, etc. So, personally, I think that unless you change some of that, your chances of attracting new people are not good.

I do not know, nor have I ever met, a single person who's mind was changed directly through any of the "classical" protest actions, especially in regard to 9/11. Changing one's mind and heart is a personal thing and requires a personal connection. You are trying to get someone to connect to you and the issue. The vast majority of people today are already connected to 9/11, at a very deep level - but NOT the way they should be connected, because it was a PsyOP, and people have been conditioned on a massive scale over many years with the 'official story' of 9/11. You have to break down that conditioning subtley, with facts, evidence, and calm articulation, and real concern, not politics, and certainly not by insulting the people you want to "wake up".

In my experience (as an activist and in sales and marketing), people 'change their minds' (assuming they have an opinion a particular issue, one way or the other) and will take a stand on that issue ONLY when:

1. they are OPEN to new information and don't feel threatened, annoyed, bored or uncomfortable by what is presented, and they have nothing better to do or anywhere else needed to go, or some other agenda that is threatened,

2. having received the information, and actually caring what that person has to say (either there is a connection or one is made, and they relate - and this happens 'one on one') they become consciously aware that there is a moral problem,

3. the issue interests them and they care enough to inform themselves more and they decide to look into it further on their own.

3. they identify with the person or group who suffered the injustice and see that it could potentially affect them - or at least that, they realize that, if it had happened to them, they too would feel wronged, want justice and feel entitled to the support of others. In other words, they internalize it and it becomes personal for them.

4. they see that they have nothing significantly greater to lose by taking a stand, or potentially even something to gain, or at very least something of theirs is maintained. Or in some cases, the injustice is so morally reprehensible that they feel they have no choice and will risk everything to take a stand.

Unless you were one of those who did not buy the official story, hook line and sinker from Day 1 and did not allow yourself to be brainwashed, think back to what it took for you to have your eyes opened and come out of the TV induced trance. Did someone yell at you with slogans, take you prisoner and bombard you with everything they know about 9/11, and psychologically batter you until you suddenly woke up? Or did someone try to approach you in a calm and rational but caring way? Were they successful right away? Or did it take multiple attempts? Did you resist? Did you look at them like they were "nuts", "unpatriotic" or somehow suddenly "possessed" - as if they thought you had been brainwashed by someone?

I have been polling people about this for some time now, and the overwhelming number of those who did not see the lies immediately, needed to be approached gently by someone they know, or were approached by someone who was calm and rational, and not pushy. So, going by your own experience, when it finally clicked with you and the light went on, what was it that worked with you, and what didn't. Unless you are very exceptional, it was someone being persistent yet not pushy, well informed, caring and patient who got you onboard, and someone who did not judge you for not immediately looking into it or getting onboard.

Perhaps, in your case it was something else that got your attention. It is extremely rare that we have had an opportunity to get good, mainstream attention on TV or radio, with two people debating the issue fairly and rationally, or read a newspaper article that was not a hit piece, or in which any claims being made were not immediately countered by one or more so-called authorities to pooh-pooh it all as "stuff and nonsense". If you were so fortunate to be exposed this way to 9/11 Truth and took it serious, feel blessed. That is rare.

Think now about the last time you were minding your own business, going somewhere, doing something or had to be somewhere and you were suddenly interrupted, accosted, confronted by a total stranger, or strangers marching, yelling, chanting, getting in your way or perhaps in your face about an issue you had not thought about or cared about, or already had a well formed opinion about. Perhaps it was street people begging, squeegee kids, a pushy sales person, strikers, or protesters. Did you want to stop what you had planned and stand there and listen? Or did you just want to throw your hands in the air and scream at them, and choke back the desire to throttle someone?

So what do you think is realistically going to have a chance at success? And what do we define as success? We have to be clear about that. What is the point of the protest? Is it ...

(1) to express anger, raise hell, embarrass, make others uncomfortable and provoke, perhaps in the hope that someone will confess their crimes and everyone else will suddenly wake up and agree with you? or ..

(2) to gain sympathy, raise awareness and persuade them that you have a have a valid complaint and convince them to join you, thus growing your numbers to the point where the issue becomes common knowledge and broadly accepted as a valid complaint (objections are coming from all sectors of society), thus forcing action or change by those who have the power to make it.?

For me, it is always the second option. Though I can certainly sympathize with wanting to confront the suspected perps at staged political events, in my mind that is no option at all (especially when it is a large, public, staged event where you are vastly outnumbered by your opponent's adoring and faithful supporters, and camera's are rolling). You are going to get tarred and feathered, figuratively and perhaps physically.

Those who you are protesting (suspected perps and those connected in some way) have convinced many people, by way of a grand deception, and a fear and smear campaign, that the dissenters are with the enemy, are 'out of their minds' and 'pose a threat' to the the general public, who are already terrorized and afraid of terrorists (AND possibly afraid of the government too, and of losing more rights and freedoms). So, are frightened, angry and brainwashed people going to embrace you and your issue when you act 'outrageously' in public, and become disruptive to them? Or are they going to begin to think that the politicians may be right? If you do not at least have a largely neutral audience, and have taken some time to prep them with info, I do not like your chances, and I cringe because I KNOW that the backlash will come, not only against you, but against everyone else who shares your concerns. In the case of 9/11 Truth Movement, that includes me!

I can hear some of you confrontation fans yelling at me all ready. "This is about freedom, damn it! You do it it your way and I will do it mine! I can say what I want, when I want and where ever I want, and YOU are trying to silence me, you are take my freedom away!".
Wrong!!

I am trying to give you the freedom to free yourself, to really and truly be yourself, make your point, speak your truth, reach people, touch people and get them on your (our) side, and thereby set them free too.

That brings us back to this ...

Dis*cre*tion. n. Freedom to act or judge on one's ownWhat does freedom mean?

Freedom –noun
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
4. political or national independence.
5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
6. exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear.
7. the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8. ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9. frankness of manner or speech.
10. general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.
11. the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12. a liberty taken.
13. a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes. 14. civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15. the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
16. the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.
17. Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.
Source: dictionary.reference.com

There are many definitions of freedom, as we see above.

The last one, however, I think is the most important. It implies the freedom to THINK for oneself and act autonomously; differently than others, not acting as others expect, or how they presume you will act. Acting in a way that is most likely to succeed in your goal and not backfire is always your best bet, in my humble opinion, and my personal experience.

My point, and David Icke's, is not to "do as we say" or "do as we do", or anyone else says or does, but rather, to think for yourself. I (and other contributors here) am attempting to show that there is another way which I (and others here) have become convinced makes far more sense and will be more effective, for many reasons. And this way in itself contains many possibilties.

It is up to you however, to THINK before you act and we urge you to ...

THINK outside THE BOX ! ....and NOT be put in one.

Also, THINK about who it is that is trying to KEEP you in a box, and who it is that is telling you what you MUST do with the 9/11 issue, and why. And who is it that is calling thos of us here "nuts", "unpatriotic" (to the cause) etc for challenging conventional wisdom? Moreover, why? And, by the way, where have we heard that before?

I am not telling you or even asking you to do as I do. I am just trying to get you to see that you have choices and to get you to think for yourself and act autonomously.

That is NOT "doing nothing" as some would have you believe. Nor is it "ninnying" as one patriot radio show host calls it. It is about what works for us versus what works for THEM.

It is thinking, choosing, and acting of your own free will, and doing what you have come to the conclusion will be the most successful for THIS issue, based on reason and your own experience ...
NOT what someone else has dictated or decided for you.

Who would not want you to do that? Hmmm?


Wayne

PS Civil Informationing is NOT boring. It's a blast, and a great way to meet people, make friends and do a good public service. More about that another time.