If we study the past and try to interpret today’s society from a historical perspective, we will find that methods of controlling the masses have been around as long as literacy proved its existence. And the techniques have never changed, because they are based upon the common dream of rulers to monopolise and sustain their power by any means. Shaping the public’s opinion boils down to forcing the debate you wish to dominate into an abusive adoption of Hegelian dialectic to polarise the notion of what is perceived to be good or evil, black or white, us or them.

Either you are with the corporate interest, or you will be held accountable for your disadvantages

Then people are very likely to take sides without being properly informed and of course it is going to be what is deemed politically correct or generally believed to be appropriate, to avoid condemnation by their peers. Having controversial and more complex attitudes will, in most instances, put you in a position that runs counter to the system’s core narrative and therefore will not be adopted by it’s defenders.

“If you only notice human proceedings, you may observe that all who attain great power and riches, make use of either force or fraud; and what they have acquired either by deceit or violence, in order to conceal the disgraceful methods of attainment, they endeavor to sanctify with the false title of honest gains.” -Niccolò Machiavelli, The Art of War 1520

This of course is widely understood, but the method is successfully repeated over and over again. In the cold war the world’s main enemy was named communism, but the very word ‘communism’ has been exploited, as it is a very complex theory and therefore should never be oversimplified as inherently good or bad. What citizens agreed upon was that the state should never be in control of all aspects of a societies’ components, but what we see today is that governments around the world are trying to achieve exactly that. Needless to say that it is naturally accompanied by the corporate globalisation that has lifted the nation’s borders and can wield huge influence over another country’s policies and behaviour without necessarily having to justify its actions in front of their court system. In joining the West’s alleged fight against communism, its citizens took actively part in taking a giant step towards the very ideology they believed to be combating at that time. After the supposed win of democracy, which has become an empty term since its abusive usage in exculpation of economic wars waged in recent history, the newly deployed buzzword became ‘terrorism’. The very word terrorism of course is perfect for any warmongering power that seeks to greatly expand its influence, because every one can possibly be portrayed as a lone-wolf or bugged out terrorist. In the relatively short period after 9/11, which obviously was the start of the so-called ‘war on terror’, we have seen various utilisations of the words ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’.

“These terminological devices serve important functions. They help to justify the far more extensive violence of (friendly) state authorities by interpreting them as ‘reactive’ and they implicitly sanction the suppression of information on the methods and scale of official violence by removing it from the category of ‘terrorism.’ […] Thus the language is well-designed for apologetics for wholesale terror.” -Noam Chomsky, The Washington Connection & Third World Fascism

From a propagandists point of view it must be understood as a stroke of genius, as it gives the system’s servants a highly versatile linguistical tool that is not linked to an ideology like its predecessor. Great power always lies within demonising the very thing you like to achieve. If you propose options to eradicate the problem that you present to the world, you can control the opposition. Sadly, the employment of the very concept you outwardly battle becomes even useful to the system’s politics, as they profit from the publics fear. When in fear, people are more likely to accept the government’s thirst for power, which will be presented to them in the disguise of protection.

“He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.” -Benjamin Franklin

The individual is never interested to be governed at all. Though it may seem to prefer to bow before the government’s potential ability to protect, if it feels too threatened to maintain its current lifestyle or feels the urge to enhance it, if living conditions are poorly. But if the individual is able to connect with others in a similar mindset, they will most likely figure out a working solution that is much more focused on eliminating the problem than governments, who are depended on maintaining the problem, to maintain your dependence on them.

So the solution is as easy as the problem. Decentralisation. But human societies didn’t figure out how to live in decentralised communities yet, without leaving a power vacuum behind. Taking a closer look at any country’s or power’s realm of influence you will sooner or later find its dark side. The more power, the bigger the shadow.