intention framing as stochastic terrorism

theory: what you believe is what you get

this got impossibly long and so i’m going to break it up into sections.

this is section 1: theory

there is an objective reality, but it can only be perceived and partaken of subjectively. we see what we expect to see, what we are told to seek, what we are taught to project and this makes the feedback loops of perception and reality into something both inescapable and unavoidable:

your perceptions determine what meaning and substance you subjectively apply to the objective evidence of the world around you. (worse, it also biases which evidence you select to seek out in the first place so the effects are multiplicative)

your actions are based upon these subjective determinations.

and these actions then cause objective effects which are then once more filtered subjectively through the minds and sensoria of both you and everyone affected by you.

and thus perception begets reality and like neo and the vase oracle, many prophecies become self-fulfilling.

when the subjective filters of one or both sides of an experience get sufficiently distorted or biased, you get feedback loops and these can be beneficial or pernicious and can feed off one another in complex fashion.

• having high trust expectations of highly trustworthy people causes a golden rule spiral which is a lovely place to live. we expect the best and we mostly get it and small foibles are treated with charity and benefit of doubt is given. rough spots are ridden over, trust prevails, and trustworthiness with it. this is a stable equilibrium.

• but having low trust expectations of high trust people breaks the high trust system and actions will rapidly move to align. some begin to look at others with suspicion instead of charity and expectation of attack pervades which results in broken trust and attacks made because they are (mistakenly) framed as self-defense. the best way to cause a trust fracture is always to claim that “this person has already attacked you.” this will cause the perception of normal and reasonable action to appear like provocation or threat. such systems are unstable and rapidly devolve to the war of all against all.

• so too will high trust expectations of low trust people because the outcomes will continually fail to match your model and you’ll either learn to stop trusting or get consumed in suicidal empathy. being told repeately that “you have to trust these people and you’re a bad person if you do not” while those people repeately show themselves to be untrustworthy just makes it worse. the strong minded rise against it as aggression and war, the weak minded and consensus-clinging cave in to it and seek to project it as virtue while being eaten alive. again, (and either way) you devolve to war.

• low trust expectations of low trust people is just the war of all against all and you either wind up abrogating the social contract entirely or what remains of that contract organizes and goes to war until trust is (generally through violence or dictatorship) restored. turning second world systems (high trust systems run by low trust people) back into trustable institutions is generally impossible in any other way. once mired in the lower left, getting back out takes some real doing.

this creates an interesting matrix and implies that there are basically two ways to break a high trust golden rule/golden age spiral:

1. the first is to convince people not to trust people who are, in fact, trustworthy.

2. the second is to flood the box with untrustworthy people either by

   1. importing low trust people into a system

   2. making (per step 1) formerly high trust people into low trust people by convincing them that they are under attack from people who meant them no harm

i would argue that both have been going on in great abundance over the last 20 or so years and that the effects upon the west are rapidly approaching an event horizon in which violence will become an increasing norm, perhaps even an increasing necessity to the point where it becomes unavoidable. you can see it starting as effects begin to spiral.

views on political violence are changing and there is one group in particular that has embraced it in far greater proportion than the others.

and the desire is ramping up through the generations and is especially concentrated in blacks and hispanics (apart from the boomers who are a weird outlier here). of other interest, whites in gen Z are rapidly catching up.

this view is more prevalent in males, but gen Z females (nearly all very liberal) have caught up aggressively. (data here)

if you want to understand how this happens, it happens like this:

nothing about this is an accident, it’s orchestration. groups like USAID, soros, neville signham, SPLC, and a massive melodrama of media are all pushing this. the “fine people hoax” calling trump a white supremacist was just another in a long line of russia hoaxes and other such outlandish vilification. (here’s what he actually said)

this did not “just happen” it was a full throated info-war waged in response to the first trump victory derailing a set of carefully crafted plans from creepy klaus the cool kids table at davos.

the whole issue has been manufactured to break trust and thereby to shatter the institutions and norms of the west.

it’s not being done by accident, it has one purpose:

it’s to move people from the high trust golden rule square to the distrustful square by convincing them of the ill intent of others and relentlessly telling them that they are under attack.

the fact of the praxis is as deadly simple as it is deadly serious.

this takes us back to a thought experiment i used the other day:

imagine you’re in a room with another person.

between you is a table. on the table is a loaded handgun.

how do you feel?

you are strangers and do not know each other.

what now?

it all comes down to assumption of intent.

to the extent that you assume ill intent, you cannot let him have the gun first.

of course, the reciprocal is true as well if he assumes your ill intent.

and each of you must act on this or risk being robbed/killed/whatever.

your tolerance for risk and uncertainty plummets as does your charity in interpreting actions.

see how losing trust makes us each untrustworthy?

because he thinks you are a threat and you think he is a threat, you both become threats even if none was intended.

you’re both so hyper sensitized to any sign of the other making a move to attack or threaten that it’s simply too easy to set you off.

and accidents happen.

and the perception makes the reality.

because the situation was contrived to be precarious.

if anyone signals, whether inadvertently or deliberately, the other now needs to try to move faster and so even an innocent action or stumble begets assumption of attack and thus, attack from the other side.

so the literal difference between two otherwise peaceful people being able to stand peacefully next to a gun or competing to kill one another is “were you each told the other was trustworthy or untrustworthy?”

and the more trustworthy or untrustworthy you expected to find them, the more effect you get.

and that’s why they do this in such outlandish and apocalyptic terms.

it’s to be sure you know that the other person means you the worst sort of ill and to give you no leeway to wait and see.

worse still, as discussed HERE once your perception bias has been confirmed, rather than realizing that whoever lied to you is a liar, you’ll see them as having given you a good and accurate warning. the whole thing is a self winding clock to entrap the credulous and embroil them in conflict and mistrust.

it’s done to destroy trust and to provide a pretext for hate and thereby for violence.

it replaces comity with animosity, erases faith in the systems of human flourishing and engenders trust in the mendacious and manipulative.

of course the politico-media loves it.

it’s the systemic unpicking of the idea of high trust by creating impossible dilemmas by attacking people until they respond then calling your further attacks self-defense.

keep them hostile, scared, and fragmented.

both readers and slaves are made in such ways.

that’s modern media methods for you.

next section:

praxis.

(stay tuned)