Brave new world
I pondered long before writing about this topic because it is something very delicate since it involves values and beliefs that affect the vast majority of people in the Western world, and there are already too many supporters in most eastern countries. I will try to put my questions in a respectful manner, although they are contentious questions. I may be wrong in some of my settings, so I will accept gladly correct me, since the corrections are historical and factual and not based on beliefs and dogmas. Although it is well advised on the top of each page of the blog, I will repeat: I will not accept much less preaching and moralizing. I’m opening this topic for discussion, so those reasonable people who are seeking truth from facts may also comment and do their statments. I try to talk to ‘followers‘ of the Master’s teachings and not with ‘worshipers‘ of Jesus, as the latter like to take things to the fanatical and dogmatic side. The world is full of worshipers . So is the Hell.
I always wonder why one of the great Masters of mankind always be shown nailed to a cross, all bloodied and with an expression of suffering and pain. In almost all churches and places of worship, much emphasis is given to moments of great suffering. Images of the Stations of the Cross paintings are on the walls, stained glass, works of art and even geographic locations, such as the Basilica of Aparecida do Norte/SP (Brazil) where there is a hill where the 14 stations of the via sacra are represented as points of meditation during ascent. There is a hill with these same characteristics also Guaramirim/SC (Brazil) and I believe that there must be many others, both in Brazil and elsewhere in the world. What I always wonder is, why so much emphasis is given to the suffering and pain? Why are shown images and pictures of Jesus on the cross all bloodied? Why do television and film productions always put emphasis on the suffering and pain, always showing the via sacra and all the pain and suffering of the Master? Why not use images and pictures where the Master appears in moments of His greatest glory? In a church we see only a picture of the Last Supper and fourteen pictures or paintings showing suffering and pain. Answer: Engineering of Consent.
See for example the case of Abraham Lincoln. Whenever you find a picture or a statue of him, he is depicted at the moment of his greatest glory, sitting in the presidential chair. No doubt he was a great statesman one of the most notable of U.S. Presidents and the tributes to him are merited. Rarely seen, except in some very specific matters, photos or pictures of him dead, dying or being murdered. Nor do we see him in all bloody photos. No one uses a photo or picture of Abraham Lincoln with a shot to the head as a representation of the great statesman and ruler he was. So why one of the greatest Masters that humanity has ever had is always represented at the time he was being punished? Why is used a picture of the Master carrying a crown of thorns, and blood as well as an expression of pain and suffering, to represent the greatness of his teachings? Why do big productions, always put the focus in the part of life of the master when he was suffering the consequences of being caught by the Empire? Why the churches are giving so much emphasis to the via sacra? Why in the churches are not placed images representative of its most memorable moments when he was with the apostles and conversed with people? Answer: engineering of consent.
“Whoever humbles himself will be exalted”. This is also training for slaves. An excellent way for conditioning slaves is to convince them that their primary religious teacher also behaved like one, ie, accepted willingly being humiliated by the Empire right before people. Thus, confuse humble with humiliation. There is an astronomical distance between these two concepts. Humble is a virtue that only the brave have, while humiliation is a form of physical and emotional violence being committed against someone. A Grand Master as Jesus was, surely knew very well the difference of concepts. He did not teach anyone to be humiliated, but ended up leaving as an example his own life, of what is being humiliated by an Empire. He never practiced or advised self flagellation or practice of humiliating physical violence against himself. He never taught that let oneself humiliating is a virtue. Humble goes hand in hand with the dignity and is absolutely incompatible with humiliation. The humble look into another’s eyes, does not look over and neither looks down. Looking over is arrogance, looking down is subservience. Obviously those in power knew very well how to make proper use of such subtlety and confused concepts. Engineering of consent applied to mass psychology.
Author’s note: perhaps I’ve made a confusion about the meaning of the words ‘humble’ and ‘humility’ as being a virtue or being a violence or self-depreciating. In Portuguese these two concepts are very well defined by the words ‘Humildade’ being a virtue and ‘humiliação’ being a violence against oneself or another people. I’m not an English native, so this is not so clear to me. Please help me to make this text clear. Tell me the correct meaning for each case and I will make the proper corrections. Thanks.
This is another big lie, blatant manipulation of facts. A lie that serves well the purposes of those who hold power. It enhances and reinforces the feeling of guilt in people. Increase inferiority complex. Increase conformism. In a subconscious level people feel diminished knowing that ‘someone died for them‘. Part of engineering. The idea that someone freed people from their sins, makes them free to sin more. By nature, people have a disease that is extremely frightening to those in power, and this disease is called: “sickly inhibition against killing and torture.“ Accept the fact that someone died for them makes them less sick, inhibition decreases and people start to feel more natural to kill or torture. It is the engineering of consent applied efficiently.
He died because he annoyed the empire, and bacause of that, 14 laws were flouted for him to be killed as soon as possible. He posed a great danger to the Empire. The Empire had been ‘poached‘, after all were only a hundred years that a slave named Spartacus had almost put Rome to its knees. Five whole legions of trained soldiers were decimated by a band of rebellious slaves. So it is clear that the Empire was straight ears. Any small rumor was enough to accuse two or three by crimes of sedition and execute them promptly and exemplary. And The Master was no different. From the point of view of the Empire he was just ‘another‘ proselytizing among many insurgents and that the Empire had to deal almost daily. Despite being just one more, he was a danger one. Not long before his death was conveniently exploited by those who hold power. Engineering of consent applied in the very historical moment.
Another great masterpiece of the engineering of consent is a set of statements assigned to The Master, known as the ‘Sermon on the Mount‘. If we accept that the master really spoke all that is written in such a sermon, then there is an inconsistency here: The master was against slavery and his messages were transmitted precisely to those underprivileged, to those oppressed by the Empire. So how could he have made a speech that is largely for slavery? A speech that is pretty much a set of precepts to make ‘slaves‘ best slaves, more obedient, more humble, more resigned, less angry, less likely to fight against the Empire? So we can deduce that the master was an agent of the empire? And if he worked for the empire, so why the empire even considered the discourses of The Master so threatening and dangerous to the point of disrespecting 14 laws and execute him as soon as possible? Much more, if we admit that the master was against the Empire, so he was against slavery and oppression, then we have to assume that he would never say ‘Blessed are the meek’ or ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit‘ or ‘turn the other cheek‘. This is a discourse to educate slaves and not to arouse men being oppressed by an empire who must adopt procedures to gain their freedom, even if that means armed struggle. So, dear reader, please note that if we ask two or three questions, we are faced with an absurd amount of inconsistencies. Absurd inconsistencies. The engineering is to develop a text 80/20, ie, 80% correct and consistent information and 20% of manipulated information. This 20%, in addition is being endorsed by that 80% correct, and go unnoticed, especially by ‘religious fanatics‘ and the ‘worshipers’, those who do not think, do not reason, only obey. But for those who think, these 20% will cause at least, a cognitive dissonance, because they are opposed to the cause. Bottom line: If the master was in favor of the cause and against the empire he would never be the author of many of the statements that are attributed to him. So if he was against the cause and in favor of the empire, he may well have been the author of the speech but would never be executed for the crime of sedition, because then he would be working for the Empire.
This story of the return of ‘Jesus’ has a very serious inconsistency. Lack one parameter: the time, ie, when. When will it happen? In ten years? In a hundred years. In a thousand years? In ten thousand years? And what do we do in the meantime? Will we idly waiting, for when He returns, he will solve everything magically? Will he install the Paradise on Earth? For centuries they say that He will return! And will continue saying this for tens or hundreds of centuries, unless the ‘installed power‘ change its strategy. What if he has already turned and walked among us and no one noticed because the expectation of his return shifts the focus of attention. What if he was a Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi or anyone else? if he was one of these people, certainly religious fanaticism would never admit. The fact is that people are so blinded by the manipulations of the ruling power that, if The Master was at present time, walking among them, they would not recognize him.
This was the most difficult article to write, not because of the text or the illustrations, but bacause of the decision to write about something so controversial and contentious. I used the word ‘Master’ instead of the word ‘Jesus’, because that’s how I consider him: a Master. He left valuable lessons for mankind, but most of his teachings were distorted and adapted to serve the interests of those who hold power. Almost everything that is written in the Gospels does not match what he really did or said. The religious structure, instead of forming ‘followers‘ of the teachings of the Master, creates a legion of ‘worshipers’ who just ‘adore‘, but when asked about the teachings, either they know nothing or if they know, do not pratice. And why not practice? Answer: Engineering of Consent.