The ‘Social media’ deceit

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
Post Reply
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

The ‘Social media’ deceit

Unread post by sharpstuff » Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:35 pm

An opinion piece

As, I hope, a real person, I am so sad that the apparent ‘World’ in which we are told, inveigled, forced, coerced to ‘live’, has devolved to such an extent that it is becoming an actual/physical nightmare from which we are (almost, if we allow it) unable to disengage ourselves as far as possible from.

The present notion of ‘social distancing’ (masks and two metres apart and so on), is a contraption invented by others, of that of removing ourselves from even those we might love and cherish and is now attempting to be in ‘full swing’. Its success is up to us as individuals to desist as far as possible.

A question remains as to whether the introduction of ‘social media’ Internet sites (for example) was a deliberate attempt at this by, as they say, ‘the powers that shouldn’t be’, or whether there are genuine groups of people who hope to share their feelings, experiences, or other matters with like-minded others. It, however, seems to have replaced the physical ability of actually writing such things as ‘pen’ letters to others on what used to be called ‘paper’ (which was a medium comprised of the extraction of a substance from wood, as in ‘trees’ if you might remember) to others at a distance with whom we could not contact face-to-face.

It is also questionable if these Internet ‘sites’ were not deliberately constructed (some notions refer to agencies such as the C.I.A. or MI.5/6, for example).

From what I can gather, The Internet was created by….

Arguably the two most popular Internet ‘social media’ sites are as follows:

Please draw your own conclusions.

Facebook was apparently created by …..

Whether this autobiography is in fact ‘real’ remains to be established.

‘Twitter’ was created by…

Whether or not these individuals/groups of friends actually existed in the first place is a point lacking verifiable facts, and remains to be seen. However, these sites remain an integral part (apparently) of the Internet and thousands use them every minute, hour and day. The mind boggles. Where is their LIFE without real observable people behind this facade?

However, the fact that comments, replies and such-like are monitored and frequently modified by ‘outsiders’ and indeed removed from circulation, must remain a worry for those who wish their readers to pursue as they wish and maintain their ‘friends’, albeit unknown except for their ‘writings’.

Social distancing therefore is rife from its beginnings (probably ‘ancient’ writings on stone tablets etc.) and has become a means of control, intimidation, fear of retribution and the annulment of consent to a ‘main-stream’ controlled environment since all these activities can and are monitored by the ‘owners’ of the various ‘social’ networks.

Social distancing (especially in the present ‘climate’) is surely a means to control using a threat of violence in some way. It is a deliberate attack upon ‘natural’ physical human contact.

The involvement of the use of so-called ‘mobile’ devices, is merely an extension of ‘social distancing’. Have you ever seen two people engaged on these devices walk together and sharing something except on some ‘electronic’ device? Can ‘texting’ (whatever that is) a person whom you have feelings for, a match for a verbal response? Where is the ‘body-language’ that attributes to a reply?

Much as they may be useful for certain purposes, these ‘mobile’ devices remain an adjunct to the ‘radio’ and later ‘television’ which although they purport to ‘link people together’, merely separates them depending upon their separate needs.

The best way to control a group is to separate people using any means possible to separate them but at the same time to convince them of a certain purpose, like ‘voting’ for a candidate of which you know nothing in real terms or realising that you have been lied to from birth about anything at all? This is not all ‘new’ stuff. Most literature and indeed humour is based upon the language of double meanings (language and actions), misdirection, obscurification and so forth.

The old adage, of ‘divide and conquer’ is rife here. The fact that it dislocates family members from each other is a means to socially isolate even members of the same family, despite their isolation for other reasons.

Television/radio apparatuses located differently in some homes are also a method of ‘social distancing’ if applied ‘incorrectly’.

The proliferation of so-called ‘mobile devices’ a.k.a. ‘Smart phones’ and such-like is also a means to socially remove people from each other when considered as a means to do so. Whatever their uses for personal reasons is outsmarted (if you will) by the fact that they can be remotely monitored by those who wish harm or surveillance. The very fact that you can/maybe monitored is proof of this since they can be hi-hacked. There is ample evidence of this is one wishes to search for this notion.

So why is the maintenance of social distancing so important? As I see it, it is a means by which people can be manipulated by introducing a means by which they can control others, because as I believe they cannot control themselves.

Controllers are social misfits who lack the social skills to maintain reasonable contact with others. In the case of so-called ‘social media’, it is a case of ‘control at a distance’ which suits their purpose.

Social distancing as a meme* is therefore a method of controlling people under the guise of bringing people together but at the same time keeping them apart.

According to:

‘A meme is a virally transmitted image embellished with text, usually sharing pointed commentary on cultural symbols, social ideas, or current events. A meme is typically a photo or video, although sometimes it can be a block of text. When a meme resonates with many people, it's spread via social platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, texting, and more. The more a meme is spread, the greater the cultural influence it has.’

Note: It is worthwhile pursuing the rest of the article for further information.

It is obvious from the above definition (at least) that a meme itself can be manipulated to suit a context. Thus it can be created by those who favour a positive, or a negative. If sites such as Twitter or Facebook, over which we can have no direct control once a meme (for example) is placed and if the site is monitored for nefarious reasons, the meme can be censored. This is precisely how these sites work. Social distancing par excellence.

How we counter this is purely up to us as (hopefully) as individuals who either wish to remain in control of our lives so far as possible without interference, or ‘go along for the ride’ not knowing where they will end up.

Methods of social distancing are possibly endless. Without actual physical contact with others, including the shaking of hands, a kiss on the cheeks or whatever else one’s culture demands as ‘fellow-feeling’.

We seem to have devolved into the ‘immediate gratification’ culture of receiving instant replies which we demand are to be answered as soon as possible if not immediately.

What ever happened to the ‘pen letters’ we might once have written to those far away, awaiting the post to arrive for an answer in trepidation and excitement? Why do most people rush to a telephone to answer it? Telephones always ring at inconvenient times. Apart from accident or emergency why is it so important to be on the other end of a telephone or e-mail or some-such?

It is true that humans constantly require answers to questions or opinions but they must require the where-withal to sift all types of data/information to make as reasoned a response as to the veracity of the data/information given by whatever means they acquired it and their particular processes of the means to do so.

Social distancing is a ploy to deconstruct humanity. It uses notions of ‘racism’, of ‘de-genderisation’ for example. It pits wits against the ‘believers’ and the ‘non-believers’ of some regime or other (especially) ‘religions’.

It is said that ‘resistance is futile’. For some that may be a truism but for others it may be our only salvation even by the small means we might have to employ to counter it.

Be well,

Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: The ‘Social media’ deceit

Unread post by pov603 » Sat Mar 20, 2021 9:37 am

As, I hope, a real person, I am so sad that the apparent ‘World’ in which we are told, inveigled, forced, coerced to ‘live’, has devolved to such an extent that it is becoming an actual/physical nightmare from which we are (almost, if we allow it) unable to disengage ourselves as far as possible from.
Very true.
The fact that heads of state and members of a country’s intellectuals can be “removed” and become merely a statistic under the circumstances does not bode well.
It has become amazing that as many of those who are well aware of the outcomes of limited choices, are ignoring the “red pill” and, instead, are clamouring for the “blue pill”.
Admittedly, if a bald geezer wearing pince-nez and a full-length leather overcoat came close and said “psst! Wanna pill?” I might think twice about what he has to offer (bearing in mind there are essentially three choices).
However, if Be-ill or Me-“was Len but am now”-Linda Gates and Dr Fu-chi (literally “eat vice” in Chinese) came over saying “psst! Wanna pill?” most people aren’t even questioning that there’s only one choice on offer.

Post Reply