My dear Earth friends,
Many of you will already know what I’m going to share today. But I think the following is important enough that I want to dedicate a message to it anyway:
By itself, it seems somewhat harmless that it’s constantly stressed that people should listen to experts, and that the opinion of experts is elevated over things like gut feeling and intuition and what the average person on the street commonly thinks and what reality seems to be if people simply look at the world around them. By itself, it seems somewhat harmless that expert opinion is elevated over those things.
By itself, it seems somewhat harmless that things on the internet get censored if they contradict the opinion of experts.
By itself, it seems somewhat harmless that mainstream media and social media platforms can decide which experts get promoted and spotlighted, and which experts get deplatformed.
However, if you put these three seemingly-innocuous things together, then effectively you’ve given legacy media and social media platforms the ability to fabricate reality.
How so? Well, let’s look at an example.
At some point legacy media and social media decided they wished to push the narrative that covid was real and incredibly deadly and that a huge amount of people would die from it and there was nothing sneaky going on. The message was just: a black plague-like pandemic has arrived, and that’s it, governments have no agenda here other than saving lives.
在某个时候，传统媒体和社交媒体决定，他们希望推动这样的叙述: 冠状病毒疾病是真实的，致命的，会有大量人死于它，没有什么鬼鬼祟祟的事情发生。这个信息只是: 一场黑色瘟疫般的大流行已经到来，仅此而已，各国政府在这里除了拯救生命之外没有其他任何议程。
So it was endlessly stressed that people should listen to experts. The media cherry-picked and promoted those experts who pushed the desired message. The media deplatformed genuine experts and scientists and doctors who contradicted the desired message.
The media thereby created an illusion that like 99.99% of experts agreed with the narrative, when in reality that percentage was substantially lower. That percentage would have been even lower, had experts not been threatened with the loss of their job or funding if they contradicted the official narrative.
And of course, if 99.99% of experts agree on something (they didn’t), then it’s fair to censor misinformation, right? But it was never the case that 99.99% of experts agreed.
当然，如果99.99% 的专家同意某件事(他们没有) ，那么审查错误信息是公平的，对吗？但99.99% 的专家并不同意这种说法。
Keep in mind that just because the media pretends that practically every expert agrees on something, doesn’t mean that’s actually so. They’re simply lying. They pretend that there’s an expert consensus when in reality that doesn’t exist, and then they fabricate the perception of that consensus by selectively deplatforming and censoring experts who go against the desired narrative.
This is a critical point. Always remember that when the media implies or states that there’s some expert consensus here, almost never are they actually proving that this alleged consensus exists. Sure, sometimes this consensus really does exist, but sometimes it doesn’t and they’re just fabricating it out of thin air. And then they’re reinforcing their fabrication via the deplatforming of experts who disagree with them.
This is actually an incredibly powerful tool to fabricate reality. The masses think that the media is just some party passing along information, when in reality the media can very easily get most of the population to believe that reality is whatever they fabricate it to be.
This is similar to how people think that polls are a way to measure public opinion, when in reality polls are often a way to fabricate public opinion. After all, you can make polls say whatever you wish, just by oversampling people who agree with your desired opinion. Or in plain English: if five people agree with you and five people disagree with you, and you take a poll among four people who agree and one person who disagrees with you, then the poll will say that 80% of people agree with you.
这类似于人们认为民意调查是衡量公众意见的一种方式，而实际上民意调查往往是捏造公众意见的一种方式。毕竟，你可以让民意调查说任何你想说的话，只是通过过度采样那些同意你想要的观点的人。或者简单地说: 如果五个人同意你的观点，五个人不同意你的观点，你在四个同意你的人和一个不同意你的人之间进行一次民意调查，那么民意调查将显示80% 的人同意你的观点。
If the average person believes that most people believe something, then they will believe it too. If the average person believes that most people favor X over Y, then probably this person will favor X too, even if it was never true that most people favored X. Therefore most people can be nudged to believe X, because they believe that most people believe X, when in reality they never did. But then the poll appears accurate afterwards, because the poll said that most people prefer X and indeed most people now prefer X. But most people only prefer X because the poll initially lied about most people preferring X. Therefore the poll didn’t measure reality, the poll fabricated reality.
如果一般人相信大多数人相信某件事，那么他们也会相信。如果普通人相信大多数人喜欢 X 胜过喜欢 Y，那么这个人可能也会喜欢 X，即使大多数人喜欢 X 从来都不是真的。因此，大多数人可以被推动去相信 X，因为他们相信大多数人相信 X，而实际上他们从来没有相信过。但是之后的民意调查显示更准确，因为民意调查显示大多数人更喜欢 X，事实上大多数人现在更喜欢 X。但是大多数人只喜欢 X，因为民意测验最初谎称大多数人喜欢 X。因此，民意测验没有衡量现实，民意测验编造了现实。
In fact, the poll fabricated reality so well that the poll made up that most people prefer X, and because of the power of the poll, most people now genuinely do prefer X. Because they think most others prefer X, when they never did before the poll fabricated that reality.
事实上，这个民意调查捏造的现实太好了，以至于大多数人都喜欢 X，而且因为这个民意调查的力量，大多数人现在真的更喜欢 X。因为他们认为大多数人更喜欢 X，而在这个民意调查捏造现实之前，他们从来没有这样想过。
In this way, one poll can change the opinion of millions of people, just by convincing the masses that a majority opinion among the people exists, when it doesn’t.
Is your head spinning? Yes, from the perspective of the dark controllers, reality really is this malleable. The herd of sheep really are this easy to herd into a slaughterhouse.
Suppose the dark controllers wish to sabotage a political candidate in the minds of the public, or wish to convince a political candidate that they can’t win and should drop out of the race. Then the dark controllers can use skewed polls that oversample people who disagree with those candidates. This sounds silly, but it’s actually effective, because the public doesn’t want to promote or talk about or volunteer for or donate to candidates if the polls show they have no chance. It’s also much harder for a political campaign to secure funding if they poll poorly. This is why there’s sometimes talk that a certain political candidate may be beloved, but they’re simply not viable. In part they’re not viable because they’re being sabotaged by skewed polls from the dark controllers. Funnily enough, the candidates that the dark controllers like are always viable and are usually polling well, even when most people despise those candidates
The dark controllers also tried this during the 2016 Trump vs Hillary election. Polls usually predicted that Hillary would win, but then Trump won. So the polls weren’t accurate, as is often the case, however in this case they failed to manufacture the reality they were allegedly predicting, and so the polls were exposed in this instance. However most people failed to realize the significance of this exposure, and so today most people still believe polls. This is a shame: in an ideal world people would have stopped believing in polls after 2016, or even earlier.
Intentionally skewed polls are also a great method to cover up election manipulation. If election results are in line with poll results, then the election doesn’t look manipulated, however often in the west it’s the case that the elections and the polls were simply both manipulated.
Polls aren’t tools to measure public opinion. They’re tools to fabricate public opinion.
At least, they are whenever the dark controllers wish to push a certain narrative. Of course there are people out there who genuinely do good polling, with a reasonable sampling. Some polls are reasonably accurate.
So the media and polls can fabricate whatever reality they want, and most of the public will believe that this fabricated reality is actual reality.
This is Orwellian.
Unfortunately, this pattern of fabricating false realities has been repeating over and over and over again. For example, the media fabricated a false reality that inflation would be transitory. The media fabricated a false reality that Russia would lose the Ukraine war. The media fabricated a false reality that invading Iraq was an appropriate response to 9/11. Et cetera, et cetera.
How often does the media need to fabricate a false reality before the masses stop listening to them?
I guess people are exhausted and overburdened and scared, and just believing what the brainwashing box says is easier than thinking for themself. Plus there are social consequences to thinking for yourself.
The question: “Who do you believe, me or your own lying eyes?” used to be a joke, but nowadays many people often genuinely believe the media over their own eyes.
This isn’t a coincidence either. A few years ago, a US senator showed a snowball as part of him making an argument against the climate change narrative.
From the point of view of the dark controllers, who also control mainstream media and many social media platforms, this is completely unacceptable. It is unacceptable for people to use their own eyes and brains to arrive at a conclusion, because if people do, reality can no longer be fabricated via cherry-picked experts. People who use their own eyes and brains must be relentlessly mocked or deplatformed. People must be bullied into not observing and not thinking and not doing anything, except listening to and referring to cherry-picked experts.
The insidious thing here is, of course, that in some cases people genuinely will arrive at incorrect conclusions if they just look at the world around them and think for themselves. And the dark controllers leverage this to enforce: don’t observe, don’t think, only listen to and refer to experts. However, the actual solution to the problem of people occasionally arriving at wrong conclusions if they observe and think for themselves, isn’t people shutting off their own critical thinking skills and just listening to experts. The solution is the free and uncensored marketplace of ideas.
This was also the point behind the recent exchange: “can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” “I can’t. I’m not a biologist.” The person refusing to define the word “woman” is acting how the dark controllers want everyone to act: she is refusing to use her own eyes and brain, and in this exchange is doing nothing except listening to and referring to cherry-picked experts. This is what the dark controllers want people to do: don’t observe, don’t think, only listen to and refer to experts.
这也是最近交流背后的观点: “你能给‘女人’这个词下个定义吗?””我不能。我不是生物学家”那个拒绝定义“女人”这个词的人正在表现出黑暗控制者希望每个人都表现出来的样子: 她拒绝使用自己的眼睛和大脑，在这种交流中，她除了倾听和引用精心挑选的专家之外什么也不做。这就是黑暗控制者希望人们做的: 不要观察，不要思考，只听专家的意见和建议。
Cherry-picked experts are then spotlighted, and inconvenient experts are deplatformed and censored, and thus reality is fabricated. In this way, reality can be whatever the dark controllers want it to be.
Again, this is Orwellian.
So: media can fabricate reality if we combine three things:
– that people should listen to and refer to the experts
– that media decides which experts get spotlighted and which get deplatformed, and thereby media can fabricate the illusion that an expert consensus exists
– media can censor and deplatform average people if they contradict this alleged expert consensus (which in reality may not exist).
Therefore the value of freedom of expression must be preserved.
In previous messages Hakann and Tunia have repeatedly spoken out against censorship and deplatforming. I completely agree: so long as people aren’t literally trying to organize a lynching or something egregious like that, speech should not be censored. This is critical. If censorship is allowed, then the media will just fabricate reality as they see fit, and an unelected undemocratic body should not have that ability.
If you don’t want beings like the old me to be able to subvert a civilization, then freedom of expression must be preserved. Trust me, I should know.
Finally, I would argue that people on Earth should also stop seeing expert opinion as the only thing that matters, and see it as just one very important piece of information. It’s too simple to say “don’t listen to experts” because sometimes they are genuinely right. However, I think that for example expert opinion and what the average person thinks should both be taken into account, not necessarily in the same amount, however expert opinion shouldn’t be the only thing that matters. It’s more democratic to also have the opinion of the average person on the street count to some extent.
As you know on Earth, there often is wisdom in crowds. In some cases, the average opinion of the masses is closer to the truth than expert opinion. Not always, and I’m not saying that experts shouldn’t be listened to. I’m just saying that expert opinion should be one thing that’s taken into account and it shouldn’t be the only thing that’s taken into account.
I hope this was useful.
To be honest, it is a bit horrifying to look at the subtle means of control that are used on Earth. It’s scary that many people think they are free, and yet they are trapped in a mental cage they are not even aware of.
Fortunately, as Tunia has correctly stated: you will be free.
All my love,
For Era of Light
**Source: not on youtube because my channel might get into trouble. The article is only here.
来源: 不在 youtube 上，因为我的频道可能会遇到麻烦。文章仅在这里。
**These channelings are exclusively submitted to Eraoflight.com by the channeler. If you wish to share them elsewhere, please include a link back to the original post.
* * 这些频道只由通道提交给 Eraoflight.com。如果你想在其他地方分享它们，请包括一个链接回到原来的职位。