How Marx revealed the main contradiction of Facebook and how Free Masons invented Social Circles
Comment vs. Content
You read this post, meanwhile you formulate your comments to it. You might post them, you might not, it doesn’t really count. What counts is that you try to perceive and act, take and give simultaneously, and it just doesn’t work. “But, but… the writer didn’t show all the aspects of the matter, he made a mistake, I have something to add, I know it better…”
If you go through the comments on a popular media post, you will see a trend. The more popular it is, the more stupid / bad comments you will see. Many people just don’t post anything important, being afraid of bad comments. And there is a known way to destroy a social initiative — post an abnormal amount of bad comments, lies under every statement they publish.
Well, it is normal. If you go out and start telling your most inner things to the crowd on the street, what would you expect? “Reaching more people with the message” — is it a good reason for shouting it on the main square? No. So why do you do it in the social media? Why do you forget your common sense when you enter Facebook?
“You are connected only with your friends and followers” — they tell you. You know it is not true. Your online “friend” is a classmate from 20 years ago whom you didn’t like and never met since then, the uncle of your uncle, the colleague who always knows better what is good for you etc. And everybody in their circles, because your posts are public, aren’t they? ;-)
After a while more and more persons who have something to say stop posting anything, disgusted by the comments and by the fear that not the right people read their writings. In the same time, more and more stupid ones and self-made paulocoelhos take over the newsfeeds.
It is not accidental. It is planned.
The social media is not a social affair, it is you as a guest in the private house of a person you don’t know.
That house has rules and you have to live with them if you want to participate in the party.
Due to my nationality and age, I have studied Marx in school. Now his Main Contradiction of Capitalism came to my mind. It is
the contradiction between the social nature of production and private appropriation.
That’s it, honey. “The social nature of production”. We all work for free to gain profit for Facebook and Google. While saying this I already see the flow of comments putting me in the Marxist pool and my friends switching to other tabs of their browser. Well, this is the urge to classify every single event we face, to put it in a box about which we already have an opinion. One of the main pillars of today’s psychological weapons.
After all, I don’t write this to blame Mr Zuckerberg, I write it to share my thoughts with you and to find out together how to get out from the gap and how to use the gift of the internet in the way it benefits us.
Do you want to be part of the world, where posting replaces acting, opinions replace facts and comments kill the content?
If not, first turn off the comments, inside and outside. Anybody who really wants to share anything connected with your thoughts can write you a message. Thoughts sent in a letter is something different than comments left in the space. You can reflect and get connected with that person. Many famous ones have written their most interesting thoughts in letters to their friends. Comment war is something verry different.
While you read a book, you only perceive. Your imagination soars, not your ego. Try to keep this attitude.
Your circle is not the whole globe unless you are God
A closed circle is a good circle. An open circle is a crowd waiting to be manipulated
Feel the difference between commune and communism. Between connecting to God and religion. Between the good thought and the ideology. First is from person to person, second is a tool for manipulation, independently of what it was designed for originally.
Isn’t it bad enough that you have to live with laws defending not you, to pay taxes to thieves and to depend on so many things you can’t control? So why should you give your private sphere to the same people?
We are talking actually about esotery. No, not about hazy mystical things, but about the fact that anything can remain self-identical only if kept within a closed circle of people.
“The symbols of the wise are the idols of the vulgar, or else as meaningless as the hieroglyphics of Egypt to the nomadic Arabs”. Albert Pike, former Grand Commander of Scottish Rite
…Egyptian priests, whose theology was of two kinds — the one exoteric, and addressed to the people in general; the other esoteric, and confined to a select number of the priests. The study of these hidden secrets is known as esotericism, and it is absolutely the only way to truly understand the truth about our world.
The important things I have learned in my life were learned in small groups.
Yes, you have the opportunity to make closed groups in the social media, but don’t you feel a force pushing you towards making everything public? This force is the top psychological science used by the owners of the places where you live your social life. They need to gain traffic. Traffic means more posts seen by more people, more interactions.
So if you are strong enough, use Google or Facebook circles for your activities, but I would suggest doing as much as you can in real life and using smaller internet platforms for online connections.
Face-to-face is better than face-to-Facebook
Every message has two types of intensity: the intensity of its meaning and the intensity of its reception by other people.
There were some people before us here who knew everything a man needs to know and they tried to give us their knowledge. But how much did we learned from it? Well, some learned a lot, some learned nothing. Those who learned a lot didn’t learn it in school or any public space, they found their own trace to the knowledge, they built their private connection to the sources.
The intensity of your message depends on you. But it might lose most of its weight if you just throw it into the newsfeed (unless it is a cute cat. Cute cats are an exception to everything I say).
The intensity of the reception is maximal when the message is shared peer-to-peer. Your personal appearance is a larger part of your message than you can imagine.
A book is also a face-to-face message, this is why reading books can give really strong kicks. But it is difficult to assure the right reception if you talk to many and almost impossible when you do it in the marketplace. Jesus talked to the crowd, had 12 followers and only 2 women accompanying him on his last way. There are few holding his message, they are connected with him directly and there are the masses following the religion, which is a mass-manipulating business. As well as the mass media. The social media becomes the same.
So if you want your message to be really heard and your activity to be shared in a right way, you should proceed in small groups, where everything stays personal.
Sharing is personal, not social thing
Don’t you feel that sharing is overrated nowadays? Don’t you see that the discourse about sharing is mainly about posting in social media — the weakest way of sharing?
Can sharing a good time with people you love to be compared to sharing a photo of you together on Instagram? Or sharing your experience with your child to posting it in words on Facebook?
I saw a speech from Mark Zuckerberg about the future. How is this smart man seeing our future? Well, he was talking about sharing. In the future, we will have unbelievable ways to share anything. Sharing will be faster, easier etc. Business as usual. Your posts are their money. So go and share something, you son of the bitch!
It is not about social media, it is about life. The social media is its mirror — yet, but as you spend there more and more time, soon you will move there with all your baggage. It is important to move to your own house and not to the office of somebody’s company.
