One Incredible Secret

 
 
 
 
 

ONE INCREDIBLE SECRET

 

By Matt Luchi

 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION
   
Google’s English Dictionary defines consensus as: ‘a general or widespread agreement among the members of a group. It represents a collective decision or shared opinion that everyone involved finds acceptable, even if it is not every individual's absolute first choice.’ [2026]. In my opinion, most people prefer popularity to the truth – which, for clarification, means being well-liked, not well-known. In Luke 6:26 we read: 'Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so did their fathers to the false prophets' – which means that, since true biblical truth is often offensive to the world, being universally liked usually means a person is compromising their biblical convictions to keep the peace with others and fit in with a popular consensus. And yet who scrutinizes the popular people who often shape contemporary thought by compromising their integrity to fit in with a popular consensus? Who scrutinizes the popular people in your local community while it grows more and more popular to scrutinize all the bad guys being increasingly advertised to us on YouTube and TV?

     If the bible also says in Proverbs 28:21 that: ‘for a piece of bread, a man will transgress’ – meaning that for even a trivial reward, someone will act wickedly – what do you suppose most people would do in exchange for popularity? If most people in the West were being secretly incentivized to pretend to hold thoughts, opinions, and perceptions on any given subject that they didn’t really hold, they would, in essence, be controlling the flow of information through fake consensuses – which would, in essence, give them the popularity that so many people crave. It may even give them a sense of belonging, being in on this one incredible secret; a community of deception but a community nonetheless – almost like a spy network; one that may even provide a sense of superiority to those who are unaware that such a community even exists. Some people talk about pervasive narcissism like it’s a contagious mental illness, but could this just be to deflect from its true source? Could its presence in Australia and the West in fact largely stem from something as simple as being part of a secret network that shapes and controls your thoughts, opinions, and perceptions of reality through the adoption of fake beliefs, in which mass numbers of people are the news, and not the kind of news they often criticize?

     Is it not possible that millions of Australians are part of a secret and even church-affiliated network of ordinary everyday citizens working in tandem to control the world’s thinking from the ground up? All you’d have to do is have mass numbers of people in your country pretend to agree on what thoughts, opinions, and perceptions are normal and what thoughts, opinions, and perceptions are abnormal at any one time and you could essentially dictate reality by appealing to people’s innate temptation to fit in with a popular consensus and, perhaps more relevantly, avoid being seen as mentally imbalanced – even if the subject of that consensus was blatantly false. The COVID restrictions of 2020 were seemingly advertised as being backed by countless pro-left and progressive policymakers, supported by the mainstream media, contested by YouTube personalities, and enforced by numerous police officers with an existential concern for your well-being. But what if the real drivers of COVID fears were millions of our neighbours secretly working in unison as part of a wide-ranging network of fake consensuses? What if it had been the job of numerous people on the street level to fearmonger, propagandize, micromanage, overregulate, harass bystanders, and panic buy under the guise of genuine panic and concern for other people’s safety and well-being? Wouldn’t that be far more distressing news than any distressing news report on TV or YouTube?
     Otherwise, where controlling the flow of information wasn’t enough, one could theoretically reward this social network further with secret surveillance gadgetry, material goods, better houses, living arrangements, promotions, and attractive intimate partners, and thereby steer critical world narratives on the street level, such as by agreeing, in mass numbers, that ordinary everyday citizens, especially the churchgoing ones or those in respectable positions like those of allied health, are not in fact spies and actors at all, and that anyone who thinks so is suffering a mental illness – and thus depopularize such an idea through a fake consensus. Therefore, if you can control a country through fake consensuses, you can control the flow of information. And if you can control the flow of information, you can control the world. And those who control the world are the most popular, are they not? And if it turns out that the popular people in our local communities thereby control much of the world through deception, and on a broadly local level, why would we believe them when they tell us who or what to be afraid of?
     Is it the mainstream media doing all the fearmongering, or is it some of your more popular friends, family members, or intimate partners who seem to have a curious authority in your local community when it comes to what its members need to be afraid of and what its members need to dismiss as mere fearmongering on the part of the mainstream media? Are they in fact the ones who are dictating (or helping to dictate) what news is real and what news is fake in your neighbourhood? And do such friends, family members, or intimate partners only dictate the news, or could they in fact be dictating most of the thoughts, opinions, and perceptions throughout your country in general through manipulative personal relationships?
     In 2003, author and filmmaker, Michael Crichton, gave a lecture at Caltech called Aliens Cause Global Warming – which you can read at https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf. As per an excerpt from the same webpage:

     ‘In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was “responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults,” and that it “impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people.” In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. Or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second-hand smoke as a Group-A Carcinogen. This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that “Second-hand smoke is the nation’s third-leading preventable cause of death.” The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.
     In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had “committed to a conclusion before research had begun,” and had “disregarded information and made findings on selective information.”’
     I won’t debate whether second-hand smoke can cause cancer or not – though I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to support this claim – but is there absolutely no possibility that a ban on smoking exists today in so many public places simply because a popular consensus had acquired a good reason (legitimate or not) to impose such a ban? Is it not possible that the real reason for the ban is because cigarette light impairs the functionality of certain image-capturing devices while cigarette smoke interferes with various sound sensors and equipment? And could these image capturing devices and sound sensors and equipment largely be in the hands of ordinary everyday friends, family members, and intimate partners?

     Is it not possible that biometric function creep, illegal surveillance, corporate espionage, non-consensual trade secret acquisitions, cyber harassment, secret communications, illicit buying and selling, and a host of other covert activities are in fact ordinary everyday occurrences taking place in broad daylight but are being covered up by mass numbers of ordinary everyday citizens? Are the same ordinary everyday citizens not perpetually advertising their consensus-driven fears and concerns that it’s governments and companies and corporations who are doing most of the spying in the West nowadays and not themselves? And if this very question does in fact become popular, will the spying narrative be steered by popular consensuses towards some culprits but not others? Will such culprits continue to be dangled in front of our faces without any significant contestation or analyzation? Will spying continue to be blamed on the bad guys being perpetually advertised to us on YouTube and TV when any suburban neighbourhood of small business owners can form a circle of spies with modern technology?
     Is it not possible that mass numbers of men, women, and children in Australia are secretly civilian spies involved in fake consensuses and are therefore controlling the flow of information – and are therefore incentivized to keep watch on those in any given community whose thoughts, opinions, and perceptions differ from their own and may therefore pose a threat to their popularity? Because if you can control the flow of information, you can control the world.
     Finally, American journalist, Philip Meyer, pioneered what we now call precision journalism by incorporating computer-assisted data-driven social science methods in his reporting. As per a 2006 article put out by the Economist titled Who Killed The Newspaper?: ‘In his book The Vanishing Newspaper, Philip Meyer calculates that the first quarter of 2043 will be the moment when newsprint dies in America "as the last exhausted reader tosses aside the last crumpled edition".’  At one time, having partnered with the Detroit Free Press to cover the Detroit Race Riots of 1967, Meyer used a mainframe computer to reveal that, contrary to popular thinking, people who had attended college were just as likely to have participated in the riots as high school dropouts; which led to or at least helped the Detroit Free Press win the Pulitzer Prize. A proponent of pattern seeking, I like to think that Philip Meyer would have given high praise to the reiteration that ‘Pattern recognition according to IQ test designers is a key determinant of a person’s potential to think logically, verbally, numerically, and spatially. Compared to all mental abilities, pattern recognition is said to have the highest correlation with the so-called general intelligence factor (Kurzweil, 2012)’ as per Robert C. Barkman PhD’s 2018 Psychology Today article See The World Through Patterns. It's also worth noting that a popular consensus now associates pattern recognition with mental illness, namely autism.
 
     Imagine what you could do with a vast army of actors who were the news themselves. Imagine if they all ‘lovingly’ questioned your mental health in unison for believing that ordinary everyday friends, family members, and intimate partners were in fact the news themselves. Imagine hundreds of millions of people all ‘agreed’ that a conspiracy gets more and more impossible to keep secret the more people are in on it – despite Solomon Asch's Conformity Experiments (1951), and The "Smoke-Filled Room" Experiment (1968), and a host of other sociological evidence that’s apparently lost on the average Joe (or Josh) – at least when it’s not popular to remember it. And how do you think mass numbers of ordinary everyday citizens questioning your mental health in unison would effect your ability to discern truth from lies? Are most people persuaded and dissuaded by simple truths, or are most people persuaded and dissuaded by their own friends, family members, and intimate partners? With that in mind, imagine if mass numbers of such people had roles to play in their day to day lives at any one time to perpetuate the 'real' news. Imagine if they all ‘believed,’ at one point, that COVID was the new plague and then ‘changed their minds’ about how dangerous it was only after certain societal restrictions took effect, sociological experiments were conducted, policymaking came into effect, and various other activities took place on the street level that were largely under the radar, or blamed on the government or corporations or specific individuals instead of ordinary everyday citizens.

     If controlling the flow of information in fact breeds rampant narcissism, you could, theoretically, have mass numbers of narcissists pretending to be narcissism experts or therapists to advertise its symptomatology as largely stemming from mental illnesses, family dynamics, or various other obscure concepts to disguise its true source and origin. You could also have many other narcissists pretending to care about victims of narcissistic abuse in the church while in fact relegating narcissistic abuse to only some offenders while downplaying the idea of mass numbers of them. You could even blame ordinary everyday narcissistic spying on flock cameras and online hackers and nebulous unwanted apps and jilted lovers prudish Karens and nosey neighbours and technological trends and various other ‘threats’ being introduced by countries, governments, and corporations to shape your thoughts, opinions, and perceptions of what narcissism 'really' is and where it 'really' comes from. 
     You could likewise deflect from the scrutiny of ordinary everyday friends, family members, and intimate partners by having some women pretending to be ‘Karens’ to represent female narcissism, as well as film harassment from various Karens around the world and keep uploading the footage to YouTube nonstop – because apparently such footage is what the more allistic, neurotypical thinker is clamouring for – to shift your focus towards specific stereotypes instead of a vast population of popular, well-liked, well-spoken, middle-class and small business-owning men and women in your local community. After all, who is going to ask the latest Karen, whether on YouTube or in your local community, if they're just pretending to be nosey and aggressive as part of a widespread, real time disinformation campaign to advertise – on the street level (or the local level) – what narcissism really is and why it's 'not' in fact a deeply embedded symptom of a much larger, interconnected community? On the street level, you could also have many other self-important stereotypes roaming the streets at any one time so that your narcissistic friend, family member, or intimate partner could point them out to you in public and advertise their disapproval, as narcissists often do of behaviour that they themselves engage in, to perpetuate such consensus-driven news in real time. With that in mind, if popularity is in fact what narcissists truly crave the most, and it’s not in fact popular to spy on or harass people in Australia, what do you suppose this country would look like if it were? Who then would be the New Bad Guys in the West for mass numbers of people to point to and ostensibly disapprove of, as mass numbers of people tend to do? And do you suppose, in such a scenario, that such Bad Guys would be advertised to us nearly as often as they are today by ordinary everyday citizens?

     Otherwise, whenever the latest issue makes headlines in this country, does it ever feel like mass numbers of ordinary everyday friends, family members, or intimate partners suddenly seem to want to express their concerns about it, critique it, or ask you how you feel about it yourself? And if you do feel this way, do you believe it’s because so many people are genuinely absorbed in the latest issues? Are the people in your life truly and deeply embedded in current affairs? Do they really enjoy passing the time with small talk about the latest sociopolitical thing that dominates the daily airtime? Or are they simply helping to steer world narratives on the street level where, to reiterate, the voice of a friend or a loved one is far more likely to shape your thoughts, opinions, and perceptions of reality?
     With respect to second-hand smoke causing cancer, a friend, family member, or intimate partner might now be saying that they either don’t agree with the premise, or that they do, or that they once supported it but have since changed their minds about it and vice versa. But what about ordinary everyday citizens who pretend to adamantly agree or disagree with something the moment it makes headlines throughout your country, and then seem to change their minds about it further down the track? Is it not possible that millions of ordinary everyday Australians are being incentivized to temporarily push ideas, thoughts, opinions, perceptions, slogans, propaganda, and fearmongering to create an effective distraction issue on the street level, steer sociopolitical narratives in certain directions, or until secretly participating in as much results in policymaking on a local level where it affects you the most – at which point they can then change their minds about it, or blame the government or the media for ‘making’ them feel afraid or angry enough to support it? Do people have the ability to pretend to be afraid or angry? Can people be walking billboards without the billboard? On that note, was it the advertised health warnings that caused mass numbers of people to quit smoking or did mass numbers of them simply quit?
     If astroturfing [defined by Google’s 2026 English Dictionary as ‘deceptive practice of creating the false appearance of a spontaneous, grassroots movement. By hiding the true corporate or political sponsors, organizations use multiple fake identities, paid influencers, or automated bots to manipulate public opinion and manufacture a false sense of consensus’] can effect social change through deceptive means, can ordinary everyday Australians not effect social change themselves by 'changing their minds' all the time about what you need to worry about and what you don’t need to worry about? And have you ever asked a friend, family member, or intimate partner who likes to express their fears or criticisms about the latest sociopolitical issue if they’re just pretending to hold such a view? Have you ever asked them if they’re just participating in a widespread disinformation campaign designed to shape your thoughts, opinions, and perceptions? And if you haven’t, is it because a popular consensus among friends, family members, and intimate partners has decided that only mentally imbalanced people believe such things? Is it because you don’t want to be perceived as mentally ill? Is it because ordinary everyday Australians either don’t do this sort of thing, or that those who do are only specific types of individuals that we see perpetually advertised to us on YouTube and TV? Does Proverbs 28:21 only apply to the people that our ordinary everyday friends, family members, and intimate partners express their disapproval of?
     As per the aforementioned Global Warming lecture, Crichton had this to say: ‘Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
     There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
     In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.
     In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
     There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor—southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result—despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.’
     At the risk of sounding repetitive, I propose that the best way to control the news [the flow of information] is on the street level among your friends, family members, and intimate partners. Consider the current prostitution narrative. While I don’t particularly care how women (and men) choose to live their own lives, what we rarely see are popular, well-dressed, and well-spoken small business-owning or middle-class prostitutes being interviewed on YouTube or TV. Is that because prostitution doesn't pay well, or because mass numbers of people want you to believe that prostitution doesn't pay well? Is it because the greater part of Western civilization simply doesn't engage in prostitution, or because it's not popular to [openly] practice it in so-called Christian nations? What if most prostitutes in Australia frequently advertised their services in broad daylight without fear of exposure? What if they used hidden apps on their phones and communicated their services through a hidden language? What if prostitution was in fact far more common in Australia and the West than what a popular consensus seems to dictate? What if brothel-workers and tattoo-covered stereotypes and influencers with heavy makeup and cosmetic work were largely just actors taking part in a widespread, 24/7 disinformation campaign designed to shape your thoughts, opinions, and perceptions of what prostitutes 'really' look like and how prostitutes 'really' live, work, and act? What if such stereotypes were being continually advertised to Western societies on YouTube and TV to obfuscate, distract us from, and cover up the true extent of the industry?

     According to an online article put out by The Guardian in 2015: ‘More than 70% of UK sex workers have previously worked in healthcare, education or charities, while more than a third hold university degrees, according to one of the largest surveys of the industry ever undertaken.’ And scrolling down the page, we read: ‘The study of 240 sex workers – including 196 women, 28 men and 12 transgender people – focused on those who were not trafficked or coerced into selling sex but had chosen to do so, and most worked from within premises rather than on the streets.
     Of those surveyed, 172 (71%) had previously worked in health, social care, education, childcare or charities. The second most common former area of employment was retail, with 81 people (33.7%) having worked in the industry.’ Do you think it's worth asking why the tattoo-covered or impoverished or cosmetically enhanced prostitutes we always see and hear about are often current prostitutes while those prostitutes who are popular and well-presented with middle-class or high income backgrounds always seem to be former middle-class or high income earners? Is it not possible to work in health, social care, education, childcare, charities, or retail, and be a prostitute at the same time? And if so, how often do these individuals appear on YouTube or TV? And do you foresee, anytime in the near future, mass numbers of people inquiring as to why the two most popular consensuses with respect to prostitution is that it is either a desperate woman's occupation or those with attention-seeking issues?

     What if sex was being secretly and continually bought and sold out of tens of thousands of respectable public venues and businesses across the state of Victoria alone, including family cafés, restaurants, and churches, by way of hidden phrases and coded languages? What if sex work was being secretly and continually censored, denied, downplayed, and covered up by popular consensuses on the street level because prostitution is still seen as an unpopular profession for respectable women to have in most Western societies, particularly those where Christianity is, ostensibly, the most respectable religion, despite Christ Himself declaring that it has never and will never be popular?
     What if extroversion was a myth concocted, or even hijacked by the aforementioned wide-ranging social network to disguise a lot of superficial conversations you observe in your day-to-day life that were in fact secret communications? What if such communications were firewalled by, among other things, friendly suggestions from friends, family members, and intimate partners that you may be suffering a mental illness for simply believing that such a network even exists? Do a lot of ordinary everyday ‘extroverts’ at the office really enjoy endless small talk about nothing, or are they simply engaging in conversations that you’re just not privy to? Are most people truly stimulated by mundane topics like the weather, or are they in fact communicating in a hidden language; sharing news, trading in information, issuing veiled threats, or engaging in prostitution in broad daylight without fear of exposure and judgment from true Christians or those with a high moral code? Finally, if this implied reality was in fact the true reality of Australia and West, what do you think would ultimately dictate the contemporary thought with respect to extroversion? Facts? Or a popular consensus among the popular extroverts whom so many people seem to put their trust in? On that note, do you think true Christians have any reason at all to be ‘extroverted’ in a world that hates, persecutes, or excludes them for their alleged Christian views and values? Since when does mass hatred, persecution, and exclusion make one bubblier and more outgoing and more talkative and more interested in superficial conversations?
     Furthermore, whenever spousal prostitution becomes local or even international news, can you explain why the blame largely falls on the man, or that the woman was tricked or ‘pressured’ into it? Can you explain why elsewhere it seems that the man or the woman was entirely responsible instead of both of them at the same time? Wouldn’t blaming one gender or the other perpetuate the men vs women war, help superimpose and embed the ‘toxic man’ or the ‘feminist woman’ firmly into your psyche, and create a massive distraction issue that deflects from ordinary everyday spousal prostitution taking place in your own neighbourhood among the popular people therein? And when was the last time a single wealthy and married prostitute appeared on TV or YouTube? Is it not remotely odd that that the prostitutes who do so rarely look like the popular, respectable, and well-dressed married women in our local communities with stable jobs and nice houses? If secret spousal prostitution was in fact a very common practice among the middle-class (and above) in Australia, wouldn't it necessitate such couples loudly criticizing or looking down on this lifestyle or 'feeling sorry' for the stereotypical ones who practice it openly, since the open practice of spousal prostitution will diminish one's respectability and popularity in what is popularly called a Christian nation? Otherwise, what do you suppose will ultimately dictate the contemporary thought with respect to spousal prostitution? Facts? Or a popular consensus?

     And where sex-for-rent is being painted as a preoccupation of mass numbers of sleazy men exploiting increasingly impoverished and virtuous women, the idea of ordinary everyday middle class females, especially those in ‘committed relationships’, eagerly prostituting their bodies in secret arrangements that result in their swanky accommodation still seems to be a widely irrational notion to some people – and perhaps the most suppressed notion in Western history where, again, it's mostly the unpopular and impoverished wives and intimate partners who engage in prostitution and rarely the popular and materialistic ones in your local community. Otherwise, as per the United Press International webpage found here: www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/08/18/Two-charged-with-sex-for-rent-extortion/72321282182590/: ‘FAIRFAX, Va., Aug. 18 (UPI) -- Two women face charges after allegedly trying to extort money from a landlord by blackmailing him in a sex-for-rent scheme, Fairfax County, Va., police said.’ With that in mind, what do you suppose will end up dictating the contemporary thought with respect to sex-for-rent arrangements? Facts? Or a popular consensus?

     I don’t bring up prostitution to pick on women (or men). For the most part, I bring it up to suggest that if prostitution was in fact one of the most common professions in Australia and the West but was being covered up by mass numbers of mostly [apparent] Christian friends, family members, and intimate partners, and through a technological means, such as hidden apps and coded languages, then perhaps the same mass numbers are using the very same numbers, technology, and languages to cover up various other activities taking place in broad daylight and in [apparent] Christian nations without your knowledge. In any event, it would seem that, for many people, mass prostitution remains a thing confined to the past with the mass Hittites and the mass Babylonians and the mass Greeks and the mass Romans and the mass brothel-workers of the middle ages and the Victorian Era and that it simply doesn’t exist on such a massive scale anymore because we have such mass populations of professing Christians in the West; something that does more to stoke one’s curiosity than deter it since, again, true Christianity has never, and will never be popular in this world. But since we live in a country with rising infidelity rates, rising std rates, rising needs to travel the world, rising needs for more luxurious lifestyles, and the internet… do you think it’s possible that the world’s oldest profession may in fact be one of its most common? Or will the popular and respectable men and women in your local community forever associate prostitution with the advertised men and women and not the local popular and respectable men and women (particularly those in committed relationships?)

 
 
 
WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE…
   
If the truth has never been popular in this world, why is the truth so popular today? If people have hated the truth for about 6,000 years, why is it so loved and embraced in contemporary society? Why are truth-telling friends, family members, and intimate partners so popular in their local communities if telling the truth largely alienates you from society and makes you a social outcast; which usually entails mass exclusion from job opportunities that often require those with more ‘flexible’ morals? And where whistleblowing used to be a risky move in the corporate world, now it seems to be a celebrated pastime. In fact, it seems like everyone is the quintessential whistleblower in their local community nowadays. Everyone is the Christian and the whistleblower and the activist and the champion of free speech and the defender of women’s rights and the advocate for sex trafficking victims and the protester on the street and the anti-state corruption watchdog and the thorn in the side of the local council and something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Whether we all sometimes do the wrong thing or not, we can’t all want to do the right thing, can we? Because if we did, we wouldn’t be so popular, would we?
     I wish to state emphatically that any support I’ve given to Dietrich Bonhoeffer or his works in the past was extremely misguided on my part. To put it simply, he was bible teacher who taught unbiblical teachings, including the teaching that Christianity is not the only way to God [Testament to Freedom, 1990, p53] when Jesus Christ Himself said in John 14:6 that: ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And no-one comes to the Father except through Me.’ [To read more scriptural errors on Bonhoeffer’s part, please visit www.wayoflife.org/reports/dietrich_bonhoeffer.php – adapted in part from a paper by Don Jasmin].
     Jesus also said in John 15:18-20 that: ‘If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, “A servant is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also.’ How many Christians in Australia do you think are presently being persecuted for their Christian beliefs? Do you think some Christians in our supposed Christian nations may in fact be facing far more regular persecution, exclusion, criticisms, harassment, stonewalling, and customer service issues than most others? And do you think it’s possible that a secret technology exists in the hands of ordinary everyday citizens that can accurately tell the difference between true Christians and fake ones? Otherwise, we see hatred towards true Christians again in Matthew 10:22: ‘And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.’ And 2 Timothy 3:12 clearly states that: ‘All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.’ A godly life, though far from perfect, usually involves speaking the truth – which usually invites persecution, not popularity; which is why true Christians will never be popular in this world. Is there, therefore, nothing strange about the fact that Jesus Christ and His alleged followers seem to be so popular today?
     To reiterate, true Christians are far from perfect. King David was a true Christian and yet he committed adultery, murder, and conspiracy to murder [2 Samuel 11-12]. But true Christians are distinct in that, while we are still tempted to sin, we usually don’t want to sin due to having been redeemed by Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice on the cross [Romans 6:6-7, 2 Corinthians 5:17, 1 John 3:9]. A hypocrite or a fake Christian, on the other hand, knows perfectly well that they are not who they say they are – and yet is blinded by their own pride and self-righteousness. With that in mind, could much of the ‘self-confidence’ you observe among so many alleged Christians simply be their collective sense of superiority that stems from being part of a secret and widespread network of similarly fake Christians who all cover for each other, lie for one another, and protect each other’s 'Christian' reputations? Could their sense of superiority also be tied to their control of the flow of information? And could it also be the result of being rewarded for doing so with a variety of hidden technological, relational, or monetary rewards?
     Narcissists are typically those who present a kind face to the world so long as their popularity remains intact. And since popularity is what narcissists crave more than anything, do you think it’s possible that, given that Christianity seems to be the most popular religion in the West, most people who call themselves Christians in this country are in fact narcissists in disguise? Do you think the ones who really control the flow of information in this country could be mostly professing Christians with no real connection to Jesus Christ at all?
     One way a narcissist typically deflects a question regarding their personal integrity is to question your mental health for doing so. One such answer to the question of whether they have carried out some wrongdoing [that they don’t want to admit] is to use clever word and tone combinations, such as by saying, in a deeply hurt or concerned tone of voice: ‘What?! Why would I do a thing like that?!’ And this is usually spoken with such intense depth of feeling that its effect is threefold: it makes the questioner feel mentally imbalanced for even asking such a question, it dissuades the questioner from asking the same question again, and it doesn’t answer the question.
     Another way that a narcissist deflects such a question is by calling it a strange question – which, again, has the effect of making you feel strange or mentally imbalanced. If you were to ask a narcissistic hypocrite posing as a Christian ‘Are you a fake Christian?’ or even something much simpler like ‘Can I trust you?’, you may find that ‘Christian’ friends, family members, and intimate partners become suddenly shocked and confused at how you could even ask them such a question instead of actually answering it. Therefore, if most people don’t want to feel mentally imbalanced, and most people will in fact make you feel mentally imbalanced for questioning their integrity, could such a tactic be why mass numbers of ordinary everyday citizens are getting away with being perceived as Christians?
     I would ask the same question with respect to crisis actors. If a popular consensus has decreed that only mentally imbalanced people believe that crisis actors are participating in staged events and scripted social simulations on YouTube and TV to steer sociopolitical narratives and/or usher in aggressive or even passive policymaking in Australia and the West at large, then just how many people would [openly] admit to such a belief themselves if such a belief remains unpopular and invites persecution and ostensible mental scrutiny? On that note, when was the last time any pastor in Victoria ever mentioned crisis actors from the pulpit or even publicly acknowledged the possibility that fake Christians or even apolitical and atheistic individuals could in fact be participating in such events? And what do you suppose will end up dictating the contemporary thought with respect to crisis actors? Facts? Or a popular consensus?
     Otherwise, the bible clearly states that few people are true Christians because most people reject Jesus Christ as their Saviour and therefore have no interest in rejecting sin. Consider the following bible passages: In Luke 6:46, Jesus said: ‘“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!”’ And in 1 Peter 3:20 we read: ‘who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.’ Eight out of… how many people were in the world at the time of the Great Flood? Lastly, in Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus said: ‘“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”’ Few. Not many. So, how many people identify as Christians in your local community? Few? Or many? And if the bible also says that Satan controls the world’s many [including the many in Australia and the West], why would the few true Christians therein ever call their country a ‘Christian nation’ when there are no Christian nations on Earth and never will be? [John 12:31, John 14:30, John 16:11, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians 2:2, 1 John 5:19]. And just how many Christians describe their countries as Christian nations? Few? Or Many?

   Furthermore, 1 Peter 2:11 describes Christians as strangers and aliens on this planet because of our desire to please God with our behaviour, and in 1 Corinthians 4:13 we read: ‘being defamed, we entreat. We have been made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things until now.’ Is that how you would describe the average Christian in your local community? The offscouring of all things or the popular fixture in your neighbourhood, town, or even city? If living a godly life for Jesus Christ invites alienation, persecution, and even hostility at times, then why are so many Christians in this country so loved and respected and popular in their neighbourhoods?
     In Matthew 22:37-40 we read: ‘Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”’ Although we are not commanded to like everyone or do things to make people happy, we are told to want people to be happy without wanting anything in return – which is called selfless love; which is what true biblical love looks like. Irrespective of the vast number of alleged Christian charities, churches, groups, and other organizations in Australia, do you think if you counted all the Christians in this country who wanted you to be happy without wanting anything in return that you would come up with a significantly high number?

     In 1 John 3:10-15, we read: ‘In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous. Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.’ And in 1 John 4:20-21, it says: ‘If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.’
     Now compare this 1 John 2:15-29 which says: ‘Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.’ The lust of the eyes occurs when we see something visually that incites covetousness, jealousy, or sexual lust. The lust of the flesh is those fleshly desires that have the potential to rule over us and take priority over God’s will in our lives. And the pride of life is the desire in every human being to be his or her own god, resulting in arrogance, self-promotion, and greed. Do you know any Christians who seem to love things like money, material goods, certain relationships, or even… popularity more than Jesus Christ who apparently destroyed the grip that these things had on their lives when He supposedly purchased them through His death and resurrection? And do you think mass numbers of people could simply be pretending that He did – and often in dramatic ways with flamboyant ‘religious’ speech or behaviour? With respect to narcissistic and hypocritical fake Christians, Titus 1:16 says that: ‘They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.’ So, how many Christians do you think may love the things in the world more than they love you? Few? Or many?
     Compare this with 1 John 2:3-4 which says that: ‘Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.’ Are most professing Christians who claim to be tempted to sin true Christians or are they simply people who prefer to sin and don’t want to please God at all? Are they in fact posing as Christians like those of whom Jesus referred to in Matthew 15:8-9 when He said: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’?
     Since his death, Bonhoeffer has become one of the most popular Christian figures in modern history, with many schools and streets named after him. There have been numerous written works, studies, lectures, and seminars dedicated to his life and person, as well as statues, sculptures, and monuments erected in his honour, including a French Richemont limestone likeness of him added to the Modern Martyrs above the Great West Door of Westminster Abbey in London. While there also exists many statues of Peter, Paul, and the other apostles of Jesus Christ throughout the world, the mere fact that there are so many remains curious to me because Christianity, again, has never and will never be popular in this world – the world even put Christ and His disciples to death as a testimony to this fact. Is there, therefore, nothing strange about the fact that so many Christians are so honoured today?
     Why are there so many Christians in the world today? Why are there so many popular Christians in the world today? Why do so many Christians today seem to love the things in the world more than they love you? Why do so many Christians describe their countries as Christian nations? Why do so many Christians form and keep unbiblical relationships when the bible says not to? Is it because mass numbers of people are simply led astray? Is it because mass numbers of people simply fall into sin like King David did? Or could it be that there are mass numbers of people in this world who never were what we thought they were to begin with?
    
     For those who have never heard the term before, ecumenical means: ‘promoting or relating to unity, cooperation, or worldwide harmony, particularly among different Christian denominations.’ [Google’s English Dictionary 2026]. It can also mean "worldwide" or "general in extent". It comes from the ancient Greek word oikoumene [OY-KOO-MEN-AY] which translates to ‘the whole inhabited world.’ As per the webpage www.astudyofdenominations.com/movements/ecumenism: ‘The founding members of ecumenism include many Wesleyan churches, primarily Methodists, along with Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), historic Calvinist churches (United Church of Christ, Presbyterian Church, Reformed churches), many Anabaptist groups, Pietists, some Quaker groups, and The Salvation Army represent Protestant groups also allied with the ecumenical movement.
     While the Roman Catholic Church was leery of the movement from 1919 through 1949, the church reversed itself, and beginning in 1961 fully participated in ecumenism. Eastern Orthodoxy and many of the first millennium splinter groups (Church of the East, Syrian Orthodox Church, Coptic church) have also participated in the movement.
     Many groups aligned with the Evangelical movement (Baptists, some Holiness groups, and many Pentecostal groups) are suspicious of the liberal Protestant-based ecumenical movement and have little to do with the World Council of Churches and its attendant ecumenical dialogues. Such churches, however, practice their own brand of ecumenism among themselves, as discussed within Evangelicalism.’
     While a Christian should want unity with other Christians, they should also want to reject, as a false unity, ecumenism or unity in any form with non-evangelical versions of Christianity, those having a different doctrine of salvation, and a basis of doctrinal authority other than the bible. This means that a true Christian should have nothing to do with Catholicism, for example, since it teaches, among other things, a different doctrine of salvation [salvation apart from simple faith in Jesus Christ alone – Ephesians 2:8-9] and has an extrabiblical doctrinal authority [seven additional books besides the Bible]. According to the National Catholic Reporter [ncronline.org – 2015]: ‘In 1942, Clements notes, Bonhoeffer returned to Rome, and it was evidence "of a most remarkable feature of his life while a resister: a growing engagement with Roman Catholic life and thought, more serious and profound than ever before in his career."’ The same article states that: ‘Bonhoeffer later said he thought more than once about becoming Catholic, but he remained true to his Lutheran heritage.’
     A rejection of simple faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning work on the cross makes one an unbeliever, regardless of the specific religion they outwardly identify with, and 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 clearly says: ‘Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?’ This means that true Christians should not be uniting with unbelievers in marriages and business partnerships – and friendships, if they are a bad influence – because they draw true Christians away from a morally pure lifestyle and causes them to compromise their Christian values for the sake of unity with such people. Obviously, this means that true Christians should not be uniting in such a manner with Catholics – and yet how many alleged Christians continue to do just that? Few? Or many?
     As per the 2026 webpage www.oikoumene.org/news/dietrich-bonhoeffer-critical-prophet-of-the-ecumenical-movement, Bonhoeffer’s views of ecumenicalism were entirely favourable: ‘The ecumenical movement and the Confessing Church, he said, needed one another. In this paper, he forged an understanding of ecumenism as churches and Christians in the oikoumene engaging in a common witness to the truth of Christ, in which their interdependence is crucial, summed up in one glorious sentence: “It [the ecumenical movement] is not an ideal that has been set up but a commandment and a promise – it is not high‐minded implementation of one's own goals that is required but obedience.”’ As a side note, it’s important to understand that the word Church in the bible refers to the body of true Christians in the world – not a physical building.
     Although I can’t speak to the entirety of the ecumenical movement of Bonhoeffer’s day, ecumenism or ecumenicalism usually and more broadly unites both Christians and Catholics and aims to have a more ‘inclusive’ church as opposed to the true, exclusive Christianity which it ironically often claims to represent. Where Christ promised His true followers a life on the narrow road marked by persecution and loneliness, modern-day ecumenicalism seems to involve a broad number of supposed Christian churches, groups, and denominations. This is not just a play on words – in Australia alone, 43% of people identify as Christians as per the Australian Bureau of Statistics [2022]. Does that sound like a lonely number of people to you? Today, we are to understand that the role of Christians in Nazi Germany was largely one of sympathy for the Jews and revulsion towards a vile and racist regime, but could there have been other machinations going on that we just don’t know about? Could there have been a secret agenda among the ecumenical movement of Bonhoeffer’s day to replace the Nazi control apparatus with that of a popular ‘Christian’ one? To have fake Christians presiding over Germany as its new government while pretending to care about the Jews? On that note, do you think if you counted all the Christians in Australia that you might come up with a much higher number than the latest quote from the ABS or any other statistics website? And do you think a desire for popularity might be behind their ‘beliefs’ being that Christianity (outwardly) seems to be the most popular religion in this country? 
     Another set of questions that seems to get passed over every state and federal election in Australia again revolves around the interconnectedness of supposed Christians with the secular society that supposedly rejects them as their supposed Lord made clear in the bible – hearkening back to Bonhoeffer’s soft spot for courting worldwide ecumenical contacts. So, my questions then become: can just any Christian tour a public school to hand out bibles or gospel tracts? Can just any Christian teach at a popular Christian school? Can just any Christian preach at a university or TAFE campus? Can just any Christian be an open-air preacher on the street? Can just any Christian be invited to debate sociopolitical issues in a secular forum? Can just any Christian be invited to speak at a sizable conference or event where many and not a few Christians are supposedly gathered together in His name? Can just any Christian start a grassroots Christian movement – and can true Christian movements even become popular in secular societies? Can just any Christian help out in your local electorate or voting centre? Can just any Christian run for any public office? And can just any Christian be honoured at an award ceremony? Was Christ honoured on Earth when the people discovered what He really stood for or did they kill Him for it because it threatened the popularity of the ruling class and shattered the popular expectations of mass numbers of Jews? Lastly, do you think there could be an underlying endeavour in the West to accept and prop up some Christians but not others to control the flow of information?
     I would ask roughly the same set of questions with respect to the New Media. Can just anyone be a popular YouTuber? Can just anyone have a large following? Can just anyone comment on a YouTuber's videos to challenge their perspectives? Can just any sex trafficking victim be interviewed on YouTube? Can just anyone audit the police? Can just anyone film their public confrontation with a boss, manager, mayor, union leader, council member, public official, or state leader? Can just anyone be a political commentator? Can just anyone analyse sociopolitical trends, do a deep dive into ordinary everyday topics, be a conspiracy theorist, or attempt to debunk or lend credence to conspiracy theories? Can just anyone appear in a sociopolitical debate or answer questions in an interview regarding current social or political issues? Can just anyone share their opinion of the source, origin, and meaning of gang stalking? Can just any gang stalking victim appear on YouTube? Can just any opinion about gang stalking become popular on social media? Can just anyone report the death of an activist or a whistleblower? For that matter, can activists, whistleblowers, and good samaritans fake their own deaths to terrify and dissuade genuine activists, whistleblowers, and good samaritans from speaking out or exposing wrongdoing, elevate the platforms of those who report such ‘deaths,’ as well as engineer your trust in such reporters?

     Can just any YouTuber criticize other YouTubers? Can just anyone challenge the thoughts, opinions, or perceptions of New Media personalities? And have you ever asked two quarrelling, disputing, or debating YouTubers if they’re just pretending to be for or against one another to support each other’s platforms and augment one another’s subscribers? And is there nothing strange about countless YouTubers’ constant and repeated attacks and criticisms of the mainstream media and their alleged influence over your mind when it’s YouTubers who seem to be holding a greater share of influence in the West when it comes to dispensing the real news? For that matter, are only some opinions about a simulated world or a simulated West allowed on YouTube and Reddit and all other social media platforms to shape the thoughts, opinions, and perceptions about a simulated reality?
     One thing they didn’t feel it necessary to teach us in Sunday school was that one of the best ways to make someone afraid is not to tell them that something terrifying is about to happen, but to tell them that it could be about to happen. What? Why would I do a think like that? Because if you can control the flow of information, you can control the world. And apparently ours was meant to end as early as the stroke of midnight in the year 2000, wherein the dreaded Y2K bug, the other-other pandemic, was being advertised by ordinary everyday citizens as something that could crawl its way out of just about every television screen in the world and create worldwide pandemonium. In fact, could could have even been the most widely used phrase at the time, followed closely by prepared, maybe, and just in case. And not just on the part of the mainstream media – ordinary everyday citizens who happened to bump into a news camera crew on their way to purchase food items and supplies for the big could be seemed just as intent on treating the impending new year as something that could rival a natural disaster and be nothing at the same time – in sometimes strikingly equal parts.
     Many media outlets even repeatedly publicised various religious people devoting themselves to prayer – and not because there was anything to worry about, of course, but because praying about an event that’s definitely not cause for concern necessitates the production of news articles and footage of said people devoting themselves to prayer in accordance with a defining spirit of mutual ambivalence. As to the broader coverage of the big could be, it goes without saying that if there was ever a more compelling case for fair and even-handed journalism, the mainstream media certainly delivered on this premise. Today, the Y2K bug seems to be doing the rounds again on social media platforms, and it now appears that the mainstream media’s official retroactive position thereof is that there was definitely some degree of panic about the Y2K because a lot of ordinary everyday citizens thought it could be the end of the world. I’m beginning to agree. Coming up after the break, we’ll let you know how your mobile phone could be giving you a rare form of catatonia. Don’t go anywhere.
     But on a broader level, where even public officials themselves remained confident that they weren’t sure if absolutely nothing was going to happen beyond 2000, word on the street is that something could have happened – a vast amount of ordinary everyday companies that sold bunkers full of toilet paper, guns, ammunition, food items, canned goods, bottled water, batteries, flashlights, tents, and various other camping supplies conducive to surviving what could be the end of the world could have made record sales and an unimaginable fortune. Furthermore, in a world full of approximately 6.1 billion people [at the time], are we to understand that in the years leading up to the big could be there couldn’t have been mass numbers of ordinary everyday grifters on the street level? Were there relatively few scam artists arrested around this time for handing out ‘cheap’ [fake] coupons for food shopping? Were there relatively few friendly couples in various neighbourhoods offering ‘free’ Y2K-compliance upgrades while they hacked computers or stole from houses? Were there relatively few ‘Christian’ charities going around asking for donations for poor countries whose entire economy depended on ‘currently non-compliant’ computer systems before skipping town? My primary question is this: could grifting be an ordinary everyday occurrence on the street level but is being covered up by a vast network of ordinary everyday street actors?
      Still and all, aside from a few minor power station glitches in Japan and various other global nonissues, all was relatively quiet on New Year’s Day with perhaps the exception of those who had already suggested that the Y2K bug was a worldwide con foisted upon us – the same people who would presumably go on to adopt a more astute level of vigilance in the future. The next 26 years would, after all, consist of camera phones [2000], the invasion of Iraq [2003], Philip Meyer’s The Vanishing Newspaper [2004], the appearance of Facebook [2004], YouTube [2005], Twitter [2006], the largest recorded hole in the ever-looming ozone layer [2006], improved smartphones [2007], the Quarter Pounder burger unveiled in Osaka [2008], WhatsApp [2009], Instagram [2010], another end of the world [2012], surveillance leaks [2013], a rise in citizen journalism [2015], Fake News [2016], TikTok [2016], going down the rabbit hole [2017], 5G technology [2018], Australia’s most destructive bushfires in history [2019], a global pandemic and the rollout of vaccines [2020], Australia’s costliest flood in history [2022], all culminating in 60% of Australians making the internet their primary source of news [Roy Morgan – 2020], online platforms overtaking TV channels as the most popular sources for news among adults in the UK at 71% [The Guardian – 2024], 56% of Americans preferring to get their news from a digital device [Pewresearch – 2025], with Facebook [1], WhatsApp [2], Instagram [3], YouTube [4], and TikTok [5] so ranked as the five most popular social media platforms [Statista – 2025], and of course, the 78^th Anniversary of Shirley Jackson’s 1948 short story The Lottery about the potential dangers of blindly following popular trends [2026]. And if you think that only some information is allowed to be popular on social media platforms and other information is not, please see your doctor.

 
  
…WHO NEEDS ENEMIES?
    
We walk among them in our day-to-day lives; men, women, and even children who look like they own the place; people who walk down the street as if it were their own backyard. People who come across more like friendly bouncers and security guards than anything else, but security nonetheless; purveyors of knowledge, and delegates of information – even in their circle of friends. People who often feel the need to gatekeep and control the course of any given conversation, topic, subject, or focus matter when it presents itself in discussions among your friends, family, and workmates. People who seem to instinctively know how to handle themselves in just about every single social situation; and often tell you how to act too. People who often caution you to be wary of some strangers while often not exercizing such wariness around others. People who in fact regularly interact with strangers in such a profoundly calm way that you swear they could secretly know each other – and whom you may have even envied numerous times throughout your own life for their poise and supposed self-confidence. People who in fact rather enjoy giving advice on how to be self-confident. People who always seem to have all the answers to all of your insecurities and problems and conflicts you have with bullies at work, at home, or at church. Is there a deeply hidden reason for this? Could most people’s self-confidence stem from the fact that they are part of a simulated reality of continual and widespread disinformation campaigns on the part of street level actors and therefore know perfectly well which situations, conflicts, social interactions, and public confrontations are real and which ones are scripted for the sake of shaping thoughts, opinions, and perceptions to control the flow of information?
     Could much of the ‘self-confidence’ you’ve observed among the Australian people [and the West in general] be largely due to their having been secretly united into a considerably large-scale ecumenical family of mostly fake Christians? Could their profound calmness, poise, grace, and effortless social interactions be largely the result of having been plugged in to a covert and radical astroturfing network of citizens who secretly all know each other, either by sight or by way of a hidden technology, and are immediately alerted when someone who isn’t part of this network is in their vicinity? Could this explain why bullies pick on some Christians while others seem to remain loved and popular? Could it explain why some people in your neighbourhood are treated like royalty for ‘having been born in the area’ (or some other street level advertisement) while other longstanding community members face more persistent scrutiny, alleged suspicion, criticisms, exclusion, stonewalling, and even hostility – but for 'good' reasons?

     Could this proposed technology be one of the reasons behind so much supposed self-confidence? Could such technology alert prospective employers when a genuine Christian or someone with a high moral code applies for a position with their company? Could it enable men and women to receive something of a covert instant message or notification to their brain or person when someone of the opposite sex is checking them out in public or is interested in them – and let them know which ones were and were not interested in relationships, casual hook-ups, sugar dating, as well as which ones would be willing to help cover up the more unpopular interpersonal relationships through more popular and socially acceptable ‘committed relationships’? Could it also alert women of nearby men in the area who have a high moral code and are not interested in premarital sex? And could this explain why some women seem to have a problem with some ‘random’ men, casual acquaintances, or neighbours? Could their alleged fear, suspicions, distrust, or anger towards some men and not others simply be disguising their contempt for those who have rejected them sexually as we saw in Genesis 39:6-18 – and magically don’t seem to see or hear about at all today unless it's only some women and not others? And do the women in your life who like to advertise some men for any ‘creepy,’ ‘sexist,’ or ‘antisocial’ behaviours criticize all men for such behaviours or just some of them? Do they criticize their popular male friends, family members, intimate partners, or workmates for such behaviour or just the unpopular, ethical loners and social outcasts who can’t exclude them from popular society for their behaviour because they don’t have the capacity to? Are such women critical of many? Or few?

     Could some of these proposals explain the sheer amount of cheating going on in Australia and the West right now? Could they account for some of the carefree attitudes you observe among so many people who often put it down to ‘faith in God’ or ‘trust in the universe’ when life goes bad [when they’re NOT required to make a showy, dramatic, emotional, negative, or fearful reaction to disagreeable circumstances?]. Could such proposals explain why so many partners ‘feel stable’ in their relationships if such partners know that they have mass numbers of other potentials waiting in the wings to replace their current intimate partner should their relationship turn sour or even slightly unfavourable? Could such proposals explain why some people feel that they love their partners far more than their partners love them? And could they explain why some people want to share dirty jokes with you? Could such people simply be sharing such jokes to test, gauge, and market your reaction to them to potential lovers, spouses, employers, business partners, or even... a wider flow of information?
     One of the most important things that all true Christians need to understand is just how much this world truly understands about sexual temptation. A lot of supposed ‘prudes’ and alleged Christians may act naïve or oblivious or out-of-touch, but don’t let them fool you. Most people understand its power – and I daresay most people understand its power to control. A quote often attributed to Oscar Wilde is: ‘Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.’ And yet what credit do we give to attractive, popular, outgoing, extroverted, self-confident, well-dressed, well-spoken, and well-connected men and women in our own neighbourhoods? Wouldn’t the best way to take over the world be through close and personal relationships on the street level? Wouldn’t your thoughts, opinions, and perceptions be best shaped by your spouse or intimate partner? And wouldn’t your thoughts, opinions, and perceptions about honeytrapping be best steered by your spouse or intimate partner, who could turn suspicions away from themselves by way of accusing you of having a mental illness, as part of a popular consensus, or by turning your attention towards honey trapping operations that appear in the news or other historical examples that they can 'casually' mention to you [or advertise on the street level]?
     According to Wikipedia’s 2026 webpage on honey trapping: ‘Honey trapping is a practice involving the use of romantic or sexual relationships for interpersonal, political (including state espionage), or monetary purpose. The honey pot or trap involves making contact with an individual who has information or resources required by a group or individual; the trapper will then seek to entice the target into a false relationship (which may or may not include actual physical involvement) in which they can glean information or influence over the target.’ As per the same webpage: ‘During the Cold War, female agents called "Mozhno girls" or "Mozhnos" were used by the KGB of the USSR to spy on foreign officials by seducing them. The name Mozhno comes from the Russian word "mozhno" (Russian: можно), meaning "it is permitted", as these agents were allowed to breach regulations restricting Russian contact with foreigners.
     In 2009, the British MI5 distributed a 14-page document to hundreds of British banks, businesses, and financial institutions, titled "The Threat from Chinese Espionage." It described a wide-ranging Chinese effort to blackmail Western business people over sexual relationships. The document explicitly warns that Chinese intelligence services are trying to cultivate "long-term relationships" and have been known to "exploit vulnerabilities such as sexual relationships [...] to pressurise individuals to co-operate with them."’
     But can’t ordinary everyday citizens who aren’t Chinese act as honey traps? Can’t honey traps exist in Australia to control the flow of information? Can't honey traps operate in your local rural community as well? Can’t honey traps operate on the street level – or are such activities confined to foreign countries, intelligence groups, federal agencies, big corporations, and other bad actors being continually and unceasingly advertised to us on TV and YouTube? And what do you suppose will end up largely dictating the contemporary thought with respect to honey trapping? Facts? Or a popular consensus?

     Since I touched on public confrontations as well, have you ever wondered if any arguments, heated debates, or personal and aggressive conflicts you’ve witnessed in public settings were merely scripted interactions? Have you ever asked the ‘creepy’ looking men loitering in the alleyways at night if they're just acting? Have you ever asked the tough-looking tradie screaming at the receptionist if both of them are just participating in a scripted interaction? Have you ever asked the homeless person ranting and raving on the street or the semi-violent drunkard on the train if they’re not really homeless or intoxicated but are performing real world role-playing to control you through fear, hype the stranger danger narrative, push sociopolitical narratives, or make you believe that strangers are to be scrutinized far more than the popular and self-confident people in your personal life who often talk about and draw your attention to all the rude, bizarre, and ‘scary’ strangers that often appear during their social outings? And wouldn’t it give narcissists the ultimate superiority trip if many of them were in on this network and therefore always seemed to have the ‘self-confidence’ to stand up to all the rude, bizarre, and scary strangers who appear throughout your life? Wouldn’t it deepen your trust in such individuals? And wouldn’t it make you more readily believe the ‘fears’ they have about any given topic, issue, trend, or individual they simply didn’t like or were incentivized to condemn [or support]? And, as to deepening one's trust, are we to understand that in 6,000 years of human history there’s never been a single case where an individual has won the trust of a friend, family member, spouse, or partner by hiring ‘scary’ third parties to harass or torment them in order for such individuals to fend them off?

     Furthermore, how much money do you suppose you could make if you made people afraid of being assaulted in public by such ‘crazy’ individuals who often look like they are given to violence and may hurt you at any moment? How many self-defence classes could a ‘trusted friend’ happen to mention to you at the end of your train trip right after a distressing altercation took place that they had absolutely ‘no idea’ was going to happen in your immediate vicinity? How many security services could advertise their brand or logo in your location – through ‘random’ conversations among extroverts 'randomly' talking about nothing again, or product placements – immediately following distressing public incidents that took place nearby, or were captured on video and broadcasted all over social media?
     Finally, and perhaps more relevantly, is the reason why you haven’t asked any of these questions be because you’re afraid of being labelled or perceived as mentally ill, and seen as such by the many trusted individuals in your life who are adamant that this implied reality is the result of unstable thinking? And has such a label or inference become the ultimate weapon in contemporary society to prevent you from taking a closer look at all the ‘random’ things that happen in your life? And why don’t the many ask such questions themselves? Is it because most people are, by and large, passionate and dedicated truth-seekers who usually demand proof that certain things exist, or because most people supposedly believe that many people wouldn’t do a thing like this when the bible clearly says in Proverbs 28:21 that many people would do a thing like this?
     One thing a narcissist seems to have perfected is the art of making people feel afraid. You will find that they often do this by pretending to be afraid of someone or something themselves – which can, and often does, have the effect of making you afraid ‘with them.’ And they do this to steer you ‘both’ towards solutions to their ‘fears’ which they often already have waiting in the wings. For this reason, have you ever wondered if mass narcissism stems from mass numbers of people being handed a supreme means of societal manipulation? Do you think that mass narcissism could in fact be being reinforced by further rewarding such actors with money, gifts, and relationships in exchange for their pretending to be afraid of the latest thing that ‘they’ want us to be afraid of? Could the real ‘they’ be your friends, family members, or intimate partners simply pretending to be afraid on the street level? And have you ever asked any outwardly fearful or distressed friends, family members, or intimate partners if they’re just pretending to be afraid?
     Could these they have any incentive at all to want to shape your thoughts, opinions, and perceptions of reality through, among other things, scripted interactions and staged events? Could they be helping to outsource your beliefs, psychological profile, and geolocation for the sake of psychosocial herding whereby you are selected, among numerous other things, for a potential relationship with a plugged in member of the opposite sex who looks like someone you admire, a celebrity you respect, or someone with the type of knowledge, friends, or occupation that you’ve always wanted to have – all so your thoughts, opinions, and perceptions can be more readily shaped by ordinary everyday narcissists to, among other things, cover up the true extent of their control of the West and control of the flow of information therein?
     Can your daily route to and from work be traced by people other than the government or corporations? Can you be entered into a highly coordinated and scheduled performance wherein you or someone near you in a public area is ‘randomly’ assaulted or confronted by ordinary everyday citizens posing as scary-looking bikers, street thugs, teen gangs, or homeless people? Can your morning walk be synchronized with so-called ‘chance meetings’ with potential love interests, third party product placements, street theatre, fake conversations, or extrajudicial police surveillance?
     Can crowds of smart mobs not be mobilized to your geolocation to force you to move away from one area in public and usher you into another, to test your moral character by way of sexual temptation, or analyse your response to a scantily-clad woman, or gauge your reaction to a public confrontation, however convincing, on the part of a prospective employer who wants to see how you handle yourself in such situations? Can people [and cars] not converge on your location at any given moment for psychosocial herding, testing, entertainment, or even harassment – wherein such crowds are able ‘to act in concert even if they don’t know each other,’ as per Howard Rheingold’s 2002 book Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution, ‘because they carry devices that possess both communication and computing capabilities?’ And did you ever consider the possibility that while you were using the internet to look for a new job, prospective employers were using smart mobs to look for you?
     All things considered, what do you think will end up governing most people’s [alleged] thoughts, opinions, or perceptions about smart mobs? Facts, or a popular consensus? Will it soon be popular to think of smart mobs as something that only some individuals participate in and not others, such as the ‘out-of-control teens’ or the ‘anti-Australian immigrants’ or ‘aggressive Lefties’ or any of the other usual suspects that are often very publicly running amok and threatening the very foundations of Western civilization? Will a popular consensus soon declare you mentally unfit for society for simply believing that your ‘Christian’ neighbour, wealthy landlord, trusted friend, loving family member, or intimate partner has a whole other life that’s deeply hidden from public view?
     Otherwise, imagine the autonomy that such a wide-ranging network of information controllers might have on the days that they weren’t selected to believe, promote, endorse, or be ‘afraid of’ random ideas, issues, thoughts, opinions, or perceptions? Imagine the power and the influence they could have over those who were unaware that they even existed, and in such large numbers. Imagine how many mothers could encourage their daughters to bully or hurt the boys they like in school in order to integrate such thinking into the minds of children and to normalize narcissistic abuse in the West at large.
     Imagine how many ways the respectable and popular people in your local community could engineer relationships with those who weren’t plugged in to this network. Imagine the ordinary everyday men and women of all ages who, while not wanting to openly admit or immediately advertise their interest in unpopular throuples or group relationships, could test unplugged and unsuspecting dates, friends, and acquaintances by having members of the opposite sex check them out in public or flirt with them in restaurants or come onto them at parties and social gatherings. Imagine how many men and women could test their would-be partners’ reactions, technologically gauge their jealousy levels, and in this manner fast-track potential relationships like fast food by way of covert smart mobs? Can I get an attractive throuple who know how to keep secrets, extra fries, and a public performance on the street level that makes people think of throuples as advertised stereotypes instead of attractive, popular, outgoing, and self-confident individuals in their local communities?
     Finally, imagine the money you could make as a fortune-teller if mass numbers of ordinary everyday citizens were helping to fund your psychic ‘prowess’ by first spying on the people they ‘cared about’ and then suggesting that such people see you for the most accurate reading of their life. Imagine the pride one could take in knowing beforehand how a movie would end through covert communications? Imagine the fun that bullies could have if one of them pretended to be hurt, angered, or offended by you in a public setting and then called their older and much larger ‘brother’ over to deal with you. Think about how many stand up comedians would elevate their profiles if they had scores of fake hecklers willing to 'attack' or 'interrupt' them mid-performance? Consider the amount of rewards or promotions that police officers could acquire if multiple actors staged a 'serious crime' of which they were the first responders, or the heroic recognition that specialist investigators might receive after 'solving' fake terrorism or homicide events involving damsels in distress. Ponder the social experiments one could carry out on unsuspecting marks, such as by having similar-looking women converge on your location on a tram or train ride and then continue to appear throughout the course of your day at ‘random’ locations where you usually work, eat, or play – at which point you are comforted by your narcissistic friend who always seems to have the answers to such ‘spiritual’ anomalies that occur in your life. Imagine how effective popularizing or depopularizing an individual would be in your local community if such individuals had numerous people pretending to praise, promote or fawn all over them in public or pretending to hate, ridicule, or exclude them. And do you think some men would be as popular with women if they experienced the latter treatment?

     But, alas, these things would never happen in a world because a popular consensus will say that you're mentally ill, deny without proof, downplay, or relegate such activities to the doings of only some people and not others. Besides, why would civil societies and so-called 'Christian nations' do a thing like that? Irony is often lost on the more standard thinker but what about those who note sociological patterns? In the past, mass cruelty was commonplace among the Assyrians [2025 BCE – 609 BCE], the Babylonians [1894 BCE – 539 BCE], the Romans [753 BC – 476], the Catholic Inquisition [1184 – 1400s], the U.S slave owners [1619 – 1775], the Jim Crow supporters [1877 – 1965], the Nazis [1933 – 1945], and the Stasi [1950 – 1990]… and I sometimes feel it ceased being a problem among the popular [local] people in the West when one does not simply plank to ‘Gangnam Style’ while doing the harlem shake unless you do the ice bucket challenge [2004] [2010] [2012] [2013] [2014] … except perhaps on the off chance that such villains became specific groups or countries or individuals that appear in the media and the New Media.
     So, why should we concern ourselves with thoughts about the potential power, danger, and autonomy of smart mobs? Why would we think that they collectively pose as the ‘good guys’ in Western societies who secretly operate in our ordinary everyday lives to, among many other things, advertise the bad guys and control the flow of information? Why would we dare think that smart mobbing in the West has in fact been a way of life for decades but has been hidden by millions of participants? And don’t millions of friends, family members, and intimate partners often say, in a united voice, in lockstep union, in unison, and at all times that a conspiracy is impossible to keep the more people are involved in it? Does consensus-driven science not support this claim further, and therefore supersede all those aforementioned social experiments that span as many decades? So, why would you have any more curiosity about smart mobs? Is it because you might have a mental illness?

     I find value in asking unpopular questions. Like this one: do you find it strange that the popular, outgoing, and self-confident men and women in your neighborhood or local community rarely look like the criminals that we see on YouTube and TV? If most acts of murder, for example, stem from pride, greed, competition, and jealousy issues, and pride, greed, competition, and jealousy are [presumably] a staple of the middle-class diet and above, why do we see so many dishevelled, unkempt, poor, homeless, and antisocial outcasts being accosted, arrested, and hauled off by police in sometimes ‘chilling footage’ while your outgoing and extroverted podiatrist, Josh, who likes to run track, sport the latest haircut and facial hair, and seems to know everyone on a personal basis in your local community seems like he could get away with… anything? Does Josh often appear on YouTube or TV in situations involving the police? Is Josh often arrested for murder? Is Josh often charged with selling his own children for sex with his popular ‘Christian’ friends and neighbours while the country is distracted with sleazy advertisements? Otherwise, what do you think ultimately dictates the contemporary thought with respect to what most criminals look like? Facts? Or a popular consensus?
     Are there simply more scary-looking gunmen, mobsters, gangsters, and incels in the world than there are spoiled, wealthy individuals with narcissistic tendencies and a desire for power, recognition, and control over others? In the bible, Cain killed his brother Abel simply because ‘his works were evil and his brother’s righteous’ [1 John 3:12]. Herodias, King Herod’s wife, had John the Baptist beheaded simply because he told her husband that their marriage was unlawful [Mark 6:14-29]. Vlad the Impaler, ruler of Wallachia, impaled thousands of people (in the most inhumane way possible) simply to consolidate his power against corrupt nobles, impose strict moral order, and terrify invading Ottoman forces. [Google’s AI Overview 2026]. And Gille de Rais, the well-respected Baron of Retz and veteran of the Hundred Years’ War, abducted, tortured, raped, and murdered up to 140 boys or more simply because he had the means to do so – though you could take his obsession with the occult into consideration. And yet for all of history’s out of touch archetypes, Josh, the podiatrist who runs track, Kendra, the physiotherapist with the fancy eyeglasses who has competed in rowing and surf lifesaving, Troy, the friendly paramedic who plays football on the weekend, Ben, the obstetrician and small business owner with the flashy car, Bianca, the fit disability support worker and keen gymgoer, and Ally, the beautiful nurse with the smartwatch who plays basketball simply don’t kill or conspire to kill because that wouldn’t be in keeping with a popular consensus among Joshs, Kendras, Troys, Bens, Biancas, and Allys, would it? After all, why would they do a thing like that? On that note, when was the last time a single well-dressed, well-presented Josh, Kendra, Troy, Ben, Bianca, or Ally was not only arrested for any serious crime but revealed to be dabbling in the occult themselves? Or is occultism simply not connected to serious crimes on the part of the popular middle-class folk and various community leaders?
     I’m just grateful we live in a world where the only people we need to worry about are those that our trusted neighbours are telling us to worry about and not themselves. Seemingly, this would more broadly include Leftists, Rightists, toxic men, feminist women, neo-Nazis, Karens, incels, teens, mobsters, fraudsters, hackers, drug lords, influencers, a suspiciously childish online ‘manosphere’, and the rest of the usual suspects, and not mass numbers of ordinary everyday actors pretending to be these things (as well as pretending to be against each other) while secretly working together to control the flow of information. After all, who's going to ask such people if they're just pretending to believe what they believe or act the way they do? Who's going to ask any Leftists or Rightists if they secretly know each other, or are working together? Who's going to ask a 'Karen' being filmed on the street if both she and the camera operator are just role-playing? Who's going to ask any ordinary everyday women (or men) with middle-class money if they've ever acted as honeytraps – or even ask why honey-trapping is largely associated with historic cases, federal agencies, and foreign actors instead of ordinary everyday street life? Who's going to ask any advertised bad guy if they're just participating in a real time disinformation campaign on the street level to shape your thoughts, opinions, and perceptions of reality while distracting you from the true source of mass narcissism? And do you foresee any out-of-control youths, violent teen gangs, street thugs, or apparent drug or alcohol affected individuals on the literal street being asked if they're just pretending to be violent, dangerous, or scary? Here's one more for good measure: does your friendly middle-class friends, small-business owning neighbours, and respected community leaders simply not engage in criminal activity as often as the often lower income people on TV and YouTube that they often advertise?

     Still, another thing that a popular consensus, without benefit of any significant contestation on the part of any popular Christians in your local community, seems determined to make sure that all Australians continue to believe is that women have more to fear from strangers than they do the popular, outgoing, and self-confident ‘family’ men (often with middle-class money) with whom so many of them curiously continue to end up in intimate relationships with. Have you ever asked a woman who likes to share her suspicions about the homeless man on the street, or who likes to badmouth the social outcasts or berate ‘creepy’ men or express ‘fears,’ ‘concerns,’ or ‘sympathies’ about those with ‘mental health conditions’ if she’s just pretending to be afraid, concerned, or offended by them to shape your thoughts, opinions, and perceptions? Could it be to hype the stranger danger narrative on the street level? Could it be because they know, through a secret technology, that this person may in fact have a high moral code or a functioning conscience, and this gives them the opportunity to ridicule, rebuke, or express their hostility towards such people for ‘good’ reasons to disguise their contempt? Could the ‘good reasons’ be things like ‘creepiness,’ ‘sexism,’ ‘antisocial behaviour,’ ‘poor social skills,’ or ‘mental illness’ while the true reason is because it is simply unpopular in popular 'Christian societies' for narcissists to criticize people because they feel like it?
     And could these ‘good reasons’ explain why a lot of people criticize only some people for certain behaviours but not certain other people who engage in the exact same type of behaviour? Is there nothing strange about mass numbers of Western women being seemingly against creepy, sexist, or antisocial attitudes except when such attitudes appear in their popular, outgoing, and self-confident husbands, intimate partners, and male friends? Is hypocrisy not one of the chief indicators of someone with something to hide?
     Finally, are most rape victims violated by complete and utter strangers with mental health issues, or by the popular, outgoing, self-confident, and psychologically ‘well-adjusted’ middle-class gentlemen whom so many of them presumably come to know and trust? Perhaps the New Media and the mental health communities – who almost seem like the New Government of Australia at this point – could explore such a question themselves lest we all start to associate rape with entitlement issues borne out of staggering narcissism instead of various cerebral interludes that often present themselves in the shape of crazy people on the [literal] street. Otherwise, do not most statistics confirm that most rape victims are violated by people they know? And if they do, who exactly continues to push the stranger danger narrative? The Media? The New Media? Or ordinary everyday men and women in your local community whose (apparent) thoughts, opinions, and perceptions are far more likely to shape (or misshape) your own?

     ‘It was like something out of a movie!’ Says the utterly frightened, distressed, and shocked eyewitness to the latest public incident that happened to be captured perfectly on someone’s phone or CCTV and broadcasted at some of the most critical moments in sociopolitical and policymaking history. And the people who happened to be chosen for such an interview to relate to us the sheer terror of such events are often so well-presented and articulate, are they not? Some of them even look like they could do the media’s job better than they do – and they too sometimes look like something out of a movie – and the incidents in question are often described as ‘terrifying,’ ‘distressing,’ ‘absolutely terrifying,’ ‘absolutely distressing,’ and ‘shocking’ in case you needed to know how people felt when they go through such experiences.
     But crisis actors, particularly the apolitical and small business kind, don’t actually exist in Australia because a popular consensus, despite no real investigation on the part of the Australian people – let alone the Australian government’s true executive branch – has determined that only mentally ill people believe that some of the most compelling policymaking catalysts, distraction issues, and thought-opinion-perception shaping activities could simply be staged events and narrative steering on the part of mass numbers of actors. Unless perhaps such actors belong not to the middle-class but to another Leftist group that gets dangled in front of our faces for an indefinite length of time with the aid of the New Media.

     According to the AFP Fact Check website, a 2020 article titled ‘Far-right group poses as Antifa during George Floyd protests’ seems to indicate that: ‘A tweet from an account claiming to be anti-fascist movement Antifa promoted unrest during protests sparked by George Floyd’s death in Minnesota police custody and was shared thousands of times as a screenshot on social media. But Twitter said the account belonged to a far-right white nationalist organization and was suspended for inciting violence.’ The tweet appeared as follows [COARSE LANGUAGE WARNING]:

     As per the same article: ‘Mark Bray, a historian at Rutgers university and author of “Antifa: An Anti Fascist Handbook,” told AFP by phone that the account was clearly fake because “the kind of language and values that it promotes are antithetical to what anti-fascists say and do.”’ And scrolling down the same webpage, we read: ‘Antifa impersonation in the US has been going on since the organization became a matter of public interest around early 2017, according to Bray.’
     According to another 2017 article by PBS titled ‘Photo of 'Antifa' man assaulting officer was doctored, analysis shows’ reads as follows: ‘An image that appeared to capture a member of an anti-fascist group beating a U.S. police officer with a club during a "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, is fake. The doctored photograph, the Associated Press and Snopes.com found, turned out to be a Getty Image shot in 2009 during clashes between police officers and protesters in Athens, Greece. An "Antifa," or "antifacist," logo was digitally superimposed onto the jacket of a protester, who is seen attacking an officer with a blunt object.’
     In another 2020 article produced by The Intercept titled Oregon Police beg public to stop calling in false reports blaming Antifa for wildfires: ‘Four police departments in parts of Oregon ravaged by wildfires – propelled by high wilds across parched land during hot, dry weather in a changing climate – are pleading with the public to stop calling 911 to pass on unfounded rumors that antifascist political activists have intentionally set the blazes.’
     According to the Progressive Magazine’s 2017 online article titled The Long History of Antifa: ‘Antifa is an abbreviation for anti-fascist or anti-fascism. It’s is a movement that goes back a hundred years, but when we talk about antifa today, we are talking about modern militant anti-fascism which predominantly grew out of movements in, especially, Great Britain and Germany in the 1970s and 1980s of leftist immigrants and punks and all sorts of people who were targeted by a neo-Nazi backlash, a xenophobic wave that spread over these countries and others. It is essentially a pan-socialist radical politics of collective self-defense against the far right.’
     If the implied reality of a large-scale network of ordinary everyday street level actors exists, wouldn’t it necessitate the constant production of New Enemies to train our focus away from, among other things, our friendly ‘Christian’ neighbours and popular community members in the West? Because if there’s one enemy that a popular consensus seems determined to make sure that we all still believe are causing panic on the streets of London and terrorizing the stock of Americana and beyond, it’s the mask-wearing thugs that are still being filmed by ordinary everyday citizens harassing attractive, well-dressed, and well-spoken conservative women on the street (though rarely filmed by the police while they're being unmasked by police because that's just not conducive to lawfully deterring masked criminals), whose footage quadruples the popularity of the New Media personalities who present it, creates mass distractions, continues to invoke and stoke sociopolitical labels like incel and soy boy, and fashions various other titillating wordplays that distract us from a more psychologically stable populace.

     I seem to recall Antifa going from being something an obscure left-wing organization to an existential threat to the entire Western hemisphere post 2016. Since their meteoric rise to infamy, the antics of this group or movement has been discussed at length on numerous platforms and through various mediums throughout the world. Their largely unseen faces have occupied swathes of airtime in the media and the New Media, and have been plastered across countless online news articles, with a number of discussions, disputes, and social debates taking place as to their source, origin, funding, tactics, missions, and end goals. They have been opposed by an untold number of ordinary everyday citizens, pundits, political commentators, conservative groups, concerned Christians, armed vigilantes, and have even effected the deployment of the U.S National Guard. Which begs the question: just who are these literal or would-be terrorists – and just how many of them have been unmasked, as it were, to determine exactly how many of them are a genuine self-defense against the far right and fascism as opposed to just mass numbers of actors, or even fake Christians in disguise?
     What? Why would I do a thing like that? Because if you can control the flow of information, you can control the world. But why would anyone dress up like Antifa? Because if you can control the flow of information, you can control the world. But why would actors run the world from the ground up? Because if you can control the flow of information, you can control the world. Now, like many Australians, I understand that you can’t wear a mask and attend church at the same time – unless perhaps a popular Christian consensus says that COVID will kill us all if we don’t, unless it doesn’t if we do, in which case it doesn’t, yet could be fatal – but observe an excerpt from a 2011 online article by the Business Insider titled 10 Fake Grassroots Movements Started By Corporations To Sway Your Opinion: ‘The 2010 Australian Federal Election featured a controversial piece of proposed legislation. Australia was looking to become the first country with "plain cigarette packaging": logos, brands and ads would be replaced by health warnings, pictures, and the brand name in plain, white type on the pack.
     In response, the Alliance of Australian Retailers was formed to fight on behalf of small businesses who could be hurt by the law. The group of 19,000 members representing corner stores, petrol stations, and newsagents had millions of dollars in support -- because Big Tobacco companies like Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco were financing the AAR.
     When the Big Tobacco companies were revealed as backers of the AAR, retailers quit the campaign, forcing Philip Morris to hire a public relations company to handle the fight.’
     Observe another online article from 2008 by Japan Today titled McDonald's admits 1,000 people paid to join queue for Quarter Pounder debut in Osaka: ‘Around 1,000 people were paid to join the queue outside the Midosuji-Suomachi branch of McDonald’s for the release of their Quarter Pounder burger in the Kansai area on Tuesday, it was learned on Thursday.’ Scrolling down the webpage, we read: ‘It is estimated that as many as 2,000 people were lining up outside the McDonald’s store at its peak on Tuesday, and that around 15,000 people in total visited the store during the day, setting a new record for daily sales for one of their stores. But it was learned on Thursday that about 1,000 of the people queuing outside were paid an hourly wage of 1,000 yen and also had their purchase paid for. These people were hired by a human resources company at the request of a marketing company commissioned by McDonald’s Japan.’
     So, once again, if people on the street level can accomplish much with many (or even relatively few), why can’t many more run the entire West, if not the world, from the ground up? Can I get a McAntifa burger with that, please? With soy source? What about a large McLefty? How about a McChristian deluxe meal with Karen’s stench fries and a New Woke?

     'From democracy to “adhocracy”: Enter “smart mobs”—an utterly unprecedented phenomenon where groups of people cluster temporarily around information and goals of mutual interest. According to author and techno-visionary Howard Rheingold, people are using smart “mobs” (rhymes with “robes”) to become smart “mobs” (rhymes with “robs”)—where sophisticated mobile Internet access is allowing people who don’t know each other to act in concert.'

     'For example, the idea and reality of smart mobs has caught on among young Japanese, where cliques of teenagers hang out together all day, despite being in different places, by sending and receiving hundreds of iconic text transmissions on their iMode telephones. And demonstrators in Seattle and Manila relied on wireless telephones to coordinate their actions and evade barricades. In major cities, Rheingold says, techno-hipsters can congregate in “WiFi” areas and interact via their wireless devices—enabling them to participate in a virtual social scene. In one amusing example, he tells of upscale prostitutes who can enter their services and prices into their mobile phones, allowing customers to discreetly determine if anyone nearby is selling what they want to buy (a Japanese company, Lovegety, has already adapted this idea to dating). This study of the potential of mobile, always-on, fast Internet access nicely serves as a travelogue to the future, showing the possibilities and dangers of communications innovation.’

     [Excerpts from the 2004 magazine edition of Shift: The Frontiers of Consciousness]
     Renowned sci-fi author and pioneer of the cyberpunk genre, William Gibson, is rumoured to have said that ‘the future is already here — it's just not evenly distributed.’ Could the most profound technological and societal changes in history have already taken place and we just don’t know about them? Because one conspiracy theory that even die-hard conspiracy theorists on YouTube don’t even seem to want to touch is the idea that much of the world has already been taken over by a united front of ordinary everyday citizens against uncontrolled information by way of a simulated reality of scripted performances and information hijacking with the aid of advanced technology. But what if, to deter your curiosity and questions, most of the social activities and interactions you would expect from ‘random’ people on the street – or at least that which you are accustomed – were in fact largely staged and scripted and designed to keep you from the truth?

     What if, whenever news or reports surfaced that threatened to expose this simulated world, they were accompanied by covert warning systems that issued emergency broadcasts in broad daylight and were advertised through secret channels, mediums, and code languages? What if such warning systems were accompanied by a digital tsunami of fake news, distracting advertisements, staged events, doctored footage, AI-blaming, World War III bulletins, the rise of new terrorist groups, the resurgence of old terrorist groups, as well as captivating headlines and YouTube videos with such titles as ‘Panic buying’ and ‘Explosive allegations’ and ‘Chilling footage’ and ‘Truth bomb’ and ‘What they don’t want you to see’ and ‘What they don’t want you to know’ and ‘You’ll hate me for this’ and countless other distraction issues designed to draw you into another distracting rabbit-hole instead a simple locust bed of ordinary everyday citizens?
     What if, in such an event, ordinary everyday friends, family members, and intimate partners everywhere became suddenly interested in making you afraid ‘with them’ to shift blame towards apparently dangerous individuals, groups, ideas, ideologies, and sociopolitical implications and/or assist in ushering in laws, policies, and various other solutions to such alleged fears? What if they began echoing words, phrases, and mantras such as ‘social distancing’ and ‘government overreach’ and ‘data centers’ and ‘the system’ and anything else that shifted your attention away from ordinary everyday friends, family members, and intimate partners, and towards governments and corporations and Leftist groups and ‘fake news’ and fake businesses and fake people and fake this and fake that and not real smart mobs of local community members operating at any one time in your own neighbourhood to control the flow of information on a wider scale using advanced communications, communications technology, and fear tactics?
     What if it was standard practice for such network participants to issue veiled threats to strangers in their immediate vicinity who already know about this world in an attempt to intimidate them into keeping quiet about it? What if, to steer your thoughts, opinions, and perceptions of what reality really is, most of the things you see and hear were staged or scripted to keep you from believing, among other things, that the future has been around a lot longer than what a popular consensus dictates? What if vast armies of smart mobbing narcissists knew the best way to steer the curiosity of local community members through advanced many-to-many peer networks, covert psychosocial profiling, spying techniques, real time disinformation campaigns, street theatre, and coordinated harassment? And since Proverbs 28:21 says that ‘for a piece of bread, a man will transgress,’ what if they were rewarded for doing so with a lot more that was simply hidden from public view like covert technological gadgets and experiences?
     By popular consensus, we are more or less taught in our schools and herded by our contemporaries into the thought that Western society has largely morally evolved from the mass cruelty of the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, the Catholic Inquisition, the U.S slave owners, the Jim Crow supporters, the Nazis, and the Stasi – and if professing Christians are presently disagreeing with this premise, they sure are doing a fine job of not crediting it with the gravity it deserves. Because it would seem that we are now being told that mass cruelty largely doesn’t exist in the West, except where it stems from people and groups and other things that appear on TV and YouTube that rarely look like our own popular and self-confident neighbours. Given the rise of apparent 'Christian nations' and the apparent popularity of Christianity, is it possible that the trend of mass cruelty has continued under a far more covert form with the aid of technology?

     We are also more or less told that mass cruelty is mostly unheard of among the popular people of Australia, and practically nonexistent in Australian Christian circles. And our so-called Christian nations have become gradually more adept at hiding, or at least downplaying the true reason for acts of cruelty: a desire for superiority. Can you tell me how often I can find a desire for superiority among the truly impoverished, the neglected, the homeless, and the social outcasts? At the same time, can you tell me where such a desire even exists anymore among the popular, outgoing, and self-confident people in your local community who continue to command the utmost respect, admiration, and trust? Because, if nothing else, such a desire has been immensely overshadowed by a host of other motives when it comes to who, what, and why people are causing hurt and havoc in the ordinary everyday Australia, to say nothing of the ordinary everyday West.
     While I could write a whole separate book about the cruel and unusual treatment of black slaves in American history alone, observe this excerpt from the 1845 autobiography Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave: Chapter VI:
     ‘Very soon after I went to live with Mr. and Mrs. Auld, she very kindly commenced to teach me the A, B, C. After I had learned this, she assisted me in learning to spell words of three or four letters. Just at this point of my progress, Mr. Auld found out what was going on, and at once forbade Mrs. Auld to instruct me further, telling her, among other things, that it was unlawful, as well as unsafe, to teach a slave to read. To use his own words, further, he said, “If you give a nigger an inch, he will take an ell. A nigger should know nothing but to obey his master—to do as he is told to do. Learning would spoil the best nigger in the world. Now,” said he, “if you teach that nigger (speaking of myself) how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master. As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy.”’
     Do you believe that Mr. Auld had some sort of personal vendetta against Douglass, or some random predisposition to discrimination that reared its ugly head when Auld was around a black person? Or was he simply an individual who was given a legal channel through which to enforce his sense of superiority to another human being? Did he have a problem with Douglass personally, or did he simply feel threatened imagining that his source of narcissistic supply, otherwise known as superiority enforcing, would no longer be beneath him in a social sense and thus there to maintain his sense of superiority? Do you get the feeling that Auld was providing a ‘good’ reason for his treatment of Douglass to disguise the true reason – the same ‘good’ reason that is often given by the many people, and not a few of them, throughout your own life as to their treatment of some people but not others?
     Could the narcissists of today have stumbled upon their own narcissistic supply in the form of: a smart mobbing society with access to superior technology that’s unavailable to people outside of this network whom they can thereby lord it over, a radical and widespread ecumenical union that controls the flow of information, and a world of technological rewards and experiences for anyone who does so – with more rewards for those willing to be especially cruel, cold, or manipulative towards those who exist outside of it? As a kid, I remember a scene from the 1993 Annabel Jankel and Rocky Morton film, Super Mario Bros in which Mario and Luigi, having entered something of a parallel universe, where humans have evolved from dinosaurs, notice that its people seem pushier and more aggressive and inhabit a world where violence and mishaps seem to be an ordinary everyday occurrence. Looking at the chaos all around them, Luigi then says to Mario: ‘I don’t know. Maybe we got knocked unconscious for a hundred years and we woke up in Manhattan of the future.’ In response to this, Mario suggests: ‘Maybe the Bronx of today.’ 
 

 
MANHATTAN, OR THE BRONX?
 
In a 2020 online article by Forbes titled Neuroscientists Discover Each Of Us Has A Distinct Brain Signature: Could It Be Used To Predict Your Job Potential? we read: ‘Did you know that groundbreaking research reports that neuroscientists can identify each of us by our unique brain signature much like a neural thumbprint? They have discovered that you and I display our own distinct brain signature when we’re processing information similar to our unique fingerprints that distinguish us from everyone else on the planet.
     At one time, neuroscientists thought brain activity was pretty much the same from one person to another. But in a landmark development, Yale University researchers found that your brain activity is different from anyone else’s, much like your thumbprint. This unique fingerprint reflects innate properties of how your brain is wired. Suppose you’re having a brain scan (fMRI) and you’re relaxing, doing nothing in particular and your brain is at rest. Your at-rest brain signature during a lull predicts how your brain functions during other activities such as decision-making, reading a book or gambling with 99% accuracy. Could this procedure someday be used to predict how employees might function in certain positions, determine career success or even job performance and productivity?’
     Another online article put out by news.osu.edu in 2022 reads: ‘Brain scans of people taken while they performed various tasks – and even did nothing – accurately predicted whether they were politically conservative or liberal, according to the largest study of its kind.
     Researchers found that the “signatures” in the brain revealed by the scans were as accurate at predicting political ideology as the strongest predictor generally used in political science research, which is the ideology of a person’s parents. “Can we understand political behavior by looking solely at the brain? The answer is a fairly resounding ‘yes,’” said study co-author Skyler Cranmer, the Phillips and Henry Professor of Political Science at The Ohio State University.
     “The results suggest that the biological and neurological roots of political behavior run much deeper than we previously thought.” The study, published recently in the journal PNAS Nexus, is the largest to date to use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans of the brain to study political ideology.
     It is also one of the few to examine functional connectivity in connection to ideology – a whole-brain approach that examined which parts of the brain showed similar patterns of activity at the same time when performing specific tasks, indicating that they are communicating with each other.’
     As per the 2025 www.parliament.vic.gov.au/news/society/surveillance-report: ‘It may sound fanciful, but neurotechnology is one of a range of emerging technologies that are finding their way into workplace surveillance and will need to be subject to carefully considered regulation, according to a new report tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
     The Legislative Assembly Economy and Infrastructure Committee inquired into workplace surveillance in Victoria, finding it has accelerated in recent years as a result of technological advancements and the shift towards remote working.
     Surveillance has moved beyond camera footage and the recording of telephone calls to incorporate keylogging, wearable trackers, biometrics, neurotechnology and artificial intelligence, the inquiry found.
     ‘Existing legislation hasn’t kept pace with the dramatic changes that have occurred in recent decades and isn’t really protecting workers’ privacy,’ said Committee Chair Alison Marchant.
     The report identified neurosurveillance, the use of neurotechnology to determine employees’ cognitive state such as their level of attention and effort, as one technology expected to be adopted by workplaces within the next five years.
     'Neurotechnologies such as electroencephalograms (EEGs), which measure electrical activity in the brain, and transcranial direct current stimulation, which uses low‑intensity electrical currents to modify brain activity, are currently used in Australian workplaces such as mines to monitor attention and fatigue,’ the report said.
     ‘Other neurotechnologies exist that can decode mental images and intended speech, and these could also be introduced to workplaces in the future to understand employees’ minds and modify their work performance,’ it said.
     Further down the report, we read: ‘It became clear throughout the inquiry that many Victorian workers are unaware of the extent of surveillance in their workplace and how their employers are handling and storing data collected through workplace surveillance,’ Ms Marchant said.
     While neurosurveillance is an emerging potential threat to worker privacy, many other forms of surveillance have crept into Victorian workplaces already.
     The report finds that ‘devices such as computers, webcams, mobile phones and handheld scanners gather data on work activities that can be processed and used to determine workers’ location and task speed and assess their performance, sentiment and concentration level’.’
     There seems to be a popular consensus in Australia, and perhaps the West in general, that people should be more concerned about such technology if it resides in the hands of governments, corporations, workplaces, and foreign actors instead of ordinary everyday citizens. Irrespective of the longstanding evidence of China’s pervasive network of surveillance, censorship, and intimidating social controls, the last people in the world we are told would ever oppress people for narcissistic supply are our popular, self-confident, and ordinary everyday neighbours.
     Still and all, in March of 2022 the U.S Department of Justice issued an online press release titled Five Individuals Charged Variously with Stalking, Harassing and Spying on U.S. Residents on Behalf of the PRC Secret Police. It reads as follows: ‘Defendants Participated in Transnational Repression Schemes to Silence Critics of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) Residing in the United States and Abroad – Including by Attempting to Disrupt the Campaign of a U.S. Military Veteran and Candidate for U.S. Congress in Brooklyn Who Expressed Views Critical of the PRC and by Scheming to Destroy a PRC Dissident’s Artwork Criticizing the PRC Government.’
     The same article states that: ‘According to court documents, all the defendants allegedly perpetrated transnational repression schemes to target U.S. residents whose political views and actions are disfavored by the PRC government, such as advocating for democracy in the PRC. In one of these schemes, the co-conspirators sought to interfere with federal elections by allegedly orchestrating a campaign to undermine the U.S. congressional candidacy of a U.S. military veteran who was a leader of the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations in Beijing, PRC. In another of these schemes, three defendants planned to destroy the artwork of a PRC national residing in Los Angeles that was critical of the PRC government, and planted surveillance equipment in the artist’s workplace and car to spy on him from the PRC.’
     Said U.S Attorney Breon Peace for the Eastern District of New York: ‘“The complaints unsealed today reveal the outrageous and dangerous lengths to which the PRC government’s secret police and these defendants have gone to attack the rule of law and freedom in New York City and elsewhere in the United States. As alleged, all three cases involve campaigns to silence, harass, discredit and spy on U.S. residents for simply exercising their freedom of speech. The United States will not tolerate blatantly illegal actions that target U.S. residents, on U.S. soil, and undermine our treasured American values and rights.”’
     As per a separate 2023 YouTube video from WION News titled Gravitas: China pushes civilians to become spies, China’s ministry of state security wants to: ‘Enhance the mechanism for reporting espionage by legally commending, rewarding and protecting individuals and organizations who report espionage.’ At one point in the video, the news presenter asks ‘but why would anybody take part in this anti-espionage practice, if you’re wondering? Why would a friend want to see their friend in constant suspicion? Well, rewards and protection. Those two are the most sought after in China.’ But aren’t rewards and protection the two most sort after things in Australia and the the narcissistic West as well? Does narcissism and a subsequent demand for power and control not exist among the well-dressed, popular, wealthy, or even middle-class latte-drinkers in our ordinary everyday neighbourhoods? Has the Chinese brain evolved from dinosaurs or de-evolved into the mass cruelty period while the heart of true civilization beats against the tide, as it were?
     Enter smart mobs and you have the next social revolution, albeit the quietest and perhaps the most widely underreported one in history. Where Christian nations always seems to have New Enemies banging at the wall, I think one may have slipped by in a wooden horse that may not have had a Made In China stamp on its rump. The following excerpts are from Howard Rheingold’s book Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution:
     ‘Netwar—Dark and Light
     On January 20, 2001, President Joseph Estrada of the Philippines became the first head of state in history to lose power to a smart mob. More than 1 million Manila residents, mobilized and coordinated by waves of text messages, assembled at the site of the 1986 “People Power” peaceful demonstrations that had toppled the Marcos regime. Tens of thousands of Fil- ipinos converged on Epifanio de los Santas Avenue, known as “Edsa,” within an hour of the first text message volleys: “Go 2EDSA, Wear blck.” Over four days, more than a million citizens showed up, mostly dressed in black. Estrada fell. The legend of “Generation Txt” was born. Bringing down a government without firing a shot was a momentous early eruption of smart mob behavior. It wasn’t, however, the only one.
·         On November 30, 1999, autonomous but internetworked squads of demonstrators protesting the meeting of the World Trade Organization used “swarming” tactics, mobile phones, Web sites, laptops, and handheld computers to win the “Battle of Seattle.”
·         In September 2000, thousands of citizens in Britain, outraged by a sudden rise in gasoline prices, used mobile phones, SMS, email from laptop PCs, and CB radios in taxicabs to coordinate dispersed groups that blocked fuel delivery at selected service stations in a wildcat political protest.
·         A violent political demonstration in Toronto in the spring of 2000 was chronicled by a group of roving journalist-researchers who webcast digital video of everything they saw.
·         Since 1992, thousands of bicycle activists have assembled monthly for “Critical Mass” moving demonstrations, weaving through San Francisco streets en masse. Critical Mass operates through loosely linked networks, alerted by mobile phone and email trees, and breaks up into smaller, tele-coordinated groups when appropriate.’
     ‘The rapid assembly of the anti-Estrada crowd was a hallmark of early smart mob technology, and the millions of text messages exchanged by the demonstrators in 2001 was, by all accounts, a key to the crowd’s esprit de corps. Professor Rafael sees the SMS-linked crowd that assembled in Manila as the manifestation of a phenomenon that was enabled by a technical infrastructure but that is best understood as a social instrument:
·         The power of the crowd thus comes across in its capacity to overwhelm the physical constraints of urban planning in the same way that it tends to blur social distinctions by provoking a sense of estrangement. Its authority rests on its ability to promote restlessness and movement, thereby undermining the pressure from state technocrats, church authorities and corporate interests to regulate and contain such movements. In this sense, the crowd is a sort of medium if by that word one means the means for gathering and transforming elements, objects, people and things. As a medium, the crowd is also the site for the generation of expectations and the circulation of messages. It is in this sense that we might also think of the crowd not merely as an effect of technological devices, but as a kind of technology itself. . . . Centralized urban planning and technologies of policing seek to routinize the sense of contingency generated in crowding. But at moments and in areas where such planning chronically fails, routine can at times give way to the epochal. At such moments, the crowd . . . takes on a kind of telecommunica-tive power, serving up channels for sending messages at a distance and bringing distances up close. Enmeshed in a crowd, one feels the potential for reaching out across social space and temporal divides.
     The Battle of Seattle saw a more deliberate and tactically focused use of wireless communications and mobile social networks in urban political conflict, more than a year before texting mobs assembled in Manila. A broad coalition of demonstrators who represented different interests but were united in opposition to the views of the World Trade Organization planned to disrupt the WTO’s 1999 meeting in Seattle. The demonstrators included a wide range of different “affinity groups” who loosely coordinated their actions around their shared objective. The Direct Action Network enabled autonomous groups to choose which levels of action to participate in, from nonviolent support to civil disobedience to joining mass arrests—a kind of dynamic ad hoc alliance that wouldn’t have been possible without a mobile, many-to-many, real-time communication network. According to a report dramatically titled, “Black Flag Over Seattle,” by Paul de Armond:
The cohesion of the Direct Action Network was partly due to their improvised communications network assembled out of cell phones, radios, police scanners and portable computers. Protesters in the street with wireless Palm Pilots were able to link into continuously updated web pages giving reports from the streets. Police scanners monitored transmissions and provided some warning of changing police tactics. Cell phones were widely used.
     Kelly Quirke, Executive Director of the Rainforest Action Network, reports that early Tuesday, “the authorities had successfully squashed DAN’s communications system.” The solution to the infrastructure attack was quickly resolved by purchasing new Nextel cell phones. According to Han Shan, the Ruckus Society’s WTO action coordinator, his organization and other protest groups that formed the Direct Action Network used the Nextel system to create a cellular grid over the city. They broke into talk groups of eight people each. One of the eight overlapped with another talk group, helping to quickly communicate through the ranks.
     In addition to the organizers’ all-points network, protest communications were leavened with individual protesters using cell phones, direct transmissions from roving independent media feeding directly onto the Internet, personal computers with wireless modems broadcasting live video, and a variety of other networked communications. Floating above the tear gas was a pulsing infosphere of enormous bandwidth, reaching around the planet via the Internet.
     From Seattle to Manila, the first “netwars” have already broken out. The term “netwar” was coined by John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, two analysts for the RAND corporation (birthplace of game theory and experimental economics), who noticed that the same combination of social networks, sophisticated communication technologies, and decentralized organizational structure was surfacing as an effective force in very different kinds of political conflict:
Netwar is an emerging mode of conflict in which the protagonists—ranging from terrorist and criminal organizations on the dark side, to militant social activists on the bright side—use network forms of organization, doctrine, strategy, and technology attuned to the information age. The practice of net-war is well ahead of theory, as both civil and uncivil society actors are increasingly engaging in this new way of fighting.
     From the Battle of Seattle to the “attack on America,” these networks are proving very hard to deal with; some are winning. What all have in common is that they operate in small, dispersed units that can deploy nimbly—anywhere, anytime. All feature network forms of organization, doctrine, strategy, and technology attuned to the information age. They know how to swarm and disperse, penetrate and disrupt, as well as elude and evade. The tactics they use range from battles of ideas to acts of sabotage—and many tactics involve the Internet.
     The “swarming” strategies noted by Arquilla and Ronfeldt rely on many small units like the affinity groups in the Battle of Seattle. Individual members of each group remained dispersed until mobile communications drew them to converge on a specific location from all directions simultaneously, in coordination with other groups. Manila, Seattle, San Francisco, Senegal, and Britain were sites of nonviolent political swarming. Arquilla and Ron-feldt cited the nongovernmental organizations associated with the Zapatista movement in Mexico, which mobilized world opinion in support of Indian peasants, and the Nobel Prizewinning effort to enact an anti-landmine treaty as examples of nonviolent netwar actions. Armed and violent swarms are another matter. The Chechen rebels in Russia, soccer hooligans in Britain, and the FARC guerrillas in Colombia also have used netwar strategy and swarming tactics. The U.S. military is in the forefront of smart mob technology development.’
     Examples later in this chapter demonstrate that smart mobs engaging in either violent or nonviolent netwar represent only a few of the many possible varieties of smart mob. Netwars do share similar technical infrastructure with other smart mobs. More importantly, however, they are both animated by a new form of social organization, the network. Networks include nodes and links, use many possible paths to distribute information from any link to any other, and are self-regulated through flat governance hierarchies and distributed power. Arquilla and Ronfeldt are among many who believe networks constitute the newest major social organizational form, after tribes, hierarchies, and markets. Although network-structured communications hold real potential for enabling democratic forms of decision-making and beneficial instances of collective action, that doesn’t mean that the transition to networked forms of social organization will be a pleasant one with uniformly benevolent outcomes. Arquilla and Ronfeldt note the potential for cooperation in examples like the nongovernmental organizations that use netwar tactics for public benefit, but they also articulated a strong caution, worth keeping in mind when contemplating the future of smart mobs:
     Most people might hope for the emergence of a new form of organization to be led by “good guys” who do “the right thing” and grow stronger because of it. But history does not support this contention. The cutting edge in the early rise of a new form may be found equally among malcontents, ne’er-do-wells, and clever opportunists eager to take advantage of new ways to maneuver, exploit, and dominate. Many centuries ago, for example, the rise of hierarchical forms of organization, which displaced traditional, consultative, tribal forms, was initially attended, in parts of the world, by the appearance of ferocious chieftains bent on military conquest and of violent secret societies run according to rank—long before the hierarchical form matured through the institutionalization of states, empires, and professional administrative and bureaucratic systems. In like manner, the early spread of the market form, only a few centuries ago, was accompanied by a spawn of usurers, pirates, smugglers, and monopolists, all seeking to elude state controls over their earnings and enterprises.
In light of the military applications of netwar tactics, it would be foolish to presume that only benign outcomes should be expected from smart mobs. But any observer who focuses exclusively on the potential for violence would miss evidence of perhaps an even more profoundly disruptive potential—for beneficial as well as malign purposes—of smart mob technologies and techniques. Could cooperation epidemics break out if smart mob media spread beyond warriors—to citizens, journalists, scientists, people looking for fun, friends, mates, customers, or trading partners?’
‘Consider a few experiments on the fringes of mobile communications that might point toward a wide variety of nonviolent smart mobs in the future:
·         “Interpersonal awareness devices” have been evolving for several years. Since 1998, hundreds of thousands of Japanese have used Lovegety keychain devices, which signal when another Lovegety owner of the opposite sex and a compatible profile is within fifteen feet. In 2000, a similar technology for same-sex seekers, the “Gaydar” device, was marketed in North America. Hong Kong’s “Mobile Cupid service” (www.sunday.com) sends a text description of potential matches who are nearby at the moment.
·         ImaHima (“are you free now?”) enables hundreds of thousands of Tokyo i-mode users to alert buddies who are in their vicinity at the moment.
·         Upoc (“universal point of contact”) in Manhattan sponsors mobile communities of interest; any member of “Manhattan celebrity watch,” “nyc terrorism alert,” “prayer of the day,” or “The Resistance,” for example, can broadcast text messages to and receive messages from all the other members.
·         Phones that make it easy to send digital video directly to the Web make it possible for “peer-to-peer journalism” networks to emerge; Steve Mann’s students in Toronto have chronicled newsworthy events by webcasting everything their wearable cameras and microphones capture.
·         Researchers in Oregon have constructed “social middleware,” which enables wearable computer users to form ad-hoc communities, using distributed reputation systems, privacy and knowledge-sharing agents, and wireless networks.’
     In two separate online press releases put out by the U.S Department of Justice in January, 2024 and July, 2024 titled eBay Inc. to Pay $3 Million in Connection with Corporate Cyberstalking Campaign Targeting Massachusetts Couple and Final Defendant in eBay Cyberstalking Case Sentenced, respectively, we read of seven eBay executives who conspired to and carried out a threatening and three-part harassment campaign against a couple from Natick, Massachusetts ‘in retaliation for their publication of an industry newsletter that eBay executives viewed as critical of the company.’
     The harassment campaign against the couple included: physical stalking, illegal surveillance, trespassing, installing a GPS tracking device on their car, sending harassing and threatening private messages on Twitter or X, anonymous deliveries to the victims’ home, including a book on surviving the loss of a spouse, a preserved fetal pig, a Halloween pig mask, live insects, and a funeral wreath. This was followed by an attempted obstruction of the investigation that followed and conspiring to tamper with witnesses.
     One question being echoed today is why neither the eBay cyberstalking nor the PRC repression scheme was classified as gang stalking since both cases did in fact involve a gang of people who did in fact carry out a stalking campaign against their targeted individual/s. But consider the 2026 Wikipedia page on Gang stalking. In the opening paragraph, we read: ‘Gang stalking or group-stalking is a set of persecutory delusions in which those affected believe they are being followed, stalked, and harassed by a large number of people. The term is associated with the virtual community formed by people who consider themselves "targeted individuals" ("T.I."), claiming their lives are disrupted from being stalked by organized groups intent on causing them harm.’
     Does this mean that anyone who uses the word gang stalking or claims to be being gang stalked is undeniably ‘associated with the virtual community’? Could there in fact be cooperation epidemics in workplaces, for example, whereby one specific worker is targeted with a highly organized covert harassment campaign that is intended to systematically wear them down and compel them to quit their job without explicitly firing them? Has no one in the West ever been bullied by several people at the same time in a public setting whereby the bullies knew the target’s precise location through tracking devices, CCTV, or geolocation, and exploited this advantage through a more synchronized and coordinated form of harassment? And where it says ‘organized groups intent on causing them harm’ – does this mean physical harm or emotional? And does this page speak for all Targeted Individuals or just some of them? Do there exist any Targeted Individuals or TIs in the West who are conscious of being stalked and disrupted merely for entertainment purposes using netwar strategy and swarming tactics? Do there exist any store owners in the West who can receive a covert notification when an individual they don’t like is passing by so that they can issue veiled threats or veiled harassment that is indiscernible to a bystander? Or are store owners more often the victims of crime than they are the purveyors of it, as per a popular consensus among store owners?

     Further down the Wikipedia webpage, we read: ‘The concept of stalking arose in the 1980s following increased legal equity for women and prosecution of domestic violence. Actual stalking generally has a single perpetrator, who may sometimes recruit others to act vicariously on their behalf, usually unwittingly. Beginning in the early 2000s, the term gang stalking became popularized to describe supposed harassment from multiple people who organize around a shared purpose, with no one person being solely responsible.’ Didn’t Jesus Christ have enemies who organized around a shared purpose with no one person being solely responsible? Did multiple people not conspire against, stalk, mob, and harass him? And isn’t the best way to get away with such behaviour to have multiple perpetrators involved in it?
     According to a 2022 online article by Marcia Diaz, PhD found at www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15564886.2021.1900004#d1e118: ‘Even though stalking is often thought of as a crime involving one victim and one offender, multiple perpetrator stalking has been observed in the form of proxy stalking — situations in which a primary stalker uses other individuals to further target the victim (Logan & Walker, Citation2017; Melton, Citation2007b; Spitzberg & Cadiz, Citation2002). This tactic can take several forms, perpetrators can manipulate or trick the victims’ family and friends into gaining information or access to them, they can enlist their friends or family to follow or harass the victim, or they can use unwitting service providers, for example, delivery drivers, to further terrorize them (Logan & Walker, Citation2017; Mullen et al., Citation2000). Multiple perpetrator stalking can also include situations where victims are harassed by multiple stalkers operating independently of each other, an issue yet to be explored.’
     Another excerpt from the 2009 second edition of Stalkers And Their Victims [pp. 157 – 163] reads as follows: ‘One of the more commonly recognized forms of stalking by proxy is the commissioning of private investigators to locate the victim and to monitor their movements. The engagement of private detective services allows the stalker indirect access to expensive and sophisticated means of surveillance. One private detective was paid a generous sum to follow his client’s victim in a helicopter (Mullen et al., 1999).’
     But referring back to Wikipedia, it further reads: ‘Those who believe they are victims perceive the stalkers' motivation is to disrupt every part of their lives. The stalking activities involved are described as including electronic harassment, the use of "psychotronic weapons", directed-energy weapons, cyberstalking, hypnotic suggestion transmitted through remotely-accessed electronic devices, and other alleged mind control techniques. These have been reported by external observers as being examples of belief systems as opposed to reports of objective phenomena. Among communities of self-identifying targeted individuals, gang stalking is described as a shared experience where the gang stalkers all coordinate to harass sets of individuals, with the communities serving as a venue to share the perceived experiences of victimization.’
     Although there doesn’t appear to be any evidence of psychotronic weapons in the world, there also doesn’t appear to have been any evidence of publicized police reports or validating criminal investigations into present day stalking networks on the part of  a single existing government executive branch – especially as it pertains to the use of netwar or swarming strategies related to coordinated harassment campaigns carried out by small business owners and the middle-class (although there will plausibly be a rise in poorer culprits). Such networks, particularly if they consisted of popular and respectable community members, would have all the technological advantages that the mass networks of the previous 6,000 did not have – including the ability to cover it up in mass numbers.

     Lastly, we read: ‘While a great majority of those who claim to be targeted individuals do not pose danger to others, a 2018 analysis found that some have acted out with violence, sometimes extreme. In 2022, a reported believer in gang stalking was accused of killing four people in Ohio; he uploaded a video before the shooting in which he said that he wanted to "help other targeted individuals", and that he would conduct "the first counterattack against mind control in history". A manifesto was found on the shooter's computer, in which he wrote that his neighbors were mind-controlling terrorists.’
     Let me state for the record that I am not against bringing up or including mass shooting incidents in relation to gang stalking. My only position on the matter is that if Wikipedia pages and the media and the New Media can include, infer, cite, or speculate as to the motivations behind mass shooting incidents, then everyone else online and in person should be afforded the same privilege without being accused of being disrespectful to victims’ families.

     Enter the Stasi security apparatus and you have Zersetzung, which roughly translates to ‘decomposition’ or ‘disruption’ in German. According to Wikipedia’s 2026 webpage on Zersetzung: ‘The German Democratic Republic (GDR) was established in October 1949 as a socialist state from the Soviet Zone of Occupation, and ruled by the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED). During its first decade of the GDR's existence, the SED under General Secretary Walter Ulbricht consolidated their rule by overtly combating political opposition, which it subdued primarily through the penal code by accusing them of incitement to war or of calls of boycott and processing them through the regular criminal judiciary.
     In 1961, to counteract the GDR's practice of isolationism following the construction of the Berlin Wall, the judicial repression was gradually abandoned. At the end of the 1960s, the GDR's desire for international recognition and rapprochement with the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) led to a commitment to adhere to the U.N. Charter.
     On 3 May 1971, with the blessing of the USSR's leadership, Erich Honecker became First Secretary of the SED, replacing Ulbricht for an ostensible reason of poor health. Honecker sought to burnish the GDR's international reputation while fighting internal opposition by intensification of the Stasi's efforts to punish dissident behaviors without using the penal code. The GDR signed the Basic Treaty, 1972 with West Germany to respect human rights, or at least announce its intention to do so, and the Helsinki Accords in 1975. Consequently, the SED regime decided to reduce the number of political prisoners, which was compensated for by practising dissident repression without imprisonment or court judgements.’ In other words, a new form of persecution would take place that could be covered up.
     According to a 2021 article [regarding the Stasi] in the Daily Mail: ‘Pictures on walls were moved, an electric razor in the bathroom left running, socks moved to a different drawer, furniture shifted to a different position, even the coffee mysteriously disappearing from the kitchen and the variety of tea in a cupboard replaced by a different one.
     It was the little things like this that freaked people out, leaving them, in the words of the Stasi handbook, 'paralysed, disorganised and isolated'.
     A married target would be sent falsified photographs of himself in a compromising situation or postcards from another woman demanding child support payments; his wife would get a sex toy in the post; a vibrator — which was classified as decadent Western frivolity — would be planted in his home to embarrass and incriminate him.
     All these were tactics to undermine family relations and help destroy him.
     'Decomposition was designed to unglue a dissident's psyche, to chip away at his sanity,' according to U.S. academic Professor Dominic Tierney of the think-tank the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia.
     'A regime opponent would find himself trapped in a Kafkaesque nightmare. Everywhere he turned, an evil force seemed to be hounding him, even though he could not prove that he had been singled out.
     'Who would believe that the government was secretly stealing his tea towels?'
     The effects were powerful. Some victims killed themselves, others suffered insomnia, panic attacks and nervous breakdowns. One target called what happened to him 'an assault on the human soul'.
     Insidious step was piled on insidious step to systematically undermine individuals and prevent them from living a normal life. Their homes were bugged, telephones tapped, cars mysteriously sabotaged, bicycle tyres slashed.
     A promotion at work would be denied for no good reason. Medical notes were interfered with and they were diagnosed for treatment they did not need.
     On whispered Stasi instructions, staff in bars and shops would refuse to serve them, leaving them feeling isolated, unwanted, outsiders.
     The continual sense of being followed and checked on, that no one around you could be trusted, was inevitably damaging — as at least one woman would later discover from her Stasi file, the person who had informed on her for years was her own husband, the father of her sons.’
     Further down the article, we read: ‘As well as against individuals, Zersetzung tactics were also used to undermine organised groups of dissidents, the sort that printed anti-government leaflets or made contact with the West.
     Dissent and distrust would be stirred up among members with rumours of collaboration with the authorities, of informants in their midst, until they were so busy suspecting each other that they had no time to be active opponents of the state any more.
     An agent would infiltrate a group and then surreptitiously disrupt what they were doing by, for example, agreeing to tasks but not getting round to them, losing equipment and sabotaging the production of dissident material.’
     Finally, we read: ‘Today, more than 30 years on, what deeply concerns him is that the evils of the Stasi are not acknowledged in the reunified Germany but swept under the carpet of history.
'Not until the communist dictatorship is as firmly in mind in Germany as the criminal regime of the Nazis will we really have succeeded in coming to terms with the legacy of the Stasi,' he says.
     This is the sentiment echoed in The Grey Men. The book, by former FBI agent Ralph Hope, whose beat included Eastern Europe, tries to track the progress of those thousands of Stasi secret policemen who never faced punishment for what they had done but simply disappeared into the reunited Germany, reinventing themselves as businessmen, academics and politicians.’
     The Stasi also employed honey traps to spy on dissidents and persons of interest, which you can read about at:
·         www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fweekend-australian-magazine%2Fsex-lies-and-espionage-inside-east-germanys-ruthless-stasi%2Fnews-story%2F3edd06bcc8bb913d38000e646fe42514&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=GROUPA-Segment-2-NOSCORE
·         thehistorypress.co.uk/article/honey-traps/mariobekes.com.au/love-as-a-weapon-from-stasi-romeos-to-todays-digital-honeytraps
·         https://thehistorypress.co.uk/article/honey-traps/
     I’m glad that Zersetzung is receiving the attention it deserves today, but I can’t be the only person in Australia wondering why it took so long. Were the machinations of East Germany not felt elsewhere? Did our Christian nations not already know about it? Were many Westerners telling themselves amid some 20 years of East Germans complaining about organized harassment that it was difficult to comprehend how people could do a thing like this instead of seeking to help them, speaking out on their behalf, or even doing something much simpler like casually mentioning their suffering? Did the word Zersetzung not get advertised enough in popular Australian Christian circles? Did our teachers not feel the need to teach Zersetzung in schools? Because, to my knowledge, not a lot of millenials ever heard this word growing up. Did saying the word Zersetzung on the street make one unpopular? And are we now going assume that this kind of behaviour doesn’t exist anymore simply because mass numbers of people either seem afraid of it, are intent on confining it to the past, pushing it into the realm of mental illness, or relegating it to more historical cases like the Stasi and not to ordinary everyday citizens in our local Christian communities where everyone seems to be the good guy?
     Enter the FBI’s COINTELPRO program and you have a series of covert and illegal projects conducted between 1956 and 1971; another example of mass numbers of people targeting and persecute groups and individuals. As per the 2026 wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO2026 webpage: ‘COINTELPRO (a syllabic abbreviation derived from Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert and illegal projects conducted between 1956 and 1971 by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting American political parties and organizations that the FBI perceived as subversive.
     Groups and individuals targeted by the FBI included feminist organizations, the Communist Party USA, anti-Vietnam War organizers, activists in the civil rights and Black power movements (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and the Black Panther Party), student organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the American Indian Movement (AIM), Chicano and Mexican-American groups like the Brown Berets and the United Farm Workers, and independence movements (including Puerto Rican independence groups, such as the Young Lords and the Puerto Rican Socialist Party). Although the program primarily focused on organizations that were part of the broader New Left, they also targeted white supremacist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the National States' Rights Party.
     The FBI engaged in covert operations targeting domestic political groups from its earliest years. Covert operations under the official COINTELPRO label took place between 1956 and 1971. However, the official chronology of the program is the subject of debate. According to a US Senate investigation, "If COINTELPRO had been a short-lived aberration, the thorny problems of motivation, techniques, and control presented might be safely relegated to history. However, COINTELPRO existed for years on an ad hoc basis before the formal programs were instituted, and more significantly, COINTELPRO-type activities may continue today under the rubric of 'investigation'." Many of the tactics used in COINTELPRO are alleged to have seen continued use, including discrediting targets through psychological warfare; smearing individuals and groups using forged documents and by planting false reports in the media; harassment; wrongful imprisonment; illegal violence; and assassination. According to a Senate report, the FBI's motivation was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order".’
     Scrolling down the page, we read: ‘According to attorney Brian Glick in his book War at Home, the FBI used five main methods during COINTELPRO:
1.      Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit, disrupt and negatively redirect action. Their very presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential supporters. The FBI and police exploited this fear to smear genuine activists as agents.
2.      Psychological warfare: The FBI and police used a myriad of "dirty tricks" to undermine movements. They planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents, employers, landlords, school officials, and others to cause trouble for activists. They used bad-jacketing to create suspicion about targeted activists, sometimes with lethal consequences.
3.      Harassment via the legal system: The FBI and police abused the legal system to harass dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers of the law gave perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used conspicuous surveillance, "investigative" interviews, and grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence their supporters.
4.      Illegal force: The FBI conspired with local police departments to threaten dissidents; to conduct illegal break-ins in order to search dissident homes; and to commit vandalism, assaults, beatings and assassinations.[75] The objective was to frighten or eliminate dissidents and disrupt their movements.
5.      Undermine public opinion: One of the primary ways the FBI targeted organizations was by challenging their reputations in the community and denying them a platform to gain legitimacy. Hoover specifically designed programs to block leaders from "spreading their philosophy publicly or through the communications media". Furthermore, the organization created and controlled negative media meant to undermine black power organizations. For instance, they oversaw the creation of "documentaries" skillfully edited to paint the Black Panther Party as aggressive, and false newspapers that spread misinformation about party members. The ability of the FBI to create distrust within and between revolutionary organizations tainted their public image and weakened chances at unity and public support.’  

     Enter gang stalking and you have what many people in the West are describing as something that has forever turned their lives upside down ever since they did one of the following: became an activist, spoke out against wrongdoing, peaked ‘behind the scenes’ of ordinary everyday life and exposed something that was plausibly meant to remain hidden, were suspected of or blamed for having an affair with a married person, or spoke out about gang stalking. If pattern recognition holds any sociological advantage after the mobile phone, there seems to be two chief and foremost popular consensuses in the West with respect gang stalking that no one in the New Media seems to find remotely interesting. They are that:
1.    Gang stalking is the most terrifying thing on the planet that could carry a risk of being murdered, that ordinary everyday citizens definitely can't pretend to have been murdered, targeted, and harassed by gang stalkers, that there's very little the police can do, and that most gang stalking perpetrators, despite little to no tangible evidence, could be scary-looking underworld figures, police, government, and military personnel, federal agencies like the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, and various other official intelligence groups, foreign actors, Freemasons, cultists, demons, evil spirits, but definitely not ordinary everyday popular Christian friends, family members, intimate partners, neighbours, and community leaders who covertly carry out gang stalking in public while pretending to be terrified of gang stalking from the aforementioned groups to make you afraid of gang stalking 'with them' to control your thoughts, opinions, and perceptions.
2.     Most gang stalking victims are in fact mentally ill and/or suffering paranoid delusions, and that social media and various online communities are in fact intensifying these delusions.

     According to the many claims of gang stalking victims online, they are being disrupted with various forms of harassment, on a regular basis, by large numbers of people, of all races and from all socioeconomic backgrounds, sometimes by sole actors and other times by groups, including regular-looking men, women, children, couples, friends, and families. The disruption against them is said to be ongoing, with some Targeted Individuals or TIs claiming decades of harassment, and others moreso when they attempt to speak out about it or report it to the proper authorities.
     Their disruption allegedly consists of more frequent occurrences of: people exiting public doorways and entrances just as they try to enter them, appearing on street corners at the exact same time they do, strangers invading their personal spaces in shopping centres and other public places, parents with loud and disruptive children in their vicinity, pedestrians walking momentarily into their lane from the opposite direction on footpaths and walkways, as well as walking too closely behind them, cyclists similarly weaving their bikes into their personal spaces, strangers invading their personal spaces in public (also called mobbing), people scraping their feet as they walk by, and various forms of street theatre wherein random strangers in public perform or reenact a personal incident in the victims’ lives that ostensibly took place in private, such a recent argument they had with a friend or a family member in the privacy of their own homes, as well as veiled threats, veiled harassment, and harassing directed conversations, whereby single or multiple individuals in their vicinity loudly ‘discuss’ something that only the TI would comprehend as harassment, such as something they were doing the previous day or what they had for breakfast that morning – with many of these disruptions also being carried out in victims' workplaces, home churches, and neighbourhoods on the part of ordinary fellow workmates, attendees, and neighbours, respectively.

     In addition to this, a more frequent: police, fire, and ambulance presence in their immediate vicinity and surrounding area, as well as police, fire, and ambulance sirens on at any given time during the day and night, with such vehicles either more regularly passing them on the road or parked and static in their neighbourhoods, noise campaigns in the form of cars and motorcycles doing loud drive-bys, as more proximate and frequent use of lawnmowers, air horns, as well as shouting, laughing, coughing, and sneezing on the part of strangers as they walk by, and various other noise-related harassment such as the synchronized playing of music from bystanders in the area, with lyrics that accurately describe one or several of their recent gang stalking experiences.
     Other forms of harassment are said to include more frequent occurrences of: people pretending to carry out smear campaigns against them in their local communities while others pretend to believe or lend credence to such smears, street lights going on or off as they walk or drive by, more successive red signals at traffic lights, having their mail frequently diverted, mail carriers and couriers in their immediate vicinity, as well as furniture removalists and construction workers, helicopters and light aircraft flying overhead, cars swerving momentarily into their lanes on the road, brighting or flashing them, in addition to more frequent car trouble, car sabotage, vandalism, as well as the damage, theft, temporal loss, and even addition of personal belongings and food items, workplace harassment, anomalous electronic assaults, shocks, tickling sensations, dream manipulation, remote genital manipulation, computer problems, phone hacking, cyber harassment, and more frequent appearances of animals and wildlife in their immediate vicinity.
     Gang stalking victims also report frequent honey traps appearing at the same places where they work, eat, play, shop, and exercise. Typically, these are attractive members of the opposite sex, of all races and ethnicities, with regular jobs and incomes, and often present as self-confident and conversational people who seem wholly interested in the same subjects and activities as the TI. Such honey traps, though further described as initially friendly, are also said to, should the TI end up in an intimate relationship with them, go on to participate in their harassment, such as by surreptitiously moving or repositioning their furniture or belongings, gaslighting them about their gang stalking experiences, and suggesting that they seek help from a mental health professional. In addition to this, TIs claim that the people in their lives, including friends, family, intimate partners, neighbours and workmates, whom they had once described as kind and caring individuals, now describe them as wanting to engage in passive aggression, one-upmanship, psychological games, as well as give backhanded compliments, condescend to them, laugh at their pain, illnesses, and misadventures.
     Gang stalking victims further report veiled threats, veiled harassment, gaslighting, and stonewalling from all known customer service personnel, including receptionists, representatives, sales assistants, as well as those of auto mechanics, technical support, hotels, motels, theme parks, entertainment venues, in addition to postal workers, couriers, small business owners, community leaders, volunteers, fundraisers, and charity-workers.

     Finally, gang stalking victims also report the presence of Fake TIs online; people pretending to be gang stalking victims themselves in an attempt to steadily garner people's trust and to make their own alleged gang stalking experiences out to be as terrifying as possible, such as by affirming, often in unison, that murder or suicide is the chief goal of gang stalking, to dissuade victims and advocates from speaking out, turn the public's suspicions towards some culprits but not others, and to make the general public terrified of, or suspicious of TIs and their experiences. If you were to look up gang stalking online right now, you would in fact find mostly terrifying notions, symbols, imagery, music, videos, stories, accounts, and comments sections.

     As per the first popular consensus across all known social media platforms, including the New Media, out of all known phenomena, gang stalking is said to be the most terrifying. Some of the more repeated phrases among them are in fact: ‘this is terrifying,’ ‘I’m terrified,’ ‘terrifying phenomenon,’ and ‘gang stalking is terrifying.’ It's also worth reiterating that this consensus, for the most part, holds that gang stalking could carry a risk of being murdered, that ordinary everyday citizens definitely can't pretend to have been murdered or harassed by gang stalkers, that there's nothing the police can do, and that most gang stalking perpetrators, despite little to no tangible evidence, could be scary-looking underworld figures, police, government, and military personnel, drivers of black SUVs and cars with tinted windows, federal agencies like the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, and various other official intelligence groups, foreign actors, Freemasons, cultists, demons, evil spirits, but definitely not ordinary everyday popular Christian friends, family members, intimate partners, neighbours, and community leaders who covertly carry out gang stalking in public while pretending to be terrified of gang stalking from the aforementioned groups to make you afraid 'with them' to control your thoughts, opinions, and perceptions of gang stalking.

     To repeat the second popular consensus, it is that Targeted Individuals are collectively suffering paranoid delusions of persecution that stem from mental health issues, and that social media and various other online communities are intensifying and/or perpetuating these issues. As for more middle-of-the-road studies, theories, and suggestions, they don’t seem to be as popular. Does this mean that there is absolutely no possibility that some people are pretending to be TIs who fear for their safety while others are pretending to believe that such TIs are mentally ill? Wouldn't doing so deflect from the scrutiny of the popular people in your local community, who could thereby usher themselves into one thought camp or the other for the sake of hiding their culpability behind a popular consensus?
     In the meantime, many gang stalking victims have claimed that they have in fact faced mental health interventions whereby they were subject to involuntary mental health treatment; placed into psychiatric facilities, and forced to take antipsychotic medication after reporting their gang stalking experiences to the authorities and various other medical professionals, and there still doesn’t appear to have been any conscious efforts made by any such individual/s to carry out any [publicized] investigations. Some gang stalking victims have even claimed that distinct phone apps are being utilized in their harassment campaigns and there still doesn’t appear to have been any significant attempts made on the part of any authorities or authority body to investigate such claims, or to confiscate phones for potentially admissible digital evidence in a court of law. But the most interesting thing regarding gang stalking and TIs is that there remains little to no official cases online of multiple perpetrators being arrested simultaneously for stalking the same person at the same time. Which begs the question, if stalking by proxy is a common enough theme in Western society, at what point, or at what number of stalking perpetrators reported, do mental health communities or professionals dismiss such cases and ascribe mental illnesses to self-described gang stalking victims? And are we to understand that the current position of the mental health communities across Australia and the West is, for the most part, that those who report gang stalking are largely suffering mental illnesses despite little to no publicized and official inquiries on their part? Have any mental health professionals taken the time to ask the victims any questions, such as when their gang stalking began, or what they believe triggered it? Have they referred any cases back to the executive branches of governments, or recommended further scrutiny on their part?

     It also bears repeating that, where the media in general scarcely reports on incidents involving multiple stalkers, those that exist in the New Media and across various social media platforms seem to largely accompany the most terrifying stories, notions, accounts, and experiences – as well as disturbing music, imagery, and the more distressing comments found at the top of everyone else's. Does this mean that only the most terrifying stories are to be believed? Does it mean there is no such thing as workplace cooperation epidemics that incorporate organized harassment campaigns against workers they don't like? Does it mean that certain individuals are not facing netwar and swarming strategies on the part of any popular people in their local communities? Or does it simply mean that the New Media largely prefers to focus on the more terrifying possibilities?

     Furthermore, the mainstream media seems determined to make sure that all Victorians think of ‘swarming’ as a mere shoplifting trend in which large numbers of teenagers set upon shops, stores, and businesses, essentially outnumbering the workers or the staff inside, and fleeing with stolen goods. So, despite the possibility that even shopkeepers, store owners, and business proprietors are engaging in the swarming strategies employed by smart mobs to overwhelm individuals, and would be far better at covering it up – such as through shifting the blame to new trends appearing on TV and YouTube – these swarming teenagers and, I daresay, the lower-income Victorians, are now the New Enemies for the ordinary everyday Victorians to point to and talk about. It's also worth noting that business and small business owners are largely the victims of serious crime in the news media and rarely the purveyors of it [especially in large numbers], despite the fact that their wealth provides them far greater opportunities to access sophisticated technology and resources for more coordinated forms of harassment. Possessing such wealth should also not excuse them from scrutiny since they have the financial means of preserving their popularity in their local communities.

     All things considered, there still doesn’t seem to have been very many petitions signed by members of the Australian public, let alone Australia's business and small business owners, for the government's executive branch to carry out robust criminal investigations into gang stalking, even as more and more people, both here and abroad, continue to report these crimes to the authorities. Gang stalking has presumably been around since at least the early 2000s and there still doesn't appear to have been any formal requests made in Australia for a Royal Commission into any forms of organized stalking, especially where they might involve those with more wealth than the advertised bad guys who often appear on YouTube and TV.

     The wider Christian community of Australia, including churches, charities, Christian organizations, and various groups that unite with grassroots ecumenical movements to work together on community service and public advocacy, despite often speaking out (and at length) about matters related to politics, sexuality, transgenderism, and the evils of abortion, have more or less decided that the best policy with respect to gang stalking is to say and do absolutely nothing, much like the previous 'Christian' generations did with respect to Zersetzung – and while the many will happily critique and criticize the advertised criminals in this country ad naseum, few seem willing to look at the possibility and effectiveness of street level acting and fake consensuses taking place in their own backyards to divert attention away from their popular neighbours with respect to any serious crime. As to the mental health communities of Australia and the West, you would think that they would be especially interested in carrying out all manner of investigations into gang stalking, if in fact they are the ones who are now charged, as opposed to law enforcement agencies, with determining what crimes among us are based in reality and what crimes are purely fictitious and require forced psychiatric treatment. Would you agree?

 
     Heliocentrism rightly holds that the sun is the center of the solar system and that the Earth and the other planets revolve around it – yet for nearly 2000 years the heliocentric theory was plausibly denied, censored, and opposed by a popular and even hostile consensus. First proposed by Aristarchus of Samos as early as 270 BCE, it arguably gained the most traction during the Galileo Affair of the 17^th Century, wherein, according to the 2026 Wikipedia webpage:
     ‘In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger) describing the observations that he had made with his new, much stronger telescope, amongst them the Galilean moons of Jupiter. With these observations and additional observations that followed, such as the phases of Venus, he promoted the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543. Galileo's opinions were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be both scientifically indefensible and heretical. Galileo went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619; he argued (incorrectly) that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth. In 1632, Galileo published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which defended heliocentrism while describing geocentrists as "simpletons". Responding to mounting controversy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to house arrest. At this point, heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas after the trial.’
     At one time, Galileo even complained that some of his opponents refused to even look through his telescope to confirm his discoveries. In a letter to his contemporary, Johannes Kepler, Galileo wrote:
     ‘My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.’
     Eventually, it would be Isaac Newton who would derive the mathematical proof for the heliocentric model in 1687 with his publication of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. But the legend I enjoy hearing the most was a phrase rumoured to have been spoken by Galileo immediately after his being forced to recant his heliocentric beliefs by the Roman Catholic Inquisition. Following his abjuration, Galileo is said to have muttered in rebellion ‘Eppur si muove’ or, in English, ‘And yet it moves.’

     I find value in asking unpopular questions. Do you think there might be other things that move in this world that we don’t know yet know about, like advanced technology in the hands of mass numbers of ordinary everyday citizens? Do you think the reason we don’t yet know about such technology is largely because mass numbers of Joshs, Kendras, Troys, Bens, Biancas, and Allys either hold that it doesn't exist, or that it's largely confined to governments, corporations, and foreign actors instead of the Joshs, Kendras, Troys, Bens, Biancas, and Allys in our own neighbourhoods of 'Christian' countries? Do you think the same mass numbers are in local communities all over Australia and the West, collectively and secretly controlling the flow of information with the aid of such technology? And do you think possessing such control, as well as such technology, is largely generating the rampant narcissism in the West while popular [narcissistic] consensuses therein regularly ascribe it to 'childhood wounds' or mental illnesses? I think anyone could be forgiven for believing that the future has been around a lot longer than what a popular consensus in the West seems to be dictating. And I'm thinking that such a thought would be best dictated in unison, and by those with the greatest incentive to cover it up. An incentive that you should hopefully know by now.

     Is the world a stage? Have mass numbers of men, women, and children already made the transition to a vast, radical, and hidden ecumenical social network of ordinary everyday spies and actors working in tandem on the street level to control the flow of information? Will the 'scary' people on our streets who stalk the night or harass people over minor infractions in their local communities or terrorize people on trains or yell at receptionists ever be asked if they're just participating in a real time disinformation campaign to shape your thoughts, opinions, and perceptions, as well as distract from the true origin of mass narcissism? Will community leaders and small business owners and the middle-class and materialistic locals forever walk between the raindrops while the bad guys advertised on TV and YouTube grow exponentially and occupy contemporary thought? Will they forever be advertised as the victims of crime and rarely the perpetrators of it? And will the idea of popular, well-connected people in your local community having integrity and good morals ever be advertised as a staggering oxymoron?

     Will the gang stalking narrative continue to be steered by a popular consensus that most gang stalking victims are terrified? Will social media and the New Media continue to advertise just how terrifying gang stalking is with stories, anecdotes, and imagery, as well as perpetuate the narrative that the police can do very little for victims of gang stalking, let alone arrest any perpetrators of stalking that involves more than one person? Will any two or three people, who happen to not be impoverished, tattoo-covered, or connected to 'teen gangs', ever be arrested at the same time in Australia for conspiring to stalk the same person with the aid of technology? Will the gang stalking narrative continue to be steered towards some culprits but not others? Will any gang stalking victims who report or advertise their terrifying experiences if they're just pretending to be gang stalking victims to 'terrify' viewers? Will those who steer the gang stalking narrative end up being connected to the ecumenical movement or to the popular members of their local communities? Will most people eventually confine you to the realm of mental illness for suspecting many ordinary everyday friends, family members, and intimate partners of secretly conspiring against the few? And what do you suppose will end up largely dictating the contemporary thought with respect to gang stalking if fake consensus-driven thought does in fact dominate most of Western life from the ground up? Facts? Or a popular consensus?

     Does mass cruelty exist today on a much larger scale than what our contemporaries are dictating to us while they cover it up en masse and in unison? And could the real reason Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery was so heavily criticized and unpopular when it first came out be because it was in fact a perfectly accurate portrayal of modern man, and modern man simply didn’t want such a portrayal advertised at the time?

     Are millions of men and women being secretly and covertly controlled by their friends, family members, and intimate partners? Were millions of people, spanning decades, preselected and psychosocially herded into relationships with their current spouses or significant others by way of smart highly organized smart mobs? Are as many millions having their thoughts, opinions, and perceptions shaped by those whom they happened to meet at perfectly synchronized moments, arranged through hidden technology, when such people 'accidentally' bumped into them in the church parking lot or dropped eating utensils on the ground right next to them in restaurants or ended up volunteering at the exact same time they did at humanitarian organizations or when they happened to be the ones administering their blood tests at the hospital? Do the people closest to us have a much greater incentive to control us than anyone else?

     Is there a lot more going on in the world than is advertised on YouTube and TV? And if there is, will you find it down another distracting rabbit hole, or on the broad and simple locust bed of Western civilization, where it operates under the guise of ordinary everyday life? Because if it’s the latter, perhaps the expression ‘walk the dinosaur’ may one day overshadow today’s many times more popular ‘why would I do a thing like that?’

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi65vFG3gqQ.