by Abrams Hap
Manipulation takes many forms, and aims at us from multiple levels. Emotions, inattention, preoccupation, distraction, lack of information, misinformation, and levels of trust all aid in the success of manipulation-craft bewitchment. The systems and techniques, utilized to manipulate and deceive, are known and tried. They are natural systems experienced in society and the psychological functions of reality. When used with the intent to beguile they become manipulation-crafts. Below are a few examples of techniques and mechanisms you face. Knowing them and recognizing the process is key to your understanding and freewill.
For every idea or (Thesis) there would be an opposite idea or (Antithesis). The resulting conflict between the two leads to a combination of the two or (Synthesis). The Synthesis then becomes the new Thesis and the cycle continues.
This process can be observed with any meeting of the minds throughout time. However, if both parts of the equation are under the direction of the same architect, the resulting synthesis is a structure of intended design. Utilizing the Hegelian Dialectic as manipulation-craft is detrimental to a free society. It makes the political and democratic processes, inept.
Problem Reaction Solution
This manipulation technique avoids opposition to the goal of the manipulators. It manipulates the targeted individual(s) into wanting the manipulator to do what the manipulator had planned to do, but could not have done without the support of the targeted person(s).
For example, you create a problem, that can not be traced back to you. This problem causes your intended reaction from the targeted individual(s). Use of appropriate media and other influences can aid greatly in shaping the desired reaction of the targeted subject(s). The manipulated reaction of the targeted victim(s) then causes the victim(s) to demand a solution to the problem you created. The leaders of country “A” want to go to war with country “B”. However the people of country “A” do not support this action. Country “A” initiates events that appear to be acts of war taken by country “B”. The indignation from the people of country “A” demand that their leaders take action. The leaders of country “A”, with the support of their people, attack country “B”.