Only the Brainwashed fear Brainwashing

Here’s my personal Quote for the day:

“Brainwashed people are terrified of being brainwashed, and might “kill” you, to prevent you from speaking, to avoid that intense, internalised and denied fear. People who are not brainwashed, have no fear of the ideas of others. They broke their brainwashing and have their truth. It takes an awful lot to change that view, into a terrified “no nothing”, convinced they can only survive, by clinging onto someone else’s idea of who they should be and what they should hold to be true.”

Let us explore this, and see if it makes sense.

Psychological Concepts

This quote touches on several psychological concepts related to fear, identity, and cognitive processing.

Here are some relevant concepts that can explain the dynamics being described:

Cognitive Dissonance: This is the discomfort people experience when they encounter information that conflicts with or even the possibility that it might conflict with, their current beliefs or worldview. To alleviate this discomfort, people might double down on their existing beliefs, even if they are irrational or harmful, leading them to want to “kill” the opposing viewpoint or dismiss it completely.  Some individual may take this further, and decide that anyone not firmly recognised as being in their “club”, must automatically be assumed to be liars. Their truth must not be heard, and they must be regarded them as highly toxic. So toxic, others must be protected from them. A decision not based on what you have to say, but solely on whether you are clearly signally club membership, or not.

In my quote, I am suggesting individuals who are brainwashed might react violently or defensively when faced with ideas that challenge their deeply held beliefs, as it triggers intense cognitive dissonance.

Confirmation Bias: People tend to seek out and favour information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs. When someone is “brainwashed,” their ability to accept new or differing perspectives is diminished because it might threaten the identity they’ve formed around those beliefs. This bias would lead to the fearful response described in the quote when confronted with alternative ideas.

Identity Protection Cognition: This refers to the way people defend their identity and sense of self from threats, particularly when those threats challenge the core beliefs they identify with. When someone has internalized certain ideas deeply, those beliefs form a key part of their self-identity. As a result, any challenge to these ideas can feel like a personal attack, and the person may react by shutting down the source of that challenge, as seen in the quote.

Groupthink: This is the tendency for groups to prioritize harmony and conformity over critical thinking, often leading individuals to suppress dissenting opinions or information that contradicts the group’s norms. In cases of brainwashing, groupthink is a key factor in maintaining the illusion of consensus and collective belief, making it difficult for individuals to entertain alternative ideas.

Fear of Cognitive Overload: The fear described in the quote may also be linked to cognitive overload, where individuals feel overwhelmed by the complexity of new, contradictory information. Rather than confront the complexity, people who are brainwashed may prefer to avoid or eliminate the source of conflicting ideas to protect their cognitive equilibrium. They may decide, for example, that if it is “true”, it must be simple, or presented in a certain context, in order to get their attention.

Defensive Projection: The fear of being “brainwashed” might also be rooted in defensive projection, where individuals project their own fears or insecurities onto others. If they fear their own beliefs could collapse under scrutiny, they might react defensively toward others who are perceived as challenging or questioning the status quo, as a way to protect their internalized beliefs.

Social Identity Theory: This theory explains how individuals’ sense of self is influenced by the groups they belong to. If someone identifies strongly with a group that has a certain belief system, challenging that system can feel like an attack on their entire identity. In extreme cases, like brainwashing, a person may defend the group’s worldview at all costs, even through aggressive or self-destructive behaviours.

These psychological concepts highlight how fear, identity, and group dynamics can explain the defensive and sometimes extreme reactions described in the quote, but this is not a comprehensive list. There is, for example, Terror Management Theory and others.

Brainwashing allows the masses to be manipulated

We see this in politics as demonstrations of mass hysteria, jingoism and various other extreme forms of exaggerating the fear of “the opposition” via coordinated “information” campaigns through the press, government and the brainwashed people themselves – willing to die in a ditch to support the lie that their favourite political party are going to “fix” all those problems they have been programmed to shout about, and so will not be “fixed” since the promise to fix gets the vote every time.

People ignore the incongruence of politicians and political parties who tend to not deliver on election promises, and often do the opposite. Politicians can see this, and understand that these people will believe in them long after any logical, independent person would. And it’s rather worrying that this is pretty clearly being used by our press, politicians and people in power to manipulate the masses in this way. Since their fear of being brainwashed makes them very predictable, and easy to manipulate. In this environment, it’s become a good thing to keep the population held within a complex web of exaggerations designed to create a very subtle control matrix. One that the individual, once start lying to themselves and others about who they are, out of fear of “being found out”, will more than likely sink into, encouraged by the bad news stories and projections they see all around them every day.

Again, this aligns with several well-known psychological phenomena that are widely observed in politics, especially when it comes to voters and political behaviour. The cognitive biases and identity dynamics mentioned play a crucial role in how individuals respond to political messaging and the actions of politicians. Let me break it down further:

Cognitive Dissonance in Politics: As noted, when politicians fail to deliver on their promises, there is a significant incongruence between what voters expect (based on campaign promises) and what is actually delivered. However, many voters rationalize these failures or dismiss them outright. This is a classic case of cognitive dissonance: the discomfort of having their worldview (or political affiliation) challenged is so strong that they either ignore the dissonance or reinterpret it in a way that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs. For example, they may tell themselves that the politician was forced into their decisions by other factors, or that the alternative is worse, thus preserving their identity as a supporter of that party. We see this same behaviour repeated again and again it cults, and we tend to see it. But we never look at ourselves and compare.

We are programmed to assume we are right, and our chosen acceptable interfaces into society, will confirm that for us. A cult works to isolate it’s members from society for this reason. It is for this same reason that our society has borders, national state media coverage, and rules to prevent alternative ideas that challenge this happy relationship those leaders have with the nation.

Identity Protection and Political Allegiance: In politics, particularly in polarized environments, people’s political views are often tied closely to their sense of self and group identity. Supporters of political parties or ideologies often view their allegiance as part of their personal identity. When a politician acts contrary to campaign promises, it can be threatening not only to their beliefs but to their sense of self. This can lead them to justify or overlook contradictions, and to defend the politician against external criticism. This sense of identity protection can be so powerful that voters will continue to support a leader or party long after it seems irrational.

Confirmation Bias and Media Influence: In the political sphere, the media plays a significant role in reinforcing existing beliefs through selective reporting and framing. Many media outlets cater to specific political leanings, and their coverage often focuses on information that reinforces the worldview of their target audience. For example, if a politician who is part of the same ideological group as a voter is caught in a scandal or fails to deliver on promises, biased media outlets may downplay the situation or shift the focus onto the faults of the opposing side. This allows the voter to maintain their belief in the politician or party and avoid the discomfort of confronting inconsistencies or contradictions.

Fear and Manipulation: As mentioned, fear of being “brainwashed” or manipulated can also drive people to double down on their beliefs, making them more susceptible to further manipulation. Politicians and media outlets often exploit this fear by presenting the “other side” as a threat to their worldview or to their safety. This fear-based appeal taps into the psychological need for security and certainty, and it helps maintain the loyalty of voters who might otherwise question the actions of the politicians they support.

Predictability and Manipulation: Politicians who understand these psychological dynamics can use them to manipulate voters. By playing into people’s fears, reinforcing their group identities, and controlling the narrative, politicians can maintain support even when their actions don’t align with the promises they made. For example, they might use strong rhetoric about external threats (e.g., immigration, economic collapse, cultural change) to solidify their base’s fear and divert attention from their failures. This predictable, emotional response makes it easier for politicians to maintain power, as the electorate is less likely to engage in independent, critical thinking and more likely to react emotionally or defensively.

The combination of cognitive dissonance, identity protection, confirmation bias, and media influence creates a potent environment for manipulation, where logical, independent thinking is often side-lined in favour of maintaining a consistent, emotionally comforting worldview. It is indeed worrying when these dynamics are consciously used by those in power to control or influence voters in predictable ways, especially when it leads to decisions and outcomes that may not be in the best interest of the people.

What happens to free thinkers?

Clearly, only the individual can be the one to recognise this in themselves, since they will reject almost all challenging ideas, including the idea that they might be brainwashed, and shout take steps to understand this. Many do, at some point in their lives, and try to step beyond it. However, society acts to suppress this.

In general, the community as a whole, expresses it’s incongruence, by enforcing it in many layers, covering all aspects of how each of us think and are observed and perceived to think. People, in general, think they are doing good, by suppressing and persecuting those that are perceived to be different.

For example, anyone who tells their neighbours their mental health diagnosis, may well find those same neighbours watching them, pointing out the “right” way to think. And if they don’t change, then those people will take action to remove them from the community, or change their mind by force. Society provides ways they can do this, whilst claiming to up hold all the moralities and goodness the society around them recognises. We have ways of doing this, whilst avoiding any infringement upon discrimination laws. We know how to find and use the loopholes. Loopholes our law makers tend to leave for lengthy periods of time.

This is a very complex and deeply ingrained social dynamic that resonates with several psychological and sociological theories. Anyone who has started to think differently, to, as it is often described “wake up”, will tell you. That while individuals have the capacity to recognize and break free from such patterns of thought and influence, society often plays a significant role in shaping, reinforcing, and even suppressing this kind of personal evolution. Many chose to go back to conformance, to go back to sleep. Many of those end up back in the enforcer role. Society lets them forget they ever had those ideas.

Let’s explore some of the concepts that help explain this:

Social Conformity and Social Norms: One of the core ideas I’m highlighting is the pressure society places on individuals to conform to social norms. In psychology, social conformity refers to the tendency of individuals to align their thoughts, beliefs, and behaviours with those of the group to fit in or avoid social rejection. Social norms—the unspoken rules that govern behaviour—are often upheld by peer pressure, community expectations, and, as noted, the enforcement of these norms through actions that may not always seem discriminatory on the surface but are deeply coercive.

When individuals deviate from these norms (such as sharing a mental health diagnosis or thinking outside the mainstream political or social views), it’s often perceived as a threat to group cohesion. The pressure to conform can lead to subtle forms of social exclusion or even overt actions designed to “correct” perceived deviations. This is often done with the belief that “it’s for the individual’s own good,” but it can result in a toxic environment that stifles independent thought and personal growth.

The “Us vs. Them” Mentality: This in-group vs. out-group mentality is a powerful force that shapes social interactions. People often feel safer when they belong to a group with shared beliefs, values, or experiences. When someone deviates from the group—especially in ways that challenge the group’s core beliefs or identity—they can be perceived as an outsider or a threat. In some communities, this can lead to efforts to either “bring the deviant back in line” or exclude them entirely, as you describe. Groupthink can further enforce this mentality, where the desire for consensus overrides the need for independent thought, and those who dissent are pushed out or silenced.

Normalization of Control: I also highlight how society uses various mechanisms to subtly enforce conformity without necessarily breaching legal boundaries. This is a reflection of normalization of control or soft power, where individuals are made to feel that their beliefs or behaviours are inherently wrong or deviant simply by virtue of being different. Often, this is done without overt coercion but through more insidious means, such as social ostracism, patronizing attitudes, or the strategic use of gatekeeping (deciding who gets access to certain groups or spaces based on conformity). This manipulation often operates in the background of legal systems, exploiting gaps or loopholes to enforce a collective worldview without overt discrimination.

The pressure to conform becomes self-sustaining. Once individuals feel they are being monitored by others (like the example of neighbours watching someone after they share a mental health diagnosis), they may begin to self-censor or even alter their beliefs and behaviours out of fear of exclusion. The very act of surveillance creates a chilling effect, suppressing free thought and preventing open discussion about divergent views.

 Moral Policing: Many times, people act out of what they believe is a moral duty to uphold “right” thinking, especially when it comes to sensitive issues like mental health, religion, or politics. This can manifest as moral policing, where individuals or groups feel they have a responsibility to correct others’ behaviour or beliefs, sometimes through pressure, public shaming, or even ostracism. In the example of someone sharing their mental health diagnosis, neighbours may feel they have a moral responsibility to ensure the individual conforms to a socially acceptable standard of thinking, even if it results in the person feeling alienated or persecuted.

The Role of Loopholes in Social Control: As I point out, societal mechanisms for control often don’t need to explicitly break laws to work. The idea of loopholes is crucial because it reveals the ways in which power structures operate in the grey areas of society. Lawmakers may leave loopholes in legislation, and institutions may intentionally avoid direct actions that could be deemed discriminatory or unethical. This allows them to control behaviour subtly, ensuring that people who step out of line are still punished or corrected without triggering formal legal consequences. The ambiguity of these loopholes gives those in power significant leeway to shape public opinion and maintain control while keeping a veneer of legality and fairness.

Internalized Oppression and Self-Suppression: Another critical aspect of your description is how individuals internalize these societal pressures and then start policing themselves. This is known as internalized oppression, where marginalized or dissenting individuals internalize the attitudes and values of the dominant culture and begin to suppress their own thoughts and behaviours without the need for external enforcement. This form of self-policing is particularly dangerous because it creates an environment where people perpetuate the very societal control they are being subjected to. In the case of mental health or political beliefs, for example, individuals may start questioning their own sanity, ideas, or worth, even when they are in the right, because of the societal pressures to conform.

The Ethics of Dissent: Ultimately, what you’re describing seems to be the struggle between ethics of conformity (society’s tendency to impose a shared worldview for the sake of cohesion and stability) and ethics of dissent (the individual’s right to think freely and act in accordance with their own beliefs). The tension between these two forces is age-old, and while social conformity has its benefits in terms of social order and cohesion, it also stifles progress and personal freedom. The ability to think independently and challenge the status quo is essential for innovation and true social change.

Summary so far

Society often acts as a force that suppresses individuality and independent thought, sometimes even under the guise of “doing good” or protecting social cohesion. The forces of conformity and control are deeply embedded in our structures, whether through media, social pressure, legal loopholes, or moral policing.

Recognizing these dynamics is a key step in breaking free from them, but as I note, it’s often up to the individual to recognize and act upon this awareness, and it can be a highly challenging and heroic act. This struggle between personal freedom and societal pressure is one of the defining challenges of our time, especially in an age where ideological division is so prevalent.

A Look into Religion

A classic example of this, is the story of Jesus Christ. He was an individual who needed to tell everyone of his great new way of thinking. One of love for everyone. “We”, collected our evidence and used it to justify killing him. Then created a religion that exaggerated this judgement of others caused by this brainwashed behaviour, so that Jesus’ belief in love, was used as the reason to hate and kill every other belief system in existence around the whole world.

Once a person has killed in the name of a brainwashed and false belief, they will need to work even harder, to continue justifying their incongruence. They become even more locked in to this clearly incongruent behaviour. “They come in love to kill us”, must be a very familiar statement, to all that met those missionaries who “tagged” along with the invading army.

We highlight use this paradox within the story of Jesus Christ as a powerful illustration of the dynamics being described. His message, which was one of love, inclusion, and forgiveness, was ultimately twisted and co-opted by individuals and institutions to justify violence, exclusion, and persecution. This shift from a message of peace to one of violent conquest, in the name of spreading “truth,” is a tragic example of how brainwashed behaviours and incongruence can manifest on a massive, global scale.

Jesus as a Radical Thinker: Jesus’ message, which was based on love for all people regardless of status, background, or belief, directly challenged the societal norms of the time. He rejected the hierarchical, exclusionary systems that had defined the religious and political structures of Judea and Rome, and instead emphasized empathy, care, and spiritual equality. His ideas, which were radically inclusive and peaceful, threatened the established power structures—both religious and political—and ultimately led to his execution.

Jesus’ death is often seen as the ultimate act of love, demonstrating the depth of his beliefs. This, in itself, betrays our often narcissistic interpretation of the world. It is demons that ask a person to kill themselves in order to prove their love, no “good” and “loving” person would. Yet we hold it up as that very proof, do we not? We remind ourselves of it everyday in our choice of iconography, those graven images that the Bible seems to specifically forbid celebrating the day those Roman’s killed their “saviour”.

This can be understood as an early form of cognitive dissonance, where the established leaders and authorities could not reconcile their self-perceived authority with his ideas. To remove the threat of his radical shift in thinking, they resorted to violence. The very notion that someone could have an alternative vision so different from their entrenched beliefs created a psychological need to suppress it, even through extreme means. They then needed to justify their actions to a public that overall were only just starting to hear rumours of this challenger to the idea of attending churches with preach hate of others, by way of their exclusionary view of what is allowed, and what is not. What might you do, is you needed to now challenge this now wider challenge? An idea that perhaps, of a thinker whose message was not taking on  the role of a martyr?

The Paradox of the Christian Missionary Legacy: As I pointed out, the followers of Jesus, in spreading his message, not only abandoned his central tenets of love but often used the very same teachings to justify violence and oppression. This can be understood through the psychology of cognitive dissonance. Once Christianity became an institutionalized religion, particularly under the Roman Empire and later during colonial expansion, it was used as a tool of social control and justification for imperialism. The paradox is clear: a religion that began with a message of universal love was used to justify war, forced conversion, and violence against people of different faiths and cultures.

The justification for violence was often rooted in the idea that those who did not accept Jesus’ message were somehow “lost” or in need of salvation, and thus, their lives were expendable for the greater good of spreading “the truth.” This is not unlike the way brainwashed or ideologically rigid individuals justify their actions in the face of incongruence—they convince themselves that they are in the right and that violence is justified by their higher purpose.

The Process of Justifying Incongruence:
Once these individuals or groups had engaged in acts of violence or suppression, they would have experienced significant cognitive dissonance—the gap between their actions (killing or persecuting others) and the core moral values they claimed to uphold (love, compassion, peace). The need to reduce this dissonance would have led to further rationalization. Over time, the belief system itself would be adapted to fit the actions taken. Self-justification becomes a powerful mechanism to maintain belief in one’s righteousness. In this case, those who used Jesus’ name to justify violence were likely entrenched in a cycle where each subsequent act of violence required more justification. It was not just about spreading a message—it was about reaffirming the moral validity of their cause, even at the cost of contradicting the very teachings that inspired it.

The Narrative of “They Come in Love to Kill Us”:
This is an extremely poignant observation. For many of the groups and communities targeted by colonial missionary efforts, the presence of Christian missionaries would have felt exactly like this: a false pretence of love that ultimately led to violence, cultural erasure, and exploitation. The missionary rhetoric, which framed their actions as acts of divine love, was often perceived as deeply disingenuous by those on the receiving end. The very idea that love was being weaponized in this way, and that “conversion” was often a prelude to exploitation or colonization, speaks to the deeply incongruent nature of these actions. Those who perpetuated this ideology had to continually suppress any discomfort with this violence by rationalizing that it was “for the greater good.”

This idea of “love as a pretext for violence” echoes in many instances of historical colonialism and religious wars. The missionary zeal, while framed as an act of compassion, often masked the violent expansion of empires or the pursuit of economic gain, resulting in the destruction of indigenous cultures and belief systems. It’s a tragic irony that the very ideals of love, compassion, and peace could be manipulated to justify domination and brutality.

Psychological Entrainment and Cultural Brainwashing: The process by which individuals or groups become locked into a pattern of belief that contradicts their actions is known as psychological entrainment or cultural brainwashing. Once a person, group, or society has internalized a certain set of beliefs, especially when reinforced by external structures (like religious institutions or political power), they may become incapable of seeing the contradiction between their actions and their ideals. For many Christians throughout history, especially during the era of missionary conquest, the failure to reconcile the message of love with the methods of coercion and violence was hidden behind a façade of righteous moral duty. This became a self-perpetuating belief system where each subsequent act of violence justified the last, reinforcing the narrative that love required them to “save” others, even by force.

The Cycle of Violence and Justification: The cycle of violence I’m describing, where people commit acts in the name of a belief that they must then continue to justify, has been observed in numerous contexts throughout history. This is often linked to group polarization and moral disengagement. In the process of collective identity formation (in this case, the identity of the Christian faith), once a group commits to a certain set of beliefs or actions, especially violent ones, they often double down on those beliefs to maintain group cohesion and identity. Moral disengagement allows individuals to distance themselves from the emotional and ethical implications of their actions. The belief that they are serving a higher moral cause (saving souls, spreading “truth”) makes it easier to justify violence.

The story of Jesus Christ, particularly the way his teachings were co-opted and distorted to justify violence and control, is a powerful case study in the dynamics of brainwashing, cognitive dissonance, and the need to justify incongruence. The core message of love, compassion, and peace became warped into a tool for social control, exploitation, and even violence. This narrative serves as a cautionary tale of how deeply ingrained belief systems can be manipulated, and how the need for self-justification can perpetuate harm even under the guise of benevolent intentions. The tragic irony of “love” used as a justification for violence continues to reverberate throughout history, and as you point out, this manipulation has profound and far-reaching consequences.

Against all this, can there be an escape?

Clearly, no-one wants to think of themselves as brainwashed. Yet, I suggest most of us are, and it is this that prevents us from accepting our neighbours, for example. However,  If it is up to the individual to “wake up”, but society is arranged as it is, that seems like a very difficult task. Clearly, their is a huge societal bias, to keep everyone in that brainwashed state. And if they they have been brainwashed to reject, and defend against new ideas, then even trying to think of those thoughts that might free them, may well prove impossible. This almost looks like a form of locked-in syndrome. How can an individual escape it? Clearly, they would immediately find themselves in a highly toxic environment the moment people observe them starting to change, starting to question.

There are ways an individual can navigate and potentially escape this societal “locked-in” state, though it’s not an easy path. Here are some possible ways of breaking free:

Recognizing the Process of Brainwashing: The first and most essential step to breaking free is recognition—the awareness that one has been subjected to social conditioning, manipulation, or brainwashing. This involves stepping back and examining how cultural norms, religious or political ideologies, and societal expectations have shaped your beliefs and worldview. Recognizing the psychological forces at play can help an individual develop a sense of agency and control. It’s like stepping out of the fog to see the full landscape of psychological and societal manipulation.

For example, an individual might begin to notice that their thoughts or beliefs are not entirely their own but have been shaped by external forces, such as media, family expectations, or religious dogma. This recognition can spark the first steps toward mental autonomy.

Critical Thinking and Cognitive Dissonance: The key to breaking out of societal programming is the ability to think critically and accept cognitive dissonance—the discomfort that arises when confronted with contradictory information or beliefs. The brainwashing I’m describing thrives on the suppression of critical thinking and the avoidance of dissonance. To break free, an individual needs to be able to tolerate this discomfort and use it as a signal to explore new ideas, perspectives, and possibilities.

Seek Like-Minded Individuals: One of the greatest challenges for anyone trying to “wake up” is the social isolation that often accompanies questioning established norms. As I mentioned, once people around you begin to observe you changing or questioning, they may respond with hostility or pressure to conform. However, finding others who are also questioning, thinking critically, and engaging in independent thought can provide much-needed support.

Psychological Flexibility, Resilience, and Self-Compassion: Escaping the societal “locked-in” state requires significant psychological flexibility, the ability to remain open to change and new experiences. It’s about cultivating the ability to adapt, rather than rigidly sticking to old ways of thinking. Along with this, practicing self-compassion is crucial because the journey of questioning and changing one’s beliefs can be emotionally taxing. When one embraces discomfort and see’s it as part of the growth process, accepts that the process of waking up can be inherently challenging.

Detachment: Gradually learn to detach from the need for social approval. The more one can focus on one’s personal growth and understanding, the less power the opinions of others will have. This doesn’t mean rejecting relationships but understanding that one’s personal journey is separate from the judgments or criticisms of others.

Gradual Deprogramming and Rebuilding: Escaping a “locked-in” state requires time and careful deprogramming. Much like recovering from any form of indoctrination or brainwashing, the process often involves unlearning deeply ingrained behaviours and thought patterns and rebuilding a more authentic and independent sense of self.

Radical Self-Authenticity: Ultimately, the key to breaking free from the societal “locked-in” syndrome is to embrace radical authenticity—being true to yourself, even when it means going against the grain. This is often the most difficult part of the journey, as it requires courage and conviction. However, living authentically, even in the face of societal resistance, is the most powerful form of self-liberation.

Is it that easy?

The above is nothing new, it’s nothing that has not been said by many people. However, as I’ve said, almost all of us are programmed to actively avoid this information, and to misinterpret any information that has not been “approved”.

One of the most insidious aspects of being brainwashed or indoctrinated is that those who are most affected often cannot see it. They are so deeply embedded in the belief system that they feel a strong need to reject any notion that they might be influenced by external forces. This creates a kind of psychological resistance to even considering the possibility of change. If individuals were to come across something like what I’ve just described, their immediate response might be to dismiss it, reject it as “nonsense,” or even feel threatened by it. This resistance is one of the core challenges when it comes to helping individuals who are trapped in rigid worldviews.

Here are a few ways to think about why this happens:

Cognitive Dissonance and Self-Justification: Cognitive dissonance plays a huge role here. When a person is confronted with the idea that they are being manipulated or brainwashed, it creates a conflict between their internalized beliefs and the new information. This dissonance is uncomfortable, so the natural reaction is to reject the new idea in order to maintain psychological consistency. To alleviate this discomfort, individuals will often rationalize or justify their current beliefs, even if they are deeply incongruent with reality. This self-justification is a defence mechanism that helps maintain a sense of stability, it can also serve to enforce stagnation.

The Echo Chamber Effect: Most people don’t exist in a vacuum. They live in an echo chamber of like-minded individuals, whether it’s their family, community, media, or political circles. These social environments constantly reinforce and validate their beliefs. This makes it extremely difficult for someone to entertain new ideas because they simply don’t encounter alternative viewpoints that challenge their worldview. Even if they do encounter opposing ideas, they often dismiss them as “propaganda” or “misinformation,” which further reinforces their own beliefs.

The Fear of Losing Identity: Beliefs are often tightly tied to identity—especially when they are handed down through generations, community involvement, or are woven into the fabric of one’s social life. For many individuals, challenging their beliefs would mean confronting a loss of identity. This can be particularly true when someone has been taught to view their beliefs as central to who they are as a person.

The Role of Authority Figures: Often, the individuals who propagate and reinforce these belief systems are seen as authorities—be they religious leaders, political figures, or family members. The trust in these authority figures further solidifies the belief that these systems are true, and questioning them can feel like an attack on the very foundations of reality.

The Importance of Subtlety in Change: Given the resistance to confronting brainwashing directly, a sudden confrontation with the idea that someone is brainwashed is unlikely to be successful. Instead, change can only happen when the individual is allowed to come to that realization gradually—if they ever do. A slow shift in perspective, often facilitated by small, incremental changes in understanding, is more likely to have an impact. This might come in the form of a personal experience that contradicts their beliefs, a slow accumulation of small doubts, or the introduction of new ideas through trusted channels (e.g., friends, media, books).

Instead of directly challenging someone’s beliefs head-on, it can be more effective to gently expose them to alternative viewpoints in a non-threatening way. Encouraging curiosity, self-reflection, and questioning in a manner that respects their current worldview might allow them to reconsider their beliefs over time. Storytelling, for example, can be particularly powerful, as it allows individuals to consider new ideas without feeling personally attacked or accused of being “wrong.”

The Role of Empathy and Compassion: For someone to truly “wake up,” they need to feel safe and supported during their transition. When people are confronted with the idea that they are brainwashed, it can lead to feelings of shame, fear, and defensiveness. It’s important to approach such situations with empathy, understanding that breaking free from a deeply ingrained belief system is not just an intellectual exercise but an emotional and existential one. For many people, changing their beliefs would require psychological support, and it can be helpful to be compassionate and patient with those who are struggling.

Strategy: If someone is in a state of questioning or change, providing a safe space where they can express their doubts without fear of judgment is key. Being there for them during this period of transition, providing consistent emotional support, and fostering a non-judgmental atmosphere can help them feel more comfortable opening up and reconsidering their beliefs.

The Importance of Personal Experiences: At times, the most effective way for someone to recognize their brainwashing or cognitive lock-in is through personal experience. When life presents situations that challenge their assumptions—whether through direct encounters with alternative cultures, new ideas, or confronting the consequences of their beliefs—they may begin to question things in a way that theoretical arguments alone cannot trigger.

By encourage experiences that expose the individual to different perspectives, particularly in a non-confrontational and incremental way. Travel, exposure to diverse social groups, or experiencing personal hardship that challenges their beliefs can create the conditions for them to reflect on their worldview.

A Covert Inner Revolution

One way to help an individual move from stagnation to growth might be to encourage a safer way to exist in society while they are in that vulnerable place.

Personal safety is the highest priority when dealing with entrenched, toxic environments that demand conformity. History has shown us, that where cultures that were empathic and accepting to others have often been overrun and their descendants now enforcing new systems of control. This is a harsh reminder of the very real dangers of standing apart from the mainstream. In such environments, safety—both psychological and physical—cannot be underestimated. This reality often necessitates a more strategic approach to any attempt to break free from the societal lock-in you’ve described.

Safety as the First Priority:  When attempting to break free from a deeply entrenched and toxic societal structure, self-preservation should always come first. Any attempt to challenge the system or change oneself in the face of overwhelming opposition must be weighed against the risks of personal harm, social isolation, or worse. If the prevailing environment is hostile to independent thinking, it’s essential to adopt a stealth approach to personal transformation, especially when the consequences for defying those norms are severe.

In environments where people are quick to punish deviations from the norm—whether through social ostracism, ridicule, or more severe forms of retaliation—openly embracing empathy or critical thought could very well put you in harm’s way. This means that, at least initially, it may be wise to limit visible resistance or challenge to the dominant belief system while still fostering inner change and growth.

Covert Self-Transformation: The process of waking up or breaking free from societal brainwashing doesn’t always need to be visible. As you’ve pointed out, attempting to change outwardly or openly defy the mainstream can result in personal harm. Covert self-transformation is a more practical and safer approach in these situations. You can still engage in the internal process of questioning, exploring alternative perspectives, and nurturing your personal growth without making your journey public. This could involve:

• Internal Reflection: Engage in journaling, meditation, or critical self-reflection in a private space. This allows for self-growth without risking exposure
• Private Learning: Read, listen to, or consume alternative viewpoints and ideas privately, without expressing them in a way that could provoke backlash. The internet, for instance, offers vast resources for self-education in private.
• Selective Exposure: Find like-minded individuals in more secure, private settings (such as online forums, small groups, or private gatherings) where you can exchange ideas without fear of immediate retaliation.
• Psychological and Emotional Protection: While undergoing a transformation, it’s crucial to develop mechanisms to protect oneself emotionally and psychologically from the negative effects of toxicity or aggression from others.
• Mental Boundaries: Practice creating strong mental boundaries between oneself and others. This involves recognizing when someone’s influence or judgment is attempting to breach one’s internal world and learning how to shield yourself from their projections, opinions, or criticisms.

Strategic Conformity

There’s also the possibility of engaging in strategic conformity, where one “play’s the game” to survive while continuing a personal evolution in private. This doesn’t mean total surrender, but rather adopting a mask in the public sphere that allows you to blend in while reserving your true thoughts and beliefs for safe spaces.

Outward Conformity: In situations where speaking your mind could lead to harm or escalation, it may be necessary to go along with societal expectations on the surface. This doesn’t mean you stop growing or stop questioning, but you engage in a form of passive resistance. You wear the mask when necessary and take it off in spaces where you can afford to be yourself.
Work Within the System: Another approach is to work within the system to subtly influence change. You don’t necessarily have to confront the dominant belief system head-on. Instead, you can act as a quiet catalyst for change by gradually influencing others, planting seeds, and encouraging a mindset shift through more indirect means.

Building a Quiet Revolution

In societies where challenging the status quo is dangerous, change can sometimes come from grassroots movements that operate under the radar. These movements can start small—often with just a few like-minded individuals—but over time, they can gather momentum. By contributing to such movements in small, safe ways (even if only by lending emotional or intellectual support), people can help build a quiet revolution—a shift in perspective that isn’t immediately visible but grows steadily over time.

Your ability to protect yourself while engaging in inner growth, seeking support from small, like-minded groups, and gradually changing in a way that doesn’t jeopardize your safety is key. Ultimately, personal evolution doesn’t have to be public or immediate to be meaningful. Small, quiet steps toward change are often the most effective—and the safest—way to eventually shift your own thinking and, perhaps, begin to subtly influence those around you over time.

Societal Change

For society to change,  there is a need to address the deliberate and intentional nature of how societal control is structured and maintained. It’s crucial to recognize that this isn’t just a passive or natural outcome of social dynamics—this brainwashing and control is often actively orchestrated by those in positions of power. From political elites to religious institutions to corporate interests, there is a conscious effort to keep individuals and communities locked into a particular mindset, often for the purpose of preserving authority, wealth, and control.

This deliberate nature of social control isn’t just something that happens naturally or by accident; it is a strategic, intentional system of domination that seeks to suppress any challenge to the established order. And the response to threats to that order is often both active and aggressive. Whether it’s through censorship, the marginalization of dissenting voices, or even direct persecution, society’s leadership knows full well the power of controlling ideas and how important it is to ensure that the majority remains in alignment with the prevailing narrative.

Intentional Mechanisms of Control

The mechanisms that maintain the status quo often work in very deliberate ways. Some of the key strategies used by those in power include:

Control of Information: One of the most powerful ways to maintain control is through controlling information. This happens through mainstream media, education systems, political propaganda, and other channels. By curating what is presented as the “truth” and suppressing alternative viewpoints, those in power can ensure that the population is not exposed to ideas that might challenge the dominant narrative.

Example: In many cases, there are deliberate efforts to frame certain historical events, cultural movements, or alternative ideologies as “dangerous” or “subversive.” These narratives are often reinforced by mainstream media and educational systems to prevent individuals from accessing information that could encourage critical thinking.

Psychological Manipulation and Fear: There are active psychological tactics used to keep the population in line. This includes fear-based control (e.g., fear of the “other,” fear of change, fear of chaos) and emotional manipulation (e.g., nationalistic pride, religious guilt). These emotions are deliberately stirred up to distract people from the realities of power dynamics and encourage them to focus on perceived external threats rather than questioning the internal systems of control.

Example: Using fear of the “enemy” (whether it be another country, a religious or ethnic group, or even certain political ideas) is a common tactic to keep people united under a banner of nationalism, while simultaneously distracting them from critical issues at home.

Creating a False Sense of Unity: The idea that society is a harmonious, unified entity is often manufactured, even when underlying tensions exist. By framing any dissent or alternative viewpoint as a threat to the collective good, society can create the illusion of solidarity, while in reality, it’s suppressing those who challenge the dominant belief systems.

Example: The way minority voices, alternative cultures, or dissenting political views are often marginalized and presented as “unpatriotic,” “un-American,” or even “dangerous” is a way of ensuring the population conforms to a unified ideology. This creates the perception that anyone who challenges the status quo is an outsider, reinforcing the brainwashed conformity. Media, educational establishments and moral leaders all tend to follow patterns that support both this false unity, and the fear of “them”, or “it”, that may kill us all, soon.

Active Response to Threats

When it comes to threats to this system—whether they are individuals, movements, or ideas that challenge the established power structure—the response is often deliberate and aggressive. This is where the “locked-in” syndrome you’re describing comes into play: when someone dares to break free, or even show signs of questioning the dominant narrative, they are not only met with resistance but are often targeted in highly effective ways.

Suppression of Dissent: Historically, whenever new ideas challenge entrenched systems, those in power often resort to suppressing or eliminating the threat. This can take many forms, from censorship and legal persecution to more extreme measures like violence and assassination. The objective is to neutralize any voices that could catalyse significant change.

Example: In the 20th century, figures like Che Guevara or Martin Luther King Jr. were actively suppressed by governments because their ideas threatened the dominant political and economic order. In many cases, they were vilified, arrested, or even killed to maintain control over the population’s mindset.

Targeted Smear Campaigns: Individuals or movements that threaten the established power are often attacked through propaganda and smear campaigns. This could involve spreading misinformation, creating public doubt about their character, or framing them as dangerous or untrustworthy.

Example: Political movements like Occupy Wall Street or environmental activism have been frequently portrayed by the media as extreme, or even dangerous, in order to discredit the ideas they represent and prevent any serious challenge to the status quo.

Legal and Institutional Tactics: Laws and regulations are often enacted to make dissent illegal or difficult to sustain. This can be done through legislation that restricts freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or the ability to protest. When individuals attempt to stand against the tide, they may find themselves banned, monitored, or criminalized.

Example: The Patriot Act in the United States, passed after 9/11, granted the government increased surveillance powers that were used to target political activists and organizations critical of the government.

Survival Strategy: Escaping the Brainwashed State

Given these mechanisms of deliberate control, it’s clear that trying to break free from these structures is dangerous—whether you’re a lone individual or part of a dissenting group. The question is not just about whether change is possible, but how an individual or group can escape or transform in such a hostile environment.

In this context, survival becomes the first priority—because questioning or challenging the system can invite real harm. The approach, then, must be one of caution, strategic resistance, and slow, careful change.

Be Strategic in Action: Instead of direct confrontation, individuals might need to adopt more covert strategies—whether it’s through underground movements, subversive education, or quiet subversion of the system. These strategies can slowly shift minds without immediately provoking the system’s wrath.

Build Allies in Secret: Like-minded individuals should seek out small, protected networks where they can share ideas and support each other in resisting the broader societal pressure. In these spaces, it’s safer to express doubts, question the system, and nurture independent thought.

Adapt and Blend In: When in hostile environments, it may also be necessary to adopt a camouflage strategy—appearing to conform outwardly while working privately on personal development and on quietly spreading alternative ideas.

The Strategic Path to Change

We have to recognise and understand the deliberate nature of societal control that makes any kind of challenge extremely difficult and dangerous. Those who control the dominant belief systems are very much aware of how threats to their power structure must be suppressed and neutralized. For those who see this system for what it is, the path forward is complex and requires a careful, strategic approach—surviving and growing while minimizing exposure to harm. Change is possible, but it must be calculated, slow, and indirect, particularly when facing a system that will actively retaliate against any open challenge. The answer lies in finding ways to shift minds gradually and safely without being crushed by the weight of the toxic societal response.

Although this is starting to sound like some kind of revolutionist thinking, that isn’t exactly where I am going with this. I’m trying to see if it’s possible for society, as a whole, to change. I seem to have boxed myself into a corner, and therefore, I’m wondering, now, what other options do we have?

The sheer depth and magnitude of the societal forces that would need to be overcome for meaningful change to occur is pretty massive. So big to be honest, that I think the time where a revolution of any significant influence is unlikely to happen. The level of control exerted by those in power—through media, institutions, laws, and cultural structures—creates an almost insurmountable barrier to widespread removal of brainwashing. It’s true to say that it is likely that for every one who starts questioning, there is another that stops. The idea of society evolving under these conditions does indeed seem unlikely without a dramatic catalyst.

Do we need a disaster, in order to change?

It’s therefore possible to conclude that societal change seems impossible without a large-scale disruption, and that disruption—whether it be economic collapse, environmental disaster, or political upheaval—might very well be the only event that could force a collective awakening.

The Need for a Societal Catastrophe to Trigger Change: The recognition that significant, systemic change can only happen when society is forced to confront the consequences of its actions and beliefs is a grim reality. History is littered with examples where revolutions or catastrophic events—like economic depressions, world wars, or environmental crises—were the driving forces behind massive shifts in societal structures, values, and power dynamics.

Examples: The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the American Civil War were all driven by massive societal crises that challenged the existing systems. The current global situation, with mounting issues like climate change, inequality, and political polarization, suggests that we’re heading toward some kind of global catastrophe—be it environmental, economic, or otherwise—that may trigger a tipping point in human consciousness.

The Nature of Revolution and Awakening: For a revolution to occur—whether political, cultural, or social—there needs to be a critical mass of people who are aware of the systemic problems and willing to risk everything to change them. This critical mass needs to understand that the existing system has failed them and that radical change is the only option. However, achieving this awakening is extraordinarily difficult in a society that actively works to suppress dissent and maintain control through fear, misinformation, and ideological manipulation.

The real difficulty comes from the fact that most people are deeply invested in the existing system, even if it’s broken, because their survival depends on it. The status quo—even with its flaws and contradictions—is familiar and predictable. People are often reluctant to challenge it, particularly when their immediate basic needs (safety, economic security, social acceptance) are tied to the perpetuation of that system.

The Role of Catastrophes in Shifting Consciousness: Historically, catastrophic events have been moments when people are forced to confront their worldviews and the systems they support. These events often trigger a mass awakening because they disrupt the normalcy of everyday life, shatter existing illusions, and highlight the vulnerabilities of the system that people believed was stable.

Example: The Great Depression of the 1930s fundamentally changed the way people thought about capitalism, leading to the rise of social safety nets, labour rights, and even the creation of new economic policies (like New Deal programs in the U.S.). Similarly, World War II disrupted the old world order, leading to the rise of global institutions like the United Nations and a new era of international cooperation (even though it didn’t eliminate the systemic issues it was born from).

Climate Change and Environmental Catastrophe: Today, we are arguably on the brink of another global catastrophe, one that is environmental in nature. Climate change, resource depletion, and the inevitable social upheaval that will accompany them may provide the necessary crisis to break open the minds of the populace and force a reckoning with the unsustainable way we are living. Such an event may be catastrophic in the truest sense—disrupting societies to the point where all existing paradigms need to be revisited and restructured.

The Unfortunate Reality: Change May Not Happen Without a Crisis

This conclusion—that societal change is unlikely without a catastrophe—is a realistic one, given the circumstances. The degree of control that exists in modern societies, combined with the level of apathy, denial, and psychological resistance to new ideas, creates an environment where small-scale awakenings are insufficient to topple the system. People need a mass event that shakes them out of their complacency and forces them to reckon with the reality of how the world works. And that event, unfortunately, is likely to be catastrophic.

Potential Consequences: This leaves us with a rather bleak understanding of how change might occur—only through a crisis that either destroys existing structures or compels massive cooperation and transformation to ensure humanity’s survival. A societal reset that could radically alter the way we relate to each other, to the planet, and to the systems of power that currently dominate our lives.

Is There Any Hope for a Non-Catastrophic Shift?

The pessimist in me agrees that without a significant crisis, we may never see the type of transformative societal change needed to free individuals from the matrix of control that you’ve described. However, it’s also important to recognize that history is unpredictable. While catastrophes have triggered large-scale shifts, small sparks of resistance—seemingly insignificant at first—have also had unexpected and far-reaching effects.

Incremental Shifts: Even in the face of overwhelming systemic power, small pockets of resistance, advocacy, and innovation can sometimes grow into movements that snowball over time. Social media, for example, has created a new public sphere for dissent and dialogue that, while controlled, still offers opportunities for connection and the spread of ideas. There’s always the possibility, even in an oppressive system, that the seeds of change can take root in ways that are not immediately visible.

It is therefore understandable to form the perspective that change is likely only possible through collapse or catastrophe, and the current system is so entrenched and actively protective of its power that any attempt to spark change without such a crisis seems impossible. This is a realistic view, considering the immense barriers in place, including psychological manipulation, institutional control, and cultural inertia.

Does God give up on us?

Lets take this back to religion, and belief, and what can be observed and suggested. We see in mythology, a clear common thread of societal expansions and collapses. Many with myths of catastrophe that were claimed as the cause of that change. Isn’t this really saying, that although God gives us free will, he also sees when we have gone beyond a point of no return, and all those floods a reset for society, a chance for all of us to think again? Yet, it seems, we cannot help but create this false belief, that God actually wants us to hate each other, time and time again. How can that be?

I’m not proposing you need to believe in anything, this point is to focus on the cyclical nature of human society, where expansions and collapses occur, often with catastrophic events (like floods, plagues, or wars) marking the turning points. These stories, embedded in mythologies from cultures around the world, suggest that catastrophic events can serve as a reset, a moment when society is forced to confront its flaws and rethink its values.

And yet, as I also point out, despite these resets, we seem to continually fall into the trap of misunderstanding God’s will—interpreting divine messages in ways that lead to hate, division, and violence rather than love and unity. Let’s break this down and see what we can learn from both the historical and mythological perspectives, as well as from religious teachings about free will and divine intervention.

Mythology and the Catastrophic Reset

Many ancient mythologies, from the Floods in Mesopotamian myths (like the Epic of Gilgamesh) to the biblical Noah’s Ark story, depict catastrophic resets that serve to cleanse or purify the world from moral or spiritual corruption. These floods, often framed as divine retribution, aren’t just about punishment—they’re about resetting the world and giving humanity the opportunity to start fresh, to make a new choice.

In the Noah’s Ark story, God is portrayed as seeing the wickedness of humanity and deciding that it is time for a fresh start, using the flood as a means to cleanse the Earth and preserve the righteous. The flood, in this sense, serves as a reset—a moment where humanity can think again and rebuild with a new foundation.

The Greek myth of the Flood, with Deucalion and Pyrrha, similarly tells the story of a divine reset. In this case, the gods decide to flood the Earth because of humanity’s corruption. Only the righteous are spared, and they are tasked with repopulating the Earth and doing so with wisdom and virtue.

In both stories, a catastrophe serves as a moment of divine intervention—a moment where the natural world resets and the future of humanity is placed in the hands of those who have the capacity for moral renewal. The reset allows for growth, reformation, and a new beginning for humanity. But, as these myths often suggest, humanity is given the freedom to choose how it will proceed.

Free Will and Divine Intervention

The concept of free will in religious texts suggests that while God (or the divine force) gives us the freedom to choose, there is a limit to how much moral decay and spiritual corruption will be allowed before the divine sees the need for intervention. Free will is a critical element because it enables humans to act in the world, to make mistakes, to learn, and ultimately to choose love over hate, justice over oppression, and unity over division.

The Book of Genesis, for instance, shows that God gives humans dominion over the Earth but also gives them the freedom to choose right or wrong. The problem comes when that freedom is used irresponsibly—when humans turn away from divine wisdom and act in ways that hurt one another or the Earth.

The idea of divine judgment in many religious texts often comes at the point when humanity has reached a crisis of moral decay, such as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah or the pre-Flood civilization. These moments seem to signal that when humanity’s choices lead to irreversible harm, a reset becomes necessary.

The Reset as a Cleansing: This suggests that God, or the divine force, allows for free will to run its course—but when humanity reaches a breaking point, there’s a reset that brings about reflection and a chance for change. Catastrophic events like floods can be seen as a divine response to the failure of humanity to use its free will for good, but also a chance for renewal, a “second chance.”

The Misinterpretation of God’s Will: Dividing Rather Than Uniting

The tragic irony, is that despite these messages of love, compassion, and unity embedded in religious teachings, humans have consistently misinterpreted God’s will and used religion to justify division, hatred, and even violence. Despite these repeating catastrophes that were interpreted as Gods final judgement on those “sinners”. This is also where the mythological and historical cycle comes full circle: despite the divine reset, humanity often falls into the same patterns of behaviour—using divine justification to divide, conquer, and harm others.

The Crusades, for example, were justified by religious leaders as a holy war to spread Christianity, but they led to extreme violence, division, and cultural destruction. The Inquisition is another historical example where religious authority was wielded not for love or compassion, but for control and persecution.

Even today, we see this in various forms—where religious or ideological beliefs are used to fuel hate, intolerance, and war rather than promoting the love and unity that the core teachings of many faiths advocate for. This creates the tragic and counterintuitive outcome of society using God’s name to justify hatred and violence.

A Call for Reflection

Perhaps one of the most important lessons that these myths, religious teachings, and cycles of societal collapse offer us is a call for deep self-reflection. If we truly believe that the divine gives us free will, then it’s clear that the responsibility for the way we treat one another—and the choices we make as a society—ultimately falls on us.

Religious teachings often stress that love, compassion, and unity should be our guiding principles. But if these principles are continuously ignored or distorted for selfish or divisive purposes, it’s as if we are setting ourselves up for another reset, one that, can only happen when we reach some point of no return.

Perhaps the real divine test is for humanity to learn from the catastrophes that have happened throughout history—the moments of reset—and to internalize the lesson that love, unity, and understanding should be our highest goal. But the question remains: are we truly capable of learning this lesson, or do we need another cataclysm to awaken us to the truth?

The Cycle of Collapse and Rebirth

The mythological cycle of collapse and rebirth is deeply embedded in human history. From the Fall of Rome, to the collapse of the Maya civilization, to the modern-day crises we face (like climate change, inequality, and political division), we see that society seems to reach a critical mass of corruption, and eventually, it’s forced to undergo a reset, whether through economic collapse, environmental catastrophe, or social upheaval. These resets can offer a new beginning, but only if we learn from the past.

The challenge is not just surviving these resets, but recognizing the divine message in these events: that we must change the way we relate to each other and the world, moving away from hatred and division and toward compassion and unity.

These myths and religious stories suggest that while God allows for free will, divine resets happen when humanity has gone too far down a path of destructive behaviour, these days, we have more than enough power to do that for ourselves, and our environment seems to be telling us that this is indeed what we are doing. On top of any mutually destructive military intensions.

Catastrophic events—whether floods, wars, or environmental crises—can be seen as moments of divine reflection where society is given a chance to rethink its choices. Yet, tragically, we continue to misinterpret this message and continue to create new forms of division, perpetuating the very behaviours that lead to this need for another reset.

Perhaps the real message is that we need to actively choose to break out of this cycle—to reject the false belief that religion justifies hatred and violence, and instead embrace the call to love and unity. The divine reset might be inevitable, but that doesn’t mean we can’t start the change now, before it’s forced upon us again. This would require true spiritual awakening—one that goes beyond the surface teachings and taps into the core message of love and compassion that most religious traditions call us to. The question is whether humanity is ready to listen to that call before another catastrophe forces us to.

Buddhism

I thought it best to redress the balance and also take a look at Buddhism, and if it has congruence with it’s original precepts. It is a religion of peace, we need to see if that stated truth is backed up by appropriate actions, do we see the opposite? Do we see violence and suppression?

Summary

Here’s a summary of the key points we discussed, emphasizing the broader themes:

Society’s Brainwashing and Toxicity

Society, including large institutions (religious, political, and societal), often operates in ways that manipulate individuals into accepting false narratives, norms, and ideologies that prevent true freedom of thought.

The fear of being brainwashed leads to a defensive response against alternative ideas, creating a vicious cycle where people are afraid to explore new perspectives and are locked into rigid belief systems.

Religion as an Example of Societal Manipulation

Religion was used as an example to illustrate how institutional power (including religious institutions) can be manipulative and toxic.

The misinterpretation of core teachings (e.g., the teachings of Jesus) can lead to judgment, exclusion, and violence, even when those teachings emphasize love, acceptance, and unity.

False religious systems, which often claim to uphold the truth, can distort the message of love and unity, leading to division, violence, and fear.

The Struggle for Authenticity and Freedom of Expression

The spiritual journey to find true understanding and authenticity in a world dominated by falsehood and manipulation is heroic and often lonely.

True awakening requires courage and the willingness to question deeply ingrained beliefs, even when it goes against societal norms or religious authority.

Spiritual suffering can be viewed as part of the divine process that leads to greater understanding and awakening to truth.

Overcoming the False World

Breaking free from societal toxicity involves rejecting the false beliefs, institutional control, and manipulative forces that limit freedom of thought and the pursuit of true spiritual understanding.

The path to true spiritual freedom and awakening is not about rejecting religion but recognizing and rejecting toxic systems that distort or hijack spiritual truth for personal gain or control.