The modern matrix has everything to do with how knowledge is acquired.
Television, in the main, does not attempt to impart knowledge. It strives to give the viewer the impression that he knows something. There is a difference.
The impression of knowing is a feeling, a conviction, a belief the viewer holds, after he has watched moving images on a screen and listened to a narrator. THIS is what the viewer prefers. He wants no part of knowledge.
A basic premise of modern age is: “everything is (connected to) everything.” This fits quite well with the experience of watching video flow.
Example: we see angry crowds on the street of a foreign city. Then young people on their cell phones sitting in an outdoor café. Then the marble lobby of a government building where men in suits are walking, standing in groups talking to each other. Then at night, rockets exploding in the sky. Then armored vehicles moving through a gate into the city. Then clouds of smoke on another street and people running, chased by police.
A flow of consecutive images. The sequence, obviously, has been assembled by a news editor, but most of the viewing audience isn’t aware of that. They’re watching the “interconnected” images and listening to a news anchor tell a story that colors (infects) every image: “This is revolution for democracy, created by the technology of cell phones…”
Viewers thus believe something.
Television has imparted a sensation to them.
Therefore: a short circuit occurs in the mind.
When you export this pattern out to a whole society, you are talking about a dominant method through which “knowledge” is groped and held close.
“Did you see that fantastic video about the Iraq War? It showed that Saddam actually had bioweapons.”
“Really? How did they show that?”
“Well, I don’t remember. But watch it. You’ll see.”
And that’s another feature of the modern acquisition of “knowledge”: amnesia about details.
The viewer can’t recall key features of what he saw. Or if he can, he can’t describe them, because he was inside them, busy building up his impression of knowing something.
Narrative-visual-television story strips out and discards conceptual analysis. To the extent it exists, it’s wrapped around and inside the image and the narration.
Paddy Chayefsky made his pen a sword, because he was writing a movie about television, against television. He was pitting Word against Image.
When a technology (television) turns into a method of perception, reality is turned inside out. People watch TV through TV eyes.
Mind control is no longer something merely imposed from the outside. It is a matrix of a self-feeding, self-demanding loop.
Willing Devotees of the Image WANT images, food stamps of the programmed society.
The triumph of Network is that it makes its words win over pictures, IN a picture, IN a film.
~~~
A pandemic, the false pandemic I’ve been rejecting in many articles, is delivered through video flow and narration. Stacked and cut images.
There is no challenge to the flow in any basic way, through the intrusion of actual knowledge, because that would shut down the parade of images and nullify the reasons for broadcasting them in the first place.
The old theater adage, “the show must go on,” when adapted for television, becomes, “the flow must go on.”
Once its course is set, there can be no turning back.
The television audience, imprisoned in homes, rides the river…
~~~
(The link to this article posted on my blog
is here.)
(Follow me on Gab at @jonrappoport)
