Sunday, January 26, 2014

The Influence Game: Who Or What Makes You Do Things?

Imagine a world where you've achieved some degree of success that resulted from your own perseverance and effort and the combination of support and encouragement from others. During the scope of this effort now imagine a third party or group of parties had come along and played their own private game, determining their influence upon your efforts just by them passing near you at some point without interacting with you.

This group of people make it a competitive game between other groups of people who all try to be the last ones closest to you when you succeed at something, so they can lay claim to the influence upon you in doing that thing.

The influence game refers to a game that is played socially by some people upon those who have achieved some social notability or have achieved something by their own effort with the help and cooperation of others. The players of this game might watch you all the time in order to time their being around you just before you do something of note. The various teams who've all gotten close enough to you at one point all compete to see which one of them had the most influence upon your output.

Because it is a team game and because those who play it are competitive, they benefit by sabotaging another obstacle to the perception to their influence being tantamount to your output. So that means that you at some point of achieving something one of the teams want their influence to appear to be more than one of the other teams, or possibly even your family, friends, peers or your love interest.

The people playing this game become so obsessive about it that they eventually start to try to get the people closer to you than the players of their game away from you. Maybe that means sabotaging your interactions and dealings with those people in order to make the timing of their presence near you appear to be tantamount to your success, even more so than someone that really does have an effect upon that and even more so than your own effort.

In the influence game it is not uncommon for one or more of the teams to keep a very close eye up you so that they know when one of the other teams has made asserted their influence upon you. One of the teams who keeps such a close eye might try and sabotage any effort that you make by distraction in one form or another so that the influence of that team is "foiled". This occurs even if it is someone whom you care about and who really does have a good and positive influence upon you.

The influence game is real and there are many people that will go to great lengths to achieve those goals of asserting the illusion to others that their influence over your actions is greater than that of others or even your own. Even those that you want to impress upon them their positive effect upon your life. This might mean even sabotaging the effects of your own love interest upon your life to seem detrimental and in favour of the sabotaging team.

So far it seems that everything in their arsenal is about timing and knowing you and your schedule by careful observation which makes it a little bit unnerving. There are probably many in the public life that can attest to this. Add into that influence factor that there are those who'd likely profit by getting you at your worst behaviour in public in order to deem that your own chosen influences aren't good enough.

Maybe as more people become aware of such an activity that it will become less prevalent.

Brian Joseph Johns

Monday, January 20, 2014

Love Is... Secrets

One of the things that has suffered much in the last two decades is the bond that keeps couples together. The process under which this has occurred is a complex one and involves many different issues. The most ardent issue is the issue of the lines of privacy between a couple and the rest of the public and the community. To address this I'll talk about the idea of a couple in the public eye and reference a fictitious couple that represent one of many real couples whose lives are in the eyes of the public.

Benevolent couples that live their lives in the public eye are often considered angelic and this is an important concept. An angel in mythology and theology is a representative of a divine being and often not possessed of sex or is sexless. Angels as such can embody and even personify compassion as in mythology this compassion is not affected by the wiles of sexual temptation which of course has often been presented as the root of our faults.

When such a couple has their public life, they are perceived by others to be without sex or sexuality and therefore are angelic and an embodiment of compassion and civility. Such a couple have often learned the balancing act of separating their public life and private life in such a way that the issues of their personal sexuality are their secret as a couple and therefore bond them. To most such couples their privacy in such a matter is tantamount to their success as a couple as it is the one language they can speak to each other that does not fall under the scrutiny of the public eye and is their secret.

Other couples in the past tend to take this fact for granted and many people have fallen under the impression that the public life of such people is the idealistic state of being for such a couple like Mister and Missus Cleaver of a popular show in the nineteen fifties and sixties. This idea has undergone extreme transformation through the time of the sexual revolution and into modern times in the information revolution. One thing that has been lost in this translation though is the sense of such a couple having their secrets that are part of the trust and the bond between them. 

It is something that nowadays is even under attack by some people as the idea of a secret possessed by couples now seems to fall under the jurisdiction of a couple's secrets under the community. It is under this pressure that many couples collapse and we end up with many who consider themselves selfies (I would fall under that category) or those who cannot form the necessary privacy and secret bearing structure of a modern relationship because that essential bonding process of a relationship is under attack.

If a couple cannot form their own secrets between each other in regard to their privacy and sexuality then one of the most important elements of bonding in a relationship cannot happen. Some of the factors for such a fact have their roots in the efforts of communication between such couples, the time constraints and pressures of modern living and the literal privacy of couples in both the local and global community in an age of information sharing.

Couples communicating with regard to their sexuality is an important thing as it is the one language that they will often share with nobody else but themselves and it is never the same language even when the people in such a relationship break up and move on. Nobody will speak the language that they shared in such a way again. When this part is not communicated and important bond cannot form and that is the bond of the mutual secret language between a couple. Often that language is the members of such a relationship each opening up about their personal likes regarding their sexuality and therefore is an imperative issue when it comes to the formation of trust and a couple's bond.

Time constraints as well are proving to make people take doses of life experiences in bite sized chunks of no more than 3 minutes or less. This may even include interactions between two people in the process of building up to a relationship and confine such communication to the equivalent of a text message without really taking the time to communicate intimately.

Lastly the level of literal privacy and the lines of that privacy is under constant fluctuation as the technology around use collects information for use in evaluating our need and the marketability of services we might be interested in in the global village. The services in the long run will ultimately benefit us and may even save our lives (analytics recognizing patterns and habits which indicate early signs of illness notifying us of such a fact or notifying us of a better deal on a product we are already in the market for hence saving us money). 

Locally we are under constant scrutiny by various groups under the community who each seem nowadays to deem their entitlement to the same secrets that are the foundation of a couple forming their bond. When this boundary is opened to the groups in the community that is the same as letting these groups into your bedroom and no such groups have such a right. When such groups have such information, they can pressure each member of a couple in such a way that makes the other person in the relationship think that they've been betrayed by their spouse when in fact such a group is abusing their access in such a matter by exhibiting their knowledge of a couple's or an individual's secrets.

The same method has been used by some groups to split up family and friends as well and even careers and vocation. Most often a group exploiting such a means of affecting people are often trying to manually steer the apparent bias of their victims in their favour and against bias for each other.

This is probably one of the most pertinent factors that have affected modern relationships and have likely prevented many from occurring under the rules of whatever group possesses the private secrets of such a couple or individual. This once again prevents the forming of trust and the bond that seals the relationship and strengthens it.

The most successful (and most "angelic") couples have had the chance to and learned to protect that boundary and to keep it safe between one another and are successful setting up the boundary between the private and the public.

When the secrets of individuals become public, the process of bonding has been completely circumvented as the boundary between the couple's secrets and those that the public are aware of no longer exists, meaning in the eyes of such groups who dissolve those boundaries that the bias of the people in that relationship is not for each other and literally does not exist as bias over other persons.

One of the definitions of love is bias and therefore an attack upon one's secrets in this manner is an attack upon love in itself if those secrets that you share with your lover are an expression of your trust and their keeping those secrets is an expression of their bias towards you. That is the foundation for the formation of a bond between a couple and one that defies a link between two people who can love each other despite their gender and their culture. That bond forms the language that you speak as a couple in private and in public and can never be the same between you and anyone else.

When that is under attack by a group for whatever reasons, then the idea of love itself is also under attack. Perhaps there is something that such a group values higher than love itself as being the determining factor in relationships between two people. Love therefore is bias that is based upon personal choice and free will rather than upon genetics, blood or any other factor that is beyond our control as individuals. When you choose someone on the basis of love it is an expression of your choice and ability to exercise bias for and in favour of another human being. When you are robbed of your privacy and secrets you are therefore robbed of anything with which there is to imply bias and trust between yourself and for another human being. If your secrets are available to everyone then nothing exists as a symbolism of that bias over another human being.

If such a group ideological or otherwise can be the holder of your secrets and keep them from others, then they can imply the boundaries of that bias in their favour rather than that you would reserve for your love interest, or your family and friends or others with whom you work or have acquaintance with. Most often your spouse or love interest will have access to secrets that you would not share with your family and friends and therefore if such a group tried to commandeer your privacy in favour of their group, then they could imply your bias towards them over even your family. These are the methods under which such groups seek to break the idea of bias based upon secrets and therefore bias based upon love and therefore based upon personal choice.

If such a group gets at those secrets between you and your spouse or love interest without your permission, invasively or illegally and then attempts to strip away the very people that you would choose to share those secrets with, I would say that their possession of your secrets is not bias in their favour at all. 

Such a group might be able to steal your secrets but they cannot steal your choice to bias the one you love. Most of all, it is not wrong to proclaim the one that you love at and even in doing so this love cannot be stolen.

Brian Joseph Johns

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Dealing With Mass Emotional Manipulation By A Group

I've talked about on this blog and other blogs the idea that there are some groups that attempt to manipulate others emotionally as a sort of game of control. This involves doing so in person or at a distance.

In such a effort involving the kind of manipulation that takes place in person, a victim who is in a state of peace or balance, is often polarized emotionally by an indiviual or the groups that conduct such activity in order to push them to have gradually more and more harsh reactions.


In doing so the victim might not feel responsible for their reactions as these reactions were the result of an invasive and aggressive effort of repeated provocation by an individual or by a group to achieve such a goal.


The individual or group practicing such a deed then claims that if the victim doesn't take responsibilities for their bad reactions, then how can they take the credit for their good deeds? If the victim was manipulated or controlled into such a reaction, then who is to say that when the victim did something good that they weren't also being controlled? That is the justification that the groups that conduct such an activity might come to in order to make it a market of theft of the victim's good deeds. This essentially is a form of extortion.


The same group may have also figured out ways to do so at a distance. By building up negative emotions in themselves as a collective, they trick their bodies into producing cortisol and adrenaline, which yields a sort of biomagnetic energy (not to be mistaken for "the force") that their bodies can use to affect the nervous system of another person at a distance and induce anxiety and panic attacks in those victims.


When such a victim has such a panic attack, they might not want to claim responsibility for their actions because it is clearly not related to anything that they do that results in such a response. The said group is conducting such activity and then uses the same logic to once again steal from the victim the credit for their good deeds by implying their ability to provoke these panic attacks as a means of control, therefore claiming to be controlling a victim when they do good as well.


This creates a problem for the victim who if ganged up on by such people could literally end up without benefitting for their own good actions and continually be indebted to these extortion groups. The groups that conduct this activity sometimes might have been told they are superior to others in some means and therefore need a justification to take the credit for the deeds of others that they feel are of lesser ability or stock whenever such a person achieves something of note. Victims of such activity end up in a real dilemma and if not curbed this activity could have dire consequences for their lives and careers.


I am going to suggest a different path here and a solution to this problem. The truth is that I've been revealing information about this activity for years now and investigating it as I did to further understand it.


The people who've conducted this activity have kept this form of theft secret from others for a long time. This means of affecting a victim have long been in use, and have victimized women or the men who loved those women in order to get to those women. It has been used on the basis of cultural difference between two partners as well whom the group did not feel were well suited to one another. It has been used to affect others on the basis of their sexual orientation as well as a pseudo punishment for straying from what might be normal with regard to sexual gender and physical gender. In the 1960s and 1970s this activity had become popular with some to a degree and often found its way to use against others whom the perpetrators used in a similar fashion without considering the emotions of their victim. This activity lead to many people (mostly women but there are and were men victims too) suffering from emotional problems as a result. Some attempted to address this theme and an effort to confront the morality of it also found its way into modern culture. Allegory was used as the medium to confront such ideas as it often is and through writers like Philip K. Dick and others in media art and philosophy attempted to confront it.


So there have been many victims of this form of extortion for quite a while. A form of puppetry of people that utilizes hate as the medium of choice for such puppetry. There is nothing wrong with real puppetry or other similar creative art forms, but attempting to do so to people for real is wrong unless its part of some mutually consenting activity involving adults. In doing so to a victim for real, the puppeteer might feel the justification for taking credit for the actions of their puppet using the justification that if the puppet doesn't want to take the responsibility for their bad reactions to this activity, then how can they take the credit for their good actions.

Those conducting the activity have long kept it secret from others, and its victims and anyone who took part in it is complicit to it. If enough people are victim to it or enough people find out or know about it, then it becomes a liability for the perpetrators to have been a part of it even if they wanted to reveal the truth about it to others. They made a choice not to liberate others from it but instead chose to victimize others. That's a similar liability to that they inflicted upon their victims.


Therefore would not the same logic apply? If they wanted to liberate others but did nothing and therefore don't feel themselves to be at fault for it, does that not sound like the defence of their victims despite the fact that many such people ignored the pleas of their victims with regard to such an activity?


Most people who've taken part in this activity know that it is wrong but still take part in it rather than to have attempted to liberate others from it. The more people who know about and liberate victims from it the less people will want to keep it secret, for the liability for doing so is tremendous as they would fall victim to their own logic for taking the credit for their victims deeds.


A thought to consider when and if you encounter it.


This activity by the way is not conducted by the authority or the rulers or any sort of organized activity of the system so it is important to be clear on that. It is not related to colours and their use in communicating ideas such as artistic expression, emotions and commerce as I have often spoke about though the ideology responsible seeks to dismantle these ideas and wants us to distrust our own society. Mind control is a popular them in some ideologies and has a role in cultural ideas as well (often mixed in with expression via colours). These ideas of the Far East are also not responsible despite the relationship between the idea of control and artistic expression as used through colours.


In a prior post I explained that there are those who understand the difference between fantasy and reality and when it is ok to try to make a fantasy a reality.

Most people who watch action movies or play video games know that if that action, violence or another activity is prevalent in the medium they are perusing in that way, that does not mean that they should run around in the streets for real attempting to do the same thing.

Likewise if most people watch an inspiring movie where a group of people follow their dreams and create something that changes the world like insulin or penecillin or automobiles or veterinary clinics or aircraft or some other similar thing, those people perusing the medium might be enthused to pursue their own aspirations for their benefit and the benefit of others.

Another adult who enjoys a situation depicted in a movie that has erotic elements (perhaps involving control or submission) might even want to try something like that for real with their adult partner, however they might choose to role play such a thing rather than to do so by actually making what happened in such a film happen for real. I would hope that most people in a loving relationship would want to enjoy their partners mind and creativity as much as they do body when it comes to sexuality and role play.

Some people in some of the groups that I have mentioned might not have the same idea with regard to what you should remain fantasy and what should become reality and when people are possessed of knowledge and techniques for affecting others in such a way, they lack the moral compass and the discipline not to use such knowledge and techniques to harm and victimize others.

Be concerned with anything that violates a person's freedom, health, privacy and peace non consensually.

Note: Everything in this and every blog entry that this writer makes is meant as it is written and not the opposite.

Brian Joseph Johns

Sunday, January 12, 2014

Fantasy And Reality

Understanding the difference between fantasy and reality and that there are fantasies and dreams that should and could come true and others that shouldn't.

Any fantasy or dream that infringes upon another person's freedom, privacy, health and peace are the ones that shouldn't come true.

People sometimes play those kinds of fantasies and there is nothing wrong with that play or role play as long as its understood to be play by everyone involved and doesn't infringe upon their freedom, their privacy, their health and their peace.

Just a thought.