Predetermining Perception

By Toby Maloney, 1 ^st Dec. 2021

I think it now has to be conceded, in the light of the evidence, that thoughts are three dimensional. Thoughts may be somewhat flexible as to their shape, but they definitely exhibit volume. Measuring the size of irregular bodies is done with displacement. Thoughts have a displacement volume which, by occupying a place, preclude its “competition” or “opposition” from any entry.

How could one possibly come to such extraordinary and unusual conclusions? It was done simply enough, by observation. Admittedly, the circumstances were novel.

During the 2021 pandemic in Australia government decreed all sorts of invasive measures. These upset about ten to twenty percent of the electorate quite considerably. Their grievances were varied. Some resented the restrictive lockdown, some the banning of the effective treatment ivermectin, some the compulsion to vaccinate in certain employment situations, some observed that countries with the highest vaccination rates such as Israel and the UK now had the highest infection rates, and Sweden with no vaccination, had the lowest.

We are not here interested in whether these people were right or wrong. This is irrelevant to our present purpose. The point is that at least 10 to 20% of people were cranky with government policy, and they went to rallies in the hundreds of thousands to express it.

Politically, with an election only four months away, the larger parties tried to ignore it. The small parties ran out in front of the mob, jumped onto whatever soapboxes could be found, and shouted “Vote for Me!”

If 10 to 20% of electors voted for me, “me” could not be elected. It takes 51% to prefer “me”, to the 49% who prefer others, for me to win an election. The leaders of the minority parties thereby effectively disempowered their own supporters and ensured the revolt’s dissipation. But what else could they have done?

10 to 20% of electors have it within their power to defeat all sitting Members of Parliament. How? It is so simple. You just put all sitting Members last. Few sitting members have majorities above 5 to 10 %, so while it takes 51% to elect them, it only takes 10 to 20% to defeat them.1

The sitting Members’ replacements will then understand their vulnerability, and politics will be changed for ever. If we can’t elect a politician, as it were, and usually we can’t, then why don’t we defeat one to make the point. It’s easier, and it certainly makes a greater impression on politicians’ egos than just re-electing them. This is a Politician Control Mechanism (PCM). Most will agree that we need one.

All this would have come about in the 2022 election and put the electors back into control, except for a predetermining perception. What was it?

The thought was with the minor parties’ alternate leadership. It was simply “You should vote for me”, and as a thought it is quite voluminous. It has the ability to fill space and exclude other concepts and their possibilities. It may fit very snuggly between the ears and bolster the brain up to the very brim. It is so self-serving and self-indulging, so comforting with self-importance, and so directs attention towards one’s self, that it is usually not to be denied or neglected. Resisting this inner mantra of the mind, doubting its primacy in importance, or questioning this catechism of narcissism is predetermined in the negative.

So the leaders of the minor parties again did the one thing they are especially good at, evidencing the dominance of the major ones.

 

1 Electorates which elect multiple candidates such as in the Australian Senate are different. House of Representatives Members are the vulnerable ones.