Sunday, December 27, 2009


It's so hard not to be a Repeater. But is it possible to be a truly original and independent thinker? And could humans truly have advanced their collective knowledge, to the extent of what has become our "modern world", if we didn't take previously existing knowledge for granted in order to build upon it?

If you're new to the concept of Repeaters, watch this short video clip of David Icke discussing the subject, particularly in reference to the mainstream media.

Now, part of my recent journey has been to question everything I've learned in school and in the media. I mean, yeah, we all know "you can't trust what you see on TV" or that the "official version" of human history presented to us in Western society - be it via the educational system or the press - is very skewed. There is no denying that the bulk of what we see on TV, read in the "mainstream media" or in "history" books has overwhelmingly been produced by a very small portion of the world at large (i.e. mainly affluent, white, English-speaking, Judeo-Christian, males.) But in spite of this insight, I recognise that there are still things I assume to be true only because I read or heard of it from one person and because what they said made sense at the time and felt right.

At the risk of repeating information I have not verified myself (SEE! I did it again!) , this particular study concluded that humans actually experience a rush similar to drug addiction when we ignore information that is contrary to our point of view; the brain seemingly rewards us for making decisions based on emotion rather than reason. This is a pretty scary thought and yet I can totally see this happening within myself.

I spend hours daily poring over the internet, reading-up on subjects ranging from theories about a coming world government (aka the N.W.O.), the horrors perpetrated by big corporations, the various meetings held by Power That Be behind doors and away from the press, the strange and surreal matrix that is known as Marine Admiralty Law, the Freeman/Natural person movement, the history of our irrational and imaginary monetary system. This stuff fascinates me to no end, and yes, while I'm reading about this stuff, or listening to someone speak, or watching videos where people espouse views that coincide with my own, I most certainly experience a high. I also find I experience the same high when watching the talking heads and pundits that I disagree with (which is the vast majority) blabbering on infotainment channels such as CNN, Fox and MSNBC. I wonder how much of this high is coming from what I am choosing to ignore.



Update 03/27/2010:  This is a great short video which gives an example of repeating that will be familiar to most of us.

Did that surprise you?  Admit it, when you first saw that paragraph in an email didn't it seem obvious that what it was purporting was true?  I mean, you saw it with your own eyes right?  And it said it was according to research conducted at Cambridge University...  Sure, you could have investigated that claim, but again, why would you need to if you read that paragraph with your own eyes?  And when you saw it, didn't you forward it to other people?  Can you see how, if something is repeated enough and no one takes the time to investigate the claim, it simply becomes "true" to the majority?

For anyone who is interested, here is the analysis of this meme by Matt Davis of Cambridge University as described in the video above. (And check out the URL; brilliant.)  And he posted this back in 2003, yet the meme persists.


  1. I've been having the same thoughts ever since I took it upon myself to study the brain. Simply put, instinct is the reward system of the brain. Whatever you do that is beneficial, is immediately supported by a dopaminergic response, among others. We all know this reward. We get it when eat, when we acquire and possess, when we love, when we exercise, etc. Common drugs support this reward by emulating dopamine or restricting the reuptake of dopamine, for example. We all are aware and quite fond of this high.

    What I find most interesting, are the circumstances in which I feel this high (or, reward, instinct, whatever). Immediately I can associate it with music, curious seeing how I'm a breakbeat DJ (perhaps I'm more sensitive to these rewards – nice!). I do not follow religion yet I have experienced, in a religious congregation, what could be misinterpreted as a presence or external force. With the inability to associate this feeling with this high, and perhaps being told about the personal visceral experience during this experience I can see reason why I would become a believer of an external influence. The same goes for the camaraderie we feel at rallies, concert, and protests. What scares me most, however, is the strong reward I get from watching fighting (to exclude violence in general).

    We are all addicted to our interests. This may seem trivial, but it just may help one to distinguish between wants and needs. I feel that most of humankind’s “ugly side” can be associated with this reward system mixed with circumstance; thus the battle is then to acknowledge why these feelings exist. The irony is that I now am rewarded when I detect these rewards within me – and believe me, this does not translate to unending bliss.

    Happy new year.

  2. Thanks Mase. Your comments are appreciated. 8-)