The narrative doesn’t work at all if there isn’t some kind of truth within the public to start with. The women’s movement as an example. They take what they know is an existing sentiment and then pump it up.
The environmental movement is another example. They twist the innate desires to obtain their desires.
I don’t think so. The pandemic and vaccine scam narrative was primed for many years before they pulled it and so it was effective. As a for instance, in 2015, Obama’s education reform brought us new reading text books with a chapter on Medicine - which I had never seen in a reading anthology before. One story was specifically on pandemics and one on vaccines. These topics must have been in every grade level’s texts. And as our education system was nearly lockstep in teaching practices across the nation, most US children were indoctrinated on the importance of vaccines and the deadliness of pandemics.
Plus the movies priming the theme as well. So their narrative had maximum effect.
The Build Back Better narrative scam has been ineffectual because it had/has no innate narrative within the population. It wasn’t fleshed out by them and was a forced narrative that people actually scoff at.
Somehow the narrative must be talked about in the population itself before it will work.
Either naturally or by design, or a combination of both before it will work.
If they want the narrative to have maximum effect, they must insure that it is talked about - even debated - within the population itself.
But for sure, the strength and length of the narrative depends on how well it serves the power cabal. Think of the moon landing fiction. lol. How exactly does that serve them?
You could also use "the measure of a narrative is how well it distracts" to make it a little more focused on the concept of measuring narratives. Since the goal of the narrative maker is to make the strongest narrative possible, I still like "the strength" because the point of narratives is power and strength conveys power better.
What I am starting to realize is how I have had it backwards. Instead of trying to place truth within the existing paradigm, I need to start connecting to dots of all the truth I have so far uncovered in order to identify the true (false) paradigm we are now operating within. In the last 200 years our entire culture has indeed been upended and inverted. Look no further than the woke ideology to see an example of that, but it holds true for medicine and science, really scientism, as well.
Here is a condensed version of Option 1. "The value of a public narrative is measured by how well it serves the ruling oligarchy." Shorter yet: "A public narrative's value is determined by how well it serves the oligarchy.
Would you consider forgoing "epistemological" in 1. "is measured by its utility to the ruling oligarchy." and in 2. "serving the interests of the oligarchy." I realize the importance of this word, but is it necessary to be so specific, if it might reach a wider audience? The point is that the narrative is in service to the oligarchy. If you do choose 2., I would also recommend "manage belief, and/or reinforce consent". And I tend to agree with Fault Tolerant's comment below.
I chose "cynical" because I guess I am cynical, at least in regards to the public's capacity to engage in abstract discussion of any kind. "KISS - Keep it simple, stupid". Not to imply that you are stupid of course, but if you want widespread use of this idea, it's got to be dumbed down. I'd choose #5 otherwise.
I thought “the narratives we’re told aren’t measured by their truth — they’re measured by how well they serve power,” was actually the best but one thing you could do is take option five and then say “put another way: the narratives we’re told aren’t measured by their truth — they’re measured by how well they serve power.”
Sidebar to Option 4; Beauty around every corner but something pulls me from behind. Voices, dark voices sounds in perfect pitch. It's a new reality, it's about control. To tell us things that we don't know.
Option A reads as though it will stimulate a broader audience.
Are you referring to the star and circle image seen elsewhere? Distill and combine the words with an image and there it is-the medium is the message.
The narrative doesn’t work at all if there isn’t some kind of truth within the public to start with. The women’s movement as an example. They take what they know is an existing sentiment and then pump it up.
The environmental movement is another example. They twist the innate desires to obtain their desires.
I don’t think so. The pandemic and vaccine scam narrative was primed for many years before they pulled it and so it was effective. As a for instance, in 2015, Obama’s education reform brought us new reading text books with a chapter on Medicine - which I had never seen in a reading anthology before. One story was specifically on pandemics and one on vaccines. These topics must have been in every grade level’s texts. And as our education system was nearly lockstep in teaching practices across the nation, most US children were indoctrinated on the importance of vaccines and the deadliness of pandemics.
Plus the movies priming the theme as well. So their narrative had maximum effect.
The Build Back Better narrative scam has been ineffectual because it had/has no innate narrative within the population. It wasn’t fleshed out by them and was a forced narrative that people actually scoff at.
Somehow the narrative must be talked about in the population itself before it will work.
Either naturally or by design, or a combination of both before it will work.
If they want the narrative to have maximum effect, they must insure that it is talked about - even debated - within the population itself.
But for sure, the strength and length of the narrative depends on how well it serves the power cabal. Think of the moon landing fiction. lol. How exactly does that serve them?
At all? 😉
How about "the strength of a narrative is how well it distracts"?
You could also use "the measure of a narrative is how well it distracts" to make it a little more focused on the concept of measuring narratives. Since the goal of the narrative maker is to make the strongest narrative possible, I still like "the strength" because the point of narratives is power and strength conveys power better.
It’s the alchemy of language. The real philosophers stone.
I was watching an interview of Joe Navarro last night. Among other things, he talked about the notion of giving 'psychological comfort'.
If true, the value of a narrative is the extent to which it leverages the desire for psychological comfort in the audience.
Note that it doesn't need to give comfort or take it away, only to leverage future expectations thereof, as a means for generating expected behaviour.
Food for thought anyway.
What I am starting to realize is how I have had it backwards. Instead of trying to place truth within the existing paradigm, I need to start connecting to dots of all the truth I have so far uncovered in order to identify the true (false) paradigm we are now operating within. In the last 200 years our entire culture has indeed been upended and inverted. Look no further than the woke ideology to see an example of that, but it holds true for medicine and science, really scientism, as well.
🗳️ Duke’s Law: Updated Poll Options:
🔹 Option A: Plain Speech
A public story isn’t promoted because it’s true—it’s because it’s useful to those in power.
🟨 Option B: Fused Clarity
A narrative’s value and prominence are determined by its epistemological utility to the oligarchy.
🟩 Option C: Megan’s Edit
A public narrative's value is determined by how well it serves the oligarchy.
One small suggestion for the Plain Speech option: A public story isn't promoted because it's true, but because it's useful to those in power.
Here is a condensed version of Option 1. "The value of a public narrative is measured by how well it serves the ruling oligarchy." Shorter yet: "A public narrative's value is determined by how well it serves the oligarchy.
Would you consider forgoing "epistemological" in 1. "is measured by its utility to the ruling oligarchy." and in 2. "serving the interests of the oligarchy." I realize the importance of this word, but is it necessary to be so specific, if it might reach a wider audience? The point is that the narrative is in service to the oligarchy. If you do choose 2., I would also recommend "manage belief, and/or reinforce consent". And I tend to agree with Fault Tolerant's comment below.
Yes to cui bono. Options 2 & 3 make sense after perhaps defining “oligarch” in terms of “First Principles” and a polymath approach to it. 🤠🙏🏼
I chose "cynical" because I guess I am cynical, at least in regards to the public's capacity to engage in abstract discussion of any kind. "KISS - Keep it simple, stupid". Not to imply that you are stupid of course, but if you want widespread use of this idea, it's got to be dumbed down. I'd choose #5 otherwise.
In determining whether it's true, ask first "sez who?"
And immediately thereafter, "Might they be lying?"
I thought “the narratives we’re told aren’t measured by their truth — they’re measured by how well they serve power,” was actually the best but one thing you could do is take option five and then say “put another way: the narratives we’re told aren’t measured by their truth — they’re measured by how well they serve power.”
Dialogue is the highest form of intellect! #λόγος
Sidebar to Option 4; Beauty around every corner but something pulls me from behind. Voices, dark voices sounds in perfect pitch. It's a new reality, it's about control. To tell us things that we don't know.
As you know, I always ask “cui bono”. I like this option the most.