The style of this article is positive and literal. If it seems otherwise, it’s because of driver interference.
Watch out for unnatural valences and unintended tones. Focus as much as possible on absorbing the literal details of the information presented. You can always return to the words later if the drivers are making it difficult.
Contents
Introduction
This addition to the Strategies of Overt Resistance functions as a return to the very basics of forming effective strategies and behaviours for confronting the challenges of life within the project, from the very ground up.
Much of the following information, ideally, should have appeared prior to Part One. However, since the strategies book has developed organically over the past few weeks, amendments and revisions have to be worked in along the way.
When the full collection is complete, I will be revising and editing the Strategies of Overt Resistance into a self-contained book—the entirety of which will be available here on the website, both as a Wikipedia-style resource, and as a downloadable ebook.
In the meantime, I appreciate your efforts as you work with the process!
Sometimes getting things perfect has to be sacrificed in order to get things done quickly. And right now, time is of the essence. I know it hasn’t been easy—in this world few things are—so thanks for making the effort to work with me!
The following collection will assist you in building new strategies, tactics, and behaviours based on the strategies of overt resistance. You should begin as an individual first, tailoring your new strategies and behaviours to your own specific challenges in life, while at the same time expanding your sights towards using your new approaches to help those around you by fighting against the project and its worst abuses.
Start from wherever you are and remember:
This is only the beginning for developing new and better ways to change our world. The more we do things using the right methods and the most ethical approaches, the saner, healthier, and more liberating life will become for everyone.
I’ve moved some things around, so some of what you’ve already read elsewhere will appear here in a more appropriate order.
Read through the collection first and then, if you need to, come back for note-taking later. The information in this guide really will change your life, provided you apply it to building new and better behaviours for overcoming the challenges of this world.
What follows are the fundamentals for building new behaviours for confronting challenges openly and directly, as well as setting new goals for societal change in ways that are as healthy, effective, and prosocial as possible. Put them to good use and they will help you make as many positive changes in your life as you can.
You CAN Use Prosocial Overt Resistance to Change the Project from Within
As you consider a new gameplan with the strategies of overt resistance, one of the most important things to remember is this:
- You CAN use prosocial overt resistance to change the project from within, without having to quit the project completely—even if that is what you are ultimately working towards.
You are using prosocial overt resistance to make real changes happen within the project:
- Every time you stand up openly to drivers or project authority figures and refuse to engage in something harmful or abusive.
- Every time you openly refuse to engage in project directions that are clearly irrational, or are only going to waste people’s time and energy.
- Every time you make ethical counter-offers—as closely based on The Right Approach as you can manage—and insist on changing project routines so that they have no discernable abusive outcome for anyone.
- Every time you prioritise your own moral beliefs and values and choose to act on them, despite what the drivers or project authorities are telling you to do.
All of the above are active, prosocial, and overt behaviours that have a real effect on changing the project both for the better and from within.
When choosing prosocial and overt methods to change the project, Conscientious Objection to harmful or abusive project practises is one of the most powerful approaches you have.
Use conscientious objection as often as you can to change the way things are being done, because it will make healthy and positive success much more likely.
Passive, Active, Covert, and Overt
When deciding how to apply your energies in response to a challenge or conflict, it is useful to consider your behavioural options in terms of passive and active responses, as well as the distinction between covert and overt approaches.
A passive approach involves basing your strategies on taking a low level of action in response to a challenge, or on taking no action at all.
An active approach involves basing your strategies on taking significant levels of action in response to a challenge.
A covert approach involves enacting your strategies in secret, while making efforts to hide your true intentions.
An overt approach involves enacting your strategies out in the open, while declaring your true intentions freely.
A covert strategy may be passive or active, just as an overt strategy may be passive or active as well.
For example:
Pretending you don’t notice someone breaking unjustifiable rules by looking the other way is a passive covert strategy.
It involves pretending to be on the side of the unjust authority, while covertly choosing to behave on the side of the dissenter. By passively opting not to take action, you have covertly assisted the other party.
Persuading an authority figure not to enact reprisals against a dissenter by convincing them that it is actually in the authority’s interest is an active covert strategy.
As with the previous example, it involves pretending to be on the side of authority, while this time actively working to persuade the authority figure to act in favour of their opposition.
On the other hand, fully acknowledging the person breaking the rules and still choosing not to stop them is a passive overt strategy.
It involves making no effort to hide your awareness of the situation, while assisting the dissenter by opting to passively stand by and allow them to break the rules.
Finally, speaking up in support of the dissenter when they break the rules is an active overt strategy.
This time, you have fully acknowledged your agreement with their position, as well as having decided to take significant action in support of their behaviour against the unjust authority.
With the covert approaches to the above examples, if and when an authority figure accuses you of assisting the dissenter all you have to do is deny it. Provided you’re successful, you will have protected your own position. The downside is that little will have changed in regards to the unjust rules of the system. Life will continue the same as before, until the next time someone breaks the rules.
With the overt approaches, as soon as the authority figure accuses you of assisting the dissenter you must instead explain openly why you actually agree with them. While there is greater risk to this approach, if you are successful in defending your position this time, you will also have taken significant steps towards weakening the unjust rules—by arguing openly against them—and made actual tangible changes in the wider system much more likely to come about.
As long as you favour the covert approaches, whether passive or active, real change over time will be slow and lopsided, because you cannot achieve anything without giving too much to the wrong side of the issue. The more you choose to employ overt approaches however—and particularly more active overt approaches—the much greater an effect your actions will have on the issues in question, as well as the wider system in place.
An active overt approach to our current challenges is far more likely to make bigger changes happen, much sooner, when compared to relying primarily on covert approaches. In fact, primarily persisting with covert approaches may be unlikely to get you anywhere at all.
If you want to make big changes happen in your life within the project as soon as possible, you must make the decision to confront the systemic challenges of your daily life much more overtly and much more actively. While the risk may seem greater, the difference will be transformative.
Prosocial Motivations and Prosocial Behaviours
Prosocial refers to anything that is good for people or contributes to a better society.
Antisocial refers to anything that causes harm to people or to society.
As long as something is truly good for people, as long as it helps them and doesn’t cause them any harm whatsoever, then it is prosocial.
Generally speaking, anything prosocial must be both good for you and for others, without causing any secondary harms.
Prosocial motivations are intentions or desires based on wanting to help people or wider society. When your motivations are prosocial, what you want is only good for people, including yourself, and the world around you.
Prosocial behaviours are any actions that only make positive things happen for people and society. When your behaviours are prosocial they only contribute to making life better, both for you and the other people around you.
Remember:
- Prosocial motivations and prosocial behaviours do not ever involve intentionally hurting or harming anybody, or agreeing to hurt or harm anybody, in any form whatsoever.
- “Pretend” hurtful behaviours—pretending to engage in hurtful behaviours as an act of covert resistance against hurtful project directives—regularly results in too much real hurt to be prosocial!
It is possible to have prosocial motivations while failing to engage in prosocial behaviours.
If you want to help people, but what you are doing is actually bad for those around you, then you only have half of the equation.
Because your behaviours aren’t prosocial, even though you’re trying to help, what you are doing is actually making life worse for yourself and for those around you.
One of the problems with covert techniques is that they are not prosocial. Since they are based on manipulation and deception, they are already bad for people anyway.
Almost all of the project-taught covert techniques cause many more forms of damage, in many different ways, beyond just lying to or manipulating people.
Almost all of the project-taught covert techniques are actually extremely harmful, both for those who use them as well as for the people around them.
When it comes to covert methods:
- You should only ever engage in covert techniques under the most extreme and necessary circumstances—only when all other possibilities have been exhausted—and only with entirely prosocial motivations.
To truly make the world a better place you have to do everything you can to ensure that when you take action, you are applying both prosocial motivations and prosocial behaviours.
Prosocial Motivations must include:
- A desire to help people or to make the world a better place.
- A desire to help yourself too, in a way that doesn’t hurt anyone else.
Prosocial Behaviours must include:
- Predictable positive outcomes for yourself and the people around you, or for society. Prosocial behaviours are very likely to only make good things happen.
- Respect of people’s rights as human beings, including their right to psychological and emotional well-being, their right to privacy, and their right to autonomy (in other words, their right to think and feel for themselves, to choose their own actions and behaviours, and to manage their own personal life).
- No harmful or hurtful secondary outcomes or behaviours at all. Prosocial behaviours don’t ever involve deliberately hurting or pretending to hurt anyone, no matter how small or symbolic the hurt.
Examples of Prosocial Motivations include:
- Wanting to help people more freely express themselves.
- Wanting to make society safer, saner, and healthier for everyone.
Examples of Prosocial Behaviours include:
- Speaking more openly, authentically, and freely around others to encourage them to open up and do the same.
- Changing your behaviour so that your effect on the world is a better one—both for yourself and for those around you—by refusing to engage in hurtful things and instead insisting on doing more healthy things.
It is not enough to have Prosocial Motivations, without also putting Prosocial Behaviours into action.
Even if you have the right intentions, if you meet your challenges by using the wrong methods then bad things are likely to happen.
When you prepare your gameplan for freeing yourself from the project, you must ensure that as many of your actions as possible involve both prosocial motivations and prosocial behaviours.
Ethics and Ecological Strategies
Ethics is the study of morality and moral behaviours.
Ethics asks the question what is the morally right thing to do?
Every human being has their own ideas about what is right or wrong. Each of us must choose our own ethics and ethical guidelines for ourselves and then do everything we can to live by them.
Ideally, your ethical beliefs should be as prosocial as possible, to ensure that your effect on the world is a positive one.
In systems theory, Ecological Strategies are any strategies that ensure that your actions and behaviours will only have the intended outcomes, or get you closer to your intended goals, without causing any other problems for your intended outcomes or wider goals anywhere else.
If your strategies are ecological, they are only helping you reach all of your goals, big and small, without doing anything whatsoever to negatively affect any of what you are trying to achieve.
An Ecological Strategy should:
- Work constructively towards your main goal or intended outcome, by having a rational cause-and-effect function in actual reality.
- Have no negative effect whatsoever on your main goal or intended outcome.
- Have no negative effect whatsoever on any of your other goals or intended outcomes.
For example, if your main goal is buying a new item of clothing and your secondary goal is feeling comfortable, then a good ecological strategy would be:
- Aiming to buy the most comfortable clothes you can find.
This strategy is ecological because it meets the main goal of buying a new item of clothing and the secondary goal of feeling comfortable, by making sure the clothing is as comfortable as possible.
A non-ecological strategy would be:
- Aiming to buy the cheapest clothes you can find, even if they’re uncomfortable.
The second strategy is not ecological because it achieves your main goal, but only at the cost of your secondary goal.
An example of a non-ecological strategy for changing project practises for the better would be:
- Using code and metaphor to discuss how to improve the way things are done within the project.
This example is not ecological because it involves speaking primarily through code and metaphor—which contributes to the wall of silence and makes life within the project worse—while still discussing how to make the project better.
An example of an ecological strategy for changing project practises for the better would be:
- Using literal speech to discuss how to improve the way things are done within the project.
This strategy is ecological because all of the behaviours involved contribute to your goal of changing project practises for the better. Using free literal speech breaks down the wall of silence—which makes acceptable project practises better and therefore contributes to your main goal—while discussing wider methods for how to achieve that main goal as well.
All parts of the example ecological strategy contribute to the main goal of making project practises better, without doing anything whatsoever to negatively impact that goal.
If you have a strong prosocial foundation for your ethical beliefs, then you can only form an Ethical Ecological Strategy if it does not involve hurting anybody or causing any harm to society at all.
An Ethical Ecological Strategy should get you closer to achieving your goals, without having any secondary negative effect on that goal, or any of your other goals, as well as being completely ethical and morally sound.
An Ethical Ecological Strategy should:
- Work constructively towards your main goal or intended outcome, by having a rational cause-and-effect function in actual reality.
- Do no harm or cause any hurt to anyone.
- Do no harm to society.
- Have no negative effect whatsoever on your main goal or intended outcome.
- Have no negative effect whatsoever on any of your other goals or intended outcomes.
If you have strong prosocial ethics, an example of an unethical non-ecological strategy would be:
- Trying to help somebody have a nice time by tricking them into going to a pleasant place and lying to them about the reason.
Trying to help somebody by manipulating and deluding them is neither ethical nor ecological, because you are hurting them by manipulating and deluding them.
The example strategy is not ethical, because lying to somebody and manipulating them into doing something that they may not actually want to do is a serious violation of that person’s right to make their own informed decisions and their own choices in life.
Nobody is ever happy when they find out they have been lied to or manipulated!
The example strategy is not ecological, because your secondary goals in life are prosocial, which means that any strategy that hurts people—even when trying to help them—is having a significant negative effect on your wider goals.
When forming new strategies and behaviours for facing the challenges of your life, you must do everything you can to ensure that your strategies are both as ethical as possible, and as ecological as possible.
An example of an ethical ecological strategy would be:
- Trying to help somebody have a nice time by telling them about a pleasant place and asking them if they’d like to go there.
The example strategy is ethical, because you have been honest with that person, respecting their rights and needs, and made an offer instead of manipulating them.
The example strategy is ecological, because you have offered them a pleasant experience, which contributes to your main goal of helping the other person without doing anything to harm that goal.
In this example, even if the person doesn’t want to go to that place, you have helped them anyway, since you were kind enough to make a considerate offer. Either way your strategy has helped that person, which was your main goal.
An example of an ethical ecological strategy for changing the project for the better would be:
- Using literal speech and conscientious objection as your foundation for refusing to engage in something harmful.
The above strategy has contributed to your main goal of changing the project for the better by fighting against harmful project practises—it has had no negative effect on your goal, because literal speech instead of code and metaphor also makes the project better—and it is entirely ethical because conscientious objection is a highly ethical behaviour.
When deciding new strategies and behaviours to apply to your challenges, always remember the value of both ethics and ecological strategies.
Do everything you can to ensure that all of your actions, plans, and behaviours involve strategies that are as ethical and ecological as possible!
Cause-and-Effect and Actual Reality
Cause-and-Effect means that a certain behaviour or action, which is the Cause, results in a certain outcome, which is the Effect.
When you take action in reality it results in something happening in reality. This is cause-and-effect.
Relying on symbolic jobs or simulated routines to make real changes happen doesn’t actually have the intended cause-and-effect you want it to in actual reality.
This is because your actions and behaviours are directed towards symbolic events or simulated routines, rather than doing things that actually constructively make changes happen in reality.
For your strategies to be Constructive:
- You must choose actions and behaviours that are rationally likely to have the effect that you want.
- One step in the strategy must lead to the next, by creating the opportunity for the next step to begin.
- Each step in the strategy should lead logically and directly towards your goal.
- What you are doing must directly contribute to making what you want happen in actual reality.
- Your goal must be mainly dependent on your own actions and behaviours, or the actions and behaviours of your partners, rather than on any external factors that are beyond your power to control.
An example of a constructive strategy for taking notes would be:
- Picking up a pen and writing words on a piece of paper.
The actions (picking up a pen and writing words) are constructive (holding the pen makes it possible to write, writing creates the words that appear on the page) and this achieves your goal of taking notes.
An example of a constructive strategy for speaking literally about the project in Mandatory Reality would be:
- Putting on a disguise and agreeing to a non-hurtful project routine, then approaching somebody and choosing to speak literally about the project, instead of playing along with the routine.
The actions (wearing the disguise, agreeing to a non-hurtful routine, approaching somebody, speaking freely) are constructive (wearing the disguise for a non-hurtful routine allows you to approach somebody without harming them, approaching that person gives you the opportunity to break the rules and speak freely) and this achieves your goal of speaking literally about the project during Mandatory Reality.
When devoting your efforts against the project to symbolic events and simulated routines, you may be expending significant time and energy on your labours, but what you are doing is not actually constructively contributing to your goals in the real world at all.
You may be changing things in symbolic ways, like:
- Putting up pro-Palestine banners for an anti-Israel protest involving 10 people.
- Or dressing up as a hacker and going on the Mandatory Reality internet while pretending to hack a computer system.
Or you may be making changes happen in simulated routines, like:
- Organising a protest of 10,000 simulated people against the project, taking place solely in a non-existent and simulated version of reality.
- Or claiming to be hacking into a simulated system and retrieving simulated information that doesn’t even exist.
The above behaviours are not making the changes you want happen in actual reality, because much of the cause-and-effect of your behaviours is directed towards symbolic or simulated outcomes.
Crucially, however, the behaviours are having a significant cause-and-effect on prolonging the false public world of Mandatory Reality.
Always remember:
- The symbolic behaviours and events themselves are not neutral. The cause-and-effect of acting out symbolic routines in public builds and enforces the false world of Mandatory Reality.
- When you play along with the false public world of Mandatory Reality you are directly contributing to prolonging it.
- As long as you are participating in symbolic or simulations-based behaviours that build and enforce Mandatory Reality for real, everybody is forced to live in a false world.
Sometimes the project allows actual positive change to take place in reality when you do symbolic or simulated work, but most of the time it doesn’t.
Instead the project uses these labours to drain your time and energy—while making you suffer for it—and then tells you to do the same type of thing again with the same expected results. Mandatory Reality continues, the simulations may or may not change, and not much else happens at all.
Based on my observations, the following holds true:
- The vast, vast majority of symbolic routines and simulated efforts don’t actually make anything good happen in reality at all—even when the project lies and claims that they do.
- In fact, most of the time they make bad things happen!
Even if your symbolic behaviours and simulated routines don’t have any other harmful effects, if they are contributing to prolonging Mandatory Reality it is still a very bad thing!
When it comes to symbolic behaviours and simulated routines:
- The behaviour you’re engaging in (the cause of the results) is either the wrong behaviour (it’s symbolic instead of real), or is taking place in the wrong context (it’s directed towards a simulated routine instead of actual reality), so the effect you create with your behaviour is not going to be the one that you wanted.
There is no constructive cause-and-effect based on what you want happening in actual reality, so nothing really changes.
For example:
- My goal is to communicate some important information to a specific person, Person 1.
- My methods include using simulations, project routines, and the driver network to share the message.
- My strategy is to dress up as a fake character and use code to talk to somebody else entirely, Person 2, because the drivers have promised me that they will then pass the message through to Person 1.
- The cause—the actual behaviours taking place—is that I wore a disguise and spoke symbolic language to the wrong person, possibly without that person having any idea what I was trying to achieve at all.
- The effect is very likely to be: Person 2 will hear my communication without understanding and may be very bothered or confused by my behaviour. While Person 1 never gets the message at all, since the drivers regularly prevent communications from actually being shared through these types of methods.
Another example:
- My goal is to make the project let people speak freely and literally in public.
- My methods include using simulated routines on the driver network to persuade simulated people to change the project rules.
- My strategy is to stay up all night trying to persuade drivers, who are pretending to be the simulated humans who work in the project, to change their minds, while those same drivers abuse and harass me.
- The cause—the actual behaviours taking place—is that I spent all night playing along with a fake routine, talking to people who don’t even really exist, while suffering hours of driver harassment and sensory abuse.
- The effect is very likely to be: I have lost an entire night to pointless labour and significant suffering, while the rules that seem to exist in actual reality didn’t change at all, because the drivers are almost always lying about the significance of these events.
If you want to make real positive changes happen in the world that we actually live in, you must apply your constructive cause-and-effect behaviours to actual reality.
For example:
- My goal is to communicate some important information to a specific person, Person 1.
- My methods include using project routines, prosocial methods, and the strategies of overt resistance to share the message.
- My strategy is to dress up as a fake character during a project routine that isn’t based on trying to hurt anyone, or pretending to hurt anyone, and approach Person 1. I will then subtly break character, so that I can share my message using non-coded speech and literal details.
- The cause—the actual behaviours taking place—is that I wore a disguise, chose a project routine that wasn’t based on anything hurtful, and spoke clear literal and truthful language to the right person.
- The effect is very likely to be: Person 1 understands my message and nobody got hurt.
Another example:
- My goal is to make the project let people speak freely and literally in public.
- My methods include using project routines and applying the strategies of overt resistance to create opportunities for free speech and to defend myself against potential attacks.
- My strategy is to overtly break the norms of Mandatory Reality during a non-hurtful project routine by speaking freely and literally, thereby asserting my right to free speech regardless of project permission.
- The cause—the actual behaviours taking place—is that I stopped acting during a project routine and chose to speak freely and literally instead.
- The effect of this strategy will be: I have asserted my right to free speech, thereby directly contributing to weakening the oppressive project norms against literal public communication.
The final example strategy is the necessary method for asserting your right to free speech, because you cannot wait for permission to do things the right way in a deliberately cruel and irrational system. That permission will not come.
Instead, you must conscientiously object to doing things the wrong way and fight to do things the right way.
The cause-and-effect of this is simple:
- The cause of conscientiously objecting to oppressive project rules, and instead openly asserting your right to defy them in actual reality, eventually creates the effect of you not having to engage in those routines any more.
Primarily this will be because you have stood up openly for your rights and sufficiently defended them against challenge. Remember that you often have to claim your rights and assert them openly, before the project and the drivers will even concede that they exist as rights at all.
An awful lot of what is bad about our lives is a direct cause-and-effect of the behaviours that real humans are engaging in every day, in actual reality.
The effect of being trapped in the project and the fake world of Mandatory Reality is very significantly caused by how you and the people around you are behaving when you use the project-taught methods for functioning in this world.
You have been fighting the project with project-taught methods that actively work to keep you and those around you trapped in the project and its abusive routines!
Examples include:
- Speaking only in code and metaphor, or refusing to break out of acting a fake identity, both of which enforce the false public world of Mandatory Reality.
- Agreeing to give up control of your voice and behaviour to drivers, which allows the project to use your own body and speech to abuse both you and the people around you.
- Pretending to police each other by engaging in intimidating or threatening behaviours and routines, which really does police people by making them too afraid to step out of line.
You must conscientiously object to all of the self-defeating project methods, primarily through using prosocial, overt, and active strategies to stand up for doing things in better ways.
When it comes to the right way to change the project, you don’t win the real battles by staying up all night and arguing with simulations.
- The only way to win a simulated battle is to refuse to participate.
You don’t win the real battles by assuming fake characters and performing symbolic tasks out in public for Mandatory Reality.
- The only way to really win in that situation is ultimately to refuse to do those jobs at all.
When it comes to the right way to change the project, you win your battles by applying active prosocial behaviours that constructively work towards making real changes happen in actual reality.
When you want to change the world, you must make sure that your cause-and-effect involves the right behaviours creating the right results.
Make sure that what you are working on is constructively and directly contributing to making what you want actually happen.
Symbolic acts and simulated routines don’t change reality, taking constructive action for real is what changes reality.
The Wrong Things and the Wrong Ways
Most of the project-taught tactics and techniques involve doing the wrong things the wrong ways.
Even when you are doing things for the right reasons—even when you are trying to do the right things—you are almost always destined to fail when using the project-taught methods for confronting challenges and setting up project routines.
If you’re not sure if these approaches are ever successful or not, ask yourself:
- How often do you actually get the outcomes you wanted or expected when you apply the project-taught methods?
- Are we ever really winning, when it involves that much suffering and madness?
One of the reasons these behaviours and routines are so disastrous is because the project way of doing things is so extremely bad for everyone!
The project as a real system and institution functioning in actual reality is predicated on hurting, deluding, and controlling people. When you follow project orders and let the drivers make the plans, you are directly contributing, in a real cause-and-effect way, to those outcomes.
When you are doing what the project tells you to, when you are using the self-defeating methods the project has taught you, you can be certain that you are contributing to the project’s worst prime directives.
The project’s worst prime directives are:
- Deluding people.
- Exploiting people.
- Abusing people.
- Controlling people.
- Subjugating people.
These directives are present at all times in practically every effort the project puts into action, both big and small.
This includes:
- The public staging of Mandatory Reality.
- The standard practices the project teaches you for acting and behaving in Mandatory Reality.
- The simulations system (i.e. the system of Central, its shell worlds, and bubble realities) and how you have been taught to interact with it.
- The driver network, how you have been taught to interact with it, and how the drivers interact with you.
- The underground network and the tactics and techniques it has taught you for fighting the project itself.
Every single one of The Wrong Things and The Wrong Ways contributes directly—with a predictable cause-and-effect in actual reality—to all or most of the project’s directives based around abuse, control, exploitation, subjugation, and the conditioning of delusions.
The Wrong Things and The Wrong Ways include:
- Speaking primarily in code and metaphor.
- Denying true reality.
- Using fake identities and disguises.
- Pretending to be against your own interests.
- Playing both sides of an issue.
- Playing along with hurtful behaviours.
- Lying to, manipulating, or deceiving people.
- Policing each other for the project.
- Following orders that are obviously abusive or are likely to lead to abusive outcomes.
- Giving up control of your body, voice, or behaviour to drivers.
- Participating in routines based on surveillance.
- Participating in routines based on mind control or enforced reconditioning.
- Participating in routines based on social testing or experimentation without consent.
Since all of these behaviours are so unethical and so damaging, they cause multiple forms of harm both to the individuals involved and to society itself. While at the same time, each of them contributes directly to the oppressive project system and most or all of its worst prime directives.
A more detailed description of exactly what is so harmful about each of these abusive project-taught methods is contained in the expanded excerpt article below:
The Wrong Things and The Wrong Ways in more detail
Always remember the project’s worst prime directives.
They are among the fundamental reasons the project—as well as its underground network—has taught you to apply The Wrong Things and The Wrong Ways to so many different situations.
As such, using The Wrong Things and the Wrong Ways for any task always contributes to most or all of the following:
- Deluding people.
- Exploiting people.
- Abusing people.
- Controlling people.
- Subjugating people.
As a result of this, The Wrong Things and The Wrong Ways are:
- Abusive.
- Controlling.
- Irrational.
- Antisocial.
- Deceptive.
- Disempowering (for you or others).
- Self-defeating.
Trying to apply The Wrong Things and The Wrong Ways to make positive changes happen in your environment is an endeavour that is destined to fail.
As long as you use The Wrong Things and The Wrong Ways for anything, you are actively working—with a true cause-and-effect in actual reality—to keep yourself and those around you trapped in the system.
The problem is not what you are trying to achieve—or your reasons for achieving it—the problem is that the project-taught methods are primarily designed to abuse people and keep them trapped in the project system, while doing little to assist you in your actual goals.
Using The Wrong Things and The Wrong Ways for any endeavour, whether your intentions are good or bad, will always have the same following results:
- You are unlikely to get what you actually want.
- You and the people around you will suffer.
- You will have taken active efforts to keep yourself trapped in the system.
- You will have taken active efforts to keep the people around you trapped in the system.
There are both rational and predictable cause-and-effect reasons on the ground for this, as well as likely outcomes based on patterns in the wider system of control.
When it comes to openly conscientiously objecting to the Wrong Things and the Wrong Ways, you will have to pick your battles in terms of what you target first.
Begin with the worst and most harmful project methods. They are all extremely harmful behaviours, but some of them are much worse than others.
The most harmful and most self-defeating include:
- Pretending to be against your own interests.
- Playing along with hurtful behaviours.
- Manipulating people.
- Playing both sides of a really important issue.
- Policing each other for the project.
- Following orders that are obviously abusive or are likely to lead to abusive outcomes.
- Giving up control of your body, voice, or behaviour to drivers.
- Participating in routines based on surveillance.
- Participating in routines based on mind control or enforced reconditioning.
- Participating in routines based on social testing or experimentation without consent.
The only methods on the list that are actually truly necessary for survival in this world are:
- Speaking in code and metaphor.
- Denying true reality.
- Using fake identities and disguises.
- Lying to people.
That is because the above are unavoidable until the false public world of Mandatory Reality has been dismantled completely—and they are still extremely harmful behaviours.
Everything else on the list should be conscientiously objected to, starting immediately!
The sooner you conscientiously object to all of the list, the sooner life will improve for everyone. There are other options available for facing your challenges and reaching your goals, without using The Wrong Things and The Wrong Ways.
When the time comes to set up project routines and confront your daily challenges, endeavour to build your strategies as close to The Right Approach as you can.
When coming up with routines, check your plans and strategies against the list of Wrong Things and Wrong Ways. The more of the wrong methods involved, the more you are contributing to hurting and subjugating you and the people around you—and the more likely things will go seriously wrong.
Endeavour to come up with new plans and strategies based as closely as possible on The Right Approach. Endeavour to make your plans and strategies as honest, prosocial, ethical, and ecological as possible.
The Right Approach and the Prosocial Pattern
One of the most important patterns in how the system in control of our world functions is this:
- If you do the right things, the right way, and for the right reasons, you are far more likely to succeed in achieving positive outcomes.
Importantly, this would be true in a natural environment anyway. Such an approach would definitely make positive outcomes much more likely.
Indeed, when you follow this approach in our world, positive outcomes are far more likely, regardless of how the system chooses to control things.
But there is also a discernable pattern—in the true system that controls both the project and the world around us—that can be reasonably expected to bolster these methods, as well as to support the positive outcomes that will occur for natural cause-and-effect reasons anyway.
This Prosocial Pattern tends to assist The Right Approach.
The Right Approach is:
- Doing the right things
- The right way
- For the right reasons.
You are using The Right Approach:
- If your motivations are truly for helping people—both those around you, as well as yourself—without hurting anyone, then you are doing things for the right reasons.
- If your behaviours are healthy, sane, and productive—if they constructively work towards what you are trying to achieve by taking action in reality—then you are doing things the right way.
- If the things you are working on will actually have a positive beneficial outcome in the real world, without causing any harm to anyone, then you are doing the right things.
As such, choosing The Right Approach always involves considering:
- Why you are doing things. The right reasons should always be prosocial, or at least ethically neutral.
- How you are doing things. The right way should be constructive,
ethical or ethically neutral, and predictably likely to lead to your goals in actual reality. - What things you are doing. The right things should have the desired positive effect in the world—whether for you, the people around you, or society itself—without causing any harm.
Always remember the Why, How, and What of The Right Approach.
Make sure the Why, How, and What of your strategies, behaviours, and planning for project routines are as ethical, ecological, and constructive as possible.
If your Right Approach follows these guidelines it is reasonably likely to trigger The Prosocial Pattern in the true system of control that governs our world—at least on average and over time.
That said, The Prosocial Pattern in the system is not something you should ever trust or rely on.
As with all of the mechanisms and systems encompassed in the true system of control—including the Antisocial Mechanism, the driver network, and the simulations system—you must never try to game it.
Avoid engaging in efforts to manipulate, outsmart, or control The Prosocial Pattern, because those efforts will backfire!
Always remember:
- When you try to game the system, the system games you. Usually your efforts will end up working against you, or cause other serious unintended consequences.
- The only way to win is not to play.
Nonetheless, over time and on average, this pattern can be expected and should be factored into your planning.
When considering how to factor The Prosocial Pattern into your plans:
- Keep it in mind, but don’t devote too much of your time and attention to it.
- Instead, focus on the value that will arise naturally through using The Right Approach-style strategies. When compared to The Wrong Things and The Wrong Ways, The Right Approach will create so many cause-and-effect positives in actual reality—while avoiding so many of the common harms involved in the wrong methods—that success is much more likely anyway.
- Remember The Prosocial Pattern is extremely dependent on what everybody is doing in a situation, not just you. If everyone else is doing things in counterproductive or unethical ways, then it may not make much difference for your goals in any particular situation or event.
- Consider The Prosocial Pattern when making calculated risks. Factor it into your decision-making when you weigh up your odds of success. Taking chances, standing up to authority, and calling bluffs may be more likely to succeed, but success is never guaranteed.
- Never expect to succeed solely because of The Prosocial Pattern. It may help you, but you can never depend on it to save the day. Even when you do everything right, things can and do still go wrong. Rely instead on cause-and-effect strategies that will have a predictably ethical and ecological outcome regardless of The Prosocial Pattern.
In this world, you will have to endeavour to do the right things, the right ways, regardless of any mechanisms or higher functions in the system that may or may not be helping you.
Avoid trying to game the pattern at all costs and remember this is also true for other systemic functions such as The Antisocial Mechanism too!
Remember:
- Gaming the Antisocial Mechanism created the Suffering Economy. While trying to game The Prosocial Pattern probably wouldn’t lead to anything even nearly as bad, the outcome would still definitely be a bad one.
Regarding The Prosocial Pattern and the behaviour of others:
- The pattern is dependent both on your behaviour and the behaviour of those around you.
- If you are doing the right things the right way for the right reasons, even the events most obviously controlled by the system are more likely to lead to better outcomes.
- If many more people around you are doing the right things the right way for the right reasons, better outcomes are much more likely.
- If most people around you are doing the wrong things the wrong way, or for the wrong reasons, then success will probably not be all that likely at all—though things will still work out better for everyone when you’re using The Right Approach.
Doing the right things the right way for the right reasons—ethically, honestly, and constructively—makes success far more likely. The Prosocial Pattern can be subtle and should never be depended on, but the right strategies and behaviours will always be effective, no matter what else is going on in the system.
As such, The Right Approach will have positive cause-and-effect results, for rational and predictable reasons in actual reality—while also making The Prosocial Pattern more likely to emerge in the background.
Watch out for drivers or the project trying to use the Prosocial Pattern as an excuse for enacting the Antisocial Mechanism.
Remember:
- Punishing people for not living up to the Prosocial Pattern is neither acceptable nor prosocial. That is just an excuse for hurting you!
- Taking away people’s power or freedom by trying to make them work for the Prosocial Pattern is neither acceptable nor prosocial. That is just an excuse for controlling you!
Never validate or accept the Antisocial Mechanism, no matter what form it manifests itself in!
Remember that The Right Approach stands in direct contradiction of The Wrong Things and The Wrong Ways.
It is impossible to truly do something using The Right Approach if it involves using The Wrong Things and The Wrong Ways.
The Wrong Things and The Wrong Ways include:
- Speaking primarily in code and metaphor.
- Denying true reality.
- Using fake identities and disguises.
- Pretending to be against your own interests.
- Playing both sides of an issue.
- Playing along with hurtful behaviours.
- Lying to, manipulating, or deceiving people.
- Policing each other for the project.
- Following orders that are obviously abusive or are likely to lead to abusive outcomes.
- Giving up control of your body, voice, or behaviour to drivers.
- Participating in routines based on surveillance.
- Participating in routines based on mind control or enforced reconditioning.
- Participating in routines based on social testing or experimentation without consent.
That said, you can use The Right Approach to confront The Wrong Things and The Wrong Ways.
For example, a Right Approach strategy of conscientious objection against policing each other for the project would involve:
- The Right Thing: Refusing to engage in any of the policing for the project behaviours and refusing to participate in any routines intended to police others or yourself. The policing for the project behaviours include: Threatening and intimidating words and behaviours; Disempowerment tactics such as Gaslighting; Forcing others to follow project rules; etc.
- The Right Way: Using civil, respectful language to explain why you are morally opposed to the behaviours and routines and using defensive overt resistance strategies to protect yourself from challenge or attack.
- The Right Reason: Because the policing for the project behaviours directly contribute to enslaving people in the project system.
For now, the only truly necessary Wrong Things and Wrong Ways are:
- Speaking in code and metaphor.
- Denying true reality.
- Using fake identities and disguises.
- Lying to people.
Relying on those methods—and no others from the Wrong Things and Wrong Ways list—will ensure that your strategies and routines are as close to The Right Approach as currently possible.
- But only if your strategies are also directly targeted at eliminating what is harmful about those methods entirely!
For example, the Less Dance, More You strategy for breaking character during project routines, involves:
- The Right Thing: Expressing your true self and speaking literally about reality, rather than playing along with the fake identity or the public routine.
- The Right Way: Using disguises and cover stories only for as long as it takes to reach the opportunity to fully break character and then taking deliberate action to literally express the truth of your identity and the actual reality of the situation around you.
- The Right Reason: Because the performative acts and routines of Mandatory Reality directly contribute to keeping everyone trapped in a false public world.
In the above example, you have had to rely on using disguises and the denial of reality for project routines in order to reach the opportunity to use Less Dance, More You to break character and literally express your true self and actual reality.
Since the main constructive efforts of your strategy—breaking character and expressing the literal truth—involve significant overt efforts to fight against the harms of the wrong methods, you can consider the above strategy to be as functionally close to The Right Approach as possible.
Ideally, any other strategy you apply that involves the use of false identities and performative project routines should also apply Less Dance, More You to neutralise those harms, before it could be considered The Right Approach.
Do everything you can to put The Right Approach into action every time you plan your behaviours, face your challenges, and interact with the project.
You will be far more likely to succeed!
The Six Fundamentals of the Prosocial Overt Approach
There are six fundamentals of taking prosocial and overt action.
When you decide to overcome a challenge with the prosocial overt approach, you must endeavour to ensure that your gameplan involves all six of these fundamentals, as often as you can.
This will ensure that your strategies are as prosocial, overt, and ecological as possible—which will make positive outcomes far more likely.
The Six Fundamentals of Prosocial Overt Action are:
- Open and literal speech.
- Honesty, authenticity, and consistency in your position. (Choosing one side of the issue.)
- Taking constructive action openly, in actual reality.
- Honest and direct methods, rather than deceptive or manipulative ones.
- Conscientious objection to abusive or damaging practises.
- A strong prosocial foundation. (A motivation to help human beings and stand up against injustices.)
As long as your actions meet these six criteria, then you can be certain that you are mounting your efforts in the best way possible.
The Predictable Failures of Project Code
Important note: While the following contains a lengthy discussion of coded communication, there is NO intentional coded communication contained here on the part of the author! The literal, surface-level meaning of this text is the most important reading, regardless of how drivers may attempt to distract or alter the message.
The common methods taught by the project for communicating factual information during Mandatory Reality and other simulated routines are deliberately designed to fail most of the time.
To fully understand how deliberately non-functional the project-sanctioned methods for passing truthful information from person to person are, it is important to differentiate Project Code from other more generalised forms of coded communication.
There are certain specific qualities to the ways that Project Code is formed and communicated that make it predictably likely to fail to impart its intended message—and to communicate unintended or divisive messages instead—while at the same time guaranteeing that it will always contribute to enforcing the false realities of Mandatory Reality and the Simulations System.
The unique elements of Project Code are:
- The true meaning and interpretation is entirely dependent on driver explanations. The actual human beings communicating have no real power over how the drivers will decide to interpret that meaning. This is true even when drivers or project authorities have given promises or assurances that the correct message will be shared. In fact, those promises and assurances routinely turn out to be false.
- Project Code is always formed with a surface-level context based in Mandatory Reality. Whatever the intended message of the code, the literal meaning of the communication will always be validating, as well as actively building up, the false public world of Mandatory Reality.
- The symbols and metaphors are often extremely vague or entirely interchangeable. Without adequate driver prompting, the surface-level words could mean anything at all. While there are many terms with commonly understood translations, more detailed communication usually relies on using multiple terms without any direct translation at all.
- The coded message is usually delivered conversationally and in the moment. As such, there is little time or space for the human being recipients to sufficiently analyse or decode the meaning for themselves.
Standard coded communication involves obscuring a true message in a piece of communication, while offering clues or keys to decipher it. These keys are usually either contained in the communication itself or transmitted through a separate source. Upon receiving the code, adequate time and effort is generally required for the recipient to properly decode it.
On the other hand, while Project Code may involve a deliberate effort on the part of human beings to provide keys to its decoding, the great majority of its interpretation is entirely dependent on driver voices to provide the meaning received. As has been well established, drivers regularly apply unintended interpretations to the code, or no interpretations at all.
The metaphors, symbols, and allusions contained in Project Code are often so vague or obscure that the communication could not actually function as understandable code under natural conditions at all. This is often also true for any keys or clues that have been deliberately imparted in an attempt to make the message decodable.
Essentially, Project Code only functions as a successful form of communication under either, or both, of the following two conditions:
- The drivers provide the actual true meaning, while the human beings attempt to speak using vague terms and symbols.
- The human beings understand the meaning for themselves, but only because all parties are already aware of most of the information being communicated.
Without driver assistance, Project Code is usually only understandable when those interpreting the message already have knowledge of much of the information being communicated. In other words, the vast blank spaces contained in the vague communication of Project Code can only be sufficiently filled in when the specifics of what they refer to is already known to those receiving the message.
When attempting to communicate detailed information that is entirely unknown to its recipients, however, relying on Project Code is an effort that is almost guaranteed to fail rather than succeed. In fact, without driver assistance, relying on Project Code to communicate new information in detail is essentially impossible.
As previously stated, the drivers routinely use attempts at speaking with Project Code to impart contradictory or unintended messages among those communicating. It is also common for drivers to delude people into believing that they are being understood with Project Code—or that they are understanding someone else’s Project Code—when actually they are not. Often this happens without either party having any idea that they are actually participating in entirely separate conversations to one another!
To analyse the predictable failings of Project Code, we will address an example communication at length.
A Project Code Example
Person 1 wants to impart important information to Person 2 using Project Code, in regards to an upcoming project-controlled event.
Importantly, Person 2 is officially supposed to have no prior awareness of the event and this has been agreed to with relevant project entities.
Because of this, driver assistance in interpreting Person 1’s coded message is likely to be extremely limited, or entirely absent during the communication. It is also likely that drivers will provide a deliberately false interpretation to further mislead Person 2 as to the nature of the upcoming event.
As such, Person 1 will have to rely on communicating the message through Project Code under the following conditions:
- Person 2 has no knowledge whatsoever of what Person 1 will be attempting to communicate.
- The drivers are unlikely to offer assistance in interpreting the message for Person 2. In fact, it is reasonably likely that they will impart a deliberately false interpretation instead.
Person 1’s strategy for communicating the message in Project Code involves:
- Using a false identity and disguise that Person 2 is not already familiar with.
- Arranging to meet Person 2 as the false identity, seemingly by chance.
- Starting a casual conversation with a surface-level context based in Mandatory Reality.
- Using the surface-level communication to impart the real message through Project Code.
- Communicating four important points about the event that Person 2 must be made aware of.
When Person 2 is at the shop buying groceries, Person 1, disguised as an unknown identity, approaches and attempts to strike up conversation. While Person 2 is entirely unaware of who they are really speaking to or why they have been approached, Person 1 attempts to express the four important points of their message using Project Code.
The four important points of the communication are delivered as follows:
- “Are you watching the big MMA bout tonight? It’s on at one in the morning, on the main TV channel.”
- “There’s a few different contenders who’ll be fighting and apparently they’re a dirty bunch!”
- “The manager’s from France though, so what could you expect with that crowd?”
- “There’ll probably be bad reception on the Pay-Per-View, so it might not be worth watching.”
After this exchange, Person 1 and Person 2 part ways and it is left to Person 2 to attempt to interpret the message.
There are a number of potential interpretations that Person 2 might arrive at for each of these main points, as interpreted below:
Point One:“Are you watching the big MMA bout tonight? It’s on at one in the morning, on the main TV channel.”
- A “bout” could refer to a driver network conflict or attack.
- A “bout” could refer to an in-person confrontation.
- “MMA” could refer to a violent context, perhaps a driver network trial or investigation based on violent behaviour.
- “MMA” could refer to an aggressive confrontation between humans in person.
- “MMA” could refer to an upcoming driver network conflict being particularly aggressive or oppositional.
- “Tonight” could imply that the event may take place that night.
- “Morning” could imply that the event may take place in the morning.
- “One” could imply that the event may take place at one am.
- “One” could imply that the event may take place at one pm.
- “One” could imply that the event may take place near one o’clock, perhaps at twelve or two o’clock, whether am or pm.
- The “main TV channel” could refer to the standard project driver network, rather than the underground network or other more marginalised driver network contexts.
- The “main TV channel” could refer to some other common meeting place or context for communicating.
Point Two: “There’s a few different contenders who’ll be fighting and apparently they’re a dirty bunch!”
- “A few different contenders” could refer to there being a number of different human beings involved in the event.
- “A few different contenders” could refer to there being a number of different drivers or simulated people involved in the event.
- “A few different contenders” could refer to there being a number of different interest groups or factions involved in the event.
- “Fighting” could imply an aggressive or oppositional event rather than a more peaceful or civil one.
- “A dirty bunch” could refer to dirty tricks, deception and manipulation, or other underhanded tactics that are likely to be involved.
Point Three: “The manager’s from France though, so what could you expect with that crowd?”
- “The manager’s from France” could imply that the underground network is managing the event.
- “The manager’s from France” could imply that the human beings involved will be more openly against the project during the event.
- “The manager’s from France” could imply that the drivers and simulated people involved will be against the project during the event.
- “What could you expect with that crowd?” could imply that an anti-project context should be expected during the event.
Point Four: “There’ll probably be bad reception on the Pay-Per-View, so it might not be worth watching.”
- “Bad reception” could imply that communication will be difficult or messaging will be unclear.
- “Bad reception” could imply that sensory assaults and driver abuses will be high.
- “Pay-Per-View” could refer to the Suffering Economy, implying that the event will involve a high amount of sensory torture or suffering.
- “It might not be worth watching” could imply that it would be best to avoid participating in the upcoming event.
- “It might not be worth watching” could imply, as doublespeak, that the event is too important to miss.
Based upon the likely interpretations listed above, Person 2 could be reasonably expected to arrive at an interpretation of the Project Code based on some combination of the above elements. While the specific interpretation could involve multiple combinations of any of those parts, for the sake of example, we will use the following as the interpretation Person 2 decides is most likely:
- There will be a very aggressive and high intensity event taking place on the driver network, probably some time after midnight.
- The event will involve many participants and the fight is likely to be dirty!
- The event will have heavy underground network oversight, so it is likely to be an entirely staged conflict and will probably be against the project’s interests—at least supposedly.
- Nonetheless, the event will involve significant driver abuse and sensory torture and will therefore probably be difficult.
As the above is the message Person 2 arrives at, for the rest of the morning they go about their business, while preparing themselves mentally for the night’s expected event.
The true event referred to in Person 1’s Project Code begins soon after.
Later that afternoon, at one pm, Person 2 is accosted on Main Street by a group of people dressed as louts, who then level insults and false accusations at them. Driver interference is high and aggressive emotional energy is induced in all parties. Person 2 loses their temper and is blurted into expressing obscenities. In response, one of the louts is snapped into punching Person 2, before the altercation is broken up.
Person 1’s attempt at using Project Code to communicate the true events are as follows:
Point One: “Are you watching the big MMA bout tonight? It’s on at one in the morning, on the main TV channel.”
- A project-controlled event is being set up at one pm on Main Street that is intended to cause damage to Person 2 and mischaracterise them as unstable and aggressive, based on using a non-consensual behavioural testing context as a cover for starting a public altercation.
Point Two: “There’s a few different contenders who’ll be fighting and apparently they’re a dirty bunch!”
- The event involves a group of people who will be assuming the identities of aggressive antisocial-types. They will then accost Person 2, level insults and false accusations, and attempt to goad Person 2 into losing their temper.
Point Three: “The manager’s from France though, so what could you expect with that crowd?”
- The people involved in attempting to incite Person 2 are actually on Person 2’s side and will make efforts to self-sabotage the aggressive and insulting act, provided that Person 2 stays calm and doesn’t take the bait.
Point Four: “There’ll probably be bad reception on the Pay-Per-View, so it might not be worth watching.”
- Because the event is officially supposed to cause an aggressive conflict with Person 2, driver interference is likely to be high. The expected driver interference will make it much more likely for those who have agreed to act aggressively, as well as Person 2 themselves, to lose control of the situation and become angry or unstable for real.
The pattern of misunderstanding and misinterpretation contained in the above example is so common that there are no doubt countless examples in your own personal life of Project Code failing in similar ways. You can probably point to all manner of conflicts and upsets that have been made significantly worse due to such failures to communicate.
In fact, with Project Code—based on the lived experience of this author—it is much more common for the wrong message to be communicated than the right one!
(It should be noted that in preparing the example, I worked along the following progression: Firstly, Person 1’s important points concerning the project-controlled conflict were outlined literally, as they appear at the end of the example; Secondly, they were translated into common-form Project Code; Thirdly, that Project Code was analysed for its most likely potential meanings; and fourthly, Person 2’s mistaken interpretation was formed. While it was my intention to have Person 2’s interpretation be an incorrect one, the Project Code itself began as a genuine attempt to directly communicate Person 1’s main points, as commonly expressed through that mode, before any other interpretations had even been considered!)
It is important to note the presence of “red herrings” in the Project Code example. Project Code red herrings are symbols or terms that seem to be pointing in a certain direction, but are actually not intended by the human being communicating the message to signify anything deliberate at all.
While these red herrings are a common method for drivers to insert further coded messages beyond the intended meaning of those communicating, they would also be a natural result of attempting to place Project Code in a surface-level context of communication that is unrelated to the coded message entirely. Essentially, red herrings would arise naturally anyway, as an unavoidable result of attempting to speak at two or more different levels and contexts at once.
The surface-level context of the example is discussing an MMA fight on TV later that night, while the intentional coded communication involves trying to warn someone about an upcoming attempt to incite them during a staged violent confrontation.
For the surface-level context to make sense, supporting conversation based on the use of “neutral” words and terms is required, even though those terms don’t have any secondary coded meaning intended by those speaking at all. It is these “neutral” terms that the drivers will often imbue with further symbolic meaning, usually by encouraging their inclusion at a level subconscious to those preparing the communication.
For the recipient however, those red herring words and terms are just as likely to be code that is intentional on the part of whoever is delivering the message, as any other words or terms that are being communicated.
The red herrings in the example Project Code are:
- “TV Channel” – Because the surface-level context is an MMA fight that will be appearing on TV, Person 1 uses “Main TV Channel” to attempt to communicate the location “Main Street” to Person 2. This phrasing fits the key term “Main” into the surface-level context of watching something on TV. Unfortunately, because “TV Channel” is also a symbolically-dense term, it becomes a red herring for Person 2.
- “Pay-Per-View” –To communicate the likelihood of driver-induced aggressive emotional energy—as well as blurting and snapping—based on the oppositional context agreed to by those setting up the project event, Person 1 uses “bad reception on the Pay-Per-View”. While “Bad Reception” could reasonably suggest driver interference, as intended, “Pay-Per-View” only appears intentionally because it fits the surface-level context of a late night MMA fight on TV—since Pay-Per-View broadcasting is usually the platform for such events. Nonetheless, the secondary term “Pay-Per-View” also seems likely to be referring to the Suffering Economy, implying driver interference based on sensory torture rather than inducing aggressive emotional energy. As such, Person 2 is further pointed in the wrong direction when attempting to interpret the total message.
- “It might not be worth watching” –Because Person 1 has already addressed “bad reception” in their surface-level conversation, the follow up becomes necessary for their surface-level words to make sense. While there is no intended secret meaning to these words for Person 1, for Person 2 they are just as likely to be intentional code as the rest of the sentence. As such, Person 2 attempts to decode a sentence fragment that Person 1 has only expressed so that the rest of the sentence will make sense on the surface and doesn’t involve any intentional code at all.
When attempting to fit Project Code to surface-level communication based in Mandatory Reality or other unrelated contexts, red herrings will be inevitable!
(It is important to note that the red herring terms that appear in the example were not intended by the author to point to any particular coded meaning at all. In fact, they manifested as a “natural” result of attempting to fit the Project Code to a surface-level context unrelated to the coded message. The fact that the red herrings as they appear in the text are also almost certainly the result of deliberate driver manipulation in the process of this writing is a pattern common to all of the written communications appearing on this website. Usually, the driver-inserted codes and symbols are removed when found, especially if obviously intended to cause hurt, but it would be impossible to catch and delete them all!)
Because of how vague and open to interpretation Project Code is, the only truly appropriate message for Person 2 to arrive at when interpreting the example code would be something like the following:
- Someone I met while buying groceries has informed me that something bad is going to happen soon. It will probably be aggressive and may involve playing dirty, though it will probably also involve some form of anti-project activity. Whatever it actually is though, could be anything!
As such, in the most rational progression of translation, the following detailed information:
“A project-controlled event is being set up at one pm on Main Street that is intended to cause damage to Person 2 and mischaracterise them as unstable and aggressive, based on using a non-consensual behavioural testing context as a cover for starting a public altercation.
The event involves a group of people who will be assuming the identities of aggressive antisocial-types. They will then accost Person 2, level insults and false accusations, and attempt to goad Person 2 into losing their temper.
The people involved in attempting to incite Person 2 are actually on Person 2’s side and will make efforts to self-sabotage the aggressive and insulting act, provided that Person 2 stays calm and doesn’t take the bait.
Because the event is officially supposed to cause an aggressive conflict with Person 2, driver interference is likely to be high. The expected driver interference will make it much more likely for those who have agreed to act aggressively, as well as Person 2 themselves, to lose control of the situation and become angry or aggressive for real.”
Becomes:
“Are you watching the big MMA bout tonight? It’s on at one in the morning, on the main TV channel.
There’s a few different contenders who’ll be fighting and apparently they’re a dirty bunch! The manager’s from France though, so what could you expect with that crowd?
There’ll probably be bad reception on the Pay-Per-View, so it might not be worth watching.”
Becomes:
“Someone I met while buying groceries has informed me that something bad is going to happen soon. It will probably be aggressive and may involve playing dirty, though it will probably also involve some form of anti-project activity. Whatever it actually is though, could be anything!”
As the true detailed message becomes increasingly obscured, more and more of the vital information is lost along the way. Since it is impossible for Person 2 to translate the Project Code terms with any level of certainty—since all of those terms have multiple potential meanings and could be referring to multiple potential contexts—the only rational translation in the end will be so vague as to be essentially worthless.
In essence, “something bad is going to happen, so watch out,” might as well have been Person 1’s spoken message, for all the value of the Project Code to Person 2.
An actually functional strategy for Person 1 to communicate the message to Person 2 would be:
- Using a false identity and disguise that Person 2 is not already familiar with.
- Arranging to meet Person 2 as the false identity, seemingly by chance.
- Starting a casual conversation with a surface-level context based in Mandatory Reality.
- Breaking character—without official driver permission or pre-scripting—and quickly communicating literally with a context based in actual reality.
- Communicating the four important points about the event through literal speech.
By applying the overt resistance strategies Calculated Risks, Less Dance, More You, and Literal Details, Person 1 will be able to ensure that the true message is received in its entirety by Person 2.
Importantly, project permission or driver assistance is not necessary for successful communication when using literal speech because literal speech speaks for itself!
While there is a calculated risk involved in applying overt communication strategies when breaking rank with the antisocial project elements who are attempting to harm Person 2, it is actually quite probable that Person 1’s behaviour will be rewarded by the true controlling interests above the project. Since the true system in control of the project operates with both a Prosocial Mechanism as well as an Antisocial Mechanism, there is a strong likelihood that events will work out favourably for Person 1 if they choose to break character and speak literally—at least by the time the aftermath of the event has been reached.
It should also be noted that Person 1 is already breaking rank with those antisocial project elements when attempting to share the warning through Project Code anyway—and this is most certainly already known to the true entity representing itself as those elements.
(The real reason Project Code is encouraged as a method to defy the project has more to do with the method’s true cause-and-effect results in society—as discussed below in “Project Code is a Tool for the Project, not the People”—than covering up the fact that those using it are actively attempting to work against the project’s official interests. The project is, of course, already fully aware that those concerned are attempting to defy it, whether by literal speech or through Project Code. In fact, believing that Project Code is outsmarting the project’s antisocial interests and flying under the radar of their awareness is a perfect example of the truism that “when you try to game the system, the system games you”.)
If explanations for Person 1’s behaviour when breaking character are necessary, self-defence strategies based on Conscientious Objection and a strong prosocial foundation can be sufficiently applied. As long as the behaviour is morally defensible, there will be significant support within the project structure—both from human beings and simulated entities—who will look kindly on apparent rule-breaking that is based on a moral obligation to protect people from harm.
In essence, the covert communication strategy of Project Code attempts to placate both the Prosocial Mechanism and the Antisocial Mechanism, as well as their representative entities and motivations within the project, with predictably chaotic and unsuccessful results. It is a method that has proven itself to fail, again and again, over countless real-world examples.
On the other hand, the overt communication strategy involving breaking character and speaking literally appeals to the Prosocial Mechanism and its representative entities and motivations within the project only.
Regardless of potential reprisals for Person 1, this strategy is guaranteed to succeed in its primary goal of communicating the actual intended message to Person 2. Further to this, it is also reasonably likely that Person 1 will be supported in fending off any negative consequences, provided they apply the appropriate Conscientious Objection and tactical communication strategies when defending their position.
As such, not only would the overt communication strategy be a calculated risk worth taking for Person 1, the literal communication itself would—in reality—be the only actual way to successfully communicate the intended message to Person 2 at all.
Project Code is a Tool for the Project, not the People
Essentially, Project Code as a valid form of coded communication is an illusion.
Even when the metaphors and symbols might seem to be imparting the intended message, the actual understandable components of the communication are usually delivered almost entirely through driver explanations and not through the code at all. Since the drivers could impart the same message regardless of what words the person using Project Code is speaking, the spoken Project Code is, in effect, redundant.
In these instances—even though those speaking in Project Code may not realise it—the words spoken in Project Code function more as an artificial form of communication, with very little actual contribution to the real exchange of information taking place, while masking the real driver-based methods by which the received messages are actually being shared.
As such, rather than providing a workable method of covert communication for human beings to share information with each other at will, the prevalence of Project Code has far more to do with enforcing a Babylon-style wall of silence than anything else. This wall of silence is entirely controlled by drivers and cannot ever be counteracted while depending on non-literal modes of communication.
Thusly, the over-dependence on Project Code for public communication directly results in a severely restricted communicative environment. This repressive public space is routinely used to isolate and silence people, while segregating them into their own separate driver-managed bubble realities. At the same time, the human population has been deluded into wrongfully believing that they have adequate options available for communicating through non-literal methods. When actually those methods are entirely unreliable and insufficient, as well as chaotic and divisive, by design.
Promoting Project Code as the primary form of public communication ensures that open organisation among human beings in support of any cause grounded in actual reality is effectively impossible. When Project Code is the main form of communication in the public arena, it is impossible to ever adequately compare and contrast information, or to share any sufficient level of literal detailed communication from person to person. This ensures that people are trapped and restricted in their own separate bubble realities, prevented from ever openly discussing anything of actual true social value.
Further to this, the fact that Project Code is always placed in the context of Mandatory Reality ensures that every time Project Code is used it is also enforcing the false public world that we must dismantle if true freedom can ever be achieved.
At the same time, obscuring or altering the intended meaning of Project Code is regularly used by drivers as a method of enforcing delusional bubble realities on anyone within hearing distance. Since the metaphors and symbols are so vague and interchangeable—and usually contain multiple red herrings, deliberate on the part of drivers, but unintended by those communicating—the drivers can make it seem like any version of reality is being communicated at all.
Thusly, Project Code involves the following socially oppressive functions:
- It creates a chaotic and incomprehensible, Babylon-style, wall of silence.
- It actively builds and enforces the false public world of Mandatory Reality.
- It is regularly used to bolster and enforce delusional bubble realities arising from the Simulations System.
For this author speaking personally, I do not understand Project Code the vast, vast majority of the time that people attempt to use it to communicate with me.
Usually, the most I understand is the surface-level communication—literal but non-truthful content based entirely in Mandatory Reality. If I’m lucky, I can glean some extremely vague, gist-level, potential interpretations from the code itself. Though these interpretations are generally too imprecise or uncertain to have any particular value at all.
While I am aware that code is being attempted when people speak to me that way, just as with Person 2 in the example, most of the time that code’s actual meaning could be anything!
When I do seem to understand the intended meaning in detail, it is entirely because of driver explanations. Even then, I must remind myself that I cannot ever be sure if the message I receive is the one actually intended by the human being speaking in code. The only way to verify this is to use actual literal language to clarify the true meaning with that person—provided they are willing to break character sufficiently enough to confirm or deny my interpretation—which makes speaking in code obsolete anyway!
As such, for this author personally, it can only be concluded—when considering the situation logically—that there is almost no point even attempting to communicate with me through Project Code at all!
The only way to truly communicate adequately in this world is through literal, truthful, and open speech or writing.
It is well established that the project-taught methods for covert or indirect communication—including Project Code, symbolic performances or environment-design in Mandatory Reality, and any communications passed through the driver network—are much more likely to fail than succeed, while at the same time are actively contributing to the abusive, exploitative, and disempowering conditions of our current existence.
Since this is proven, and anybody reading this has most certainly acquired enough personal evidence of these facts in their own life, there is really not much point in attempting to persist with using those self-defeating and harmful forms of communication at all.
In cause-and-effect terms, you must ask yourself: what’s the point of attempting something if you know that it’s almost certainly going to fail—and will be guaranteed to be causing secondary harms to those around you regardless?
If Project Code is much more likely to fail to communicate the intended message than to succeed, if it is highly likely to communicate a deliberately harmful or divisive message instead, and is guaranteed to build and enforce disempowering false realities for those who hear it, then you should be refusing to use it at all.
Instead, if society is ever going to progress out of this project-enforced Babylon, each of you must make serious and deliberate efforts, in all areas of your lives, to communicate as literally, truthfully, and openly as you can.
The idea that you need permission to speak freely, or to talk literally and truthfully in public—regardless of Mandatory Reality event or identity—is one that must be openly and actively defied as the oppressive and unjustifiable abuse that it is.
This is just as true whether during public Mandatory Reality routines, when participating in its behind-the-scenes “shell” environments, or when communicating more privately during your own personal life.
You must reject the deliberately oppressive and limiting forms of communication that the project has forced on us. You must make a stand openly and overtly for your right to speak truthfully, literally, and freely.
That is the only way to free yourself—and those around you—from the repressive and stunted communicative environment that surrounds us.
Choosing a Better Pathway with Well-Formed Communication
With social communication, there are two potential pathways that will lead to two very different worlds: Symbolic, non-literal communication and literal, detailed communication.
Choosing the pathway of symbolic non-literal communication—such as the coded methods promoted by the project—will predictably lead to an increasingly vague and unreliable public arena. Confusion, division, and chaos will manifest the more those methods are used. Nobody will ever truly be certain what anyone around them is really trying to say, let alone what they actually truly think or believe.
On the other hand, the pathway of literal detailed communication will lead to ever-increasing avenues of understanding, education, and progressive social organisation. Collaborations and co-ordination between human beings that would have been impossible through non-literal communication, regardless of project permission, will instead be easy to achieve. The fulfilment of multiple further goals will arise from an efficient and functional communicative platform that non-literal communication could not even lay the foundations of.
In simple cause-and-effect terms:
- The ability to speak literally and freely
- Leads to the ability to organise openly
- Which leads to the ability to make better plans and begin better social endeavours
- Which leads to achieving bigger and better outcomes in society.
As the pathways branch out, the different worlds each mode of communication will lead to become increasingly different from one another.
Literal and detailed communication facilitates increasing progress in every context it is applied to and will lead to a wealth of progressive and positive changes in actual reality. On the other hand, the non-literal and symbolic methods of project-sanctioned communication only lead back into a circular loop, one that goes round and round again in the entirely unproductive and repressive Babylon of our current public existence.
It is possible for you personally to exit this loop, regardless of what others around you are doing, and the choice of where and when to do so is technically yours.
Strategies like Honesty, Authenticity, and Consistency, Calculated Risks, Less Dance, More You, Literal Details, and Outer Armour will assist you in this effort—as well as the strategy sections Choosing a Side, Standing up Against Authority, and Fighting for Reality in their totalities.
In fact all of the strategies of overt resistance are geared towards freeing you, both in body and mind, as well as the social environment, from the oppressive project-enforced social loops that you have been trapped in, while supporting your ability to openly claim the actual reality around you regardless of what others are doing.
That said, the more people around you who insist on attempting to communicate through the provably non-functional methods promoted by the project, the harder you will have to fight for your own right and ability to speak truthfully and literally about actual reality.
Nonetheless, the choice itself is simple. The outcomes will be based on the direct cause-and-effect of the methods of communication that you choose.
Either you go around in circles and never get anywhere, despite your motivations and goals, or you choose a new way to communicate and actually have a chance to make real positive and tangible changes in your life.
If you decide to break from the crowd—for which you deserve immense commendation—you will have to rely on the full set of strategies of overt resistance to assist you as you fight for your right to speak freely, openly, and truthfully.
If, on the other hand, you decide to play it safe and hang back by persisting in the same methods that have failed to liberate you thus far, you shouldn’t be surprised if you find yourself this time next year in essentially the exact same position as the one you are in right now. Or even the year after that!
At the same time, anyone who has endeavoured to break out of that loop will have made increasing progress during that time and will be far ahead of you in terms of claiming their own personal power, freedom, and right to express actual reality!
When the choice is between staying where you are, essentially the same hell that you have lived with for years, or fighting to break out of the loop and begin to claim your own true power in society, the wise decision to make is this:
You must endeavour to communicate in better, more literal, detailed, and truthful ways.
Well-Formed Communication involves practising and perfecting a style of communication that will both guarantee that your intended message is received, while at the same time ensuring that how you communicate and what you say will have a positive effect on the world around you.
You must dispense with the deliberately confounding and self-defeating project-taught methods of communicating and fight to communicate in a way that will actively restore sanity, clarity, and freedom of expression to the world around you instead.
Well-Formed Communication must be all of the following:
- Prosocial.
- Literal.
- Truthful.
- Relevant.
- Constructive.
Prosocial Communication is any communication that exhibits and exemplifies both prosocial motivations and prosocial behaviours. For your communication to be prosocial it must be enacted without any hurtful intent, or predictable hurtful effect on people or society, at all. While at the same time prosocial communication must be actively contributing to making life better for you, the people around you, or society itself.
Literal Communication is any communication in which the message you are attempting to impart is expressed entirely through the surface-level literal language that you use. The words and expressions employed refer only to their dictionary definitions, are delivered in conventional understandable sentence structures, and there is no coded, symbolic, or hidden meaning intended at all.
Truthful Communication is any communication that is entirely honest, authentic, and truthful. There are no lies or deceptions, no half-truths or covert manipulation contained anywhere in the communication. For communication to be truthful there can be no dishonesty at all!
Relevant Communication is any communication that concerns the sharing or discussion of information that pertains directly to the current context of the communication. Relevant communication must directly refer to and address the matter at hand, rather than anything unrelated to the current topic of discussion.
Constructive Communication is any communication that offers a positive contribution to those receiving it. Sharing information that will be useful, informative, educational, or otherwise enlightening to those who receive it is constructive communication.
Endeavouring to use Well-Formed Communication as much as possible will ensure that how you communicate will have a significantly positive effect on the world around you.
In a public environment where Project Code and other forms of project-sanctioned non-literal communication are the norm, working to use Well-Formed Communication instead will be changing the world!
To ensure that your communication is Well-Formed Communication:
- Make sure your message isn’t hurtful to anyone, or society itself. In fact, your communication—as well as the motivations and attitudes behind the communication—should be geared towards having a positive effect on your world!
- Make sure you’re using literal words and sentences. Avoid symbols and metaphors and make sure there is no code speak or cryptic language involved. Rely on dictionary definition terms and using normal, understandable expressions and sentences.
- Make sure you’re expressing the truth. Everything you communicate should be truthful and honest, without any form of manipulation or deception involved at all.
- Make sure your communication is relevant to the subject of discussion. Stay on point and stay focused on what really matters. Whatever the reason for communicating, make sure your contribution is directed towards it!
- Endeavour to have your contribution to the communication be a positive and helpful one. Offer advice, provide information that will be of use to those receiving it, and aim for the direction of your communication to be leading, in a direct cause-and-effect way, towards whatever goals you are trying to achieve.
While it may not always be possible to use Well-Formed Communication—especially when those around you are using project-sanctioned styles of communication or any other tactics that might get in the way of free, open speech—you must make serious efforts to ensure that you create as many opportunities to speak or write using Well-Formed Communication as you can.
The more you practise your ability to communicate in well-formed ways, and the more you fight for your right to do so, the more of a positive effect you will have on the people and the society around you!
To truly create a space where Well-Formed Communication can be allowed to come to the forefront, it is important to make sure that, however you communicate, you are doing everything you can to facilitate a safe and open environment for free prosocial speech. Reject policing for the project behaviours, be supportive of any sentiments against antisocial or abusive project directives, and be as open as possible in your encouragement of free and literal speech!
To encourage others to use Well-Formed Communication:
- Let them know that you are on the side of free speech and open literal expression. Even if you haven’t found the opportunity to use entirely Well-Formed Communication yourself, do everything you can to express that you support it!
- Express your opposition to policing for the project behaviours. The more you can display and communicate your unwillingness to engage in any behaviours that might prevent those around you from speaking freely, the safer you will make it for them to engage in Well-Formed Communication.
- Use as much Well-Formed Communication yourself as you can. The more you test the waters and push the boundary by using literal, authentic and truthful language, the safer the communicative environment will become for anybody else who wishes to also express free and literal speech.
As more and more people make efforts to utilise free open speech—especially on a foundation of Well-Formed Communication—the more liberated and open the public communicative environment will become.
Well-Formed Communication is a must for helping yourself and those around you gain increasing freedom, sanity, and social well-being in this world.
Truth, Freedom, and Reality 