In his 1998 book The Common Good, Noam Chomsky describes the key role that managed disagreements play in modern politics…

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate…”

This remains true despite the increasingly obvious fact that Chomsky himself is part of that function.

What he’s describing is the “fake binary”. The imposition of the idea that Viewpoint A is the official approved narrative and that Viewpoint B is therefore its antithesis.

Points C through Z can therefore be ignored.

The fact hidden in plain sight being that both Viewpoint A and Viewpoint B actually reinforce the overarching narrative being sold and both lead to the same place.

It’s an incredibly effective management tool.

A fake binary allows you to not just manipulate the conformist Normies who automatically obey, but also those who consider themselves to be ‘anti-establishment’, contrarians or ‘rebels’.

How are fake binaries created? They are often initially introduced by the following methods…


Intimacy is a secret place of the soul with a small door, which we hardly ever open to anyone.
There we hide the most intense needs,
the responsibility of our choices stained by true pain
and everything that really made us that way.
If you haven't been allowed to open that door, never take rights you don't have over people, because you know a lot less about people than you think.
Only by walking through that door will you really get to know them.
And you can't force it, it opens by itself
and it is very slow to open up, you can get impatient and decide to go.
But it will be the greatest gift you can receive,
because within it there is the deepest and clearest revelation of what love is.


In the human species there is a phenomenon that has no equal in nature. Two male individuals of the same species, with the same large bipedal mammalian body, with the same type of brain, can become one St. Francis of Assisi and the other Adolf Hitler. How can we explain such a radical difference in behavior? In two ways, which are not mutually exclusive.
The first hypothesis is that in Homo sapiens the instincts have lost much of their cogency: they no longer command us like puppets. With the same biology, the choices an individual makes are dictated much more by personal history, by experiences and traumas, by family and social influences, or simply by the uniqueness of the individual. Our evolutionary heritage has weakened: it makes us capable of one behavior and its opposite, but then which of the two we choose depends on a cultural judgment of what we think is good or bad.
The second hypothesis is that our own evolutionary history is ambivalent and therefore it is useless to ask ourselves whether we are good or bad “by nature”. Perhaps we are both, a variable mix of good and evil. Recent scientific data confirms that our mind has evolved by dealing with social relationships in small groups, each in conflict with other groups. The result is that we are cooperative and good with those we recognize as belonging to our “we”, while we tend towards aggression towards those who seem to us “other than us”. But the experiments also show that education can make a difference, teaching us to consider ever larger communities of solidarity, to the point of including the entire human species in the “we”, as the disregarded Universal Declaration of Rights of 1948 says.
Recognizing how bad you are makes you more capable of living with serenity. The “bad guys” are those who come without real suffering and a demand for treatment. People who seem (or are) insensitive to the suffering they cause in others. They are asked to treat them to find a medical justification for behaviors that do not need justification. Behaviors aimed at the instinctual satisfaction of the individual without paying attention to the people to whom they cause suffering. This is clinically unamendable evil because it does not belong to a true definition of disease. This is a terrifying evil.


Margoth Escobar was at a friend’s birthday party in the town of Puyo in the Ecuadorian Amazon last September when a neighbour called to say her house was on fire.
The blaze destroyed her home and more than $50,000 worth of artisanry that she and other women planned to sell over Christmas. The local fire department said it was an act of arson against Escobar, who belongs to Mujeres Amazonicas, a collective of mostly indigenous women who have banded together to defend their land and the environment against oil extraction and mining.
It was one of several alarming attacks against members of the collective in Ecuador last year, amid a broader trend of threats, smear campaigns and physical violence against women human rights defenders across South America.
Putting aside her distrust of Ecuador’s police and justice system, Escobar filed a criminal complaint at the regional Attorney General’s Office in October. She has not been granted protective measures, despite the risk her activism brings and the attack already suffered.


%d bloggers like this: