|Hover over images to see captions||
The Five Monkeys Problem
Simon Sheppard on how the media functions as a weapon of mass destruction
Published in Heritage and Destiny issue 86, Sept.-Oct. 2018
A cage contains five monkeys. A banana is hung from the top and a step-ladder is placed underneath. Before long a monkey will try to climb the steps to reach the banana.
As soon as he touches the steps, the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.
After a while another monkey makes an attempt, with the same result. The other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Soon when a monkey tries to climb the steps, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.
Now, put the cold water away.
Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.
The new monkey sees the banana and attempts to climb the steps. To his shock, all the other monkeys beat the crap out of him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be punished.
Next, remove another of the original five monkeys, replacing it with a new one.
The newcomer starts up the steps and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment, and with enthusiasm, because he is now ‘one of the team.’
Then, replace a third original monkey with a new one, followed by the fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey tries for the banana, he is attacked.
Now, the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they are not permitted to climb the steps. Neither do they know why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.
Finally, having replaced all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys will have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, not one of the monkeys will try to climb the steps for the banana.
Why, you ask? Because in their minds, that is the way it has always been.
This, my friends, is how Government operates. And this is why, every now and then, all the monkeys need to be replaced at the same time.
Forget Freud. That man was a charlatan, an almighty fraud, whose work was best summed up by Ebbinghaus (as quoted by Eysenck): “What is new in these theories is not true, and what is true is not new.” Freud’s legacy is to have been a thorough nuisance.
No, the breakthroughs in understanding behaviour were made by Pavlov who, while not the most succinct writer, made the real advances. Unfortunately his work was overshadowed by the charlatan, aided by the usual mutual promotion. Pavlov’s ideas about conditioning can be applied to the manipulation the mass media has employed. Practically any animal can be conditioned, and humans are animals too. Just like Pavlov’s dogs, we have been conditioned.
What we face today, evident all around, is maladaptation. Suppose a dog were chained to a kennel with a bowl of food fifteen or twenty feet in front. Every time the dog nears the food it is given an electric shock. Soon the dog will give up trying to reach the bowl, no matter how hungry it feels. The dog’s conditioned benaviour is maladaptive: it has adapted to the circumstances of its environment, but in a way that is not conducive to its well-being. If this situation continues, the dog will starve.
Incidentally, we might consider what a dog in these circumstances could do. It may try to gnaw through its chain, and damage its teeth. It could try to drag its kennel, or engage in neurotic behaviour. Why does a fish out of water flop about? Because if it lies still, it will surely die. If it moves, there is at least a chance of getting itself back into a survivable environment. Similarly for the dog, any action must be better than nothing. The dog’s growing hunger tells it that doing nothing spells death.
This model may account for some of the social aberrations which we see, such as shootings, spree killings and spurious outbursts of lesser severity. Subconciously or otherwise, an individual may sense that doing nothing is a sure path to either his demise or the demise of his kind.
An interesting incident occurred near Mons in Belgium in the early hours of 17 May 2018. A van on the E42 motorway containing thirty or more Kurds suspected of being part of a people-smuggling operation was being pursued by fifteen police vehicles. During the chase shots were fired. At one point a two-year-old girl was held out of the van window in an attempt to ward off the police, and she died of a bullet wound. (No doubt this latter aspect made the story, in the eyes of the media, “newsworthy.”)
This incident provides an illuminating illustration of non-Whites using any means they can think of to exploit Whites’ humanitarian, altruistic and other benign instincts as a defence against reactions to their behaviour. Another expression of this, which is comparable, is the invention of the word racism. This new word derives from solid line of four Jews: Leon Trotsky, Magnus Hirschfeld, Victor Gollancz and Gerald Ronson.
Actually, being called a racist is worse than being called a nigger, because nigger is ambiguous, it can imply good or bad. Saying someone “works like a nigger” is to say they are a good worker. One can say “that poor old nigger” in a pitying or sympathetic way; one cannot say “that poor old racist” because the term always denotes something bad. The only way the term racist should be used is ironically.
Plus of course blacks use “the n-word” between themselves all the time. In reality the black use of nigger is an expression of power: ‘We can use this word but you can’t.’ This is nonsense of course; the taboo is entirely a media construct. In fact the terms racism, sexism, islamophobia, homophobia and now transgender have never had an organic origin. They have all simply been talked into existence by the media.
It is a standard component of fourth generation warfare for the enemy to co-opt the agencies and forces of the target population. When an institution is co-opted, it is subverted and its policies are reassigned to act for the enemy’s benefit. The enemy does not usually declare itself as such, which is asymmetric warfare, almost by definition. Now by successful co-option the British police, politicians, educators and the church are all committed to enforcing and promulgating the ‘anti-racist’ agenda. This policy is promoted solely to further the interests of a hostile segment, which we might for convenience call “the globalist elite.”
It is the last in this list of co-optees, the church, which is the focus here. It is apparent that not only have the engines of State been co-opted, our moral code has too. The British are a very moral race – we have a strong sense of right and wrong and an innate sense of fairness (‘fair play,’ the abolition of slavery etc.). By a sustained campaign of emotional manipulation, and the suppression of dissent, a great number of our people have been conditioned into thinking that denying our land and the fruits of our civilisation to alien populations is somehow immoral.
When we see notable individuals on TV, we might find ourselves wishing “I wish I was like him” or “I want to be like her.” Sometimes the wish is inappropriate: one can wish for the oddest things sometimes (there is the saying, “Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true”). There is a natural tendency to want to aspire to be like or emulate individuals who are given a lot of attention. Giving attention confers status and we naturally seek to acquire status. Humans, like horses and many others, are social animals and hierarchies always form. For us, high status confers numerous social and practical benefits, including access to high-status mates.
The word racist was invented as a smear and the stigmatisation of nationalists is equivalent to driving out a dog from the pack. Countless hours of programming and acres of newsprint have sought to define the ‘racist’ as a social outcast; his status is greatly diminished. Persecution by the State, i.e. prosecutions and jail terms, is like giving the dog electric shocks. A dog needs food to survive, and a people need a sense of cohesion to underpin their capacity to protect themselves, to survive as a nation.
Projection takes place when a person assumes that others think, feel and act as they do. Although its evolutionary origins remain somewhat murky, projection definitely seems to have a feminine bent. It is evident that females project more than males.
A person engages in projection when they accuse others of what they do. People project their own traits onto others. When they accuse others of “race hate” it is they who really hate; when an accusation of intolerance is made, it is they who are truly intolerant; when they make accusations of wanting to subjugate and exploit, it is only to further their own policies of subjugation and exploitation.
Should this be doubted, imagine for a moment the state the non-White world would be in today had Western technology, medicine, and all the other inventions of our people been strictly confined within our borders. Imagine also what the female burden would be without washing machines, vacuum cleaners, and safe childbirth, all of which (and much more) are the products of White male ingenuity amid a civilisation that can generally rely on stability and mutual trust.
One of Pavlov’s findings was that release from conditioning can require a great shock. Failing that, the tendency to conform to social norms is a formidable and enduring influence. It is certainly something to reckon with in our present situation, since conditioning has been widely established. Very relevant to this theme is the fable of the five monkeys (above). Critics of the fable have pointed out that there is no empirical evidence for the behaviour it describes, suggesting that someone should get some monkeys and test it. However, it seems that the National Geographic TV company went one better, and demonstrated it in humans.
The scene begins with nine people in a waiting room, all of whom are instructed to stand briefly when a buzzer sounds. An Oriental woman arrives, unknowing, who shortly copies the others. One by one the nine are called in for their appointments. Shortly she is alone in the waiting room, but she continues to stand on cue. Moreover, new additions to the waiting room follow her lead. There is no rational reason for them to stand when the buzzer sounds, only that others do it. For reference, the programme was aired on 2 March 2015 as episode 8 of Brain Games Season 5 and this particular experiment can be found on Youtube by searching for “social conformity waiting room experiment.”
The American TV company rather spoiled their experiment by including multiple races, introducing unnecessary variables by so doing. It is obvious that conformity can vary according to sex and race. Also it is possible that the experiment was staged, or is unrepresentative. However there are many studies in the psychological literature which attest to humans’ powerful conformist tendencies, and these lend credence to it. Subject to these provisos, the lesson of the five monkeys was demonstrated in stunning degree.
There is actually evidence to indicate that humans are more likely to act like the Five Monkeys than monkeys are. High conformity accounts, for example, for the scarcity of road accidents. In Britain currently there is one fatality about every 180 million miles travelled, an astonishingly low rate. Without people’s innate tendency to conform, our civilisation would be very different. The problem today is that mass conditioning has been established which has set our civilisation on a path to collapse.