Do you know why people vote for their jailers? People say they want freedom, but they pay for comfort. When safety and convenience are offered at a discount, comfort beats ideals nearly every time. 1) Freedom is abstract; comfort and safety are immediate. - "Freedom" is distant, probabilistic, and hard to visualize. - "Comfort" is: rent paid, card works, no one yelling at you, fast apps. Most people rationally prioritize a predictable floor over abstract autonomy. 2) The ballot is pre-filtered to "which jailer", not "no jail". Anyone who threatens the underlying control stack (surveillance, compliance rails, financial chokepoints) is filtered out, neutered, or turned into a cautionary tale. So the real question on offer is: - "Which manager of the same basic machinery do you want?" People vote for their jailers because "no jailer" is not on the menu in any scalable, respectable form. 3) Fear of chaos makes the jailer look like a protector - People are more afraid of unregulated downside (crime, riots, bank failures, pandemics, unemployment, social ostracism) than of slow-creeping control. - The jailer markets themselves as the only thing standing between voters and chaos. So voters will accept more surveillance, more emergency powers, more centralized rails, if these are framed as the price for stability and normalcy. 4) "Free" perks as on-ramps to controllable rails "Free" is almost never free. It's subsidized onboarding: - Cashback, reward points, and "0 fee" wallets → get you onto rails where every transaction is logged and gateable (shout-out Square). - Faster payments, instant settlement → lock you into specific intermediaries and standards. - One-tap logins and unified IDs → collapse your identities into a single choke-point. The perk is temporary sugar. The habit and dependence are permanent. After a year: - The incentive shrinks or disappears. - Your life is now wired through the same narrow pipes the jailer can squeeze. 5) How people become defenders of their own cage Once someone's income, social life, and records live on these rails: - Exiting feels like self-harm: "I'll lose my history, my ratings, my contacts, my access". - Admitting the trade was bad means admitting "I helped build my own trap". So they resolve the dissonance by: - Insisting the controls are "necessary", "reasonable", "for everyone's safety". - Voting for whoever promises to protect and extend the rails they now depend on. 6) Treat "free" as an entry drug, not a gift Whenever something is "free", "frictionless", or "automatic", assume it's an acquisition funnel. Before accepting, explicitly list: - Who runs this rail? (state, bank, platform, ID provider) - Who can throttle, freeze, or revoke it? (regulator, compliance, risk team, opaque algorithm) - Who sees the logs, and for how long? - What happens if I'm labeled risky / non-compliant / undesirable? - Can I function without this rail once I'm used to it? If you can't name a credible exit path, you're not taking a perk. You're voting for your jailer with your future dependence.

I've been building a very advanced liquidity tracker and a few other models. It's a lot of work but it's been fun. Basically finance + logic + conspiracy theories. The type of stuff that nuked my Substack from search engines. I was getting search engine traffic up until I wrote my One World Government article 😂 ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/rivalry-between-countries-is-curated ). Ever since I started doing a deeper dive, I've been shocked to learn how blue-pilled financial analysts are (they are incentivized to be blue-pilled). From time to time, I watch the more popular youtube analysts on 2-2.5 speed and man, they are absolutely clueless, or at least pretend to be. Even the darlings of Bitcoiners — most are absolutely clueless. Often, when they are right, they are right for the wrong reasons (assuming the stated reasons are what they believe in).

Governments love humiliation tests. A humiliation test is a small, pointless obedience drill that trains you to nod first, think later. It's not about the content. It's about proving the system can make you do or say something you know is dumb, petty, or disproportionate — and you'll do it anyway. 1) What humiliation tests buy the system A) Dominance proof: "If I can make you do something obviously unnecessary, I know you're safe for the serious stuff". B) Sorting mechanism. Humiliation tests are filters: - People who refuse: marked as "difficult", "non-compliant", "not a culture fit". - People who swallow it: marked as "safe", promotable, eligible for sensitive roles. No need for ideology diagnostics; a few small, dumb asks tell the system who will bend when it matters. C) Precedent for escalation. Once you've complied with something you privately saw as bullshit, the system has: - A precedent: "You agreed before; this is just more of the same". - A leverage point: your prior compliance can be used to shame future hesitation. 2) What it does inside your head Humiliation tests weaponize cognitive dissonance: 1. You do the thing (sign, chant, click, recite) because saying no is costly in the moment. 2. You feel the internal conflict: "That was dumb / exaggerated / dishonest". 3. To reduce that tension, your brain updates the story: - "Maybe it’s not that bad". - "Maybe they're right". - "I'm not the kind of person who just submits for no reason, so this must be reasonable". You move from "I complied under pressure" to "I basically agree" to protect your self-image. Each petty concession burns your doubt and rewrites your narrative a bit more in their favor. Humiliation tests are small, symbolic and public. Over time, the people remaining in key positions are those who've repeatedly signaled: - "I will override my own judgment and self-respect to keep my place in the system". That's what the system wanted all along. When something feels petty, compulsory, and performative, assume it's not about the surface issue. Ask: - "What larger narrative am I validating by doing this?" - "What future request does this make harder for me to refuse?" - "If I comply now, what will my next self be forced to defend, to avoid admitting I caved here?" That's the real permission you're being asked to grant.