Here is an interestMing aspect of reality related to how branding and its conditioning works in application. Canada has the largest growing population out of the G7 nation as a result of immigration. These migrants or as labelled refugees, are all coming from nations which have authoritative or totalitarian structures.
Totalitarian or authoritarian nation tend to have violent responses from it populations relating to identity of leader. Take Syria for example, a leader is elected in which members of the population do not accept. In response they act out with protest, and group dynamics along with provocateurs transition a peaceful protest into violence.
We, an empathetic nation, is marketed the idea of a conflict and the point of purchase is migration. Now take a moment and consider, your nation is bringing in large quantities of people who are willing to turn to violent expression because a leader does not align with their identity. Establishing a population density whose actions are directed and thoughts are framed by a master.
So now there must be utility or at least perceived utility by the ruling class for them to bring such actors into a nation. Could it be the exploitation of our democracy through demographic transitioning; the long play. Or are they there as a defence mechanism for and if the domestic population lashes out. Keeping in mind when your national leader is a globalist would that not make the domestic population his/her enemy?
Now this is where the brand conditioning comes in. While violence and hostility is imported by the boatful, we the domestic population are being defined by the others characteristics. So when those who would lash out with violence are presented with a causal reason, the expression of violence can than be projected on the domestic.
Take the label of terrorist. We as a nation are importing Shia Islamic terrorist and are paying them millions in reparations. We the domestic population are being labeled by media as terrorists for standing in defence of self preservation.
Self preservation being the key difference. Think of it as offence versus defence. To take a defensive stance is an act of preservation by preventing pursuit of the other. To make an offensive effort is pursuant of goal obtainment. A push pull scenario if I may call it. To be on the pull is not to be the villain but rather the hero.
Which brings me to a question I would like to pose as a challenge for all out there. How do you redefine a villain to be a hero and a hero to be a villain. A hero will always restrain a villain and let justice prevail. But, if you were to take the photo of the hero standing over the villain and strip the event of its context. At that final moment the hero looks like a villain; a violent perpetrator expressing his/her dominance of the other. Now how do you make a villain a hero?
A great example of this being testing in real time is through public characters such as Will Smith and Dave Chappelle and Johnny Depp have been running rebranding strategies. These not necessarily for them but rather a test evaluating public perception and response. What I find so unsettling is how many people are buying in.
This brings me to the larger utility of the branding and the testing of strategies. We have leaders, actors, and communities, that have profiled themselves as the enemy of people. This militia is better known as civil society, and is made up of interest group communities. They have sought to change the world around us as actors of the leaders mentioned above. But they have failed to achieve their goals or are failing in the acquiring of them.
The banner of civil society includes diverse members. Some can be identified on a superficial level by way of race or gender. So for those, the application of turning a villain into a hero is necessary. Such a transition is great and complicated. Now to turn a villain into a victim can be achieve by merely manipulating context.
For those who are harder to identify the rebranding is more simplistic. It boils down to public relations, or the misrepresentation of character. If repetition is the father of learning I guess the rebranding process for these individuals comes down to advertising placement offering the greatest level of exposure. This is the worst type of rebranding and I ask for all to have a keen eye for such acts; be an informed consumer.
By allowing for these characters to redefine themselves is a process of infiltration. We need to stop kicking the can and solve our issue at the root. We cannot let this happen for the sake of tomorrow‘s generations. Accountability breeds responsibility so lets make the ill intended accountable for their choices and actions. To accept their attempts at rebranding is a disservice to your grandchildren.
This piece was inspired by this article