It is my contention that at this time there is a fundamental shift occurring globally in adjustment to the advent of the digital space opening up for information transduction among people, which roughly corresponds to the availability of the internet to the average people.

The information transduction system of the legacy system, which was based on centralized authoritarian broadcast media is being rapidly replaced by the nascent decentralized sensemaking of the people via decentralized and populist mechanisms. 

These may be symbolically represented as a pyramid for the centralized authority, represented by the apex of the pyramid, projecting its preferences upon the masses, represented by the broad base of the pyramid.  We might also easily understand this as the delta of a river, arriving at the top of a map, broadening into the sea, at the bottom of the map.  In this, the authority is responsible for providing fresh information (symbolized by fresh water) at the apex of the delta, and distributing it to the masses who passively accept the information as presented, for they have no superior method of gaining information, or generating alternative social narratives.

This symbol is inverted to represent the information transduction system of the social organizational system replacing it, with the delta inverted, with a well sunk to some depth below the surface, drawing water from a cone of depression of the water table about it, even as it is recharged by the surrounding gradients and rain from above.  In this a wide array of potential information resources are accumulated locally, and brought to the surface by the individual who authors his best rendition of that information to the surface, which represents the public, shared digital space.

At issue here is that there is a contest between these two seemingly mutually incompatible models.  The legacy system is dominated by wealthy elites who act in the role of "owner" of the system, with authoritative capacity to craft the public narrative, which they may use to their own advantage.  In this, they use their institutional position to project their own cultural preferences into the public.  This is Cultural Hegemony, (per Antonio Gramsci).  Key among their preferences is that they remain in positions of authority to maintain their social privileges and authority, lest they sink into the great unwashed, never to be heard from again.  That would be like annihilation to them; same as death, and is to be resisted by any and all means available.

This system is necessarily in conflict with the rising consciousness of the public, with its newly acquired digital reflective space which is responsive to their consciousness with mutuality, which is missing from the legacy system described above.  It also offers the additional advantage of providing a much higher resolution sensibility to the public, as the interests of the individual are matched to information available in the digital social space.  

In short the social sensemaking capacity of the digital distributed social information transduction system is superior to that of the legacy central authoritative broadcast system that it is replacing.

In order to facilitate easy discussion of these concepts, we might consider the legacy central authoritative broadcast system to be the Legacy Modern Authoritarian social information transduction system, and the new system that is rapidly replacing it as the Digital Distributed social information transduction system.

In TOK, Influence Matrix terms, the Legacy Modern Authoritarian system (LMA) is based upon the domination of the submissive, dependent population by hegemonic elites who use their institutional positions of authority to reign over a docile, submissive population.

The population is sufficiently awakened to be aware of this, and recognizes the predatory nature of the hegemonic elites utilizing the social institutions for purposes widely divergent from that which they were originally generated by the public to instrument.  They recognize that they have been "lied to" by the LMA system, and that they have been played for the chump in the social arrangement, due to their excessive trust in the social arrangements of the LMA system.  This has or will generate emotions of anger and hostility towards those elements seeking to continue to propagate the LMA system upon them.

Interestingly, in their defensive operation, the Hegemonic Elite, representing the Ownership Interest in the LMA system seek to drive negative emotions into the general public so as to dominate them.  In the TOK Influence Matrix, we can see that the emotions of shame, fear, and guilt, as well as hate being driven by LMA social institutional authorities.  

Of these shame, fear and guilt are employed to  prevent social interactions of "undesirable" nature.  This would be defined of as being contrary to the interests of the Ownership Interests, as represented by the Hegemonic Elites in the legacy social institutions.

Hate is mobilized in some with the intention (by the Hegemonic Elite) of driving fear into the remaining population, or as militants.  In this formulation, well-intentioned people are driven by their emotional state, and lead by cynical mercenaries who are operating in the interests of the Hegemonic Elite, especially in cases in which "the movement" claims to be operating to be operating contrary to those interests.  

This is understandably named to be a "conspiracy theory" by witting and unwitting agents of the LMA system.  We might think of the label as a vaccination of the public against narratives that are outside of the "acceptable limits" of public discourse within the construct of the LMA system, which is to say contrary to the interests of the Hegemonic Elites, as operating in the interests of the Ownership Interests.

Everyone should recognize that this discussion is taking place within the confines of the Cave of Plato, of course.

This may all be understood as representing variously, psychological warfare, demoralization, subversion, and cultural warfare, among other labels.

This is presented as a model for seeking to understand the sourcing and vetting out information presented to us in the social space for the purpose of understanding the alignment of interests at work, so that we may each of us wisely choose what we believe and how we act, so that we may act in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of ourselves, our families, and our communities in mind.

Thank you for your patience.

Bradley