The Secret of NPCs

The reason you are unable to convince NPCs to question the official narrative isn't because they are stupid or complaint, it is because they prioritize the Ingsoc Narrative over reality.

The reason why you are unable to convince your friend or family member that the official narrative(aka Ingsoc narrative) is incorrect isn’t that they are necessarily stupid, weak, compliant, or ignorant, it’s because they consciously or unconsciously prioritize the official narrative over reality - They are not simply NPCs, they are Parsons - a term named after a character in 1984:

Parsons was Winston’s fellow-employee at the Ministry of Truth. He was a fattish but active man of paralysing stupidity, a mass of imbecile enthusiasms — one of those completely unquestioning, devoted drudges on whom, more even than on the Thought Police, the stability of the Party depended.

Parsons are psychologically bound by the official narrative; the ON is the narrative created by a combination of mass media, official institutions, and the perception of what the masses accept. Trust in corporate media or government doesn’t make one a Parsons, there are plenty of them who don’t truth either, but after mass media and official institutions deliver their narrative and the concrete hardens the ON is created.

The Parsons must accept the ON - they may loathe and distrust Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and whoever occupies the white house, still, if all 4 make the same declaration the Parsons will internalize the ON as absolute truth and ridicule, chastise, and verbally or perhaps physically attack anyone who challenges the ON.

It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grammes a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it. Parsons swallowed it easily, with the stupidity of an animal. The eyeless creature at the other table swallowed it fanatically, passionately, with a furious desire to track down, denounce, and vaporize anyone who should suggest that last week the ration had been thirty grammes

A Parsons doesn’t necessarily believe in the ON, but they will accept it no matter how outlandish and implausible. It should be noted that all NPCs are Parsons, but all Parsons are NPCs.

From Steve Kirsh

I recently talked to a friend of mine at a recent social event. We’ll call him Bob. He’s super smart about most things. But when it comes to the vaccine, he’s blind to the truth.

He was bragging about how he has been vaxxed 6 times with the COVID vax and he’s perfectly healthy. He can’t wait for SB 866 in California to pass so when his kids turn 12, they can decide to get the vaccine over their mother’s objections.

Bob thinks I’m a nut case, cherry picking data. He says I used to be respected, but after turning anti-vax, people have lost all respect for me. He said I have a religious belief about the vaccine and I’m not driven by data.

What he isn’t telling anyone is that he’s been losing his vision ever since he got his first COVID vaccine. He used to have 20/20 vision, but now he wears glasses and can’t drive at night. When I brought up the data showing the connection between the shots and vision loss, he changed the topic.

I showed him two papers showing the more you vaccinate, the sicker you get (see the two papers here). I asked, “Where are the papers that show the opposite?” He ignored my request.

He gets his belief system from the mainstream media. Full stop. He reasons that if I was correct, surely Bill Gates would agree with me and admit they goofed. It’s 100% deference to authority.

[note: It is not authority Bob is beholden to, it is the narrative, Parsons ignore any expert or study/paper that deviates from the ON. Every deviant expert is relegated to a kook, crack, or a conspiracy theorist]

Bob will not look at the data himself and he doesn’t want to discuss it. He will not engage. He thinks that if I was right, there would be more than a handful of people speaking out. So he tallies the size of the support base on each side of an issue instead of looking at the data.

[note: Parsons only defer to the number of experts on a issue when they believe the majority of experts side with the ON, if the majority of experts disagree with the ON Parsons will side with the ON'; the Great Barrington Declaration will carry as much weight as the opinion of a bricklayer.]

I hope this is useful in helping you understand the pro-vaxxers and how they think.

The important thing is you cannot turn these people around. Arguing with them is fruitless because they don’t want to see the data. They will only come around when the people they trust change their position.

[note: They will change their position when the ON changes or they are no longer Parsons.]

This is why we need to focus on protecting doctors who speak out.

Perhaps a state ballot initiative in California providing that doctors cannot be retaliated against when they tell the truth (including having social media accounts taken down, having their license to practice medicine revoked, etc). That would prevent things like this from ever happening again.

"I have a good mate who is a top barrister -- he is pro vax --- he parrots the MSM catch phrases....

BUT -- he has looked at the data. I showed him Smalley's data on how excess deaths spike with each jab in the high vax countries... no spike in the low vax countries.

His response - correlation is not cause.

Ok - so what's the cause of all those excess deaths.

Covid.

Oh -- so they should stop the vaccination because they don't work.

Silence. And I have not heard anything from him in nearly 3 months."

Ignorance is not their problem!  Neither Parsons in this account cared about the data, neither cared about objective reality, the latter Parsons broke off contact. For whatever reason, a Parsons does not require to have been “broken in” as Winston did. This is a feature, not a bug, this is built into their software. There is nothing “wrong” with a Parsons, they are wired differently.

Keep this in mind before trying to change one.

Note that all NPCs are Parsons, but not all Parsons are NPCs.

"O'Brien held up the fingers of his left hand, with the thumb concealed. "There are five fingers there. Do you see five fingers?"

"Yes."

And he did see them, for a fleeting instant, before the scenery of his mind changed. He saw five fingers, and there was no deformity. Then everything was normal again, and the old fear, the hatred, and the bewilderment came crowding back again. But there had been a moment - he did not know how long, thirty seconds, perhaps - of luminous certainty, when each new suggestion of O'Brien's had filled up a patch of emptiness and become absolute truth, and when two and two could have been three as easily as five, if that were what was needed. It had faded but before O'Brien had dropped his hand; but though he could not recapture it, he could remember it, as one remembers a vivid experience at some remote period of one's life when one was in effect a different person.

1984 could just have easily read:

O'Brien pointed at the picture of the exploding tower and asked “It simply fell from a fire didn’t it?”

Winston: Yes

The tower didn’t simply fall, it exploded, and the debris flying outward makes it clear. Anyone with a remedial understanding of the natural world knows that a fire cannot pulverize steel and concrete and eject it outwards.

A Parsons won’t see concrete and steel being destroyed and ejected. They will simply see a building falling, the Ministry of Truth didn’t tell them anything to the contrary. Anything else is superfluous. Nothing else matters except the narrative.    

This is the secret of NPCs.

Related:

The Narrative Matrix Hides The Truth About The World, And About Ourselves

Is There a Follower Gene?