This is, of course, the point.
“But wait,” you say, “these things are not new. Letters have existed for millennia–physical photographs since the 1820s. And circumstances do not always allow friends to remain in proximity for their entire lives, and there may be instances in which a friend is still considered, despite never seeing him again in either of your lives. How does a social networking platform differ from these historic means of communication with friends?” It differs in these ways: speed, permanence, and penetration. Historically, letters took time–days, weeks, or months–to get where they were going. An e-mail or social networking message is, ostensibly, sent within seconds. Letters were once used out of necessity only. Now they’re often the norm, simply because they’re “easier.” Social networks rise and fall in popularity, but the idea behind their means of communication has been shown to the public, and so the idea remains. Once MySpace, now Twitter and Facebook. In the future? Hopefully nothing, but without certainty of the date of the Collapse, we must assume there will be a successor. Social networks claim hundreds, thousands, millions, a billion users. Businesses use them for advertising. Governments for agendas. News agencies for lies. There are things you cannot do on the Internet without an account with a social network. As an aside on this topic, social networks are something of a “mark of the beast” in this regard. “Like us on Facebook” (and this brings into question, too, the redefining of what the word ‘like’ means. Lord save us, for we are now Orwell’s nightmare), “Follow us on Twitter”, etc. Seen in print, audio, and video ads, even outside the Internet. The idea is to make it impossible to get away from the network, even if you don’t use it.
In the past, if you physically left someone forever, your connection waned. Eventually communication became impossible, their presence in your life became too small, and they dropped off your radar. You could not look to them for help, as to explain the events that led up to the help you needed would take too long, and the written word could not convey those events with justice. Now, the connection is designed to never be broken. You can leave a person in your friend list and never speak to them. You cannot delete your social networking account at all. These names and accounts grow and grow into a nameless, shapeless, formless mass. Just a number, ever increasing, and every time the “list of friends” is viewed, that number grinds into the subconscious, “This is the number of friends I have. These people are my friends. Their presence (lack thereof, rather) in my life is what defines friendship.”
For those of us who know why this would be done, purposefully, this revelation comes as no surprise. Unfortunately, the lack of surprise we express at learning a new aspect of the scheme is also a tool in their arsenal. We can become desensitized to the sheer number of subversions and feel overwhelmed, unsurprised, and not called to action against them. Never forget that this is part of the plan. For the rest of those reading, perhaps this will alert you to the wider scheme. If you are unable or unwilling, psychologically, to accept who is doing it, please still accept that it is happening. You can still help correct the degradation and awaken others to it. When it all comes crashing down, those responsible, whomever they may be, will receive their just rewards. All because you saw the truth of the actions and events, even if you did not believe who was perpetuating them.