Introduction: Mainstream vs. Alternative Information
Mainstream media are usually controlled by powerful institutions, including governments, multinational corporations, media conglomerates, and influential economic entities. These actors shape public narratives and societal norms, often representing the interests of global elites who control resources, policies, and cultural trends. Through their vast networks of influence, they establish what is considered “truth” or “common knowledge”, creating a framework within which societal debates occur. This interpretation of reality clearly reflects the priorities of those in power, such as economic growth, technological advancement, or political stability. We might thus describe the mainstream media as the voice of the world’s masters, who are not necessarily public figures known for their great wealth.
In contrast, alternative media seek to challenge these dominant narratives by offering divergent perspectives or exposing perceived injustices. They usually position themselves as the voice of dissent for marginalized groups or individuals who feel excluded from mainstream discourse. However, alternative media inherently rely on the existence of mainstream information for their identity and purpose. Without a dominant narrative to oppose or critique, counter-information would lose its raison d’être. It defines itself not through independent creation but basically through opposition to what it perceives as the excesses or the manipulations of Power.
Countering the System Through Its Own Means
Alternative information, leveraging critical thinking, acts as a vessel for discontent and preoccupation towards the dynamics enacted by the masters of the earthly world, who, of course, serve their own interests while completely sidelining those of the masses. Counter-information could be defined as the voice of the most aware and caring individuals, at least in theory.
It is also interesting to note that the counter-information phenomenon was born with the introduction of the Internet in the late 1990s, and has been confined to it ever since, as TV and radio are still entirely controlled by systemic forces. Ironically, alternative media sources use the tools provided by the Power itself, such as YouTube, Twitter/X, dedicated websites and so on. Somehow, they try to change the system from within, like a sort of virus that insinuates itself into an organism and alters its stability.
Characteristics and Limitations of Alternative Media
From a psychological perspective, counter-information operates primarily as a reactive mechanism. It responds to new developments introduced by mainstream power structures—be it technological innovations like digital currencies, policy changes, or cultural shifts—with skepticism or outright rejection. This reactionary stance is often driven by a deep mistrust of authority and a belief that mainstream narratives are inherently manipulative or self-serving. While this approach can serve as an important check on overly powerful institutions and provide a platform for dissenting voices, it frequently lacks the foresight to anticipate or proactively address issues. Instead of setting its own agenda or offering constructive alternatives, counter-information tends to focus on dismantling or discrediting the proposals of those in power, which is definitely a good starting point.
Alternative media, in essence, chase the dominant narrative while proposing their own critical view of the issues involved. This leads to the establishment of a symbiotic relationship between the mainstream and its detractors, in which each party needs the other in order to push its agenda. Power needs enemies, whether real or manufactured, in order to push the masses toward the desired direction, since fear is the most powerful catalyst there is. Counter-information, on the other hand, needs to be recognized by Power as a legitimate entity in order to carry out its battles at the public level. Yet mainstream information will never acknowledge its detractors as legitimate, simply because it achieves better results by labeling them as subversive and dangerous.
The Failed Attempt to Halt ‘Progress’
For instance, if governments propose sweeping surveillance measures under the guise of national security, counter-information groups may immediately mobilize against these policies without necessarily presenting a broader vision for how privacy and security can coexist in an increasingly tech-dependent society. Similarly, when corporations introduce controversial technologies such as artificial intelligence tools with potential ethical implications, alternative media campaigns may highlight risks but fail to engage in meaningful dialogue about how such technologies could be harnessed responsibly. Progress is something that simply cannot be stopped. You can try to redirect it, but the illusion that we can completely suppress the human desire to achieve anything within the realm of the possible is doomed to failure. Human beings are made this way; if something can be done, sooner or later someone will do it, either for good or bad. This is the reason why a society without laws is unthinkable.
The Reactive Nature of Counter-Information
By constantly reacting to external stimuli rather than proactively shaping discourse, counter-information movements risk being defined solely by their opposition to mainstream narratives. This not only limits their ability to build momentum for systemic change but also makes them vulnerable to being dismissed as obstructionist or alarmist by the very systems they seek to challenge. Furthermore, this reactive posture can lead to emotional exhaustion among participants, as they are perpetually engaged in battles against perceived threats without achieving long-term victories or creating sustainable alternatives. Without shifting from reactionary opposition toward proactive creation and vision-building, counter-information will remain locked in a dependent relationship with the very power structures it seeks to oppose.
An Exhausting and Unproductive Chase
This reactive rather than proactive nature of alternative media means that they invariably find themselves playing by the system’s rules, preventing them from actually producing something truly innovative and disruptive. Theirs is a reinterpretation of the existing, while the boundaries of perception and discussion are defined by those who control the dominant narrative. Both operate within an enclosure, except that the width and nature of that enclosure are determined by those who own it. The very words used to define reality are frequently chosen by those who hold a monopoly on storytelling.
From 2020 onwards, for example, those in control labelled as ‘science’ everything that confirmed their apocalyptic narrative of the so-called pandemic, while all research showing that the virus was in fact far less lethal than initially thought was labelled as anti-scientific. The term ‘science’, used in this way, is totally misleading. Science, as an independent entity, does not exist. What does exist is a method of searching for truth that can be called scientific. By redefining the meaning of this word, the dominant power established new boundaries, tighter than the previous ones, within which the exchange of ideas and theories could take place. Alternative information had no choice but to adapt to this new paradigm, knowing no other way to effectively oppose it in the eyes of the masses who were already misled.
The Lack of an Alternative Vision of Humanity
This fragmented approach undermines the credibility and long-term impact of alternative media efforts. Without a clear vision for what they aim to achieve—beyond simply opposing mainstream initiatives—these movements may be susceptible to being perceived as pointless and unnecessarily polemical. Furthermore, this lack of unity often leads to internal divisions within counter-information communities themselves, as different factions prioritize different issues or strategies without aligning under a shared set of principles or goals. To be truly effective in challenging dominant power structures, counter-information must evolve beyond its oppositional stance and articulate a coherent vision for an alternative society based on solid ethical principles, education, and a radical rethinking of money and economics.
And what about spirituality? Unfortunately, it seems to be of little importance within alternative media as well, since, as already explained earlier, all they do is pick up and reframe the topics cherished by mainstream sources.
In summary, although counter-information serves an important function in challenging dominant narratives and amplifying marginalized voices, its reactive nature limits its potential for driving transformative change unless accompanied by deeper psychological insight and spiritual aspirations. Addressing these limitations requires moving beyond opposition toward proactive creation—building coherent visions rooted in shared values while fostering inner freedom through self-awareness practices that empower individuals to transcend cycles of conflict altogether.
Conservatism and Traditionalism
Another defining characteristic of counter-information is its tendency toward conservatism and traditionalism. By opposing perceived threats to established norms—whether cultural values, economic systems, or social structures—counter-information often seeks to preserve the status quo rather than envisioning transformative change. This conservative orientation can manifest in various ways: resistance to globalization; skepticism toward technological advancements; opposition to progressive social policies; or advocacy for returning to “simpler times” perceived as more stable or authentic.
For instance, many counter-information movements resist globalization by emphasizing localism and national sovereignty while rejecting international cooperation frameworks like trade agreements or global governance institutions. While these critiques may highlight legitimate concerns about economic inequality or loss of cultural identity caused by globalization, they tend to overlook how interconnected global challenges require collaborative solutions that transcend national borders.
Similarly, opposition to technological advancements like artificial intelligence (AI), genetic engineering, or digital currencies generally reflects fears about losing control over human agency or societal values. While these concerns are valid and deserve scrutiny, an overly defensive posture can hinder innovation and adaptation to changing circumstances. For example: resisting renewable energy technologies because they disrupt traditional industries like coal mining or oil extraction ignores the urgent need for sustainable energy solutions as the Earth’s population and its associated consumption continue to increase.
Nostalgia for the Past and Anxiety for the Future
This inclination toward traditionalism also extends into cultural realms where counter-information movements may advocate for preserving historical practices or moral codes perceived as under threat from modernity. Although maintaining traditions that promote stability and continuity within communities is valuable, an uncritical attachment to the past can prevent societies from evolving in response to new realities, even if they look uncomfortable or troublesome.
Moreover, this resistance can inadvertently reinforce the very power structures that alternative media seek to challenge. By framing dissenters as backward-looking or resistant to progress—a narrative easily amplified by mainstream media controlled by powerful entities—opponents risk alienating broader audiences who might otherwise sympathize with their concerns. To move beyond this limitation, counter-information must balance respect for tradition with openness to innovation while fostering inclusive dialogues about how societies can evolve sustainably without sacrificing core values.
The Spiritual Perspective: Opposition as Energy Transfer
From a spiritual perspective, the act of opposition can be seen as an energy transfer that paradoxically strengthens the very forces one seeks to resist. This concept is rooted in various spiritual and philosophical traditions, such as Taoism, Buddhism, and even modern metaphysical thought, which emphasize the principle of non-resistance. These teachings suggest that by focusing attention and energy on opposing something—whether it be an idea, a system, or a policy—one inadvertently feeds it with power and momentum. This phenomenon occurs because resistance creates polarity; it establishes a dynamic where the opposing force becomes more defined and entrenched through conflict.
For example, when counter-information movements vehemently oppose digital currencies or government surveillance programs, they draw public attention to these issues. While this may seem like a necessary step to raise awareness, it also provides mainstream power structures with an opportunity to dominate the narrative. Governments or corporations can use their control over media channels to frame dissenters as uninformed, paranoid, or even dangerous. In doing so, they not only discredit opposition but also reinforce their own authority by positioning themselves as rational and progressive arbiters of societal change.
This dynamic highlights a deeper spiritual truth: what we resist persists. By engaging in direct opposition, individuals or movements often become entangled in the very systems they wish to dismantle. The focus on external battles diverts energy away from internal transformation—the true source of freedom—and perpetuates cycles of conflict and dependency.
The Paradox of Opposition
To illustrate this further, consider the example of digital currencies replacing cash. Counter-information campaigns might highlight legitimate concerns about privacy erosion or centralized control over financial systems. However:
- Legitimization Through Attention: By opposing digital currencies so fervently, these campaigns actually confirm their importance by bringing them to the forefront of public discourse. The real issue, in the end, is the reliance on money for survival, and not so much the way in which it is generated and distributed.
- Reinforcement Through Framing: Power structures can easily frame opponents as resistant to progress or innovation—labels that resonate with audiences conditioned to equate technological advancement with societal improvement. Any criticism should therefore be accompanied by an alternative proposal and not simply by a desire to preserve the status quo, as this attitude is perceived as retrograde by the ill-informed masses.
- Attachment to Existing Systems: The opposition itself reveals an attachment to money—a tool historically used for control—rather than addressing deeper questions about why society remains so dependent on monetary systems in the first place. If you give so much importance to something that is controlled by an external entity, you automatically place yourself in a subordinate position compared to the entity you believe to be your opponent. Is this not so?
This paradox demonstrates how resistance often reinforces the dominance of what is being opposed rather than weakening it.
Non-Resistance as a Path Forward
Spiritual traditions offer an alternative approach: non-resistance. Non-resistance does not mean passivity or apathy; rather, it involves transcending dualities such as “us versus them” or “right versus wrong”. Instead of fighting against oppressive systems directly—which risks becoming ensnared in their dynamics—non-resistance encourages individuals to redirect their energy toward creating alternatives that embody higher values like compassion, equity, and interconnectedness.
For instance:
- Instead of opposing digital currencies outright, individuals could focus on reducing the importance they place on money, for example, by avoiding unnecessary spending, eliminating expensive vices and habits, stopping following trends, and prioritizing bartering over monetary exchange. By disempowering the very concept of money, those who control it will automatically lose power over us as we become freer.
- Rather than protesting government surveillance programs exclusively through legal battles or public demonstrations (which are important but limited), people could prioritize cultivating inner peace through mindfulness practices that reduce fear-based reactions and foster both awareness and resilience toward external manipulation. Greater self-awareness will allow us, among other things, to discover alternatives to oppressive methods that the system seeks to force upon us.
- If you are worried that electric cars will not be able to provide you with the same degree of freedom and autonomy compared to endothermic ones, why don’t you try to become less dependent on the very concept of the car as your sole means of transport? Use your car as little as possible, find healthier ways of getting around, cut out unnecessary journeys, and you won’t need to worry about cars, whether they run on fossil fuels or batteries. The twisted system we live in is kept in place by ordinary people who believe they cannot do without the things that Power dictates they must possess. In fact, to feel good, we don’t really need most of the things we feel compelled to have.
Many Confuse Cages With Freedoms
Any form of attachment to the material world is an additional chain that binds our soul to the earthly plane and generates karma. It is surprising that even within the small group of people who consider themselves spiritual, there are so many individuals who regard the car as an instrument of freedom, when it is so clearly a cage, both in practical and symbolic terms. Their dependence on the concept itself is so ingrained that they cannot imagine a world without cars, yet the highest philosophical and transcendental concepts to which the spiritual community still refers today were developed by men who travelled on foot.
Of course, the same reasoning can and should be applied to the concept of money. Possessing more money, be it in digital or printed form, actually makes one more enslaved to the system rather than freer. Think about it for a second: between a poor man and a rich man, which one has more to lose?
The Solution Is to Be Found Within
By shifting focus from external opposition to internal empowerment and proactive creation, we can weaken oppressive systems without directly engaging with them on their terms. This approach aligns with spiritual principles that promote harmony over conflict and transformation over resistance. Just quit looking for meaning, identity and freedom in objects, possessions and money.
In essence, true freedom arises not from defeating external enemies but from liberating oneself from attachments—to material possessions like money, societal validation through conformity or rebellion, and fear-driven narratives propagated by both mainstream and alternative information sources alike. As long as human beings continue to seek answers in worldly things, be they material goods, ideologies or battles over mundane and external matters, there will never be true evolution, neither psychological nor spiritual.
<<Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes>>, Carl Gustav Jung.
Conclusion: Toward a Holistic Approach
Counter-information has an important role in challenging dominant power structures and amplifying underrepresented voices. However, its reactive nature limits its potential for driving transformative change unless it is accompanied by profound psychological insight and, most crucially, by a quest for meaning that transcends the mundane and reaches into the domain of the soul and spirit.
There is nothing alternative or revolutionary about opposing established power and the society it has generated; since, in order to change the outer world we must first transform and evolve ourselves, the most radical and revolutionary act we can perform is to stop doing anything and focus on ourselves. Power controls us through our needs, whether natural or induced by the system itself via its constant propaganda disguised as advertisements, news, movies, music, politics, religion and so on. We just need to stop looking for answers in the things the world offers us to begin experiencing true freedom, which lies within us.
Let us stop placing value on world narratives, both official and alternative, and let us embrace a holistic approach based on critical thinking and inner spiritual evolution.
- Psychologically: Recognizing how fear-based responses perpetuate cycles of conflict (the mainstream) while simultaneously fostering empathy for differing perspectives within a minority of the population (alternative perspectives), resulting in a vicious dualistic cycle that is an end in itself. The majority will always follow the loudest and most persistent voice, while the marginalized will create their own “troublesome” minority that Power itself will use as a pretext to push its own instances even louder, protecting and preserving other minorities that are clearly beneficial to its purposes. Simply put, the system creates both its allies and its opponents, who, consciously or not, play along. The good old game of duality.
- Spiritually: Embracing non-resistance as a means of transcending dualities between “us” and “them”, while focusing on creating harmonious alternatives to be sought within ourselves and not externally, which promotes personal growth, mutual respect and a lifestyle that is more about being rather than doing or having. In order to do this, we must first cease perceiving ourselves as mortal bodies in need of everything, and begin to focus more on our spiritual and immortal part. The system, and the people in power who run it, exploit our most basic needs and our most primal fears (e.g. death) in order to train us and keep us under control, just as we do with our pets. Once we realize this, we must learn to separate the fears and needs of our animal mind from the higher aspirations of our soul, and prioritize our most authentic self.
By moving beyond opposition toward creation—and prioritizing inner freedom over external battles and ambitions—we can pave the way for more equitable societies grounded in shared humanity rather than divisive ideologies. A holistic approach does not reject the importance of questioning authority but recognizes that lasting change comes from building something better rather than simply tearing down what already exists.
Ultimately, this shift requires both individual transformation and collective action. On an individual level, people must cultivate self-awareness to reduce their susceptibility to manipulation by fear-based narratives from either mainstream or alternative sources. On a collective level, movements must unite around shared values such as justice, sustainability, solidarity, and human dignity while working together to design systems that reflect these principles.
ARE YOU A CONSPIRACY THEORIST?
In a world that is becoming increasingly intricate and opaque, with economic interests intertwined with an insatiable pursuit of power and excessive narcissism, it is no surprise that many individuals find themselves unable to distinguish between reality and deception. This has led to a decline in public confidence in institutions, with many people developing a sense of mistrust and suspicion towards authority figures.
Read the sentences below and select the ones you agree with and that you think make the most sense.
Count the number of checked boxes and read the corresponding profile.
0: You are not a conspiracy theorist at all
1-2: You display some vague conspiracy tendencies
3-4: You display strong conspiracy tendencies
5-6: You are a genuine conspiracy theorist
