According to Wikipedia, motivation—or incentive—is the driving force behind the achievement of specific goals.

It includes goal-oriented behavior and requires a direct and timely connection between purposeful actions and the results achieved. The final result is always of subjective significance and has psychological value. In psychology, motivation refers to the initiation, direction, intensity, and persistence of behavior—the desire and willingness to carry out a particular activity. Motivation is a temporary and dynamic state and should not be confused with stable personality traits or emotional states. Motivation stimulates the individual in their efforts to achieve desired goals—most often success, remuneration, rewards (in sports), or high achievements that require strong motivation, but also everyday or routine activities aimed at attaining a certain result.

Motivation can be internal or external—arising either from an inner desire to achieve certain outcomes or as a consequence of external factors. Motivation must be considered in relation to stable personality traits (such as shyness, extroversion, conscientiousness) and emotional states, which are temporary (such as anger, sadness, or joy).

1. Intrinsic motivation occurs when people are internally driven to create something that brings them satisfaction.
2. Extrinsic motivation occurs when people are motivated by external rewards such as money, grades, or another person (usually psychologically stronger), and so on.

---

Every purposeful action we perform—or intend to perform—presupposes the presence of motivation. Even the daily act of going to a job we dislike happens for a reason—we endure it for the sake of something: supporting a family and children, paying off loans, covering medical expenses, buying a new car, and so forth. In this case, motivation is external. Most people do most things in their lives driven by this type of motivation.

The lucky ones, on the other hand, do most things in life propelled by intrinsic motivation—these are the people who love their work, devote themselves to hobbies, and do things for pleasure and personal growth. Human resources specialists, managers, bosses, and employers know that it is best for employees to be intrinsically motivated, because then they will not be dissatisfied, they will work more, and they will do so even for lower pay. This is why motivational letters are often required when applying for a job.

Naturally, those for whom these letters are intended know that what is written in them is rarely sincere—unless the application is for a truly desired position offering real opportunities for development. For example, if a physicist deeply devoted to their work applies for a position at CERN, their motivational letter would likely be completely genuine. But for an accountant or a programmer, each of whom has sent out fifty résumés, things are probably different. They are unlikely to write fifty different motivational letters, tailored to each position and company. In such cases, motivation is external.

And during the job interview, in response to the routine question, “Why did you choose us?”, they would probably attempt to flatter the company, express admiration for its field of activity, and explain how they have always—ever since childhood—dreamed of working in exactly such a company, instead of simply saying that there is a coincidence of supply and demand, or that they just need a job and money.

Such communication, though false, is encouraged by the policies of most companies, because at some point the pretense begins to seep in intuitively as a habit and to overflow into the individual’s position and attitude. Yet another example of suggestion and self-suggestion—this time generated by artificial motivation.

It is normal for business to want the population to be motivated to do its work. But motivation should be natural—it should be a result of satisfactory relations between employer and employee, as well as good working conditions, rather than the product of suggestion and self-suggestion. In any case, attempts to motivate people to work under any conditions seem to have a real economic return.

In short, the system as a whole tries to motivate the vast majority of people to do what is necessary for its own existence.

These are two main things (for clarity, excluding the smaller activities connected to them):

1. To work hard.
2. To create families and raise children.

Nothing else. Nothing extra.

Or do you think, for example, that your boss wants the best possible self-realization for you in life, rather than you working for them as long as you are needed—at the lowest possible cost? Having children, in this case, is highly desirable because it makes people dependent. So why would the system—being largely a function of big capital—want anything else for you and your life?

From a systemic point of view, everything outside of work and childcare is unnecessary and even harmful. It is not for everyone. Accordingly, the system seeks to demotivate those who try to live differently—to achieve financial independence, to escape the shackles of the 9-to-5 job, or worse, shift work. In practice, initiative is suppressed; passivity, low self-esteem, and conformism are cultivated, along with cowardice and a sense of insecurity.

Do you know what the American president Woodrow Wilson said in a speech in 1909? If not, it is worth noting that in that speech he outlined the future strategy for education in the United States, which was supposed to reflect the needs of society and accordingly produce two types of people: one destined to govern, and the other—to work and obey. The first type was to be highly educated and well-rounded, with developed creative and analytical abilities, while the second was not meant to develop such abilities, but to possess only basic technical education, making them suitable for tasks involving manual labor—and, of course, subordinate to control.

Today, even more than a hundred years later, this division remains. Anyone who disagrees with this claim might reflect on the social pyramid and societal structure in the country in which they live.

However, since differentiation in modern societies cannot be achieved 100% through education alone—nowhere in the world, including the United States, where access to quality education is limited by financial barriers—other measures are also imposed to suppress those for whom no other life is envisioned than being part of an obedient and dulled herd, controlled and guided from above.

Demotivation is an entire science. And an industry. On the surface, the system appears to try to motivate the individual. Implicitly, however, it seeks to instill the idea that they are good for nothing—that they should be grateful to have a job at all, and that even if things are stable today, nothing is guaranteed tomorrow, which is why they must save. The concept of saving as a way of life places consciousness in an entirely different framework—one of seeking security rather than seeking fulfillment. The latter presupposes risk, courage, motivation, and initiative.

By trying in every possible way to kill inspiration, self-confidence, adventurousness, and spontaneity, the system renders people passive and channels their activity exclusively into predefined paths and directions. Thus it acquires an obedient and productive herd, ready to work and reproduce, but rarely capable of motivating itself for independent action.

The methods of suppressing people are many—advertising, social pressure, the entertainment industry, working conditions and culture, imposed lifestyles, financial insecurity, various problems, and so on—but the core message transmitted through all channels is:

“You are not good enough.”

As consolation, it is added that the individual—being average and ordinary—still has their place in life, where they can keep company with others like them. Because things could be worse.

Every endeavor in a person’s life begins first as inspiration and an idea. Without curiosity, ambition, self-belief, optimism, spontaneity, and energy, a person cannot achieve anything. If an individual grows up in a society that constantly tells them they are not good enough, then the only thing they will likely achieve in life is finding some job, perhaps creating a standard family, and living a standardized life until the end of their days—becoming the template themselves.

Exactly what the system needs. It does not need personalities and individuals who live their lives and contribute to society in their own, individual way. This does not fit into the paradigm of total control and only introduces chaos and unpredictability into the established order. The system needs “human resources,” not individuals.

This is why propaganda persistently emphasizes the “collective spirit” and the “sense of community,” constantly urging people to think of others. But beyond the seemingly altruistic appeal lies a method of domination, relying on collectivist techniques and a vast amount of hypocrisy.

Not infrequently, the call to think of others mutates into its extreme form—namely, to sacrifice oneself for “others” (where “others” is in fact a euphemism for the system itself). But what would a society look like in which everyone has sacrificed themselves for others, and there are no unsacrificed people left? Who would benefit from that?

One wonders whether those at the top, who run the system, think about us in the way they want us to think about “others.”

Or is their motivation different?