I think the problem has been swallowed by a pool of intricacies. There's all sorts of games at play with keeping people in this hypnotic illusive state.

I agree with that "money makes the world go round" this is quite literally the truth. If a world leader doesn't succumb to the incentive of money and it's power, then the money will be offered to someone to take the dangerous path in relieving the former from their position. By whatever means necessary.

Even when trying to look at a solution out of the problem, perhaps a civil war for example? If that happens it will more than likely affect the psychology and minds of the people involved. We become violent and angry, If we win, great, but then we have just conditioned ourselves to which violence and anger is the answer. Once this has been established how can we expect good people to take over? and even more specifically what do we mean by "take over"? Just run the simulation again? Change the system completely?

We have and still are being taught that no other system will work. Most people believe that things like votes and the choice are actually what they seem. Let's take the Brexit vote from the UK, the vote happened, the people were ill-informed and majority of the people who voted were voting for something that was completely unaffected by the vote. Immigration. The pure hatred of another race, religion or whatever. Now that's not to say that everyone who voted had that in mind. We voted out. Has anyone noticed how much fear mongering is going on? As if to suggest the people (this democracy) failed, we as the people chose wrong. To now make it look like the government is great and they will pick up the pieces. They promote this uneducated view with all the ISIS issues and bombing of Syria, give us a vote to leave the union between countries, soon after all this, knowing that people are wary of the implications of terrorism and tyranny. To then use that to suggest we're not very good at voting. Creates a sort of animosity between the people. Divide and conquer.

It's so cleverly played and worked out. Now, yes it's completely possible that it's just fell apart, and it's all really simple. Which would then suggest, why have we got people in charge that can't lead properly and don't really have a clue. But, personally I don't believe that at all. They are well informed. Whether that is due to the "puppeteers" that are behind the scenes, I don't know. We will never know until they want us to, by that time it would be more than likely too late.

People also shy away from the idea that the world is a lie because they believe its too complicated and too big an idea for it to be real. But that's the whole reason why it probably is.

Different doors, and options all leading to the same place.

Exactly, it will more than likely result in those people open to one sex for sex also being open to love that sex too. I suppose it may be rare to find someone open sexually to one sex only and then open to love the opposite sex only. But the example of the prisoners is perfect. In normal conditions they probably wouldn't lust for the same sex, however they do in those circumstances and potentially don't love them and don't develop a connection with them. It's the same for soldiers, they were the same. The only thing that would need to be tested in those conditions is whether they differentiate between the people that are suitable for their lust too.

That's a reasonable response. I guess I'm looking for the theorised responses just to get the thoughts on whether there is something plausible or whether my idea is brings up something that rejects it. As it is related to the thought processes and a distinction that would more than likely be different for each person. How exactly would you test for something that is based on the generation of the thought? So yes, theory and justified discussion will suffice.