mind control
If you're not wondering if you're under mind control, you probably are.
Anonymous
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ... In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons ... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
Edward Bernays
Anonymous
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ... In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons ... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
Edward Bernays
As a henchman for the power elite, the CIA has probably spent billions on studying human psychology. Of course! If you want to control people then you need to understand how their minds work. I have not studied psychology myself, however, from constantly arguing and discussing staged events with people I can see how people fit certain profiles. Interestingly, my identical twin sister and I fit very different profiles although we were brought up in the same environment and there seems to be no obvious reason why that should be. It's very fortunate that humans fit psychological profiles because we're much easier to corral into certain beliefs and responses that way. If we were much more individual then it would be like herding cats but, conveniently, we fit profiles in the way we think and respond. We may well fit more than one profile and one profile may, effectively, be a variety of another. I will give a few examples.
Blinded by one's "narrative"
I spoke to a friend about a staged event in Melbourne where police allegedly bashed a disabled pensioner. Although my friend was open to the concept of staged events, her reaction to my claim was that I was "defending the police". This annoyed me as my attitude when I'm analysing an event for signs of fakery is one of a single-minded sniffer dog - I have zero interest in who's involved, I'm just looking for signs of fakery. Prior to this I gave no sign whatsoever of "defending" the police in any shape or form. Before and since that event I have spoken to my friend a lot about these events and thought I'd "trained" her in recognising them, however, her first response, more recently, was to accept the veracity of a highly improbable and anomaly-ridden story by the ABC about students at a Western Sydney high school being taunted with racist insults as they left the stage mid-performance of an indigenous dance because the music had suddenly stopped.
I think of this friend as being a rational and reasonable person but, it seems, her "narrative" of the world blinds her to the evidence. When I spoke to her about how yes, of course, there is racism everywhere but nevertheless this story was obviously fake, she asked "How can you tell?" I responded that they make their stories similar to real ones - but with important differences, such as glaring anomalies and implausibilities, In my own case, I can now smell a fake story from the headline alone usually. I think the reason people's sense of smell is "turned off" in relation to these stories is that they cannot overcome the seeming implausibility that such made-up stories would appear in "respectable" media. This so reminds me of Germans trying to persuade their fellow countrymen that people were being murdered in the gas ovens and being ignored, rubbished and vilified because people simply couldn't believe it as well as because of the enormous power of the taboos around death. But I also wonder if people respond to stories that so well fit their "narrative" of the world. Critics of the ruling elite and the media speak often of the "narrative" they impose on us but what about the "narrative" we nurture ourselves? Having any kind of fixed narrative makes us vulnerable to the ruling elite because they play to it, they know about our "narrative" and they exploit it.
I've observed that people do not like having "their" narrative challenged - this is very dangerous. I am the only person I know of calling out Chelsea Manning as a fake whistleblower and the Collateral Murder video being a fake but not a single, solitary soul wants to know about this challenging of the "brave-transgender-whistleblower-Chelsea-sister-in-arms-with-Julian and video-of-shocking-murder-of-civilians-by-US-military" narrative - the irony is that even people who do not object to the alleged behaviour of the soldiers but interpret it as simply following the Rules of Engagement do not want the narrative challenged either, No one wants to know about it regardless of which side of the fence their "narrative" is on. People don't like being inconvenienced by facts at odds with their narrative even though it's the clear truth made very obvious to us by the perps. Isn't the truth supposed to be what Wikileaks is all about, the truth? The perps know us so well. They know that even when someone catches on that Chelsea and the video are fakes that those who allegedly want to help Julian - and presumably this information would help him - ignore it no matter how you try to push it in their face. No doubt they think it will make Julian look like a dupe and we can't have that but Julian is no more a dupe than any of us because it's made clear to all of us. You cannot afford to feel shame about and thus try to push away being duped by the power elite - it is an absolute given that they dupe us relentlessly. The best we can do is try and to keep trying to recognise it.
Gatekeepers
Gatekeepers are the people who have a certain standing as critics of the powers that be. We can see this type in the independent journalist, Caitlin Johnstone. While Caitlin is an excellent analyst in many ways, unfortunately, she falls into the "gatekeeper" profile. If it weren't for the gatekeeper profile, the power elite would be completely screwed but, so very fortunately, there are lots of gatekeepers keeping them nice and safe. How it is that gatekeepers such as John Pilger and Noam Chomsky never suddenly burst out of their gatekeeper skin and shout, "9/11 was an inside conspiracy" I do not know ... but they never, ever do and the power elite understand this phenomenon well enough to have the confidence it will never turn around and bite them. A gatekeeper practices what George Orwell refers to as "crimestop" in his novel, 1984.
“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc*, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”
*fictional political party of the totalitarian government of Oceania
Gatekeepers will go all out critiquing the powers that be in this and that way but stop short at recognising the most Emperor's New Clothes types of events such as the collapse of WTC-7 by perfect implosion on 9/11.
Don't believe a single word from the authorities by definition
This is my sister's profile and that of two friends. All three believe that astronauts did not land on the moon, are dubious about man-made climate change at best and recognise 9/11 as an inside conspiracy (two out of three wrong). When the thought occurred to me that Bill Kaysing, the first person to allege the moon landings were a hoax, may have been a CIA plant, hired to stir up those whose default position is to disbelieve government stories, in order to make them a laughing stock I started to doubt myself. Moon landing hoaxer a CIA plant? Surely not. You're in too deep now, Petra. The whole world is starting to look like one big conspiracy.
However, I consulted that trusty source, Wikipedia, (no sarcasm, it is, indeed, an excellent reference for matters regarding hoaxery) and found the following in Kaysing's entry:
Kaysing's daughter, Wendy L. Kaysing, has stated that along with Kaysing's nephew, Dietrich von Schmausen, she hopes to one day write a book about her father ... [with the] working title, ... Life and Times with "Wild" Bill Kaysing, the Fastest Pen in the West.[18]
Here is the first part of a talk, Alien Disclosure, by Professor Dietrich von Schmausen of the North American Institute for Xenobiological Research (of which no record outside this video).
Oh my goodness! My paranoid conspiracy-theory thought was validated by the CIA jumping out at me like an evil jack-in-the-box with a ridiculous book title and silly name, Sometimes, the fakery really gets to me (both of itself and the fact that it's so hard to persuade others of it) and then a fakery of an absurdly-named professor talking about an alien brain that the power elite throw in for their own amusement (and as the sign they are obliged to provide seemingly) will have me chortling for days and lift my spirits slightly even though I despise it all.
The opening line from Bill who allegedly worked for Rocketdyne, the company that designed the Saturn V rockets engines, in this interview is:
"The jet of a lunar module lander, the lunar lander would have created an enormous crater. It would have scoured the moon's surface, it would have tossed up rocks, sand, everything and created a crater so large that maybe the entire lunar lander could have sunk into it."
This is ludicrous. There is no sand on the moon and if Bill had worked for Rocketdyne he would know the exhaust from the lunar lander would have made only the barest of impacts. See Why is there no blast crater under the lunar module?
Ironically, the people who fit this profile are, in fact, just as easily brainwashed, if not moreso, than the rest of the population whom they refer to as "sheeple" and they actually interfere with the exposure of truth. They tar all of us, purely evidence-based thinkers and disbelievers alike with the Boy Who Cried Wolf brush. They are a laughing stock because they promote the moon hoax conspiracy theory and then when they're right about 9/11 being a psychological operation (psyop) their ability and that of the evidence-based thinkers to get the truth out is severely compromised. Wrong about moon landings, wrong about 9/11! I recently spoke to one of the two friends about 9/11 and he said that he thought it was "Israel" - exactly the propaganda the perps have smothered the truthers in - Israel's involvement. There is no doubt whatsoever that Israel was involved, at the very least to play "patsy" so to speak with the "Dancing Israelis" and the "Israeli art students" but the controlled opposition has pushed Israel to the absolute max as a distraction. It really doesn't matter how involved Israel was, the simple fact is that whichever entities were involved (and, really, it was an every-man-and-his-dog type orchestration ... cos it was, in reality, a massive "exercise" not a "false flag" per se), including Israel, it was all under the auspices of the US government and they are the culprits requiring target in the first instance.
To be continued
Blinded by one's "narrative"
I spoke to a friend about a staged event in Melbourne where police allegedly bashed a disabled pensioner. Although my friend was open to the concept of staged events, her reaction to my claim was that I was "defending the police". This annoyed me as my attitude when I'm analysing an event for signs of fakery is one of a single-minded sniffer dog - I have zero interest in who's involved, I'm just looking for signs of fakery. Prior to this I gave no sign whatsoever of "defending" the police in any shape or form. Before and since that event I have spoken to my friend a lot about these events and thought I'd "trained" her in recognising them, however, her first response, more recently, was to accept the veracity of a highly improbable and anomaly-ridden story by the ABC about students at a Western Sydney high school being taunted with racist insults as they left the stage mid-performance of an indigenous dance because the music had suddenly stopped.
I think of this friend as being a rational and reasonable person but, it seems, her "narrative" of the world blinds her to the evidence. When I spoke to her about how yes, of course, there is racism everywhere but nevertheless this story was obviously fake, she asked "How can you tell?" I responded that they make their stories similar to real ones - but with important differences, such as glaring anomalies and implausibilities, In my own case, I can now smell a fake story from the headline alone usually. I think the reason people's sense of smell is "turned off" in relation to these stories is that they cannot overcome the seeming implausibility that such made-up stories would appear in "respectable" media. This so reminds me of Germans trying to persuade their fellow countrymen that people were being murdered in the gas ovens and being ignored, rubbished and vilified because people simply couldn't believe it as well as because of the enormous power of the taboos around death. But I also wonder if people respond to stories that so well fit their "narrative" of the world. Critics of the ruling elite and the media speak often of the "narrative" they impose on us but what about the "narrative" we nurture ourselves? Having any kind of fixed narrative makes us vulnerable to the ruling elite because they play to it, they know about our "narrative" and they exploit it.
I've observed that people do not like having "their" narrative challenged - this is very dangerous. I am the only person I know of calling out Chelsea Manning as a fake whistleblower and the Collateral Murder video being a fake but not a single, solitary soul wants to know about this challenging of the "brave-transgender-whistleblower-Chelsea-sister-in-arms-with-Julian and video-of-shocking-murder-of-civilians-by-US-military" narrative - the irony is that even people who do not object to the alleged behaviour of the soldiers but interpret it as simply following the Rules of Engagement do not want the narrative challenged either, No one wants to know about it regardless of which side of the fence their "narrative" is on. People don't like being inconvenienced by facts at odds with their narrative even though it's the clear truth made very obvious to us by the perps. Isn't the truth supposed to be what Wikileaks is all about, the truth? The perps know us so well. They know that even when someone catches on that Chelsea and the video are fakes that those who allegedly want to help Julian - and presumably this information would help him - ignore it no matter how you try to push it in their face. No doubt they think it will make Julian look like a dupe and we can't have that but Julian is no more a dupe than any of us because it's made clear to all of us. You cannot afford to feel shame about and thus try to push away being duped by the power elite - it is an absolute given that they dupe us relentlessly. The best we can do is try and to keep trying to recognise it.
Gatekeepers
Gatekeepers are the people who have a certain standing as critics of the powers that be. We can see this type in the independent journalist, Caitlin Johnstone. While Caitlin is an excellent analyst in many ways, unfortunately, she falls into the "gatekeeper" profile. If it weren't for the gatekeeper profile, the power elite would be completely screwed but, so very fortunately, there are lots of gatekeepers keeping them nice and safe. How it is that gatekeepers such as John Pilger and Noam Chomsky never suddenly burst out of their gatekeeper skin and shout, "9/11 was an inside conspiracy" I do not know ... but they never, ever do and the power elite understand this phenomenon well enough to have the confidence it will never turn around and bite them. A gatekeeper practices what George Orwell refers to as "crimestop" in his novel, 1984.
“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc*, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”
*fictional political party of the totalitarian government of Oceania
Gatekeepers will go all out critiquing the powers that be in this and that way but stop short at recognising the most Emperor's New Clothes types of events such as the collapse of WTC-7 by perfect implosion on 9/11.
Don't believe a single word from the authorities by definition
This is my sister's profile and that of two friends. All three believe that astronauts did not land on the moon, are dubious about man-made climate change at best and recognise 9/11 as an inside conspiracy (two out of three wrong). When the thought occurred to me that Bill Kaysing, the first person to allege the moon landings were a hoax, may have been a CIA plant, hired to stir up those whose default position is to disbelieve government stories, in order to make them a laughing stock I started to doubt myself. Moon landing hoaxer a CIA plant? Surely not. You're in too deep now, Petra. The whole world is starting to look like one big conspiracy.
However, I consulted that trusty source, Wikipedia, (no sarcasm, it is, indeed, an excellent reference for matters regarding hoaxery) and found the following in Kaysing's entry:
Kaysing's daughter, Wendy L. Kaysing, has stated that along with Kaysing's nephew, Dietrich von Schmausen, she hopes to one day write a book about her father ... [with the] working title, ... Life and Times with "Wild" Bill Kaysing, the Fastest Pen in the West.[18]
Here is the first part of a talk, Alien Disclosure, by Professor Dietrich von Schmausen of the North American Institute for Xenobiological Research (of which no record outside this video).
Oh my goodness! My paranoid conspiracy-theory thought was validated by the CIA jumping out at me like an evil jack-in-the-box with a ridiculous book title and silly name, Sometimes, the fakery really gets to me (both of itself and the fact that it's so hard to persuade others of it) and then a fakery of an absurdly-named professor talking about an alien brain that the power elite throw in for their own amusement (and as the sign they are obliged to provide seemingly) will have me chortling for days and lift my spirits slightly even though I despise it all.
The opening line from Bill who allegedly worked for Rocketdyne, the company that designed the Saturn V rockets engines, in this interview is:
"The jet of a lunar module lander, the lunar lander would have created an enormous crater. It would have scoured the moon's surface, it would have tossed up rocks, sand, everything and created a crater so large that maybe the entire lunar lander could have sunk into it."
This is ludicrous. There is no sand on the moon and if Bill had worked for Rocketdyne he would know the exhaust from the lunar lander would have made only the barest of impacts. See Why is there no blast crater under the lunar module?
Ironically, the people who fit this profile are, in fact, just as easily brainwashed, if not moreso, than the rest of the population whom they refer to as "sheeple" and they actually interfere with the exposure of truth. They tar all of us, purely evidence-based thinkers and disbelievers alike with the Boy Who Cried Wolf brush. They are a laughing stock because they promote the moon hoax conspiracy theory and then when they're right about 9/11 being a psychological operation (psyop) their ability and that of the evidence-based thinkers to get the truth out is severely compromised. Wrong about moon landings, wrong about 9/11! I recently spoke to one of the two friends about 9/11 and he said that he thought it was "Israel" - exactly the propaganda the perps have smothered the truthers in - Israel's involvement. There is no doubt whatsoever that Israel was involved, at the very least to play "patsy" so to speak with the "Dancing Israelis" and the "Israeli art students" but the controlled opposition has pushed Israel to the absolute max as a distraction. It really doesn't matter how involved Israel was, the simple fact is that whichever entities were involved (and, really, it was an every-man-and-his-dog type orchestration ... cos it was, in reality, a massive "exercise" not a "false flag" per se), including Israel, it was all under the auspices of the US government and they are the culprits requiring target in the first instance.
To be continued
Widget is loading comments...
Proudly powered by Weebly