exploring how deep mind control goes

[Juliano]

In this thread I want to encourage exploration of how deep mind control goes. It is a subject that fascinates me, and I realize I have  been studying about many years before 9/11 happened, because I had a great interest in looking into mythology, especially after reading the book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, by John Allegro, and he revealed to me how ancient writers used the elitist invention of writing to secretly hide information for an initiated group whilst also manipulating the ones who did not have access to the hidden meanings.

As you will know, that is how the SECRET societies the ruling elite belong to operate. They derive from the ancient mystery schools where initiates had to make serious oaths -on pain of death-not to divulge any information they learn to the 'profane'.

This is exactly how the corporate advertising world works also. Groups get together and devise ways and means how to get people to buy stuff they don't need, to take drugs and feel liberated, and go to war, and send their kids to war etc. All of this works on a similar formula of FEAR and SOLUTION. First create a fear in peoples minds, and then pretend to offer the solution to it.

Let us see how this can work in mythology. I am not anti-mythology, I am anti TOXIC mythology. natural mythology is creative, and usually benign. We are story tellers. Daydream, and be aware that you are naturally imagining scenes, stories. Same when we go to sleep, we dream. Same with psychedelic experience. Life is a real mystery, and peoples anciently have created stories to explore the ambiguous mystery of life.

But when it goes toxic is when it becomes mind control and seeks to divide and control for some elite who is pushing the stories. Take the biblical 'creation' story'. What are people's interpretations of that myth?

[yankeedoodle]

It begins almost at birth.  If you can isolate yourself and try to become tranquil, and force your mind to break through the scar tissue in your brain, you can see it, and who did it.  In the western world, it's often the parent - or the child "psychologist", teacher, coach, doctor, priest, etc. -  that thwarts a child's natural potential for their own purposes.

If you see pictures of remote African villages, where they live in grass huts and scratch the earth for nutrition, what you will often see is many children with big smiles on their faces, developing naturally and so happy to be doing so.  Would you find such happiness in a similar group of western children?  Not very likely. 

[Ognir]

Mind control and taking things for granted, never asking why, will discuss on next show, when ever that will be

[Juliano]

Let's hope some of the things explored here may be useful as material for your show then


Yes mind control starts early with kindergarten, and also of course your parents. But  rather than being all puritanical where ANYTHING could be classed as mind control, I am more meaning mind control which divides you from your body and nature, and this is clearly recorded in the biblical 'creation myth'

Example, because the first created humans DISOBEYED 'GOD' = AUTHORITY, that this brought death into paradise. This implies that 'death' is wrong! For if it is suggested that the garden of eden was a place where there was no death, then this blames us for living in a world which includes death. So right there is the formula that is used, even to this day by the advertising industry, and false flaggers--FEAR and SOLUTION
In the Judeo-Christian myths we are blamed for death, evil, being born in sin. And from there their SOLUTION is following their authority. it is fear-based mind control. YET many researchers into 'the Illuminati' and all the other labels rarely look at their OWN belief as mind control! That is what I try and point out also, because doing so can only deepen our understanding of the mind control being down by the culture now, which includes scientism. Cause this era has supposedly evolved past the 'age of religion and superstition' right, and now is in the age of reason and science. BUT the same old crap continues as we know in a world that is more and more and more insane! This is because we are not really understanding the deeper meaning of our mythological nature

[Juliano]

what do you mean by this: "This is because we are not really understanding the deeper meaning of our mythological nature" ?

That we are deep beings. When we dream we dream in stories. Mythologies are dreamlike where all kinds of surreal happenings can coincide. Mythology -in its benign aspects- explores how there cannot be life without death and regeneration. Toxic mythology tries to make out that life is against death. The former is mysterious because the conceptual mind can't grasp it. The conceptual mind is into MEASURE, and analysis. It takes words like 'life' and 'death' and then imagines they ARE separate because his thinking has created to abstract terms to describe two extremes of experience. There is no sense of ambiguity, merging, and how life and death are like warp and woof. Benign mythology explores this mystery though art, images, song, dance, and the taking of psychedelic sacraments. When you ingest psychedelics the usual conditioning you've had from this culture of 'subject' versus 'object' dissolves. You have entered a mythical realm, a Dreamtime. The Christians demonized this experience and this 'scientific' culture pathologizes it.

[Christopher Marlowe]

I think that if one is to make a scientific study, then it is important to be rigorous. Asking wide ranging questions like "How does mind control work?" can be attacked piecemeal in very specific studies of cognitive science and human behavior.  How do we "not see" things? How are we made to forget, obey, conform, etc...

On the other hand, if one is just going to forward his own principles, dressed up as a "study", then it isn't really science, is it?  Someone believes that "death is good and natural", and that therefore the religion which says it is not is wrong? And what does this have to do with mind control? How was that shown? By that "proof", just about any idea is mind control.

The obvious error here is that you are taking a philosophical question and conceiving that your unproven assumption is correct, and that the opposite view is therefore "mind control". This is not helpful or educational.  How would anything be "proven" by this method?

A better tack is to take something known to be a LIE, and show how this is imposed upon society: e.g. the holohoax, 9/11, the moon hoax.

Cognitive science is replete with studies showing gaps in our cognition. Most propaganda techniques are used to manipulate these gaps. For example, take "Anchoring". This describes the brain's method of giving primacy to the story first heard. It is natural that the learning mind will add information to the story that it already knows.

The Propaganda  Technique is therefore to be the first story heard. This was seen on 9/11 as we were quickly fed the LIES about the hijackers with the boxcutters, the harley guy explaining how the buildings fell; the israeli prime minister on BBC coining the term "global war on terror", etc...

Mind control is basically pairing Cognitive science with propaganda.

[yankeedoodle]

The Propaganda  Technique is therefore to be the first story heard. This was seen on 9/11 as we were quickly fed the LIES about the hijackers with the boxcutters, the harley guy explaining how the buildings fell; the israeli prime minister on BBC coining the term "global war on terror", etc...

This is so incredibly true.  Yankee Doodle, to this day, is so pissed off that he fell victim to the propaganda bullshit on 911. 

Having been to New York several times, Yankee Doodle had - this is the TRUTH - looked up at those 1,000+ foot buildings straddling either side of the streets and avenues, and wondered if it was possible to do controlled demolitions of such tall buildings in such tight spaces.  TRUE.  So, now comes 911, and, seeing the towers implode, Yankee Doodle thought to himself "well, if if those towers can fall straight down because of that, they can surely be imploded by controlled demolition."  Believe it or not, that is the absolute TRUTH.

But, of course, despite the beginning of a critical analysis - the next thought might have been "hey, wait a minute, asymmetrical damage can't create symmetrical collapse" or "hey, wait a minute, there's no way they would ever be allowed to build those towers if a fucking plane or fire would knock them down", or "hey, wait a minute, those WERE controlled demolitions" - Yankee Doodle did NO MORE THINKING that day - well, he did think "that's blowback for supporting fucking Israhell" - because he glued his fucking eyes to the TV all day, and suspended all thinking, and allowed all their bullshit to flood into his brain and clog up his mental gears. 

A few days later, somebody said "What did you think of that", and all Yankee Doodle could say was "I don't know."  So, there was obviously a lot of subconscious suspicion, but it had been smothered by the propaganda bullshit.

So, as the war propaganda became intense, Yankee Doodle, disgusted with the US media, got a shortwave radio to try to find some truth in foreign news reports, and he found RBN - and, he's embarrassed to admit, All-excrement Jones - and, the VERY FIRST TIME he heard somebody discuss 911 he IMMEDIATELY accepted it as truth.  All that was needed was a few comments to restart the thinking process that had been suspended on 911.   

Yankee Doodle was - and still is - so fucking pissed off that 4 or 5 years went by before his mind started working, but, of course, had he recognized the truth immediately on 911, he might have been so angry that he might have done something that...well, who knows what might have happened. 

[Juliano]

I think that if one is to make a scientific study, then it is important to be rigorous. Asking wide ranging questions like "How does mind control work?" can be attacked piecemeal in very specific studies of cognitive science and human behavior.  How do we "not see" things? How are we made to forget, obey, conform, etc...

On the other hand, if one is just going to forward his own principles, dressed up as a "study", then it isn't really science, is it?  Someone believes that "death is good and natural", and that therefore the religion which says it is not is wrong? And what does this have to do with mind control? How was that shown? By that "proof", just about any idea is mind control.

The obvious error here is that you are taking a philosophical question and conceiving that your unproven assumption is correct, and that the opposite view is therefore "mind control". This is not helpful or educational.  How would anything be "proven" by this method?

A better tack is to take something known to be a LIE, and show how this is imposed upon society: e.g. the holohoax, 9/11, the moon hoax.

Cognitive science is replete with studies showing gaps in our cognition. Most propaganda techniques are used to manipulate these gaps. For example, take "Anchoring". This describes the brain's method of giving primacy to the story first heard. It is natural that the learning mind will add information to the story that it already knows.

The Propaganda  Technique is therefore to be the first story heard. This was seen on 9/11 as we were quickly fed the LIES about the hijackers with the boxcutters, the harley guy explaining how the buildings fell; the israeli prime minister on BBC coining the term "global war on terror", etc...

Mind control is basically pairing Cognitive science with propaganda.

Fiorst of all I am not pretending to do a 'rigorous scientific study' if that is what you meant? I will not be demanded by the scientific worldview to OBEY THEIR AUTHORITY, because all that has happened in the change of paradigms from the 'age of religion' to the 'age of science'--where we are at now, is the demand of obedience has transferred from the 'God' to the 'Man' who 'knows science', and that of course includes the so-called ( I don't call them this) 'scientists of the mind, the shrinks and psychologists

The way I go about communication is, I am not trying to pass some scientific test, or impress people who think they are superior in 'education' (I don't mean you by the way). I am talking to ALL people, including people who are not scientifically-minded, or have degrees in cognitive science or what have you. we ALL live in the world, and I protest the idea that because you not believing a certain religion, or do science that you cannot explore and talk about life, reality, mind control, 9/11, and consciousness.

In order to really understand mind control which is an ONGOING exploration, it is best to keep things simple, otherwise the 'complexity' they throw at you (the gatekeepers LIKE shrinks and psychologists for example) will only be further mind control. Psychologists and psychiatrists are the masters of using words as oppressive mind control. They are mind control CENTRAL. They label you and your children with labels/words and deem you 'mentally ill' without any real medical scientific evidence, and people, because they/we are drilled to OBEY AUTHORITY in the 'education' system, obey and take their pills etc! So I AM questioning their aauthority, like I question the authority behind 9/11, JFK, Oklahoma Building Bombing, 7/7, Sandy Hook, etc etc etc etc. I encourage THE QUESTIONING OF ALL AUTHORITARIAN STRUCTURES including, as I began, the ancient mythologies which I am trying to reveal all are based on fear-based mind control tactics. To create a false fear in you and then proffer a false solution, and thus hooking you to their false authority.

[Juliano]

Yankee Doodle was - and still is - so fucking pissed off that 4 or 5 years went by before his mind started working, but, of course, had he recognized the truth immediately on 911, he might have been so angry that he might have done something that...well, who knows what might have happened.

ALL of us have been on all kinds of interesting journeys since 9/11. I certainly have. I was, at one point, few years ago, sucked into the disinfo so-called 'no planes theory' and have also been sucked into the Judy Woods DEW theories. In a WAY getting lost in a theory or belief you later come out thinking false is a way to really explore it, because at the time you have no bias towards it, and so really dive in.
But this has been part of my journey. A reason I got into the NPT was that Nico Haupt amused and fascinated me. and was also coming from an artistic perspective, and I am an artist, and so I was seduced lol

[yankeedoodle]

I was, at one point, few years ago, sucked into the disinfo so-called 'no planes theory' and have also been sucked into the Judy Woods DEW theories.

Great sign that you saw that energy weapon/NPT disinfo bullshit for what it is - disinfo bullshit. 

What the enemy - of course, some may not be enemy, and actually believe their own bullshit - seems to have done is to have been able to depict the controlled demolition/thermite truth as the "official story", which, of course, prompts those who are devoted to free thinking and wary of being attached to the "official story" to explore other ideas.  Some will wise up, of course, and others will be lost.

Yankee Doodle is disgusted in recent years to listen to trusted people on the radio being drawn to these new "theories", particularly Judy "you didn't read my book" Woods.   

[Juliano]

Yankee Doodle is disgusted in recent years to listen to trusted people on the radio being drawn to these new "theories", particularly Judy "you didn't read my book" Woods.   

LOL  That is something that VERY fks me off too. When someone says 'read my books'. I mean, shit, when I am having this kind of communication it is basically meant to be CONVERSATION. We HAVE read things etc etc etc and it is a cop out to suddenly put someone down or get out of actually putting yourself on the line by saying that, I tell people it is a crap move

Jan Irvin is the worst (if you have heard of this character). he is always going on with 'HAVE YOU NOT READ MY CITATIONS?!!!" What a dick!

Anyway so continuing.  The reason I feel the need to go deep into this subject of mind control is because it is ancient and begins with the patriarchal use of writing. In this way they can use the mind control through the generations because children have to read it, You've seen the kids in orthodox religious communities having to read the 'holy texts', and some can get beaten if they resist in any way

OUR culture does it via its 'education' system. Kid HAVE to go to these schools or else they get a load of trouble, and even their parents can be fines and even sent to jail if they don't attend, so there is MASSIVE pressure to go.

I HATED school with a vengeance. Today if some kids don't 'fit in' they are even pushed drugs like ritalin which is a posh name for SPEED
That is MIND CONTROL!!!

The subjects the mostly promote, reading, math, writing--are leftbrain subjects. Subjects like art, music, drama, dancing are right at the bottom of the curriculum if at all, and Ecology doesn't even exist as a subject in most schools

[Christopher Marlowe]

Fiorst of all I am not pretending to do a 'rigorous scientific study' if that is what you meant? I will not be demanded by the scientific worldview to OBEY THEIR AUTHORITY, because all that has happened in the change of paradigms from the 'age of religion' to the 'age of science'--where we are at now, is the demand of obedience has transferred from the 'God' to the 'Man' who 'knows science', and that of course includes the so-called ( I don't call them this) 'scientists of the mind, the shrinks and psychologists

I think you need to go back and re-read my post because I don't think you understood it. There appears to be a hang-up on certain words and philosophies that inhibit the ability to grasp a message.

When I talk about a scientific study, how does that require you to obey an authority? Do you understand what the scientific method is? Anyone can perform a rigorous scientific study, and it is the nature of science that these results can be reproduced. People with different ideologies will still have the same results. People who have different philosophies or governments will have the same results.

Personally, I don't believe many things that are promoted by people calling themselves "scientists".  For example, I think that the vaccine industry is fueled by statistical fallacies. Ditto with global warming.

The way I go about communication is, I am not trying to pass some scientific test, or impress people who think they are superior in 'education' (I don't mean you by the way). I am talking to ALL people, including people who are not scientifically-minded, or have degrees in cognitive science or what have you. we ALL live in the world, and I protest the idea that because you not believing a certain religion, or do science that you cannot explore and talk about life, reality, mind control, 9/11, and consciousness.

I don't know what this means. Certainly people who don't have degrees can talk about things and add to the discussion. But what is being communicated? Is it people's emotions? I don't care about that. I am interested in REASON. My emotions can vary based on what I just ate, or whether my girlfriend is talking to me, or how much sleep I had. It doesn't MEAN anything. If an uneducated layperson has a relevant FACT, then I am interested. 

I think we should all be interested in talking to ALL people. But facts are different from opinions, and there standards can be established for discerning whether something is true.

I do believe that there are CONCEPTS that can be true, but which are not provable. But at this juncture the discussion cannot precede as scientific. Science is only a lower form of knowledge that discerns "positive" information.  It is a fallacy to assume that everything TRUE can be perceived sensually.

Beyond science, something may be proven by reason. I can propose that there is a CONCEPT, which has these certain parameters. Something that lay outside those parameters would therefore be inconsistent with that concept.  Here were are still dealing with something being true or false. And beyond that, I am not interested.

In order to really understand mind control which is an ONGOING exploration, it is best to keep things simple, otherwise the 'complexity' they throw at you (the gatekeepers LIKE shrinks and psychologists for example) will only be further mind control. Psychologists and psychiatrists are the masters of using words as oppressive mind control. They are mind control CENTRAL. They label you and your children with labels/words and deem you 'mentally ill' without any real medical scientific evidence, and people, because they/we are drilled to OBEY AUTHORITY in the 'education' system, obey and take their pills etc!

1. Although psychologists psychiatrists are the ones "examining" our minds and prescribing the drugs, I don't think they are the ones in charge. An automobile is controlled by the tires, but there is an engine that drives it, and a driver behind the wheel.

2. I don't understand what is complex about what I wrote. Nor do I agree that something which is complicated is more likely to be "mind control". In fact, I would argue that slogans passing for a "simple" message are very often crafted for the purposes of mind control. If a person cannot understand a concept, that doesn't make the concept untrue. There are many thing that are true, and which some people cannot understand. This is why some people do not pass their classes.

3. Here you also seem to be contradicting yourself: i.e. "without any real medical scientific evidence" vs "I am not pretending to do a 'rigorous scientific study'".  I don't pretend to be a scientist, but I can appreciate consistency. Consistency is an aspect of truth.

I agree that psychiatry seems to be a lot of psychobable, but as your post suggests, it is possible to make scientific studies that prove certain things about the human brain, or the way that the mind perceives. This goes back to what I proposed in my post: that mind control is simply manipulating the known patterns and deficits in common human cognition.

Your answer seems to have trouble with this point, and perhaps you need to define your terms better. I find that people often rely on words or phrases that have a vague association for them, but which is not shared by other people. This can result in a disagreement where the fault is only that a term was never properly defined.

Take the phrase "Mind Control". What does this mean? I would define mind control as the manipulation of a person's thoughts for the purpose of controlling them. By manipulation, I mean that a person arrives at a false belief without the aid of reason.

So I AM questioning their aauthority, like I question the authority behind 9/11, JFK, Oklahoma Building Bombing, 7/7, Sandy Hook, etc etc etc etc. I encourage THE QUESTIONING OF ALL AUTHORITARIAN STRUCTURES including, as I began, the ancient mythologies which I am trying to reveal all are based on fear-based mind control tactics. To create a false fear in you and then proffer a false solution, and thus hooking you to their false authority.

Here is another odd term that I don't understand: "authority".  You question the "authority" behind 9/11? What does that mean?  Do you mean to say "validity"?  Let's say there is a valid committee that was created to study 9/11, or to investigate the JFK assassination. The constitution gives Congress the power to create courts inferior to the Supreme Court. Such a court would have subpoena power, etc...  (I have not investigated the creation of these committees so I cannot argue either way.) If they were validly created, then I would say that they possessed "authority".  But the Warren Commission and the 9/11 commission certainly were incorrect in their findings. So I would say their results were invalid, even if their authority was valid. It is nonsense to say that invalid results removes authority, or that authority guarantees correct results.

If a group of people all share a common belief, that does not mean that they are being mind controlled. If a person respects authority, that does not mean that he is mind controlled. Conversely, if a group of people cannot agree and are constantly at strife, then this does NOT prove that they are free from mind control. Or if a person refuses to obey authority,  he could still be under mind control.

In short, you seem to be confusing "authority" with "mind control". 

In the education of the very young, parents tell them TRUE things, but do not always explain why. The children OBEY their parents because that this the natural and good way to raise children. This is not mind control. Small children lack the ability to reason, and are easily confused. The parent needs to teach the child right from wrong. It is self-evident that the parents have AUTHORITY over the child. 

I think that people accept authority all of the time, especially when it is to their benefit: Contracts grant authority to arbitration; groups vote for leadership; etc... People also usurp authority unlawfully. For example, I don't believe George Bush was ever elected president.

I believe that our modern reaction against all authority is Jewish inspired, and it is meant to destroy nations. The Jews do not recognize any state except israel, so they destroy all the others. The endless destruction of authority in this country has not made things better, but quite worse IMHO. Teachers don't have authority over unruly classes; mobs of youths roam about and attack innocent people, playing the "knockout game".  Courts do not respect the authority of the Natural Law. Our government does not respect the authority of the constitution. All of this questioning of authority is leading us straight into hell.

But as I said, this question of authority is a separate one from "mind control". Mind control might cause someone to wrongfully grant another power over their person/property, but I would not say that every time we give another power, or recognize another's lawful power, that we are being "mind controlled". I could create a lawful Trust, and deliver money over to the power of a Trustee. If I did that with informed consent, then the Trust is lawful. Mind control has nothing to do with that. It is a separate issue.

[yankeedoodle]

I believe that our modern reaction against all authority is Jewish inspired, and it is meant to destroy nations. The Jews do not recognize any state except israel, so they destroy all the others.

So true.  But, now we have the problem where the fucking jews have established themselves as authority figures - Dershowitz, and the neo-cons, and all these fucking "intellectuals" and book peddlers - so, somehow, the contempt for authority instilled by the jews must now be applied to the jews, and we must hurry, because they are busy passing laws - hate crime laws - and establishing cultural taboos - the anti-semitism bullshit - that form a castle and moat around their positions of "authority". 

[Juliano]

When I talk about a scientific study, how does that require you to obey an authority? Do you understand what the scientific method is? Anyone can perform a rigorous scientific study, and it is the nature of science that these results can be reproduced. People with different ideologies will still have the same results. People who have different philosophies or governments will have the same results.

Personally, I don't believe many things that are promoted by people calling themselves "scientists".  For example, I think that the vaccine industry is fueled by statistical fallacies. Ditto with global warming. 

Well there you go then. You question their authority even when supposedly backed up by science. We agree on that. The current scientific myth is materialism. I cannot do, and would choose not to do, a scientific method to prove it is wrong, but I feel it deeply and reasonably to be wrong, and that is all I need.

Certainly people who don't have degrees can talk about things and add to the discussion. But what is being communicated? Is it people's emotions? I don't care about that. I am interested in REASON. My emotions can vary based on what I just ate, or whether my girlfriend is talking to me, or how much sleep I had. It doesn't MEAN anything. If an uneducated layperson has a relevant FACT, then I am interested. 

I think we should all be interested in talking to ALL people. But facts are different from opinions, and there standards can be established for discerning whether something is true. 

lol the old Reason versus instinct, emotions trip? I don't agree. I think it is very patronizing to people who do not have a scientific worldview to just call them emotional and not having reason. IF exploring mind control you have to also see through the 'logos versus mythos' mind control. That is VERY important, because mind control is targeted at your deeper being which has been called, in psychological circles, 'the unconscious' or 'unconsciousness' and in these realms reason is not so stiff and rigid and dichotomous. This realm is more the mythical realm where ambiguity reigns, not hard-nosed 'facts'. Even the author Charles Dickens was onto the mindset who insisted on facts and nothing BUT facts. In the beginning of his book Hard Times, his character Mr Gradgrind says 

NOW, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!' (1.1.1)

He of course represents the cold hard un-feeling industrialization of those 'hard' times.

I do believe that there are CONCEPTS that can be true, but which are not provable. But at this juncture the discussion cannot precede as scientific. Science is only a lower form of knowledge that discerns "positive" information.  It is a fallacy to assume that everything TRUE can be perceived sensually.

I do not separate sensuality from reason like you seem to. Reason is a natural part of our being and people who are not scientific also use reason, as do animals.

1. Although psychologists psychiatrists are the ones "examining" our minds and prescribing the drugs, I don't think they are the ones in charge. An automobile is controlled by the tires, but there is an engine that drives it, and a driver behind the wheel.

hah! When a child, who is defenseless against the insane grownups around them is deemed to be 'ADHD' and pushed drugs they are very much in charge of the kid's life at the time!

2. I don't understand what is complex about what I wrote. Nor do I agree that something which is complicated is more likely to be "mind control". In fact, I would argue that slogans passing for a "simple" message are very often crafted for the purposes of mind control. If a person cannot understand a concept, that doesn't make the concept untrue. There are many thing that are true, and which some people cannot understand. This is why some people do not pass their classes.

It is difficult to explain. Of course I understand complexity, BUT there is also the need to see things simply. Take the example of war propaganda. Do I have to read a 1000 page book to dig how they do it? Not really. it is a 'getting it'. Flexibility is more important. See a bigger picture.

I agree that psychiatry seems to be a lot of psychobable, but as your post suggests, it is possible to make scientific studies that prove certain things about the human brain, or the way that the mind perceives. This goes back to what I proposed in my post: that mind control is simply manipulating the known patterns and deficits in common human cognition.

WHO makes these 'scientific studies'. What is the power structure supporting these 'studies'? Who is funding them? This is seeing the bigger picture.

Take the phrase "Mind Control". What does this mean? I would define mind control as the manipulation of a person's thoughts for the purpose of controlling them. By manipulation, I mean that a person arrives at a false belief without the aid of reason.

But also they can be thinking they are using reason and it still be mind control. Atheists will reason there is no 'God' and then presume there is not spirit in nature. get me?

Here is another odd term that I don't understand: "authority".  You question the "authority" behind 9/11? What does that mean?  Do you mean to say "validity"?  Let's say there is a valid committee that was created to study 9/11, or to investigate the JFK assassination. The constitution gives Congress the power to create courts inferior to the Supreme Court. Such a court would have subpoena power, etc...  (I have not investigated the creation of these committees so I cannot argue either way.) If they were validly created, then I would say that they possessed "authority".  But the Warren Commission and the 9/11 commission certainly were incorrect in their findings. So I would say their results were invalid, even if their authority was valid. It is nonsense to say that invalid results removes authority, or that authority guarantees correct results.

Surely the tern derives from 'author'. So an author presumes an author-ity, because words are taken to be more real than reality? Isn't the Bible the 'Word of God' and this 'word' is supposed to be superior to IMAGES? When they call you a 'conspiracy theorist' when you try and reason with someone who believes the official version of 9/11, they are imposing their authority over you.

If a group of people all share a common belief, that does not mean that they are being mind controlled. If a person respects authority, that does not mean that he is mind controlled. Conversely, if a group of people cannot agree and are constantly at strife, then this does NOT prove that they are free from mind control. Or if a person refuses to obey authority,  he could still be under mind control

In short, you seem to be confusing "authority" with "mind control".  .

I recommend you read The Guru papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power. it is surprising the various mind controls you can get sucked into

In the education of the very young, parents tell them TRUE things, but do not always explain why. The children OBEY their parents because that this the natural and good way to raise children. This is not mind control. Small children lack the ability to reason, and are easily confused. The parent needs to teach the child right from wrong. It is self-evident that the parents have AUTHORITY over the child. 

yes, maybe authoritarian is a better term.

I think that people accept authority all of the time, especially when it is to their benefit: Contracts grant authority to arbitration; groups vote for leadership; etc... People also usurp authority unlawfully. For example, I don't believe George Bush was ever elected president.

it is always best to question ANY authority. If there is resistance it is authoritarian.

I believe that our modern reaction against all authority is Jewish inspired, and it is meant to destroy nations. The Jews do not recognize any state except israel, so they destroy all the others. The endless destruction of authority in this country has not made things better, but quite worse IMHO. Teachers don't have authority over unruly classes; mobs of youths roam about and attack innocent people, playing the "knockout game".  Courts do not respect the authority of the Natural Law. Our government does not respect the authority of the constitution. All of this questioning of authority is leading us straight into hell.

So you think the Church was where it was at where if you were believed to be a heretic they'd burn you to death?

But as I said, this question of authority is a separate one from "mind control". Mind control might cause someone to wrongfully grant another power over their person/property, but I would not say that every time we give another power, or recognize another's lawful power, that we are being "mind controlled". I could create a lawful Trust, and deliver money over to the power of a Trustee. If I did that with informed consent, then the Trust is lawful. Mind control has nothing to do with that. It is a separate issue.

From my experience of this world--trusting 'lawful power' etc it has been a fukin mis-take. School was a mistake for example. And I later have learned it was set up to oppress us.

[Christopher Marlowe]

Well there you go then. You question their authority even when supposedly backed up by science. We agree on that. The current scientific myth is materialism. I cannot do, and would choose not to do, a scientific method to prove it is wrong, but I feel it deeply and reasonably to be wrong, and that is all I need.

Authority has NOTHING to do with a valid scientific study.
The whole point of science is that a valid study can be done by anyone, and results can be duplicated by anyone.
Contrarily, a person or group with authority can create a face study that is not scientific.
The validity of the findings has nothing to do with authority. 

Something might supposedly be backed up by science, but if it has be faked, this can be scientifically proven. Science is not magic.

If you are saying that there are things that are TRUE, but cannot be proven by science, I would agree. I would also agree that there is a trend towards materialism, which pretends that everything can be proven by science. In modern times, science has been given to much credit, and has overtaken theology. Science belongs only in the realm of the natural sciences.

Certainly people who don't have degrees can talk about things and add to the discussion. But what is being communicated? Is it people's emotions? I don't care about that. I am interested in REASON. My emotions can vary based on what I just ate, or whether my girlfriend is talking to me, or how much sleep I had. It doesn't MEAN anything. If an uneducated layperson has a relevant FACT, then I am interested. 

I think we should all be interested in talking to ALL people. But facts are different from opinions, and there standards can be established for discerning whether something is true. 

lol the old Reason versus instinct, emotions trip? I don't agree. I think it is very patronizing to people who do not have a scientific worldview to just call them emotional and not having reason.

You are changing what I said. I don't know if you have a problem with reading or if English is your second language, but I find that I have to repeat myself continuously. I did not say that people who do not have a scientific worldview are emotional and lack reason. I said that I was not interested in emotion, but that I was interested in facts. It was you who began this distinction between educated persons and uneducated persons. Part of becoming educated is learning to REASON. A child does not know how to reason, and so he becomes easily confused, or he might run around in a parking lot.

If a person FEELS that another person is bad, but he can't prove it, then he might do well to heed his own INSTINCTS. Instincts might be valid, or they might be invalid. Sometimes we ignore our instincts to our own peril.  But one cannot go to court an accuse someone based on instincts. There was an old movie called "The Ox Bow Incident", where a lynch mob hangs some men accused to murder and cattle rustling. After they were hung, it turned out that the man thought to be murdered was not even dead. So the men were hung based on WRONG INSTINCT. In a court we rely on facts. We cannot convince others based on emotions; those are personal to us. Facts are what we use when we talk to other people.

IF exploring mind control you have to also see through the 'logos versus mythos' mind control. That is VERY important, because mind control is targeted at your deeper being which has been called, in psychological circles, 'the unconscious' or 'unconsciousness' and in these realms reason is not so stiff and rigid and dichotomous. This realm is more the mythical realm where ambiguity reigns, not hard-nosed 'facts'. Even the author Charles Dickens was onto the mindset who insisted on facts and nothing BUT facts. In the beginning of his book Hard Times, his character Mr Gradgrind says 

NOW, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!' (1.1.1)

He of course represents the cold hard un-feeling industrialization of those 'hard' times.

A FACT can be true, but not provable sensually. An emotion can be deeply felt and completely untrue. Someone can become viciously angry because he hasn't eaten, or because someone insulted the holohoax. These emotions may be strongly felt, but they don't mean anything. It is foolish to base a system of thought on emotion. That are transient, and not trustworthy.

The underlying philosophy of any society is vitally important, but I am not interested in a philosophy that assumes that nothing makes sense, or that everything is subjective. These ways of thinking go nowhere and are contrary to "thinking".  Ultimately, these types of philosophies resort to a rejection of logic; i.e. the law of non-contradiction.

I do believe that there are CONCEPTS that can be true, but which are not provable. But at this juncture the discussion cannot precede as scientific. Science is only a lower form of knowledge that discerns "positive" information.  It is a fallacy to assume that everything TRUE can be perceived sensually.

I do not separate sensuality from reason like you seem to. Reason is a natural part of our being and people who are not scientific also use reason, as do animals.

Here we go again. You seem to be having a conversation with yourself, and replying to what you wish I had said. I did not separate reason from "sensuality" because I didn't even use that word. I didn't even separate reason from "sensual" knowledge.

"Sensual" means "Relating to or affecting any of the senses or a sense organ; sensory."
"Sensuality" means "The quality or state of being sensual or lascivious."

I'm talking about human senses that can be measured positively. We can prove things scientifically based on these positive proofs. I can measure a liquid in a beaker and discern its volume. So that thing which is discerned though my human SENSES can be proven using REASON. I did not make a separation.

My point was that there are things which can be true, but are not able to be measured or proven positively in this manner. There may be a CONCEPT, which is beyond anyone's ability to measure or to prove positively, but which is true nonetheless. 

I was not referring to "sensuality".
I agree that reason is part of our nature. We are rational creatures. I did not say that people who are not "scientific" do not use reason. You keep interjecting this distinction. I don't know what you mean by a "scientific" person. I think that people who pretend to be using "science" are not actually doing so, but are merely presenting propaganda under a disguise. I know that anyone above the "age of reason" can do so, and should. I was only saying that I am not interested in any philosophy that is divorced from reason. 

hah! When a child, who is defenseless against the insane grownups around them is deemed to be 'ADHD' and pushed drugs they are very much in charge of the kid's life at the time!

I'm beginning to think that you are just an argumentative person, and so you isolate a quote out of context in order to score points. The subject is "mind control".
You said "

Psychologists and psychiatrists are the masters of using words as oppressive mind control. They are mind control CENTRAL.

"

To which I replied,

1. Although psychologists psychiatrists are the ones "examining" our minds and prescribing the drugs, I don't think they are the ones in charge. An automobile is controlled by the tires, but there is an engine that drives it, and a driver behind the wheel.

So to take your example: A psych prescribing drugs to a kid is "controlling" the kid's life, certainly. But I wouldn't say the psych is mind control central. The idea does not originate with the "American Psychological Association".  IMHO, they are cogs in the machine. They are the tires on the car.

2. I don't understand what is complex about what I wrote. Nor do I agree that something which is complicated is more likely to be "mind control". In fact, I would argue that slogans passing for a "simple" message are very often crafted for the purposes of mind control. If a person cannot understand a concept, that doesn't make the concept untrue. There are many thing that are true, and which some people cannot understand. This is why some people do not pass their classes.

It is difficult to explain. Of course I understand complexity, BUT there is also the need to see things simply. Take the example of war propaganda. Do I have to read a 1000 page book to dig how they do it? Not really. it is a 'getting it'. Flexibility is more important. See a bigger picture.

First you imply that my answer was complex, or overly complex, without giving a single example. Then when I question your premise, you merely repeat your initial point. Did my answer involve a 1,000 page book? What is the bigger picture that I am missing?  You can't avoid explaining something by saying "see a bigger picture". That doesn't mean anything. Of course things don't need to be any more complicated than what is necessary. That is obvious. My reply was to you statement:

In order to really understand mind control which is an ONGOING exploration, it is best to keep things simple, otherwise the 'complexity' they throw at you (the gatekeepers LIKE shrinks and psychologists for example) will only be further mind control.

You were making a connection between Mind control and Complexity. I was saying that simplicity can be used for mind control as well. There is a trend here where you make a connection that is false; then I point this out; then you evade the issue by replying to some point that I didn't make.

I agree that psychiatry seems to be a lot of psychobable, but as your post suggests, it is possible to make scientific studies that prove certain things about the human brain, or the way that the mind perceives. This goes back to what I proposed in my post: that mind control is simply manipulating the known patterns and deficits in common human cognition.

WHO makes these 'scientific studies'. What is the power structure supporting these 'studies'? Who is funding them? This is seeing the bigger picture.

When my brother was in college, he worked on various cognitive science studies; e.g. one that measured response time to a given stimulus. The professor in charge of the study wrote a paper and my brother got credit. There are people who study cognitive science in order to understand and model how the brain functions. At the university level, these are funded through the Psychology  department, and are fairly inexpensive.  The DOD and other shady operatives also do cognitive science studies (MK ULTRA), but I think that a lot of those results are not available to the public.

Anyone can do a scientific study, but it would probably be easier to publish if one is attached to a university.

There is another trend here in your responses: that something "scientific" is not to be trusted. This is ridiculous. If a study is bogus, then rigorous science will prove that out. I think that you are prejudging cognitive science without any understanding of what it means.

Take the phrase "Mind Control". What does this mean? I would define mind control as the manipulation of a person's thoughts for the purpose of controlling them. By manipulation, I mean that a person purposefully causes another to arrive at a false belief without the aid of reason.

But also they can be thinking they are using reason and it still be mind control. Atheists will reason there is no 'God' and then presume there is not spirit in nature. get me?

I changed the definition slightly to account for this exception.

Here is another odd term that I don't understand: "authority".  You question the "authority" behind 9/11? What does that mean?  Do you mean to say "validity"?  Let's say there is a valid committee that was created to study 9/11, or to investigate the JFK assassination. The constitution gives Congress the power to create courts inferior to the Supreme Court. Such a court would have subpoena power, etc...  (I have not investigated the creation of these committees so I cannot argue either way.) If they were validly created, then I would say that they possessed "authority".  But the Warren Commission and the 9/11 commission certainly were incorrect in their findings. So I would say their results were invalid, even if their authority was valid. It is nonsense to say that invalid results removes authority, or that authority guarantees correct results.

Surely the tern derives from 'author'. So an author presumes an author-ity, because words are taken to be more real than reality? Isn't the Bible the 'Word of God' and this 'word' is supposed to be superior to IMAGES? When they call you a 'conspiracy theorist' when you try and reason with someone who believes the official version of 9/11, they are imposing their authority over you.

This whole discussion is getting more ridiculous by the minute.--> "an author presumes an author-ity, because words are taken to be more real than reality?" What? Do you have a citation for this bit of nonsense? Some authors write fiction, and don't pretend to be real. Some authors try to represent reality, and don't present to be MORE real than reality. I can't think of any author who claims to be more real than reality.

Then you say: " Isn't the Bible the 'Word of God' and this 'word' is supposed to be superior to IMAGES?" Do you have a citation for this?  I find your whole method of argument to very sloppy. If I respond to your statement, then I find that I have to define everything.

Yes. The Bible is the word of God. The Bible says that we are not supposed to worship false idols: (1Cor 10:14) "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, fly from the service of idols."

In the Old Testament, the Bible says not to make graven images, but I think that a lot of people (i.e. protestants) don't understand what this means. (Ex 20:4) "Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth." The Catholic view defines this as, "all such as are designed for idols or image-gods, or are worshipped with divine honour. But otherwise images, pictures, or representations, even in the house of God, and in the very sanctuary so far from being forbidden, are expressly authorized by the word of God. See Ex. 25. 15, and etc.; chap. 38. 7; Num. 21. 8, 9; 1 Chron. or Paralip. 28. 18, 19; 2 Chron. or Paralip. 3. 10." 

Do you see how I cited what I wrote? I am not going to do all the heavy lifting and try to argue both sides of something that you can't even be bothered to cite. But notice that the OT scrolls could be handled by ordinary men. But no one was allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant. 

Having said all of that, I fail to see how your statement is even relevant.

Then you said, "When they call you a 'conspiracy theorist' when you try and reason with someone who believes the official version of 9/11, they are imposing their authority over you."
==>What? How is that imposing authority over you? You are just taking the word "authority" and making it fit to whatever situation you want. Calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" is really just a form of ad hominem.

If a group of people all share a common belief, that does not mean that they are being mind controlled. If a person respects authority, that does not mean that he is mind controlled. Conversely, if a group of people cannot agree and are constantly at strife, then this does NOT prove that they are free from mind control. Or if a person refuses to obey authority,  he could still be under mind control

In short, you seem to be confusing "authority" with "mind control".  .

I recommend you read The Guru papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power. it is surprising the various mind controls you can get sucked into.

Aren't you the same guy who just said that we had to keep things simple? And now, instead of just responding to my very simple proof that your idea was wrong, you say that I have to read "The Guru Papers"? Ridiculous. 

In the education of the very young, parents tell them TRUE things, but do not always explain why. The children OBEY their parents because that this the natural and good way to raise children. This is not mind control. Small children lack the ability to reason, and are easily confused. The parent needs to teach the child right from wrong. It is self-evident that the parents have AUTHORITY over the child. 

yes, maybe authoritarian is a better term.

But "authoritarian" is an adverb, whereas "authority" is a noun. You cannot replace a noun with an adjective. That makes no sense. All you did was come up with a pejorative form of the same root.

I think that people accept authority all of the time, especially when it is to their benefit: Contracts grant authority to arbitration; groups vote for leadership; etc... People also usurp authority unlawfully. For example, I don't believe George Bush was ever elected president.

it is always best to question ANY authority. If there is resistance it is authoritarian.

==>So a child should question his parents? A person should question the authority he already legally and knowingly submitted to by contract? 
==>If there is resistance, it is authoritarian? What does that mean? Are you saying that any time someone does not submit to authority, that the authority is authoritarian?

I believe that our modern reaction against all authority is Jewish inspired, and it is meant to destroy nations. The Jews do not recognize any state except israel, so they destroy all the others. The endless destruction of authority in this country has not made things better, but quite worse IMHO. Teachers don't have authority over unruly classes; mobs of youths roam about and attack innocent people, playing the "knockout game".  Courts do not respect the authority of the Natural Law. Our government does not respect the authority of the constitution. All of this questioning of authority is leading us straight into hell.

So you think the Church was where it was at where if you were believed to be a heretic they'd burn you to death?

I think were a lot better off then we are today, certainly. I would rather live in a Catholic country where they burn heretics, than in a degenerate country where they teach kindergarteners about homosexuality. No question.

If a society truly believes that a person's salvation is dependent upon having the right faith and avoiding mortal sin, then heresy is seen to be a terrible crime. In a society that doesn't have any faith, heresy doesn't mean anything. 

But as I said, this question of authority is a separate one from "mind control". Mind control might cause someone to wrongfully grant another power over their person/property, but I would not say that every time we give another power, or recognize another's lawful power, that we are being "mind controlled". I could create a lawful Trust, and deliver money over to the power of a Trustee. If I did that with informed consent, then the Trust is lawful. Mind control has nothing to do with that. It is a separate issue.

From my experience of this world--trusting 'lawful power' etc it has been a fukin mis-take. School was a mistake for example. And I later have learned it was set up to oppress us.

Whatever. Some schools are better than others. I think it is nonsense to say that school "was set up to oppress us". If schools were not set up, you would be saying that they didn't create schools in order to oppress us.

======
Generally I find that you make statements that you cannot support, and then when you are called on them you make the worst sorts of evasions: you invent to meanings to words, and you wander off into irrelevancy.

Perhaps if you learned how to reason better your arguments would be easier to follow.

[Juliano]

with respect, I did not intend this thread to become a philosophicy word fest fuck which most people would look at and run a mile from. To me THAT is mind control. It is using lingo in a way that is up-the-arse meaning it is a one-upmanship trip. I am trying to keep things simple, and not get lost in these nit pickings. I am not concerned with you and your facts-obsession. I know what MY reality is, though by saying that I dont mean it is fixed but it is dynamic. And I realize it is MY interpretation, like yours is yours, but there maybe some truth in it. But I cannot stand posts with a thousand quotes.

My motto is KEEP IT SIMPLE. This subject is complex enough, and a big way out of mind control is losing all the million useless words. When you can say things simpler and more direct. I am not a zennist, but I get that trip. get me?

OK back to the subject. How do we look at mind control. Say it to many people and they can get upset if you suggest they are being mind controled. Why? because people like to think they are in control of their own thoughts and feelings

"it is easier to fool the people, than to convince them they have been fooled". Mark Twain

So, I would ask them to checkout about the so-called Master of Spin, Edward Bernays. He used mind control techniques to get women to smoke cigarettes, and he used various means. here it is summarized:

he was appraoched by the tobacco industry, to get more women to smoke.

He arranged this big stunt when there was a NYC Suffragettes march happening in NYC which was gonna be seen by many women and had models join it and on que they all reached into their garters and pulled a cigarette out from their cig packet and lit up.
So what was this all about? Well his uncle was Sigmund Freud, and he used his uncle's psychoanalytic techniques as part of his mind control. IE whereas Freud would use them to his 'patients' in a voluntary capacity, Bernays was using them without subjects knowing.
The cigarettes was being may to seem like a 'torch of liberation' associated with the women's march, and also a 'mini penis'. Along with this, he had contrived to have green as the fad colour in women's fashion that year and had the packet green also, and of course this mind control was repetitively re-inforced through having 'strong women' in the movies smoking cigarettes. So they were glorified commercials

So in this respect the rational mind was being undermined by the emotional images that cigarette smoking women are liberated, and strong, when in REALITY they are addicted to a drug that can age them, and also can cause various life-threatening diseases

And Bernays would use this formula in other areas like cars, all products. it was the conspiracy to get people to buy things they didn't need by hooking the needs to their irrational desires. So for example cars would be associated with women and sex as though buying a new car is gonna get a fat ugly old man a nubile young sex goddess.

[Christopher Marlowe]

with respect, I did not intend this thread to become a philosophicy word fest fuck which most people would look at and run a mile from. To me THAT is mind control. It is using lingo in a way that is up-the-arse meaning it is a one-upmanship trip. I am trying to keep things simple, and not get lost in these nit pickings. I am not concerned with you and your facts-obsession. I know what MY reality is, though by saying that I dont mean it is fixed but it is dynamic. And I realize it is MY interpretation, like yours is yours, but there maybe some truth in it. But I cannot stand posts with a thousand quotes.

I will only reply to say that you are wasting your time. You don't know how to communicate with other people. You don't define terms, and your terms just keep changing. "Mind control" seems to mean whatever you want it to mean in your present mood.

I am not interested in talking to people who don't believe in REALITY, and avoid talking sense by saying reality is "dynamic". I can have a different interpretation from you, but regardless of what my interpretation is, this does not change reality. Being wrong about something does not make reality fluid. People who believe that we are living in different realities are mad and ultimately they do not have to account for anything. 

[Juliano]

from where i sit your 'reason' is irrational but you are not aware of it. This is typical of patriarchal thinking

[Juliano]

So now Christopher Marlow has left the room. maybe we can get back to exploring what mind control is?

To reiterate, I am seeing a connection between what I call toxic mythological beliefs from the ancient past, to philosophical beliefs and on into the so-called 'age of reason and science' and also part of the whole corporate industry, and very much to do with the false flags like 9/11 and 7/7 etc and staged events which include occult mind control

I am saying that the very exploring OF this is the simultaneous undermining of it because you are becoming AWARE of it. The whole power of mind CONTROL is dependent on your un-awareness of it!

[Christopher Marlowe]

from where i sit your 'reason' is irrational but you are not aware of it. This is typical of patriarchal thinking

Give me an example. Make me aware of it. How is "patriarchal thinking" less rational than matriarchal?

[Christopher Marlowe]

So now Christopher Marlow has left the room. maybe we can get back to exploring what mind control is?

To reiterate, I am seeing a connection between what I call toxic mythological beliefs from the ancient past, to philosophical beliefs and on into the so-called 'age of reason and science' and also part of the whole corporate industry, and very much to do with the false flags like 9/11 and 7/7 etc and staged events which include occult mind control

I am saying that the very exploring OF this is the simultaneous undermining of it because you are becoming AWARE of it. The whole power of mind CONTROL is dependent on your un-awareness of it!

I think you are going to find that there are too many rational people on this forum. Maybe you might like David Icke's forum? Or maybe some new-age crystal gazing forum where reality is dynamic, and up is down and left is right. People on this forum aren't hip to the inner space of being that grooves with cosmic essence of mushroom oneness.

[yankeedoodle]

the inner space of being that grooves with cosmic essence of mushroom oneness.

Like far out, man.   

Well written, CM, very well written.  Heard a rumo(u)r you're really Shakespeare.  Any truth in that?

Oops, hope that's not an insult.

[Idaho Kid]

Marlowe, the pen is mightier than the shovel as you have patiently shown.

[Juliano]

from where i sit your 'reason' is irrational but you are not aware of it. This is typical of patriarchal thinking

Give me an example. Make me aware of it. How is "patriarchal thinking" less rational than matriarchal?

Oh so your back. So soon!
See sir, I did not come here to have long arguments with you and your factual demands. All of which diverts away from exploring about this complex subject. But seeing you asked a direct question I will try and answer

Patriarchal thinking conceptually splits up reality into pairs of extremes, with one of the pair said to be lesser and inferior to the one that is thought to be the superior and masculine (hence 'patriarchal') So for example light and darkness. Light has been thought, in patriarchal thinking, to be masculine, and superior to darkness which has been thought to be dangerous, inferior and feminine, and of course with those two extremes come MANY associations. In mythology or religion, light = 'God' and darkness = the 'Devil'. And/or light is intellectual reason, and darkness is emotional, chaos, the-unknown-waiting-to-be-lit-by-the-light-of-reason.
If you think this patriarchal thinking is only part of a superstitious past then think again. For those astute observers they can detect it in this so-called scientific age. It is most prominent when the pursuit of science becomes scientism. Scientism being the belief that ONLY science can find what is true, and eventually will explore all the unknown/'darkness'. So there is not allowed any mystery, because you see IF it cannot be measured by science it is delusion.

[Juliano]

OK, here's a very good and current example of what I mean about being FLEXIBLE when exploring about mind control. If you get too obsessed with hard facts this can make you too rigid.

Now, for ages now I have been aware of this growing obsession in the mainstream media and the 'alternative' media (will explain why I put that in commas in a bit) about a threatened pandemic, they call EBOLA.
For any researcher who knows how daunting it is to look into the fucked up-edness of this world you will dig that it is often overwhelming, and you cannot focus on all issues at the same time, though you get to find their interconnectedness of course. So I was aware OF the Ebola issue but was for a while tending to not look at any videos or watch TV mews about it etc

So anyway I recently decided to watch a video about it, and then read some article which claim it is a hoax. I ALREADY had by BS detector vibrating because I have for many years understood about the HIV/AIDS hoax. This is SUCH a controversial subject that when a few years ago I tried to start a thread discussing about this at the busiest online gay forum, the thread was immediately locked, and I was warned never to question the official version that HIV causes AIDS and AIDS is a real bonifide disease!! I am not wanting in this thread to specifically discuss this, but just to say that from what I have understood HIV/AIDS is a major hoax and I encourage people to look into this with an open mind

People accept authority, and this is how people can get sucked into mind control. They cannot believe that groups of men and women would lie to them.
But then we must look at the mental illness myth. This also is a conspiracy. It is a pseudoscience which is really a social control.

So understanding this, I question this current Ebola thing going on. I am NOT saying 'I KNOW I AM RIGHT'. But I sense things may not be as they appear. I am questioning it, and it is that questioning which is the flexibility

[Juliano]

Ebola: how to stage a fake epidemic

In the case of "the SARS epidemic" in 2003, it was "the coronavirus." As I've mentioned before, a Canadian microbiologist working for the World Health Organization, Frank Plummer, inadvertently blew the whistle on the scam when he told reporters, stunningly, that the percentage of SARS patients who actually "had the virus" was shrinking from month to month.

In fact, finally, the percentage was approaching zero.

This rank absurdity was duly reported in the press by brain-dead journalists, and everyone moved on, unaware that a bomb had just exploded.

How could these people be called "SARS cases," when the one and only cause of SARS, "the coronavirus," wasn't present in their bodies?

In the case of HIV, it was even worse, because the people who were diagnosed as "HIV-positive," as a result of useless and misleading antibody tests, were given a drug called AZT.

AZT was a failed chemotherapy drug sitting on the shelves of the US National Institutes of Health. It had been there for nearly 25 years.

It was doled out to patients with orders that they take it every day for the rest of their lives.

To say AZT is highly toxic is a vast understatement. It attacks all cells of the body, including cells of the immune system. So when patients began dying as a result, doctors blithely assured one and all that "the AIDS disease had accelerated" and the deaths had nothing to do with AZT.

This gives you a clue about how medical criminals can target specific populations.

For example, gay men in America were heavily promoted to "take the AIDS test." The propaganda was relentless. Naturally, a percentage of the tested men showed up positive on, again, the useless and misleading antibody test.

They were dosed with what amounts to a chemical warfare agent. AZT. Many died.

This article is written by the author who exposed the HIV/AIDS hoax, and sees the same scam with this Ebola fear porn. This is very personal for me because I am gay, and I was around in the 80s when adverts began coming on the TV, MAJOR fear porn, dramatically warning how HIV will cause AIDS, and it was a massive paranoia. Sometimes I would go to the doctor with some flue, or stomach ache (I go to the doctor VERY rarely now--touch wood) and he would always say this: "is there something you are worried about?" And what this meant was 'are you worried you may have HIV? And if so would you take a test to see if your HIV positive? And IF it had been positive they'd have had me on toxic AZT for fukin 'life'.  So what made me not fall for it? Can't remember, but I was already hip then to the myth of mental illness, and so very much distrusted the medical people. I just smelt a rat thank goodness!

[yankeedoodle]

First mind-controlled prosthetic arm can hold egg without smashing it
http://rt.com/news/195336-sweden-prosthetic-arm-feeling/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

[Juliano]

not the kind of mind control this thread is about though

[Christopher Marlowe]

from where i sit your 'reason' is irrational but you are not aware of it. This is typical of patriarchal thinking

Give me an example. Make me aware of it. How is "patriarchal thinking" less rational than matriarchal?

Oh so your back. So soon!
See sir, I did not come here to have long arguments with you and your factual demands. [CM- ] All of which diverts away from exploring about this complex subject. [CM-Facts divert away from exploring complex subjects???] But seeing you asked a direct question I will try and answer

Patriarchal thinking conceptually splits up reality into pairs of extremes, with one of the pair said to be lesser and inferior to the one that is thought to be the superior and masculine (hence 'patriarchal') [CM-And how did I do this? When did I say that something was masculine and therefore better?] So for example light and darkness. Light has been thought, in patriarchal thinking, to be masculine, and superior to darkness which has been thought to be dangerous, inferior and feminine, and of course with those two extremes come MANY associations. [CM-This is so ridiculous... Light is better for reading. Dark is better for sleeping. Generally, people work in the day and sleep at night. We need light to see. That is not a masculine proof.  That is obvious.] In mythology or religion, light = 'God' and darkness = the 'Devil'. And/or light is intellectual reason, and darkness is emotional, chaos, the-unknown-waiting-to-be-lit-by-the-light-of-reason.  [While emotions may be valid, they do not have meaning beyond our own consciousness. My emotions don't prove anything. Reason is proof. People who don't understand the difference between reason and emotion are logically impaired.

God is identified with light because God gives us the ability to see and to understand. The Devil is darkness because he hides the truth with lies.]
If you think this patriarchal thinking is only part of a superstitious past then think again.  [No, I think this is a made-up distinction with phony definitions that lack any real meaning.] For those astute observers they can detect it in this so-called scientific age. It is most prominent when the pursuit of science becomes scientism. Scientism being the belief that ONLY science can find what is true, and eventually will explore all the unknown/'darkness'. So there is not allowed any mystery, because you see IF it cannot be measured by science it is delusion.