Comments on: Brave New Mind Control: everyone belongs to everyone else

By: Nathan & Aline

Nathan & Aline — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 17:52:40 +0000

Reblogged this on Twin Flames and commented:
There were two different NWO concepts presented to humanity in the early twentieth century, the Orwellian version via the book “1984”, and the “Brave New World” version, presented by Aldous Huxley; most people do not realize that they represent two seemingly different versions of the NWO. The Orwellian version is what the “truth movement” is focusing on, and what the East vs West dialectic between the BRICS and the Fed is intended to solve. The so-called “Event” is meant to overthrow the Orwellian NWO, however, when it is overthrown, we’ll receive the version presented to us in a “Brave New World”, which is a soft control based in mind control, medication, technology, and the indulgence of our fleshly desires. We’ll have everything we think we want and need in this Utopian version of the NWO, and that’s exactly how they planned it.

The Orwellian State is the funnel that herds the masses into Huxley’s Brave New World; far from competitive ideas, they are actually complimentary to one another. The two versions of NWO fit comfortably within the Hegelian Dialectic, where our fear of the 1984 scenario is the problem, our resistance to the Orwellian police state is our reaction, while the Brave New World is their final solution — the synthesis of their plans for a centralized communitarian world government. Are you ready to accept their Brave New World, their planned Utopian society that is free from the sin of individuality?

~Nathan & Aline

By: Brave New Mind Control: everyone belongs to everyone else | Pakalert Press

Brave New Mind Control: everyone belongs to everyone else | Pakalert Press — Sun, 06 Jul 2014 12:24:12 +0000

[…] Jon Rappoport […]

By: 3duir

3duir — Sun, 11 May 2014 19:59:50 +0000

Very very specifically mind control is about emotional leveraging. Frex: “War on Terror”. Flip on the mainstream news for a few days in a row and its all about “Safety”. Is your kids safe, school safe, food safe, water safe, community safe, dog safe??????.—safe safe safe safe. Safe is the optimal state of existence rather than ‘free’. Or perhaps the two are confused. People have become safety junkies,Peace Junkies. They’d rather remain emotionally terrorized–its safer than to know who is actually terrorizing them, leveraging their emotions. Even in the alleged ‘awakened’ atl media and alt spirituality spheres people view the brainwashed as something exclusionary of them, something happening to ‘them sleeple’, never themselves, without ever looking at even their basic familial conditioning. let alone social, religious, ect conditioning . The mistake is when you become political awakened is that somehow you become self aware. Not so.

By: 3duir

3duir — Sun, 11 May 2014 19:49:10 +0000

Reblogged this on Dimensiabooks and commented: People tend to confuse 'safe, painless society' with freedom. Freedom isn't comfortable.

By: Michael Burns

Michael Burns — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 02:29:03 +0000

Mod•el ˈmädl/Submit
Noun
1. A three-dimensional representation of a person or thing or of a proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original.
“A model of St. Paul’s Cathedral”
2. A system or thing used as an example to follow or imitate.

Models…representations to be facsimiled in endless copies which makeup a consensus. The models are used to teach the particular consensus. Spartan the military and Jesus the religious consensus, etc., etc. And so on and so forth Mr London.
I try to stay as far away as I can from any of it all…I am not interested in your models P J. I am far too busy with my own universe artistic imagination. But I do know bullshit. It does not surprise me that you are a Cognitive Behavioural Therapist; I assumed some flavour of psychologist. It’s in the way you use your words. I felt you probably worked within the prison system.

“I am a Cognitive Behavioural Therapist, teaching that you have to recognise the world as it is, and adapt your behaviours to that.” –P J London

[…]…

Societal models are simply blueprints for the brainwash, which create software that moulds and strokes an ego, that runs this reality. And that is the largest undertaking on this planet. There are many, many industries and corporations which are in business to pump out illusions on continual basis to feed these models. And where do these models originate…some from the following.

“You clearly have not understood Bernays, Orwell or Huxley, and you still do not grasp the concept of Objective versus Method or process.” – P J London

What do Edward Bernays, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Sigmund Freud have in common…they are all interested in societal models, mind control, pharmacology and herd mentality. Creating models that can be moulded easily and maintained as easily.

Incidentally Huxley the utopian taught Orwell the dystopian.

Huxley is very much the Tavistock Institute and that utopian model of control, genetic manipulation and creation of genetic caste system. Blair (Orwell) is a Fabian, he bring us the dystopian 1984 and big brother. The outright enslavement of the world, except for elite. Reality as we speak lies somewhere in between.

“He (Huxley) spearheaded Tavistock’s plan for pharmaceutical control with LSD’s mindbending results which led to the counterculture, the dialectical response to culture on the way to a totally controlled society.” – Jeffrey J. Kripal

Sigmund Freud is the father of modern psychiatrist, he is the model; Freud knowingly introduced the mental disorder ‘plague’ to western civilization, which eventual evolved to become analytical psychiatry and the DSM-IV (manual of mental disorders). Which remain to this day, and for the future in constant revision. And to me it is one of the biggest cluster fucks to hit us so far.
Edward Bernays the nephew of Sigmund Freud went on to become the father of marketing and social engineering. The greatest publicist the world has seen. His first hits; fluoride and tobacco, both mind control drugs used to suppress societies and enable the social engineers to insert their ideals into the egoic models. Addicted and docile the public was putty in the hands of such a man.
To understand the mind of Edward Bernays one must look at his influences. Of course his great Uncle Sigmund, but also the likes of Gustave Le Bon and crowd mentality and racial superiority and Wilfred Trotter neurosurgeon who was also interested in crowd psychology and racial superiority. Trotter’s ideas came from watching sheep and wolves he was fascinated by the politics of beehives.
Bernays was instrumental in using Le Bon and Trotter’s ideas to ‘Manufacture Consent’ which is a derivative of ‘Consensus’.

http://www.vetlegalresources.org/files/Engineering_of_Consent_-_Edaward_Barnays.pdf

Michael

“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

By: OzzieThinker

OzzieThinker — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 01:27:44 +0000

Selfishness is badness because it defies cooperation. Beyond acquiescence, there are but two “standards” – cooperation or conflict. I suggest you visit http://ozziethinker.wordpress.com because I discuss them in just about every post. Back to selfishness; this is not to say selfish behaviour cannot empower the opposite and so on. As for selflessness that is a measure of spirit which implies a humble nature and something that is beyond conflict except when rejecting offer of support that might impact the “greater good” (i.e. I have to kill you because that is the only way to stop you killing him).

Looking at outcome and reflecting back with the “blame game” is what our current social structures do – governments, religions, mass media. From that perspective, selfish or selfless behaviour is arbitrary. There is a balance as it would be impossible to survive and be entirely selfless, but it should always be the focus, as if everyone empowered “the other”, eventually all would become empowered. If self-empowerment became the undiluted universal standard, eventually there would be all out conflict.

By: musicis2words

musicis2words — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:49:19 +0000

Great link… please take look at this microcosm of what that video speaks of: http://metaphysicalforensics.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/how-do-they-get-away-with-it/ I feel it touches on what your video points out.

By: PJ London

PJ London — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 20:21:36 +0000

Exactly right, one has to go back to basics.
Was there a creator, is it just chance and evolution?
If there is a god, what does this imply for our behaviour, after all the Gods as described in the Bible, Bhagavad Gita , Roman, Greek and Norse were not particular pleasant people and are hardly an example, or are they the example that we should follow? Murderous, petty, vindictive, dishonest, incestuous, is this what we should be doing?
“battle between selfishness (badness) ” why is selfishness bad, surely it is a survival trait and necessary?
“selflessness (goodness)” why is selflessness good? What level of selflessness is good and what harmful? Should I give away my children’s food for tomorrow to someone who does not have food for today?
Unfortunately, most people accept the models that have been pushed at them from childhood, invariably being that the child should sacrifice his wishes for the wishes of the grown-up, even when the grown-up is selfish and uncaring.
These models with the dissonance between what we are told and what we see the people telling actually do, causes endless internal stress and despndency.
If there is a God, and he/she is perfect, and if we are made in his/her image, it would imply that we too are perfect, in which case how come I keep biting the inside of my cheek?
Peace

By: jarrodschneider

jarrodschneider — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:33:25 +0000

I definitely agree with you on that last point; I like writing and expressing myself through comments and media because I seem to glean more from the act of attempting to organize and express my perceptions than I do from taking in the viewpoints of others-which wasn’t always the case. One teacher I have learned a tremendous amount from (right up there with Jon) is Neil Kramer. He describes the initial engagement with higher reality- the period of time in which you seek out and consider the viewpoint of others in the attempt to grow and become your true self, as being the “observational phase”. Granted, everyone is an individual and approaches discernment differently, but in my opinion, there is an overall loose framework whereby we use the human tools of perception that we seem to have in common and utilize those tools to consider certain concepts. The two main faculties that need to be brought into some sort of perspective balance, in my opinion, are thoughts and emotions. Developing both in equal and balanced measure is useful for aligning one’s perceptions with the truth. The trivium, or thoughts, emotions and actions, for me, has been an adequately useful model for at least balancing my conscious perception. That third element, action, is again where will comes into the picture. After balancing thoughts and emotions, or some describe it as balancing heart and mind, or even right brain and left brain, one can then use their will and focus it through the lenses of heart and mind to affect real change in the world. This would be the transition from observational phase (the phase in which one would perhaps require the “sermon” of another) to the active phase of higher conscious participation, in which you become the willing author of your own ascent and the willing contributor to the ascent of others. Jon definitely has this going for him, as he uses thoughts, emotions, and actions to produce substantial material that really does help a lot of people to grow, obviously, whether he looks at it in this particular way or not. And in the end, when we encounter paradox, or have our crisis of philosophy, it is a good thing, because we are encountering a boundary or limitation to our perception, and if we approach such with the proper attitude, we eventually breach that boundary and move on to the next. Here is a video I recently made that attempts to consolidate these things and provide an explanation for how people are controlled. Since making it, however, I do realize that I perhaps over-estimated the external control factor and under-estimated the role that each individual plays in willingly providing the chains of their own bondage. In this way it lacks balance, as external and internal factors perhaps work in equal measure to result in individual and thus collective enslavement, but overall I think it was a good first attempt at explaining the mechanisms of control.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MSfXQP3qaBo

By: OzzieThinker

OzzieThinker — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 03:46:38 +0000

Some cracking comments here and real thinkers present here (regardless of views, preferences, etc.). If I might be so bold, is not the great challenge creation itself? If there is a God; a supreme creator, wouldn’t he/she/it be respectful of all creations, unless there was a paradox of depreciation? Would not a paradox of depreciation defy any logic in creation in the first place? Therefore, if there is a God and supreme creator, wouldn’t the implied “duty” of all creations be to elevate existence for creativity to be “good”? If that was so, would the battle between selfishness (badness) and selflessness (goodness)? Anyone wishing to break the mould, first must banish God (project atheism) and then worship indulgence at creations expense. Maybe Zionism’s the answer?