Are YOU Brainwashed - under the influence of mind control

The first thing to recognize is that almost no one who is actually under the influence of mind control - thinks that they are. Recognition of a mind control influence immediately reduces its power.

For those of you that answered "No" - without pondering and reflecting on what mind control influence you might be subjected to - 100% you are under the influence.

Until you figure out what the sources of mind control are and how they impact your thought patterns .. you are influenced by these sources. (Unless of course one lives in a cave and has no contact of any kind with other humans).

What inspired this post was an article I read today on how Jeff Sessions attempt to re-wage the war on Pot is backfiring. The calls from congress to removal of Pot as a schedule 1 drug (on par with Heroin)

It has been well established for many decades that Pot does not have the physical additive qualities nor the lethality of Heroin (or even alcohol or cigarettes which are legal) for decades.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/296559

Now regardless of what people think of pot - the question of law is not whether or not one likes something but, whether or not one has sufficient justification to use physical violence (Law) to punish others that do like it.

Now most people are not educated enough to realize that "I don't like it" is not sufficient justification for law. Further - they do not generally realize that supporting some law is forcing their personal belief on others through physical violence.

This is why propaganda is so useful and effective. There are all kinds of bad arguments and fallacy used by political pundits. The media (while now on the other side for the most part) was in on the demonize pot game for decades. All kinds of bad science and misleading use of statistics were touted as credible and not questioned.

Movies like "reefer madness" were produced... This was so ridiculous that it gets a laugh gets a laugh out of the most ardent anti pot crowd in today's world.

There is no legitimate justification for Pot being classified - for legal purposes - on the same level as Heroin. Yet here we are. Can you imagine states legalizing Heroin for recreational use.

The only reason this type of anathema to any sense of legal propriety can be maintained is if a whole lot of people buy into State Propaganda - and are hence under the influence of mind control.

There is a large group of people that actually believe maintaining Pot as a Schedule 1 drug is legitimate and justified - under the influence of mind control.

The effect of this mind control has been to put hundreds of thousands of people in jail, create a huge amount of crime via prohibition and all the killing and deaths related to the gang activity which takes advantage of prohibition, waste billions upon billions of dollars through incarceration, the court costs and the cost of police, and violate the main principle on which this nation as founded "Individual liberty is above the legitimate authority of Gov't".

All made possible through State Propaganda - mind control.

Pot is just one example - there are many more. .

The point of this post is not to discuss Pot. The point is to illustrate the massive power of the mainstream media and State Propaganda apparatus.

The fact that most people do not realize that they are under the influence of mind control via the State Propaganda machine makes it even more powerful.

The Establishment is now trying hard to censor or persecute information sources that conflict with the Establishment narrative. It does so for good reason. It does not want its monopoly on propaganda dissemination challenged.

The MSM is a propaganda arm of the Establishment. The problem is that the internet has interfered with this monopoly.

Most people ignore this fight - the battle to censor ideas that conflict with the Establishment narrative - because they do not realize that this battle even exists and because they think they are not influenced by this battle.

The big war taking place is not the battle with Al Qaeda. The battle is for the mind of the average citizen.

So next time you are asked "Are you brainwashed - under the influence of mind control" - take that question more seriously.

 

6 views so far but no responses - obviously 6 people that are "under the influence"

 

I think most people are under the influence of mind control. I see it every day in people responses. You can pretty much watch it as they repeat the Party line, or the bias news. We some how don't have our own opinions, but that of the Party or the news. We seem to be so tied to the Party, we believe everything they tell us, so afraid to have an opinion that is some how different than theirs, as if we would we would be bad Liberals or Conservatives if we expressed them. The two Parties know this. They know they can do just about anything and the faithful will follow along.

 

So far, I can't see the connection between marijuana laws and mind control.

"Now most people are not educated enough to realize that "I don't like it" is not sufficientjustification for law. Further - they do not generally realize that supporting some law is forcingtheir personal belief on othersthrough physical violence."

All laws seek to eliminate things that people don't like. That is, in fact what laws are based on.

"The point of this post is not to discuss Pot. The point is to illustrate the massive power of the mainstream media and State Propaganda apparatus."

I, and many others here, keep banging our heads against the wall of denial about this.

 

It is this kind of mob mentality that shuts down rational thought and debate.

On the left if you say something like " Studies now show that there is no pay difference between career women - women who do not have kids or where the man stays home and the woman works - and career men - doing the same kind of work" You are taken out and shot - for speaking the truth.

On the right - if one makes a pro choice argument - same thing.

You know what I find equally interesting is that the MSM - left or right - will not talk about some of these issues. Take abortion for example. All you have is platitudes on either side.

This is very strange that the left (CNN, MSNBC) does not try to educate the public - my guess is that this topic is not allowed by the editor - which takes his/her direction from the BOD.

I honestly believe that if the right was able to lose its extremist opposition to abortion - the Dems would be in a heap of trouble - just on that basis - never mind a few other silly issues such as acceptance of the rights of gays.

If they did this - frick and frack .. the Dems would be in a world of hurt.

Regardless of whether one is personally for or against abortion, the fact of the matter is that 1) having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence (Law) are two different things.

If one has any integrity - one does not support forcing their beliefs in another human through physical violence (Law) unless they have darn good justification.

This is the foundation on which Jesus based his teachings "Do unto others/ Treat others as you would be treated" aka The Golden Rule.

In other words - if you do not want others forcing their personal or religious beliefs on you though physical violence - then do not do the same to others.

This was how Biden responded to Paul Ryan during their debate when abortion came up " I am a Catholic and as a Catholic I do not agree with abortion , however I do not believe in forcing my personal religious beliefs on others" - and I would add to Biden's words - and neither did Jesus !

The Religious Right will then offer a "non religious argument" even though we know full well that their belief is based on "My Pastor told me so". They will say "You are killing a baby and that is Murder".

The problem is that this is a religious belief. The above claim contains an assumed premise fallacy (that a baby actually exists in the early stages of pregnancy).

There is no consensus among experts (biology, philosophy, bioethics) that the zygote - single cell at conception - is a baby. Without getting into the whys and wherefores ... it is a fact that "Experts Disagree".

This is the best place that anti-aborts can come to on the issue of whether or not the zygote is a baby. In reality very few experts would claim this but ... I will humor the anti-aborts for the moment.

The question here is one of law. We have two parties .. the mighty zygote and the woman. The rights of these to entities have come into conflict and thus we must weigh each on the scales of justice to resolve this issue.

The rights of the women to control her own body are weighty - They are backed up by the main principle on which this nation was founded "Individual liberty is above the legitimate authority of Gov't"

How do we value the other sides of the scale .. what weight to we give to "Experts disagree" = "We don't know/We don't know otherwise".

It is no contest. This does not mean that those who claim "its a baby" are wrong. It just means there they can not prove this claim, nor make a valid argument that is convincing enough such that experts can come to some kind of consensus.

In a free society - one that has respect for individual liberty - this respect is not only for things one agrees with. Everyone believes in freedom for that. Belief in individual liberty is belief for individuals to do things one does not agree with.

This means that if one wants to use the "heavy hand of the State" to force your personal belief on others through physical violence (Law) then you need to have a darn good justification - in this case a justification that at least has the agreement of experts or agreement from an overwhelming majority 2/3rds.

On what planet does - "we don't know" constitute valid justification for anything ? ... apparently this one !

 

The French philosopher Alexis Charles Henri Clérel, Viscount de Tocqueville visited the USA in the first half of the 1800s. He marveled at the unheard of concept of ordinary, low education people self governing and at the level of freedom. BUT he also predicted that Americans would become the most regulated and controlled people on earth - because the majority could outlaw anything they don't like - and most people want anything they don't like or don't do outlawed.

Fast forward... and there are millions of pages local, county, state, federal and agency law laws, statutes and regulations, with a billion pages of memos, definitions, case law and more - with the USA having the highest number and percentage of its citizens in prisons and with criminal records than any other country on earth. The "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" became "The Land of the Regulated and Home of the Imprisoned" as he predicted.

How extreme? Today someone posted that anyone with a gun who does not put a gun lock on it, the gun stolen and used in a crime should be put in prison for 5 YEARS - literally imprisoning the victim of a theft who had not harmed anyone. Why? Because people who don't have guns want guns outlawed and will seek any way to imprison anyone who has a gun.

The same applies to marijuana. Unless over half the population is using marijuana - even if had done so in the past - it will be outlawed because they don't like it and therefore it should be illegal.

Of course, when you get to agencies and government, it no longer even matters what the people think, only the people in the agency or government office. So load up radical greenies in the EPA and there will be endless more environmental restrictions. Make a majority of members of Congress to be plumbers, and there would be 25,000 pages of new plumbing laws for which screwing a hose onto a faucet would be a criminal offense if not done by a licensed plumber. As one building inspector told me, "technically putting a nail into a wall to hang a picture is illegal without a permit."

There was a rare sort of liberal TV evangelist who didn't preach on sin and wasn't a hell and brimstone Biblebeater. He had a slogan that shows how it works: "If I don't like it, God don't like it too." Many religious people equate breaking any law with sin.

Of course, most atheists act as if regulations and laws are edicts - edicts from god-government - and merely saying "it is against the law" is the only basis needed for moral condemnation UNLESS the law affects them - and then they want that law outlawed.

For the most part, the United States, our government and public attitudes are all virtually diametrically opposite of what the Founders envisioned.

 

Thank you for this post - it is a great illustration of the effect of mind control.

1) the connection is that propaganda was used to get people to agree with such law. That is mind control

I do not think you read the post very well and you certainly did not understand what you read - you should go back and read more carefully.

2) of course law seeks to eliminate things that people do not like. Propaganda then is effective in convincing the raging masses not to like something.

What you do not seem to understand is that belief in freedom is not belief in freedom "Only for things that you like". Everyone believes in that. Belief in freedom is belief in freedom for people to do things ( the caveat being that rights end where the nose of another begins) that you do not like - so long as that person is not harming you directly.

That is the principle on which this nation was founded - Individual liberty is "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't. The Gov't is not, of its own volition, to make any law that messes with individual liberty - Period.

The legitimate authority of Gov't - with respect to individual liberty - is for protection of direct harm - one person on another (rape, murder, theft and so on)

The fact that you do not understand this is a function of mind control. It is through propaganda that you believe that the Gov't has the legitimate authority to arbitrarily make law.

It is through propaganda/ mind control that you believe that simple majority mandate gives Gov't the power to arbitrarily make law.

Both Classical liberalism and Republicanism refer to simple majority mandate as "Tyranny of the Majority".

The founding principles were based on the idea that an "overwhelming majority" was required to mess with individual liberty 2/3rds or more.

The people then give power to some authority to punish violations of codes of conduct that they do like but, this is based on protection from direct harm - not some willy nilly "I don't like people drinking or having sex".

Few people believe that murder should be legal. An Overwhelming Majority does not think (murder, rape, theft) should be legal. The bar is no different for any other law.

The fact that you believe otherwise is a function of propaganda/mind control. Propaganda that has convinced you otherwise.

3) Hopefully you (and those others who you claim are banging their heads) now understand how the law against Pot is a good example of how propaganda was used to convince people that such a law was just.

 

The idea that Gov't has the right to make law - willy nilly- on the basis of "simple majority mandate" is a function of propaganda/mind control.

This is preposterous nonsense. Both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism regarded this as "Tyranny of the Majority" .. and every Judge knows this and if they don't they should be removed from their position ... never mind SCOTUS.

By definition - in a Constitutional Republic - the rights and freedoms outlined in that document are "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't

The Declaration if Independence outlines the principles by which the Law and Constitution is to be interpreted.

1) Individual liberty is "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness) The Gov't - of its own volition - is not to make any law that messes with individual liberty outside its legitimate purview. This legitimate purview is protection from direct harm -one person on another - murder, rape, theft and so on.

The Gov't has no legitimate authority to mess with individual liberty outside this purview.

2) The authority of Gov't comes from "we the people- consent of the governed" as opposed to divine right/God or some other thing.

As per the social contract (construct by which Gov't receives its authority) if the Gov't does want to make a law messing with liberty it must appeal to change the social contract - appeal to we the people.

The bar is not 50+1 or simple majority mandate. The bar is "overwhelming majority" at least 2/3rds. Otherwise there would be no point in putting individual liberty above the legitimate authority of Gov't.

It too centuries to brainwash the people in to believing that the power the Gov't has today is legitimate.

12 years of school and we manage not to teach kids the main principle on which this nation was founded. Riddle me that one ?

 

Good thread Giftedone! Consider this.

What if the mind control directs a person parallel to their best instincts? Logically that would tend to increase the influence of the MC.

 

That is an important perspective, but the logic validating it is left out. The majority cannot get valid, complete information to base their opinion on. Free speech has the PURPOSE of enabling all of that and that PURPOSE is abridged widely, actually perverted in many instances by corporate media manipulation of the majority.

"The Greater Meaning Of Free Speech", is the origin of the legalistic purpose of free speech from the First Nations People.

It goes like this.
From the practice of free speech between people, an understanding can be created. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.​

There were very likely loyalist factions that complained bitterly about the inclusion of such philosophy in the 1776 document, despite its obvious logical connections to what became hidden constitutional intent. Clearly, government has a duty to not just allow all speech, but to empower that speech which creates the kind of unity that can alter or abolish it IF it becomes destructive to unalienable rights as well as enforce or defend the constitution.

 

The connection is not between MJ and mind control, it is between the majority and mind control.

 

Scott Adams is not only a famous cartoonist, but he's also a trained hypnotist, and is one of the few that predicted Trump would win long before he even won the republican primaries. He saw him using the same techniques of persuasion that hypnotists use.

Not that Hillary's campaign was any different. Just that she wasn't nearly as effective at it. One of those techniques was the way he went after the strongest candidate one after the other after the other by rebranding them. He gave them pejorative nicknames that people could remember like "Lyin' Ted" or "crooked Hillary". Hillary was doing the same thing by calling Trump "dark" (not racist much, but it did work) and referring to him as "Donald" instead of Mr. Trump.

 

Yes, we are all under the influence of propaganda, spewed at us 24/7 from media/the internet/politicians/corporations (ads) etc. I would think of myself that the only mind control I submit to is that of scientific data, but I know that this is not so. EVERYONE is susceptible to it. that's how powerful interests get the mob to do things consistently that are against their own best interest, but benefit the elite.

Propaganda often makes people strongly believe in issues that may be different on closer look. One of these issues, which have been regurgitated by media without critical thought and swallowed hook line and sinker by the population is : Economic growth is good, and the higher the growth the better.

 

Gifted,
While I agree we have some serious battles going on for mind control, and that is an important subject that needs strong focus-
why would your post quickly turn that into a pot-support column?
I agree that pot has been misrepresented and a lot of overkill is present. Most of that is obviously, gone.
I know some aspects of pot may be useful for pain relief- although the legitimizing of medical pot suddenly put a lot of people in sufficient pain to seek prescriptions for it.
I also know that anything people use to numb their mental capacities or get high is an escape mechanism, a sign of immaturity, of dodging the need to learn to handle life.
IF a person actually wants to see things accurately so that realistic choices can be made consistently- numbing your brain is hardly a good choice.

I'm eager to promote clear, logical minds and critical thinking. I don't think that the concerns over pot were ever intentional programming, just the product of fears and minimal understanding. I was interested in the lead statement, disappointed in the application of it.

 

"The fact that you do not understand this"

"you believe that the Gov't has the legitimate authority to arbitrarily make law."

"It is through propaganda/ mind control that you believe"

"The fact that you believe otherwise"

You sure do know an awful lot about me that isn't true.

 

Good point. It is important to recognize that not all mind control is bad. Normally mind control is associated with propaganda (falsehoods) and/or religious mind control as done in cults and this is where it gets its deservedly bad reputation.

The army for example has to train soldiers to kill on command. The human instinct is not to kill so they have to over-ride this instinct by training soldiers to obey authority .. not think - just obey. This is not an example of paralleling best instincts but it is an example of a necessary and "good -to some degree" use of mind control techniques.

A better example might be teaching kids the basics of Philosophy and of human nature - and of the Golden rule. In that way they people could better over-ride their baser instincts.

 

Complex topics such as how mind control is used requires an example.

The point of my post was not to argue for the benefits of Pot .. or that people should go out and use it. I did no such thing.

Pot is a good example is because it is something that some like and others do not. It is a good example because a whole lot of propaganda was used to demonize pot and influence the thought patters of the raging masses towards Pot. To scare them by equivocating Pot to Heroin.

This fear then led to violations of individual liberty. Using physical violence to punish people for using pot - to punish them for something that the state had no legitimate right to do.

One can make good arguments against using Pot (such as what I tell my son about its use) .. same for alcohol, cigarettes, or skiing, or boating or anything that has a risk of harm.

The question is whether or not you not liking pot - is valid justification for forcing others to not use pot through physical violence ?

The mind control here is in convincing people that "Harm Reduction" is a legitimate rational for law.

We now have a Plague on this nation. The plague of fallacious utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is a justification of law on the basis "increasing happiness for the collective". This justification for law completely ignores individual rights and freedoms. It is a way for the Gov't to over-rides the main principle on which this nation was founded - That individual liberty is "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

For example " If it saves one life" or "Harm Reduction" as justification for making some law or regulation. These arguments are very insidious as they sound good on the surface - "who does not want to save one life" ?


While this may sound good is this valid justification for law ?

IF "if it saves one life" is valid justification for law then should we not ban skiing tomorrow - would this not save one life/reduce harm?

What about boating - that is really dangerous - one could drown ? Driving a car ? Forget it --- banned. In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

In a free society one has the right to subject themselves to a reasonable amount of risk of harm.

Society has been brainwashed to believe that "Harm Reduction" in of itself, where no direct harm to others is involved, is a valid justification for Law - the use of physical violence to punish people doing what ever act is the target of the day .

12 years of school and we manage not to teach the main principle on which this nation was founded - Riddle me that one ? This is not an accident. Ignorant sheep are much easier to brainwash.

 

Glad to hear it. However, I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

Why is it that you were unable to understand how propaganda and falsehoods used to alter the perception of people towards pot was not a form of mind control ?

Why is it that you were unable to understand that propaganda and falsehoods are used to get people to think the Gov't has the legitimate authority to make such law to begin with ?

Perhaps your failings as a student is my failing as a teacher

See post 17 for a more in depth discussion of some of some of the particulars involved.

 

The main principle was freedom, yet when we gave education to the government to handle, that's something that just didn't manage to make it into the curriculum. That's not great mystery to unravel, since governments do not profit from freedom, so there is no incentive for the government to teach people about freedom.

 

There was something very instructive in relation to human nature there. We all have different gifts. Regardless what one thinks about Trump there is no denying he has an understanding of the raging masses and an ability to tap into their psyche.

Michael Moore also predicted Trump would win -again at a time when the polls had Trump losing worse than badly and almost no one gave him a chance.

Moore had done town halls all over the US. What he found was that while many people did not like Trump that much - they wanted to throw a mol tov cocktail into the establishment.

The people have become very fed up with the Establishment (which consists of both red and blue political elite and bureaucracy - and international financiers if you want to get into who is pulling the strings). Most do not understand it that far but they do realize that the Political Establishment is sodomizing them. They just do not know exactly how and so most often "the movement" is not able to shoot its arrows straight.

Trump doled out all the requisite platitudes but what he did manage to do very well was brand himself as anti establishment.

Trump has turned out to be mostly an Establishment wonk but that is another story. The "Movement" - and this is going on on both sides of the fence - continues.

If a leader rises that manages to enable the masses to shoot their arrows more straight (allow them to identify the target better) and unite both sides of the fence .. now that would be interesting.

 

Then we may not be far apart in thinking. Many things like that are quite variable, and some may be justified- but we do need common sense logic to see when they are really necessary. Anytime a law or regulation imposes on the freedom of a person to suit the opinions of others about how he should live, I do have a problem with it, and that should be carefully considered before stupid laws get passed.

One doesn't have to look far to find stupid laws or ones that burden people for useless objectives or to benefit others. The trend seems to be getting worse, not better.

 

"Give me Liberty or Give me Death" How this has been transformed into a nation on their knees begging to give up their individual liberty to purchase temporary security is sad commentary indeed.

It is now our "Patriotic Duty" to give up individual liberty. We are told that this is required to maintain our security ! - the reality is that what we are really being asked to do is give up our liberty over a risk of harm that is 400 times less than the risk of harm from "walking" - you heard correctly.

Ben Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"

Obama says "If we want increased security - we have to give a little" referring to the NSA spying scandal where Clapper lied to congress (a felony) about spying on US citizens en masses (felony 2)

Obama then change the name of the Patriot Act to the equally Orwellian doublespeak "Freedom Act" and went after those who would out Gov't crimes like never before while letting the perpetrators of those crimes go free.

Fear is one of the most oft used mind control tactics. The founders knew this well - hence the Franklin Quote.

Stalin used fear of a foreign threat to take away liberty for security. He called his program "Security for the Motherland"
Hitler did the same "Fatherland Security"

Bush - lacking the ability to come up with an original name - did the same "Homeland Security"

In 2013 it became legal for our intelligence agencies to both create and disseminate propaganda on US citizens (not that this was not happening before but it is now legal).

People make a mistake by saying " we are not like Stalin's Russia or Hitlers Germany" ... Well Russia and Germany were not like that either in their infancy.
The question is what did the infancy look like ? When you look at that the similarities are striking ... the canaries in the coal mine of totalitarianism are screeching.

Nor should we think that quazi totalitarianism in the US will look like the past examples. The Powers at be are smarter and more sophisticated.

I don't not profess to know where we are going. What I do profess is that the propaganda machine is very powerful and sophisticated and the raging masses have never been so ignorant of the basic principles underlie and maintain liberty.

 

Interesting!

 

Yup .. just look for "fallacious Utilitarianism" . It is freaken everywhere. Everything is not justified on the basis of "harm reduction" .. like this is a valid argument.

Utilitarianism is totalitarianism. It has no respect for individual liberty. It is "the borg". What can not be justified by evil people on the basis "this is what is best for the collective"

It is the power to usurp the constitution and the principle on which this nation was founded.

I can get into classical liberalism - the enlightenment ideas the founders used and how these ideas were derived. but, in short - If one professes to believe in "Limited Gov't/ Limited Gov't power" - the next question should be. OK - what then should Gov't power be limited to ? Most can not answer.

According to the guy that wrote the principles on which this nation was to be founded - in reference to individual liberty.

.

So no - the Gov't is not allowed to make law on the basis of religious belief Jefferson sneakily slipped that one in.

The bar is overwhelming majority and the general caveat that "no man wants to be ruled over by another".

If something is so bad - such an offense to the population in general - that some authority is to be given power to use physical violence to prohibit it then, an overwhelming majority will agree.

This is the social contract. The reason some authority was given power to punish - despite not wanting anyone to rule over another - was for protection from harm. Direct harm - one person on another .. murder, rape, theft.

The violation of code of conduct must be severe in order for Gov't to be granted such power. If something is that severe - most rational people will agree - overwhelming majority .. at least 2/3rds.

Most agree that murder should be illegal. The bar is no different for any other law. Anything less is "Tyranny of the Majority".

We now live in the world of "Tyranny of the Minority" .. City councils regularly violate individual liberty where there is no legitimate justification.

Ever sitting member of SCOTUS should be dismissed for dereliction of duty - failure to interpret law and the constitution on the basis of the founding principles.

 

That's the irony of effective mind control: Its victims are not generally aware that they are being subject to mind control techniques.

And mind control, in its various forms, has been practiced by state authority since the beginning of civilization, stretching all the way back to the Egyptian pharaohs and Sumerian kings.

In effect, the state is a religion that relies heavily on mythology, iconography, ceremony, ritual and other trappings of religion. And indeed the state for most of its existence was an overtly religious institution. It wasn't until the enlightenment that the idea of a secular state even began to emerge. Yet despite the progress of the enlightenment, the state is fundamentally no different today than it was thousands of years ago. It just relies on a different dialectic, but the effect is exactly the same: A tiny ruling elite lording themselves over the masses, exploiting and oppressing them under the guise of their protection and safety.

Virtually every society subject to this kind of oppression thinks of themselves as "different", including the USA. That is why people will either ignore this thread or show up only momentarily to label it as a "conspiracy theory". Both are conditioned responses.