Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
It is Hypnotic
We allow it when instead of reasoning, analyzing the information that emits, we
prejudge their source, and, according to whether we like it or not, we accept or we reject
all what it says, but without reasoning, without filtering their speech, without separating
the truths from the lies in it. If we prejudge a source as "not reliable" we ignore all what
it says, including the truths. If not, we accept all what it says and we ignore everything
else, like in the hypnosis, we allow to that reliable source to think for us, and to tell us
what to think and what to believe. Hypnosis is done when we allow our masters, self-
proclaimed "reliable" sources, the only ones "serious", the only "experts", make us to
ignore all what their "adversaries", the other sources, say. They do this by disqualifying
to their adversaries: "We are the good guys, they are the bad guys. Don't listen to them,
they are extremists, they are credulous, they aren't serious, they aren't impartial, they
aren't experts, they are lying, they are jokers, they are enemies, they are mad, they are
bad, they are crazy, they are freaks, they are irrational, they are this, they are that, etc.".
They surely can't be all that at the same time. They speak about the adversary source,
not about what it says, so they pretend that we prejudge the source, not to judge what it
says. The "adversary" source is attacked just because it says its truth, its reality, how it
see the reality. Reality is somehow subjective, so the masters try to impose us their
reality and to make us ignore other realities. As in the known game "Simon says", they
pretend that we must obey all what Simon says and to ignore all what any other says. It
is an hypnotic manipulation of the reality, our reality (subjective), but only if we allow
it. It is our election. It is like magic, an illusion that is real if we choose it so.
Doesn't matter whether a source is "reliable" or not. Indeed, the source doesn't matter at
all, never. What matters is the information what it emits. Truth never depends on the
source. There is no warranty. All sources can emit a mixture of truths and lies,
consciously or unconsciously, voluntarily or not, deliberately or not, innocently or not.
This mixture can have more or less truths than lies, but is always a mixture. By
example, 500 year ago, the "experts", the reliable sources, said that the Earth is flat.
That was the Paradigm in that time. What many adopted then as their "truth", now is a
lie. As science advance (if we allow it), paradigms change. And vice-versa, we must
allow that paradigms be improved to allow science progress. We should listen to all
sources, we should be open to all them, "reliable" and "not reliable", "serious" or not,
"experts" or not, and to filter what they say by our own common sense, to separate from
it, from that mixture, what we choose to believe, what we adopt as truth, from what we
choose to not believe, what are lies for us. No matter what, nothing is true for us until
we choose it, and we choose it when it fits in our concept of reality, our mental jigsaw-
puzzle, our mental map of reality, our subjective reality. We choose all, our reality, our
future, our destiny, all the time. But there is a time limit and a default choice.
We allow ourselves to be deceived when we don't reason for ourselves.
To reason is to choose what to believe, it is to look for the truth, and it should be a
permanent attitude. Only when one is choosing what to believe one is reasoning. When
one already chose, one isn't reasoning, one has confidence (from the Latin fides, faith),
having faith, in what one chose before, what one already incorporated to their mental
map of the reality (subjective), their mental jigsaw-puzzle. A faith that can be so
irrational whether it is deposited in a "scientific" dogma as in one religious. In the point
where we are reasoning, where we are choosing what to believe (in what to have faith),
in that point, the reason isn't incompatible with the faith, but complementary.
We don't reason when we dismiss too quickly the new information, without thinking,
without asking us the question of gold: And if it was certain?. When new information
doesn't fit in our jigsaw-puzzle because it contradicts something that we believe,
something that we trust, we should solve the contradiction, either dismissing the new
information, or the old one that before we believed true and now we think that it is not.
Not to solve the contradiction would be Doublethink1, it would be to have a divided
mind, double or multiple, maintaining in it a disordered jigsaw-puzzle, or more than
one, with pieces that don't coincide, contradictory ideas in order that one can appeal to
one or the other according to the occasion, the convenience.
But that it is another topic.
Demagoguery
The Answer 2 is related to Demagoguery. "If you want to calm the hunger of a man for
one day, give him a fish (demagoguery, to lead people, if you want to dominate them, to
tame them as if they were animals). If you want to calm the hunger of a man for all their
life, teach him to fish (pedagogy, to lead the child, to educate him, it implies
compassion, the genuine will of helping him that is absent in the demagoguery)". It
usually includes also the deceit that the demagogue is the only supplier possible of what
the subordinate needs.
Counterproductive Solutions
You can easily recognize a counterproductive solution because it doesn't attack the
cause of the problem, only the effects, the consequences. It is as a defensive reaction,
but without a counteroffensive (a counterattack) or a preventive action, in such a way
that it is never enough, it is always overloaded, it is always one step behind. It doesn't
do nothing to eliminate the problem, it cohabits with it as if it was playing an eternal
ping pong game, as the other side of the same coin, it needs it in order to justify its
existence. It doesn't solve nothing and so it worsens the problem. People who doesn't
think very much believes that everything what is done to solve a problem serves, that
everything is useful, that the only important is that something is being done, no matter
what. But it is not. Some people don't think, they only obey. So they can deceive them
in their face, at full daylight, by making them believe that they are working really hard
to solve the problem but they can't do it because of misfortune, not for stupidity or
incompetence, or pure wickedness. Perhaps they indeed work hard, but on the wrong
point, miles away from the right point, knowingly.
So the only thing that they need to do is not to look for the truth, the true cause of the
problem. You can't effectively combat what you can't understand. If they suspect that
the cause, the truth, is at an address, they go to the opposite address. Groucho Marx
said: "Politics is the art of looking for the problems, to make a false diagnostic and
applying the wrong remedies". One could change "looking for the problems" by
"creating the problems".
Frequently, those who cause the problem and those who work on the counterproductive
solution are what David Icke calls "oppo-sames": they simulate to be the opposite, but
they are the same. They are violent, authoritarian extremists, from opposed extremes,
who simulate to fight each other, but they don't strike each other directly, they strike to
innocent people, not extremists but moderate people, from the opposite side ("enemies")
or from their own side ("traitors"), in order to force to the people to align to one extreme
or the other. They attack the society in a movement of pincers. At the highest level they
are controled by the same leaders, they obey to the same head, in such a way that
whether some day the fight finishes, it doesn't matter who wins, everybody ends under
the same authoritarian command. They don't strike each other directly because they
know they are the same, they need each other in order to justify their existence, they
fortify each other. So they take care of each other. They aren't good guys and bad guys,
they are the same, different sides of the same coin, they work together, coordinated, for
our education. Ones push us and the others pull us, but both in the same direction,
toward our wisdom. (See below)
A classic example of counterproductive solution is to increase the controls, to give more
power to the leaders and less freedom to the people, to oversee more and more the
people. But, at the same time that you do this, you make sure that you and your friends
have privileges, safe-conducts that allow you to avoid these controls, to cross them
unpunishedly, in such a way that you continue harming the society in spite of them.
Otherwise it would break the vicious circle and they would no longer be needed more
and more controls. At the end, you have so many laws, commandments and regulations
limiting the people's freedom (but not your freedom), and they are so complex, that only
an expert can understand them because each rule has its exception, so that you can apply
them arbitrarily, so that the laws are only applied to powerless people and the
exceptions to you and your friends, without nobody opposes because nobody
understands them. Two thousand years ago the Romans said: "the law is a spider's web
that catches the flies and it allows to pass the birds." People must learn to behave by
their own choice, their free will, not because of surveillance or fear of punishment. This
forced behavior wouldn't be truly good, it would disappear when surveillance fails.
Effective Solutions
On the other hand, you also can easily recognize an effective solution because it starts,
after a reasonable time, to improve constantly the situation and it does never stop until
the problem disappears, or almost.
The only thing what you need to do is to oversee the effects of your solutions. What
can't be measured, can't be controled, in the same way that you can't control the people
what you don't oversee.
A classic example of an effective solution is the education. This make sense if indeed
one lives to learn. Education is always the best strategy, because if you dig deeply
enough when you look for the root of a problem, you always find ignorance. And Ho
Chi Minh said: "If the tactical is right but the strategy is wrong, you can win some
battles but you'll lose the war. If the strategy is right but the tactical is wrong, you can
lose some battles but you'll win the war." That is, you can work to solve a problem, as
reacting to an emergency, but you must never lose of view the strategy of long term.
Ordo Ab Chaos
If it's so easy to distinguish the effective solutions from the counterproductive ones, you
can only conclude that they choose the counterproductive ones on purpose.
Lenin said: "So much worse, so much better". To more chaos, better for his revolution.
There is an old Masonic motto, "Ordo ab Chaos", Order from the Chaos, you create the
chaos and then impose the order, your order, an order to your convenience, more power
for you and less freedom for the people. David Icke calls this method as "Problem-
Reaction-Solution". But your order can not be good, your solutions can not be effective,
because that would break the vicious circle.
Life is Energy
They are Materialists. They deny the existence of soul, indeed they deny the existence
of all but material things, all but what can be perceived by the senses directly or by
means of instruments.
But the senses and instruments are limited. A living being isn't made only of matter, it
has warm, it has movement, that is to say, it has energy also. The difference between an
alive cell and a dead one that has recently died, it is the energy. Both have the same
matter, the same molecules, the same atoms, the same substances, but the alive cell has
an energy that lacks in the dead one.
So one can reasonably conclude that this difference between them, this energy, is life.
Life is a form of energy. Moreover, life is a conscious form of energy. It's conscious
enough to realize that for preserve itself it needs to take energy from the environment
(to feed itself).
Like the soul, the energy of life, named Qi by the Chinese, Ki by the Japanese and
Kundalini by the Hindu, is indestructible, according to the Principle of Conservation of
Energy, of Physics. So, it exists, and why can't we name it soul?.
We are talking here about the politic aspect of Power, but in Physics, Power relates
closely to Energy: Power is the change of Energy divided by the Time. If life is energy,
and the political power is based on suffering, this power changes negatively the energy
of life, because is demonstrated that suffering shortens life. Dr Candace Pert, of the
Georgetown University, of Washington, D.C., USA, found chemical connections among
the mind and the body that show that it is impossible to have a thought of any class that
doesn't cause physical changes. This topic, is it treated in the semi-documental movie on
Quantum Physics named "What the Bleep Do We Know?" (2006). The peptides
produced in the Hypothalamus (the region of the brain investigated by the Dr José
Delgado in his works about mind control), are liberated in the blood flow when
emotions occur, and they couple more and more to specific receivers in the exterior of
the cellular wall, impeding more and more the access of the cell to the necessary
nutrients, what produces its aging ("negative" emotions).
Isn't Bizarre?
Many of us have a manipulated, artificial, false, irrational concept of what is bizarre and
what is not. This is because we don't think enough, we choose to believe in lies, as it
was already stated above. This is because we allow it. We have allowed millennia of
censorship and denial of the truth. To deny the truth and to censor, to ourselves or to
others, is the same. If we censor, or we allow censorship, that censorship will turn
against us, against our own freedom. Censorship leads to dictatorship. Nobody lives
happy in a dictatorship, everybody lives with fear, so even those who work for the
dictatorship are betrayed by it, because it's based on lies.
Incredible isn't equal to false. Extraordinary isn't impossible. Unusual isn't unreal.
Many times we discover that what we've thought true is false, and vice versa. Those
times, reality is usually stranger than fiction because reality is not as they try to make us
believe.
Surely, there is not nothing so false as the official version of the things (official history,
official news, official "science"). It should not be this way, but it is, sadly, because we
have allowed it. Mark Twain said: "When your opinion coincides with that of the
majority, it's time to reconsider it".
Especially we have allowed ourselves to be deceived in momentous, vital questions,
that concern to our survival like species, because they concern to both, our origin and
our destiny, those what have been reviled and ridiculed with such appellatives as
Supernatural or Paranormal, Mystic, Mythology, Esoteric and Occult, those what taught,
secretly, the Invisible College of Oxford.22 These are questions about which the
"scientists" don't want to arrive to the truth, but maintaining the status quo, to perpetuate
the ignorance, in such a way that they will destroy all evidence presented to them and
then they will say "there are not evidences" (there is not worse blind man that the one
that doesn't want to see). They include such things as Angels and Extraterrestrials (they
could be the same with different names, as says Zecharia Sitchin, Giorgio Bongiovanni,
and many others), Ghosts, Reincarnation or Life After Death, God and Religion,
Metaphysics (partly known now as Quantum Physics or Quantum Mechanics),
Prophecies, Dowsing, Divination, Magic, Witchcraft, Satanism, and Conspiracy
Theories.
Level 1
The first level is that of the basic necessities for life (the body), for the biological
survival, to continue breathing: air (obvious), water, food, clothes, housing, security (to
maintain the physical integrity), etc. This is what keeps us alive.
It is hardly in this level that they seek to maintain people, by trying to make that they
cannot satisfy these necessities fully, so that they hardly survive enough to serve to the
governing class, but not more.
But to survive is not to live. To survive is hardly to breathe. To live is to enjoy. The
World Health Organization simply defines that state as Health, full psychophysical
health.
In fact, one could believe that the Buddhists say that to breathe and to enjoy life should
be synonymous, and that the secret of the happiness is to be satisfied with very little, to
the degree of being satisfied just with to breathe, in a state of grace, of ecstasy, of
peaceful contemplation, marveling in each opportunity, as a little child, with the beauty
of the world, as if this was discovered for the first time, being happy and grateful just by
being alive and emptying the mind of all desire and emotion (emotions again, in the
Spanish language there isn't great difference between the definition of desire and that of
emotion). Of course, this requires of a lot of practice and some minimum conditions (a
minimum of food, of water, of clothes, etc.).
But, for most of us, to live requires of satisfying other necessities.
Level 2
The following level to satisfy are the sexual necessities (the couple). This give us a
reason to live. So we have all type of obstacles to impede that they be satisfied, as much
as it be possible without it was evident. We have the false morality, the false dogmas of
the false religion, etc. If you think it, you realize this.
We say that "not only of bread the Man lives", or like the French say, "eat, drink and be
happy, because tomorrow we will die." With that "be happy", or when one eats up in
excess or there are dysfunctions of the feeding (obesity, bulimia, anorexia, etc.), or
when what one drinks is not to calm the thirst of the level 1, for example alcohol, we
speak of necessities of level 2 and superior. All the addictions could be, mostly or
completely, inferior substitutes of a satisfactory sexuality.
By the way, Michel Foucault said: "When that private becomes public, the public thing
becomes private." When the attention is focused in the private affairs of people, when
what everybody oversee are the private behaviors, the public affairs get lost of view,
they stop to oversee the government, they lose the control on what the Big Brother26 is
doing. To oversee private behaviors is a typical counterproductive solution.
Level 3
The third level is that of the affective necessities (the family). This give us more
reasons, reasons to sustain our own life to be able to sustain others. So all the effort is
made to separate people, to separate the brothers, to the friends, to the parents of the
children, etc. Negative emotions are generated. To distinguish them in function of the
people's union or separation, we can call them negative to those that separate to the
people (different forms of the fear: fear itself, hate, guilt, shame, etc.) and positive to
those that unite them (different forms of the love: romantic, filial, fraternal love,
friendship, charity, compassion, etc.). In fact, we cannot say that an emotion is negative.
It has an useful function: to alert that there is a problem.
Level 4
The fourth level could be the necessity to serve (the community), of helping the
neighbor, the social need of being accepted in the society, of fitting in it, of belonging to
it, the vocation of service, the charity, what corresponds to the chakra of the heart. This
is the boiling surface, the barrier, the limit that you need to have enough energy to
overcome in order to get eternal life. So that whenever it is possible they try to deny to
the people their place in the world, to exclude them, to discriminate against them.
Level 5
The fifth level would be the necessity of expression, of creating art, of teaching what
has been learned, of saying, what corresponds to the chakra of the throat. This is where
you live to inspire to others. So they censure and they impose silence and secrecy.
Level 6
The sixth level would be the necessity to learn, of seeing, of knowing, of being
educated, what corresponds to the chakra of the center of the forehead or of the third
eye. So they combat the education to try to perpetuate the ignorance.
Why the need to teach is lower than (precedes) the need to learn?. Would not it maybe
be logical that it was on the contrary, that you first learn and later do teach?. Because,
when you teach, your unconscious, your immortal soul, assimilate, it memorizes, it
incorporates, what it learned, in such a way that is easier for it to conserve it when you
die, is easier for you to carry it with you to a new life when you reincarnate, is easier for
your unconscious to remind it. If you cannot remember, you cannot learn and that is the
reason of your existence. When you teach something, you really think a lot about that,
you can dream of that, what indicates that your unconscious learns it. It is as when one
memorizes better something when one writes it down. It is only when you teach that
you are really ready to learn more, to learn new things or to learn old things better.
Level 7
The seventh level would be the necessity to come closer to God, or the Universal
Intelligence, or as you want to call Him, of communion, of religion, of some spiritual
practice, what corresponds to the chakra of the crown. Etcetera.
What To Do
From the reading of this text it should be obvious that we first need to educate
ourselves, we need to learn about those momentous questions, those about which we
have been kept ignorant so long, because this matters are at the origin of all the
problems what threaten our individual and collective survival.
In second place, we must be responsible. We must not surrender to fear. Fear doesn't
allow to think. It triggers automatic, instinctive behaviors. Fear transform us in animals.
That is what they want, to stop our evolution. We must think, to think more, to think
better.
We must reason. We must choose better, more carefully, what to believe. We must not
believe, automatically, all what says some authority, some "reliable" source. We must
analyze the information, not to prejudge the source.
We must never censure, nor to allow censorship. If we are editors, publishers, or
something like that, we must reserve a special section or to put a warning for challenged
sources and controversial information, but not censure them, so that the readers or
viewers can read or see this information and to judge it by themselves, by filtering it by
their own common sense, while they are aware of its character of challenged or
controversial. If we are only readers or viewers, we must demand that this be done.
There must be not taboo sources and subjects. We can't censure something true just
because is used as a kind of flag by some extremist group.
We must not allow the abuse of Copyright for censorship. By example, in an article, a
link to a web page what violate some Copyrights is not itself (the link) a violation of
Copyright. The author of the article is not responsible for the contents of the pages
addressed by the links in the article. A link to a web page is not an unauthorized
reproduction of Copyrighted material. You can easily recognize some abuses of
Copyright when some people challenge or disqualify a source with any excuse, any bad
label, but then they are the first ones in claiming for the defense of that source's
Copyright. It's a little contradictory (Doublethink). They are obviously trying to prevent
the access of other people to that source's material, censuring it under the guise of
"Copyright protection".
We must always keep ourselves in search of the truth. If we know that any source is
disqualified with any excuse, with any bad label, we should try to know what it say to
filter this by our own common sense, not to allow that who disqualify that source, by
putting those label to it, to think for us, to decide which information can we read and
which not. We must be open to all sources and trust in our own common sense, not
other's one.
We must never tolerate lies and contradictions, specially in those momentous questions,
specially in public affairs, specially from our leaders and authorities.
We must defend freedom and the right to privacy.
We must oversee our leaders and their decisions, we must make sure that they are
motivated by positive emotions, by compassion, that is that they are truly interested in
solving the people's problems, and that their solutions reflect this by having measurable
positive effects, that is that they are not based on the criterion "so worse, so better". We
must make sure that the causes of the problems are investigated, and that the solutions
that are applied really act on them. We must make sure that they understand well the
causes of the problems, otherwise they would be as blind boxers throwing blows in the
darkness. We must demand that these causes be well explained to us, satisfactorily.
Sources
• "The Prince" (1513) from Niccolò Machiavelli.
• "The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu" (1864) from
Maurice Joly.
• "1984" (1949), from George Orwell.
• "The Brainwashing Manual" (1955), by Lafayette Ronald Hubbard.
• "Pawns in the Game" (1958) from William Guy Carr.
• "Physical Control Of The Mind: Toward to Psychocivilized Society", (1969),
editorial Harper & Row, NY, from Dr. Jose Manuel Rodriguez Delgado.
• "Discipline and Punish" (1975) from Michel Foucault.
• "Politic Ponerology" (1984) from Andrew M. Lobaczewski
• "I am Me. I am Free" (1996) and "The Biggest Secret" (1999) from David Icke.
• "Hitler won the war" (2003) of Walter Graziano.
1
Word from the novel "1984" by George Orwell.
2
David Icke, "I am Me. I am Free" (1996).
3
William Guy Carr, "Pawns in the Game" (1958).
4
Maurice Joly, "The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu" (1864), Dialogue Tenth.
5
David Icke, "The Biggest Secret" (1999).
6
Idem.
7
William Guy Carr, "Pawns in the Game" (1958).
8
David Icke, "The Biggest Secret" (1999).
9
Idem.
10
Idem.
11
Idem.
12
Idem.
13
Idem.
14
Idem.
15
Walter Graziano, "Hitler won the war" (2003), Chapter 5: "The Power in the World: The enigmatic CFR", The Role Of
The Intellectuals, taken from Samuel Huntington's book, " The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order".
16
William Guy Carr, "Pawns in the Game" (1958).
17
Idem.
18
Idem.
19
Idem.
20
Founder of the Scientology, some of whose members were afterwards involved in covert operations of mind control of the
government of the United States, as the operations MK Ultra, Project Monarch, and Project Montauk.
21
PSYCHOPOLITICS - the art and science of asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of
individuals, officers, bureaus, and masses, and the effecting of the conquest of enemy nations through "mental healing".
From "The Brainwashing Manual", by Lafayette Ronald Hubbard
22
David Icke, "The Biggest Secret" (1999).
23
Givaudan, Anne and Dr. Antoine Achram, http://www.onnouscachetout.com/themes/nom/microchip.php.
24
Jones, Alex and Paul Joseph Watson, http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/290107rockefellergoal.htm.
25
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/beast.html.
26
From the novel "1984" by George Orwell.
27
David Icke, "I am Me. I am Free" (1996).