Brave New Mind Control: everyone belongs to everyone else

Brave New Mind Control: everyone belongs to everyone else

by Jon Rappoport

March 28, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

From my work-in-progress, The Magician Awakes, here is a relevant quote:

“The modern assumption is, each person’s consciousness is connected to every other person’s consciousness. And following from that, enlightenment comes from seeing the connection and surrendering to it.

“The truth is, we are talking about theater. You can take on a role, you can ‘become’ someone else, just as an actor slips into character in a play. But you can also put aside that role. There is nothing final about it.

“On a political level, the idea that we are all one unity is just another corrupt piece of propaganda, intentionally promoted to convince people that their individual independence is a delusion.

“And on a personal level, many, many people are all too eager to lay down their own power, to stop exploring what that power is really capable of, to short-circuit that power and instead join up with an Image of ‘all consciousness.’”

“Every one belongs to every one else” is a quote from Huxley’s novel, Brave New World. Is this slogan a genuine humanitarian effort on the part of the State, or a weapon directed at the individual?

The answer in the novel is given by the characterof the “Director”:

“…at last the child’s mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child’s mind. And not the child’s mind only. The adult’s mind too—all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides—made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!”

The State is the shaper, the groomer, the proponent of all-encompassing mind control.

In our time, such phrases as “it takes a village,” “you didn’t build that,” and “we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to their communities” are suggestions pumped out by the State and its allies.

There are millions of people who resemble the naïve citizens of Brave New World, who accept the above communitarian sentiments as genuine and true and even messianic.

The State (and its media fronts), in our time, wants to impart a “spiritual tone” to its pronouncements. This comes in two basic forms. One, we are holy crusaders who must drop bombs on those who refuse to accept our traditional religion (Bush). And two, we are a single unified consciousness who must diminish the notion of the independent individual (Obama).

Coming from the State and its minions, these are straight cons.

They carry the moral weight of a mafia rep who promises a grocery-store owner protection for a weekly cut of his income.

A common theme runs through Orwell’s 1984, Huxley’s Brave New World, and Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange: there is an overwhelming problem that must be solved for the benefit of all humanity.

The problem could be described as poverty or suffering or irrational resistance to leadership or crime. The solution, though, always produces something far worse than the problem.

And the solution always involves mind control, thought control, conditioning, programming.

There was a reason Edward Bernays, the father of modern public relations wrote, “It is sometimes possible to change the attitudes of millions but impossible to change the attitude of one man.”

Mind control is directed at the mass, the group, the collective, the community, the population.

Bernays also wrote, “The three main elements of public relations are practically as old as society: informing people, persuading people, or integrating people with people.”

Integrating people with people. In other words, to make mind control propaganda work, people must cease thinking of themselves as independent individuals. That’s the key. They must think of themselves, first and foremost, as part of a group. Then the propaganda works beautifully.

Therefore, the first order of business, for propaganda, is launching suggestion after suggestion that “we’re all together.”

This “meta-suggestion” must appear to be made with the greatest sincerity and concern for the general good.

Mustapha Mond, the World Controller of Western Europe in Brave New World, comments: “Sleep teaching was actually prohibited in England…Parliament, if you know what that was, passed a law against it. The records survive. Speeches about liberty of the subject [individual person]. [Which was really] Liberty to be inefficient and miserable. Freedom to be a round peg in a square hole.”

In the novel, sleep teaching was a series of vocal repetitions, thousands of them, which added up to the insertion of State-sponsored thought in the mind of the sleeper.

Mustapha Mond is reflecting on the old world. He’s linking the ancient concept of freedom to inevitable consequences of inefficiency, suffering, and isolation. And of course the State solves all these conditions by reshaping the minds of the people, engineering them in the womb, treating them with a drug, called Soma, which relieves and banishes unhappiness, and teaching (hypnotizing) them in their sleep.

“Every one works for every one else. We can’t do without any one…for I am you and you are I.” These are the sentiments of the Brave New World. These are the thoughts produced by sleep teaching. These are the utopian principles. This is mind control.


The Matrix Revealed


Exit From the Matrix


These principles cut far deeper than, say, worker-owned businesses or intentional communities. They seek to eliminate the individual’s consciousness that he is an independent individual. In fact, they seek to cause confusion whenever an individual does consider the possibility that he is independent.

Another character in Brave new World, Bernard Marx, expresses this confusion: “How is it that I can’t, or rather—because I know quite well why I can’t—what would it be like if I could, if I were free—not enslaved by my conditioning.”

He can’t conceive what his own freedom would be.

Another Brave New World slogan capsulizes the threat freedom poses: “When the individual feels, the community reels.”

Mond, the Controller, describes the essence of Brave New World. Ask yourself how many people would opt for this kind of life, if they could have it now:

“…you’re so conditioned that you can’t help doing what you ought to do. And what you ought to do is on the whole so pleasant, so many of the natural impulses are allowed free play, that there really aren’t any temptations to resist. And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there’s always soma to give you a holiday from the facts. And there’s always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now. You can carry at least half your morality about in a bottle…”

And how about this feature of the New World? “Men and women must have their adrenals stimulated from time to time…It’s one of the conditions of perfect health. That’s why we’ve made the V.P.S. treatments compulsory…Violent Passion Surrogate. Regularly once a month. We flood the whole system with adrenalin. It’s the complete physiological equivalent of fear and rage. All the tonic effects of murdering Desdemona and being murdered by Othello, without any of the inconveniences.” (Video games, anyone?)

Every day, week, month, year, more people are coming around to a preference for a synthetic mind-controlled “utopia,” even if they don’t realize it. They would take the Brave New World existence if it were offered to them.

And if the price to pay was the acceptance of conditioning? “Everyone belongs to everyone else”? Oh well, why not?

It’s highly significant that, in Brave New World, even with every fetus subjected to genetic engineering, there was still a need to condition people, through repetitive sleep learning, to accept The Group as all and everything.

That’s how deep the idea of the independent individual goes.

That’s The Problem for the controllers. And no matter what they try, they will never solve it with finality.

Everyone doesn’t belong to everyone else. The individual is irreducible.

He has the power to invent new reality. He has the power to join with others—without invoking mind control—to outdistance the reality of the State.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

44 comments on “Brave New Mind Control: everyone belongs to everyone else

  1. Wow… thank you for this perspective of the whole “all is one” new age agenda… I think I need to rewatch the movie, “Brave New World”.
    The way they mete out this agenda is through this sad principle stated by Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
    With regards to your article, the word “truth” in the quote above should be replaced with the word “agenda”, in my humble opinion.

  2. sylphsandcloudships says:

    You really do put it all together! I was just thinking why in the world were these books required reading in my school? I just got it! Glad I found my way out! Thanks for your help! Jeanne

  3. jarrodschneider says:

    This is an analysis I just made of a piece of contemporary media that is absolutely full of collectivist propaganda and the denigration of the individual. It’s in two parts;

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KfhoY_m3WFo

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=02zMz8r6xeQ

  4. Barbara says:

    “They” are turning us into Star Trek’s Borgs yet. We need to address who is behind this like pulling the curtain on the Wizard behind it in the land of Oz. The ones pulling the strings on those puppets wiling to lead everyone else off the cliff like lemmings, but who must promise him or her personal freedom to plunder our pockets in the process. We must stop calling these entities “The State,” “The Government”. We can never have them without the participation of actual people. Discovering and bringing to light the kinds of psyches behind this is more on the road to winning, over this menace. “No Nonsense Numerology-The Code” reveals the human psyche with its yin/yang flaws and perfections.

  5. roberta4949 says:

    some head of state guy in china made a interesting comment, he said “the will to freedom is a constant of human nature, so is the will to power, and power is intolerant of freedom.” and lies require constant vigilant and expense to suppress the truth, the truth can destroy long held lies in a second once it is illuminated for all to see.

  6. Mickey Johnson says:

    The governments may be trying to use this idea of the hive mind to control people, but the fact still remains that there is some evidence and much experience supporting the notion that there are non-material, genetic and circumstantial connections that exist between people, and that we are by nature social beings who depend on human interaction for our emotional well-being. There is a reason solitary confinement is being looked at now as cruel and unusual punishment. Even getting to hang around with murderers and rapists seems to be preferable to being alone with your own imagination for entertainment. It’s not quite as cut and dry as you would like it to be Jon. A child can’t raise itself. Somebody has to provide it with love, nourishment and safety. And nobody has the right to go out and build nuclear bombs and start exploding them everywhere for the fun of it because it’s the reality they want to create. We do have a responsibility not to hurt other people and to protect innocent people from being hurt by those who feel it is their right as an individual to do whatever they please. You very craftily avoid these issues in your blogs and it is my hope that you explain yourself more clearly regarding the individual vs. the collective paradox in the future. I see the individual and collective as two different but valid qualities of humanity as a whole, just as light can be observed as particles and waves, another kind of paradox that we haven’t yet reconciled. Reality as I understand it is fractal in nature. I am an individual of course, but my parent’s divorce and the resultant untimely relocation had a pretty harsh effect on me as an individual, a different effect than it had on my sister, as she is her on self with her own genetic make-up and sexual identity, but it still changed the way I behaved and view the world and the people in it. I felt rejected by father when he moved a couple of hundred miles away and that affected my ability to trust others as well as my self-esteem. To say that we don’t affect others and that we are affected by other’s actions is ludicrous. You haven’t said that outright, but with my admittedly limited logic, I perceive this as an implication of what you are saying. I am an artist, a poet, a musician with a wild imagination that I have been fostering since early childhood, but that wouldn’t feed me if all of a sudden I were thrown into a wilderness on my own to survive. I can’t imagine myself a plate of organic gmo-free food from thin air. I doubt that anyone can do this, but I could be wrong. If your imagination is so powerful, why do you need to write? Why can’t you just imagine your own utopia without corrupt governments and greedy corporations and imagine us all there with you. Seems like it would be much easier and quicker. Again, I hope you or someone more intelligent than me can explain all of these logical inconsistencies that I perceive in your writing on this subject.

    • jarrodschneider says:

      I think you did an excellent job of explaining the inconsistencies inherent with Jon’s point of view here, better than I have done with comments in the past. I love Jon’s work, and respect him as a very important mind in our world today, but his cut-throat, strictly individualist ideologies have caused a crisis of philosophy for me in the recent past, particularly because his writing is so persuasive and resonates with me as containing a lot of truth. The way I have only-partially reconciled it is this; we are both solely unique individuals and inexorably linked with everything else in existence. Granted, Jon is right to point out the dangers of the “we are all one” propaganda, but understanding how our conscious, creative will is interconnected with everything else in existence, in my opinion, is one of the “lessons” we must come to realize while here on Earth. To me, it comes down to will, and not infringing upon another conscious being’s will without their consent. This is a natural law, and the way that existence teaches us this law is the fact that we are subject to a universal imperative of truth; that is, if we act out of alignment with that imperative by infringing upon the will of others, we suffer, perhaps in an equivalent way to that which we have inflicted. Exercising one’s individuality, and inherent ability to create anything we want is a necessary action, and aligns us with truth because we are being our true self, but we become misaligned only when we use our individuality to to infringe upon the will of another without their knowledge/consent. I know there’s a lot more to it, and admittedly I don’t have the answers, but the points you bring up are questions I constantly wrestle with, enjoyably so though, because I am learning and attempting to grow. One thing I have learned though, if you willingly are open to learning and growing and changing for the better, existence is all too happy to accommodate you.

      • Mickey Johnson says:

        Thanks a lot for your input. Some good food for thought there. I understand your dilemma for sure, as I myself follow all of his posts and they have challenged some of my beliefs and supported others, which creates many questions as to how exactly he reconciles all of his beliefs into a cohesive whole (or do his beliefs have rights as individuals to be counter to other individual beliefs?) . I have had many experiences that I feel were either synchronistic or possibly the result of my personal wishes in the recent past as well as what I have to call double visions, as I have simultaneous visions of myself as a greater whole from a first person view and as a conscious particle or cell of that greater being from a second “person” perspective, such as a cell in an arm would see the rest of the body if it had it’s own consciousness, or a star’s view of a galaxy. In the case of the latter I always had a distinct view that these energies or cells represented all of humanity at least. Many religions talk of all people being one in a greater body. And that is where the fractal nature comes in. I perceived an even higher self than this body that could not be seen. There are many arguments for this reality being an illusion and in that case our dreams are in fact new realities and every character in them one part of the whole that is the dreamer. Maybe they don’t have the order, firmness and consciousness yet that our reality does, but that’s because of our limited consciousness. These are realities we create in our sleep, imagine what realities we can create awake. But where does sustenance and come into play here? Our dream realities nourish our minds, but what about nourishment for the body and soul? It doesn’t seem like our consciousness would be limited for no reason. Possibilities I’ve imagined are that it is done for fun, like we watch tv or sports for fun (another fractal relationship?), for the sense of companionship (fractal), as a lesson in responsible creation with limited impact on the greater sphere of life beyond our whole (as either a “punishment” for irresponsible behavior, like muzzling, or as a normal part of god training), or as a test, to see if you can become fully simultaneously conscious through all of your individual minds, the consequence or possibility of failure being a mystery more than the rest of it. If life is an illusion, then death is also, a manifestation of fear, guilt and judgment, but I’m not quite ready to test that out yet, haha. I may still have attachments, but I concluded a while back that you can’t truly love what you are attached to. In this life people mostly see it the opposite way, that if you aren’t attached to them, or if they don’t worship you somehow, they don’t love you. Love and relationships are topics which are relevant to a discussion of the collective vs. the individual which Jon seems to avoid mostly. There are many deep questions his writings stir in my mind which he never seems to address and I couldn’t begin to scratch the surface of a discussion with a post or two here. Questions about the internet vs. the individual for starters. He has mentioned synchronicity and other “paranormal” events, but I would like to hear more of his theory regarding these and how it relates to his idea of the nature of an individual vs. a high consciousness. He seems to believe like many buddhists that there is a higher consciousness but it is of no importance to us in this existence. I have a strong sense that my life has been affected by so called divine intervention on multiple occasions. To me that means either something out there is interested in my life and so would be important, or it could be an indication of an increasing ability to affect my reality beyond the means or capabilities of direct physical action and without the conscious knowledge or awareness of how I am doing it. Just another thing that doesn’t seem to add up with his take on things in one way, but then again it adds up with his take on other things. Maybe his opinions or beliefs are in fact multi-dimensional like light and can be understood only as a paradox that he is selling. And would that be any different than selling light itself? That is in essence what many religions sell, a paradox, the light. Even in the tibetan book of the dead, the soul has forty some odd days to go to the light. More discussion on the nature of consciousness would be welcome. Scientists can’t explain it but they have to acknowledge it and it is apparently the driving force of our reality, not light, or gravity or any other energy. I’m starting to feel like I’m getting the same old sermons over and over, which is the reason I left the Unity church I used to attend. Though, it’s not quite that bad, yet. I’m am still surprised occasionally and I still check my mail everyday to see what he wrote. Obviously, he still provokes my thought, which I appreciate. But I am writing now because I am tiring of not getting my bigger questions answered and I do appreciate your input. Also, writing this stuff out does seem to help me sort things out a bit on my own.

        • jarrodschneider says:

          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

    • PJ London says:

      Mickey, I do not think that I am more intelligent or learned, but I see a conflict in our understanding of A brave New World and Jon’s column.
      We (they) are conflating the objective and the process.
      “Society” sets up model of Utopia or just what is “right” or “preferred”, our conditioning leads us to accept that model and compare our experience with the model. You speak of your childhood, a western twentieth century environment, and the hurt you felt when your father failed to live up to the conventions. Had you been raised in Sparta, you would have left your home at age 6 or 7, or in upper Victorian society, you may have gone to boarding school at age 5, under Genghis Khan, your father would hardly have known you, and may have been away for your first 10 years. In 1800 London, or 2100 Rio de Janiero, you may never have known your father and had only very hazy recollections of your mother.
      In certain Polynesian societies, you could have a group mother and anyone of a dozen could have been your father, but all adults are considered Mother and Father. similarly in Africa, all older women in the clan or family are considered “Grandmother”, which cause upset with the “White bosses” when you take time-off a dozen or so times to go to your “grandmother’s” funeral.
      The Model which “a group” or even an individual (think Jesus, Buddha, Mahommed, Mao et al.) creates, then has to be implanted in the conscious of followers or subjects.
      All that Bernays, Orwell, Huxley are saying is that for a model to be accepted, it requires “Groupthink”. and to do that is the process.
      You believe that the “Right” model is ” not to hurt other people and to protect innocent people from being hurt”, but why is that right?
      To achieve your model you need to convince everyone else that this is the “right” model achieve this is where the process described by Bernays, Huxley et al comes into play.
      This persuasion takes many forms, my favourite being “Kill them all, God will know his own”, but you may have other processes in mind to bring about your “Utopia”.
      If you understand where your expectation comes from (Daddy loves me, will care for me and will not hurt me) and why it is your model, (the bible tells us so) then you can put aside your feelings and look realistically at what is happening. You can than choose what you want to do about it.
      Unfortunately this ability to look dispassionately at life and the events, is what threatens the “Status Quo” and people with an advantage from the “Status Quo” (Churches and Synagogues, Government and parents) don’t want you questioning and arguing, they want you passive and acquiescent. Hence “do as I tell you”, “Soma”, TV, Football and Fluoride, but these are processes not objectives.
      Your objectives directly conflict with (most) other peoples objectives, my eyes were opened as a young man, when my business school lecturer, visiting from a Middle-eastern country, taught us that “in a negotiation, the objective is for you to have everything and the opponent to have nothing, anything less is failure.”
      People do not have your best interests at heart and will happily kill you and yours to obtain their interests. The only time that you are “cared” for is when you have utility to their objectives. (I am a good father, provider and husband) Then they will use any process that works, Whips, propaganda, religion or Soma.
      Sorry to be harsh, but as my Parabat sergeant told me, “Get the Sh** out of your eyes, your thumb out of your ar** and get moving”.
      Good luck, and may your dreams become reality for you.

      • David Marino says:

        You made a lot of sense until: You believe that the “Right” model is ” not to hurt other people… but why is that right?

        Its right unless you like continual war, and the continual possibility that you, your family, and the next generations connected to you, have to live in constant fear of vengeance, vengeance which is an undeniable human survival instinct.

        You have revealed your basic belief that you must attack (disrespect, steal from, etc) others because if you don’t you won’t get ahead, and they would surely do the same to you. There are only few people like that – psychopaths.

        You gotta make those middle easterners sign contracts, and then hold them to it.

        • PJ London says:

          I am afraid the your command of the English language is rather poor.
          I asked a question, I did make a declaration.
          “You have revealed your basic belief that you must attack (disrespect, steal from, etc) others because if you don’t you won’t get ahead, and they would surely do the same to you” Where in the comment did I reveal such a belief?
          The quote re “Kill them …” is a direct quote of a pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, you know the one that loves everybody.
          Do you have any evidence for your statement “vengeance which is an undeniable human survival instinct.” or is that just an opinion?
          What I am trying to show is that we have models thrust upon us, we confuse the methods (Bernays, propaganda, peer pressure etc.) with the model, and the process (methods) work just as well with any model. If you were raised in Sparta, Kyoto (1600), Berlin (1930) , Tel Aviv (1950) there would be other models which you would accept just as readily. Just as everyone rushes off to kill the Germans, Muslims, Iraqis et al.
          Whether you subscribe to “love” as a model, is up to you, and as a social model it reduces conflict and inclines to obedience among the practitioners. You will note that the people designated to run the model i.e. the police rely entirely on coercion and force, which inclines me to believe that it is a poor ideal.
          Actually what you were describing are Sociopaths, not Psychopaths, but what the heck.
          The Middle Easterners were from Tel Aviv, and the concept of keeping contracts is alien to them, which is why they have so many lawyers and judges.

          • Cevan says:

            ^Hahahahaha! Yeah… I do agree with you to a great extent. But, you have to remember that, as horribly violent (F#*%ed) as these times are, they are not so different from any other point in known human history. Humans, from the Sumerians onward, and probably before, have attempted to create social order through shared beliefs. And yes, those beliefs do tend to come from the top of the social structure down. Unfortunately, most people enjoy structures of control. It leaves them with the fuzzy feeling that they are cared for. Ahh, mom!… It is a complex world, and there is a lot of garbage to wade through. And now, more than ever, there is a lot of information to be taken in, to have a sliver of comprehension as to the how or why of anything. Sleepwalking is far easier, and a natural human response to the seemingly insurmountable quandaries of existence itself. Awareness is a choice that most opt out of at a very early age. Be it through religion, video games, TV… I am not so sure if these are simply the mechanisms of control, or if they are the vices provided, for the mentally impotent to keep them from wreaking more havoc than they already do.

            While there may be a trend towards stronger social concepts, that is not necessarily a bad thing in its entirety. There needs to be more compassion in the world.The problem with some popular social philosophies is that, they are generally lacking the promotion of a sense of self ownership. If a person isn’t in control of their own faculties, seeks popular consensus, and gives in to external pressures, while not taking the time to learn, and broaden their experiences, their existence becomes habitual and masturbatory. A futile search for self gratification with no end, or means. However, there is no fault in helping your neighbor so long as teaching responsibility goes into that partnership.

            • PJ London says:

              You have hit the nail on the head, Each person needs a societal “model” and it is (to some extent) unique for each person. Unhappiness occurs when the world (other people ) do not live up to our model.
              I am a Cognitive Behavioural Therapist, teaching that you have to recognise the world as it is, and adapt your behaviours to that.
              Your internal model can be whatever you want. It can be totally amoral, E.g. Bush, Blair, Obama et al, or it can be utterly moral, logical and beautiful, E.g. Jesus, Buddha, Mahomed etc., But to be happy, you must not have expectations that the world will fit your model. You must be aware and capable of fitting your life to your model within the “real” world.
              The next step is to adjust your behaviour to create as much “goal congruence” between you, the world, your work, and your family, so that you can be moving towards your goals without being constantly thwarted and frustrated by the people around you.
              As part of this adjustment, you can learn how to “manipulate” or train the behavior of those with whom you interact, to obtain this “goal congruence.” The manipulation can be overt or hidden, your choice depending an what will be the most effective. With some, being demanding is the only way to get their agreement, with others cajoling and with some you will never get their assistance without dishonesty. It is then your choice whether to participate or to go around them to your goal.
              As long as you are aware of what is happening, you can make adjustments to still be happy.It is only when you are unaware, E.g. Michael’s father not fitting Michael’s expectation, that your model is not universal or “right”.
              Understanding the difference between Model and Method is basic. My teacher punishes me, because you are not supporting his/her objective, not (usually) merely because they like hurting you.
              Example :
              Mother complains to father that the 3 boys have been swearing at school and the teacher has complained. Next morning at breakfast, father asks the eldest what does he want to eat. Eldest says ” I will have the bloody cornflakes” Father slaps him across the head into the corner and the boy lies crying. Father turns to the second, “what do you want for breakfast”, No 2 says I would like some bloody cornflakes please”. Father slaps him on the head and he lies next to his big brother also howling.
              Turning to the youngest he says “and you?” The youngest says “I would have to be a right C*** to ask for Cornflakes”
              You see his method may have been right or at fault but the Model was not communicated.
              An awful lot of people go through (a very unhappy) life never understanding why they are depressed and miserable, because they confuse the Model with the Method.

              Peace

      • “Had you been raised in Sparta, you would have left your home at age 6 or 7…”

        You have been watching way too much Hollywood, and listening to your ole sarge bark bullshit about Sparta, you need to educate yourself on Sparta. It was a dictatorship and under Agoge only those fit and of proper bloodline…meaning a true Spartiate (elite) were educated from seven to twenty-one. Quite like the model for Nazi Germany. But much of this Sparta is really only folklore/myth and conjecture passed down. Much bullshit has been added as this is a glamour point for American military educators. It is a mythic history overlaid with American Military propoganda to romanticize the military. In reality, Sparta was much closer to a xenophobia. It was a dictatorship and extremely prejudicial caste system. But there really is no evidence to the fact of any of it at all.

        “Your objectives directly conflict with (most) other peoples objectives, my eyes were opened as a young man, when my business school lecturer, visiting from a Middle-eastern country, taught us that “in a negotiation, the objective is for you to have everything and the opponent to have nothing, anything less is failure.” -P J London

        Your army brainwashing is showing again PJ…

        Interesting how you slipped ‘Middle-eastern country’ in that so easily. But you knew that right PJ. There was a reason for it. Propagandize!
        That idea of leaving your opponent in the dust is a Harvard Business school ideal first. Robber Baron business practice 101. That is good ole American PJ, red,white and blue…As matter of fact is drives the fucking place (HBS).

        “Kill them all, God will know his own”…

        Such a military cliche P J…wow…almost gives you permission to kill, n’est pas.

        “All that Bernays, Orwell, Huxley are saying is that for a model to be accepted, it requires “Groupthink”. and to do that is the process.”

        As opposed to the objective? The process is the objective…are you excusing them?

        “Sorry to be harsh, but as my Parabat sergeant told me, “Get the Sh** out of your eyes, your thumb out of your ar** and get moving”.”…..

        I almost had an epiphany after that one P J! Hoo Rah
        I think you missed the wrong room sport, your still in Armythink”
        You need to be a free thinker I would say,to have an opinion on mind control…
        “Get the Sh** out of your eyes”….Hah, too funny PJ.

        michael

        “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
        ― George Orwell 1903-1950

        “We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”
        ― Winston Churchill 1874-1965

        • PJ London says:

          The Point being made was that there are many societal models available. One is the “gentle Jesus meek and mild” Western model which is taught to children as conditioning for obedience, another is the “Spartan” model, which if one had time one could read and or write several books on, but it is generally referred to to indicate “the Spartiates”. When talking of “Spartans” one does not refer to Sparta as the Helots or their sheep or houses, but their militaristic society. Unless of course you are trying to nitpick or be contrary.
          You have no idea of my personal mindset, I am creating a discussion with Michael and making the point that there are alternate “Models”.
          Which is why I used the word Harsh.

          You clearly have not understood Bernays, Orwell or Huxley, and you still do not grasp the concept of Objective versus Method or process.
          To make it simple, You want to go from LA to NY (objective), there are several “Methods” available for you to achieve this.
          In society there are several Models (Objectives) and several methods available to achieve these objectives.
          Brave New World demonstrated one model Supine, gentle obedient stratified from birth, model; and Drugs (Soma) being the method of achieving this.
          1984 showed another model, harsh, tough and disciplined, with surveillance and punishment being the method.

          If you have read any R Heinlein, then you would know that an author can project himself into various roles depending on the “message” he wishes to get across.

          In this case I wished to jolt Michael into understanding that the “gentle, family” western model was not the only possible societal model.

          My personal belief system is that of “Libertarianism”, “never initiate violence”, however I am not naive enough to believe that violence will not be visited upon me and mine, mainly in the form of obedience to laws with the threat of violence if one does not obey, whether they are morally right or wrong.

          I have not visited a cinema in 25 years, am a vegetarian as I do not wish harm to anything, I stay away from churches and religion as they are full of people who believe that they “know” everything, merely because they can recite a load of someone else’s thoughts.

          So you can keep your antagonistic opinions of me, I really do not care. You do not know me and have no insight into me and very little understanding of the subject under discussion.

          • OzzieThinker says:

            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?

            • PJ London says:

              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

            • OzzieThinker says:

              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.

          • 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

  7. David Marino says:

    In order to control people our masters have directed tremendous energy at their goal of breaking down the family unit, because it is the strongest unit of resistance they face. This goes beyond convincing “people that their individual independence is a delusion”, beyond the “idea that kids belong to their parents.” They want to destroy (but settle for weakening) the undeniable bonds within the family unit, bonds which are undeniable to human nature, cemented by instinct.

    A big part of social engineering and a key element of breaking down the family unit in Eastern Europe was the implementation (from the top) of the idea that women are “communal property”. Loyalty to one man was indoctrinated as stupidity. Some years ago, after the fall of communism, that line of thinking crossed the ocean and entered the U.S., but it infiltrated Western Europe first. Right now the idea that women are communal property has taken hold in much of America – the social planner’s goal of breaking down the family unit is coming along fine. Just look at the average teenage suburban girl’s mindset – you don’t have to look hard.

    I am sure Jon is aware of this but I am don’t know if he has covered it well. I am sure his wisdom on this subject will be appreciated.

    • bob klinck says:

      The goal of having all women in common was of course one of Karl Marx’s Ten Points in the Communist Manifesto (1848), but it has a much longer ancestry which includes Adam Weishaupt and the Illuminati. The pedigree of an idea is always revealing–but not to those who merely follow the crowd.

  8. OzzieThinker says:

    Jon, I don’t know if you have read any of my stuff but, on the scale of absolute free from control, this is about as absolute as it gets:

    http://ozziethinker.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/the-mystery-of-planet-earth/

    If the objective of control is too obscure painful truths; then perhaps the greater the “nonsense”, the greater the truth.

  9. Jon, Brave New World Order should perhaps been the name of Huxley’s book.

    Here in India, we are living the worst of Huxley and Orwell. Very frustrating and yet, if we see all of this breakdown as inevitable and really an opportunity to “furiously” work to rise above, with, as Gurdjief said, conscious labours and intentional suffering, we have a millenial opportunity to be the greatest generation.

    I spoke about my own journey recently at a TEDx event, if interested: I call it un-per-forming…

  10. zendeviant says:

    “one world” is contextual. Big difference whether it’s John Lennon or John Rockefeller.

    Absolutely a paradox, but it is a freewill choice that must be made by an individual–NOT a societal onus. Having said that, parents should feel free to “program” the finest human they can imagine.

    Or “should” they? Too much meta, spoils the thought.

    Great stuff, Jon. As ever

    Shine Bright.

    • bob klinck says:

      There is no difference at all. ANY ‘one world’ utopian vision will ultimately require uniformity, which requires conformity, which requires sanctions and police to enforce it.

  11. Afshin Nejat says:

    Yoga is the antithesis to the new world order, and real “soma” exists, but is only a catalyst multiplying the nature of what you have chosen to become. Yoga includes the proper use of such and other catalytic agents, and cannot be conditioned in any way when practiced as part of a True Religion.

  12. AwakenedLaurie says:

    Another great posting Jon….

    of course these demonic creatures want us believing we are all the same…any enemy wants the masses clueless of their agendas….it is much easier stealing loving divine energy when one is unware of what is happening to them….in a stupor….these energy vampires have survived on this loving energy since their arrival here…the system they designed keeps the masses unaware of the indiviudual power those of loving divine energy have inside once they allow themselves to be guided by a higher consciousness….breaking their spell….

    it is then that you can see these monstors as nothing but COWARDs that hide behind lies, deceit, exploitation, and murder to further their agenda….that is why they beign the brainwashing at such an early age to OBEY their system…..OBEY the teacher, OBEY without questioning the system or if you do question their ways then labelled by peers as a trouble maker needing their assistance with toxic drugs to keep you in line…one way or the other they stifull anyone not in the hurd mentalilty…

    the education system teaches WHAT to think….not HOW to think….and OBEY…do not question authority…..OBEY….that somehow lab coats are experts…..it is an insane world run by the demented and those easily programmed and brainwashed will be as demented as the ones doing the brainwashing…..no wonder this planet is in such peril idiots are creating idiots….look at who is running the show and the masses that are under their spell…..anyone who questions this authority is labled crazy for seeing the truth….as more are awakening to how demented our reality really are speaking out against this insanity with a resolve so strong only death will stop us….and these parasites and their evil mind will be held accountable for their actions….something they never thought would happen.

    Lots of LOVE
    AwakenedLaurie

  13. Put this together along with the engineering of “cognitive dissonance”, and you have a winning control-system.

    This is how you get the people to fall in love with their servitude: “Make reality seem so scary, and individuality seem so out of touch, that the people will come begging for the state to -do something-.”

    It also comes surprisingly hand-in-hand with this new ‘science’ that is passed onward as “rational” and “logical”. – We are NOT creatures of logic! We are conceptual, innovative, and creative individuals. The “state” creates nothing but fear, loathing, and servitude of the masses. It creates nothing more than a vacuum of personal experiences. Nature does abhor a vacuum. Therefore, the “state’s” solution is to fill that vacuum with its own brand of programming.

    Let us not also forget the use of “fear”. (I wrote about this last week as a matter of fact.):

    Fear paralyses critical thinking,

    Fear clouds the Mind from being able to form a judgment (though, “judgment” is condemned if the individual dares to ever “judge”),

    Fear distracts the individual from ever experiencing those moments where the individual could realize his personal power,

    Fear corrals people to the direction of the strong “leader” and his ideas,

    Fear, is a most powerful motivator, and it is a most effective tool of tyrants.

    Beat the fear, and you effectively “beat the system”, no matter what the programming.

  14. bob klinck says:

    Understanding of what you allude to here is critical to averting the soul-destroying society being constructed all around us. Unfortunately, earlier warnings have been ignored or suppressed. For example, in 1924 Major C.H. Douglas wrote in his seminal book, SOCIAL CREDIT: “There is probably no more subtle and elusive subject than the consideration of the exact relation of the group in…countless…forms, to the individuals who compose the groups. But as far as it is
    possible to sum the matter up, the general problem seems to be involved in a decision as to whether the individual should be sacrificed to the group or whether the fruits of group activity should be always at the disposal of the individual. If we consider this problem in connection with the industrial and economic situation, it is quite incontestable that every condition tending to subordinate the individual to the group is, at the moment, fostered. Institutions which would appear to have nothing in common and to be, in fact, violently opposed, can be seen on closer investigation to have this idea in common, and to that extent to have no fundamental antagonism. Pre-war Germany was always exhibited as being reactionary, feudal, and militaristic to an extent unequalled by any other great power. Post-war Russia is supposed by large masses of discontented workers, to be the antithesis of all this. But the similarity of the two is daily becoming
    more apparent and it is notorious that the leaders of pre-war Germany are flocking to
    post-war Russia in increasing numbers, in the lively hope of the fulfilment of the ideals
    which were frustrated by the Great War. The latest pronouncements on industrial affairs
    by Russian statesmen are indistinguishable from those of American, German, or British
    bankers (which statement is not intended as undiluted praise). (28) It is significant that
    the arguments voiced from all of these quarters are invariably appeals to mob psychology
    – “Europe must be saved,” “Workers of the World unite,” etc. The appeal is away from
    the conscious-reasoning individual, to the unconscious herd instinct. And the “interests”
    to be saved, require mobs, not individuals.”

  15. Reblogged this on Tales from the awakened Mind and commented:
    Learn about control methods, to make humans run on autopilot mind and to keep them in this state. Can we come out from this autopilot? Yes we can by free choice, changing to a consciousness that show you resulting timelines before the autopiloted scheme was executed. Thanks Jon

  16. […] Jon Rappoport’s blog March 28, 2014 by Jon Rappoport […]

  17. Bob Dobalina says:

    “When the individual feels, the community reels.”

  18. 3duir says:

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

  19. 3duir says:

    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.

  20. 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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.