You are viewing a single comment's thread:
It seems you harbor a great deal of awareness about the techniques utilized with mind control through the use of frequency technology.
An awareness to the information is not a protection against the influence over your mind, imho. It's a bitter pill to swallow is it not?
As I spend a lot of time on screens, knowing screens can manipulate mood through flicker rates, knowing different forms of information can be fed in a subconscious way, through underlayment's of audio and visual techniques, I find myself asking similar questions as you.
I think there is only one clear answer to this, and it is turn off the screen, and don't turn it back on. This seems to be an impossibility for me, because I see the screen as a way to gain resources, and eventually use those resources to break free from this prison.
Wow.. This is really something isn't it..
Especially if all information and data online is controlled by a source. It's easy for us to believe that this is impossible, but who is Satoshi Nakamoto, have we figured this out yet? I have my suspicions, some good, some bad.
Thank you for raising awareness.
I long ago discovered that in writing about something, I was compelled to substantively gather and order my thoughts, and in this way learned what I thought. It seems silly, because the idea that we don't know what we think seems absurd, prima facie, yet that is only because the vast majority of our cognitive abilities, our consciousness and the acts thereof, remain completely subconscious.
What we think we know is a vanishingly small part of what we do actually think. Because of this, I reckon claims that we don't know, or are unaware of, various things, like pheromones, or flicker refresh rates, aren't factual, but such misconceptions are due to our nescience about our actual consciousness, of which we are largely unconscious. The apparent contradiction in that statement is an artifact of our incomprehension of what our cognitive essence actually is, reflected in the poverty of our language regarding it.
As this principle is basal to my considerations generally, I inherently bristle with objections when I hear 'The only way...' to do something, and my first thoughts are invariably more ways. In this context, means of controlling refresh rates of monitors, myriad and easily learned, suggest screens aren't an usual or customary means of affecting us by malevolent actors.
Many years ago I read that we are bathed in ~200M times natural, background levels of EMF radiation, however, and there are practically no means of moderating or mitigating this at all.
Except for tinfoil.
Thanks!
Your points are well comprehended and well received.
I also have the propensity to resist cognitively when told something must be a certain way.
The most difficult people to deal with are the ones who can never be wrong about anything.
When debated respectfully, I find great value in learning that I am not correct about something.
Those who resist the idea they they could be tricked by an invalid government body, or be subject to a certain type of control mechanism are oftentimes never wrong about anything in how they view it, and will resort to slanderous language.
I think subliminal programming mechanisms might be some of the most effective forms of this control, and hardest to detect.
You're indeed right, in my opinion, that the mechanisms we can detect and alter may have the least impact, but forms which we can only escape through physical removal of ourselves are the hardest to escape, as contradictive as it may sound.
Thank you for your insightful thoughts.
Been thinking on this. Dr. Brian O'blivion, a character in 'Videodrome' (an old David Cronenberg B movie from the 80s) said 'What is seen on the TV becomes the raw experience of those who see it.'
That is, to me, the central point Cronenberg made in the film, and I suspect it reflects an overfamiliarity with MK Ultra (mostly due to the violent sexual subtext of the film), and I also reckon it's true.
We haven't evolved mechanisms to sort video from reality cognitively. Just as when we dream or fantasize about events, our cognitive stack mostly can't distinguish what we see from actual raw experience. The very small part of our consciousness that we are aware of and explain that it's just fiction, or a dream, to, isn't particularly formative of our emotional background state, at least for most of us.
Because of this, I don't think EMF radiation, or flicker tricks, are the heavy lifters of our brainwashing. I think it's the content we consume, especially video. I also think we are part of a collective unconscious, and that we consume content, or rather the subtext and worldview based on content, that our peers contribute to the collective.
I've noted that despite not having TV, my kids were fully abreast of the current memes of their peer group. They didn't watch the shows from which those subtexts and societal attitudes were communicated, so they could only have gotten them from their peers, and this necessarily subverbally, rather than by simply having the plot of the latest episode of 'The Simpsons' explained to them.
I think this is how MK Ultra succeeded, ascertaining this collectivization of our consciousness and how to deploy that as a weapon to guide political winds nationally, and extranationally, with remarkable precision.
I'd probably not have mentioned that, but for your astute considerations. It seems a bit whack to me, TBQH. However, I have long noted that our gut fauna contribute to our consciousness, and this requires a collective mechanism more basal than our grey matter, since gut fauna doesn't have grey matter, being single-celled organisms, and also the conformance of my sons to a society they were largely not part of during their early youth.
I also noted my own experiences seemed to also reflect such a collectivized understanding. Maybe you will note the same.
Thanks!