Censorship You Support
(Perhaps the most terrifying example of lies are the behavioural modifications Cordyceps mushrooms cause their prey.)
All information can exist in a form that can harm or kill us. There are repairmen killed by intense microwaves that were not properly abated - censored - while they attempted their work, cooked by the power the information was broadcast with.
There are also lies, disinformation that can trick them that do not disprove them, and who then are vulnerable to harm concealed by lies.
But there is more as well. Hendricus G. Loos patented in the 90s means of affecting human cognition via manipulating the frequency of monitors, and the mechanism of frequency modulation is not limited to screens, but is common to all EMF mechanisms, AFAIK. For earlier iterations of such mechanisms, see the work of Jose Delgado, who developed in the late 60s chips that could be implanted into the brain to cause behaviour. He infamously demonstrated this by being charged by a bull with such a chip that he stopped in it's tracks at the press of a button. That video remains online last I checked.
I am competent to agree that regulation prohibiting blasting an individual with a maser nominal of amplitude to kill them is justified censorship, even if the frequency of the blast is modulated to encode information I, or even all humanity (a scarce statement indeed!) agree is true.
But I confess I am not competent to discern every lie from the truth. I am certain I can never be while I exist in this form. Neither can I understand the eldritch frequencies considered by Loos decades ago, and whatever form such may take today, for whatever purpose. I am incompetent to do so.
But, I am competent to oppose lies, manipulation, and usurpation of our human will to act. I hope all of us will agree we ourselves should not be misled, manipulated, or controlled to act contrary to our will.
Insofar as I can see and understand the world, we have not effectively prevented - censored - such detriments to our humanity. As well, is there merit to the white lie? Or controlling someone to guide them out of danger?
While I cannot agree either are superable justly, I have to confess that as a parent I would have used any tool at my disposal when required by circumstances to save my sons' lives. I must concur then that the motivation for committing such wrongs mitigates them, and then again confess my incompetence to parse which are tolerable and which never are, in all potential circumstances.
What censorship do you support? Why, and what recommendations do you have for me, to enable me to better be free myself, and enable my people to as well?
Thanks!
Curated for #informationwar (by @aagabriel)
Delegate to the @informationwar! project and get rewarded
Dear @valued-customer !
It's hard for an American elementary school student like me to understand your profound metaphysics and metaphors.😅
However, one thing is certain: in the world I live in, you will be a criminal.
If a humble carpenter and hunter like you claims the noble governor to the public as an arsonist, you will face up to at least five years in prison or a fine of US$20,000 for defamation, contempt and dissemination of misinformation.😨
In the world I live in, the rulers and officials are royalty and nobility.
In truth, my friend, the idea of nobility is a lie told to impose slavery on them that are fooled by it. People are of equivalent source, drawn all from the nurturing wombs of their mothers, and equally personally responsible for their prosperity and enjoyment of the blessings of life. None are of some superior stock. None specially are blessed by dispensation of deities to rule by virtue of their exceptional qualities over mere mortals.
From dust we all come, and to dust we all go.
Thanks!
Dear @valued-customer, You are correct!
However, the churches in the world where I live are also obeying the orders of the state.
In the Western world, the church is the kingdom of God, not under Caesar's rule.
However, in the world I live in, the church is governed by the state.
Thank you!
It is well you cite the scripture that reveals God is not the church, and that there are limits on what is due God, the world, and oneself.
Here we touch on why I am not a Christian, and while I yearn to speak my mind further, I am loathe to even more, because your faith matters to you in a way my own philosophy does not, and my freedom from constraint in consideration is likely - no, it is certain - to offend you.
And that I will not do.
All I can tell you is that nothing you give God deprives you, and any deprivation you suffer from giving unto church and state should justly be limited to what is necessary and compensated by services availed you. I am sure you are aware that justice from church and state is not a reasonable expectation today, and also that what I would recommend and have undertaken myself is not what you will find acceptable yourself, or what you will do.
I commend you to your best judgment, then, to decide your fate, and but remind you that you, yourself, will judge you without lapse of discernment or understanding when the time comes and you are freed of the constraints of the flesh.
A reverse engineering Manchurian Candidate treatment?
Um, no. I am far too disposed to dissent a priori to be successfully rewired for any other purpose whatsoever, as I would necessarily rebel against my new purpose, leaving me a shambling, incoherent wreck, at best, incapable of attaining either my native purpose, or my newly imposed purpose.
It is hard enough being challenged by a purpose incapable of being attained. Further being incapable of attaining any purpose at all would drive me to drink.
Thanks!
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!
I support castration for offenders, but that opinion is unpopular on Hive...