I begin to find an idle and fond bondage in the oppression of aged tyranny, who sways, not as it hath power, but as it is suffered. William Shakespeare
First, a quick update on the New Zealand whistle blower, Barry Young (no relation). As I alluded in my last post, if Young’s information is legit, look out.
Apparently it’s mostly over the target because it’s causing turmoil in many quarters, not least of which is with the government of New Zealand. Two days before he and investigative reporter Liz Gunn released the data, Young sent an email to all members of the New Zealand Parliament warning them that the governments own Ministry of Health data showed that large numbers of New Zealander’s were being killed by the jabs. For his concern for humanity, the government locked Young out of the system to which he had high level clearance, sent a special unmarked unit (two cars, 8 officers) to arrest him (he’s never been arrested) broke down his door, ransacked his home, handcuffed him and hauled him off to jail - all for trying to save lives.
Folks, I don’t know about you, but that strikes me as one of the most Orwellian things I’ve ever heard. It makes me so grateful I never moved to New Zealand 40 years ago when I had the chance to do so.
But all is not well with this story. Native New Zealander Dr. Sam Bailey, who’s long been a medical whistle blower in her own right, expressed disappointment in the information released by Barry Young, claiming some of the highest death rates Young presented represent institutions that care for the elderly.
Opps.
Micheal Nevradakis PhD, writing for the Defender, went to some length to cover the greater story in some detail. He doesn’t mention anything about Dr. Baileys primary complaint but he does present a detailed version of the overall story.
As I pointed out in my last post, Steve Kirsch has been working with the data provided by Young and has written several posts about it. Presidential candidate Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai recently chimed in on Kimdotcom saying Kirsch’s interpretation of the data was a nothing burger. While I thought Dr. Shiva made some legitimate points, his argument about a lack of controls for the data was weak. Young’s data is just that. It’s not an experiment trying to prove or disprove efficacy when compared to a control.
To their credit, both he and Kirsch have broken conformity ranks by urging the New Zealand government to release ALL of the data.
Alex Jones recently interviewed Young, Liz Gunn and Steve Kirsch. Not much new to report from that.
dream
Last night I dreamt I was testifying at a Senate subcommittee hearing similar to the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, to which Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger testified about the Twitter files back in March.
Unlike Taibbi and Shellenberger, who conformed to protocol and sat idly while Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Stacy Plaskett (D-Vir. Is) gave them empty tongue lashings about their investigative journalism, in my dream, when asked my first question by a woman who sort of represented a cross between Schulz and Plaskett (aren’t dreams fun!), I began by saying: “Senator, I’m here to remind you that we…” and here I made a gesture that encompassed myself and all those in the audience, purposefully including the court officers …”do not work for you. You work for us. I’ll be asking the questions here.”
The audience went wild.
The Senator went livid, stood up and began shouting at me. I told her to sit down and shut up. At that point she told the chamber officers to arrest me. They hesitated, looking unsure what to do. She threatened to fire them if they didn’t follow her orders. They promptly ran over and grabbed me. I struggled but they were big bruisers and soon had me handcuffed. As they were dragging me out of the room I turned to the hybrid Senator and said: “So this is your idea of representative government? Arrest anyone who doesn’t agree with you? You have more in common with Hitler’s Nazi Germany than you do with the US Constitution!”
That’s probably as close as I’ll ever come to that kind of situation, but at least I got to enjoy a taste of what I would have done had I been in the shoes of Taibbi or Shellenberger.
onward
This morning I read a post by one of my favorite writers on Substack, Celia Farber, regarding the idea that many of the common terminologies we all use to defend our positions can be construed as mantras, many of which may have been purposefully created by nefarious entities with the intention of sowing division, creating antipathy and most importantly, programming conformity. Some examples she gave were; “Israel has the right to defend itself.” The flip side of that mantra being: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. Someone in the comments mentioned, “safe and effective”.
The desire to make people conform to a particular belief agenda seems to be the driving force behind mantras, not to mention their effectiveness at taking advantage of the human psyche. We can see this in ‘right wing conspiracy theorist’, and a recent one, ‘Trump will be a dictator’. As for the recent one about Trump, I’m sorry to break the news to those who are now buying into that, but… we’re already living in a dictatorship (a whole ‘nuther post).
I think you get the mantra idea.
Memes have mantra qualities. While I enjoy looking at creative memes, part of the reason I rarely post them here is because I see them playing a powerful role in someones greater agenda manipulation. And some can be interpreted several ways. While there may be some great agendas out there, not all of us may deem them as such. Robert Malone comes to mind. He posts memes on a regular basis. Over time his biases have become apparent though many of the memes he posts.
In reality, we are awash in mantras. Here we have Ali Velshi of MSNBC using the “Trump will be a dictator” mantra to describe Trump, who then uses the “drill baby drill mantra” to support his dictator-for-a-day position.
Since reading Farbers post I now see mantras everywhere. There seems to be no escaping them and… maybe we shouldn’t. Maybe they serve some deeper purposes.
Are mantras always a bad thing? Because mantras are infused in language and because they’ve long served as useful tools, they’ve probably been around for as long as language has existed. We use them; to remember, to pacify our children and ourselves when fearful, as teaching aids, to instill a sense of wonder and to seek the Divine. I have no plans to give up any of those.
Should we use mantras to shame others or to support what we believe is a righteous position that we know others may disagree with? I think we unconsciously do that multiple times everyday. I know I’ve done so, especially over the past three years. Am I going to apologize for doing so? No. Why not? Because we are at war and the enemy is far better armed than I am. Over the past three years tens of millions of innocent people have been injured and killed in this war and the perpetrators have gotten rich in the process. I need to be able to make the best use of the limited weapons in my arsenal.
I also don’t think people should be condemned for having an opinion. We’re all adults capable of holding several thoughts in our mind at the same time. We can hear a mantra or see a meme and enjoy its biting nature while at the same time understanding why we do or don’t agree with it.
So…. Release the mantras!
Here’s three short ones that cannot exist without the conformity of a large percentage of the population; nazis, zombies and useful idiots.
Let’s begin with the one that some might question as being a legitimate concern - zombies. What is a zombie? Are they made or born?
Before delving into this, I want to acknowledge that the human mind is a fragile thing. I don’t know anyone who is completely immune from psychological manipulation to conform, myself included. But understanding the process can take us a long way towards avoiding it.
The short answer to the first question is: Zombies are mostly a creation of Hollywood. IMB lists 272 zombie movies made over the past 80 years or so. Wikipedia claims the first one was White Zombie made in 1932. Why was the first zombie white? Why has every zombie I’ve seen in a movie been a white person? That’s speculation for another day. The point being, if it were not for Hollywood the term zombie would not be a part of modern parlance today.
Of course there is no official diagnosis of what constitutes a zombie, but generally speaking, Hollywood portrays them as people whose mind has been terribly demented in some atrocious manner. Typical mild symptoms include; unable to think critically, devoid of empathy, lacking foresight and human intuition. Theoretically, these entry level zombies can evolve into much more dangerous zombies that want to destroy normal humans, or at the very least, turn normies into zombies like them.
Hmmm…
Since there is no official definition, I’ve taken the liberty to classify zombie stages of development.
I originally included the following social experiment video about how social programming was being used to get people to line up for jabs in this June 2021 post. It depicts very well the psychological techniques used to coerce people to fall in line with unquestioning conformity. Let’s call this, stage one zombie programming.
At the end of this experiment, the young gal in the video was shown how she was being manipulated. Let’s hope that this experience prevented her and everyone else who participated in this social experiment from falling prey to the massive manipulation that took place during 2021/22 to get people to line up for the covidcon jabs.
The above social experiment was based on a much earlier experiment done by Solomon Asch back in 1951. For this experiment Asch made this simple chart.
He had a group of confederates in a room state which line in the right chart matched the one on the left. There was also a lone participant in the room. When all the confederates said the correct one, the participant agreed. When all the confederates said the wrong one, about a third of the participants agreed. As a control Asch had another group of participants without the confederates. Here are the findings.
Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view. On average, about one third (32%) of the participants who were placed in this situation went along and conformed with the clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials.
Over the 12 critical trials, about 75% of participants conformed at least once, and 25% of participants never conformed.
In the control group, with no pressure to conform to confederates, less than 1% of participants gave the wrong answer.
There was some criticism of Asch’s experiment so he did it again some years later by varying the numbers involved. Here are the results.
Asch (1956) found that group size influenced whether subjects conformed. The bigger the majority group (no of confederates), the more people conformed, but only up to a certain point.
With one other person (i.e., confederate) in the group conformity was 3%, with two others it increased to 13%, and with three or more it was 32% (or 1/3).
Optimum conformity effects (32%) were found with a majority of 3. Increasing the size of the majority beyond three did not increase the levels of conformity found. Brown and Byrne (1997) suggest that people might suspect collusion if the majority rises beyond three or four.
According to Hogg & Vaughan (1995), the most robust finding is that conformity reaches its full extent with 3-5 person majority, with additional members having little effect.
Asch then worked with ally’s of the participant. Things begin to get more interesting.
The study also found that when any one individual differed from the majority, the power of conformity significantly decreased.
This showed that even a small dissent can reduce the power of a larger group, providing an important insight into how individuals can resist social pressure.
As conformity drops off with five members or more, it may be that it’s the unanimity of the group (the confederates all agree with each other) which is more important than the size of the group.
In another variation of the original experiment, Asch broke up the unanimity (total agreement) of the group by introducing a dissenting confederate.
Asch (1956) found that even the presence of just one confederate that goes against the majority choice can reduce conformity by as much as 80%.
For example, in the original experiment, 32% of participants conformed on the critical trials, whereas when one confederate gave the correct answer on all the critical trials conformity dropped to 5%.
This was supported in a study by Allen and Levine (1968). In their version of the experiment, they introduced a dissenting (disagreeing) confederate wearing thick-rimmed glasses – thus suggesting he was slightly visually impaired.
Even with this seemingly incompetent dissenter, conformity dropped from 97% to 64%. Clearly, the presence of an ally decreases conformity.
The absence of group unanimity lowers overall conformity as participants feel less need for social approval of the group (re: normative conformity).
conformative programming/propaganda
Anyone who watches a lot of tv is inundated with manipulative programming; in the news, advertising from fake food companies, big pharma, big tech and all the other culprits involved in the zombification of the human race.
After this initial softening up by television programming, the next phase of zombie development takes place when people purposefully indulge in what they are told; they begin to form their world views based on what they are told by the bought and paid for news programming, they begin to eat the fake food they are told to eat, they ask for the toxic drugs they are told to ask for, buy the cell phone they are told to buy, what cell phone plan to use, what movies to watch and so on, all based on psychological conformity programming coming from television. Indulging in all of these things further deteriorates the mind and body, which helps enable ever more programming and propaganda.
I came of age during the height of television. I was in my thirties when the internet came into vogue. As I began navigating the internet, reading and listening to alternative news sources, it slowly began to dawn on me how programmed to conform to the official narrative I had become. Once I came to fully understand this realization, I threw out my tv and went through a long learning curve to shed the previous decades of programming.
Ever so slowly I became aware of how someone indulging in the satanic, psychologically motivated materialism spewed out by the legacy media and promoted by the fascist crown corporation we call the US government, can lead one to become what I call a stage one zombie - someone who is in bad health, overweight, unable to think critically, devoid of empathy, lacking foresight and intuition…
Some may even insist that because they have sat in front of a tv for much of their lives that they know what’s best and so others should follow their lead. These would be the Karens (male and female) and the woke of the world. That led many of these types to virtue signal that because they’ve taken the jabs everyone else should become zombies like them and take the jabs.
How has Hollywood been so accurate for so long with its portrayal of zombies? And why have they been so insistant for so long with the zombie theme?
For me, all of this brings into focus how some folks were manipulated by the covidcon psyop into conforming with the official narrative that a virus was afoot and that everyone should take the upcomig jabs. Those who took, and continue to take jabs are indulging in the overall psyop.
Critical thinking skills evaporate.
A strong sense of self preservation weakens.
The ability to consider the possibility that malfeasance is afoot is nonexistent.
The idea of having personal autonomy is swept aside.
(This one holds some interesting details few are willing to mention. In a twisted turn of positions, many who previously believed in the personal autonomy of a woman to make her own decision regarding abortion, flipped, and joined the ranks of those who gave no quarter to those who believed in autonomy regarding the jabs. And many of those who believe a woman does not have the right to chose took the side of granting personal autonomy when it came to the jabs.)
Consent is successfully ignored.
Constitutional rights are no longer a consideration.
At this point, stage one of the zombification of the masses is complete. The masses are now so dumbed down that stage two can be implemented.
Roll out the jab propaganda program.
The governments program to bait the dumbed-down population by purposely imposing social propaganda (you‘ll kill your grandma if you don’t take the jabs) to conform to the agenda was swallowed, hook line and sinker, by a large percentage of the stage one population.
As I’ve pointed out a number times here over the past several years, some of those who have taken the jabs, especially those who have taken 3 or more, now seem to have lost touch with their soul and much of what was left of their humanity. This would be stage two of zombie development, the useful idiot catgory.
Coming up - more on useful idiots, stage three and Nazis.
Let me know if you think I’m missing some important mantras and stages, or if you know why Hollywood has so much invested in zombie propaganda.
All too true, Kyle. Hollywood, of course, is a main component of the pre-programming "propagenda". I remember when the movie Children of Men came out I knew it wouldn't only exist as sci-fi Cinema for very long. The Cabal consistently send us postcards from the future.
Excellent piece Kyle.