№ 2. Conspiracy Theories

 

 

 

This page is part of the “ESCAPING THE HYPNOTIC STATE” sequence

I could not write this website without providing a path out of the deep hypnotic state. These seven pages are that path. The willingness, however, must be yours.

 

 

 

 

The campaign for conformity among the masses is relentless and has reached a deafening crescendo

 

 

Replace Franz Anton Mesmer with a television

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mesmerizing the Masses


You probably regard my use of “hypnotized” and “hypnotic state” as a deliberate exaggeration.  Well, if you are following my subscribed course of studying our country’s endless false flag attacks, JFK’s brutal murder at the hands of the CIA (think progeny of Jove), the Appollo Program moon landing fairytale, the “resistance is futile” global warming madness, and the mind-bending illusion of planes hitting the Twin Towers on 9/11, then you are ready to graduate. This is your final lesson. I am using “hypnotized” and “hypnotic state” very deliberately as technical terms.

Hypnotism’s origins can be traced back to Franz Anton Mesmer and what was called mesmerism.

Now consider the definition of mesmerize.

This is precisely how television and movies are being used. In Centralized Control of Mainstream Media (MSM) as well as the section on Hurricane Erin, I talk about the centralized control of mass media in this country. Without it, the deep hypnotic state of the people would not be possible.

Squashing dissenting voices is paramount to achieving the level of repetition needed to mesmerize or hypnotize the masses. Global warming says “It’s getting hotter. It’s getting hotter. It’s getting hotter.” just like the hypnotist says “You’re getting sleepy. You’re getting sleepy. You’re getting sleepy.” Repetition is the key to success. It’s that simple. And it is called hypnotism.

The government is paying a lot of people to say “It’s getting hotter. It’s getting hotter. It’s getting hotter.” According to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), “climate change” research garnered 11.6 billion dollars in 2014 alone. The mechanism of control is very simple. They only fund academics and “scientific” researchers who are willing to find some new way of saying “It’s getting hotter. It’s getting hotter. It’s getting hotter.” And by controlling the mass media, they can take away the microphone of anyone who says anything whatsoever to the contrary.

Now you must take this exact same technique and elevate it to the level of controlling even the tendency to want to question the status quo, to make sure no one even wants to say “maybe it’s not getting hotter” or “I think it may be getting colder.” How could you achieve this? That is precisely what the progeny of Jove (operating as the CIA at the time) faced after they murdered JFK and realized they needed a more sophisticated approach than the brute force with which they executed that badly botched operation. Their solution was ingenious.

It’s a conspiracy theory. It’s a conspiracy theory. It’s a conspiracy theory.

Now you must define “conspiracy theory” in such a way as to discourage anyone from believing in them. This too is a matter of repetition. The message here is that “conspiracy theory” equals crazy. It’s a simple equation. Anything contrary to the official party line gets labeled a conspiracy theory and people who believe conspiracy theories are crazy. Now all that is needed is the repetition.

People who believe conspiracy theories are crazy. People who believe conspiracy theories are crazy. People who believe conspiracy theories are crazy.

The CIA became aware of the need for a much greater level of mainstream media (MSM) control after JFK was murdered on November 22, 1963. The Warren Report was made public on November 25, 1963. By the time CIA Document 1035-960 was written on April 1, 1967, “a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results” (full text of memo below).

Someone (actually a lot of people) were questioning the official party line of the CIA. Obviously, something had to be done.

We already know how the CIA operates, but let’s get someone else’s perspective. For this, I turn to Melissa Dykes (formerly Melton) of TruthstreamMedia.com. Aaron and Melissa Dykes of Truthstream Media are one of my most favorite news sources. Their work is of consistently unparalleled quality. Here is what she says about the use of “conspiracy theories”

This phrase has been weaponized by the CIA

“This 1967 CIA Memo Is Still Used to Discredit Conspiracy Theorists Today” from the Truthstream Media YouTube channel:

Five years before the planned September 11, 2001 operation, the progeny of Jove (operating now as an Unnamed Entity well-hidden behind need-to-know clearances) went into high gear with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the release of the “Conspiracy Theory” movie in which Mel Gibson, the main character who is a “conspiracy theorist,” begins the movie as a creepy peeping tom who is stalking a woman he doesn’t even know. Can you get any lower? Here is the official movie trailer.

“Conspiracy Theory (1997) Official Trailer – Mel Gibson, Julia Robert Movie HD” from the Movieclips Classic Trailers YouTube channel:

Mel  Gibson plays a “crazy man” who produces a newsletter entitled “Conspiracy Theory.” Sound familiar?

People who believe conspiracy theories are crazy. People who believe conspiracy theories are crazy. People who believe conspiracy theories are crazy.

 This paved the way for President Bush to say,

“We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.”

—Remarks by the President to United Nations General Assembly (November 10, 2001) [bold-red emphasis added]

 

And thanks to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, dissenting voices were squashed like never before. All of mainstream media (MSM) is now owned by only a handful of companies with Hurricane Erin evidencing the existence of a centralized body of control above even these companies, something so Orwellian that it truly horrifies me every time I think of it

Perhaps you understand now why Bill Clinton was president all during this time. A magician always uses a distraction to focus your attention away from his sleight-of-hand. The Romans called it Panem et Circenses (Bread and Circuses).

 

 

 

The question you should be asking yourself right now is, What is the Trump circus hiding? Google’s YouTube, the last bastion for Freedom of Speech in the United States of America, is a potentially new Library of Alexandria for the masses. Why is there a highly sophisticated, coordinated attack on YouTube?

 

 

The Library of Alexandria

 

If you commit “conspiracy theory” you are crazy. Therefore you should not question authority (read mainstream media). Do not question the status quo. This broad intellectual attack has now become “flat earth.” If you commit “flat earth” you will become stupid. Therefore you should not try to think for yourself. Accept everything you are told by mainstream media. Acquiesce! Resistance is futile.

 

 

“Flat Earth” is the New “Conspiracy Theory”


YouTube is under an attack (or rather YouTube users) no less sophisticated than the “conspiracy theory” design to discourage anyone from questioning the brutal murder of President John F. Kennedy. Only this time, the goal is simply to get you to stop thinking entirely. This attack has “the progeny of Jove” written all over it. I can smell these people. I know them better than they know themselves. YouTube is awash in “flat earth” videos. Why? “Flat earth” is the “conspiracy theory” to end all conspiracy theories. It is an extension of the CIA “conspiracy theory” allure, only this time it is even more sinister in its objectives.

Flat earth videos on YouTube are designed to discredit the work of countless individuals by discrediting the entire venue. Why are the people of the United States of America are under such aggressive intellectual assault?

“Flat Earth” is a critical part of the Intentional Dumbing Down of the Masses. When your enemy is firing a full salvo, an attack is imminent. Think about the level of organization required for this effort to discredit YouTube as an educational venue by drowning it in absurdities. There is a way around this. See “Refining Your YouTube Recommended Videos” in the next section.

 

 

 

TruthStream Media on the Hypnotic State


These videos are from the TruthStream Media channel.

“They Admitted Social Media Is Programming Us”

“Mass Hypnosis and Trigger Words”

 

 

 

 

Aufwachen!
My prescription for waking up…


Refining your recommended YouTube videos works. I never see flat earth videos. Never. If you want to learn using YouTube, create a new account and shut down all the popular stuff such as music video channels. Then use channel subscriptions to further help focus your recommendations. Finally, tell Google you are “Not Interested” in any channel that is cluttering your results with nonsense such as “flat earth” videos. In no time you will have an educational tool at your disposal as invaluable as any Ivy League school education, infinitely more convenient, and only about $15 a month (because you really need to go pro and get rid of the advertisements). Then connect your smart TV to your YouTube channel and simply stop watching the mass media. The news is all scripted. You will not miss anything important. I highly recommend these new sources. And for God’s sake, walk away from politics. It’s a circus designed to distract you.

 

You must learn how to fine-tune your recommended videos as you would a radio station

 

 

Refining Your YouTube Recommended Videos


First you need to create a YouTube account if you do not already have one. You will also need a YouTube ad blocker. I use Firefox and uBlock Origin. Assuming you have a YouTube account, go to your “YouTube Home” page. There are always two rows of “Recommended” videos at the top of the page. This is the only place you can do this that I know of. You cannot do it in search results. And you cannot do it while watching individual YouTube videos (more on this in a moment). Before you watch anything, look at all of the recommendations. If any of them are for a “Flat Earth” video (or whatever noise you are trying to eliminate), point at the video name and three dots will appear to the right of the name. Now click on the three dots, select “Not Interested,” then select “TELL US WHY,” and then finally indicate that you are not interested in anything from that channel. Do this as often as possible to refine your recommended videos. Over time the recommendations will become more and more relevant. If you are not sure about a channel and need to watch the video before deciding, you must right click the video and open it in another tab or window. Otherwise, if you realize it is a channel you want to block, when you press the back button you may be looking at a different set of recommendations. Then you will not be able to tell YouTube you are not interested because recommendations are the only place you can do this. The opportunity to block that channel is then lost until one of their videos is recommended again. You have no control over when that may happen. Trust me this exercise is well worth the effort.

 

 

 

 

 

CIA Document 1035-960


Document Title: “Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report”

 

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy’s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission’s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission’s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission’s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination.

Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein’s theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane’s book is much less convincing that Epstein’s and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission’s records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy’s brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person’s choice for a co-conspirator. He was a “loner,” mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.

f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the “ten mysterious deaths” line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.