John Waters Unchained
Subscribe
Whipnosis, Part 1 (of 3)
Something unprecedented — at least in scale — erupted in the world during the Covid ruse: the use by governments of behavioural psychology/mass entrancement as weapons of war against their own people.
Mar 2
44
Life as Trance
As the first month of 2022 gathered pace as we moved towards the third calendar year of the fake pandemic, the determined stonewall of mainstream conversation was occasionally infringed upon by mutterings from the periphery of just about every Western country of a continuing die-off arising from the Covid vaccines. American insurance companies were talking of an unprecedented 40 per cent increase in life assurance claims; in Ireland, the national online death-notice site, RIP.ie, was showing an excess in mortality — in the Republic alone — equivalent to that suffered by the whole island in 30 years of the Troubles, and this for the single year of 2021. The same kind of pattern was whispered about by ‘conspiracy theorists’ in multiple European countries.
But nothing of this leached into the mainstream, where there was a continued push for mandatory vaccines, vaccination of children and penalties for citizens and parents who demurred.
A particular phenomenon was especially hard to ignore. All over the world, sporting events were being interrupted by the sudden collapse — sometimes fatal collapse — of athletes — footballers, tennis players, swimmers and so on — who had been at the top of their professional form. Yet, the mainstream contrived mainly to ignore this also, or sometimes to refer to it as something that happened every day. This became an online meme: the everydayness of sudden death among athletes, the only advance warning for which was to be among the fittest of the fit.
The incidents continued and more and more people started to remark upon it. The former English top soccer player Matt Le Tissier made a number of passionate and articulate interventions in an attempt to draw public attention to the matter, and was shunned and excoriated in equal measure.
Then, in early February this year, a crop of ‘news’ stories started to erupt in Western media about the growing risk of heart attacks, though not as a result of Covid vaccines. ‘Energy bill price rise may cause heart attacks and strokes, says TV GP’; ‘Rise in heart attacks attributed to pandemic-stress and poor diet’; ‘Urgent Warning as 300,000 Brits living with stealth disease that could kill within 5 years’; ‘More people are suffering stroke and heart disease after COVID, CT doctors say’; ‘Heart disease: Reduce your child’s risk‘; ‘Heart attack: The drink [alcoholic] that could trigger a “sudden”cardiac arrest”’; ‘Devoted footballs fans experience “dangerous” levels of stress’; ‘How the weather is harming your health — from heart attacks to strokes and gout’; ‘Does skipping breakfast increase your risk?; ‘Moving clocks forward an hour could be dangerous for millions of Brits with serious heart problems’.
To those on the outside of whatever is going on here, this is beyond bizarre. It seems to suggest that the media have started to treat their audiences as though at the intellectual level of children struggling to put their first thoughts into spoken sentences. It suggests a level of either condescension or insight that is startling, to say the least.
Why ‘insight’? Because the media has, over the past 24 months, acquired a by now almost instinctual sense of how the public will react to different kinds of stimuli. They know that x happens when they do y. Three years ago, such a rash of stories would have provoked mystification and hilarity, but now they are likely to provoke — in a significant minority at least — credulity and even anxiety, as people who have fretted for two years about a virus with a 99.98 per cent survival rate, now start to worry about their hearts and how they might be driving them too hard.
This cannot in any sense be described as normative, and yet, in some odd context, it now has the feel of something ‘normal.’ Somehow, seeing one of these headlines, you do not, as you might have not so long ago, get the feeling that this is going too far, that now their scam will be rumbled, that no one could possibly believe that all these stories, on a single theme, could suddenly erupt out of nowhere and be taken seriously. Somehow, though you may not register exactly why, you know that none of this is going to happen, that most people will either glaze over or make an appointment with their GP, understanding that they can expect to see more of this kind of story on the legacy media over the coming days and weeks.
This poses several separate but related questions: Why do so many people accept such nonsense without question?; Why does almost everyone else regard what is happening as unexceptional or at least unexceptionable?; Why have most of us become so defeatist about the chances of challenging this kind of irrationality?
All this is really symptomatic of the playing out of a particular kind of relationship between media and audience fostered over the past two years, in which the malleability of a significant number of viewers/readers/listeners came more and more to be relied upon absolutely, and a significant secondary quotient counted on to shrug and decide that this is just the way things are. It is as if the media are implicitly aware that, in order to conceal something that would appear to be obvious to any semi-sentient observer, they require only to insinuate an ‘explanation’ that is no higher than the storyline logic of a fairytale. Yet, this is not how things used to be. Some people were gullible, yes, but not this gullible, or at least not enough of them to make this kind of ‘journalism’ even marketable.
A change has entered in, some kind of factor that was not there before. It is as if journalists and editors are aware that they deal with a state or condition in at least a significant minority which somehow enables or facilitates such ‘explanations’ to pass muster without undue scepticism. What sort of state or condition might we be talking about?
Almost two years ago, I began having regular discussions with a hypnotherapist friend, John Anthony, about the possibility that what we might be dealing with in the Covid cult was a form of mass hypnosis. We exchanged many emails and spoke several times on the phone, and arising from those exchanges I wrote an article that appeared in May 2020 on what was then the UK website Lockdown Sceptics (now The Daily Sceptic).
The conversations between John Anthony and me continued over the period of the Covid psy-op, and I have more recently spoken to some other hypnotists on the topic with a view to deepening my own understandings. This three-part series of articles is the result. In it, I shall examine, with the help of John Anthony and the others, the concepts of mass hypnosis/mass formation, the effects of narcissistic personality disorders on modern politics (as demonstrated over the past two years) and the use of these techniques to create a pseudo-reality which obliterates both actual reality and any possibility of successful truth-telling about it.
More than a few people I’ve spoken to on the subject over the past couple of years have themselves expressed scepticism at the idea that it is possible to hypnotise whole populations, or quasi-populations, all at once. They accept that something called ‘mass formation’ — as described by, for example, the Belgian psychologist Mattias Desmet, may exist as a real phenomenon, but think it fanciful to suggest that this might amount to hypnosis. They draw a line, therefore, before the notion that the ‘lockstep’ effect achieved by the creeps on behalf of the Combine in the course of the Covid scam, might have been effected by mass entrancement. One correspondent observes that ‘we don't need to seek out esoteric theories for how people moved into lockstep. Computerisation and consequently globalisation are a sufficient explanation for the destruction of intelligent communities.’
This observation resonated with my recollection of my own initial thoughts on the hypnosis connection. It did indeed seem unnecessarily esoteric, at best a metaphor of some kind, even a kind of rhetorical disparagement of the general intelligence. But, as I delved into the matter, it seemed to me that there was something of benefit here, something additional that cast some light on certain aspects of what had been happening — for example, the way the ‘normie’ population has seemed to become manipulable to the extent of coming to ‘unknow’ certain things, when the wind changed, that were already public knowledge. There are thousands of examples, but randomly you might think of the way alleged Covid deaths would be revised downwards (the ‘with’ and ‘from’ distinction) and yet, within days, the old, manipulated statistics would be back on the leader-board. There seemed in this to be the leveraging of some form of capacity for inculcated amnesia, which had no immediately apparent explanation. This, I learned, was a symptom of hypnosis.
Within weeks of the launching of the biggest political psy-op in human history, John Anthony wrote to me: ‘I would like to throw some light on exactly how one gaslights or attempts to gaslight an entire country into submission for whatever nebulous agenda may be the reason for the manipulation. One could use the words “psychopathy” and “narcissism” and the myriad associated language and phrases but it is important here to understand that the intention is not to label or class any individual as such. Here the whole emphases should be upon the dynamic, the modus operandi used in these relationships and hopefully, if I am able for this task, then anyone will be able to spot the emerging patterns of control and even be able to clearly forecast the next hand played by the manipulators or the architects of control.’
I started to probe around the edges of what is a vast and complex subject. My biggest questions centred on how it was possible, having established the circumstance for the creation of a trance, and having set it in train, to enable the hypnotist to communicate with the person in a manner that seemed to occur outside of conscious reality. I had seen hypnosis done on TV, and even was (I think) briefly hypnotised myself on one occasion, but I don't think I had any sense of being in an altered state at any stage. And I presume that most people who have had the experience would say the same. It certainly seemed, from what I had observed about the Covid rollout, that people received messages that appeared to become compartmentalised in their minds, and then pulled out under certain conditions — perhaps an argument with a sceptic, for example — but that otherwise this programming was subject most of the time to a form of suspension, perhaps even amnesia.
The most coherent and consistent public voice on these topics in the world in recent times has been the Belgian psychologist Dr. Mattias Desmet, about whom I have written repeatedly over the past year. This article from last October provides a detailed account of his perspectives and analysis:
Desmet’s analysis is not primarily focussed on the phenomenon of hypnosis as such, but rather on ‘mass formation’ — a rather larger context of manipulation into which hypnosis slots as a kind of SIM card. He has several times asserted that hypnosis is the same as mass formation, by which I think he means that hynoidal techniques are central, though as he himself has been at pains to outline, mass formation involves much more than the creation of a trance state, and is rather more difficult to achieve.
As I understand his position, he is saying that mass hypnosis is used as part of a much larger programme of mind control in which the individual is rendered subject to the will of the collective. In the terms outlined by Gustave le Bon more than a century ago, this means that the individual has exited his own personal psychology and become part of the psychology of the mob, to which, once entranced, he is entirely subservient. Desmet says that people under this form of mass hypnosis will be prepared to sacrifice anything to the cause they have signed up to — ‘even their own children.’ People under the influence of mass/crowd formation, he says, ‘are not aware of the egoistic disadvantages they suffer. Someone in this situation can have everything taken away from him — even his own life. He will not notice it.
‘You can take his health away, his wealth away. You can take everything from him. He may lose his future, his freedom — he will not be aware of it.’
Asked if there is any link between this and intelligence (or lack thereof), he replies: ‘Not at all,’ continuing: ‘And that’s a strange thing: One of the major characteristics of a crowd or a mass is that everybody becomes as intelligent, or — maybe better — as stupid. And that applies to highly intelligent people as well as less intelligent people. That has been studied in the 19th century, very extensively. It was very clear that even the most intelligent people were completely blind and completely insensitive to rational argumentation, for instance. Masses are only sensitive to strong visual images and to repetition of, time and time again, the same message. And also to the presentation of numbers and graphs and statistics. If you present numbers in a visual way, it will have a huge impact on the masses.’
The willingness of people to sacrifice everything — anything — as though for some higher ideal, is something we have observed in certain unfathomable contexts in the past year. An especially disturbing feature of the ‘vaccine’ deaths phenomenon has been the way some parents, having lost one of their children to the mRNA ‘therapy,’ have fallen in with the murderous objectives of medical and political authorities in dismissing any possibility of a connection between the ‘vaccine; and the death. This has presented an objectively incomprehensible demeanour of resignation in the face of what for most people would be the unthinkable: the unnecessary death of a child in the pursuit of tenuous public health objectives.
Under the spell of mass/crowd formation, says Desmet, ‘the field of attention gets really very narrow. People only see what the narrative indicates, and that’s something typical for hypnosis as well. When somebody is hypnotised, he will only be aware of the part of reality the hypnotist focuses on, and that’s exactly the same in mass formation . . . someone is only aware of the part of reality — both cognitively and emotionally — that is indicated by the hypnotising or by the mass narrative. And that’s the reason why people don’t seem to be aware of the collateral damage of the measures. In one way or another, people know somewhere that there is collateral damage of the measures, but it has no cognitive and emotional impact. That’s the problem. There is no psychological energy attached to these representations, and that’s why they have no impact at all.
‘You see exactly the same thing in hypnosis. The attention is so focussed on one point, through a simple hypnotic procedure, that you can cut straight through people’s flesh and bones — literally. You can make someone radically insensitive to pain, to the extent that you can perform a surgical operation on this person — you can cut straight through the breastbone. The person will not notice it. That shows the power of hypnotic procedures — and also of mass formation.’
Historians and psychologists trying to get to grips with what happened in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had never encountered anything like it before. Mass formation, Desmet says, ‘grasps people in the core of their being,’ which is why totalitarianism can command such an extreme degree of power and influence over both crowds and individuals.’
There are distinctions between hypnosis and mass formation, but the lines or commonalities are not clear even in the interviews I have watched with Dr. Desmet. About 80 per cent of people, he says, are liable to become subject to hypnosis, but only about 30 per cent tend to succumb to mass formation. This seems to imply that mass formation is harder to implement, and yet requires a relatively small fraction of the overall population to succeed. This makes sense in that, whereas hypnosis at the personal level is a reasonably straightforward procedure, a multiplicity of factors — susceptibility to propaganda, high emotional sensitivity, vivid imagination — must coincide to inculcate the individual into a mass formation.
French psychologist Gustave Le Bon was the first to talk about ‘psychological crowds’, which he diagnosed as forming a single being, responding always to unconscious thoughts, and conforming to laws of mental unity. The consciousness bestowed by membership of a crowd can be transformative of the person, according to Le Bon, putting individual members in possession of ‘a sort of collective mind which makes them feel, think and act in a manner quite differently from that in which each individual would feel, think and act were that person in a state of isolation.’ In a psychological crowd, individual personality disappears, brain activity is replaced by reflex activity, a lowering of intelligence, provoking a complete transformation of sentiments, which may be better or worse than those of the crowd’s constituent members.
Le Bon elaborates: ‘There are certain ideas and feelings which neither come into being, nor transform themselves into acts, except in the case of individuals forming a crowd. The psychological crowd is a provisional “being,” formed of heterogeneous elements which for a moment are combined, exactly as the cells which constitute a living body form by reunion a new being which displays characteristics very different from each of the cells singularly.’
The relationship or interconnection of the hypnoidal world to ‘reality’ appears to be somewhat analogous to the relationship/interconnection of the dream to the waking state. Sometimes, I have noticed, I will emerge from a dream imagining that, for example, something significant in reality has suddenly been resolved. That is to say, among other things, that the resolution achieved in the dream seems, on first emergence, to be germane to my life in the actual world. Only with time — minutes, usually — does the dream come to seem alien.
We should remain mindful that those who have imposed the appalling conditions and circumstances of the past two years have had access, above all, to the very best of what behavioural psychology can offer. This, far more obviously than it has seemed to be a biological crisis, has been a psychological operation. The orchestrators of the public mood — the politicians, scientists, medical experts — have clearly been able to impose some kind of spell, if only in the first instance to be contemplated in metaphorical terms, in order to effect their will upon whole populations. It is not outlandish to suggest that they somehow managed to impose a trance, which — perhaps intermittently — transformed reality into a kind of dream world, in which, as with actual dreams, nonsense comes to seem perfectly sensible and normal while it is happening.
Desmet simply renames the conformist behavior of those who don't want to take responsibility for their decisions:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/mass-formation-is-misrepresented
There was/is nothing mysterious about mass compliance. Punitive fines, violent enforcers, and refusal of entry into stores were enough to start enforcing the torture and humiliation of the muzzles and after that, it was the slippery slope of giving a finger and losing an arm. The next step was also easy to predict: Stockholm syndrome and refusing to admit that one had been fooled. Vanity permanently replaced self-respect in those, who had no self-respect to begin with. The trend is still going strong.
Mass hysteria is as old as human civilizations.
https://concernedamericandad.com/2021/12/07/dr-mark-mcdonald-covid-the-united-states-of-fear-a-psychiatric-perspective-on-vaccination-mandates-authoritarianism/