Brainwashing had a more 'flesh-and-blood' quality than a more clinical alternative, 'menticide,' which means murder of the mind.
Tuesday, 26th July 2022
It has become obvious, especially during the last two years of the Covid-19 phenomenon, that the public—in Britain and the rest of the world—has been subjected to an onslaught of behaviour modification techniques, applied psychological terror, and menticide, otherwise known as brainwashing. This has been done with the use of unethical applied psychology.
This may sound far-fetched, and I am no doubt liable to be called a conspiracy theorist for it, but unfortunately, the tactics that have been deliberately deployed against us by our governments—who are supposedly there to keep us safe—have been used to confuse us, terrorise us, manipulate us, and change our minds and behaviour against our will and consent. Furthermore, we now have the threats of climate change, economic hardship and the spectre of war penetrating our psyche via the mainstream media.
These are tried and tested tactics. One only has to read history to encounter the use of totalitarian methods of control, using science and medicine as a way to forcibly control people. This was described by Vladimir Bukovsky, a political dissident in the old USSR, who was detained in a psychiatric hospital for political dissidents:
The peculiar features of the Soviet political system, the Communist ideology, the uncertainties, and difficulties of the science of psychiatry, the labyrinths of the human conscience—all these have weirdly woven themselves together to create a monstrous phenomenon, the use of medicine against man.
Sidney Bloch & Peter Reddaway, Russia’s Political Hospitals, 1978 (foreword by Vladimir Bukovsky), Futura Publications Limited, p. 13
I also encourage readers to study the writing of Dr John Coleman, especially his book The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations: Shaping the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America. Coleman, who moved to the USA in the late 1960s to become a constitutionalist speaker and who claims to have been a British intelligence officer before that, clearly lays out in the book how the use of applied psychology, behaviour modification and brainwashing as used by governments and élites is nothing new, especially in our contemporary Covid-19 times.
Schizogeny: compartmentalising the mind
These last two years, we have been subjected to a psychological attack. We have been told to be more fearful of Covid-19 because we are too complacent, and we have been encouraged to shame others into not following the regulations for Covid-19 restrictions. Equally, the politicians have dictated to us to follow the rules, to wear masks, social distance, to isolate, to stop working etc. Meanwhile, 'our' politicians have broken the rules they dictate to us. In the UK, we have had the spectacle of 'our' leaders at the G7 in Cornwall and COP26 climate emergency meetings, at Downing Street parties, and in many other photographed incidents, parading around unmasked, socially un-distanced, and looking completely unafraid of dying from Covid-19.
What was striking about these images was the smiling faces of Johnson, Macron, Biden, Merkel, Sturgeon et al., and their sycophantic followers, while at the same time the staff working at these social events—waiters and their ilk—were fully masked, like slaves waiting on their masters. The schism between the élites and ordinary people was laid bare for all the world to see. This was deliberate. This is what they wish to crystallise as the new status quo. How else can one explain away the masked/unmasked disparity? No scientist has been able to explain this phenomenon, one which defies the Covidian narrative.
For one thing, the G7, COP26 and other summits during the past two years could have been held remotely; millions of ordinary people are expected to conduct their business meetings by computer due to COVID-19. Even failing that, and forgiving the carbon-footprint faux pas of the G7 and COP26 events owing to the excessive plane travel of delegates—which should have made Greta Thunberg issue the greatest “How dare you!” of her life—all business at these in-person summits could have been conducted indoors; no social events could have taken place, or at least none could have been shown in the media; and photo calls could have been reduced to just the masked, socially distanced shots. But no; the obnoxious and arrogant display of the élites at these events during Covid-19, being tended to (as were their spouses and guests) by the masked minions, was a carefully orchestrated theatre to remind people what the state of play is, albeit on a subliminal or unconscious basis (for some): that we are destined not for an abundant life but for a bare life; that henceforth the élites will be privileged and ordinary people will need to submit.
When Dominic Raab, a senior British government minister, was questioned by Trevor Philips on the obvious “rule”-breaking by the unmasked, socially undistanced élites at the G7, he flustered a response indicating that such cocktail parties were an important part of political business. His wording gave away that the political class running world affairs is more important than people who run actual businesses and those who work and pay taxes—funding the wages of the politicians like Dominic Raab. These lame excuses for rule-breaking show the contempt that the élites hold for ordinary people in these times.
The G7 extravaganza and other similar events were and are a reminder that we are destined for a sombre “new normal”. Yet, there is an even darker message to be taken away: on the one hand, the politicians put on their serious faces or even cry (as Matt Hancock contrived to do) to tell us how much they love us and are working so hard to save lives, keeping us safe from harm, while at the same time, the psychological operators are deliberately making people fearful and angry at “anti-vaxxers” and “Covid-19 deniers”. This mixed messaging is interlaced with constant contradictory signalling in the mainstream media—first, “We will be unlocking on 21 June 2021”, then “We should not unlock”; first, “We will not have vaccine passports”, then “We should have vaccine passports”; first, that “children will not be vaccinated”, then that “children should be vaccinated”.
This narrative is much more than just getting us to adhere to a bare life (through Draconian regulations) or to a state of fear (through psychological propaganda); it is a pernicious schizogenic tactic, as is common in psychological abuse. In other words, the Covidian narrative places its victims in a state of confusion: they do not know whether their master (the Government), with its mixed and contradictory messages, really does love them or not. What this achieves is a psychic split in the victims: it destroys their humanity and their sanity. This is as intended because it is an anti-human and psychotic script, a schizogenic and menticidal narrative, to drive us mad and destroy our reason, beliefs, and values.
What to expect
At present (July 2022), for the most part, the Covid-19 restrictions have been ended; but, literally at the same time, the threat of war has been introduced with the conflict in Ukraine. We also have huge price increases in fuel and food, inflation, travel disruption and now the looming threat of climate catastrophe, which the politicians are using to urge us to get to “net-zero”. Looming on the horizon is an autumn/winter 2022–23 return of the Covid-19 restrictions. Our rulers do not want to let our terror levels settle.
The net result of Covid-19, “net-zero” climate-catastrophising and the war narrative is the tenet that we humans need to be constantly on alert, our cortisol levels bursting through the roof. We are to be reminded that the human race is a biosecurity hazard: from the viruses we teem with, through our supposed over-reproduction, to our food preferences (red meat); and, as a result, the dictum is that the world as we know it needs to change—to undergo a Great Reset.
These “nudges” towards a restructuring of how we live are straight out of the totalitarian play book. The process that we are going through now was described perfectly by Hannah Arendt:
What totalitarian ideologies therefore aim at is not the transformation of the outside world or the revolutionizing transmutation of society, but the transformation of human nature itself.
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 2017, Penguin Classics, p. 601
The political narratives of Covid-19, as well as the supposed climate crisis and spectre of war in Ukraine, are a vehicle to usher in political overreach and to make people accept the bare life: the human life as an apologetically lived biohazard, in a world run by biosecurity.
This tendency is discussed by the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben in his book Where Are We Now? The epidemic as politics. It should be noted, Agamben is a curious figure among critics of the Covid-19 Brave New Normal. Agamben is a man of the Left, but one of those strange leftists who have actually dared to speak up about the totalitarian nature of the lockdown restrictions imposed by authorities around the world, especially by his own government in Rome.
This may be because Agamben knows well the danger of machinations of fascism that beset his country’s past. Predictably, he has been attacked by the mainstream media and supposed intelligentsia for his outspokenness on the issue. Formerly a darling of the socialist world, Agamben’s own “tribe” has now decided to destroy him for his views. He sees this reaction as nothing but fascistic—and rightly so; as totalitarian.
Agamben highlights the medico-political overreach which has eroded our freedoms; a power grab which he (like many) argues has been attempted in order to implement fascistic political structures, ones which really have never gone away since they broke surface a century ago. He argues that a world based on social distancing, face masks, and medico-political surveillance is not humanly or politically viable in the long term. The most serious downgrade, he believes, is in the way we have treated our dead:
The first and most serious point pertains to the bodies of the dead. How did we accept, purely in the name of an indeterminable risk, that our dear ones—and human beings in general—should not only die alone, but that their bodies should be burned without a funeral—something that, from Antigone to the present day, has never happened?
Giorgio Agamben, Where Are We Now? The epidemic as politics, 2021, Eris, p. 35
He argues that we have reached this point as a result of the divided nature of our experience, because of the retreat of God (in the Christianised West). This dying-away is both bodily and spiritual, resulting in a reduced experience of and a reconceptualisation of life as a purely biological reality. This abstraction and schism in the modern world (or perhaps postmodern world), facilitated by science and medicine taking the place of God, leads us to inescapable existential contradictions.
In reiterating his point that we have been reduced to a bare life, to a life as a biohazard, Agamben highlights that this Covid-19 situation, which he notably calls a “state of exception” considering its flimsily justified unconstitutionality, is the mechanism whereby democracies can transform themselves into totalitarian states. The history of the twentieth century, particularly the rise to power of Nazism and communism, is sufficient proof that this is the means used.
Agamben points out that never before—not even under fascism and during two world wars—has the erosion of our freedoms and liberties been taken to such extremes: masses being reduced to a condition of scant biological survival, confined to their houses, deprived of social relationships in ways never seen before. He asks:
Is it really necessary to remind ourselves that the only other place where human beings were kept in a state of pure vegetative life was the Nazi camp?
Giorgio Agamben, Where Are We Now? The epidemic as politics, 2021, Eris, p. 39
One could, of course, add to this list the communist gulag or the Soviet psychiatric hospital (psikhushka) for political dissidents, as well as harangued journalists like Julian Assange, forced to exist in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK for years on end, now languishing in Belmarsh Prison, for the crime of telling the truth; facts that fall on the deaf ears of mainstream British journalists, who are haughty enough to think they hold the moral high ground when it comes to democracy and free speech. The mainstream media’s performance in the Covid-19 era reveals unmistakably that they have fallen from grace in a most spectacular way.
Agamben argues that his country, Italy, is always on the verge of falling back into fascism—and that there are many signs that this is becoming more than a risk, an actual reality. Examples that he furnishes include the creation of government-run “fact-checkers” active in social media and tech giants, controlling the flow of information; and how people’s critical views on their respective governments’ Covid-19 policies have been censored. Agamben has discovered, as have many outspoken critics of the Covidian narrative, that most major mainstream newspapers flatly refuse to publish his opinions.
Suppression of knowledge
Agamben, in attempting to highlight the seriousness of our situation, evokes the wisdom of the great Dutch scientist Louis Bolk. Bolk, who traces the development of humanity on a grand scale, argues that human beings are characterised by a progressive inhibition of their innate vital processes of adaptation to the natural environment. These processes are supplanted by their reverse: by what he calls a hypertrophic growth of technological apparatuses designed to adapt the environment to mankind.
If this process exceeds a certain limit, it becomes counterproductive and transforms itself into the self-destruction of the human species. Essentially, consider the harmful iatrogenic effects (doctor-caused ill health) of medico-scientific interventions; psychiatric medication for ordinary human experience, which denies the flourishing of a human life by pathologising the existential and spiritual horizon of Being; or the hypervigilance about potential dirt, bacteria or infections, a worry which negatively impacts human health (its consequences including a weak immune system and antibiotic resistance).
This is why many scientists are describing the novel mRNA “vaccines” for Covid-19 as potentially hazardous, in view of their compromising of the human immune system and its reactivity to new viruses that arise. (See, for instance, the public speeches of Professor Dolores Cahill and Dr Mike Yeadon on these issues). While it is argued by some that those who are at very high risk of death from Covid-19 (e.g., the elderly, those with underlying conditions) may derive life-saving properties from such an mRNA injection, humanity may, in fact, fare better if such an extreme mass intervention is avoided in view of the iatrogenic effects of such large-scale compromising of the immune system being compromised. As some scientists have argued, the implications of general “vaccination” with such a technology are unprecedented, and the long-term effects are unknown.
Suppression of immunity
The upshot is that we are playing Russian roulette with our biology, gaming the human immune system. Of course, some even argue this is a deliberate ploy and that the novel technology contained within the gene-altering platforms in Covid-19 “vaccines” could be being used for nefarious purposes (such as population control/reduction). As the twentieth century declares to anyone who studies it, a genocidal motive is not outside the bounds of possibility, even (or rather, especially) in the most advanced nations. Anyone who insists otherwise is not alert to the possibility of iniquity in human beings, nor to the lessons of history.
Perhaps we have to take cognisance of the reality of iniquity that is afoot by those who are pushing the Covid-19 restrictions and those celebrating and championing the injection programmes around the world. Agamben rightly points out that from an epistemological perspective (that is, considering how we acquire sound knowledge), it is obvious that providing the number of deaths “with” Covid-19 without contrasting that figure with the annual mortality rate for comparable periods and without stipulating the real cause of death is meaningless.
Nevertheless, this is precisely what is happening in nearly every country one looks at, courtesy of seemingly blind politicians and scientific advisors. Italian statistician Dr Gian Carlo Blangiardo, quoted by Agamben, has highlighted that the number of deaths caused by Covid-19 is lower than the number of deaths caused by respiratory diseases in the previous two years. Yet meanwhile, cancer patients, patients with heart problems and those with mental health issues are being sidelined in treatment. Agamben deplores this, asking why there should be such cognitive dissonance about it, even though such facts are in plain sight if one does a modicum of research. He concludes:
Like the First World War, the war against the virus can only be linked to false and deceitful motives. Humanity is entering a phase of its history where truth is being reduced to a moment within the march of falsity. That false discourse which must be held as truth is true, even when its non-truth is revealed. In this way, it is language itself, as a space for the manifestation of truth, that is being confiscated from us.
Giorgio Agamben, Where Are We Now? The epidemic as politics, 2021, Eris, p. 48
This cultic practice of confiscating language, and the abuse of language, encapsulates the new creed of Covidianism. The claims of science and medicine are, as Agamben points out, no longer followed on a voluntary basis; the science is “mandatory” in the mainstream media, and via real-world regulations and legal sanctions. This religion of the bare life and totemisation of biosecurity is resulting in the cessation of all authentic and effective political activity. It cannot be avoided, for instance, that the British Parliament at present can hardly be called a functioning democratic institution, as a small number of people—some elected, some not (experts working for ministries), some even unknown—are dictating policy. A similar situation obtains in other nations.
In another of his books, entitled Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life, Giorgio Agamben points out that in every modern state there is a line that delimits where the power of life transmogrifies into the power of death, and where biopolitics and biosecurity becomes what he terms thanatopolitics (the politics of death). Medicine and science today in the Covid-19 era have the power, or the illusion, of sovereignty, and this affects both the ethical and political planes. The subordination of life to statistics (or to the purported mathematics of SAGE’s computer modelling machine) results in a life not worth living, and the body politic becomes a politicised biological body.
Equally, —as has been echoed by the philosopher-priest Ivan Illich—such burgeoning medicalisation of life, in the context of a spiritually or existentially atrophied postmodern world, has a profound effect on how people experience their bodies and their lives. The vital experience of people, which is always inseparably and simultaneously corporeal and spiritual, has been reduced to a human life as a mere biological entity. That is to say, biology has been made the dominant marker of experience. What has occurred in the Covid-19 era is that the body, artificially suspended between life and death, has become the dominant political paradigm whereby people must regulate their existence; must strive for the conservation of a bare life and must give obeisance to medicine/the science as the new religion.
Agamben highlights the democratic crisis from his particular, left-leaning, perspective and traces how fear of something—variants of concern that cannot really be seen, except through SAGE’s computer modelling output—and people’s reliance on science or medicine has become the dominant paradigm. However, as a leftist and atheist, Agamben falls short of highlighting the graver psychological/spiritual crisis at hand, especially given his observations that language has been confiscated from us. As well as the very serious implications of the abuse of language that Agamben does consider, there is a deconstruction and breakdown of human and spiritual experience as a result of the Covid-19 restrictions.
Both the Covid-19 issue and the supposed climate crisis are far more than a crisis of democracy or a restriction of our liberties. The “reasonable” narrative of questioning the deliberate attempt by the psychological operators of our governments to make us more fearful—to nudge us into protecting ourselves and others—conceals the darker, more sinister nature of what lies behind the menticidal sysop. As Dutch psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Joost Meerloo (d. 1976), most noted for his book Rape of the Mind, describes:
Wars of nerves or mental wars serve to weaken mass opinion through fear and fright. First, the enemy is brought into a state of latent panic. One’s own country is, meanwhile, injected with suspicion toward the enemy. As a result, the war itself is experienced as something tangible, a delivery from fear and delusion. Fearful expectation is felt as more frightful than the horrible reality itself.
Joost Meerloo, Delusion and Mass Delusion, 2021, Martino Fine Books, p. 86
We can deduct from the onslaught of fear porn from Covid-19, the “net-zero” climate agenda, and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and threats of nuclear annihilation that we are, as a population, being brought into a state of being where fearful expectation is to become the norm for our everyday lives. Waves of hope and fear are, as Meerloo describes, what brainwashes people, hypnotises them and drives people to mental illness or psychosis. This is the killing of the mind; menticide.
Parts II and III of this series will follow.