Breaking the Covid Trance: How the (Irish) people were psychologically manipulated (V)

We publish a full transcript of a seminal interview with John Anthony conducted by Dave Cullen of Computing Forever, uploaded on 1st October 2020.

Read the fourth part of the article

 

Programming the suggestible

John Anthony: And we’ve discussed the issues here, like different ways that you can programme people. There’s even a therapy, if you like, if you call it that, I think it’s called a primal intervention, I’m not quite sure of that now, and it’s where people who are first responders, ambulance drivers, – you know, maybe fire brigades, even policemen, all this kind of stuff – and they find that [victims latch on to] the information or the statements that they make to the victims in this circumstance – be it a crash, or [whatever].

And this is exactly what we were talking about before: the crash. The “integrity of the body” is damaged. The fear, you know.

It could be people in different situations. Ambulance people pick up drunks off the street sometimes and find themselves in these weird situations. And what’s actually said to people in those situations can be very profound and powerful. It can be more powerful than maybe a couple of hours of therapy afterwards, when it’s said in that [immediate] situation.

And this is what we’re talking about: to understand what’s actually being said to you and that it corresponds with how you feel about society. Hence your anger when you hear somebody, you know, makes a point, and you say [in response], ‘That doesn’t make sense,’ and they say, ‘Oh my God, sure lookit, you’re only being a conspiracy theorist!’

You get what I’m saying here? It’s well understood that in these situations, people become very suggestible. And then if you get them making their reference, their terms of reference are outside themselves. So the poor woman that’s looking at an a abusive husband: she looks at him to see ‘Is he smiling, is he not smiling’, right? So the reference is gone from herself and now lies with the abuser, who can decide, ‘Ah, you know, I’ll be good to her today; tomorrow I won’t be so good, and I’ll keep that lack of continuity going.’ And I think we discussed that the last day as well – that’s one way, by the way, of controlling people: when you break down on continuity.

Dave Cullen: Yes, and it’s also the environment that they create, which is sort of the world-building aspect, effect, as I would describe it.

So, you talked about this before: If you’ve got a radio DJ, maybe doing an interview with someone, and they could be talking about anything: talking about farming, talking about someone’s new book, they could be talking about cooking, they could be talking about football – it doesn’t matter – and they will throw in something like, ‘So how are you?’ They are having a conversation between each other, obviously the audience is listening in on the radio, and they are talking about, you know, they say something like, ‘How are you handling these unprecedented times?’, or whatever it is. Talk a little about that – you had a term there.

J.A.: That was a very important one, yes, because that’s what’s happening too. Again, [it was] the discussion that I heard on the radio on Sunday, and there was somebody talking about [the news that] they were re-introducing Dempsey’s Den [vintage TV show for children], right? That’s what it was. And it was making some kind of a comeback in some sort of form or another, you know, and the person that was reintroducing it was sort of praising it and saying, ‘You know, I always liked that programme and [the characters] Zig and Zag, and everything.’ And then, in the middle of it – and it took me a while to spot this, because I don’t always spot it straight away either, [even though] I’m looking into this all the time – but what she said was ‘It’s the injection we need.’

There you have a little [instance of] what’s called an ‘embedded command’. It’s an embedded suggestion in the middle of a discussion that had nothing to do with it: ‘It’s the injection we need.’ So you can [chalk] that one up to whatever you want. What does that mean? What was being said to you, even thought it was covert and under the wire? So, talking about something like a TV programme – that’s exactly what you are talking about – [you get] these suggestions.

And another one was – again, just going back to last Sunday – there were either items of news on Sunday in the middle, sometime around the twelve o’clock, one o’clock mark, it was round about that. And I was in the car and I was travelling, right, and there were eight items. Now, seven of them were all about the ‘worldwide spiralling cases’, you know: ‘What’s the hospital capacity?’, ‘What’s the concerns the government have for the hospital capacity?’. It wasn’t, you know, asking exactly ‘What is the capacity?’, ‘How many do you expect in?’; there were no kind of really hard questions. But it was a suggestive question, you know: ‘What are the concerns of the government regarding hospital capacity?’ — meaning that, when you go away, if you only just heard that alone, you’d be saying, ‘Oh my God, the hospitals are going to fill up, and they won’t be able to treat it,’ you know?

Bring on the influencers

Next one on the list was, you know, ‘Can influencers’ – and this was a kind of a new one on me: influencers, right? – ‘Can influencers turn the tide in young people’s attitudes?’ They didn’t say what was wrong with the attitude, what was occuring to them. They didn’t say it was to turn the tide. They want to kind of get people, and they were talking about ‘influencers’ on social media, getting young people to say phrases that they want them to say, so that they turn the tide.

What was the tide? I don’t know. [The mainstream media talking point is:] ‘With cases worldwide spiralling upwards,’ you know, ‘we check in with a worldwide leading epidemiologist’ – that was another, again, a headline leading in. And of the eight items, every one of them carried this message, you know. ‘We talked to a GP [general practitioner, family doctor] and a business owner’ – and of course the GP came on and more or less was saying, ‘Oh, you have to cocoon,’ you know, and, ‘If you know somebody who has it, that was tested positive – whether they had symptoms or not, or whether you were in total contact or not – you have to cocoon!’

And she [the same doctor on TV] said, ‘That means …’ – she actually said it out – ‘you don’t go to school, you don’t go to work.’ And it’s for the person that was in ‘contact’ with the person who was tested positive, as well as for the person who tested positive. So now, when you think of the connection and the number of people that you are beginning to talk to here, [the order is]: ‘Don’t go to school; don’t go to work, you know, and cocoon yourself for two weeks’, you’re talking to an awful lot of people. And this was being given out, this was all in the news items.

Human-interest dross

Now here’s an interesting one for you, Dave, and I thought this one was brilliant myself. At the end of the news, there was one of these, you know, these light kind of … at the end of the news sometimes they gave it, a human [interest] story somewhere, something like that, and they were saying like, ‘Well, now we’re going to go somewhere and we’re going to talk to people who are mountain biking, right.’ And she said – this was a statement she said – ‘And mountain biking is proving to be a tonic in these worrying times.’ They couldn’t even leave that one alone, they had to get in this suggestion that ‘we’re in worrying times’ and all this kind of thing, and then she went on to talk to people who aren’t talking about the Covid at all and were talking about their mountain biking. But the mountain biking, it was proving to be ‘a tonic for these worrying times’: no description, no saying exactly what was meant. I hope I’m getting across the absolute invasiveness of this type of programming and how the media — not the social media; the mainstream media are so involved in it.

D.C.: It’s torture, John. It’s mass psychosis. It’s torture, and they should be – to be honest, I think it’s a form of – it’s pure treason at this point, what they’ve done to people. But I tell you what, though: they’re complicit in the most anti-human scam of all time. It’s a crime against humanity.

But let me tell you, with all of this and what it’s done to people: even if this scam was to just magically stop tomorrow – Right, that’s it! Open up everything now, life back to normal!’ – the damage that this has done to people’s psyche, their sense of trust: talk about what this has done, because, you know, you mentioned before – people who are in relationships with narcissists or even people who are maybe psychotic, what happens to the victim, what mental state do they have afterwards?

J.A.: What happens is this: that even when they break contact with the perpetrator, put it that way, even when they break contact with the perpetrator, they go through years of – it can be years, right; some people are different, some people are more resilient than others but it can be years – they might have developed a dependence on alcohol, they might have suicidal ideation, they could seem depressed, they could feel alone. The alone feeling very often leaves them open to what’s called vacuuming. And what they mean by vacuuming – these are all terms that came in with [study of] narcissistic relationships; the vacuuming means that when they’ve done with you [they will implement] the fourth part –we’ve discussed three of them, [this is] the fourth part of the relationship – they will dump you, they will go and they will leave, and then the vacuuming is where they come back in and, you know, they say, ‘I’m a transformed man, and I’ll do this and I’ll do that.’ Even though the person knows the history – it’s in their consciousness, the history about the abuse, about what they went through – there is a deep, deep loneliness, right, and that’s the addiction, it’s [driven by] the deep loneliness that they now go through, because they’re not in a new relationship, maybe.

Maybe it’s because they went into a new relationship but didn’t address their own low self-esteem before doing that; they didn’t address their own boundaries; they didn’t address what was wrong with themselves; they kind of got it about the other person [but not themselves].

And this is the fourth phase: [abusers] leave and [victims] do whatever they’re doing, but then they might be connected with that person through children, they might be connected through property, through business, through jobs; they can be connected in various ways that hold them in place.

Recovering the boundaries you gave away

And then they have to look at their boundaries: they necessary say, ‘Well, what boundaries were there, what did I give to these people, what did I give away to them?’. And this really is an interesting one, because here is necessary for you to get people to be reflective about how they are giving away their own esteem, their own sense of reference, their own intuition.

We talked about incongruency before, where you become an apologist for the other person, even though they are doing horrific sorts of things. You become an apologist and you say, ‘You know what: the government needed to do something and they had to have that lockdown.’ And I even heard people saying, ‘You know, I think they’ve taken the lockdown up too soon and they were letting people back to school too soon.’ I’ve heard this kind of thing, because they are locked into this illusion of, you know, that first of all you by necessity admit that you are complicit in the relationship – and this is [a challenge] for the empath, the person who was doing their best and who was a lovely person, they were trying to make things right, they were trying to fix the marriage maybe, the relationship.

The same goes politically for the people who are trying to be compliant, because these are good people that are going out and they want to sort of do the right thing. They are going out there, and they are programmed that way, and they have to look at [the issue of]: ‘Did I feel good about what I was doing, was there a knot in my stomach, was there something telling me that this isn’t right?’, and to look at these kinds of incongruencies and the whole situation, and then to start establishing boundaries for themselves.

To establish a boundary, now, you have to decide – in a relationship, for instance, in a one-to-one relationship, you know, is necessary for you to help people, if you were in therapy with them – you would be helping them to establish boundaries, to establish self-esteem, their self-dignity, their trust in their own judgement, and in their own critical thinking, their judgement of their own experience, right?

So you have them going through this situation, but they gave all of that up and made [all] the reference to the other person. And this, by the way, in the – what would you call it? – parlance of narcissistic, abusive relationships and narcissistic dynamics that you get in families, narcissistic dynamics that you get in society – this is called ‘where the flying monkeys come in’.

What the ‘flying monkeys’ refers to is where you begin to, because you are manipulated into it, you begin to give away what you thought was right, to another person. And it’s so covert, it’s a bit like this: If I’m – God forbid, but if I’m in a relationship and I’m abusing the other person and I want to control them, I don’t go to them and say, ‘You know, I think you should do this.’ That’s very overt; people do that, but it’s not effective.

But what I might do is, I might go to their sister or their brother, or I might go to their best friend, and I’d say, ‘You know, I’m really worried about that person, I’m really worried about John. You know, he’s drinking a bit much or he’s doing this and that.’ And then they are used as what’s called the flying monkeys – it’s a reference to the [Wizard of Oz] fable about Dorothy and the Wicked Witch of the West: she usen’t [didn’t use] to go out herself, but she’d send flying monkeys – in the fable, you know, if you’re familiar with the story. But the flying monkeys used to go out on her bidding, and they would do this.

So I would stroke somebody else’s ego: I would take your brother or your sister, and somebody that I kind of got along with. These people can be very charming by the way they can, you know, be very convincing and say, ‘I’m worried about Dave,’ or, ‘I’m worried about John,’ and, you know, ‘Just now, I think, you know, I’m just now at my wits’ end, really; ‘really, I don’t know what to do you know, do you think you could have a word with him?’

Now you’ve got your flying monkey and their ego is stroked, and they think this is very important, you know, and [they reason,] ‘I do love this person and I’ll go and I’ll help them and I’ll help this [gaslighting] man, he seems to be doing his best.’ And [so] I go along to that person, and I say to him, ‘Do you know, well, I was talking to such a person there the other day, and I know they’re very concerned – and so am I, to be honest,’ you know.

Now, the flying monkeys in this case are the mainstream media and the HSE: they’re absolutely the flying monkeys, without a shadow of a doubt. Again, [witness] the statement of Micheál Martin saying, ‘It’s not me, it’s not the government’. Actually, his words were, ‘It’s not the government that are updating restrictions; it’s the virus!’

D.C.: As if the virus could pass legislation.

J.A.: And that’s what they are being told, and that was his statement and he said it very forcibly. But they are the flying monkeys.

Read the sixth part of the article

 

yogaesoteric
March 30, 2021