Print Friendly and PDF

Sunday, January 30, 2022

Slavery by Consent

 Previously: The Art of Propaganda and the Rape of the Mind


Most people believe that human chattel slavery was abolished in 1860s after the Union victory over the South and the ratification of the 14th Amendment. That simply isn't true. Slaves were never freed, they just came under new ownership. The 14th Amendment replaced the rule of law with a corporate policy, and made all citizens, either born or naturalized in the United States of America, subject to the United StatesTM, which is a corporation, a fictional entity that has the power to regulate commerce under Martine Admiralty law, or the law of the sea. As citizens, which really means employees, of the United States corporation, we are entitled to civil rights and privileges, written into policy by the politicians and enforced by the police. The citizens are also owned by the corporation as human cattle, or chattel, bought and sold on the New York stock exchange, and some come from better stock than others, as in live stock. The chattel citizens are allowed to keep company with stock of the opposite sex, and enter into a business relationship such as a marriage partnership, if the proper certificate (permission) is secured. Of course, it is none of the business of other chattel who some chattel choose to keep company with and enter into intercourse with. But it is very much the business of the corporation of the United States, whose corporate officers (police officers) tell the human chattel to simply mind their own business.

Well that was a mouthful, but unfortunately this is the system we are all now living under, a system of slavery that has been incorporated into our very language, and done with our consent. The thing about language is that words and phrases actually mean things, things that go back a long time. In fact, everything we say is a plagiarism; there are no original words or thoughts, its all been done before. If you want to learn how you became a slave you have to search deep into the language of the 18th and 19th centuries, in real law dictionaries, and from there you can piece together the puzzle from the semantic clues you find along the way. When you discover that you're a chattel slave, you'll also discover that you aren't one. Once you plunge yourself down the rabbit hole, you will find a fork in the path: go one way and remain a slave, go the other way and learn that you're sovereign, and that your inalienable (unsellable) rights come from the Creator, not a fictional corporation. And you'll also discover that the corporation created a strawman to replace you, the real sovereign being, and that is how they are getting away with it. In fact, it's all a fiction: the State, your strawman, the imaginary boundary lines that fence you in, the imaginary citizenship you are on, and the very language you use. 

You, my friend, are actually a king, with the right to trade with other sovereign kings, and you can do whatever you damn well please, as long as you don't interfere with the peaceful doings of other kings…  because kings live by the law of the land; the common law; God's law.

He who Makes the Language Controls the Mind

In my last post I quoted Joost Meerloo's book, The Rape of the Mind, extensively. He made an interesting comment on language that inspired me to write this current post. Here is what he said:
Pavlov... explained that man's relation to the external world, and to his fellow men, is dominated by secondary stimuli, the speech symbols. Man learns to think in words and in the speech figures given him, and these gradually condition his entire outlook on life and the world. As Dobrogaev [a Russian psychologist] said, "Language is the means of man's adaptation to his environment." We could rephrase that statement in this way: man's need for communication with his fellow men interferes with his relation to the outside world, because language and speech itself--the verbal tools we use--are variable and not objective. Dobrogaev continues: "Speech manifestations represent conditioned-reflex functions of the human brain." In a simpler way we may say: he who dictates and formulates the words and phrases we use, he who is master of the press and radio, is master of the mind. (p. 45, Emphases added)

Indeed, today's modern English tells a story and contains a hidden narrative that we have all been conditioned to believe in. This story is embedded deep within our subconscious, but we will never become aware of it unless we wake up; unless we are unplugged from the Matrix so to speak. In this post I'm going to attempt to tell you that story, but first you must understand, or stand under the foundation of the story so you can comprehend it. Just as there are Two Churches Only, there are also two laws only: one, the Common Law or the law of the land, God's law as given to Moses, and two, the law of the sea, which is the law of men or Maritime Admiralty Law. 

Common law is very simple: common individuals, or commoners, are sovereign beings, they have inalienable rights that have been granted by God. These rights precede and transcend any earthly government or group of people. Sovereigns have property rights, they can mix their labor with the earth to produce commodities which they can use for trade or barter with other sovereigns. They do not have to pay rents (property taxes) to nobles to use the land. Gold and silver are usually the preferred money of sovereigns, because they are literally part of the land, and they hold their value forever. The only sins that are punished in common law are crimes, in which there is both a victim and a perpetrator. These crimes include murder, theft, assault/rape, lying, and adultery. Adultery is a crime in common law because a covenant has been violated; the spouse who was cheated on being the victim. Why? They based their entire life on the love and care of a spouse and with one act that life became a lie; the victim put effort into something that became a fiction. Lying is also a crime when it violates a contract or covenant; such as when a merchant sales you one thing but tells you it is something else. One example is GMO food; we buy it because we think it is food but in reality it is not. Under common law, people who sell such food would be punished. Common law is based on the law of Moses and was practiced by the Nephites:

Nevertheless, they durst not lie, if it were known, for fear of the law, for liars were punished...And they durst not steal, for fear of the law, for such were punished; neither durst they rob, nor murder, for he that murdered was punished unto death. (Alma 1:17-18)

And this one includes adultery:

But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished. For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. (Alma 30:10-11, Emphasis added)

Common law has been passed down in certain cultures since the time of Moses. In 1688 there was a famous English revolution historians call the "Glorious Revolution" or the "bloodless revolution." The "Declaration of Rights" in the English Parliament was birthed from this event, which was based upon common law and the Magna Charta written centuries earlier in 1215. The Articles of Confederation and later the U.S. Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights were also based upon common law, although the Constitution included a provision that gave Congress jurisdiction over commerce, known as the Commerce Clause. When I explain what commerce is you will understand the significance of that clause, and how it effects us today. One of the most important aspects of common law is that it stresses individual responsibility. When Mosiah set up the system of judges in Nephite society, the people all agreed to be accountable for their own sins:

Therefore they relinquished their desires for a king, and became exceedingly anxious that every man should have an equal chance throughout all the land; yea, and every man expressed a willingness to answer for his own sins. (Mosiah 29:38)

They accepted what is called "strict liability" for their actions, which is different from the "limited liability" we practice in America today. In common law, there are no statutes that force a person to have insurance; sovereigns assume the full risk of damages to others that could happen as a result of their negligence. There is an example in the Old Testament book of Exodus that illustrates this law of accountability. If an Israelite ox gored and killed another Israelite, there were consequences in the form of penal obligations ranging from financial compensation to even execution. The compensation was never paid to the government or judge, it was paid to the individual who was damaged or to the family of the one who was killed. This is how true justice works; there is no third party, i.e., the State, to arbitrate the case and receive the "restorative" funds. Those belong solely to the victim. As Alma explained to Korihor, judges were paid for their time but that was all. There were no "admiralty prizes," or loot to be taken by the third party, the chancellor, the captain, or the admiral. 

What in the World is Maritime Admiralty Law?

Mare is the Latin word for sea. Admiralty is derived from admiral, which according to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, is "a high officer or magistrate that hath the government of the king's navy, and the hearing of all cases belonging to the sea." An admiralty court is "a court which has a very extensive jurisdiction of maritime causes, civil and criminal." Maritime Admiralty law is the law of the sea, an ancient law that originated from the Babylonian Mystery Schools, designed primarily to benefit merchants transporting goods across the oceans. The "vessels" carrying the goods were manned by the captain of the ship, who had absolute dictatorial power over the crew and cargo. Because there is no land in the ocean, there are no property rights, and the Human Resources i.e. the crew members, also belonged to the captain and the merchants along with the ship. They had signed a contract to help transport (move goods between sea ports) the merchant's goods, which bound them to servitude until the ship came into port and they were set a liberty. Are you picking up on the language yet? The story is about to get good. Keep reading. 

Maritime Law is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the following:
The body of law governing marine commerce and navigation, the carriage at sea of persons and property, and marine affairs in general; the rules governing contract, tort, and worker's compensation claims or relating to commerce on or over water.

The prefix mare is Latin for sea as I pointed out above. Think of other words that have the same prefix or suffix: nightmare, marriage, martial, market, marginal. The word carriage signifies the act of transporting in a vehicle, and some ships are called carriers because they transport goods. Marriage is the same word but with an M instead of a C, which implies that the Human Resources who get married are traveling in a boat at sea, and need permission from the captain to engage in intercourse (meaning trade not sex; the mixing of maritime products). This is why you have to have a marriage license from the State. You need permission because you are also cargo on the citizenship, the great ship called the United States corporation. You're not free. If you were, you would have a "common law" marriage sanctioned by a priest. Marriage is an act that falls under the category of commerce and thus can be regulated by Congress. According to Bouvier, commerce consists of the following:

The various agreements which have for their object facilitating the exchange of the products of the earth or the industry of man, with the intent to realize a profit...Congress has the power by the constitution to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes... The sense in which the word commerce is used in the constitution seems not only to include traffic, but intercourse and navigation. (pp. 294-95)

In other words, they can regulate goods navigating between fictional borders and in the high sea, goods which are traded through trafficking and intercourse.They did not have the power to regulate people or their private affairs of barter or trade on the land. Based upon common law, these things cannot be regulated. Why? Because the people are sovereigns, they are the kings who own the land and the resources. They delegate powers to the government. The chain of command under common law is as follows: the people of the several states, the states, the federal government. However, if the people somehow consent, like sailors on merchant ships, by verbal agreement or signing contracts to receive certain privileges or payments, then they fall under the regulation of commerce as maritime commodities. This is how they get you. That’s right, my friends, you are commerce, a maritime product being shipped on the high seas. And words have been created to trick you into accepting your status as commerce so that you can be regulated. Pay close attention to the word plays that follow.

Sunday, January 16, 2022

The Art of Propaganda and the Rape of the Mind

Previously The Cult of the Germ

Long ago the Lord told Enoch that he had given man two gifts: knowledge and agency. Many of us who grew up in the LDS ChurchTM  take these concepts for granted; "of course the Lord gave us free agency, isn't that the entire point of coming to earth," we quip. But have we really pondered the meaning of agency, and its companion knowledge? You see, these two concepts are interconnected; you cannot have one without the other. The eyes of Adam and Eve had to be opened to the opposites of good and evil, or they would not have been able to make a choice. I know what you're thinking, "Anderson, this is common sense, what's your point?" The point is that it’s not always that simple, understanding the relationship between knowledge and agency requires a deeper look, maybe even a plunge down another rabbit hole. 

Remember that Lucifer was a morning star, and his name means "light bearer?" That means he was and is brilliant. And before his rebellion, he worked hard to obtain that light, as is explained in this revelation to Denver Snuffer:
In your language you use the name Lucifer for an angel who was in authority before God, who rebelled, fought against the work of the Father and was cast down to earth. His name means holder of light, or light bearer, for he had gathered light by his heed and diligence before he rebelled. He has become a vessel containing only wrath and seeks to destroy all who will hearken unto him. He is now enslaved to his own hatred. (Teachings and Commandments, 157:7)

We also know through Joseph Smith that Lucifer sought to destroy the agency of man, however, he is not always able to directly do this. I mean, he got pretty close in communist Russia and other totalitarian regimes, but to be effective in destroying agency his strategy has to be focused on the mind rather than the physical body. Thus, the real target of his "wrath" is knowledge; the prerequisite of agency. If he can destroy knowledge he can destroy agency, without us ever realizing that our agency has been destroyed. He gives the illusion of a choice by presenting incomplete or subtly skewed ideas. Ideas that sound good and make sense to someone not privy to correct principles. He withholds just enough truth to make the victim think that they have made an informed decision when in reality they have been duped. Lucifer knows that human beings love to be puffed up with knowledge, so he purposely creates controlled "rabbit holes" and intellectual psyops to trap his victims into endless cycles of mental gymnastics. In other words, the victim is sidetracked on his way to discovering the unvarnished truth. This detour usually involves some type of appeal to morality, community, or the common good, and of course, the temptation to trust in an authority figure. The slave has got to be convinced that he is free and that his master is benevolent. This is Lucifer’s talent and genius; the art of propaganda.

Moralism vs Freedom

In my last post I quoted part of an interview between investigative journalist Jon Rappoport and Ellis Medavoy, the pseudonym of a retired propagandist for the Deep State. Jon published several interviews with this man in three volumes called The Matrix Revealed. You can find them on Jon's website, nomorefakenews.com. Medavoy lays out to Jon the methods used by the State to spread propaganda and indoctrinate people; these methods are based upon human nature and the phenomenon of mass psychosis. Medavoy explains that if you want to control people, the first thing you do is convince them that morality is superior to freedom. Here is a snippet of their conversation about the war on drugs:

Q (Jon): The Public--

A (Ellis): --The public thinks that the moon is made of green cheese if the right people say it is. Look, part of the major propaganda effort, the meta-effort, is to get people to forget there is a difference between freedom and "the right thing."

Q: What are you talking about?.

A: This is the key, believe me. I could show you how, through the use of propaganda, people now believe that drugs are always wrong and therefore no one should be allowed to use them AND that that conclusion represents freedom. Which is false.

Q: You're saying people don't know what freedom is anymore.

A: Exactly. They don't. They think freedom is getting other people to do the "right thing." And the REASON they think that... propaganda people have been at work for a long time bringing that insanity about. That illogic. You HAVE to see what I'm talking about. It's a little complicated. But it's so very important. Let me put it to you this way. When the country was born, the USA, freedom was considered to be a pretty precious thing. It was. It was supposed to mean that any person, or at least a lot of persons, could live their lives any way they wanted to, as long as they didn't interfere with anyone else's freedom. I mean, that was pretty clear to them. Do you get it? If in 1800 you wanted to smoke pot and I thought pot was disgusting, I had no recourse. It was a free country. This is a silly example, but you understand. Now, as time passed, it became clear to those who were in the business of manipulating society that, all in all, this freedom thing was a very bad idea. It made people hard to brainwash. So on a mind control level, a new concept would have to be introduced. It was, "morality above freedom." Groups of every stripe were encouraged to shout their morals from the rooftops and rail against the bad people... this was, in a real sense, a PR operation. It was divide and conquer, but more than that it was pour on the morality from all directions on the heads of the American people--beat them to such a degree with that flood that after awhile the idea of freedom would take a back seat in their minds to MORALITY. The ultimate of all this, you could say, was the Prohibition of alcohol. That never could have been achieved without a populace that was half-mad with the steady diet of overbearing morality-preaching coming from all corners of society.

Q: You're saying this is intentional, this inducing--

A: --This inducing of a moralistic fever. Yes. And it still is. War on drugs. Whatever. There are lots of examples. The basic propaganda operation is, make them forget what freedom means. Because freedom would dictate you say, "if you want to use a drug, go ahead." Who cares? And of course there are other layers of lies used to keep people from seeing that simple truth. The fear mongering around the idea that if you let people use drugs, everyone will become either addicted or the victim of a crazy person with a gun on drugs. That's called PROPAGANDA. It doesn't work that way in real life. If you let people alone, some of them do stupid things and some of them don't. It's never "everybody." But if you can make people forget that freedom comes above morality, you have them. They're yours. Do you see that? If you don't see that, you see nothing. This is why I call it meta-programming. It's the programming that makes all the other programming work. (The Matrix Revealed, Volume I, p. 27-28)

What was Satan's plan in the preexistence? To force everyone to do "the right thing." Thus, pinning morality above freedom is one of his trademarks. Sorry conservatives, the war on drugs is satanic. But worse than that, it is propaganda to bamboozle you into giving up your freedoms by allowing the proxy State to enforce so-called morality. Because we are unwilling to go around with guns and force people to stop using and selling drugs ourselves, we outsource this to the State, but in doing so it becomes our master; which was the plan all along. The appeal to morality is the hook that catches decent people in this trap. Medavoy clarifies that the emphasis on morality has nothing to do with morality: "You may find this hard to believe, but no morality at all is the inevitable outcome of pounding morality into every skull" (p. 28). And then he reveals that real motives behind the programming: 

Q: Back to the war on drugs.

A: Perfect example. Because we can add one more dimension to the picture I'm making here. Profit. Money. If people around the world couldn't be moved by moralistic statements about drugs, the drugs would never be illegal and then the groups that make billions of dollars would make pennies instead. Since legal drugs are dirt-cheap. Moralisms equal money. (p.29, Emphasis added) 

Just as Medavoy stated, the manipulators grew weary of freedom, and mounted several campaigns of moralism across many facets of society. Interestingly enough, Murray Rothbard, one of my favorite libertarian scholars, documented this historical phenomenon in his book, The Progressive Era. Rothbard explains that in the latter half of the 19th Century, certain religious groups began influencing political parties. These groups were known as the pietists and the liturgicals. The pietists believed in individual salvation, with little emphasis on church affiliation or organization. That sounds good to many of us who eschew organized religion, but there was a catch: they wanted to coopt the State to coerce individual purity. You see, "salvation" meant purity, not so much being saved by Christ. This was the dominating religious force behind the Republican Party, yes I said that correctly, the GOP, the "party of great moral ideas." It was these people that came up with Prohibition, Sunday blue laws (outlawing the sale of alcohol on Sunday), and compulsory education, which, according to Rothbard, was designed to "'Americanize' the immigrants and 'Christianize the Catholics,' and to use schools to transform Catholics and immigrants (often one and the same) into pietistic Protestant and nativist molds" (p. 116).

The liturgicals favored a different path to salvation; one that "was in the hands of the Church and its priests, and what the individual needed to do was to believe in and practice the prescribed ritual" (p. 117). The focus was to trust religious authorities, not State ones. They believed that the State should steer clear of salvific issues, and not legislate it's morality on the individual. To the liturgical, sin had more to do with heresy and less to do with purity. Drinking and other "vices" were not considered sin, and salvation could be worked out with priests, not bureaucrats. They were the backers of the Democratic Party, the "party of personal liberty" (p. 118). Of course, this all changed at the turn of the 20th Century when third parties began to be introduced to split votes, and moralism and pietism became the dominating force in American politics. The State became the secular savior; the deliverer of the masses from the evils of poverty, war, racism, bigotry, and "capitalism." Freedom was no longer allowed. It wasn't safe; it wasn't moral. Just think the of laws and bureaucracies that were established during the Progressive and modern eras: the Pure Food and Drug Act, the National Recovery Act, the war to "make the world safe for democracy," the income tax, the Federal Reserve Act, welfare programs, the Social Security Act, the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the Square Deal, the Great Society, the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on diseases, etc. The State has become the great image of heroism and morality, but it is not moral at all; the perfect deception. 

Jesus Christ, the real Savior, is the author of freedom. To him, morality comes after freedom; through the voluntary  choices of individuals. Legislating morality only leads to immorality, and spiritual wickedness in high places. The Book of Mormon teaches negative law, or law that prohibits crime, i.e., acts of aggression against other's person's and property:
Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him. But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished. For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man's belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds. (Alma 30: 9-11
Negative law proscribes crime committed by both individuals and the State, which is nothing but a group of individuals who have obtained a monopoly of coercion over a geographical area. The Bill of Rights is negative law; such and such inalienable rights shall not be infringed. Positive law consists of the moral legislative adventures embarked upon by the State that I have described in the preceding paragraph. Positive law always destroys freedom: instead of proscribing State power, it enhances it. It dabbles in grey areas that interfere with the choices of individuals such as economics and discrimination. Sadly, most people are terrified of true freedom. They don't want their counterparts to roam around doing whatever they please. They want to muzzle them, and force them to make "right" choices, but because they are too cowardly to do this themselves, they employ the State to do their dirty work. 

Don't be deceived; God wants you to be free. And freedom means letting others do things that you might consider despicable; like drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc., as long as it's done voluntarily. But if there is a victim, as in murder, theft, adultery (breach of contract), and rape, then we are no longer talking about a vice, we are talking about a crime. Positive law not only does not prevent crime, it allows the State to perpetuate collective crime against its subjects. This is why, as Medavoy asserted, propaganda is essential to convince the populace to exalt moralism above freedom. This line from Medavoy is worth repeating, "But if you can make people forget that freedom comes above morality, you have them. They're yours." Bingo, this is the formulae that allows the State to get above you, as Moroni so prophetically warned about. Propaganda was designed for this very purpose; it's the raping of your mind. 


Freedom: Its Ultimate Meaning

The best definition of freedom that I have ever heard came from an obscure book published in 1967 by H. Verlan Andersen, a former Seventy in the LDS ChurchTM and a good friend of the late Ezra Taft Benson. The name of the book is Many Are Called and Few Are Chosen.
 
Andersen’s thesis is that men will lose their priesthood privileges, based on Doctrine and Covenants section 121, when they attempt to destroy the freedom of others. How can they do that? By allowing the State to do it in their behalf by supporting laws and programs that restrict agency. 

Andersen's definition of freedom involves four main components: life, liberty, property, and knowledge. Here is how he describes these concepts:

The most obvious requirement for a person to accomplish his purposes is some degree of physical and mental health and strength, or life itself. Throughout history, the destruction or injury of this element of freedom by murder, mayhem, or assault and battery, has been a sin in the sight of God and a crime in the eyes of the law...

The second element, liberty, is the absence of coercion or restraint. When we enslave a fellow man, or unjustly subject him to our will, we have committed both a sin and a crime...

The third element is the right and control of property. Wealth, or organized raw materials, is an essential ingredient of freedom: First, because our very survival depends upon access to such things as food, clothing, and shelter; secondly, because the right and control of property permits us to increase our physical and mental powers almost without limit... If you deny a person access to the necessities of life, or course he will die. If you deny him these necessities unless he does what you say, you can make him your slave because most of us will obey nearly any command to remain alive...

The fourth element of freedom mentioned above is knowledge. One may achieve a desired result only by complying with that particular law upon which the result depends. No person can consciously obey a law unless he knows what that law is. Thus, freedom to attain any goal is impossible without a knowledge of the pertinent facts and laws

If one bases his actions upon false information and principles, his failure is certain, his efforts rendered futile, and the exercise of freedom frustrated. Consequently, one who deceives or deliberately misleads, is condemned by both the laws of God and man. The effect of perverting the truth hinders or prevents compliance with law and destroys freedom. 

In contrast, one of the most approved and righteous of all callings is to increase freedom by disseminating truth, thereby increasing men's ability to reach their goals...

We have heretofore defined freedom as the power and opportunity to achieve goals. Let us observe in the light of the above discussion that the only goals which are of any importance are to increase or decrease joy and freedom. In other words, the only desires which matter are to do good or evil, and these desires are nothing more nor less than the desire to increase or destroy joy and freedom. This being so, we may now restate our definition of freedom as follows:

Freedom is the power and opportunity to affect the freedom of others. (pp. 8-11, Emphasis added) 

There are two ways to destroy the freedom of others: one, we can use physical force, or the threat of violence, to coerce, restrain, or enslave them, or two, we can deliberately withhold, skew, distort, or block their access to knowledge. When the former is done collectively in a nation it is called totalitarianism, when the latter is done en masse it is called propaganda. The art of propaganda is getting people to destroy the freedom of others, and their own freedom, by restricting their knowledge of facts, history, and principles, and convincing them that there is some "moral" imperative that obliges them to submit to authority for the good and safety of society. The end goal of propaganda is getting people to submit to slavery while thinking that they are still free, and worse than that, to even glory in it.

Just as knowledge is a prerequisite to freedom, propaganda is a prerequisite to totalitarianism; no group of people would submit to a dictator unless they were convinced of his legitimacy. To accomplish this a prison must be created for the mind, complete with a scrubbed narrative of history, and replete with multiple mental mazes that all end in the same lie. The victim must not be allowed to discover the truth, and must be convinced of the delusions that were deliberately planted by propaganda. But because he will instinctively feel that something is wrong, he will be fed alternative narratives and intentional psyops that give false hope of freeing his mind from the prison, but will lead him inexorably back to his cell. Violated, humiliated, exhausted, and defeated, the slave submits to his intellectual masters, accepts his fate, and settles into his misery. But deep down he knows that something is not quite right, he knows that his human spirit has been crushed, he knows there is something more "out there," than what he has been fed. His soul longs for truth. Although his body may be fed, he is starving for knowledge, knowing not where to find it. This is why propaganda is a most pernicious evil; it deprives us of what it means to be a rational human, and squelches the last vestiges of our cognition; the precious gift of knowledge. 

The Rape of the Mind

In 1956, a psychologist from the Netherlands published a book called, The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing


His name was Joost A.M. Meerloo, and he lived through the Nazi occupation of his country during WWII. He studied the effects of torture and drugs on the mind through working with American POWs who had returned from Korea, and how these tactics lead to false confession. He studied totalitarian regimes and the techniques they use to brainwash entire populations and induce mass psychosis to ensure obedience to dictators. Rape is an interesting verb to use in reference to the mind, but after reading the book, there is no other word that fits. Propaganda and thought control are violations of mental integrity; although they seem subtle, they are direct assaults on the mind; the gift of cognition given to us by God. Here is the definition Meerloo gives of rape:
The word "rape" is derived from the Latin word rapere, to snatch, but also is related to the words to rave and raven. It means to overwhelm and to enrapture, to invade, to usurp, to pillage, and to steal. (p. 11)


As we can deduce from the definition above, the "rape of the mind" is tantamount to stealing knowledge from the mind and replacing it with propaganda. This is accomplished through an invasion of the frontal lobe with subtle methods that Meerloo writes about in the book. These methods are time-tested and based upon science and psychology. The brain behaves a certain way, especially the subconscious mind, when it is subject to certain stimuli, just as the Russian scientist Pavlov proved with his salivating dogs. When certain propaganda techniques are used, the brain will essentially shut down and go into survival mode, virtually turning off its cognition and reasoning centers. This reaction to trauma is no different than a rape victim with PTSD, the subconscious mind attempts to eliminate the memory of the traumatic event by creating constant mental diversions so the victim does not remember and relive the pain. But this defense mechanism will not heal a person from trauma, and must be overcome. Similarly, if we want to heal our brains from government propaganda, we must "wake up" and reboot our reason and cognition centers, we must eliminate doubt and fear and see the propaganda for what it is: nonsense and lies. 

For the remainder of this post I want to focus on some of the propaganda methods that Meerloo expounds upon in the book. These are key to understanding thought control and will help you see what is going on right now with the Covid campaign. Although the book was written in the 1950s, the following methods haven't changed: fear, paternalism, mass psychosis, technology, and boredom. Before we get into all of that, here is another quote from Medavoy that you should keep in mind as we go through these concepts; he shares the secret of "how to run a world":

Not long after we met for the first time, he [Medavoy] said to me [Jon], "I can tell you how to run a world, you know." 

I laughed. "Really."

 "Sure," he said. "You make up something complicated. Then you insert it into the bloodstream of the society, and you watch it bloom. You make it complex enough that it will take armies of people to sort it out and argue about it, and then you have them. The other thing is, what you make up has to cost money. A lot of money."

"Why?" I said.

"Because people want their lies to have value, and that is judged by how expensive they are." (The Matrix Revealed, Volume I, pp. 2-3)

Fear and Hatred

Human beings are fearful creatures. As we grow up, our childhood fears of monsters under the bed morph into adult fears of failure, rejection, loneliness, and ultimately, living life itself. We are afraid to trust, to love, to take risks, and to step out of our comfort zones. We are all holding onto some type of emotional baggage from our childhood, or a past broken heart, or financial loss, or the death of a loved one, or humiliation from adolescence, or daddy issues, or PTSD from war or abuse. This is just human nature and a part of life, and totalitarians know it and exploit it. Thus, fear is the first tool in the bags of political manipulators, and is just as effective today as it was millennia ago. 

One reason that fear is such a powerful weapon is because it is addictive. Even if we don't realize it, we all crave it, like a hit of cocaine. There is a reason why this emotion is so powerful. It was designed as a survival mechanism; it unlocks the flight or fight response unique to our autonomic nervous system. When faced with danger, small glands that rest on the kidneys unleash a torrent of adrenaline into the blood stream, charging the muscles with an invigorating burst of energy, telling them to run, or turn and defend. This biological process is straightforward when faced with a man-eating lion, or an intruder that breaks into our home, but psychological fear is a different animal. Totalitarians endeavor to make this fear chronic, requiring more dramatic scenarios to release the same amount of the drug into our bloodstream. With each new terrorizing scene presented by the script writers, an accompanying level of obedience is required, and the citizen learns that the leaders have the answers and must be trusted. Eventually boredom sets in, and with boredom comes apathy and regression; things which make a person easy to control. Here is what Meerloo said about this phenomenon:
Totalitarian leaders, whether of the right or of the left, know better than anyone else how to make use of this fear of living. They thrive on chaos and bewilderment. During unrest in international politics, they are most at ease. The strategy of fear is one of their most valuable tactics. The growing complications of our civilization and its administration make the impact of power politics felt more than ever before. When the totalitarians add to their tactic all the clever tricks that we had already discussed--Pavlovian conditioning, repeated suggestion, deconditioning through boredom and physical degeneration--they can win their battle for the control of man's mind. (p. 182)

Meerloo also explains how fear can become so embedded into our subconscious that we don't even realize we are manifesting it:

Most people think of fear reactions as hysterical expressions of desperation. But... fear and panic also have their paradoxical expressions in indifference and apathy, reactions which, just because they are less commonly recognized as fear-created, can be much more dangerous to the individual than a good hysterical cry. It is the hidden, silent fears that have such an impact on our social and political behavior. 

Fear and panic are reactions not only to overt danger and threat, they are also reactions to the slow, seeping intrusion of disquieting propaganda and the constant wave of suggestion to which we are all exposed. Fear is at work all around us, and often it throws its shadows where we least expect to find them. We may be acting out of fear without even knowing it; we may consider that our behavior is perfectly normal and rational when, in fact, psychology tells us that creeping fear may already have begun to work on us.

Fear and catastrophe fortify the need to identify with a strong leader. They lead to herding together of people, who shy away from wanting to be individual cells any longer; they prefer to be part of a huge mystic social organization that protects against threat and distress, in oneness with the leader. This protection-seeking instinctual reaction is also directed against dissent and individualism, against the individual ego. We see in this a regression toward a more primitive state of mass participation. (pp. 183-84)

Because human beings are naturally insecure, we seek to identify with and belong to a group. Meerloo calls this social organization "mystic" because people feel a false sense of security when they associate with a herd; almost like magic. When there are national crises, like war or epidemics, this tendency is magnified an hundred fold, and the "strong leader" of the herd becomes a human god to trust in. We all do this automatically without consciously thinking about it; we don't necessarily think we are "worshipping" the leader, but we find ourselves trusting in their "expertise" and "authority." To escape from group think takes considerable mental effort; we have to abandon fear and embrace love. In a talk presented at Sunstone in 2018, Denver Snuffer said the following:

There are two great competing forces in the whole of creation: love and fear. (The Restoration's Shattered Promises and Great Hope)

If love and fear are the two pervading forces in God's universe, then we can assume that hatred, the opposite of love, is synonymous with fear. And hatred is another powerful tool of social manipulators. One which the Book of Mormon warns us about. The major war between the Lamanites and Nephites was started with hate speech and propaganda by cunning leaders like Zerahemnah. He knew that the Amalekites were more wicked and bloodthirsty then the Lamanites, so he appointed them to be the chief captains of the Lamanite armies, and they stirred them up to anger against the Nephites:

Now this he did that hey might preserve their hatred toward the Nephites, that he might bring them into subjection to the accomplishmen t of his designs. For behold, his designs were to stir up the Lamanites to anger against the Nephites; this he did that he might usurp great power over them, and also that he might gain power over the Nephites by bringing them into bondage. (Alma 43:7-8)

It's interesting that it was Nephite dissenters, the Amalekites, who spread the war propaganda. This is a clue that conspiring men do not care what side they are on; they are simply opportunists. Notice that Zerahemnah was trying to accomplish two goals through hate propaganda: one, usurp power over his own people, the Lamanites, and two, bring the Nephites into bondage. Ruling over one group of people was not enough, he wanted all the power, and hate was the key to obtaining it. Later on we learn that Amalickiah followed a similar pattern. After he obtained power over the Lamanites through fraud, deceit, and a false flag operation (which you can read about in chapter 10 of my book), he mounted a propaganda campaign against the Nephites:

And now it came to pass that, as soon as Amalickiah had obtained the kingdom he began to inspire the hearts of the Lamanites against the people of Nephi; yea, he did appoint men to speak unto the Lamanites from their towers, against the Nephites... he sought also to reign over all the land, yea, and all the people who were in the land, the Nephites as well as the Lamanites. (Alma 48:1-2, Emphasis added)

It's interesting that the word towers is used; today the propagandists speak to us through radio, television, and internet towers. It seems as though the more we change, the more we stay the same. Again we see that ruling just the Lamanites was not enough for Amalickiah, he wanted to rule "over all the land," the entire known world to the Nephites at that time. Joseph Smith warned us that almost all men will usurp power if given the opportunity, that means that there are very few who won't; a sobering thought. There is one more example in the Book of Mormon that catalogs the effects of group hate that I wrote about in chapter 6 of my book, the chapter entitled The Nationalistic Disease. It bears repeating here. Group hate, based upon fear of a foreign enemy, can make murderers out of average citizens, who can be easily persuaded to support an unjust war when a "strong leader" declares it. We all saw this happen in 2003 when Bush declared an unconstitutional war on Iraq with no evidence of WMDs. Even the supposed prophet of God, Gordon Hinckley, capitulated to government propaganda in a talk called War and Peace. He told the Latter-Day Saints that government officials "have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally," so we should trust them and do our duty to our country. He was wrong; the intelligence was faulty. He should've quoted the Book of Mormon and spoke out against unjust war. 

The Nephites were nationalists just like we Americans are. It is easy to hate the idea of a foreign people that you've been taught is an enemy. This seed of hate planted in your mind becomes an abstraction; you can't see or touch it. It's not real. It is yet another powerful component of propaganda designed to fool you. This is why very few Americans care when drones kill foreign women and children; they are part of the abstraction, the collateral damage. The faceless enemy that your government told you to hate. God warned us about this phenomenon in the book of Alma. When Ammon was preparing to go on a 14 year mission among the Lamanites, he was mocked by his brethren:

Now do ye remember, my brethren, and we said unto our brethren in the land of Zarahemla, we go up to the land of Nephi, to preach unto our brethren, the Lamanites, and they laughed us to scorn? For they said unto us: Do ye suppose that ye can bring the Lamanites to the knowledge of the truth? Do you suppose that ye can convince the Lamanites of the incorrectness of the traditions of their fathers, as stiffnecked a people as they are; whose hearts delight in the shedding of blood; whose days have been spent in the grossest iniquity; whose ways have been the ways of a transgressor from the beginning? Now my brethren, ye remember this was their language. And moreover they did say: Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us. But behold, my beloved brethren, we came into the wilderness not with the intent to destroy our brethren, but with the intent that perhaps we might save some few of their souls. (Alma 26:23-26, Emphasis added)

"Kill the abstraction before they kill us. We are better than them; they are savages and terrorists. We should just nuke the entire Middle East. They are little more than animals. They won't stop until we are all dead so we should kill them first. Don't let them practice their religion here. Every Mosque is a terrorist cell. Throw them all in Guantanamo and torture em. Go Murica!”

Sound familiar? These are God's other children we are talking about. He loves them. He created them. Very, very few them are our real enemies; most of them are good people just trying to live their lives. The ancient Lamanites were no different. See how powerful hate propaganda is? Of course this was twenty years ago and now we know it was all nonsense, but it worked. Bush got his war, and it lasted twenty years (in Afghanistan), and we all have less freedom because of it. Now the new terrorist is another faceless enemy; an invisible germ. 

Paternalism: The Strong Man

It is human nature to desire to follow a strong man. This tendency begins in the womb, where mother did everything for us. We did not have to do anything for ourselves; all we had to do was bask in the comfort of the amniotic fluid. Then her body evicted us and we had to breath for the first time, cry, feel hunger and pain, and get used to new surroundings including two giants: mother and father. Mother we instinctively knew, but father was a strange giant. We knew we had a bond with him, but it was hard to put our finger on. As we grew we knew we wanted his attention and approval, and for some it wasn’t easy to get. Meerloo observed that if a child is neglected by father, or either parent, they have more of a tendency to search "continually for strong figures who may serve as proxy for the normal relationships the child would otherwise have had in life" (p. 209). This phenomenon, according to Meerloo, is more prominent in those children who are neglected by father. They seek to replace him with another authority figure:
Many of the people I investigated, who had chosen to identify themselves with aggressive totalitarian groups, had this problem. For such people, the totalitarian party became both the good father who accepted them and the proxy which gave expression to all their hidden and frustrated hate. The party solves, as it were, their inner problems. (p. 210)

It's not always the neglected type that gravitate to authority figures. Meerloo also points that those who are raised by strict and dogmatic parents also find solace in strong leaders. Unbeknownst to these parents, who were most likely raised similarly, is that nonconformity is a virtue, not a vice, and an indication of human strength, not weakness:

Our human strength lies in our diversity and independence of thought, in our acceptance of nonconformity, in our willingness to discuss and to evaluate various conflicting points of view. In denying the diversities of life and the complexity and individuality of the human mind, in preaching rigid dogmas and self-righteousness, we begin to gradually adopt the totalitarian attitude we deplore. (p. 183)

Self-righteousness seems to always spill over between church and state. This has been seen throughout history; just think of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Egyptian priestly class, the Roman-Catholic Church, etc. Self-righteousness also leads to persecution, which is much worse when perpetuated by the State, as was done to primitive Christians during the pre-Constantine era. The Book of Mormon also warns about this concept:

... and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they. (Jacob 2:13, Emphasis added) 

There is a human tendency to believe that obedience to an authority figure somehow makes a person "better" than someone who is disobedient. This lie is seen prominently in the LDS ChurchTM; blind obedience to leaders is somehow considered a virtue, while those who question are seen as spiritually indolent, rebellious, and heretical. Even if they are not directly punished by church leaders for such skepticism, the culture does not allow them to escape scrutiny. Ironically, this same culture elevates secular leaders to similar heights, and many members find satisfaction in the fact that church leaders mingle with political elites and other famous celebrities such as the Pope. This is what Meerloo was talking about: people who have insecurities stemming from childhood latch onto such "strong men" because they fulfill a role for them that has been neglected. The ultimate paternal figure is God himself, and to many religious people these leaders represent God on earth, who to them is some abstract being they cannot see or touch. In other words, the "strong men" have become their carnal idols; carnal because they can see, hear, glean from, and get to know them through electronic media. Here is a final word from Meerloo on this subject:

Whenever there is parental compulsion, which gives the child no chance to develop its own attitudes and evaluations, the child grows up into a conforming adult, whose entire life may be spent in a search for outside authority, for someone to tell him what to do. (p. 213)

Many people love to be told what to do; it is their comfort zone. They are terrified of autonomy and freedom. They want someone to solve all their problems, to eliminate all of their risk, to feed them, to clothe them, to house them, to give them a job, to tell them that everything is going to be all right, and most egregiously, to tell think how and what to think. In other words, they want to return to the womb, a mental regression that manifests in the worship of "strong men." Joseph Smith also warned us about this type of thinking in the church:

We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents they should do it without questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves. (Millennial Star, vol. 14, #38, p 593-595)

Mass Formation Psychosis

Dr. Mattias Desmet, a professor of Psychology at the University of Ghent, has commented recently on the phenomenon known as "mass formation," which is basically the regression of the human being to a primitive animal trying to survive in a herd. Dr. Desmet, in this video, explains how the conditions of the American psyche were ripe for a mass hypnosis just prior to the advent of Covid. He cites four conditions that prime a population for an easy transition into mass formation and ultimately, tyranny. There are as follows:

1. Lack of social bonds: lack of connectiveness between people, feelings of loneliness and isolation, and the inability to connect with others, both friends and loved ones, emotionally, mentally, and physically. This is due in part to social media and its zombifying effect on humanity.

2. Lack of meaning in life: most people find no meaning in their jobs and the overall purpose of their lives. They are caught up in the fast-paced world which demands everything and gives nothing in return. This spills over to their relationships and because humans are social beings, this lack of connectiveness creates a void to fill.

3. High levels of free-floating anxiety: this is the chronic fear I talked about earlier in this post. Dr. Desment points out that 1 out of 5 people now have been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder; mental anxiety that has no apparent cause. This anxiety has a similar effect on the body as when we encounter a man-eating animal or some other type of eminent danger, but unlike facing a physical threat, mental anxiety is "without object." And because there is no obvious cause, there is no obvious cure, and the sufferer feels helpless. (I know personally because I experienced this exact thing in 2019, here is a memoir I wrote describing what I went through)

4. High levels of free-floating aggression and frustration: people are angry and frustrated and don't know why. Both anxiety and aggression are most likely caused by the stresses of the modern world but people don't know how to pinpoint and deal with them. So they are looking for an object to direct their angst toward and something like Covid is the perfect scapegoat. 

Dr. Desmet explains that when the narrative of Covid was presented, no matter how absurd it sounded, people latched onto it because they were searching for a conduit in which to channel their unexplained anxiety and aggression. Thus, they embrace the new narrative, and willingly submit to psychological control because they experience a new type of social bond. This gives them a sense of purpose and solidarity, and satisfies the primitive human need to identify with a group (to be part of something bigger than themselves), notwithstanding the complete lack of logic inherent in the narrative. But the most dangerous part of this mass delusion is that the previously free-floating frustration and aggression can now be channeled and directed toward those who refuse to believe and participate in the narrative. According to Dr. Desmet, in totalitarian states this aggression is taken out on dissidents who have awakened from among the hypnotized masses. Hitler could never have killed so many Jews alone; complicity from the masses is required for tyranny.

Desmet surmises that about 30% of the population are completely hypnotized by the Covid narrative, with 40-50% who apathetically go along, and the remaining 10-20% skeptical and speaking out. The brainwashed 30% are the most illogical and dangerous. According to Desmet, the more absurd the narrative is, the more they will support it. The measures, i.e., masks, social distancing, vaccine mandates, function as ritual in a religion, which demand the individual to sacrifice for the collective. The complete impracticality of the Covid protocols serve to further solidify the narrative by giving it an aura of mysticism. The new "logic" is that if people would only get three boosters per year, or wear three layers of masks, than somehow the protocols would work, like magic. Many will still believe this even though the vaccinated all around them are still contracting the disease. The hypnotic state they are in narrows the focus of their minds, and in this mental myopia they lose all reason and cognition. This phenomenon is what Meerloo called menticide, the murder of the brain. 

Menticide was coined by Meerloo himself, and is taken from two words, mens, meaning the mind, and caedere, Latin for "to kill." Just like any other muscle, if the brain isn't properly used and exercised, it will atrophy and weaken, and become susceptible to the subtle attacks of totalitarians. Here is Meerloo's own definition of it:
Menticide is an old crime against the human mind and spirit but systemized anew. It is an organized system of psychological intervention and judicial perversion through which a powerful dictator can imprint his own opportunist thoughts upon the minds of those he plans to use and destroy. The terrorized victims finally find themselves compelled to express complete conformity to the tyrant's wishes. (p. 24)

When mass formation is taking place in a population, both menticide and mass delusion are happening simultaneously. Meerloo defines delusion as, "the loss of an independent, verifiable reality, with a consequent relapse into a more primitive stage of awareness" (p. 221). Thus, delusion is the regression of the mind; this is why people will still believe in the false narrative even when you show them facts and admissions from authorities (the same authority figures they believe in like the CDC and the WHO in the case of Covid) that reveal holes in the story. Facts become meaningless because their minds have regressed and latched onto the belief; the belief has become reality for them, and there is no convincing them otherwise. According to Meerloo, this even happens to the highly intelligent and academic:

So many philosophers surrender their theoretical thinking under the impact of powerful mass emotions. The reason lies not only in anxiety and submissiveness. It is a much deeper emotional process. People want to speak the language of their country and fatherland. In order to breathe, they have to identify with the ideological cliches of their surroundings. Spiritually they cannot stand alone. (p. 223)

Indeed, it is a difficult thing to "stand alone" against an unthinking majority. The scriptures are replete with examples of men who did this very thing: they were called prophets. Lehi's preaching to the Jews left them "angry with him; yea, even as with the prophets of old, whom they had cast out, and stoned, and slain" (1 Nephi 1:20). Abinadi was labeled by king Noah as a madman and burned by him, and Samuel the Lamanite had arrows shot at him while he preached on the walls of the city of Zarahemla. These are examples of how mass formation can lead to populations committing atrocities; every dictator must have his accomplices. And once a justification has been formed in their deluded minds there is no crime they aren't capable of. We read in scripture that most prophets were either murdered or threatened with murder and had to flee; Christ himself being the ultimate example. And what was their "crime"? Telling the truth. People hate to be told the truth because it cuts deep into their comfortable lies. Remember that Medavoy said that people want their lies to have value, and when you threaten that, they get angry and act irrationally. Here is a final word from Meerloo on delusion:

For it is delusional (unadapted to reality) to think of man as an obedient machine. It is delusional to deny his dynamic nature and try to arrest all his thinking and acting at the infantile stage of submission to authority. It is delusional to believe that there is any one simple answer to the many problems with which life confronts us, and it is delusional to believe that man is so rigid, so unyielding in his structure that he has no ambivalences, no doubts, no conflicts, nor warring drives within him. (p. 224)

Technocracy

Technology has been invading our minds since the advent of radio and television, and just like all human advances, it has been used for both good and evil. But we are now living in the age of technology, our jobs, businesses, and even our very lives are dependent on it. Meerloo used the term "technocracy" in the 1950s when he wrote his book, and he warned that it could eventually threaten our very humanity. Here is what he said about radio and television in 1956:
It is the very subservience to technology that constitutes an attack on thinking. The child that is confronted from early youth with all modern devices and gadgets of technology--the radio, the motor, the television set, the film--is unwittingly conditioned to millions of associations, sounds, pictures, movements, in which he takes no part. He has no need to think about them. They are too directly connected with his senses. Modern technology teaches man to take for granted the world he is looking at; he takes no time to retreat and reflect. Technology lures him on, dropping him into its wheels and movements. No rest, no meditation, no reflection, no conversation--the senses are continually overloaded with stimuli. The child doesn't learn to question his world any more; the screen offers him answers--ready-made. Even his books offer him no human encounter--nobody reads to him; the screen people tell him their story in their way. Technical knowledge forced upon him in this way makes no demand that he think about what he sees and hears. Conversation is becoming a lost art. The machine age rushes on, leaving no time for quiet reading and encounter with the creative arts...

These inventions steal time and steal self-awareness...

As in all mass media, we have to be aware of the hypnotizing seductive action of any all-penetrating form of communication. People become fascinated even when they do not want to look on. We must keep in mind that every step in personal growth needs isolation, needs inner conversation and deliberation and a reviewing with the self. Television hampers this process and prepares the mind more easily for collectivization and cliche thinking. It persuades onlookers to think in terms of mass values. It intrudes into family life and cuts off the more interfamilial communication. (pp. 234, 237)

Coming from the 1950s, these statements are truly prophetic. Today screens of all shapes and sizes are all around us. Many young people do not even know how to have a normal conversation or even look someone in the eye. Everything is done on a screen; life is lived vicariously through social media; a fantasy world. Endless hours are spent scrolling on never-ending platforms that teach us nothing of real value. People are forming political views from memes instead of reading books, and propaganda is hitting us from all angles, every minute of the day our cell phones are on. To learn anything, especially the things of God, requires deep pondering and quiet reflection. The mind must be stilled and quieted; introspection must be paramount. Consider this gem from Joseph Smith that he wrote while reflecting in Liberty Jail:

The things of God are of deep import, and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Your mind, O man, if you will lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost Heavens, and search into and contemplate the lowest considerations of the darkest abyss, and expand upon the broad considerations of Eternal expanse. You must commune with God. 

There is a reason that they call television shows "programs." It is programming indeed. Medavoy has been around for a long time, he was part of a propaganda campaign during WWII to get "Americans to view the Japanese as animals, sub-human" (The Matrix Revealed, Volume 1, p. 12). This is what he said about television in 2011:

TV is a splash of images and voices. People do not learn anything of any depth from TV. They THINK they do, and then they can't remember it. It all goes away. I retired because TV is now doing my job. The fact of the set being on all the time produces a lobotomy far beyond anything I ever did. It solves everything... You can't learn while a TV show is on. You're a receiver. You're a machine... I've seen hundreds of studies on the subject of television over the years. Some of them were never broadly published. You can bet that farm on that [that brainwashing through TV is intentional]. A world poised in front of their TV sets. That's a wet dream for the owners of the planet. In front of the set, you learn nothing but you think you're learning. A terrific delusion. You watch your favorite people in the whole world, who are really just images made out of light. It's a religion. The stars are the gods, and they only show up as images made out of little tiny pieces of light. But people think they're absolutely real. (Ibid, pp. 36-37)

I'm sure the above statement is nothing new for the readers of this blog. I mean, if you were a bunch of TV watchers, you probably wouldn't be reading this in the first place. But know that TV has laid the ground work for the coming technocracy, ran by the global technocrats. The zombification of the world has been happening for decades, the last one especially, and with the advent of social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram, the stage is set. And remember that Shakespeare said, "all the world is a stage."

I am going to share a video with you that you should watch carefully. It is an interview with Catherine Austin Fitts, a brilliant financial analyst and the former secretary of housing and urban development under the Bush administration. She is currently the president and publisher of the Solari Report, and has been since 1998. Here is a quick summary of the video: the world elites, whom she refers to as "Mr. Global," now have access to technology that could potentially create a system of global slavery. This phenomenon we have all been hearing about called "the Great Reset" will be the catalyst to usher the system in. Mr. Global will allow the dollar to be destroyed (it is no longer the world reserve currency) and there will be chaos for a while as banks close and people no longer have access to money. Then Mr. Global will offer the "solution" by introducing a basket of digital currencies to use as new SDR's (special drawing rights) to back the IMF and Federal Reserve banks. All cash and other private forms of money will be outlawed. The financial institutions deemed "too big to fail" will be bailed "in"1 while all others will be liquidated. This is the real reason why the economy was shut down in 2020. 

Sunday, January 2, 2022

The Cult of the Germ

Previously Mystery Babylon Part IV: Philosophy

Most people hear the word culture and don’t bat an eye. The word may conjure up images of different people's customs in different regions of the world, as well as art, music, literature, and entertainment. But how many stop to think that the word also implies belief? After all, its root word is cult, which literally means a group of people blindly following an authoritarian figure; sometimes straight to their death. Our current health paradigm is not based on actual science, and is indeed, a cult; the cult of the Germ.  

In my last post, the final installment of my Mystery Babylon series, I explained the esoteric symbolism behind the logo of the medical industry; two snakes wrapped around a staff. I also explained how the Greek translation of the biblical word sorcery is pharmakeia, where we get our modern day word pharmacy and pharmaceutical. What I didn't tell you is that pharmakeia is the abstract noun that means sorcery, witchcraft, and magic, and pharmakon is the concrete noun that means poison, magic potion, or charm, which in our modern day, translate as remedy, medicine, or drug. Most people think that the medical staff is a symbol of health and healing, but in reality it is just the opposite; its an occult symbol reminding us of who thinks he is really in charge of our bodies: Lucifer, the god of this world. Notice the image below:

   
As you can see, the medical staff is coming from the genitals of the Baphomet. It is not necessarily a sexual symbol but a symbol of power, or generation. The Baphomet itself is a symbol that goes back to the Knight's Templar and represents a half-man, half-goat demonic being; a representation of the higher and lower self. Notice the head: the horns, ears, and chin are encapsulated in an imaginary pentagram; a satanic symbol. Albert Pike, in Morals and Dogma, referred to the Baphomet as the "hermaphroditic goat of Mendes." 

The mythical Greek god Hermes was an interesting character. He was known to easily travel across the gulf between the mortal and divine, assisting souls crossing into the underworld. He was also known as the trickster god, and was associated with symbols such as the rooster (remember the Abraxas from my last post?), the tortoise, winged sandals, a winged helmet, and the caduceus; which is a winged staff with two snakes copulating (the medical staff). In Roman mythology Hermes was known as Mercury, which comes from the Latin word merx, meaning "merchant." The above image should be starting to make sense to you now; the medical industry consists of merchants (drug companies) that are tricking you into purchasing their products, which are actually poisons that manipulate your body into masking the symptoms that are attempting to warn you of disease. Here is how John the revelator described these merchants of future Mystery Babylon:
...for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. (Revelations 18:23)

Again, the word sorceries comes from the Greek word pharmakeia. The entire world has been under a ubiquitous spell for the last 100 years or so. The American Medical Association (AMA) was co-opted by the Rockefeller foundation in the early 1900s, which began pouring donations into it and several universities training prospective doctors. This gave them more control over the curriculum and licensing regulations, and they were able to limit the supply of doctors, which used to be mainly chiropractors and osteopaths (DOs). Holistic modalities were gradually replaced with allopathic ones, changing the focus of the treatment of the entire body from herbs, nutrition, spinal adjustments, exercise, and stress relief modalities, to drugs and "medicine."

The vaccine movement, the medical establishment's adopted man-child, had its inception in England in the early 1820s. Edward Jenner was the first "quack" to inoculate cowpox into children in an attempt to cure or prevent smallpox. It didn't work, yet after Jenner lobbied the House of Commons, England began a forced vaccination campaign on its population despite a lack of evidence on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Many people died or suffered vaccine damage, and the rate of smallpox actually increased in spite of vaccine mandates. The word vaccine comes from the scientific name for cowpox, variolae vaccinae, and was coined by Louis Pasteur in 1891. Vacca is the Latin word for cow, thus vaccine literally means the puss of cows. This man, Jenner, is celebrated by the medical establishment as the father of immunology, and not surprisingly made similar arguments promoting vaccines that we hear today. Even though the vaccinated still contracted small pox, Jenner asserted that they caught a milder form of the disease, and even though many died from the side effects of the jab, Jenner surmised that the benefits outweighed the risks:

The happy effects of inoculation, with all the improvements which the practice has received since its first introduction into this country, not very unfrequently produces deformity on the skin, and sometimes, under the best management, proves fatal. (Vaccine Safety Manual, Neil Z. Miller, p. 39)

This whole paradigm is based upon the concept that germs exist outside of our bodies and become pathogenic when they get inside us, or when we "catch" them from another person or animal. The modern medical establishment is based upon, and profit's immensely from, this paradigm. The merchants have the perfect money-making scheme going for them: germs are ubiquitous and are what make us sick, so we need several vaccinations throughout our childhood and adulthood to "protect" us from the diseases caused by these germs. Only a few companies offer these vaccinations, and they simultaneously enjoy governmental advertising campaigns and mandates for public school attendance. Anyone with a semi-rational brain can follow the money and see what is going on here; this is crony capitalism on stilts.

The real history of germs has been intentionally buried, along with the mystery of what really makes us sick. Just like everything else in Mystery Babylon land, the truth is the exact opposite of what we have been taught. I'm going to take you down yet another rabbit hole in what follows, and you will learn the real function of germs in the body, the real cause of disease, and the real history that has disappeared down the memory hole. This is a fascinating subject and again I implore you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions; your future health may depend on it. 

Germs Don't Make You Sick

The "Germ Theory" of medicine has been around for a long time, at least since the Renaissance and even back to ancient Greece, but it really came into its own in the 1800s after the work of one of the greatest academic frauds and plagiarists in history: Louis Pasteur. 

Pasteur is heralded by the medical establishment as the discoverer of Germ Theory. He conducted experiments by injecting bacterium into the brains of animals attempting to make them sick by "contagion." And get sick they did; in fact, many of them died (but not from the bacteria). He is also the father of pasteurization, the process of heating milk to destroy the "harmful" bacteria and literally everything else that is good and nutritious in it. 

First and foremost, you need to know that this guy was a fraud. He plagiarized the work of others and twisted it to fit his own theories. Here is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Cowan's book, The Truth About Contagion:

Pasteur passed his laboratory notebooks along to his heirs with the provision that they never made the notebooks public. However, his grandson, Louis Pasteur Vallery-Radot, who apparently didn't care for Pasteur much, donated the notebooks to the French national library, which published them. In 1914, Professor Gerard Geison of Princeton University published an analysis of these notebooks, which revealed that Pasteur had committed massive fraud in all his studies. For instance, when he said that he injected virulent anthrax spores into vaccinated and unvaccinated animals, he could trumpet the fact that the unvaccinated animals died, but that was because he also injected those unvaccinated animals with poisons.

In the notebooks, Pasteur states unequivocally that he was unable to transfer disease with a pure culture of bacteria (he obviously wasn't able to purify viruses at that time.) In fact, the only way he could transfer disease was to either insert the whole infected tissue into another animal (he would sometimes inject ground-up brains of an animal into the brain of another animal to "prove" contagion) or resort to adding poisons to his culture, which he knew would cause the symptoms in the recipients. 

He admitted that the whole effort to prove contagion was a failure, leading to his famous deathbed confession: "The germ is nothing; the terrain is everything." In this case, terrain refers to the condition of the animal or person and whether the animal or person had been subject to poison.

Since Pasteur's day, no one has demonstrated experimentally the transmissibility of disease with pure cultures of bacteria and viruses. (p. 21, Kindle version, Emphases added)

It wasn't the germs that Pasteur was injecting into his animal subjects that were making them sick; it was the poisons he was injecting along with them. Notice he stated that he could not "transfer disease with a pure culture of bacteria." That is because germs do not make you sick; the conditions present in your body determine sickness, or dis-ease.

Before I move on to explain the "terrain theory" of disease, a little history of the Spanish flu will help prove to you that contagion is not what you think it is. Re-read the last line of the quote above; no one has been able to prove that disease is communicable through exposure to germs. Despite the lack of empirical evidence for this theory, our entire medical paradigm is based upon it. The Spanish flu affected over a third of the world's population in 1918, killing about fifty million people. Just like today in this Covid-crazy world, governments restricted the freedom to gather and travel, imposed mask mandates, shut down schools and businesses, and discouraged shaking hands and other forms of human affection. This has all been done before folks; there is nothing new under the sun (Corona means sun). An interesting historical tidbit is that experiments were performed on volunteers to see if the Spanish flu could be spread through contagion from person to person. All the experiments failed. Here is another except from Dr. Cowan's book that will be eye-opening:

Health officials were desperate to find a cause. The team of physicians from the US Public Health Service tried to infect their one hundred healthy volunteers at a naval facility on Gallops Island in Boston Harbor. A sense of frustration pervades the report, written by Milton J. Rosenau, MD, and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Rosenau had built a successful career in public health by instilling a fear of germs, overseeing quarantines, and warning the public about the dangers of raw milk. He believed that something called Pfeiffer bacillus was the cause. The researchers carefully extracted throat and nasal mucus and even lung material from cadavers and transferred it to the throats, respiratory tracks, and noses of volunteers. "We used some billions of these organisms, according to our estimated counts, on each one of the volunteers, but none of them took sick," he said. 

Then they drew blood from those who were sick and injected it into ten volunteers. "None of these took sick in any way." Thoroughly perplexed, Rosenau and the other researchers designed the next experiment "to imitate the natural way in which influenza spreads, at least the way in which we believe influenza spreads, and I have no doubt it does [even though his experiments showed it doesn't] -- by human contact." They instructed those afflicted to breathe and cough over volunteers. "The volunteer was led up to the bedside of the patient; he was introduced. He sat down alongside the bed of the patient. They shook hands, and by instructions, he got as close as he conveniently could, and they talked for five minutes. At the end of five minutes, the patient breathed out as hard as he could, while the volunteer, muzzle to muzzle (in accordance with his instructions, about 2 inches between the two), received this expired breath, and at the same time was breathing in as the patient breathed out. This they repeated five times." The volunteers were watched carefully for seven days, but alas, "none of them took sick in any way." (p. 25, Emphases added)

So if germs don't cause illness or spread by contagion, what is out there making everyone sick? How do we explain epidemics and pandemics? Why do colds and flus seem to jump around and "infect" everyone during certain seasons? And how in the world do we explain Anthrax, Swine and Bird Flu, Ebola, Malaria, HIV, Aids, Herpes, and Covid-19? 

Before we get to all of that, we have to know how the body really works, and how germs work with it or against it. To do that I have to introduce a scientist whose name and work went down the memory hole over one-hundred years ago. But he may have made one of the most important biological discoveries in history. 

Enter Pierre Jacques Antoine Bechamp

Antoine Bechamp was one of France's finest scientists and academics, and was a professor of Medical Chemistry and Pharmacy during the mid 1800s. Bechamp was a contemporary of Pasteur, and the two of them knew and wrote about each other. But unlike Pasteur, Bechamp was honest, and was on a mission to discover the true nature of germs and their role in biology. Everything that I am about to present here comes from a forgotten book by Ethel D. Hume, written in 1923, entitled Bechamp or Pasteur: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology. I highly recommend this book; it is intensively comprehensive and extremely informative. Hume is very thorough. 


Bechamp was curious about the phenomenon of fermentation, and began conducting experiments involving the conversion of cane sugar to mold in a medium of water. He wanted to know where the "germs" came from that fermented the sugars. Around the same time Pasteur was conducting similar experiments and came up with the theory of "spontaneous generation," or that the germs causing the ferment magically spawned out of nowhere when yeast was introduced to sugar. Bechamp observed that these microorganisms, which he called "little bodies," were already abundant in all matter and in the air. He concluded that these airborne germs found his sugar solution a suitable medium for their proliferation:

Hence I became assured that what that which is called fermentation is in reality the phenomenon of nutrition, assimilation, and disassimilation, and the excretion of the products diassimilated. (Hume, Kindle version, p. 19)

Later on Pasteur began copying Bechamp's experiments and conveniently came the to the same conclusion after scrapping his "spontaneous generation" theory. He began to believe that germs came from the air and invaded their hosts from the outside in, a theory espoused by Italian physician Dr. Marcus Plenciz in 1762.  Bechamp discovered the exact opposite; that germs were already inside of us and had a symbiotic relationship with our bodies, and that the terrain of the host determined whether the germs became pathogenic. 

Bechamp would later name his "little bodies" microzymas, Greek for "small ferment," and discovered that they existed in all organic matter, both in healthy and diseased tissue. He believed that these microorganisms were the building blocks of all life, rather than biological cells, and that they existed to either build up or decompose an organism, depending on its state of health. He concluded that microzymas could rapidly evolve into bacteria depending on the medium they were in, and that bacteria were pleomorphic, or form changing, depending on the conditions of their environment. Here are his four main discoveries as pointed out by Hume:

1. He demonstrated that the atmosphere is filled with minute living organisms capable of causing fermentation in any suitable medium, and that the chemical change in the medium is affected by a ferment engendered by them, which ferment may well be compared to the gastric juice of the stomach.

2. He found in ordinary chalk, and afterwards in limestone, minute organisms capable of producing fermentative changes, and showed these to bear relation to the infinitesimal granulations he had observed in the cells and tissues of plants and animals. He proved these granulations, which he name microzymas, to have independent individuality of life, and claimed that they are the antecedents of cells, the genesis of bodily forms; the real anatomical, incorruptible elements. 

3. He set forth that organisms in the air, the so-called atmospheric germs, are simply either microzymas or their evolutionary forms set free by disruption from their former vegetable or animal habitat, and that the "little bodies" in the limestone and chalk are the survivors of the living forms of past ages.

4. He claimed that... microzymas constantly develop into the low type of living organisms that go by the name of bacteria. (Ibid, p. 200-01)

He verified these observations by two experiments that lasted around fifteen years. He decomposed two kittens in glass jars: the first lasting 6-1/2 years and the second over 7 years. He observed microzymas in limestone and chalk, and included those in the jar with the first kitten. After 6-1/2 years all that was left was bone, on which he found swarms of microzymas. In the second experiment he isolated the heart and liver from the rest of the kitten and sealed them in air tight jars. After 7 years he found microzymas in every jar, including where the liver and heart had been. He was convinced that that these microzymas were the biological basis of all life. They were present everywhere, and could remain dormant for indefinite lengths of time -he estimated millions of years. They could morph into any bacteria or fungi, and were part of the "dust of the earth" that both gives life and takes it away. 

Bechamp's microzyma theory seems to be consistent with scripture. Consider the following from the Joseph Smith translation of Genesis:

By the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, until thou shalt return unto the ground - for thou shalt surely die - for out of it was thou taken: for dust thou wast, and unto dust shalt thou return. (Moses 4:25, Emphasis added)

The Lord seems to be describing a cycle of life of death. There must be something in the dust that is able to create and destroy life. There are dozens of references to "dust" in the scriptures, including the phrase" I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground." Bechamp discovered hoards of these microzymas in limestone and chalk, which in a geological sense, are definitely considered dust. The microzymas not only create life, they clean up the mess of death, and make sure everything returns to mother earth. When a corpse decomposes no one questions the process; no one claims that maggots were the cause of death. Similarly, no thinking person would blame firemen for causing the fire they are attempting to put out. 

We can think of bacteria and fungi in the same way; they are the clean up crew of nature. They show up on the scene when healthy tissue becomes diseased (or when the body's medium is changed) through poor diet and nutrition, high stress, lack of exercise, exposure to environmental toxins, and emotional and mental imbalance. At first the "germs" show up to remove toxins and try to heal the damage which causes a cytokine storm and makes the person "sick." The germs do not causes the symptoms of being sick, i.e., cough, runny nose, fever, headache, sore throat, etc. Your own body is doing that in an attempt to clear out the toxins. Your body and the germs work together to purge toxins in an attempt to keep you alive and healthy. In fact, many bacteria are capable of consuming toxins and excreting them in a benign, water soluble form that can easily exit your body, while gut bacteria help you assimilate and digest vitamins, minerals, and fiber. However, if toxins have been building for many years, or malnutrition has been going on too long, the germs morph into another form that may become fatal to the host. They do this in response to the signals that your body is giving them that it is time to return to mother earth, and thus they begin the process of dissimilation. 

What I have just described is the Terrain Theory of health. In this paradigm good or poor health is a choice for the individual, not some random chance of "catching" a bug that can make you sick or even kill you. If the body is fed properly, loved properly, balanced emotionally, and not overburdened with environmental toxins, then contracting dis-ease is much less likely. In the current paradigm, personal health is outsourced to the so-called medical authorities, who inject you with poisons to "prevent" disease and give you antibiotics to kill the germs that "cause" disease. These, and other drugs that mask symptoms of "mystery diseases" (such as autoimmune), are the only tools they have to work with; they have virtually no training on nutrition or emotional, mental, or spiritual health modalities. They want you to trust in them to protect you from the myriad of airborne germs that are lurking in dark corners, patiently waiting to "infect" you with disease. In this paradigm the individual is helpless to control his own health destiny, he must be constantly afraid of outside germs, and he must trust in the "authorities" to protect him from the invisible invaders. This system was designed to destroy your health autonomy and make you a slave to the medical establishment. It is based upon fear, the ultimate controlling emotion. 

The Terrain Theory was much more accepted during the 19th Century than we are led to believe. Even Florence Nightingale, the most famous nurse in history, subscribed to it:

Diseases are not individuals arranged in classes, like cats and dogs, but conditions, growing out of one another. It is not living in a continual mistake to look upon diseases as we do now, as separate entities, which must exist, like cats and dogs, instead of looking upon them as conditions, like a dirty and a clean condition, and just as much under our control; or rather as the reactions of kindly nature, against the conditions in which we have placed ourselves.

I was brought up to believe that smallpox, for instance, was a thing of which there was once a first specimen in the world, which went on propagating itself, in a perpetual chain of descent, just as there was a first dog, (or a first pair of dogs) and that smallpox would not begin by itself, any more than a new dog would begin without there having been a parent dog.

Since then I have seen with my own eyes and smelled with my own nose smallpox growing up in first specimens, either in closed rooms or in overcrowded wards, where it could not by any possibility have been 'caught', but must have begun. I have seen diseases begin, grow up, and turn into one another. Now, dogs do not turn into cats.

I have seen, for instance, with a little overcrowding, continued fever grow up; and with a little more, typhoid fever; and with a little more, typhus, and all in the same ward or hut. Would it not be far better, truer, and more practical, if we looked upon diseases in this light (for diseases, as all experience shows, are adjectives, not noun-substantives):

-True nursing ignores infection, except to prevent it. Cleanliness and fresh air from open windows, with unremitting attention to the patient, are the only defence [sic] a true nurse either asks or needs.

-Wise and human management of the patient is the best safeguard against infection. The greater part of nursing consists of preserving cleanliness.

-The specific disease doctrine is the grand refuge of weak, uncultured, unstable minds, such as now rule in the medical profession. There are no specific diseases; there are specific disease conditions. (Hume, p. 12-13, Emphasis original) 

 According to Hume, Mrs. Nightingale made this statement 17 years before Pasteur took credit for "discovering" the Germ Theory. Statements like this have been scrubbed from the medical literature because they clash with the official narrative. Powerful organizations do not like unvarnished history.

Notice I did not include viruses with the germs that are formed from microzymas; that is because they don't exist. This next rabbit hole may cause you some cognitive dissonance; try to have an open mind as we descend. 

Viruses = Exosomes

A virus is a strange concept. According to medical authorities, it is a piece of genetic material that is neither alive nor dead. It uses RNA in your cells to replicate itself by the billions yet it does not eat or excrete. It is 30,000 times smaller than bacteria, and it cannot be killed by antibiotics or any conventional treatment. Indeed, it has to "run it course" and your body has to fight it off and form antibodies to it, which remain in your body and keep you from getting the same virus again. 

The above summation of virology that most of us subscribe to today is false. There is no such thing as a virus in today's sense of the term. When we look at the etymology of the word we find that it never had anything to do with "infection" or "germs." Virus is a Latin word that originally meant poisonous substance, sap of plants, slimy liquid, potent juice, poisonous fluid, venom, or toxin. It wasn't until the 1790s that it began to be associated with infectious disease, at a time when they didn't have the technology to see things that small. The belief that viruses are infectious agents began as a superstition, and still is today, although a very convenient one for health authorities. In fact, a virus is the perfect boogieman to keep people in fear: it is ubiquitous, 30K times smaller than bacteria that already require a microscope to see, it travels through the air, it can strike at any time, and is lurking in the bodies of our closest friends and loved ones. Again, all false; viruses are already inside us, and they aren't germs at all. 

In chapter 6 of Dr. Cowan's book, The Truth About Contagion, he explains what exosomes are. They are identical in size to viruses, and they are excreted from the cells. Dr. Cowan explains that in the early 1800s with the invention of the light microscope, scientists were able to see bacteria in the blood of people who were sick, so they began associating bacteria with sickness. But remember, correlation is not causation. The presence of germs does not mean they are the cause of disease, just as the presence of firemen does not mean that they started the fire. Scientists began to notice that bacteria were not always present in illness, and began to speculate that perhaps there were smaller pathogens that they couldn't see that were responsible for the sickness (one example Dr. Cowan points out is that Pasteur could not find a bacterial agent for rabies in dogs) . 

Then the electron microscope came out, and they could see tiny particles, thousands of times smaller than bacteria, at the site of disease. Just as they were able to see variations in bacteria, they could also see variations in the smaller particles, which coincided with different illnesses. They found that these particles could move in and out of cells, and therefore could "invade" other cells, and even travel to new hosts. They speculated that the particles could co-opt "the machinery of the cell like parasites, turning the cells into slaves, meaning the cell would do the bidding of its new master, the infecting particle" (Cowan, p. 79). Hence the modern day theory of virology was born, but scientists weren't looking at viruses, they were looking at exosomes. Here is how Dr. Cowan describes these tiny particles:
Exosomes are simple, well-characterized features in the cells of all creatures, and conventional scientists have carefully elucidated their functions. When a living organism is threatened in almost any way - through starvation, chemical poisoning, or electromagnetic effects - the cells and tissues have a mechanism for "packaging," "propagating" and releasing these poisons. Modern researchers have shown that exosomes have exactly the same attributes as "viruses." They are the same size, contain the same components, and act on the same receptors. (p. 79)

The main function of exosomes is to clear toxins from the cells of the body; they help human beings and animals adapt to increasing environmental toxins, such as pesticides, herbicides, glyphosate (Round Up) in wheat, air pollution, processed food, radioactive pollution, and EMF's from electronics and ubiquitous Wi-Fi. And most recently, 5G technology. According to Dr. Cowan, if we impede the process of our cells shedding these exosomes, we risk a greater amount of toxicity building in the body. In other words, if we take drugs and medicines that alleviate the symptoms of sickness, less toxins are able to escape, which can lead to serious disease in the long run. Similarly, when we take antibiotics to kill the bacteria that we think is causing the sickness, they are able to consume and excrete less toxins, and they continue to build in the body. How foolish would it be to kill the firemen who are trying to put out a fire?1

Vipers VI: Offending the Little Ones

  Previously: Vipers V: Demons in Alien's Clothing Throughout this viper series, I've endeavored to give you an idea of who these pe...