Americans Are Being Watched (and It’s Getting Worse) and My Overall Rambling.

Americans Are Being Watched (and It’s Getting Worse) and My Overall Rambling.

I would like to start with quote I from the great article on the Duran by Matthew Ehret:

Co-founded by Chase Manhattan bank president David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, George Schultz and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the manifesto for this group was outlined by Brzezinski in his 1970 book ‘Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era’.

In this manifesto, Brezinski wrote:

“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”

This perfectly encapsulates well what is happening:

In his 1958 book Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley wrote the following: 

“If the first half of the twentieth century was the era of the technical engineers, the second half may well be the era of the social engineers — and the twenty-first century, I suppose, will be the era of World Controllers, the scientific caste system and Brave New World.”  – Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited

Thirty years prior to penning these words, Huxley wrote his classic work of fiction, Brave New World. Set in the distant future, this book depicts a scientifically managed dystopian society. In Brave New World, the ruling authorities attain mass-compliance not through force, but by supplying the masses with endless streams of distracting entertainment and manipulating them with drugs and other technological methods. 

Huxley wrote Brave New World as a warning; advances in science and technology, he believed, were paving the way for the type of society depicted in his book. And he cautioned that if a Brave New World type of order solidifies, it could be the “final” or “ultimate” revolution; the people will have their liberties taken from them, but they will enjoy their servitude and so never question it, let alone rebel. In a 1962 interview at Berkeley University, Huxley explained: 

“It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in the process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and will always exist to get people to love their servitude.”  -Aldous Huxley, Interview – Berkeley University 1962

…

While the idea of mind-control may sound like science-fiction, in the mid-to-late-20th century many prominent philosophers, psychologists and scientists joined Huxley in sounding the alarm bell that research into the fundamentals of this phenomenon were well underway. In 1953, the distinguished British philosopher Bertrand Russell explained:  

“It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries.” -Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society

The renowned 20th century American clinical psychologist Carl Rogers warned that the rapid development of the Behavioral Sciences, which is a “a cluster of scientific disciplines…including psychology, psychiatry, sociology, social psychology, anthropology, and biology…economic and political science…mathematics and statistics” (Carl Rogers, On Becoming a Person), was in the process of becoming what he called an “‘if-then’ science”. By this he meant that scientists and social engineers were discovering that if carefully constructed conditions are implemented in a society, then there is a high probability that the majority of citizens will respond to these conditions in predictable, and hence, controllable, ways. Or as he wrote in 1954: 

“I believe that too few people are aware of the extent, the breadth, and the depth of the advances which have been made in recent decades in the behavioral sciences…the increasing power for control which it gives will be held by some one or some group; such an individual or group will surely choose the purposes or goals to be achieved; and most of us will then be increasingly controlled by means so subtle we will not even be aware of them as controls…it appears that some form of completely controlled society…is coming.” – Carl Rogers, On Becoming a Person

I wrote that I understood the real world we live in almost 20 years ago. When I understood history, geopolitics, and the real world hidden behind all the lies, another question arose: How? How are they able to convince people, brainwashing them into believing all those stupid lies? Then I became interested in philosophy, psychology, human consciousness, propaganda, and the media. To do something about this horrible world and the horrible situation we have right now, we needed to understand the human mind — how it works, so we could understand how they are creating this horrible world full of naivety, suffering, and terrible things.

Throughout my research, I started to understand more and more, which only made me even more depressed. What horrified me the most throughout my research was how much we knew about all of it back then and how little we know about it now. For example, we have:

 In 1953, the distinguished British philosopher Bertrand Russell explained:  

“It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries.” 

How many of you have heard Bertrand Russell’s Nobel Prize speech?

Acquisitiveness – the wish to possess as much as possible of goods, or the title to goods – is a motive which, I suppose, has its origin in a combination of fear with the desire for necessaries. I once befriended two little girls from Estonia, who had narrowly escaped death from starvation in a famine. They lived in my family, and of course had plenty to eat. But they spent all their leisure visiting neighbouring farms and stealing potatoes, which they hoarded. Rockefeller, who in his infancy had experienced great poverty, spent his adult life in a similar manner…

But acquisitiveness, although it is the mainspring of the capitalist system, is by no means the most powerful of the motives that survive the conquest of hunger. Rivalry is a much stronger motive…

Napoleon is the supreme example. Napoleon had, I think, no ideological preference for France over Corsica, but if he had become Emperor of Corsica he would not have been so great a man as he became by pretending to be a Frenchman. Such men, however, are not quite pure examples, since they also derive immense satisfaction from vanity. The purest type is that of the eminence grise – the power behind the throne that never appears in public, and merely hugs itself with the secret thought: «How little these puppets know who is pulling the strings.» Baron Holstein, who controlled the foreign policy of the German Empire from 1890 to 1906, illustrates this type to perfection. He lived in a slum; he never appeared in society; he avoided meeting the Emperor, except on one single occasion when the Emperor’s importunity could not be resisted; he refused all invitations to Court functions, on the ground that he possessed no court dress. He had acquired secrets which enabled him to blackmail the Chancellor and many of the Kaiser’s intimates. He used the power of blackmail, not to acquire wealth, or fame, or any other obvious advantage, but merely to compel the adoption of the foreign policy he preferred. In the East, similar characters were not very uncommon among eunuchs.

It was a warning for people, yet many now argue that Bertrand Russell was part of the monarchy, an oligarch, etc., dismissing his argument with personal attacks. I want to point out that, similarly, Chomsky dismisses Kennedy as a force for good who was eliminated by the deep state. Chomsky argues that because Kennedy was part of the oligarchy, we should dismiss arguments suggesting he was killed by the deep state, basing it instead on his character. This is one method of destroying our heroes.

Chomsky is a precarious case. While he wrote and did many good things, he was also used by the globalist elite as controlled opposition. They couldn’t stop people from understanding certain things that connected to the work of thinkers like Chomsky and Parenti. For example, when Parenti wrote Inventing Reality in 1986, Chomsky then wrote (or was encouraged or contracted by the deep state to write) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media in 1988, literally two years later, on the same topic—but, in my opinion, less comprehensively.

So, while everyone knows Manufacturing Consent and even saw the documentary adaptation, almost no one knows about Inventing Reality. Why? Because Parenti was too dangerous. The key point is that Parenti acknowledged the JFK assassination for what it was, while Chomsky argued that JFK was part of the establishment, pushing war, etc. One of Chomsky’s arguments was that, yes, the U.S. removed missiles from Turkey, but they developed Trident missiles launched from submarines, so the Turkish missiles were obsolete anyway, which made Kennedy’s opposition to the deep state insignificant. He dismissed JFK based on biases related to his personality and background and tried to undermine logical proofs for Kennedy’s resistance to the deep state. The question remains: was Chomsky knowingly controlled opposition or unknowingly? Through my learning, I initially thought he was unknowingly controlled, as I gained understanding from his work. He wrote many intelligent and important things, so I am grateful for his contributions. However, when I later learned about his connection to Epstein, I became less certain. Either way, this doesn’t change the fact that some of his work is good and important.

To give an example, this is probably Chomsky’s most important quote and idea, in my opinion:
“We shouldn’t be looking for heroes; we should be looking for good ideas.” — Chomsky

What does this mean? It means people are just people, and none is perfect. They want us to look for heroes—maybe that’s why they promote such images of heroes in the media. It’s not about who says the ideas that may improve the world; it’s that the ideas themselves don’t matter if the person is not a hero. Personal attacks on people with good ideas are a way to destroy those ideas. You attack the person to destroy the idea. For example, my personal hero, Gary Webb, in my opinion, is the predecessor of Assange. His CIA crack cocaine story was the first big internet newspaper story. His story gained attention because it used a new medium they didn’t control. Now that they have control over the internet, Assange used it similarly. Gary Webb’s life was destroyed—not with imprisonment, but with personal attacks. He was accused of having affairs while married, which they used against him. Similarly, Assange has spent years in prison. Does anyone remember why he was arrested initially? Accused of rape! They get all the dirt they can on you. Today, they can even use Vault 7, released by Assange and WikiLeaks, which shows they can hack into your computer and pretend to be someone else. They can even download horrible things onto your computer to make it look like you did it. They no longer need to make people do terrible things; they can fabricate it.

But for people with power and good lawyers, like Bill Gates, virtual proof is not enough. That’s why we have pedophile islands like Epstein’s. Also I would like to address something that is a misconception and form of ideology, you hear people call them satanic pedophiles, which is, in my opinion, wrong. I am sure there are some severely disturbed people, but some probably do not want to do it and are forced. It’s not based on ideology but rather that we need leverage to control people. Whitney Webb’s book One Nation Under Blackmail Vol. 1 describes this, showing how J. Edgar Hoover’s homosexuality was used against him. The Mafia also forced people into acts and photographed them to secure control. Since homosexuality is now accepted, what else could serve as leverage? The answer ended up being Epstein Island—not for ideological reasons but logical ones. Don’t get me wrong; I believe some people enjoy this. Still, some don’t. Just as the Mafia once used homosexuality as leverage, they now use pedophilia because it’s more horrific. You don’t need to look to ideology to understand this logically. That’s why people like Alex Jones frustrate me. I agree with him on many things, and I admire that he publicly predicted 9/11. But he often drifts into ideology to manipulate people, calling on Satan and other ideologies.

In other words, they coerce you and record it, or you’re out of the inner circle. Want to be part of the circle? They need something over you; it’s your choice. It’s not that they are satanists drinking kids’ blood. It started as a simple way to secure loyalty, though some people may take pleasure in it. There are terrible people everywhere, especially in these circles, but the main question posed to them is: Do you want in? Then let us own you. Some don’t do it because they want to. There’s a deep history here, which also explains pedophilia in the Christian Church. The Church served as a CIA arm, as an indoctrination machine and also fulfilling a similar purpose to Epstein island before its existence.

By the way, sorry for my rambling and jumping from subject to subject. I’m not great at expressing my thoughts, which is why I often use quotes. I want to show you how it all connects. Maybe I’m pretty good at understanding things, but expressing ideas so people can understand is a different matter. Understanding something means seeing how everything is interconnected.