Thank you Inelia! Every time I read your articles I get more confirmation about my life and my experiences.
When I was 9 years old, the children at school started to call me a witch, and the reason I was so smart, therefore I must be a witch.
I knew that lots of things in this planet were upside down, but this was the craziest thing and I couldn’t relate to anyone, even my family,
I knew I was on my on and I’m going to have to control my own life.
Life has been very interesting, I don’t know how to plan my life the way I see most people do ( I tried to be normal), couldn’t, I don’t know if it was my soul or spirit that wouldn’t let me. So, I gave up on trying and realizing the things I was trying to change, were all my strengths and my own way operating and it’s perfect for me.
Thanks for that very interesting story about how who controls one’s perception, controls them -- their behavior, their beliefs, their desires, and to gain control of perception -- other's as well as your own -- you need to be the one controlling the narrative (i guess that is the crux of it, but there seems to be a lot more in there (to it (and to your story about it, as well)).)
i agree that, that is how it works. i would just like to add some extra facts i've come across and also some tidbits that may be related (or not). Hmm, i was just wondering . . . am i controlling your perception, by controlling the narrative yet ? ( i don't mean to (really i don't).)
i was even thinking . . . if i am being controlled already, then i could just be a proxy in an endless chain of control, each one controlling all the others who tap into their narrative. Or am i setting up something here now by revealing the way it's done, like what Michael A Hoffman II calls "revelation of the method" whereby the actual discovery (and publication) of the method pertaining to how the elites use symbols and "twilight language" to control the perception of world events -- actually perpetuates that control ? (Hmm, if what Hoffman relates is true, then that would be an explanation as to why almost everything that is being done (i.e. to us) has already been adequately explored in a movie about exactly that kind of thing.
Is the mind itself more programmable than we think it is ? We already know that by the Hundredth Monkey Effect, a critical number (or more) of people learning a new skill to do something, will automatically cause the skill to be inherited by all the people on the planet -- so that they inherently know how to do it, w/o having to learn it themselves. But this could be used in sinister ways too -- to insert skills (or "programs") into the repertoire of people, that only those who are doing it, want to propagate, not something that is a natural and better way to do something and is of value to everyone.
Also i discovered that having "flashbacks" as a result of trauma, is a quite recent phenomenon, and that before WW I people did not experience flashbacks at all. Researchers postulate that with the advent of movies around the time of WW I, that the human consciousness took the example of seeing a movie where the person knew what they saw, wasn't actually happening in real life, and applied it to seeing a past traumatic event w/in a 'frame' (be it on the inner screen of the mind, or as a 'vision' while the person knows it's just a vision and not happening in actual reality (named "the flashback"). Of course with the never before experienced horrors of WW I there was a collective need for such a 'device' to help soldiers process their trauma.
Interestingly, the word "device" originally meant an intangible arrangement to convey something conceptual, but now it has been almost entirely appropriated (by whom ?) to mean an electronic instrument -- but one still doing much the same thing -- conveying something to the mind in a specifically contrived format. In the early 1960s, the visionary, Marshall McLuhan wrote about just that happening -- that the visual, individualistic print culture would soon be brought to an end by what he called "electronic interdependence" wherein electronic media replaces visual culture with aural/oral culture. He said, "Instead of tending towards a vast Alexandrian library the world has become a computer, an electronic brain, exactly as an infantile piece of science fiction. And as our senses have gone outside us, Big Brother goes inside."
It's as if the narrative can so easily be hijacked, and a different narrative than our mind thinking to itself, inserted into the space of our Inner Life, because the only language we use has been contrived to not be amenable to our own natural inner conscious processes. Apparently indigenous languages, are much more amenable to conscious and unconscious processes.
Our consciousness also doesn't seem to have any oversight in the acquisition of such "programs" from the Collective Unconscious (as Jung called it) (aside: and of course that's why the elites manipulate symbols and public event spectacles at the collective level (as per Hoffman)). However if we were to speak the language that our body also speaks, we would be able to consciously control what programs we pick up (see in the latter part of: https://www.bitchute.com/video/59wjaT2mAGC4/ (see the author's "about me" page (use translation feature of your browser to change to English (or language of your own preference) https://robinkaiser.eu/ueber-mich/ )
But we apparently didn't always have the same type of consciousness we have now. This researcher, Julian Jaynes, in the 70s became famous (for a while) by publishing a book called "The Origin Of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind" in which he suggested that our 'true' consciousness only came about when we learned to own the internal dialogue that people previously 'heard' as gods speaking to them (which according to him, were actually the thoughts from their other brain hemisphere). i think Jaynes was on to something very important, however, i don't believe the ancients necessarily believed the gods were speaking to them (i.e. in ancient Greek) – and that it was rather that they received constant psychic insights from their Body Elemental.
In the Plato's dialogue "Phaedrus," he compares the human will to a chariot that is being pulled by one white horse and one black horse, with a skilled charioteer at the reigns. The black horse is said to represent human desire (what we now understand through psychology as the motives of the ego), while the white horse is said to represent the Thumos (the Elemental nature, which Jung referred to as "numen," the domain of the Self). And the charioteer is the proper reasoning of the mind, which holds both horses steady and won’t allow either to run wild. If all is well, the white horse and the black horse will propel the person forward while reason will ensure that neither steed ever runs toward destruction.
So it isn't that just our ego can run away with our agenda, but that our Thumos can as well. Knowing the difference, can be a huge asset to us. So besides the issue of the narrative of the mind (and who controls it), there is "Self identity" that can also be manipulated (i.e. through 'avatars' and 'gender identity', etc.) -- which is the domain of our Thumos. Also manipulative psychic/soul constructs, much like curses can take hold of the Thumos w/o the mind ever knowing anything about it. The Thumos controls our psychic energy and according to the Toltec sorcerers, people expend almost all of their energy in defending the Self. There have been books written on how to prevent that, i.e. The Undefended Self https://www.amazon.com/Undefended-Self-Living-Pathwork/dp/0961477776/
Thank you Inelia! Every time I read your articles I get more confirmation about my life and my experiences.
When I was 9 years old, the children at school started to call me a witch, and the reason I was so smart, therefore I must be a witch.
I knew that lots of things in this planet were upside down, but this was the craziest thing and I couldn’t relate to anyone, even my family,
I knew I was on my on and I’m going to have to control my own life.
Life has been very interesting, I don’t know how to plan my life the way I see most people do ( I tried to be normal), couldn’t, I don’t know if it was my soul or spirit that wouldn’t let me. So, I gave up on trying and realizing the things I was trying to change, were all my strengths and my own way operating and it’s perfect for me.
Thank you Inelia!
Thanks for that very interesting story about how who controls one’s perception, controls them -- their behavior, their beliefs, their desires, and to gain control of perception -- other's as well as your own -- you need to be the one controlling the narrative (i guess that is the crux of it, but there seems to be a lot more in there (to it (and to your story about it, as well)).)
i agree that, that is how it works. i would just like to add some extra facts i've come across and also some tidbits that may be related (or not). Hmm, i was just wondering . . . am i controlling your perception, by controlling the narrative yet ? ( i don't mean to (really i don't).)
i was even thinking . . . if i am being controlled already, then i could just be a proxy in an endless chain of control, each one controlling all the others who tap into their narrative. Or am i setting up something here now by revealing the way it's done, like what Michael A Hoffman II calls "revelation of the method" whereby the actual discovery (and publication) of the method pertaining to how the elites use symbols and "twilight language" to control the perception of world events -- actually perpetuates that control ? (Hmm, if what Hoffman relates is true, then that would be an explanation as to why almost everything that is being done (i.e. to us) has already been adequately explored in a movie about exactly that kind of thing.
Is the mind itself more programmable than we think it is ? We already know that by the Hundredth Monkey Effect, a critical number (or more) of people learning a new skill to do something, will automatically cause the skill to be inherited by all the people on the planet -- so that they inherently know how to do it, w/o having to learn it themselves. But this could be used in sinister ways too -- to insert skills (or "programs") into the repertoire of people, that only those who are doing it, want to propagate, not something that is a natural and better way to do something and is of value to everyone.
Also i discovered that having "flashbacks" as a result of trauma, is a quite recent phenomenon, and that before WW I people did not experience flashbacks at all. Researchers postulate that with the advent of movies around the time of WW I, that the human consciousness took the example of seeing a movie where the person knew what they saw, wasn't actually happening in real life, and applied it to seeing a past traumatic event w/in a 'frame' (be it on the inner screen of the mind, or as a 'vision' while the person knows it's just a vision and not happening in actual reality (named "the flashback"). Of course with the never before experienced horrors of WW I there was a collective need for such a 'device' to help soldiers process their trauma.
Interestingly, the word "device" originally meant an intangible arrangement to convey something conceptual, but now it has been almost entirely appropriated (by whom ?) to mean an electronic instrument -- but one still doing much the same thing -- conveying something to the mind in a specifically contrived format. In the early 1960s, the visionary, Marshall McLuhan wrote about just that happening -- that the visual, individualistic print culture would soon be brought to an end by what he called "electronic interdependence" wherein electronic media replaces visual culture with aural/oral culture. He said, "Instead of tending towards a vast Alexandrian library the world has become a computer, an electronic brain, exactly as an infantile piece of science fiction. And as our senses have gone outside us, Big Brother goes inside."
It's as if the narrative can so easily be hijacked, and a different narrative than our mind thinking to itself, inserted into the space of our Inner Life, because the only language we use has been contrived to not be amenable to our own natural inner conscious processes. Apparently indigenous languages, are much more amenable to conscious and unconscious processes.
Our consciousness also doesn't seem to have any oversight in the acquisition of such "programs" from the Collective Unconscious (as Jung called it) (aside: and of course that's why the elites manipulate symbols and public event spectacles at the collective level (as per Hoffman)). However if we were to speak the language that our body also speaks, we would be able to consciously control what programs we pick up (see in the latter part of: https://www.bitchute.com/video/59wjaT2mAGC4/ (see the author's "about me" page (use translation feature of your browser to change to English (or language of your own preference) https://robinkaiser.eu/ueber-mich/ )
But we apparently didn't always have the same type of consciousness we have now. This researcher, Julian Jaynes, in the 70s became famous (for a while) by publishing a book called "The Origin Of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind" in which he suggested that our 'true' consciousness only came about when we learned to own the internal dialogue that people previously 'heard' as gods speaking to them (which according to him, were actually the thoughts from their other brain hemisphere). i think Jaynes was on to something very important, however, i don't believe the ancients necessarily believed the gods were speaking to them (i.e. in ancient Greek) – and that it was rather that they received constant psychic insights from their Body Elemental.
For example, the classic Greeks related to their Body Elemental as 'the Thumos' https://classicalwisdom.com/culture/traditions/tradition-thumos/
In the Plato's dialogue "Phaedrus," he compares the human will to a chariot that is being pulled by one white horse and one black horse, with a skilled charioteer at the reigns. The black horse is said to represent human desire (what we now understand through psychology as the motives of the ego), while the white horse is said to represent the Thumos (the Elemental nature, which Jung referred to as "numen," the domain of the Self). And the charioteer is the proper reasoning of the mind, which holds both horses steady and won’t allow either to run wild. If all is well, the white horse and the black horse will propel the person forward while reason will ensure that neither steed ever runs toward destruction.
So it isn't that just our ego can run away with our agenda, but that our Thumos can as well. Knowing the difference, can be a huge asset to us. So besides the issue of the narrative of the mind (and who controls it), there is "Self identity" that can also be manipulated (i.e. through 'avatars' and 'gender identity', etc.) -- which is the domain of our Thumos. Also manipulative psychic/soul constructs, much like curses can take hold of the Thumos w/o the mind ever knowing anything about it. The Thumos controls our psychic energy and according to the Toltec sorcerers, people expend almost all of their energy in defending the Self. There have been books written on how to prevent that, i.e. The Undefended Self https://www.amazon.com/Undefended-Self-Living-Pathwork/dp/0961477776/