Whipnosis, Part 1 (of 3)
Something unprecedented — at least in scale — erupted in the world during the Covid ruse: the use by governments of behavioural psychology/mass entrancement as weapons of war against their own people.
Life as Trance
As the first month of 2022 gathered pace as we moved towards the third calendar year of the fake pandemic, the determined stonewall of mainstream conversation was occasionally infringed upon by mutterings from the periphery of just about every Western country of a continuing die-off arising from the Covid vaccines. American insurance companies were talking of an unprecedented 40 per cent increase in life assurance claims; in Ireland, the national online death-notice site, RIP.ie, was showing an excess in mortality — in the Republic alone — equivalent to that suffered by the whole island in 30 years of the Troubles, and this for the single year of 2021. The same kind of pattern was whispered about by ‘conspiracy theorists’ in multiple European countries.
But nothing of this leached into the mainstream, where there was a continued push for mandatory vaccines, vaccination of children and penalties for citizens and parents who demurred.
A particular phenomenon was especially hard to ignore. All over the world, sporting events were being interrupted by the sudden collapse — sometimes fatal collapse — of athletes — footballers, tennis players, swimmers and so on — who had been at the top of their professional form. Yet, the mainstream contrived mainly to ignore this also, or sometimes to refer to it as something that happened every day. This became an online meme: the everydayness of sudden death among athletes, the only advance warning for which was to be among the fittest of the fit.
The incidents continued and more and more people started to remark upon it. The former English top soccer player Matt Le Tissier made a number of passionate and articulate interventions in an attempt to draw public attention to the matter, and was shunned and excoriated in equal measure.
Then, in early February this year, a crop of ‘news’ stories started to erupt in Western media about the growing risk of heart attacks, though not as a result of Covid vaccines. ‘Energy bill price rise may cause heart attacks and strokes, says TV GP’; ‘Rise in heart attacks attributed to pandemic-stress and poor diet’; ‘Urgent Warning as 300,000 Brits living with stealth disease that could kill within 5 years’; ‘More people are suffering stroke and heart disease after COVID, CT doctors say’; ‘Heart disease: Reduce your child’s risk‘; ‘Heart attack: The drink [alcoholic] that could trigger a “sudden”cardiac arrest”’; ‘Devoted footballs fans experience “dangerous” levels of stress’; ‘How the weather is harming your health — from heart attacks to strokes and gout’; ‘Does skipping breakfast increase your risk?; ‘Moving clocks forward an hour could be dangerous for millions of Brits with serious heart problems’.
To those on the outside of whatever is going on here, this is beyond bizarre. It seems to suggest that the media have started to treat their audiences as though at the intellectual level of children struggling to put their first thoughts into spoken sentences. It suggests a level of either condescension or insight that is startling, to say the least.
Why ‘insight’? Because the media has, over the past 24 months, acquired a by now almost instinctual sense of how the public will react to different kinds of stimuli. They know that x happens when they do y. Three years ago, such a rash of stories would have provoked mystification and hilarity, but now they are likely to provoke — in a significant minority at least — credulity and even anxiety, as people who have fretted for two years about a virus with a 99.98 per cent survival rate, now start to worry about their hearts and how they might be driving them too hard.
This cannot in any sense be described as normative, and yet, in some odd context, it now has the feel of something ‘normal.’ Somehow, seeing one of these headlines, you do not, as you might have not so long ago, get the feeling that this is going too far, that now their scam will be rumbled, that no one could possibly believe that all these stories, on a single theme, could suddenly erupt out of nowhere and be taken seriously. Somehow, though you may not register exactly why, you know that none of this is going to happen, that most people will either glaze over or make an appointment with their GP, understanding that they can expect to see more of this kind of story on the legacy media over the coming days and weeks.
This poses several separate but related questions: Why do so many people accept such nonsense without question?; Why does almost everyone else regard what is happening as unexceptional or at least unexceptionable?; Why have most of us become so defeatist about the chances of challenging this kind of irrationality?
All this is really symptomatic of the playing out of a particular kind of relationship between media and audience fostered over the past two years, in which the malleability of a significant number of viewers/readers/listeners came more and more to be relied upon absolutely, and a significant secondary quotient counted on to shrug and decide that this is just the way things are. It is as if the media are implicitly aware that, in order to conceal something that would appear to be obvious to any semi-sentient observer, they require only to insinuate an ‘explanation’ that is no higher than the storyline logic of a fairytale. Yet, this is not how things used to be. Some people were gullible, yes, but not this gullible, or at least not enough of them to make this kind of ‘journalism’ even marketable.
A change has entered in, some kind of factor that was not there before. It is as if journalists and editors are aware that they deal with a state or condition in at least a significant minority which somehow enables or facilitates such ‘explanations’ to pass muster without undue scepticism. What sort of state or condition might we be talking about?
Almost two years ago, I began having regular discussions with a hypnotherapist friend, John Anthony, about the possibility that what we might be dealing with in the Covid cult was a form of mass hypnosis. We exchanged many emails and spoke several times on the phone, and arising from those exchanges I wrote an article that appeared in May 2020 on what was then the UK website Lockdown Sceptics (now The Daily Sceptic).
The conversations between John Anthony and me continued over the period of the Covid psy-op, and I have more recently spoken to some other hypnotists on the topic with a view to deepening my own understandings. This three-part series of articles is the result. In it, I shall examine, with the help of John Anthony and the others, the concepts of mass hypnosis/mass formation, the effects of narcissistic personality disorders on modern politics (as demonstrated over the past two years) and the use of these techniques to create a pseudo-reality which obliterates both actual reality and any possibility of successful truth-telling about it.
More than a few people I’ve spoken to on the subject over the past couple of years have themselves expressed scepticism at the idea that it is possible to hypnotise whole populations, or quasi-populations, all at once. They accept that something called ‘mass formation’ — as described by, for example, the Belgian psychologist Mattias Desmet, may exist as a real phenomenon, but think it fanciful to suggest that this might amount to hypnosis. They draw a line, therefore, before the notion that the ‘lockstep’ effect achieved by the creeps on behalf of the Combine in the course of the Covid scam, might have been effected by mass entrancement. One correspondent observes that ‘we don't need to seek out esoteric theories for how people moved into lockstep. Computerisation and consequently globalisation are a sufficient explanation for the destruction of intelligent communities.’
This observation resonated with my recollection of my own initial thoughts on the hypnosis connection. It did indeed seem unnecessarily esoteric, at best a metaphor of some kind, even a kind of rhetorical disparagement of the general intelligence. But, as I delved into the matter, it seemed to me that there was something of benefit here, something additional that cast some light on certain aspects of what had been happening — for example, the way the ‘normie’ population has seemed to become manipulable to the extent of coming to ‘unknow’ certain things, when the wind changed, that were already public knowledge. There are thousands of examples, but randomly you might think of the way alleged Covid deaths would be revised downwards (the ‘with’ and ‘from’ distinction) and yet, within days, the old, manipulated statistics would be back on the leader-board. There seemed in this to be the leveraging of some form of capacity for inculcated amnesia, which had no immediately apparent explanation. This, I learned, was a symptom of hypnosis.
Within weeks of the launching of the biggest political psy-op in human history, John Anthony wrote to me: ‘I would like to throw some light on exactly how one gaslights or attempts to gaslight an entire country into submission for whatever nebulous agenda may be the reason for the manipulation. One could use the words “psychopathy” and “narcissism” and the myriad associated language and phrases but it is important here to understand that the intention is not to label or class any individual as such. Here the whole emphases should be upon the dynamic, the modus operandi used in these relationships and hopefully, if I am able for this task, then anyone will be able to spot the emerging patterns of control and even be able to clearly forecast the next hand played by the manipulators or the architects of control.’
I started to probe around the edges of what is a vast and complex subject. My biggest questions centred on how it was possible, having established the circumstance for the creation of a trance, and having set it in train, to enable the hypnotist to communicate with the person in a manner that seemed to occur outside of conscious reality. I had seen hypnosis done on TV, and even was (I think) briefly hypnotised myself on one occasion, but I don't think I had any sense of being in an altered state at any stage. And I presume that most people who have had the experience would say the same. It certainly seemed, from what I had observed about the Covid rollout, that people received messages that appeared to become compartmentalised in their minds, and then pulled out under certain conditions — perhaps an argument with a sceptic, for example — but that otherwise this programming was subject most of the time to a form of suspension, perhaps even amnesia.
The most coherent and consistent public voice on these topics in the world in recent times has been the Belgian psychologist Dr. Mattias Desmet, about whom I have written repeatedly over the past year. This article from last October provides a detailed account of his perspectives and analysis:
Desmet’s analysis is not primarily focussed on the phenomenon of hypnosis as such, but rather on ‘mass formation’ — a rather larger context of manipulation into which hypnosis slots as a kind of SIM card. He has several times asserted that hypnosis is the same as mass formation, by which I think he means that hynoidal techniques are central, though as he himself has been at pains to outline, mass formation involves much more than the creation of a trance state, and is rather more difficult to achieve.
As I understand his position, he is saying that mass hypnosis is used as part of a much larger programme of mind control in which the individual is rendered subject to the will of the collective. In the terms outlined by Gustave le Bon more than a century ago, this means that the individual has exited his own personal psychology and become part of the psychology of the mob, to which, once entranced, he is entirely subservient. Desmet says that people under this form of mass hypnosis will be prepared to sacrifice anything to the cause they have signed up to — ‘even their own children.’ People under the influence of mass/crowd formation, he says, ‘are not aware of the egoistic disadvantages they suffer. Someone in this situation can have everything taken away from him — even his own life. He will not notice it.
‘You can take his health away, his wealth away. You can take everything from him. He may lose his future, his freedom — he will not be aware of it.’
Asked if there is any link between this and intelligence (or lack thereof), he replies: ‘Not at all,’ continuing: ‘And that’s a strange thing: One of the major characteristics of a crowd or a mass is that everybody becomes as intelligent, or — maybe better — as stupid. And that applies to highly intelligent people as well as less intelligent people. That has been studied in the 19th century, very extensively. It was very clear that even the most intelligent people were completely blind and completely insensitive to rational argumentation, for instance. Masses are only sensitive to strong visual images and to repetition of, time and time again, the same message. And also to the presentation of numbers and graphs and statistics. If you present numbers in a visual way, it will have a huge impact on the masses.’
The willingness of people to sacrifice everything — anything — as though for some higher ideal, is something we have observed in certain unfathomable contexts in the past year. An especially disturbing feature of the ‘vaccine’ deaths phenomenon has been the way some parents, having lost one of their children to the mRNA ‘therapy,’ have fallen in with the murderous objectives of medical and political authorities in dismissing any possibility of a connection between the ‘vaccine; and the death. This has presented an objectively incomprehensible demeanour of resignation in the face of what for most people would be the unthinkable: the unnecessary death of a child in the pursuit of tenuous public health objectives.
Under the spell of mass/crowd formation, says Desmet, ‘the field of attention gets really very narrow. People only see what the narrative indicates, and that’s something typical for hypnosis as well. When somebody is hypnotised, he will only be aware of the part of reality the hypnotist focuses on, and that’s exactly the same in mass formation . . . someone is only aware of the part of reality — both cognitively and emotionally — that is indicated by the hypnotising or by the mass narrative. And that’s the reason why people don’t seem to be aware of the collateral damage of the measures. In one way or another, people know somewhere that there is collateral damage of the measures, but it has no cognitive and emotional impact. That’s the problem. There is no psychological energy attached to these representations, and that’s why they have no impact at all.
‘You see exactly the same thing in hypnosis. The attention is so focussed on one point, through a simple hypnotic procedure, that you can cut straight through people’s flesh and bones — literally. You can make someone radically insensitive to pain, to the extent that you can perform a surgical operation on this person — you can cut straight through the breastbone. The person will not notice it. That shows the power of hypnotic procedures — and also of mass formation.’
Historians and psychologists trying to get to grips with what happened in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had never encountered anything like it before. Mass formation, Desmet says, ‘grasps people in the core of their being,’ which is why totalitarianism can command such an extreme degree of power and influence over both crowds and individuals.’
There are distinctions between hypnosis and mass formation, but the lines or commonalities are not clear even in the interviews I have watched with Dr. Desmet. About 80 per cent of people, he says, are liable to become subject to hypnosis, but only about 30 per cent tend to succumb to mass formation. This seems to imply that mass formation is harder to implement, and yet requires a relatively small fraction of the overall population to succeed. This makes sense in that, whereas hypnosis at the personal level is a reasonably straightforward procedure, a multiplicity of factors — susceptibility to propaganda, high emotional sensitivity, vivid imagination — must coincide to inculcate the individual into a mass formation.
French psychologist Gustave Le Bon was the first to talk about ‘psychological crowds’, which he diagnosed as forming a single being, responding always to unconscious thoughts, and conforming to laws of mental unity. The consciousness bestowed by membership of a crowd can be transformative of the person, according to Le Bon, putting individual members in possession of ‘a sort of collective mind which makes them feel, think and act in a manner quite differently from that in which each individual would feel, think and act were that person in a state of isolation.’ In a psychological crowd, individual personality disappears, brain activity is replaced by reflex activity, a lowering of intelligence, provoking a complete transformation of sentiments, which may be better or worse than those of the crowd’s constituent members.
Le Bon elaborates: ‘There are certain ideas and feelings which neither come into being, nor transform themselves into acts, except in the case of individuals forming a crowd. The psychological crowd is a provisional “being,” formed of heterogeneous elements which for a moment are combined, exactly as the cells which constitute a living body form by reunion a new being which displays characteristics very different from each of the cells singularly.’
The relationship or interconnection of the hypnoidal world to ‘reality’ appears to be somewhat analogous to the relationship/interconnection of the dream to the waking state. Sometimes, I have noticed, I will emerge from a dream imagining that, for example, something significant in reality has suddenly been resolved. That is to say, among other things, that the resolution achieved in the dream seems, on first emergence, to be germane to my life in the actual world. Only with time — minutes, usually — does the dream come to seem alien.
We should remain mindful that those who have imposed the appalling conditions and circumstances of the past two years have had access, above all, to the very best of what behavioural psychology can offer. This, far more obviously than it has seemed to be a biological crisis, has been a psychological operation. The orchestrators of the public mood — the politicians, scientists, medical experts — have clearly been able to impose some kind of spell, if only in the first instance to be contemplated in metaphorical terms, in order to effect their will upon whole populations. It is not outlandish to suggest that they somehow managed to impose a trance, which — perhaps intermittently — transformed reality into a kind of dream world, in which, as with actual dreams, nonsense comes to seem perfectly sensible and normal while it is happening.
There’s a rather excellent video on Bitchute, You will comply, made by a Scottish hypnotist called Brian Halliday, in which he compares what the UK government and health experts have been doing for the past two years with his own stage show of a few years back when he was working as a professional hypnotist entertainer.
Halliday was a professional hypnotist for over 25 years, much of that time working as a fulltime stage hypnotist. He was astonished when the pandemic first kicked off and he quickly realised that the government were using almost the exact same techniques he had used while working in theatres.
In his relatively brief exposition, he zeroes in on the actual techniques hypnotists use, and shows how they were adapted to the Covid scam, exposing some of the techniques used to psychologically manipulate people to follow governmental instructions and even programme people to get angry at those who didn't. For instance, he explains how he used hypnosis to create a sense of chaos in an audience before his performance, keeping everybody waiting 10 or 15 minutes after the time he was due to go on, maintaining the auditorium in total darkness before breaking the tension with strobe lighting just before walking onstage. In the same way, he claims, the drivers of the Covid scam have created chaos by inventing absurd regulations, constantly chopping and changing the restrictions and providing nonsensical explanations for various aspects of the ‘measures.’ If you subject people to a period of chaos and confusion, he says, they will do almost anything to relieve it. If you give them a ‘way out’ they will accept it. Hence, the unprecedented ‘vaccine’ take-up.
The London-based hypnotherapist Erkan Bilgi believes that, while hypnosis is somewhat different from mass formation, hypnoidal techniques can be adapted for the purpose of manipulating whole populations at once. It is, he says, the antithesis of therapeutic hypnosis, which seeks to achieve positive results by tapping into the individual unconscious. Mass formation, in his descriptions, appears to involve a kind of reverse-engineering of this therapeutic process. He agrees with Halliday that confusion-making is a central element of the hypnotist’s art, though this can be used for both good and ill.
‘Watch out for sentences that are intentionally made to cause confusion,’ he says. ‘These sometimes have a piece of information which the audience unwittingly accepts, as the conscious brain is too busy trying to make sense of what was just said. This technique is often used by conmen. For example if I ask how much is that slice of cake and rather than say, “Three pounds fifty,” the seller says, “Three hundred and fifty pennies and worth every penny!” — or, “Three pounds and worth every ounce!” — the message of “worth every penny/ounce” is less likely to be questioned.’
Hypnosis, under both the individual and collective headings, achieves an altered state, operating on the subconscious, which is where much of our unconscious ‘thinking’ takes place, adrift from logic and rationality. ‘It is a kind of an altered state,’ Erkan Bilgo says, ‘but we go into a kind of trance state very often throughout the day anyway. Maybe the best way to explain it is if we think of it like an iceberg — the bit above the water is the conscious mind, and the submerged part is the subconscious. The subconscious is vastly bigger than the conscious mind, obviously, because a lot of our experiences are things that we pick up without really noticing. We often think of a trance as a sleep-like or zombie-like state but actually it’s much more common than that. We experience it frequently throughout the day at varying levels. Sometimes it can be a driving trance when we’re going somewhere familiar, where the time seems to just vanish. Or the daydreaming moments when having a coffee or even some would say while hysterically reacting to a perceived threat. We go in and out of these trancelike states. For example, when we’re daydreaming, we’re thinking of a holiday we’ve had or something we’re going to be doing later — our conscious mind dissolves. And hence we can delve into our subconscious experience. So when we hypnotise people, what we’re trying to do is just dissolve the conscious mind in the sense that we’re trying to stop that rational thinking by making them relaxed or using some other techniques, like getting them to focus on one object for a long enough time, trying to get the unconscious mind to express itself. Hypnosis — in a therapeutic setting, or even on a stage setting, when it’s done intentionally — if you have somebody’s attention, you can lead them into a trance. It doesn’t have to be a formal setting, like, “Please close your eyes and think of this, or relax and concentrate on this.” It can happen in a conversational sense as well. It can be just a constant stream and I can jump from one topic to the next, and the speech pattern can sometimes trigger a light trance. And it can be done intentionally.’
The other thing to note,’ says Bilgi, ‘is that the actual depth of trance isn’t necessarily the most important thing for suggestions to take root. You can still do the same work by other methods. Getting someone into a trance-like state is useful but on many occasions it’s not essential in order for people to accept suggestions if you know how to structure those suggestions well. There is a model in hypnosis that states that a deeper trance state allows more direct suggestions to be accepted. However, if your suggestions are indirect there’s less need for a deep trance and all you need is their attention.’
Bilgi’s work as a hypnotherapist often involves confronting some dark association in the subconscious of a client — perhaps a phobia, some traumatic event from the past, a suppressed memory — and lightening it, creating new associations to drown out the old ones. With a spider phobia, for example, he would tackle it by trying to give the person more ‘positive’ ideas about spiders.
‘When we do this, we have to involve as many of the senses as possible, so rather than just visual, we’ll try to have some kind of kinaesthetic element — the emotional side of how you feel when you see this particular thing. It may be what you’d like to say to yourself, what you’d hear, and of course if it involves any sound or taste, we try to involve those too. We try to create memories that the subconscious mind will jump to, when you’ve had any kind of trigger to that particular object or event. And if we can make that as powerful as possible, then that’ll be the go-to thing.
‘And another thing is we can actually change memories. Memories are a kind of a plastic thing, a malleable thing. We tend to think of memories as quite solid, but they’re not. If you think about witness statements — they try to take them as early as possible because over a period of time, details will change. Every time we recall a memory, we tend to change it, and it gets stored again in a new way, so it becomes slightly different from the original. It may be more intense or less intense. So, if you can recall an event, we try to get the subconscious mind to re-store that in a different way. So, if it was a negative event, we’ll try to make it less colourful, more grey. It depends on how that person recalls that particular event.’
So perhaps one could say something along the lines that the ‘trance’ seems, from within, to be real. And externally the person appears not to change. As in a dream, perhaps the ‘material’ experienced in the hypnoidal state is fundamentally as in reality: the logic and personnel of your life in the real world, albeit mixed up, though not in a way that generates an alert. Hypnosis, in much the same way, appears to open up a kind of parallel conduit of understanding, and in situations like a propaganda-generated hoax, renders palatable a series of imposed false understandings that manifest almost in the way of hallucinations, while seeming beyond question in terms of their factuality or meanings. .
The hypnoidal subject remains himself and yet becomes, in a sense, a stranger who is already removed to a different plane. He is there and not there, present and absent. Seen like this, we begin to intuit why people we know have been acting so strangely for the past two years. Multiply the thought of one hypnotised person by a hundred or a thousand or a million — or 200 million — and it becomes quite terrifying. And that is approximately what we may be dealing with.
It also explains why it is impossible to reason or argue with someone in such a state. He or she is simply not there. He may argue, answer back, but will do so in the logic of the trance, a factor that is unlikely to betray itself fully as there will be fragments of real understandings mixed up with the hallucinatory material.
Emerging from a trance is a bit like coming out of a dream, says Bilgi. ‘When you’re in the dream, everything seems real, but once you’ve woken up, you realise that that was a dream. With the dream, however, because anything can happen basically, it’s very easy to spot. However, when you’re in a trance, even though you knew it was a trance, and it was a mainly pleasant experience, and you went through things, building a reality that you may want to work towards, the subconscious doesn’t see it the same way. The subconscious mind treats it as real, to a certain point. The difference between real memories and imaginary memories are mostly the detail. So when we have a real memory, we have much more information. We know how we got there, we know what happened after, so there’s a sequence, and it fits into our life somewhere, like a movie. Also the details that we see in the memory are very specific as well, so we’ll notice much more detail in terms of what we see — the colours that we see. But when we try to create a memory — if I was to say, if you can just create a memory of going to Disneyland yesterday, then, assuming you hadn’t been to Disneyland yesterday, you can work on it and you can create an image in your mind, but it would be lacking in information. It doesn’t have to be a whole series but it has to have consistency. It also has to have a level of depth. If we met every single day and I asked you to build on the “memory” in your mind over a period of time, it would come to seem real over time. And even though consciously you’ll know that the memory doesn’t exist, it will seem real enough, as if you’d actually been there. So you can build the memory and add as much detail to it as possible —so [it will include] how you felt, seeing the world through your own eyes, as a moving image rather than a static image, noticing the colours of things that you wouldn’t normally notice, people’s expressions et cetera. You really build this image up, so it would seem very, very real. And you could almost convince the mind that it was real. You do the opposite with real memories: You take away information, you make things a bit more blurry, you’d make things a little bit more in the distance, black and white, et cetera. Take away the sound, replace it with something else. So that’s the kind of thing we use in therapy. ‘
The mass formation manipulator does the same thing, but in reverse, building up the ‘memory’ or understanding, piece by piece. A deadly virus. Airborne. Jumps up to two metres from nose to nose . . . et cetera. The picture is built up incrementally: ‘If you get someone to agree to a small change in belief it becomes much easier to get them to agree to a bigger belief change that they would not have agreed to at the outset. Agree to this small thing and you’ve signed up to a belief system and identity without even realising it. So if we agree to a three-week lockdown to flatten the curve, then obviously we believe that lockdowns work. If we agree to “high risk groups” being jabbed with an experimental drug then we believe that the jabs are effective. So it becomes ever increasing steps, and if a step doesn’t work then we just go back and start again.’
Words are crucial. ‘The mind is always trying to make sense of the information coming in — if it regards it as relevant — and it does this by making associations and by using reference points. So for example when someone says, “I don’t want to have the jab,” a very powerful yet manipulative response might be to say, “You’ve had vaccines in the past haven’t you?” Words are hugely important, which is why it’s not left to individual politicians or commentators to string sentences together. Rather the best and most powerful sentences or descriptions are formulated and passed on to be repeated to the population. In fact repetition is hugely powerful on its own. Again, a reason the mainstream media channels are so hypnotic. It’s not hypnosis in a traditional sense. But it does create the same thing: powerful images, make the person become engrossed in a situation as much as possible.’
Paradoxically, even in the context of mass formation, he says, the trance is by definition individualised. ‘I have done a group hypnosis session with actually quite a large number of people — in an auditorium with about 80 people, and we did a hypnotic induction. When we’re doing hypnosis for a group, you want to be working towards positive memories. Once they’ve closed their eyes, they’re not working as a group, you know; though, if the hypnotherapist is very skilled, then the suggestions can still seem very personal. So once you’ve got their eyes close, they’re now becoming detached from everyone around them, if you’re successful. So it doesn’t really matter that you’re in a group — of five, ten or a thousand, it doesn’t really matter. They would experience something as if in a room alone.’
Like any form of hypnosis, mass entrancement depends on the leveraging of several inter-related conditions in the subject(s): heightened emotion; focused attention, impairment of peripheral awareness, and an elevated imaginative state — all conditions contributing to vastly increased suggestibility. As we shall see in a subsequent article, the Covid-19 operation harnessed the dynamics of archetypal relationships between narcissists/psychopaths (politicians) and co-dependent submissives (citizens). Such processes, formulated with the assistance of highly practised psychologists and other experts in mind control, are capable of exploiting both individual psychological pathologies and complex understandings of dysfunctional family dynamics to expose and manipulate weaknesses in human persons and relationships so as to isolate citizens from one another.
‘Imagination,’ says Bilgi, ‘is a major aspect of hypnosis and suggestion patterns. In fact, rather than tell people facts, it’s better to get them absorbed in an alternate reality and by creating a vision in the mind, the new reality can begin to take hold. It’s the unconscious mind that makes more than 90 per cent of our decisions and we follow this up by finding conscious justifications to rationalise the decision we’ve already made. So the idea of a rational decision is ultimately an illusion.’
With an appropriate script and deliberate mimicry of well-remembered charismatic leaders of the past — a touch of JFK, a soupcon of Churchill — even the most pedestrian politician can affect a sufficiency of charisma or gravitas to seduce his audience into the zone wherein to weave word-pictures and teleport his listeners to a place of collective imagining. A well-established mood of siege or crisis is sufficient to inveigle even stronger-minded middle-ground observers to join in. By affecting empathy, rapport, a sense of common purpose, the ‘hypnotist’ guides his subjects towards the desired frame-of-mind. He seeks access to the unconscious, so as to remove each member of his audience to a common place: the herd mind, in which he knows they can all come to share approximately the same outlooks, so that henceforth they can be summoned there by signs and triggers while remaining in their armchairs.
TV creates an ideal medium via which to conduct this form of hypnosis, not least because the news comes sandwiched between movies and soap operas, which engage the imaginative and emotional elements of the mind. These, maintained by fictionalised versions of reality, provide the heightened state that renders the subject amenable to be lured into a kind of trance. Once achieved, the trance can be reactivated at will in anyone whose attention, primed on fictional narratives, remains in this state of focused imaginative attention, being highly prone to easy emotional arousal. The purpose is to tap into that part of the subconscious dealing with emotions. When in a self-induced trance, in the grip of rage, hatred, fear, anxiety, sadness, worry, envy, greed, selfishness, humans tend to become cut off from their thinking brains and thereby susceptible to adopting a locked-in, limited view of reality. In the lockdown episode, fear was used as the chief emotional trigger to further the entrancement process.
‘You have general fears, of course, that people experience,’ Erkan Bilgi explains. ‘In therapeutic settings, what you’d do to help someone dissociate from a bad memory, you would get them to see it from a distance in the third person, as an observer. A nice safe distance so that they can see without any threat to themselves. And that way they can see what’s going on in that traumatic event. But they’re detached. Now if you’re a poor therapist, or you wanted to do something harmful, then you would ask them to go back as the first person to experience everything again through their own eyes. Now that would be a very dangerous thing from the therapist’s point of view because they could have what is called an abreaction. They could have a reaction that is the same as they had that particular time when the original event occurred, because what they’re doing is they’re re-living that memory again, and having the same reaction. So if were to do it maliciously, of course, you want to tap into those fears. If someone was to use hypnotherapy in this way — say in the media — you would go back to any events that were traumatic for the collective memory. You can use the virus, but you can also connect it to, say, Mad Cow’s Disease, or any traumatic images from the past. You can build on the fear that people experience. So whether the thing is real or not, it doesn’t matter, because the memory’s still there. At the beginning of the coronavirus thing, there were images of Chinese people collapsing. Now everybody knows that that was made up. It wasn’t real, but the memory’s still there, so that impact will always be there. People not being able to breathe in hospitals — that’s going to be a subconscious fear, because nobody’s going to address that.’
In a mass formation, presumably the constant members need to come out of the 'trance' intermittently to go about their normal lives? Is there some trigger that takes them out and throws them back in again? Does it work off the emotion — when their ire is fired up again, they go back into the trance — is that it?
‘In hypnotherapy, the more frequently you see a client, the more easily they go into trance, because of the turn of my voice, the surroundings — they know that they’re almost in a hypnotic place anyway. They’ve experienced trance in that place many times, so once they step into that same environment, it becomes much easier for them. And those are the triggers to get into that state, an emotional state completely. This is why certain sentence-patterns are used very frequently in statements. So, we’ve already accepted that we don’t talk about “SARS-CoV-2,” we talk about “Covid.” Everything is “Covid”! So we don’t talk about “infections,” we talk about “cases.” And of course “cases” are emotionally connected to . . . we imagine somebody being in hospital, attached to a ventilator or whatever, because that’s how they’re being manipulated. So whether we’re conscious of it or not, words trigger images, and if those images are very, very powerful, then without realising, somehow, emotionally, we have that response. In the media that’s what they do. They try to give us these images and connect them to sentences.
‘The New Normal, to me, for example, instantly would have images of people walking around in masks, keeping their distance, empty trains, paying by card, never by cash. So I don’t have to think about it, because they’re the images that have been given to me. But it’s important that these phrases are used very, very frequently, and prominently. So, any variations of this . . . they wouldn’t be called something like a “New Reality” or something. It will always be called the New Normal. You can’t break that pattern. So that’s the trigger. If it’s written down, it will always be written in the same way. So Covid is always written in capital letters. That’s how we’re used to seeing it, and that’s what fires it. If we see it in lower-case letters, it would not be the same kind of firing off mechanism. So that’s very, very useful from the media’s viewpoint, and I’m sure they know that. We hear the same phrases coming from different people. That’s very intentional.’
‘The potential uses of Cognitive Hypnotherapy,’ Erkan Bilgi maintains, ‘go way beyond what many people associate it with. Ultimately the aim is to not just to help cure clients of their fears and addictions but to empower them so that they can continue their life believing in greater possibilities and equipping them with the tools to fulfil their goals.’ In the mass formation model, however, something like the same process appears to work using negative emotions — anger, fear et cetera.
Bilgi explains how the subconscious adopts stratagems to protect the person from experiencing memories or negative emotions that might cause upset or damage. One such is the fight-or-flight mechanism — essentially a protective mechanism activated by the unconscious, and which activates here to remove the person from potentially harmful emotions. Once engaged, the fight-of-flight mechanism exhibits vivid physical symptoms, all of them evolutionary in nature: narrowing of vision, quickening blood pressure, heart going into overdrive, digestive system closing down. These are self-protective responses, but prolonged they can cause intense damage to the person and the person’s body. This provides an example of the reverse-engineering process: the use of fear tactics in mass formation propaganda can cause huge sections of a population to go into fight-or-flight mode, thus incurring the symptoms evolution has provided to protect and preserve, but here used in tandem with fear-mongering techniques to keep the population in an enhanced state of fear and stress. Erkan Bilgi says that a lot of his clients have of late been coming to him in a heightened state of anxiety — deeply injurious to their general health and immune functions — which he traces to this syndrome.
‘The problem,’ he says, ‘is when we stay in that particular response for a very long time, it becomes very harmful to the body. The focussed attention on the danger makes everything around us invisible. If we’re focussed on the danger of, for instance, the virus, then we’re unable to appreciate everything else that’s going on around us — the beauty of nature, the good relationships that we might have, anything positive in our life, because we’re totally fixated on this perceived danger. So that’s also quite an interesting thing that’s going on at the moment — people that live in this harmful state, they’re also having hormonal changes, there’s more cortisol in their systems, so it’s more harmful to them.
‘To do this intentionally is very possible. Of course, from a therapeutic point of view you wouldn’t want to do it. But if you had the opposite intention, it’s very possible. If I was to do this in trance, in a hypnotic state, what I would want to do really is fire up any fears that the client had, and you can tap into those just by asking, and you don’t even have to ask.’
The Covid scamdemic was pulled off and maintained by a process of mass entrancement perpetrated largely by media, leaving many people — a majority of most affected populations — terrified and unable to apply logic or reason to what they are able to see with their own eyes. Everyone who has been awake or has awakened knows a dozen people they regard as intelligent — good friends, in some instances — who have become deeply embedded in the deception, not alone unable to extricate themselves from the general terror but actually unwittingly behaving as marshalls of Covid enforcement, scolding fellow citizens who are not wearing masks, engaging in bizarre public elbow dances on encountering acquaintances, and reacting with embarrassment and suspicion when they meet a dissenter, to whom they react as though to a knife-wielding maniac.
These conditions were achieved by months of persistent, repetitive messaging wrapped up in terror mantras and veiled threats. The scam was imposed through the use of subtle and not so subtle use of remote mesmerism, neuro-linguistic programming and saturation coverage of an almost entirely falsified narrative to effect a form of mass hypnosis that left only a small minority of Western populations — perhaps 10% — completely unaffected. Mattias Desmet’s analysis incorporates an additional 40 per cent middle-ground that ‘goes along to get along,’ and whose constituent members are difficult to tell from the 30 per cent who are completely brainwashed. In Ireland, for certain, these figures are more likely to be 40 per cent and 50 per cent.
How that tiny few escaped indoctrination and entrancement is itself something of a mystery, not to say a miracle. Perhaps, many of them had long since stopped reading, watching or listening to legacy media, thus acquiring immunity to what is actually the true ‘virus’: the industrial mendacity of mainstream media, which in effect constructed an alternative reality into which the propaganda that constituted virtually all of the scamdemic narrative was made to seem like iron fact, like the sky above and the solid ground below — as far beyond questioning as anything utterly false could possibly become.
John Waters Unchained is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.