Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind abuse, thought control) refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated (paraphrasing Wikipedia). From that source we are informed that:
“The Chinese term 洗腦 (xǐ năo, literally “wash brain”) was originally used to describe methodologies of coercive persuasion used under the Maoist regime in China, which aimed to transform individuals with a reactionary imperialist mindset into “right-thinking” members of the new Chinese social system. To that end the regime developed techniques that would break down the psychic integrity of the individual with regard to information processing, information retained in the mind and individual values.”
It is without doubt that mind control is the unspoken method by which politicians seek to retain their control of the democratic process and their control over those they are meant to serve. It is also without doubt apparent that in order to further their hold over the populace that politicians have created what are presented as ‘arms-length’ advisory bodies to assist them in their aims. In other words the methodology of coercive persuasion used by the Maoist regime in China is being copied by our politicians, albeit one could argue in a more subtle manner.
The introduction of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ into our lives, following the mass immigration that has been permitted into our country, is but one method of controlling the thoughts and actions of the populace. Another method is by means of censorship of views which do not conform to the political mantra of the day, whereby adverse comments are deleted from blogs especially those managed by political parties – an example of which occurred only yesterday on Conservative Home. Nadine Dorries posted on ConHome an article in favour of ‘policing’ free speech on the internet, one which prompted a response from Fausty - said response being deleted within a matter of an hour or two. That action by ConHome is not just censorship, it is also an attempt to ‘condition’ the ensuing discussion in favour of the acceptance of Dorries’ views and that of her political party.
A further example of the policy of controlling the thoughts and beliefs of the populace can be demonstrated by a report, to which UP Pompeii links, that appeared in the Express yesterday. If this report is correct – and there would appear to be no reason that it is not – by what right does the State decide that a Mother’s political views are grounds for threatening to remove the child from her care? That a newspaper is unable to report the reasons for the decision made by the Judge to remove from her care her other three children is but a form censorship – an act which the State assures us is only used where matters of national security are concerned. If a Mother’s political views are grounds for removal of her child then it is perhaps to the detriment of mankind that such thinking was not in place at the birth of Cameron, Miliband (E&D), Brown, Blair etc – but I digress.
When comments are made apportioning blame for the ills of our society, much reference is made to Agenda 21 where matters of an environmental nature are concerned. It is little known that from Agenda 21 came Agenda 21 for Cuture, which has 67 articles, focused on five main subjects: 1. Culture and human rights; 2.Culture and governance; 3. Culture, sustainability and territory; 4. Culture and social inclusion; and 5. Culture and economy. The United Kingdom is a signatory to both Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 for Culture. It can be argued that it is from Agenda 21 for Culture – points 1, 2 and 4 – that the populace of this country is ‘controlled’ by our political elite. It is a fact also that Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 for Culture were ‘agreements’ that were signed on behalf of the populace, yet the populace were not consulted; a further example of the elective dictatorship under which we live. If a populace are to be consigned to acceptance and practice of an ideology, one which will affect their lives, then should not they be consulted? Intriguingly the ‘bedrock’ of democracy, Switzerland – a country in which what may be termed participatory democracy forms the basis of their political system – voted in a referendum yesterday for any international treaty entered into by their politicians not to require the sanction of the people.
What is at stake today can be summed up thus: either we are a free people, or we are not; either individual thought and belief is ours, or it is not; either we have freedom of speech, or we do not; either the people of a country or community can decide, by majority vote, those matters which affect them as a whole, or they cannot. If it is accepted that we are free; that we have individuality of thought and belief; if we have freedom of speech; and if it is our right to decide our future, both collectively and individually, then it is becoming ever more apparent that we need to change the system of democracy under which we live – or accept eternal servitude.