Mass Hypnosis, Through the looking glass – Part one

When I speak of ego, a lot of people make the assumption that of which I speak is either the Freudian ego complex or the commonly used “Princeton definition” which reads “an inflated feeling of pride in your superiority to others”.

Neither is the case, what I’m speaking of is the structure based transactional mind. The ego in the modern Eckhart Tolle/Robert Anton Wilson/Kaballah sense of the word, specifically that which is other to the “Self”; the Self being the creative force which is infinitely capable within all humans.

I put a human down to a base duality that runs through all reflections of reality and is well described by Winston Shrout in his discussions about commerce. In this instance I will use a different analogy to describe the ego in which I will call it the Reflection, Mirror or Strawman.

The Mirror, is a protection mechanism within which we fall in certain instances. To begin my dissemination of The Mirror I’m going to look at the hypnotic model of the mind. As with all models it provides a very nice perspective for it’s purpose, however may be disregarded for all other psychological matters.

This model was first bought to my attention by a Floridian hypnotherapist called Klein (for anybody looking into Hypnosis and NLP his online course is a brilliant place to begin).

You’ll notice the conscious mind holds in it the values of short term memory, rational, analytical and will power. In the subconscious mind we have the permanent memory, emotions, laziness, habits and the instinct of self preservation. And finally we have the unconscious mind of which we have the automatic bodily functions such as heartbeat, tissue repair, immune response, metabolism, and pretty much any other function you wish to speak of. The hypnotherapist focuses on the first two. You see there is two lines intersecting in the top right.

The one heading into the outer (conscious) circle is an ‘external suggestion’. For a subject to act on it subconsciously, it has to make it’s way past the critical factor. The critical factor is the personal agent to the subconscious mind. Although things like “Give Up Smoking” can be achieved by conscious willpower alone, the subconscious will often place roadblocks in the way, for instance making people believe they are addicted, if the reader has attempted to diet they know the feeling of thinking “Healthy foods are required!” while the critical factor constantly put’s in suggestions like “You want fried chicken!”.

When we hypnotise somebody we remove the critical factor. Whereas before hypnosis the critical factor would take a suggestion “you wish to give up smoking” and not allow the subconscious to operate based on that information due to it’s own doubts such as “your too addicted” and similar, this means although the conscious mind is consciously trying to give up smoking through willpower, the subconscious is still fighting.

When hypnotised the same suggestion does not have to answer to the critical factor, it just seeps straight into the subconscious where automatic response and self preservation can alter the code from which they operate. All of a sudden the subconscious also wishes to give up smoking and as a result it starts finding motivations, replacing habits, altering the influence memories have over our pre-programmed responses and similar.

Along with hypnosis there are numerous ways in which we can run code and bypass the critical factor, for instance NLP (Nuero Linguistic Programming) techniques such as framing, repeating, repeating and asking questions can bypass the critical factor, as can appeals to the subconscious constituent parts.

Appeals to emotion, laziness, habit and fear are very popular within the media. I mentioned the metro in a previous blog post, and how much of the articles appealed to fear. This in itself is a hypnotic effect. When something appeals to emotion, laziness, habit or fear it is directly appealing to the subconscious.

For the first three, the critical factor of the conscious mind is often fairly active when the media do this, (although the current obesity rate and success of the fast food industry is pretty powerful) however fear is most powerful tool available, because fear induces both the self preservation and the emotional responses of the subconscious.

Any suggestion to the conscious mind that is based on invoking “need for self preservation” will automatically move past the conscious minds rationality and critical faculties, and will be analysed directly by the subconscious to make sure it conforms. If it does conform, then the subconscious will begin to twist the rationale of the conscious mind to create conditions in which the action can be taken.

This level of manipulation was very plain during the American elections of 2008, although Obama said very little to appeal to the rational minds of voters, just ambiguous slogans and similar. In the face of that we still saw images of voters lining up at polling stations like zombies, getting tattoos of his head on their arms, speaking of nothing but Obama.

This was because they had performed an act of subconscious manipulation, in the face of fear of another 4 years of terrible leadership which a lot of voters involved in the bipartisan paradigm of left/right politics assumed McCain represented, their subconscious took hold of the emotional message of hope and the fear of the opposite, and changed the rational conscious minds to suit the subconscious fears of the person involved, with retrospect, it is easy to see neither candidate was offering anything remotely resembling change, as both were bred in the same paddock.

And so, within the conscious state of mind fear induces, altering the rational mind to accept that black is white and white is black I leave you for today, I shall continue on this subject tomorrow.

Peace, Love, Empathy

Rich

The Straw Man Position - Why Justify?

When I discuss the law with people I find they are frequently horrified not only with my apparent lack of fear of police officers, but lack of fear regarding the system in general. They tell me my ideas are dangerous, they are not conductive to a working society, and often attempt to attack me verbally due to their own lack of understanding of my perspective.

The first thing I say now when I speak of these things is to run a disclaimer past their ears, in that I am certainly not advocating people hold these attitudes themselves unless they fully believe in what they are saying and have done the research themselves, I do not give legal advice, I simply comment on my own commercial conduct, nothing herein constitutes as such, just a record of my perspective provided for informational purposes.

Given that, specifically the part of law I look at is the commercial side of law. As many other people have, I have chosen a position of operating within commerce known as the “Strawman position”. This in itself is a lawful position in which we operate as two separate entities.

The first entity is me as a human being, it represents me physically and my inalienable rights within common law, through the human being, represented by my common name Rich, and the family name I identify as my own, Craig (it is quite unusual that I have adopted my mothers clan as my operating family name rather than my fathers, however I can choose to change my family name at any time, which is one of the reasons there is such divergence between my family and surname).

As a human being in law I have unlimited value, and the right to do as I please, providing I do not cause harm and loss, breach the peace or commit fraud in contracts. For my human being to get into trouble I would have to have another human being laying a claim against me.

The second is my commercial entity or “person”, which is represented by my NAME SURNAME in all caps, the name on my birth certificate specified as first name/surname, placed in a box on a contract, or given a title like “MR”. This is a product of a law maxim called Capitis Diminutio Maxima; “As Black's Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one's natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory.”

Although my human being has inalienable rights and privileges that cannot be usurped in anyway, they can be given up by me. The easiest way to do this is to think I am my PERSON. The PERSON, in stark contrast to the human, does not have lawful rights that are irrevocable; the PERSON only has obligations, benefits and privileges that are granted by the contractual entities to which the PERSON does business, not limited to and including the government of the civil jurisdiction within which it operates (in my case the United Kingdom Corporation and it’s various subsidiaries). The contracts from which this governing body grant benefits, privileges and obligations onto my PERSON are called ACTS.

An ACT starts out as a BILL, which is a commercial tool through which the fictional PERSON can be enacted upon, when a government passes an ACT it becomes a set of obligations, privileges and benefits through which a PERSON can be operated upon.

Through this ACT, the way in which the ACT directly interacts with the PERSON as a contractual entity is through a STATUTORY instrument, this is a contract between the government and the consenting governed.

I have chosen to operate as a human being, occasionally stepping into my PERSON as a 3rd party agent to conduct commerce. The reason for this is very simple. Knowing the law to this degree has given me a choice. The choice in itself is as follows.

1: Learning how to operate in Law as an entity (human) which has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away, forcefully removed, destroyed, eroded or otherwise compromised.

2: Operating as a legally fictitious entity (PERSON) which has no rights, only benefits, obligations and privileges given to it by it’s superiors in a contractual, commercial hierarchy called government.

As these are my commercial affairs one would think the choice would be fairly logical for me to make and obviously I have chosen the rather difficult path of number one, for it is my belief that I am not a piece of stock with no rights that must beg for privileges.

A lot of people don’t actually like the fact that I choose to operate my commercial affairs in this way, and I have been outright told I am “wrong”, “delusional” and my favourite, “full of horseshit and lies”. I have lost friends, nearly lost a housemate and nearly been disciplined in my job (before they found out it was unlawful to do so) simply for stating my interpretation of the law when asked.

This is the part of it I and many other people who use similar means of presenting themselves seem to find difficult. People seem to find it almost offensive that I am confident enough to operate within law to the degree where I present myself commercially.

They ask me how I can justify some of my commercial actions with my debtors (the ones who assume I am the debtor such as loan companies), and I will quite happily inform them of how our fiat based fractional reserve banking system works, and they will then tell me they don’t like being preached at.

I have been told by people who ask me to explain myself, and my justification, that they felt I was preaching at them. My answer regarding that is if you ask a question, I will answer in good faith, if my answer does not fit into your rigid moral code, simply disregard it. You’re an adult, you have free will, were my views so wrong then surely it wouldn’t be an issue for you to simply assume them as such and get on with your lives, I certainly do not wish you to follow me like I’m some form of messiah of commerce. I’m just a human.

It is not my responsibility to justify my commercial operations to people who do not operate with me commercially. Answering a question regarding my commercial operations is entirely optional. As a human being I choose to not operate as my PERSON unless I am conducting a commercial act. I believe that is my responsibility and my right, and it is every other human beings right to decide how to operate themselves within commerce as well.

As a result of this choice I am making, it is my understanding that statutes and acts do not apply to me when I am not acting within commerce. A lot of people start feeling irritated at this point, because taxation and licenses are a good example of things that don’t apply to a Human unless they ask for them and consent to them. They then usually start talking about my obligation to society, which is not something to which I identify. My reasons for not wishing to participate in this society are numerous, however the fact that we are in a democracy and I do not wish to have another human re-present me is enough justification as far as I’m concerned.

I take responsibility for my own actions. That’s not to say I hate society, or I wish to disregard it’s people (“go live under a rock and don’t contact us” is a common comment), and it certainly doesn’t mean I do not wish to contribute to it’s people in a positive manner, it simply means that I do not feel I need re-presentation from a nanny government and choose to administrate my own affairs without constantly begging them to regulate me.

As the majority of people who are talking to me about this are not talking to me via their government representatives I am under the impression that they are not being represented by society at that moment but are infact humans who occasionally participate within that society. I do not ask them to reveal to me how they wish to operate with other people within society, if I did I certainly wouldn’t ask them to change how they operated commercially based on my moral code because that would be vastly overstepping my boundaries.

So my statement I make to people wishing to shoot the messenger regarding the way I choose to operate myself and my PERSON in commerce is this: It’s my business, if you disagree with how I work on an operational level, in that you don’t believe what I am doing is lawful then your elected representatives and the people they employ will surely find a way to hold me accountable for my lack of knowledge and misapplication.

If your disagreement is on the moral level, then my only advice is don’t ask, and don’t preach if you don’t like the answer, it is my business, and I owe you not one iota of explanation or justification as to how I conduct my commercial affairs.

If your problems still aren’t covered, then ask if the problem is really with me.

Peace, Love, Empatthy

Rich