What is Predictive Programming?

[Aero]

Man I don't know if you're intentionally acting blind or anything but this shows much stupidity and ignorance about how the internet works. Never heard of search engines? Never heard of SEO? Apparently not.

Sounds like you are way behind the times. SEO has been dead for awhile. You have to actually make good content and have it be shared socially. That takes a lot of work, and a lot of involved people. That's the only reason people know about this subject matter. It's those communities that put in all the effort.

Hopefully I don't have to further explain your assumptions being played out. You casually toss aside all the people who exposed this shit, and completely ignore what the internet traffic actually shows. The internet traffic shows people have heard plenty about these "programs". And they don't believe in or want them.

I got that really. Your term doesn't apply even if it is just a metaphor. We discuss things, not try to "sell" anything to anyone.

Actually it seems like you missed the point. We aren't here to sell books, but a lot of people are trying to sell something. This whole theory originated from people trying to sell books and get internet traffic. Maybe you believe their intent was more casual or noble, but nobody is giving me the book on predictive programming for free. No, I have to pay for the internet and use a stupid search engine, and internet forums.

You completely misrepresent what I say because your arguments are flimsy af. The prediction is scripted IN THE MOVIE, as in WRITTEN in the script. It's not hard to understand at all but you are grasping at straws here as usual.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. That's just your own arguments twisting up into a pretzel formation. Maybe you are starting to get that the predictive programming element here is bunk. The conclusion of the event itself had the more lasting impact on society. The script that lead up to it was just a means to reach that end. So it didn't "Program" anyone, beyond playing out like it was supposed to.

I never said that we had no choice over what happens. That is just WATT's interpretation of the phenomenon. Some people are immune to mind control and again a single person can turn the effect upside down given enough space to warn others.

But also if you think that it's fear based stuff, just look at the world around you. Do you see the "bad guys" getting punished for what they have done? I don't. These legalized criminals really do have a hold on the world and nothing seems to stop them because people are essentially just blind or too distracted by useless stuff. Like even HERE on this forum people waste time doing celebrity gossip. People are essentially being led around like clueless sheep and I don't see this ending too soon.

I agree with the first paragraph.

Maybe our definition of bad guys and punishment are different. I think the bad guys are just good at diverting true justice. They can always point to a fall guy. And that makes me wonder for many reasons. Are we just bad at pointing karma at the right things? Or is karma such a fickle thing that it's foolishly satisfied.

 

[rainerann]

I suppose that special committee was meant to prevent the creation of double agents. If enemy spies became POWs, they could be brainwashed by the captors and turned into double-agents. Which was, apparently common during WW2.I guess that i now have to look around for information on whether John McCain (pow) ever spent time anywhere near a mental institution.

I agree that the fight or flight is controlled by the individual. Even though Sargant puts it that way, McGowan does state that we all naturally experience dissociation. That moment when someone clicks their fingers so that you "snap out of it". Freewill, i suppose is an action of both the conscious and subconscious and i think what they are doing is to get the messages in, at a weak point (alphawaves induced while watching tv), so that the mental urge to resist the suggestions is weak or impaired. You only need to look at the influence of tv shows (something i've mentioned before). When the Hunger games films came out, the numbers of people taking up archery spiked, shows about suicide spiked google searches on "how to commit suicide", gay marriage (Glee), enlisting (Top Gun), the examples are numerous. So, if we are acting upon what is absorbed by the conscious mind, one can only conclude the same of the subconscious, and probably worse stuff is sent to our subconscious.

I don't know about the whole "symbolism and superstition" thing. Maybe what you are trying to say is that the bombardment is meant to exhaust the average person, who has come to understand the meaning of these symbols, into seeing things that aren't there. I admit, am not good with the "number crunching", even where its undeniable, so i stick to much clearer examples. One thing i've noticed though, is the presence of the spiral symbol, in some scenes with child actors, maybe on a bed-side lamp or a rug, leaving me to wonder about the child and or the adult in that particular scene.

After thinking about it a little, I think I may not have explained what I was trying to say about dissociation the way I would I would have liked because it would seem like you are contrasting this with someone who says that we all naturally experience dissociation as though I were saying that dissociation doesn't happen according to Sargent.

I think this could be because the way I was describing dissociation is not as commonly discussed. However, the way dissociation is discussed represents a very limited understanding of it. Dissociation is basically the way of describing different gears of the brain. We think of dissociation according to the way McGowan describes a lot of the time, but these are really two different concepts.

What McGowan is describing is basically just the reality that we are faced with an awareness of other states of consciousness from time-to-time. These states present themselves to us so that we know that the conscious mind is not functioning independently of other states. As a result, it would be better to narrow the definition of dissociation to mean any time one of these states acts independently, like I was trying to illustrate according to Sargent; and refer to what McGown is describing as something else. Sargent was describing a situation where the conscious state of mind can be seen as being capable of functioning independently of the emotional component of an experience and experience dissociation without having dissociative identity disorder as a result of this. He didn't realize this connection to dissociation. I am making an observation based on what he is saying.

Essentially, free will is simply the ability to make decisions. We do not learn this ability and without the ability to decide or make choices, we would be puppets. This is a subconscious process that is communicated to the conscious mind so that both processes are aware or involved. However, this is not a process of the conscious mind so that if you were to break the communication between these two states or stop them from communicating to each other, you would be able to control a person's will in theory. This is essentially what a perpetrator is attempting to accomplish in trauma-based programming.

Dissociative identity disorder is when two states of consciousness stop communicating to some extreme degree so that the mind doesn't function the way it would naturally. When a programmer is trying to create dissociative states by traumatizing the mind to force these states to stop communicating, it is also with the intention that the will or decision-making process of the subconscious will stop communicating with other states and become isolated so that the individual can be controlled.

It is somewhat difficult to explain and understand, which is why I was trying to create an example for the average person to relate to. However, it probably could still use some improvement. Anyways, I felt I should try to clarify that a little bit.

 

[Aero]

You can't control of someone's subconscious will. But you can hijack it temporarily. And that is extremely dangerous on the part of the hijackers. Why? Because no human being wants their brain to be hijacked! So they are going to lash out, fight, and seek revenge.

It all goes back to the concept of one force of will taking over another. Which in my opinion originates from what Jung called the "shadow" archetype. It's the unconscious shadow of our unconscious self. Meaning the shadow does the heavy lifting, but it's not very smart.

 

[rainerann]

@rainerann

Like I mentioned to Helioform, PP has facets. Its used to modify society through suggestions we act upon but also as a warning bell on what is up ahead.

On symbolism, I'm reposting VC's article : Cabin in the Woods (where he quoted Micheal Hoffman)


So basically, the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 were rituals "everyone" was forced to attend....if you had a TV anyway.

The Kennedy assassination is a great example to examine in the context of this discussion because there is an opportunity to examine the effect so much better than some of the more recent events.

So what does it mean that the Kennedy assassination would be considered a ritual? It means that the Kennedy assassination would require a certain number of steps that would need to be ordered in a particular way. A ritual is a series of steps that is very similar to writing a script, but writing a script is really just an advanced way of telling a lie, nothing more. There is the moral lesson that we all learn when we are little that if you tell a lie, you have to keep telling lies until you lose track of a lie and get caught.

How do you remedy this? With a script. A script will help keep track of the lies you have told so that you reduce the risk of getting caught. Therefore, when an event or ritual is staged, this is done so that someone won't get caught, not because performing the ritual has the ability to brainwash people. It is not the symbols that brainwash people. It is the lie. So predictive programming would be better defined as a fancy way of lying. The amateur tries to cover up his crimes by trying to keep track of his lies with his memory. The professional uses a script that allows him to gain a larger audience with the same lie, because the script reduces the risk of being caught.

The problem is that many people describe a sort of fairy tale version of this when these things are really a lot simpler and easy to understand. They don't take a giant leap of the imagination the way some may suggest. Things like this happen every day on a smaller scale all the time. It just will never matter what these people think they are doing. It doesn't matter if we call it a ritual or not. That does not make it something different than what we already encounter on a daily basis.

All rituals are essentially like conducting very sloppy science experiments that do have a control group that would allow you to see whether these steps actually produce a result. Therefore, the effect of a ritual is often subjective and the audience who claims to recognize these things should be responsible for determining their actual effect rather than perpetuating the lie that the author of the ritual would like you to believe could be accomplished with a script or a series of steps.

For example, looking at the Kennedy assassination. It would be better if we stopped looking for Masonic symbols for just a second and tried to put ourselves in the shoes of the people responsible for killing the president. What is the first thought that is going to go through your head? Obviously, you are going to start thinking of how you are going to get away with it and ruling out scenarios where you would not be able to do this.

You can't kill the president in any situation where the public would not have access because there would never be a way to cover up the investigation even if you claimed that the information needed to be classified 24 hours a day. If you wanted to kill the president and you were someone with access to the private social environment of the president, you would have to make it a public event. It is the only way to ever be able to claim that some random person killed the president and get away with it.

It is really as simple as that. You can script something like this and create a series of steps. Wash your hands that morning seven times for good luck, and people could call you a Warlock or a member of an evil secret society for doing this till they were blue in the face, but the core motivation will never be different than trying to not get caught. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors and it makes pointing out symbols somewhat unproductive to the discussion most of the time.

The reality is that you have the highest probability to get away with killing the president if you do it in a public place and doing it in a public place gives the greatest justification for classifying information without objection. So we can see that at the time, the Kennedy assassination was very disruptive. People still didn't believe the mainstream narrative and this created distrust of the government.

You could say many things about how the trauma of this event shaped the nation that we live in today. However, we didn't inherit programming from the DNA of our parents who witnessed this. Future generations are not more inclined to become passive to the demands of the government because of this. What really happened that allowed the nation to be programmed because of this was that when the information was classified, they were able to write history the way they wanted for the next generation who never experienced this event.

So the ritual itself was virtually useless and was nowhere near effective in a way that would prove the definition of predictive programming to be true. The true power of this event came from the ability to withhold information. This way, when the next generation learned about President Kennedy, they learned about how he was hero regarding Castro, and a hero regarding the space program, and it was a tragedy that he died, but they don't learn that the investigation is still classified information even though the case was supposedly solved. They are more likely to become passive to the actions of the government because of this.

I didn't learn that the Kennedy assassination was still classified information until I was listening to these old radio programs on YouTube by Mae Brussell. I might never have known this, and this would have affected the way I viewed politics more than the presence of the assassination of Kennedy in my history books ever did. So when we consider an example that gives us a better opportunity to measure an effect, the main thing that they appear to be doing is censoring information and then writing history to reflect the absence of information from these events. If we wanted to call this predictive programming, I would be fine with that. Predictive programming is a modern form of censorship regarding all the information that is available about events taking place.

However, if we want to say that predictive programming is the effective application of occult practices as though carrying a lucky rabbit foot is going to make brainwashing people more effective, I think that is going to be something that is much more difficult to support with evidence. These things aren't that hard to understand in reality. However, they are greatly overcomplicated. Predictive programming is withheld information. This censored information is the only reason that anything is given a sort of mystical effect that becomes a distraction to the conspiracy community.

 

[Karlysymon]

@rainerann
If I've understood you correctly, you've basically divorced symbolism and any spiritual significance it may carry from the events said symbolism surrounds or accompanies.
And that's problematic because if those symbols are meaningless, how do you account for their ubiquitousness? People just don't do things for just. Besides, symbols are directly tied to rituals. Those symbols are consciously placed there for a reason. Kids programming these days is saturated with the theme of magic. I suppose that's just there "for just"?
Also, to disregard the symbolism is to disregard the spirituality of TPTB. PP is psychological warfare.

Anyway, given the subject matter, I thought this would interest, you regarding liturgical psychodrama. That from antiquity, the stage (for the real and the imagined) has always been a ceremonial altar for religious invocation.

Sir James Frazier elaborates the ancient belief in the magical character of dramaturgy and acting in his classic The Golden Bough :

“Here then at the great sanctuary of the goddess in Zela it appears that her myth was regularly translated into action; the story of her love and the death of her divine lover was performed year by year as a sort of mystery-play by men and women who lived for a season and sometimes died in the character of the visionary beings whom they personated. The intention of these sacred dramas, we may be sure, was neither to amuse nor to instruct an idle audience, and as little were they designed to gratify the actors, to whose baser passions they gave the reins for a time. They were solemn rites which mimicked the doings of divine beings, because man fancied that by such mimicry he was able to arrogate to himself the divine functions and to exercise them for the good of his fellows. The operations of nature, to his thinking, were carried on by mythical personages very like himself; and if he could only assimilate himself to them completely he would be able to wield all their powers.
This is probably the original motive of most religious dramas or mysteries among rude peoples. The dramas are played, the mysteries are performed, not to teach the spectators the doctrines of their creed, still less to entertain them, but for the purpose of bringing about those natural effects which they represent in mythical disguise ; in a word, they are magical ceremonies and their mode of operation is mimicry or sympathy. We shall probably not err in assuming that many myths, which we now know only as myths, had once their counterpart in magic; in other words, that they used to be acted as a means of producing in fact the events which they describe in figurative language. Ceremonies often die out while myths survive, and thus we are left to infer the dead ceremony from the living myth. If myths are, in a sense, the reflections or shadows of men cast upon the clouds, we may say that these reflections continue to be visible in the sky and to inform us of the doings of the men who cast them, long after the men themselves are not only beyond our range of vision but sunk beneath the horizon.”

 

[Aero]

Maybe the whole point was to turn Kennedy into some kind of pseudo-martyr. But I think people are missing the real motive around that assassination. That wasn't just some play by numbers type shit. That was real hatred.

Heroes are hated often, but they don't often get publicly executed. Plus if we are to assume the intelligence community are master manipulators, then why throw away one of their chess pieces? Surely they could of still gotten use out of their "king". It all just reinforces the theory that there was serious hatred revolving around this event.

 

[Karlysymon]

Maybe the whole point was to turn Kennedy into some kind of pseudo-martyr.

Kinda like this?

“All these people … they’re all dead.”

“Yes … but immortal nevertheless. They won’t get old or fat. They won’t get sick or feeble. They are beyond fear because they are … forever young. They’re gods … and you can join them.”

Disregarding the eternal flame at his grave.

 

[rainerann]

@rainerann
If I've understood you correctly, you've basically divorced symbolism and any spiritual significance it may carry from the events said symbolism surrounds or accompanies.
And that's problematic because if those symbols are meaningless, how do you account for their ubiquitousness? People just don't do things for just. Besides, symbols are directly tied to rituals. Those symbols are consciously placed there for a reason. Kids programming these days is saturated with the theme of magic. I suppose that's just there "for just"?
Also, to disregard the symbolism is to disregard the spirituality of TPTB. PP is psychological warfare.

Anyway, given the subject matter, I thought this would interest, you regarding liturgical psychodrama. That from antiquity, the stage (for the real and the imagined) has always been a ceremonial altar for religious invocation.

Sir James Frazier elaborates the ancient belief in the magical character of dramaturgy and acting in his classic The Golden Bough :

“Here then at the great sanctuary of the goddess in Zela it appears that her myth was regularly translated into action; the story of her love and the death of her divine lover was performed year by year as a sort of mystery-play by men and women who lived for a season and sometimes died in the character of the visionary beings whom they personated. The intention of these sacred dramas, we may be sure, was neither to amuse nor to instruct an idle audience, and as little were they designed to gratify the actors, to whose baser passions they gave the reins for a time. They were solemn rites which mimicked the doings of divine beings, because man fancied that by such mimicry he was able to arrogate to himself the divine functions and to exercise them for the good of his fellows. The operations of nature, to his thinking, were carried on by mythical personages very like himself; and if he could only assimilate himself to them completely he would be able to wield all their powers.
This is probably the original motive of most religious dramas or mysteries among rude peoples. The dramas are played, the mysteries are performed, not to teach the spectators the doctrines of their creed, still less to entertain them, but for the purpose of bringing about those natural effects which they represent in mythical disguise ; in a word, they are magical ceremonies and their mode of operation is mimicry or sympathy. We shall probably not err in assuming that many myths, which we now know only as myths, had once their counterpart in magic; in other words, that they used to be acted as a means of producing in fact the events which they describe in figurative language. Ceremonies often die out while myths survive, and thus we are left to infer the dead ceremony from the living myth. If myths are, in a sense, the reflections or shadows of men cast upon the clouds, we may say that these reflections continue to be visible in the sky and to inform us of the doings of the men who cast them, long after the men themselves are not only beyond our range of vision but sunk beneath the horizon.”

Not exactly. I am saying symbolism is masking basic concepts that are easier to understand than they are made out to be. Symbolism essentially creates confusion or the impression that something is more difficult to understand than it actually is. Therefore, you have people becoming distracted by the symbol and ignoring the basic mechanisms they mask. As a result, you cannot get rid of the root of the problem.

Understanding symbolism as it relates to understanding the ideology of another can only go so far in resolving the problem. In some cases, it seems to make people become proselytes themselves as they seem to believe what the ideology teaches in that they believe that these rituals produce the results that the evangelists claim, even while they claim opposition to this.

So what I am saying is that these rituals don't produce the results that are claimed. That isn't the same thing as avoiding the pursuit of understanding what the ideology claims they are capable of accomplishing.

 

[Renegade]

A nice little nugget...


"When daybreak came we were zooming through New Jersey with the great cloud of Metropolitan New York rising before us in the snowy distance. Dean had a sweater wrapped around his ears to keep warm. He said we were a band of Arabs coming to blow up New York."

On the Road" by Jack Kerouac, 1955