Digital TV: Mind Control by the Sound of Silence

[Woodsman]

When I got older, I noticed that I would sit down in front of the TV with an idea of what I wanted to do after I finished watching. More often than not, I never got around to it. I've never owned my own TV, and haven't had one in my house for over 15 years now. However, most bars and restaurants in Italy are equipped with them, and I STILL get immediately drawn in. I find it really annoying when I'm trying to spend quality time with someone, and my attention keeps getting sucked towards the screen.

I know what you mean! --After enough time away from TV, I find my resistance (or perhaps that particular variation of hypnosis) drops to nil. One of my most poignant memories in this vein is that of being at a birthday party where the TV was loudly doing its thing in the background. While everybody was making merry, (in a very strained manner), the TV was airing a disturbing story about animal cruelty. My brain was pretty much torn in half, (and not in a nice way), trying to deal with the two disparate messages. The birthday event was clearly being influenced by the TV, but nobody else seemed to notice anything particularly insane about the whole scenario.

It strikes me now that there seems to be two modes of TV influence and audience behavior. --That of sitting and deliberately staring at the tube, and that of having it playing in the background *All The Time* while engaging in regular activities. This second manner of influence, from the small handful of examples I can think of, appears to only exhibit itself in a few households, but when I've seen it I've certainly noticed that the quality of life and health of people living in such an environment is highly stressed. I am reminded of the TV sets George Orwell wrote into his 1984 world; the ones which the characters were not allowed nor able to shut off. I wonder what he would have said if somebody had proposed that people in the future would purposefully create and choose that environment!

Now THAT's the "Sound of Silence". --When you can't even hear it anymore, except not sneaked in under the radar, but deliberately turned on every morning before breakfast.

 

[Ca.]

Funny i can't help but realise the same situation occurs when aim in the public . As of 2 year's i gave up the constant bombardment of the TV news, hipped up with selling fear, voyeurism , and the promotion consumerism of medium and all that it shouts .......... i too become a bit mesmerised when i happen on to one, and there everywhere, loud, colorful, and detailed. It's like they just reinvented it all over again. I don't believe the gov. has our best interest helping pay the monies especially with economy doing back flips trying to stand on one leg...........Theirs just something sinister of the gov.s helping acquirer these modules for the change over .It doesn't make sense ...red flag for false flag........ ?

 

[Ruth]

I figure there may at least be some sort of benefit happening whilst I am being 'entertained'.

I may be mistaken, but isn't this justifying after the fact? If so, isn't that a position that's anti-thetical (directly opposed or contrasted; opposite.) to the Work?

Depends how you define the concept of "Work", and it can be different things to different people. There is also the issue of how much a person is 'supposed' to be doing (of this Work at any one time). Then again, that may end up being just some sort of a program.

I understand that a governing purpose is most important and entertainment can be objectively beneficial, I am simply wondering about the inevitability factor. This sounds like another way of saying "oh well, if I gotta be entertained by TV, may as well get something else done!"
Of course, this could be just an area where my understanding can be developed quite a bit more. If so, I would appreciate some input.

If a person doesn't find it entertaining or enlightening, then why watch it? Especially if they can easily put music or a movie on or even read a book. I don't know... perhaps they've been 'programmed' not to think? One things for sure, I don't need the TV on to do my ironing or my reiki. :D Some times I wonder at people (and we all know of them) that put things like TVs and airconditioners and heaters on the moment they enter the house. Why do they do that? Is it necessary?

It might be highly beneficial to run a very simple experiment. Turn off the television set - completely - for one month. Observe your thinking and behavior - anxiety levels, clarity of thought, etc.

Interesting. That would be like going 'cold turkey' from an ADDICTION. Are some people addicted to the nonsense that the media concocts? Thats pretty scary. Some of it I can't watch because it simply infuriates me.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Very interesting thread. Thanks for starting it, and to all who contributed all the important information.

All in all, we do not have enough details as to what the significance of the switch to Digital TV is to the whole SSSS issue. As it was mentioned earlier in the thread, is it to free up the old analogue system for SSSS and other related nefarious purposes, or is the new digital system going to be used for same? Or even some combination thereof?

The mention of Stubblebine and Laibow may be important. They keep popping up where ever there seems to be Conintelpro type activities going on or would be needed. I've read a couple of other posts on the forum by Rabelais besides the one linked and quoted from the Codex Alimentarius thread by NormaRegula, that they are trying to hijack the opposition to Codex movement. I'll try to search and provide links for them. But definitely Stubblebine's military-intelligence / psyops background should ring alarm bells whenever it is claimed that he, his wife, and their Health Freedom foundation are supposedly on the forefront to fight for liberty and justice. Same goes with his statements about the events at the Pentagon and no Boeing airliner being involved. Surely it is highly probable that he is part of the infiltration and vectoring project of the whole so called "9/11 Truth movement." And specifically being assigned to that crucial problem of the Pentagon attack, obviously the weakest link in the whole ridiculous official story of the 9/11 attacks, probably reflects the high level of operative he is. An obvious possible tactic maybe that he is being starkly accurate concerning Flight 77 not hitting the Pentagon, but mixing in disinformation that can be easily refuted and disproven thus throwing the whole no-passenger-plane-hitting argument out with the rest of the nonsense he mixed it up with. Of course, there are many other possibilities.

 

[Buddy]

It might be highly beneficial to run a very simple experiment. Turn off the television set - completely - for one month. Observe your thinking and behavior - anxiety levels, clarity of thought, etc.

Interesting. That would be like going 'cold turkey' from an ADDICTION.
[...]

Exactly the point, or maybe it could be. Or it could simply be a person's honest attempt to find out if there is anything about the practice (of watching TV) that one is attached to...without consciously realizing it. Something, perhaps, needing some 'cold turkey' therapy.

Are some people addicted to the nonsense that the media concocts?

In the context of 'watching the tube', the path of least resistance that is so seductive and addictive for some folks, could be simply the act of vicarious experience, with one's attention routinely under the control of others instead of under one's conscious control choosing one's own experiences. For other people (and someone I know personally) it could be a way to ignore the pain of realization that one is dying inside due to lack of growth and paying attention to pressures of personal issues.

This is speaking generally, of course, as to suggest any of this to a given individual without knowing all the relevant details about that person and their situation, would be judgmental and suspect.

 

[theos]

Well, there's only one way to find out if you're addicted to something. Stop it and see what happens. I'll volunteer. I already don't watch any tv shows as it is. Occassionally, I'll catch a PBS special or watch DVD's and while I'm in the sauna bag I'll watch an online vid (mostly wideeyecinema.com) but I seem to have seen everything there. At work we have the tv on for the patients but I'll just have to avert my eyes.

While in the sauna I guess I'll just have to put an arm out and read. Do you think I'll be knocked unconscious if a copy of Beelzebub's Tales fall on my head?

 

[PepperFritz]

Well, there's only one way to find out if you're addicted to something. Stop it and see what happens. I'll volunteer. I already don't watch any tv shows as it is....

Well, if you don't watch much TV anyways, it's unlikely that you're "addicted". It's kind of like someone who only drinks occasionally volunteering to give up alcohol in order to discover if they're an alcoholic.... :)

Addictions act as "buffers" in people's lives, to numb them from certain emotions and experiences. I think the kind of person who would discover the most about themselves by going "cold turkey" from television watching is one who watches a LOT of TV, or who always watches at specific times and/or or in specific circumstances, and never goes a day without watching TV. For instance, I would imagine that someone who always watches TV as soon as they come home from work, or just before they go to bed, would experience a lot of "discomfort" if that were taken away, because it would expose a limited ability to "relax" and process the day's emotions and experiences. Or someone who always watches TV in the evening with their spouse and/or family might discover that without that "buffer" between them, they actually have certain communication/intimacy problems. Or someone who always watches TV as they eat their meals might discover certain things about their eating habits if they were to eat without watching TV. Etc, etc.

Occassionally... while I'm in the sauna bag I'll watch an online vid (mostly wideeyecinema.com)... While in the sauna I guess I'll just have to put an arm out and read....

Well, according to Anart, it's TV that broadcasts all of the "extras" that affect one negatively, and watching videos and DVDs are not on the same level. So, I think her suggestion that one "give up TV for a month" did not include the watching of videos and DVDs. But I may have misunderstood her. I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong. :P

 

[treesparrow]

Just found this item which may be of note. Entitled -

Adverse Health Effects from the Operation of Digital Broadcast Television Stations

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12596

Sorry, I cannot my head around this quote-in-blue-box-from-another-site thing! Can someone else do this if deemed necessary?

 

[theos]

Point taken, Pepperfritz. My enthusiasm to give something up got the better of me.

 

[PepperFritz]

My enthusiasm to give something up got the better of me.

Like me, you can probably think of other things that it would "hurt" more to have to give up and go "cold turkey" without. I know my use of the internet can be far more "addictive" and "compulsive" than my TV watching. The few times that my internet has been "down" for significant periods of time, I have definitely felt "anxiety". I don't feel that way at all when our satellite TV service is interrupted (which is quite often, actually). I also know I'd have a lot of difficulty giving up my morning coffee and before-bed wine. While these rituals never involve excessive amounts (2 cups of coffee and 2 glass of wine at most), there is nonetheless both a physical and psychological "dependence" there that I know I would struggle with. I definitely feel "anxiety" at the thought of "running out".....

 

[Johnno]

My television serves as a stand for my incense and a vase of flowers. :P

We have a big screen TV at work in the lunch room and it is hypnotic, everyone tend to sit on the side that is viewing the television. I tend to sit on the other side of the table away from the thing. There's a few of us that do this.

Another thing that one doesn't realise how addictive it is, is the car radio, I have a notoriously unreliable Becker radio cassette in my car which sometimes goes on the blink. I infuriates me so many times that I have decided to keep it, just another small way to consciously suffer. :D

If it is working, I've turned it off a couple of times and can relate to that "anxiety" with just putting up with the sound of the car.

 

[anart]

Point taken, Pepperfritz. My enthusiasm to give something up got the better of me.

Well, consider that pepperfritz may not want to give up her television for one month. ;)

Also, it might be worthwhile to try to imagine the negative result of not watching any television for one month. Can you imagine a negative result? If not, then why not do it and observe the effect on your thinking? One month is nothing. fwiw.

 

[Inti]

Within this mortal body, yes I think I could be turned into a zombie.
But deep within there is a consciousness that will remember experiences, lessons learned and lessons not learned.

Okay, these two statements are completely contradictory. On the one hand, you believe that it doesn't matter how much Knowledge and Awareness you have acquired and applied in your life -- or how much you will acquire and apply in the future -- you are completely at the mercy of STS forces who could "turn you into a zombie" at any moment. On the other hand, you believe that there is a part of you "that will remember experiences, lessons learned and lessons not learned", and therefore prevent that from happening?

Sorry to go back so far in this thread, but I don't understand this, PepperFritz. I am not convinced Al Today's statement is contradictory. For example, although I read a lot I sometimes forget some of what I have read. However, I get the impression sometimes, and this might be wishful thinking, that even though I have forgotten the exact facts a transformation occurred within me due to knowledge gained in the past and that that transformation is not lost even though the facts may have been forgotten. Does that make any sense?! I can't think of how to clarify that any better.. :/
I also do not see where it became apparent to you that Al Today believes he is completely at the mercy of STS forces? I just got the impression that he sees a loss of knowledge gained as a possibility.

Do you honestly believe that your current level of Knowledge and Awareness provides you with no protection whatsoever?

I cannot see where this is apparent either.

Do you have an underlying fear that the Work will all be in vain?

Maybe Al Today does fear the Work will all be in vain, that was not apparent to me in his writing. I am unclear about all of this, because I do see the loss of knowledge as a possibility too. I imagine the loss could occur from a whole variety of means - some through sleeping /switching off, memory loss, outside coercive techniques. I think you can protect yourself to a degree depending on degree of knowledge/awareness and will. I do not think anything is really in vain, but I can understand feeling some fear with regards to losing knowledge or zombiedom and wonder why Al Today was being criticised here?

 

[Buddy]

Hi Inti;

I, too, was awaiting further development of this, so since you brought it up...here's my impression also:


Al Today said this:

Within this mortal body, yes I think I could be turned into a zombie.

It was paraphrased thusly:

On the one hand, you believe that it doesn't matter how much Knowledge and Awareness you have acquired and applied in your life -- or how much you will acquire and apply in the future -- you are completely at the mercy of STS forces who could "turn you into a zombie" at any moment.

Al Today said this:

But deep within there is a consciousness that will remember experiences, lessons learned and lessons not learned.

It was paraphrased thusly:

On the other hand, you believe that there is a part of you "that will remember experiences, lessons learned and lessons not learned",...

So far, so good, but when the phrase:

and therefore prevent that from happening?

...was added, it kinda threw me off.

From what I've read about Greenbauming, Al Today's zombie reference was a metaphor for the possibility of having his personality 'split' where the 'I' that is now conscious and acting in the present time is, basically a programmed I, and that part of him that was doing the work, still exists but is now pressed way down inside, with consciousness, but totally disconnected from the current "I in charge" - recoverable - but for all intents and purposes, non-existent at the moment.

It appears that Al Today's scenario was one in which nothing he knew, or was aware of, prevented this from happening.

How likely is something like this to happen to a person doing this Work? Well, I don't know...but that seems like what Al was considering.

--fwiw

 

[PepperFritz]

I don't understand this, PepperFritz. I am not convinced Al Today's statement is contradictory. For example, although I read a lot I sometimes forget some of what I have read. However, I get the impression sometimes, and this might be wishful thinking, that even though I have forgotten the exact facts a transformation occurred within me due to knowledge gained in the past and that that transformation is not lost even though the facts may have been forgotten. Does that make any sense?!

Yes, it makes perfect sense. Where I was having a problem was in Al's belief that he could COMPLETELY lose ALL of the protective Knowledge he has gained, by the hand of STS forces, and become, as he says a "zombie", with no will of his own. If this were true, then when the C's tell us that "Knowledge Protects", they would be seriously misleading us, yes?

I also do not see where it became apparent to you that Al Today believes he is completely at the mercy of STS forces?

Al himself agreed that a part of himself believes that, when he stated: "Within this mortal body, yes I think I could be turned into a zombie".

I just got the impression that he sees a loss of knowledge gained as a possibility.

And that IS a possibility, in that we can very easily let ourselves fall back asleep and thus become completely vulnerable to STS forces. But it would be WE OURSELVES, by our own WILL, that allows that to happen. My understanding of what the C's are trying to teach us, is that Knowledge that is consciously and willfully sought and applied WILL PROTECT, and cannot be simply TAKEN from us against our will.

I can understand feeling some fear with regards to losing knowledge or zombiedom and wonder why Al Today was being criticised here?

I can understand it too. But the purpose of this forum is to try and make a distinction between our Subjective fears and beliefs and Objective reality. It was not my intention to "criticize" Al, only to help him to see that he may be struggling against contradictory beliefs held by different "I"s, and that those Subjective beliefs and fears may not be represent Objective reality.

Does that make sense?