RE: Mind control and the sociopaths who research it: Dr. Delgado

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Mind control and the sociopaths who research it: Dr. Delgado

in life •  2 months ago  (edited)

Indeed, the psychopaths - of which sociopaths are a sub-group - in control are doing many unEthical things, and the only tool They have to get away with these things on a large scale is money. With it They can afford the things, indoctrinate the People, and pay the Ones doing the ghastly things.

As for EMF... There are healthy frequencies that could be used, but of course, the psychopaths in control don't. They want to make Us ill so as to profit through Their pHARMa/mediKILL system.

Accounting for Our energy added is a bane to all Humanity on Our planet.

Quantifying Wealth (article): https://blurt.blog/blurttribe/@amaterasusolar/72bxd3-quantifying-wealth

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
Sort Order:  

and the only tool They have to get away with these things on a large scale is money.

Money is only an agreement but sadly most don't understand this. It's not the money that is evil. it's those who we allow to control the agreement(s).

Your comment is dead on.

🙏💜🙏 It is not an agreement when One's life depends on it... It is coercion... And You are right. Money is merely a (VERY dangerous, archaic) tool. Dangerous because it promotes psychopaths to the top, and archaic because We have tech that makes it pointless - but the psychopaths hide and suppress it avidly. They don't want to lose that tool.

It is not an agreement when One's life depends on it

It actually still is. Those who go this route are usually martyrs.

I dispute that coercion is "agreement." To agree, One has to be coming from fully informed consent.

You didn't mention ignorance in your initial statement. You said

It is not an agreement when One's life depends on it... It is coercion

I would submit that if one is being coerced, one is likely not ignorant as one chooses to bend the knee to escape the threat.

In that frame, one does have a choice. Most prefer to bend the knee and collect their bribery instead of becoming a martyr.

And I contend that it is the consent that is destroyed, fully informed or not, in coercion. That's not a free choice. Consent implies no imposed consequences. Avoiding consequences is not consent.

Folks like Ghandi, Martin Luther King etc. are examples that one has consent under coercion.

I suggest that that is not (lack of) consent. That is refusing to be coerced. Yes, there is a choice between being bullied or doing what is demanded of One, but consent is not involved.

Consent is given freely, with no coercion. If it is coercion, its a choice.