Part 9: The Rape of the Mind

"Coexistence may mean a suffocating subordination much like that of prisoners coexisting with their jailers."

[Parts 1-9 in the series are the first 5 chapters of this book — representing a modernization of [some of the] first 73pgs of a 200+ page masterpiece. You should read & study the entire book.]

Previous in series

Part 8: The Rape of the Mind

Dr. Meerloo foresaw the gradual (and then all at once) descent into totalitarian thinking that has plagued everyone throughout the COVID charade. The very idea that there might be forced medical treatments of an experimental nature — Mysterious Genetic Serum Injections, or Poisonous Death Shots — would have been nearly unthinkable even a decade ago. Liberal, Conservative — it wouldn’t make a difference. The type of coercive and forceful policies would have been seen for what they were — and yet, today, the gradual and incremental erosion of free-thinking minds has never been more clear.

Dr. Simon Goddek @goddeketal

I feel much better since I put my TV into quarantine. The media's relentless psychological conditioning simply became unbearable.

Many were coerced — by the radio, their televisions, their employers, or simply by official censorship policies. This is due to the encroachment of “a totalitarian system that never ceases to use its psychological artillery.”

Gene serum mandate discussions are psychological heavy artillery. Coercive gene serum mandates are psychological tactical nuclear weapons.

Substituting wartime mortars and missiles with injectable death shots available at your local pharmacy helps to clarify this distinction. Simply the removal of mandates is not enough to stop the tide. There very well may be another pandemic (following an ‘easing off’ process — common in other psychological operations) which re-triggers in a ready public the entire totalitarian mental process by which mandates and the associated bio-security state have arrived in the first place.

The Enigma of Coexistence

Is it possible to coexist with a totalitarian system that never ceases to use its psychological artillery? Can a free democracy be strong enough to tolerate the parasitic intrusion of totalitarianism into its rights and freedoms? History tells us that many opposing and clashing ideologies have been able to coexist under a common law that assured tolerance and justice. The church no longer burns its apostates.

Before the opposites of totalitarianism and free democracy can coexist under the umbrella of supervising law and mutual good will, a great deal more of mutual understanding and tolerance will have to be built up. The actual cold war and psychological warfare certainly do not yet help toward this end.

Any ‘co-existence’ with a totalitarian system is fraudulent in the sense that:

‘Heads: I win. Tails: you lose.’

There is no ‘compromise’ that can be resolved with a mediated ‘agreement to disagree’ with someone ideating and existing inside of totalitarian models, language, and thinking — there is only ground that can be ceded. This is because, fundamentally, there is a misinterpretation of what “coexistence” means to the totalitarian:

To the totalitarian, the word "coexistence" has a different meaning than it has to us. The totalitarian may use it merely as a catch-word or an appeaser. The danger is that the concept of peaceful coexistence may become a disguise, dulling the awareness of inevitable interactions and so profiting the psychologically stronger party. Lenin spoke about the strategic breathing spell (peredyshka) that has to weaken the enemy. Too enthusiastic a peace movement may mean a superficial appeasement of problems. Such an appeal has to be studied and restudied, lest it result in a dangerous letdown of defences which have to remain mobilized to face a ruthless enemy.

Coexistence may mean a suffocating subordination much like that of prisoners coexisting with their jailers. At its best, it may imitate the intensive symbiotic or ever- parasitic relationship we can see among animals which need each other, or as we see it in the infant in its years of dependency upon its mother.

In order to coexist and to cooperate, one must have notions and comparable images of interaction, of a sameness of ideas, of a belonging-together, of an interdependence of the whole human race, in spite of the existence of racial and cultural differences. Otherwise the ideology backed by the greater military strength will strangle the weaker one.

In the case of the Soviet Union — countries that remained under Soviet occupation after the end of World War II were simply “prisoners coexisting with their jailers.” The Soviet Union possessed greater military strength during this conflict — thereby
”strangl[ing] the weaker one[s]”. Colonized countries suffering under Communist regimes like Poland and Hungary are perfect examples of the type of ‘prisoner-jailer’ relationship Dr. Meerloo describes.

There was no ‘compromise,’ ‘peaceful coexistence,’ or ‘mutual understanding’ — there were single-party Communist states with all the usual trappings like extensive secret police forces and intelligence operatives sussing out potential WrongThink and making mass arrests. That is traditionally what happens under Communist regimes.

Peaceful coexistence presupposes on BOTH sides a high understanding of the problems and complications of simple coexistence, of mutual agreement and limitations, of the diversity of personalities, and especially of the coexistence of contrasting and irreconcilable thoughts and feelings in every individual of the innate ambivalence of man. It demands an understanding of the rights of both the individual and the collectivity. Using coexistence as a catch-word, we may obscure the problems involved, and we may find that we use the word as a flag that covers gradual surrender to the stronger strategist.