The Rape of the Mind

Every culture institutionalises certain forms of behaviour that communicate and encourage certain forms of thinking and acting, thus moulding the character of its citizens. To the degree that the individual is made an object of constant mental manipulation, to the degree that cultural institutions may tend to weaken intellectual and spiritual strength, to the degree that knowledge of the mind is used to tame and condition people instead of educating them, to that degree does the culture itself produce men and women who are predisposed to accept an authoritarian way of life. The man who has no mind of his own can easily become the pawn of a would-be dictator. [1]

The 'New Normal'

In early July 2020, World Economic Forum Founder Klaus Schwab and Monthly Barometer author Thierry Malleret wrote the book COVID-19: The Great Reset

'The worldwide crisis triggered by the coronavirus 'pandemic' has no parallel in modern history. We cannot be accused of hyperbole when we say it is plunging our world in its entirety and each of us individually into the most challenging times we’ve faced in generations. It is our defining moment – we will be dealing with its fallout for years, and many things will change forever. It is bringing economic disruption of monumental proportions, creating a dangerous and volatile period on multiple fronts – politically, socially, geopolitically – raising deep concerns about the environment and also extending the reach ]pernicious or otherwise] of technology into our lives.

No industry or business will be spared from the impact of these changes. Millions of companies risk disappearing and many industries face an uncertain future; a few will thrive. On an individual basis, for many, life as they’ve always known it is unravelling at alarming speed. But deep, existential crises also favour introspection and can harbour the potential for transformation. The fault lines of the world – most notably social divides, lack of fairness, absence of cooperation, failure of global governance and leadership – now lie exposed as never before, and people feel the time for reinvention has come. A new world will emerge, the contours of which are for us to both imagine and to draw.' [2]


Since the beginning of this so-called pandemic there have been many that have pointed to the term COVID as being an acronym for Certificate Of Vaccine ID. 

Of course as with everything that points to establishment objectives, this was rejected and called another 'conspiracy theory' - a label used as a method to
psychologically blacklist the individual from the group thinking herd - yet the months rolled on and the validity of the acronym proved to be quite accurate.

Any who refused to inject the worlwide messenger RNA [mRNA] 'vaccine' was in essence threatened with non-participation as a member of society: going to work, shopping for groceries, accessing medical services, travelling across borders, going to theatres and restaurants, sports events, owning a business etc etc. 


'The worldwide crisis triggered by the coronavirus 'pandemic' ... is our defining moment – we will be dealing with its fallout for years, and many things will change forever. A new world will emerge, the contours of which are for us to both imagine and to draw.'

Klaus Schwab,  Thierry Malleret


Now, it doesn't matter whether you think the problem is a real issue or a fake issue, it is clear that it was manipulated. The question is, what is doing this manipulation and how is the manipulation able to happen so strongly in the human mind? What is the medium, and that's a really important word for it is often used to say: an agency or means of doing something; or the  intervening substance through which sensory impressions are conveyed or physical forces are transmitted

So what is the medium that's being used? Well the medium is television. Television is the main way this entire crisis has been created, presented and projected. For example, if one goes outside of their house and just walks outside of their house, there wouldn't be much of a problem. The only problem is being presented through people's television screens, day after day after day. Television equals COVID-19! 

So let's look deeper at what television is, how it affects the human body and the mind, who controls what's on television, why it's controlled that way and how viewing a screen automatically creates a false reality in the mind - in fact it damages the brain and makes it easily to be subliminally controlled. The focus comes from one of the most amazing books I've ever come across: The Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television by activist and author, Jerry Irwin Mander [1936 - ].

We're going to look through this book, which is almost 400 pages, and I'm quite simply, going to give you an overview - chapter by chapter - of what Jerry Mander was presenting in this book: because what he's presenting in this book, if you take that out and put it into what's been happening for the last six or eight months - it's going to read like a semi-explanation. [1]

[1] Howdie Mickoski [2020]. Television - Crisis Creator and Dangerous to the mind? Howdie Mickoski Talks.


The Belly of the Beast

If this book has any basis in 'authority,' it lies in the fifteen years I worked as a public relations and advertising executive. During that time, I learned that it is possible to speak through media directly into people’s heads and then, like some otherworldly magician, leave images inside that can cause people to do what they might otherwise never have thought to do.

At first I was amused by this power, then dazzled by it and fascinated with the minutiae of how it worked. Later, I tried to use mass media for what seemed worthwhile purposes, only to find it resistant and limited. I came to the conclusion that like other modern technologies which now surround our lives, advertising, television, and most mass media predetermine their own ultimate use and effect. In the end, I became horrified by them, as I observed the aberrations which they inevitably create in the world.

Adam Manqué

One of the reasons for my father’s success during hard times was World War II. He was beyond draft age and so was free to do a successful trade in servicing the manufacture of military uniforms. After the war, the business grew in new directions as the economy spurted forward into an era of rapid growth. Nonetheless, I decided his business wasn’t for me.

I had planned something much flashier for myself, something with greater glamour. It was snobbery, I suppose. By then, when I thought about my 'career' - always a hot topic around our house - certain images would fly through my mind. Since so many of the images were from the ads of the period, the world of advertising seemed appropriate. There was something about that life-style, those big cars, the great white yachts, the polished people on them and the life of leisure and pleasure: The Dream.

It wasn’t so much that I was especially interested in wealth or that I ached to have all the goodies that were being shown in the ads of the 1940s and 1950s. I didn’t want to own the cars and yachts so much as I wanted to be like the people who did. More, I wanted to help create those images, to be around models, artists, photographers and writers whom I imagined to be the sleek and sophisticated people.

At some point, not very long into this new career, I began to realize a kind of hollowness in myself. I caught myself smiling pasty smiles. I noticed that despite all this I was not having a good time.

I think I hit an emotional bottom in 1968 while cruising through the Dalmatian Straits, observing rocky cliffs, rolling seas, dazzling sky, and colors as bright as a desert.

Leaning on the deck rail, it struck me that there was a film between me and all of that. I could 'see' the spectacular views. I knew they were spectacular. But the experience stopped at my eyes. I couldn’t let it inside me. I felt nothing. Something had gone wrong with me. I remembered childhood moments when the mere sight of the sky or grass or trees would send waves of physical pleasure through me. Yet now on this deck, I felt dead. I had the impulse to repeat a phrase that was popular among friends of mine, 'Nature is boring.' What was terrifying even then was that I knew the problem was me, not nature. It wasn’t that nature was boring. It was that nature had become irrelevant to me, absent from my life. Through mere lack of exposure and practice, I’d lost the ability to feel it, tune into it, or care about it. Life moved too fast for that now.

If one seeks critical moments to explain later acts, even the writing of books, then perhaps that was one such moment for me. It was clear that I had chosen a fraudulent path toward an equally fraudulent image of a very cold sort of 'happiness.' On balance, though, this Big Moment was probably less significant than a slowly evolving political awareness that it was no [my emphasis] accident that I was feeling the way I was.


'Advertising expresses a power relationship, Gossage said. One person, the advertiser, invades; millions absorb. And to what end? So that people will buy something! A deep, profound, and disturbing act by the few against the many for a trivial purpose.'


Engulfed by the Sixties

One of my partners in the ad agency was Howard Gossage, a genius of sorts who for years before he died in 1969 agonized about the absurdity of working in such a profession.

Gossage knew that there was more to the problem of advertising work than the way it emphasizes trivia. He would rage about the function itself, speaking of it as an invasion of privacy on an order far more extreme than the merely rude telephone solicitation, the door-to-door salesperson or even the computer file on your credit. It was an invasion of the mind, which altered behavior, altered people.

Advertising expresses a power relationship, Gossage said. One person, the advertiser, invades; millions absorb. And to what end? So that people will buy something! A deep, profound, and disturbing act by the few against the many for a trivial purpose.

Still thrilled by the life I was living, such considerations did not at first seem all that significant. But the period was the 1960s.

Living in the Bay Area in those years, one could scarcely avoid reflection and even involvement in these goings-on [the civil rights movement to abolish legalised racial segregation, discrimination, and disenfranchisement throughout the United States and the Vietnam War]. In my own case, the involvement soon became direct.

I rarely went so far as actually to demonstrate, or even to visit a demonstration. Instead I hosted evening meetings in my office to discuss what was happening. The main concern was how to influence the press to carry stories emphasising issues rather than disruptions or violence.

Here was a typical problem: A group of demonstrators would occupy a hotel lobby, demanding that blacks be hired at front-desk jobs, rather than bussing dishes in the coffee shop. Newspapers and television would run enormous stories about the demonstrations while editorially denouncing the tactics as 'counterproductive to what might be worthy aims.' The stories concentrated upon sloppy-looking demonstrators, moments of violence, and lengthy statements by officials about law and order. In an entire week’s news coverage there might be one passing reference to the fact that for forty previous years the hotel hadn’t hired a black person in a visible job.

I had no theory of media in those days, and I don’t think I was of great service as an advisor. Yet it was clear to me that these demonstrations were not counterproductive. They produced the first news stories ever on such subjects, leading slowly to reforms which might never have happened otherwise. Obviously the media needed awakening quite as much as everyone else did.

Another realisation was dawning upon me. As I commuted mentally between the interests of the demonstrators I talked to in the evenings and the interests of my commercial clients, I grew more and more impressed with the effect that the mere possession of money has upon the kind of information that is dispensed through the media.

'I already knew that, in America, all advertisers spent more than $25 billion a year to disseminate their information. Now, however, I was beginning to pay attention to an obvious, yet little noticed, aspect of this situation. Virtually all of the $25 billion was being spent by people who already had a great deal of money. These were the only people who could afford to pay $30,000 for one page of advertising in Time [$54,000 by 1977] or $50,000 for one minute of prime television time [$125,000 by 1977]. Ordinary people and small businesses, even those which are successful by most standards, can rarely afford any advertising beyond the want ads, or a small local retail display. Only the very rich buy mass national advertising. And they do this to become richer. What other motive could they possibly have?


'Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.'

A.J. Liebling


A.J. Liebling once said, 'Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.' I was learning that access to the press was similarly distorted by the possession of wealth. People with money had a 25-billion-to-nearly-zero advantage over people without money. The rich could simply buy access to the public mind while the not-rich had to seek more circuitous routes.

Twenty-five billion dollars is nearly as much as the whole country spends on higher education every year. I began to realize that a distortion was taking place in the quality and kind of information offered to the public. To a larger and larger extent, people’s minds were being occupied by information of a purely commercial nature. As an advertising executive, I was instrumental in furthering this distortion.

[This] finally added up to a single generalisation: Corporations are inherently uninterested in considerations aside from the commercial.


Today the art of mind-control is in the process of becoming a science. The practitioners of this science know what they are doing and why. They are guided in their work by theories and hypotheses solidly established on a massive foundation of experimental evidence.



Back to Top