Enthrall - Mind Control

en·thrall (n-thrôl)
tr.v. en·thralled, en·thrall·ing, en·thralls
1. To hold spellbound; captivate: The magic show enthralled the audience.
2. To enslave.

It seems that most every small thing in a person's life could be called magic. Hypnosis, strong suggestion, Mind control. Mass Mind Control.
Your views on Mind Control and Magic?

As I read along I think someone needs to develop an official definition of what magick is. Every person says something different but I guess in many respects it depends on your world view, a lot like what your opinion on God is. Back to the topic I'm not sure I'd call mind control a form of magick but it is an extremely powerful force. It can mess people up pretty bad from what I understand. For example sleeper agents and Manchurian candidates, people who have been hypnotized into believing they live a normal life when really they are spys and assassins. Also subliminal messaging is another realm scary force that is in the same vein of work as hypnotism. Fooling the mind into being something it's not.

I do not believe in "mind controlling" others. For me, I believe magic is more about controlling oneself. Through self mastery, you view the world change around yourself.

It is essential to train oneself to be a mastermind than be a slave to the whims of emotion and environment.

But, it is also nice to just let go and let the universe "auto-pilot" for you. It usually turns out for the better!

If you're talking about mind control through hypnosis, I believe one cannot be hypnotized against their free will. At least, what I have heard is that your subconscious will not allow suggestions of destructive behavior pass through if you do not want it.

I speak of Mind Control through the (mis)use of magic in the sense that i believe that almost every aspect of our lives is "controlled", defining the very little choices that we naively call our own. Most of our opinions, tastes, actions and thinking are done through what we have been taught throughout our lives; and in any social context, you tend to be part of the norm.

In the particular case of our own "Global Village", i would say that everyone in the world, even me, is under a sort of pshychic hypnosis (a sort of magic i believe). IMO, our emotions and whims are exactly the volatile part of us that is conditioned by the Social Engineers (in every waking second of our lives; wether directly or indirectly), in order to hold and tighten their grip on us. And their influence is 100 percent consumate in the world. Just look to the pleasure seeking, self destructing, mind numbing world we have.

Thus, i think we are hypnotized, we would be even if we didn't want to. I'm not speaking of one on one cases where a person places another under a trance then suggests things strongly, talking about mass human living. Mass hypnosis. There is much written about this, if you would like i could show you some cool stuff..

Lastly, my personal definition of magic, in one sentence would be that Magic is the control and manipulation of both Inner and Outer factors of Man, through the Will.

Bel wrote: I believe magic is more about controlling oneself. Through self mastery, you view the world change around yourself.

I think it's the opposite, changing the world and viewing yourself. Haha, of course there is a middle path of viewing everything and changing everything.

Everyone is constantly being bombarded by information. They then try to 'process' this information by giving it meaning or associating it with some previously synthesized information that has already been given meaning. Acutely effecting someone's 'information processing'(via psychology, mind games, manipulation, propaganda, etc.) can allow you to tweak and guide the way a person thinks about things. Over time, this can culminate into a quite literal mind control. And, of course, occult skills can make carrying out the tasks required to 'brainwash' someone much easier.

Look into things like Media Literacy and Automaticity, if you haven't already. Look at them with an occult mindset. I'll think you'll find them both interesting and relevant to this topic.

question wrote:Everyone is constantly being bombarded by information. They then try to 'process' this information by giving it meaning or associating it with some previously synthesized information that has already been given meaning. Acutely effecting someone's 'information processing'(via psychology, mind games, manipulation, propaganda, etc.) can allow you to tweak and guide the way a person thinks about things. Over time, this can culminate into a quite literal mind control. And, of course, occult skills can make carrying out the tasks required to 'brainwash' someone much easier.

Look into things like Media Literacy and Automaticity, if you haven't already. Look at them with an occult mindset. I'll think you'll find them both interesting and relevant to this topic.

i'll second everything said here, and add: baudrillard's simulacra and simulation might be worth a look, as well. he has a few interesting things to say about reality, perception of reality, and the conditioning of that perception.

Fraga wrote:Social Engineers

Just a pet peeve, I prefer the old definition of S.E., which is a complex practice but a little more like what you'd call spear phishing than controlling society.
That phrase just has a lot of history.

Anyways, I'm a firm believer that there's nothing inherently wrong with mass mind control. If you're tricking someone because it will lead to their eventual improvement, it's not only acceptable but morally applaudable. But people don't like to be tricked, and a lot of the same emotions that are involved in disillusion with society also go in to hatred of the techniques of that society.
But what we believe only has a fighting chance if we can use actually useful techniques to support it. Let's use mass mind control right, to cause mass awakening.

i disagree, only because "awakening", or the evolution that you speak of (i believe in spiritual terms) is one that cannot take place vicariously, and you cannot be induced into partaking in. Because not everyone is ready to be awakened. the only thing that would be morally applaudable would be tor society to not engineer at all, IMO, leaving less obstacles for those who choose to take the step ahead into any field of their choosing.

IMO, that's the mindset that is behind all historical events and major changes. Like the spreading of islam and catholicism; it was supposed to better the whole of mankind. what happened is that few understood and actually awakened (i dont know what this is supposed to mean), and most just adapted to a new consensus reality without any palpable inner change.

What i mean is that "awakening" probably is never the same for any two people, and therefore whoever designs a social system to promote awakening can never take into account the individuality of the thing.

"awakening" is a self-driven phenomenon. and on the other hand, i can't really think of any example of Mass Control gone right.

And personally, in terms of spirituality and awakening, there is no fight going on. thats the catch, awakening is not a matter of attaining a goal; its being free of all false goals, of the goal-concept. That's why society is shaped into looking like it has a purpose; the glorified chasing of red herrings.

Fraga wrote:i disagree, only because "awakening", or the evolution that you speak of (i believe in spiritual terms) is one that cannot take place vicariously, and you cannot be induced into partaking in. Because not everyone is ready to be awakened. the only thing that would be morally applaudable would be to society not engineer at all, IMO, leaving less obstacles for those who choose to take the step ahead into any field of their choosing.

But a state where anyone can take a step to any field of their choosing and prosper isn't a natural one. We know what happens if people are left to their own devices; they start conquering eachother.
It would be just as unnatural and also a form of conquest to enforce such a society. It would, however, be morally right.

Fraga wrote:
IMO, that's the mindset that is behind all historical events and major changes. Like the spreading of islam and catholicism; it was supposed to better the whole of mankind. what happened is that few understood and actually awakened (i dont know what this is supposed to mean), and most just adapted to a new consensus reality without any palpable inner change.

I guess this is the big problem, that trying to spread a mindset is such a vague goal that it could be interpreted a million different ways.

Fraga wrote:
What i mean is that "awakening" probably is never the same for any two people, and therefore whoever designs a social system to promote awakening can never take into account the individuality of the thing.

"awakening" is a self-driven phenomenon. and on the other hand, i can't really think of any example of Mass Control gone right.

How about the American civil rights movement?
It didn't accomplish all its goals, but it sure as hell helped.

Fraga wrote:
And personally, in terms of spirituality and awakening, there is no fight going on. thats the catch, awakening is not a matter of attaining a goal; its being free of all false goals, of the goal-concept. That's why society is shaped into looking like it has a purpose; the glorified chasing of red herrings.

What if someone's will is genuinely to chase the things that to you are irrelevant? I think a good example of a spiritually developed person who has an unusual will is Tucker Max.
I guess if your will doesn't involve helping others, you don't have to.

But I'm just concerned that this seems like an artificial boundary that some people let interfere with their wills because they are uncomfortable acting like their enemies.

well, how could one Mass Control the whole society into becoming "awake" then?

do you agree with me that "awakening" is something extremely personal, almost unspeakable?
Btw, i would ask you to define what you mean by awake.

Other than that, there is the misunderstanding issue; when dealing with a mass of people, it's hard to propose a single mold that fits all in a proper way.

The thing is that i can't see any good with Mass Mind Control; even with "good" intentions in mind. The mind of the individual is not something to interfere with; no one has the right to impose a perceived , so-called truth upon another's mind. What do you think?

Perhaps we could interpret _s's statement of mass awakening a little bit different. Not to coax the world in a certain way or create a new mass expression, but to provide a beacon of causality in simply being true to ourselves. No one can take responsibility for the world but who can deny the recursive effects of positive influence, even if they start with just one person?

Fraga wrote:well, how could one Mass Control the whole society into becoming "awake" then?

do you agree with me that "awakening" is something extremely personal, almost unspeakable?
Btw, i would ask you to define what you mean by awake.

Other than that, there is the misunderstanding issue; when dealing with a mass of people, it's hard to propose a single mold that fits all in a proper way.

The thing is that i can't see any good with Mass Mind Control; even with "good" intentions in mind. The mind of the individual is not something to interfere with; no one has the right to impose a perceived , so-called truth upon another's mind. What do you think?

Yes, awakening is extremely personal. So the best way to promote it would be manipulating society to allow as many people to connect with their personal selves as possible, for instance by introducing religious ideas contrary to the mainstream to a particular community (theism to atheists and vice versa), reducing any power that has an over-the-top grip on societal norms, changing institutions to distributed rather than centralized...
These are all problems mainstream idealists has been doing better than us at addressing, except they're addressing how to make this not happen, because they want their particular dogma forced on everyone else. But when you want to find out how to change society, you look at what's worked in the past.

Mohz wrote:Perhaps we could interpret _s's statement of mass awakening a little bit different. Not to coax the world in a certain way or create a new mass expression, but to provide a beacon of causality in simply being true to ourselves. No one can take responsibility for the world but who can deny the recursive effects of positive influence, even if they start with just one person?

That's exactly what I'm saying. The idea that everyone should just be honest to themselves isn't inherently different from any other idea. They all spread the same way.


EDIT: Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Ah, then i agree. To create a "Beacon of Causality" as Mohz says is an excelent way to do that which _s has proposed. To do such, and opposite to the traditional "Mass Mind Control" (control is a key word) that i was thinking about, this sort of letting the ball roll sounds much more appealing to me. And the distributed institutions, and ending the big grip some have over social norms sounds good. Wether this is feasible, and wether Man would or would not fall again into the same mistake is another issue.
Though there is always the imitating of truthfulness, and the fallibility of (most) men's judgement on "real", sincere and truthful action.


Hey, in my mind another question rises; to what extent, in the circumstance of leaving mankind with less obstacles between themseves and their true selves (no mainstream impositions, etc), would most of mankind just regroup and create a new "mainstream" identity, with new "lords" and "correct" ideals? Fortunately, those who acted truly would be more apt to pose as a positive example.
The thing lies with the different stages of readiness Man is in. Why are there now more people apt (and less apt also) to become "awake" (or take a turn to think about theese matters), as opposed to say 1000 or 2000 years ago? Have we always been this distanced from this more truthful way of life? Michael Tsarion presents some explanations to this. Is this the age of revealing, and also, what turn will events take? wich snowball will engulf the other, the truthful one, or the Simulacra one (see Baudrillard's Sumulacra and Simulation)?

here's a , cuz its cute.

Fraga wrote:Ah, then i agree. To create a "Beacon of Causality" as Mohz says is an excelent way to do that which _s has proposed. To do such, and opposite to the traditional "Mass Mind Control" (control is a key word) that i was thinking about, this sort of letting the ball roll sounds much more appealing to me. And the distributed institutions, and ending the big grip some have over social norms sounds good. Wether this is feasible, and wether Man would or would not fall again into the same mistake is another issue.
Though there is always the imitating of truthfulness, and the fallibility of (most) men's judgement on "real", sincere and truthful action.


Hey, in my mind another question rises; to what extent, in the circumstance of leaving mankind with less obstacles between themseves and their true selves (no mainstream impositions, etc), would most of mankind just regroup and create a new "mainstream" identity, with new "lords" and "correct" ideals? Fortunately, those who acted truly would be more apt to pose as a positive example.
The thing lies with the different stages of readiness Man is in. Why are there now more people apt (and less apt also) to become "awake" (or take a turn to think about theese matters), as opposed to say 1000 or 2000 years ago? Have we always been this distanced from this more truthful way of life? Michael Tsarion presents some explanations to this. Is this the age of revealing, and also, what turn will events take? wich snowball will engulf the other, the truthful one, or the Simulacra one (see Baudrillard's Sumulacra and Simulation)?

here's a , cuz its cute.

I guess my point was just that the fear of "becoming the bad guy" by studying their techniques is an artificial boundary that does nothing but keep one down. There's still stuff you can learn from bad people.