Walter Bowart: Operation Mind Control, interviewed by Ned Potter.
This audio is from the SWR archives available on the store page here at Gnostic Media.
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/store/#She_Who_Remembers
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:29:50 — 25.7MB)
“Repeal the National Security Act.” Well, don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Recall what happened to a certain US president who said he would break the CIA into a thousand pieces.
Another thing: Mr. Bowart recommended that the government use mind control for the “humane” purpose of reforming criminals. That suggests the old saying, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions,” and would likely result in something like the movie “Minority Report” where the government is “reforming” people who are yet to do anything, and “1984,” where unapproved thoughts are defined as criminal. Hell on Earth.
No one is holding there breath, Robert. This talk is from the archives and is more than 20 years old. Everyone doesn’t have all the answers, just like you can’t think without fallacies. Thanks for the cliche remark. You’ll want to tell that to Walter, who’s been dead for a number of years.
I can’t think without fallacies? Please explain. What fallacy am I committing?
Neglected aspect for one. You harp on a single item while omitting all of the other good things he talked about. You had nothing positive to say what so ever. I’ve already pointed out your heavy use of fallacies in your other recent posts.
Did you find anything at all of value in the work that coincided with what we’ve been discovering? You also said the claim about “Repeal the National Security Act” as if someone here made the claim, not a talk that’s decades old. His appeal to authority and government in solving the problems they created is a blind spot, but no need to be the main focus of the very first comments made here.
Certainly I found value in it. The fact that I do not give a comprehensive commentary does not imply an obligation to do so, and thus your reference to neglected aspect is void. Is one forbidden to pop in here and give an off the cuff comment?
The alleged fallacy that you have harped on in previous discussion has been “ad hominem,” and your argument has amounted to someone chanting “ad hominem, ad hominem” over and over, while blocking his ears to any reasoned response. Your use of the fallacy is invalid:
An ad hominem argument goes like this: “You are wrong in your statement “A” because you are a Chinaman (or some other personal characteristic, real or alleged, that is irrelevant to the truth value of “A.”) You have yet to show where I’ve made such an argument. Instead you have evidently stretched the term to invalidly apply to a situation where I made the judgment call that, based on my experience and the preliminary remarks by your guest, the cost of spending the next three hours listening to him was higher than what I estimated to be the likely value to me. It is rational for me to make such an inductive judgement, and indeed, I’m certain that you make such judgements every day, as does everyone else. The fact that different people make such a judgment differently from you is not an indication of their committing a fallacy, it may just mean that they don’t have all day long to sit around and listen to podcasts.
Ironic thing though, that my critical remark upon Browart’s narrative elicits only an irrelevant attack on my alleged intellectual deficiency, and the non sequitur of his being deceased. So, you’re demonstrably not qualified to admonish anyone for only thinking in fallacies.
I have never claimed that I don’t make fallacies – as we’re human, but I also don’t sit and go in circles trying to justify them as you provably do.
When I’ve asked you specifically to stop posting here several times now, yes, it is forbidden when your history shows that you attack people and not ideas.
So what was your point, then? Just to pop in and harp? To be negative? To not, as usual, provide anything constructive? What value did you find? What value are you trying to provide us in your comments? Did you break your statements down in a constructive, well-laid out manner so that everyone could learn from them?
Talk about fear tactics and making up excuses as to why things should never change. That’s some serious pretzel logic there.
I have repeatedly and clearly pointed out your use of fallacies, and gave you many very clear examples that anyone who studies the fallacies and the trivium, as you, should be easily able to identify. But rather than admitting them, or even recognizing them, and moving forward, after repeatedly being proven wrong, you continued with it, as you are right now trying to justify your fallacious remarks.
I pointed out many different instances, and not just one, and not just an ad hominem. I pointed out your poisoning the well – that’s one you seem to fail to grasp the most. You also leaped to false conclusions about my background, you used an ad hominem and called me an “arm chair” IT person, etc.
My ability to point out fallacies elsewhere is irrelevant, a poisoning the well, again, to any other instance of pointing out fallacies – which you have failed to identify – and are just using sweeping generalizations. But that you think your comment was “critical thinking” when you just blurt something out without context, without history that the guy’s even dead, acting like you’re here to attack:
Why is it wrong for him to suggest, 20 years ago, that repealing the security act is a bad idea? Sure, it’s not likely to happen, but as more of this type of thing gets exposed, the more likely it is to happen. It’s education that trumps occultation. You use the death of a president as a reason that it should not ever be repealed, which is absurd. The death of the president is all the more reason it should be.
Then you carry on:
But your neglected aspect fallacy here is that you omit that he was talking about using these techniques to treat someone in minutes, rather than incarcerating them for years unnecessarily. Then you use a cliche remark: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions,” with no examples, and then you resort to a slippery slope fallacy about Philip K. Dick’s Minority Report, without an iota of evidence to justify your doing so.
You fail to provide anything cogent or meaningful. You don’t move forward, you move in circles in many of your comments and replies. This is why I’ve asked you to stop and told you you’re banned.
I have never claimed to be perfect at identifying fallacies. You, however, sit there and demonstrably try to justify your fallacies when they’re pointed out to you repeatedly, going into non-sequitur after non-sequitur about my background and what not, ignoring everything about the issues, changing the subject, etc.
Here’s the real kicker though where your muddied thoughts are again revealed:
Where did I comment on your intellectual deficiency? I simply remarked that you can’t think without fallacies. I’ve proved this to you yet again – right here in this very post. My remark about his being deceased is not a non-sequitur because you’ve not addressed to whom your talking, you’ve not put anything in a constructive, cogent manner. To whom are you speaking? Him, me? Others? The gods? Without some context here mention of his death is by no means irrelevant as it rules out one possibility of to whom your comments are addressed. And as just shown, your points are irrelevant anyhow – filled with irrelevant fallacies that you claim are critical thinking, but you’ve provided nothing to justify your statements but more fallacies. You burst in angrily, speaking in gibberish:
Blah blah blah… we shouldn’t act because of fear! There’s fear mongering for you. We should sit idle and not do or expose anything. We should continue to allow all of these other people to be killed and mind controlled because that guy over there got killed. How’s that work again? Of course you provided NOTHING on a proper course of action.
There is no critical thought in your comments.
Sounds like a Baby Boomer or Son of BB to me. This may be my own fallacy but it’s also based on personal experience Over, and over and over, they find the one perceived flaw, focus in and forget about the value which they readily absorb but will not commend. The Boomers have bragged , written protest songs and worked their asses off just to come to a circle away from the goal into a pile of steaming doo-doo for all new generations to step right into, because well, they had to.
ddddgreat stuff. a real eye opener. jan I am waiting for you to do some work on free energy topic. but I feel right now your work on mind controll is very important. as soon as I get a good job I will give u real money not just the small donations.
I wanted to address robert. the user name is operating like a cointell pro agent. their technique is to get the disscusion off the important topic of real life documented mind controll and discusing his diverzion technique. notice the username robert is willing to talk about anything but the fact that advanced mind controll and the problems it creates. obvious diversion post by username robert. nsa fbi cia all have forum trolls. its their job to discredit divert and ridicule any truth about mind controll free energy false flag attacks and other topics.
COPY
Hey Jan,
I’m grateful you pulled this out from your archive to re-publish, I found much value in the interview, especially the NLP aspects that were given as an example. Do you have a link to the writings and books of Walter Bowart that provides examples of his work? (I’m still looking around…) As one of the many members of Tragedy and Hope dot com, I generally appreciate all of your efforts, as you helped me immeasurably in my understanding of both liberty and empathy.
If you’d be interested in doing any interviews of any “expert” in the field of NLP (or if you already have) I think I’m not alone in finding value in such a production.
Wishing you well always.
We’ve talked about it, some has offered, but I’ve not had the time to study it in depth to learn it for the interview. One day I’ll get there.
Excellent interview!
[...] From the SWR Archives – “Walter Bowart – Operation Mind Control” Jan Irvin, Gnostic Media | March 16, 2013 [...]
Hi Jan, greetings from Ontario Canada.
I am 21 years young, woke up in 2009 and have aquired a rabid thrist for Gnoledge ever since. I wanted to ask your opinion of Fritz Springmeier. Could he be a double agent? Hell you could be too for all I know along with Alex Jones and David Icke. All of this Illuminazi shit is a big mind fuck. Could all of this so called research take away from what life is really all about? Forgive the inherent contradiction of this post but I beleive myself to be an existentialist through and through.
All of this “so called research”, hell you could be a double agent. Take away from what life is really about. Existentialist blah blah blah – I’ve made up my mind at 21 what I think about the world and I have a box for it.
1) So-called research implies that you’ve no confidence in yourself to verify citations and find out what is true and what isn’t. It’s an appeal to ridicule and an assumption about things before checking them – an ignorance is bliss mentality.
2) If you’ll study the trivium section, you’ll find a systematic method there to verify information, giving you certainty with any information that comes in via your 5 senses, being able to therefore verify if I’m a double agent or not. However, if you don’t have any evidence of such, this is the fallacy of arguing the arbitrary and is dismissed as such. But notice how you pulled your little sophist stunt there, trying to use a guilt by association to tie me and my work to people like Alex Jones and David Icke.
3) You assume that truth and discovery and verifying things in the world around you isn’t important in life – to find certainty. Therefore you you create a misleading statement with “so-called” and “take away” without providing any reason for doing so – except that your an existentialist, which is entirely irrelevant here – a red herring. Why should I forgive the contradiction if you yourself see it? This means that you know that your own logic is faulty, so therefore you should’ve retracted it when you caught it. Logic is the art if non-contradictory identification.
So allow me to ask you a few questions:
a) How and in what way is the research “so called”? What makes research so called vs. research? How do you personally verify and understand that difference?
b) What is life really about? Whose life are you referring to? Are you implying to ignore things, to pretend it doesn’t exist creates a better life? How so? How is ignorance bliss? Who does ignoring the facts of reality benefit? How does it benefit you to ignore the facts of reality? How does it benefit you to ask intentionally loaded questions?
c) How, as an existentialist, do you remain free if you’re ignorant of your surroundings and environment? How does ignorance keep you free? If you’re an existentialist, being that you focus mostly on yourself, wouldn’t you at least want to be able to verify the information that comes in via your 5 senses?
Rather than putting your doctrine before truth, put who what where when why and how first – and discover truth. This way you won’t be controlled by your dogmas, but can be free – because that’s what freedom requires – one to take responsibility for themselves and act like an adult – to think – to verify and check the world around you and make valid decisions accordingly.
If you’re in a free village and a crazy guy on top of the hill comes running down and tells you that the enemy is attacking, do you go and prepare and verify if the attack is real, or do you “kill the messenger”?
The Cave is the mind. You’ll either free yourself from it, or you’ll stare at the shadows cast on the wall – believing it’s reality and your shackles -freedom.
Thank you Jan for your timely and thorough reply.
I was really only playing devil’s advoccate. This info can be overwhelming at times so I truly appreciate your feedback.
Keep up the great work. You are a bright light in a world of darkness.
They dummed us down in school, the illuminazi. It’s true. Now we can fix the damage by strengthening our minds by remembering how to think. Jans made it easy in the trivium study link. It works to the amount that you will put effort into it.
Try using it!
Quote I liked from T&H communications…
“If you make people think they are thinking, they will love you.
If you make people actually think, they will hate you.”
—Don Marquis
Sooo weird, while I’m reading this, Alex Piggie Jones is on the Radio with John Rappaport – talking about Ewen Cameron … lol
I thought this was a very good interview with Walter Bowart. He really lays it all out for anyone who wants to further investigate the subject. As I was listening to the interview, I couldn’t help but think about all of the mind control techniques that I see everyday in the media. And by media, I am also talking about so-called ‘truth’ radio. They use the same NLP techniques to drive home their message that mainstream media uses, and unfortunately, many people in the ‘truth’ movement cannot see this fact. Thanks for posting this interview Jan, and thanks for your work to help to teach us all the Trivium. It has helped me immensely.
[...] Walter Bowart: Operation Mind Control, interviewed by Ned Potter. This audio is from the SWR archives available on the store page at Gnostic Media. Gnostic Media Website: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/from-the-swr-archives-walter-bowart-operation-mind-control/ [...]
I really enjoyed this interview. One interesting point walter brought up was how the gov. is planting false information in their FOIL requests. Wouldn’t this tactic muddy the water for using the trivium. I am curious how one would go about verifying primary documentation if it was purposefully scued? The documentation from scientific studies can be faked as well, I dont want to sound like a sophist, but how does one deal with this?
An example of disinfo is the word “unwitting” in the Subproject 58 docs from MKULTRA, when we have numerous other documents from many other sources that reveal that Wasson could not have been unwitting. We’ve gathered the documents from many different universities and other sources where by cross checking your able to build a solid story. The disinfo in the docs is more to lead people away from every figuring stuff out, like we have.
Excellent interview. Thanks Jan. I found a copy of the book, & hope to have time to give it a read this week.
http://whale.to/b/Operation_Mind_Control_-_Walter_Bowart.pdf