With permission, we publish a full transcript of a seminal interview with John Anthony conducted by Dave Cullen of Computing Forever, uploaded on 1st October 2020. John Anthony’s background in neurolinguistic programming (NLP) and hypnotherapy stands him in excellent stead to see the whole picture.
Our special thanks to the volunteers in Ireland who transcribed the below for publication, and to our viewer James Lavery (12) of County Down for the eloquently insightful illustrations that we have embedded in the transcript.
The below transcript should be read in combination with Dr Bruce Scott’s article The Psychological Attack on the UK and Brian Gerrish and Alex Thomson’s new Dispatches from the Front series of similar title.
Dave Cullen: In today’s video, we’re going to do something a little bit different. We’re going to look at the media and government propaganda messaging with respect to the Covid narrative, and how the populace have been placed into a kind of collective trance. I’m joined by a man called John Anthony, who has a background as a hypnotherapist, NLP practitioner and a hypnoanalyst. He’s uniquely qualified to explain and expose the powerful psychological conditioning and programming techniques at work in the mainstream media, and the sinister ways that the populace are being manipulated into believing the Covid lies. By learning how to identify the methods being used to influence the thinking of the masses right now, we can also figure out how to defeat these techniques.
This conversation was conducted over the phone, so it’s more of a podcast format than my usual interview style. John is fantastic in this discussion, and I believe that his insights are invaluable in helping us to fight the information war, because if we are to reach the general public, we first have to understand how they’ve been brainwashed and how they can be deprogrammed. Ove the past few months, I’ve dealt with the manipulated data, the pseudo-science, and the lies of the media and the government and the so-called health experts, but this interview deals with the one remaining crucial piece of the puzzle: how the minds of the general public are being programmed by extremely sophisticated propaganda and behavioural modification.
We’re focusing specifically on Ireland in this video, but what’s being discussed here could really apply to anywhere, of course, as the same techniques are being used to condition people all over the world with respect to the Covid crisis. I promise that you will learn a great deal from this interview. Sit back and enjoy!
DC: Well, John, since February/March , it seems as if the Irish people have been put into a collective trance. We’re at a point where the level of research that people have to do is not very much to realise that they have been sold a lie by the mainstream media in terms of Covid-19: that it’s nowhere near as deadly as the RTÉ [Irish public broadcast] media and other outlets here in Ireland are telling them it is. Nobody knows anybody who’s died from this thing, or knows anybody who’s been sick from it, and yet here we are months later and people are wearing face masks and people are very afraid. I feel very much, John, as if the fight-or-flight response has been activated in people and they cannot be reasoned out of their position.
I do feel sorry for the Irish people: the propaganda and the messaging is everywhere they look. If they turn on their radios; it’s on the television, of course; it’s on televised advertisements; it’s in the newspapers and of course it’s on every news app; and then when they walk into a shop, it’s reinforced with social distancing, stickers and signs and face masks, and all sorts of things. It feels very much to me — I knew very quickly when I saw those social distancing signs go on the floor [that] this is all part of basically manufacturing a collective belief system in the populace. When did you sort of twig that something wasn’t quite right, that there was something really up here? Because if it really was the Spanish flu meets the bubonic plague, you wouldn’t need to constantly reinforce the same messaging over and over again, from multiple vectors in our society.
John Anthony: Yes, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. There is a psychological operation being rolled out, and I would like to add a point to all the other experts — and I know you’ve had people on, and they talked about the actual virus. You had the virologist [Professor] Dolores Cahill on a little while back, and she can talk about that aspect of it. And there’s the statisticians who roll out the figures and say, ‘This isn’t making sense!’, and there’s been a whole load of them as well. There’s [Dr] Scott Jensen in America, who highlighted the fact that people are being paid a huge amount of money just to put Covid on the death certificates as a diagnosis. They got money to say that they diagnosed it. The evidence is in there. I heard somebody describing it: he said that at the moment, it’s like a crime scene investigation. So we’re looking at different aspects to this coronavirus, and the way that the fear-mongering has been put out, the way it has been rolled out.
Now, my part in it here is to look back over the year that we’ve just had, and all of those things that you mentioned, to see: How are they actually doing this? How are they gripping the nation in fear? Because my background is, as you said, in hypnotherapy, so you’re talking about a programming, a psychological programming. And one of the ways that I know it’s done at the moment is because I was travelling up the country the other day and I switched on the radio. I don’t usually listen to the mainstream media now, simply because it seems to be so false. But I switched on the radio. It was a Sunday, and I caught most of — I think it was Brendan O’Connor’s show last Sunday — and I was taking this as a kind of snapshot. So, of the two hours or so that I was in the car, and even though I’m aware of this — you asked me there, by the way, the question was: When did I twig it? When did it become apparent to me?
How John Anthony caught on to the abuse model
I think it was when [the then Taoiseach, or Irish Prime Minister] Leo Varadkar said on the mainstream media, on the news, that they had bought something like 400 vehicles for the Gardaí [police force of the Republic of Ireland] and for the security forces, and on top of that they were bringing out people from the Garda training centre [Templemore] and they were letting out these people after three weeks instead of six months of training. And I was looking around — I was in Galway on the day in question — a beautiful day, it was around St Patrick’s Day, and it was also around the time of the speech that Leo Varadkar gave on St Patrick’s Day about this ‘coming calamity’, as it were. But I was looking around and thinking to myself, and I saw lovely people everywhere, I was down at the shopping centre in Galway, lots of young people around. There was activity, there was a buzz about the place.
And at that time, I remember asking myself, ‘What in the name of God is happening? If they’re roiling out this extra security force, these extra Gardaí, shortening their training, getting them on the streets, what are they actually expecting?’ That was the question mark at the time. And then I heard Leo Varadkar’s speech, and the speech was, ‘We are with you!’ He was saying, ‘If you have lost loved ones, we are with you!’ ‘If you have somebody sick in the family, we are with you!’ And it just didn’t sound right to me. And yet it was into April before I was fully convinced that this is an operation that doesn’t really have substance to it. And even then, I had a sort of sense that, you know, well, I could be wrong, that this virus could be dangerous, and they were saying all kinds of things about that.
But I wasn’t seeing it apparent in my own life. I was looking around at my family, my relations, and then I was looking at the society I lived in, my friends — and nobody knew anybody who had come down with this virus. Then, shortly after that, I remember people coming on social media, saying how the hospitals were so quiet. Now, this is just what sparked me off. And we saw pictures coming from Italy, and they were so faked: there was no background story to the people who were dying. There were no interviews. And, above all else, there was nobody asking questions on the mainstream media, when somebody would come out and say, ‘We have this deadly virus.’ And the particular kind of language — this is what sparked it off in me: that they were using the language of control, manipulation, and programming.
And what I couldn’t get over, really — and I have an admiration for lots of people in the mainstream media, and I thought, well, they’re good interviews and everything else; and when I was watching these clips on television, or listening to the news, [what] I couldn’t get over — I was practically shouting at the radio, shouting at the TV, because they weren’t asking any questions. They would toll out this thing: there were so many deaths today. I wanted to know: what were the ages of these people, did they have comorbidities, did they have flu-like symptoms? Now, they did mention several times a median age, and that was at or around 84 — I heard 84 mentioned in one group of deaths. And I thought to myself, ‘Well, that’s older people dying, and how does it compare with the previous years?’ And in the six months that followed, that was reinforced.
So, the question is: Looking back over those months, how were they instilling such fear into the public? How were they getting them to behave in a certain way? I remember looking at Ivor Cummins [scientist and vlogger who had been posting sceptical content about the lockdown for some months], and he clearly demonstrated that the curve went up, and it went down, and then it flattened out.
A few other thing sparked off real interest in me. I remember Simon Harris [Irish Minister for Health from the outset of the Covid outbreak until midsummer], and he said they were going to lock up, lock down — whatever phrase you want to put on it; I’m inclined to call it house arrest! — where the elderly, people over 70 (I’m approaching 70 myself, I’m not quite there yet) were going to be confined to their houses, and they weren’t going to be allowed outside. This was again around St Patrick’s Day, when the lockdown began, and it was supposed to be for the good of the elderly people, to protect them.
Control by isolating
And it’s always like this; this is the language of manipulation. You do something that locks up people, prevents them from going outside, and isolates them from their families, that doesn’t allow them the freedom that would normally be [expected], for psychological wellbeing alone. This is a kind of controlling — and the word I would put on it is narcissistic — agenda. Because that’s what happens on different levels. When you talk about hypnotherapy, you talk about hypnosis, you talk about people who are controlling, about psychopathy — this is where the manipulation begins — where you’re trying to make out that you’re doing something for somebody’s good: you’re ‘protecting the elderly’.
And a couple of days later, I remember Ryan Tubridy [radio presenter on national channel RTÉ Radio One] saying what a wonderful thing it was, and that he saw the children, and they were waving in to Nana and Grandad, and he was making it out to be almost something wonderful. They were waving in from the windowsill of the house; they couldn’t go near their Nana and Grandad, they couldn’t hug them, they couldn’t go in and chat to them, and things like that.
At a later stage, I remember an interview with [Ray] D’Arcy [another RTÉ Radio One presenter] — now, these are all people who are supposed to be wonderful interviewers, who have a background in presenting — talking to Mary O’Rourke [retired Irish politician] and she said she was under lockdown, I think because she was over 70. But her son used to come around and bring her maybe messages [groceries], or something like that, and she had a big garden and that kind of thing. And D’Arcy actually, if you like, gave out to her [told her off] because she said her son likes to come in for a cup of tea during the day, as people would normally do. And he gave out to her and said, ‘Oh, he’s not supposed to do that, y’know!’
Now, this is phenomenal. This is where people are being denigrated. And what I would like to think here is that … There’s a precise way in which behaviour is modified. And what I would like to do is just to explore [that] for a moment.
Engineering social pressure
DC: I think that’s the social engineering. That’s the public shaming aspect of it, the disapproval of everybody else in the community. The rest of the community will disapprove if you do this! Oh, you shouldn’t do that! And part and parcel of the propaganda is that emotionality that’s imbued, and that people start to become evangelists once they believe in it. It’s like: when I was in the shopping centre, I was listening to the PA system, and every so often they would reinforce the messaging, and they’d say, ‘As per government guidance, the wearing of face coverings is mandatory’, and so forth. And the HSE [Health Service Executive, the Irish state health service] says this, that and the other. And then they’d get into something that sounds right out of the Soviet Union — ‘We’re all in this together!’ — they’d say, “By wearing face coverings, you’re showing that you care abut other people!’.
Now, that is absolutely bananas, that the state would ever try to encourage this empathy among people. And the only reason they’re doing it is for the same reason as you’ve described there: Oh, it’s that we’re all trying to protect Nana! But it’s very interesting how the choice is taken away from people, not just through the enforcement of the collective, or the populace among each other, telling each other, you know, ‘Can you step away please, you’re too close to me!’ or ‘Why aren’t you wearing a face mask?’
We saw this in the beginning: before the lockdowns became mandatory, it was just a simple suggestion of ‘two weeks to flatten the curve’, and what we want you to do is just stay home if you can, and work from home if you can, and that’s that. And everywhere — in every country, at the same time — it was the same process I saw, which was, ’Oh, let’s loom over a few people sitting in the park! And they’re not socially distancing!’, or, ‘They’re not staying in their homes!’ ‘Those are the bad eggs! And they’re the reason why we have to now lock you all up!’
It’s the psychology of the teacher in the classroom who punishes the entire class because of the actions of one student. You know, ‘If one more person speaks now …’ Or, ‘If one more child does something, the res of you are getting detention!’ And they did that in every single country, and it was like clockwork, and that always seemed to me to be the strategy all along, to achieve compliance.
JA: Yes, I would agree with you wholeheartedly on all of that. But there’s a very precise and exacting way of doing this: if you study NLP, neurolinguistic programming, or if you have a look at hypnosis, at any level, or hypnotherapy, you look at the precise nature [of it], and there’s a great predictability about it. And what I would say is this. You can look at it from an individual point of view; you have relationships going on around the country, and you have people who are abusive, and you have victims, and all that kind of thing. On a slightly larger scale, then you have family dynamics, and you can have narcissistic, abusive dynamics, in a family, Now, these are not psychiatric conditions. We’re not trying to label anybody here; we’re trying to find words to describe a model. We’re trying to put a structure on this, or a little kind of map, so that people can begin to understand that there’s a very great preciseness about this, that there’s a predictability, a way of looking at this, and this has been known in psychology for quite some time.
There was a Professor Sam Vaknin, and he had compiled a tremendous database, but there’s lots of [other] people. There’s another man called Ross Rosenberg, and he brought out a model, and he called it The Human Magnet Syndrome. And everybody is somewhere on the scale in this. On the extreme end of the scale, you’ve got psychopathy — very manipulative people, who are the rarer ones. And then you have narcissistic people, who are self-entitled, grandiose, and that kind of thing. And they are manipulators, and you come down to a basic structure in their personalities and their behaviour that they’re looking for control, attention and manipulation. That would be qualities at one extreme end of the spectrum. And then you come to the centre, and you have most people in the centre, who are empathetic, who can have differences with people, who can be slightly manipulative at times. But these are ordinary people, who get on with life. They have a certain amount of empathy, they can say sorry to others, and things like that.
The narcissistic personality
Up at the extreme end, you don’t have that: you have people who are very much afraid of being blamed, who don’t take responsibility for themselves, who are grandiose and entitled in their behaviour. And what has happened — there was a Dr Ramani [Ramani Durvasula] who talks about this, and she says that sometimes this becomes endemic in society, and we start to praise, and to get a value system around, hard-nosed people who can ‘do the job and get on with it’.
A person who comes to mind is — we idealise people like — there was this guy [TV chef Gordon] Ramsay in Hell’s Kitchen, who’s this very rude person and he shouts at people, and he made his fame on this sort of thing. And he was a very good cook as well! I’m not debasing that, his skill. But do you see what I’m coming at: that there’s a value system that puts the value on the hard-nosed achiever who manipulates things for themselves, and you put them on a pedestal.
Narcissists help each other into power
Thomas Sheridan is another writer about psychopathy in particular. He wrote a book, many years ago now, called Strange Behaviours, and it’s about psychopathy. And he claims that people who have this psychopathic tendency, and on down the spectrum a bit towards the narcissistic tendency — and I’ll go into that a little more clearly, but just bear with me for the moment — that they become clustered, that in other words they find each other in positions of power, because that’s what they like: they like control, positions of power, positions of trust. And when you think back on the recent history of Ireland: you had the priests who were found to be paedophiles, you had the Tuam scandal, you had Brendan Smyth. You had people who were beyond reproach, and this was part of the problem.
I grew up myself in a staunchly Catholic family, and I know [that] my father, who is passed away now many years, had a great regard for the priests, and he didn’t like anybody saying anything about them. These people were looked up to: they were the moral theologians; they were the moral police, the moral advisers. So, people of this nature — the narcissistic, psychopathic, that kind of nature, began to cluster in these areas. Now that was only one area. They also do it in politics.
Thomas Sheridan, in his case, came across these people, and he was in the finance industry. And he said that you would often find these people as the CEOs of organisations, because they knew how to dole out instructions. They weren’t very empathetic, so they could cut people’s jobs, or fire them, or do whatever was necessary, and this was sort of looked up to, almost, as a way of life that you could aspire to, almost.
But as you come down the line, in the middle, most people have tendencies one side or the other, but that’s all they are: tendencies. We often have narcissistic bouts ourselves, where we feel we did something selfish.
And then you go down to the other end of the scale, and this is where it’s interesting now, because that’s what’s happening. At the other end of the scale, you have the compliant, the empathetic, the person who wants to please people. And these would be the people who — when they hear the authority speaking, telling them to ‘Wear your mask’ — they would be the people who say, ‘Lookit, we’ll pull together and we’ll do it.’ Because these people have great empathy for each other, for other people, they want to solve the problem. They want to please the narcissist.
And this is where the dance begins: the group at one end, the compliant, empathetic, want to sole the problem think that if they do it right this time the person that they’re listening to, the authority — the NHS or the HSE, the health authorities — or the politicians, will be pleased, because these are the ones that are rolling out the instructions: to tell us to wear masks, to lock up our elderly people, to not have freedom of speech.
Now, that kind of dance between the two types of individuals has a very precise and predictable nature about it. And I’m talking here about people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder — it is not a psychiatric condition. Anybody can live like this, and do so well, and never do anything much out of the way. But if it becomes something that overtakes them, then they can do an awful lot of damage. And that’s where you hear phrases like ‘narcissistic abuse’: you often hear that in family dynamics.
DC: Well, John, you’ve described that very much on the macro level of what we’re seeing collectively, between the elites and what they’re doing to the general population. I feel it’s taking advantage of the better nature of most people. But, actually, if we’re looking at this as two people — a narcissist and their victim — in a household, domestic abuse, I feel very much what you described there is that the victim feels so trapped that they can’t do anything right.
And when we spoke a few days ago, I was saying that it reminds me of the battered wife who is in this relationship with a man who is constantly psychologically or physically abusive to her. One day, he could be very nice to her, and then the next day he could be very quiet, or a little bit distant, and then another day he might be shouting at her and another day he might be violent. And so she never knows what vector of assault he’s going to come at.
Stages of the abuse cycle
JA: Exactly. And what I would just interject here is that what you’ve describing is on the micro level. This is relationships between people. And it’s the very precise same roll-out that you get on the macro level as on the micro level. And I’ll just go into that now, if I may, and just describe exactly what you say.
On a relationship level, that’s exactly what you’re talking about. There’s a precise way that this happens. The relationship is formed, and they say there’s four parts to it. It’s not a very complicated psychological thing to understand. When you get to understand the model, it can be very simple. And when you see it being rolled out, then you begin to recognise it, once you know about it.
As you rightly say, it begins with two people having a relationship, a man and a wife. And the first part of the relationship is what’s called the lovebombing aspect, or the idealisation phase, or the identification phase, where they say, ‘Oh, you’re wonderful’, or, ‘Everything is terrific about you’, ‘We’re soulmates’, and things like that. Thomas Sheridan, in his boo,k talks with some people who say there is this process whereby they emulate the other person. Very often, in the beginning, they will listen attentively to the other person — this is the narcissistic person, the abusive person, and what they’re doing is they’re gathering information from that person. Now, they do it intuitively, some of these people, they do it by default. Some of them can be very manipulative and do it deliberately. But a lot of the time, this happens because of the nature of the two personalities.
And everything is terrific in the lovebombing stage: the empathetic person feels they have found somebody that understands them, and listens to them, and the narcissistic person is listening to them and gathering information about this person, and begins to understand them and give sense to the information about them.
The second part of the process [kicks in] because the narcissistic person cannot maintain the persona. It’s a false persona that they produce: they’re massively insecure people, there’s no doubt about that; they need attention, and they need to get control, and they need this manipulation, in order to validate who they are. This is very important: ‘I feel alive!’ and ‘I feel loved!’, but any kind of questioning, or any kind of criticism, by Jove, they take it very seriously. And they take what’s called ‘narcissistic insult’. Now, obviously, in any normal intimate relationship, that begins to break down, because of the fat that you’re dealing with a false personality to begin with. If they understand that you’re interested in literature, they will have a book under their arm and it’ll be something along the lines of what they heard you talking about, and they’ll say, ‘This is very interesting.’ So they’re ingratiating themselves with the other person.
Now, this is on the micro level. We’ll come to the political level in a minute, because it’s exactly the same.
Think of that for a moment — that kind of ingratiation, that kind of lovebombing — and think of the speech that Leo Varadkar made to the nation, and all the other speeches that other politicians made, when they were doling out the lovebombing of, ‘We are with you!’ This was the phrase that he used in his St Patrick’s Day speech, when he spoke about the ‘coming calamity’. And he said, ‘And it will come!’ He seemed to know stuff that nobody else seemed to know precisely. That’s on the macro level: you’re talking about society. That’s where you identify with people, and you begin to say, ‘We’re on together’, and ‘We’re all together in this.’
Again, I get back to the Ryan Tubridy Show: he was talking about looking in at Nana and Grandad and waving, and the children and they were all so happy — building this framework. And the compliant person fits themselves into their framework, and that’s the beginning of the second pat of the process. On an individual level, it can be six months, or something like that. And again, because of the insecurity that they feel, they begin this process of denigration, the process of devaluing the partner that they have begun to target and control. And, because this person is compliant, he will begin to [devalue her] — we’re assuming here, by the way, that the target is a woman and the narcissist is a man, but it can be the other way around; we’re not being gender-biased here, we’re just taking examples.
So, he begins the denigration process, which is the control process, and he sees how it’s taking, he’s monitoring this all the time, and the abuse then begins to creep in. And, as you see, there’s lots of films and there’s lots of stuff in the soaps. You know, you often see this, where an abusive partner begins to take control — in the beginning, they’re buying them presents and things like that, and it’s never directly out in the open.
This is covert stuff, [when] they begin the denigration process and the devaluing, but at that stage the compliant person — the impact on the empathic person, who’s doing their best to keep it all together — they’re beginning to get addicted to the narcissist.
This is where, at both ends of the scale the dance begins, then, and they begin to get addicted to the narcissist. Why? Because they say, ‘Well, he was so wonderful, and he did all sorts of things for me and he bought me this and that, and now it’s beginning to break down,’ but they will make excuses for them. They will become an apologist for the narcissist.
DC: Yes, John, it’s almost like the Stockholm Syndrome thing of identifying with your captor. You’ve just reminded me — I think you hit the nail on the head. In those opening months, there was so much trust: of the media, of the government, of Leo Varadkar, for example, in Ireland. It was a love affair, it was very passionate. It was all very lovey-dovey. It was a seduction process of, ‘We’re all in this together’, ‘We’re doing this to protect you’, and all this kind of language. They didn’t begin with the heavy-handed policing that we’re seeing in [the Australian state of] Victoria. They didn’t begin with the terror and the heavy-handed policing that we’re seeing now. That always has to come later. And it’s so difficult — because history is replete with examples of exactly what we’re describing — it’s so hard to tell people, ‘Look, this is always the same honey-trap situation, over and over again.’ This is always the same — the Venus fly trap, I should say — it’s always the same tactic over and over.
JA: Absolutely! And the hardest person to convince that they’re in this trap, from a therapeutic point of view, is when you get somebody in front of you and they’re making excuses for their partner and they have a black eye or … you know. I remember working with somebody once who had actually been beaten up and they made the excuse, ‘Do you know, I wasn’t so very good; I did this and I did that,’ and they were actually blaming themselves, right, and that’s what happens and that is so horrific to even hear, you know. But that is it: the honey[moon] period — you’re lured in and then you’re the soulmate and everything is fine, and then the denigration is covert and it’s also done in a way that it makes the empathic person, or the compliant person, feel that the other person is doing it for their good, right? So I can say to somebody: let’s say, if I was a narcissist and I was in this abusive cycle with somebody, I would begin to say, ‘Now, darling, you were never much good at that, really, you know, if the truth be told. But I can get you help with that.’ You know?
We will now support you by terrorising you
Now, that seems like as if I’m doing some good. It sounds like — now recall here what was done with the elderly in the beginning — ‘We’re doing it to keep you safe. Stay safe and it’s only a couple of weeks and we’ll get you through it.’ And some of the politicians came out and they said that these vehicles, all this extra security, right, and the Guards and soldiers — we’re having these vehicles … What were they for? Well they were to ‘support the community’, and they even suggested that the extra Garda vehicles were to, you know, to go to people who might be isolated, and bring them their medicines from the shop or whatever, because they couldn’t go out.
Now, that is totally right in the centre of this process that I’m talking about. It’s the very same thing on an individual level. The abuser begins to put the person down. They begin to isolate them, right? This is a given, it’s a known sort of process, and it’s very predictable. They begin to isolate them from their family. That’s one of the signs. They isolate them from their society. So I could suggest, like, ‘We’ll go away somewhere and we’ll go to a different part of the country. And you won’t have to put up with those parents you have or those brothers and sisters you have. We’d be far better off on our own, and things will be idyllic when we get there.’
Let’s get you nicely cut off
When you do that, when you get there, this isolation begins then the abuse begins to get worse, because now they have you under more control. They have you isolated from your peers, from your family, from things like that. On the national level, that’s exactly what they’ve rolled out: the second phase was brought in; everybody was being told, ‘You can’t go out.’ Older people that we held in our esteem, and people that we loved, Nanas and Grandads and parents, you know. And one friend of mine mentioned, ‘I haven’t seen my mother in three weeks.’ This was kind of during the process, and he said, ‘It’s all this Corona stuff.’
And I said, ‘It’s not the corona stuff,’ quite openly to him. ‘I blame the lockdown. If you want to blame anything, blame the lockdown. That’s what it’s doing: it’s isolating people, it’s keeping them locked up. Forget about the Coronavirus just for the moment. That’s the first thing you [should] do, and then you take whatever precautions you think are necessary. But just weigh it up and blame it where belongs, you know?’
DC: Well, this is exactly what yu said to me the other day, John: the government is coming out with this idea where — and it’s so childish — it’s this mindset of, ‘It’s not the government that’s keeping you locked up; it’s the virus’, or something to that effect.
JA: It’s exactly that, Dave. I heard [the current Taoiseach] Micheál Martin saying it to one of the interviewers at the time. I forget which one it was, but he actually did say it. This is all evident for anybody who goes through the archives and listens for the last six months, from March until now. Listen to the interviews: listen to how it’s being said. Micheál Martin definitely said — I remember it distinctly — ‘It’s not the Irish Government that’s doing the lockdowns; it’s the virus.’
Now, this is childish nonsense, because the virus can’t do anything. The virus is a virus, and we’ve been living with viruses forever, and even if it were deadly or whatever. But in the beginning they were calling it ‘the deadly virus’. And this is what we kind of get on to now. The abuse has begun, and it is very, very pervasive. They are instilling fear into the population. So the question is now, how exactly are they doing that?
How fear is instilled
Yes, we know that they’re saying they’re afraid the HSE will be overwhelmed, they’re afraid the hospitals will be overwhelmed, and the last time they were talking about this, the hospitals were empty, and we all assumed, ‘They made a mistake about that; we’ll get on with it.’ But now, the evidence is saying that it’s not even spreading. Ivor Cummins — if anybody wants to look at Ivor Cummins on the eighth of September — he gave an update, a wonderful update. He picked out different countries, he picked out Ireland. And he said that this wave, if you like, is over. The virus is over; it’s gone. It has produced a curve like any other year, and then it’s flattened out. We’re looking at this at the moment, and now we should be asking ourselves, ‘What’s the lockdown about now?’
So we get on to the third phase. The devaluation, I would say, has almost come to an end, and we get to the third stage, and this goes for whether you look at it from the personal, individual breakdowns and abusiveness and things like that, if you or look at it on the macro level and you’re looking at politicians and the way society is working and things like that. I don’t look outside Ireland so much. I’m looking at what’s happening in Ireland and this is not a theory — what we’re looking at is the last six months.
Upping the ante
So now we’ve got the third phase. The third phase is when the abuse increases, and you have things like abandonment, right? Ghosting: meaning that the person in the relationship goes away, they spend a couple of days away. The wife may not know where they are, you know? And he comes back and he says, ‘Oh …’ and, again, watch the language: they will never take responsibility for what they have done. Very often, they will apologise in one way, and say, you know, ‘I was away, but if you weren’t so picky, and hadn’t such a temper, and gave out [nagged me] so much, I wouldn’t have to go away, if things were normal.’ Now, all of a sudden, it’s the partner’s fault.
Do you understand what I’m getting at here? It’s that this is the third phase, the abandonment phase, which is where they can dole out abuse of all sorts. They can go away — infidelity might be part of it. And this is where the compliant person begins to hit rock bottom. Because they have been trying to do everything according to … They have, in a way, abandoned their own experience and their own judgement, because each time that they do something, they’ll say to themselves, ‘Well, that’s a very simple thing. I should have known that he doesn’t eat steak for his dinner, and I put on a steak — and I forgot, really, and there was a blow-up.’
And now the person is beginning to enter into a phase where they’re so unsure of themselves, where the goalposts are constantly changing and where the confusion is mounting in them, and they do not know, because of this addiction, because of this ideal that they had about the person, that they had in the beginning — it’s holding the map in place, if you like. But they do not know, and they are beginning to blame themselves.
DC: Well, let me give you an example that sprang to mind just as you said that there, John, which was the sort of amnesia element of the propaganda, the requirement to forget past instructions, or rather the information and the detail, but to continue the behaviours, the new behaviours that they given you, the New Normal, so to speak. One of the classic examples is that, in the beginning, when there were a few furtive beginnings of pushback to this, a few small anti-lockdown protests: they were very tiny, they didn’t have widespread public support, but they were there.
John Waters and Gemma O’Doherty were going forward with their legal challenge. But we were told: Anybody going outside in large groups, they should be reported — they’re putting people’s lives in danger, this is crazy! And then, right smack bang in the middle of the summer, what did we have? George Floyd/BLM protests — and not only was there no mention of the fact that we had thousands of people on the streets in Dublin, that wasn’t [even] an issue. The media had no issue with thousands of people walking down across College Green and so forth. It was encouraged and celebrated.
And so that’s the gaslighting aspect: it’s as if, just briefly, the coronavirus was put on hold. It was just sort of disabled — and that’s fine! And nobody puts this together and says, ‘How come it’s okay for them?’ The media doesn’t focus on it, because they have you at that stage. They own you — that’s what they feel. Talk to me a little bit about that.
JA: Well, that is the process: If you’re talking about somebody with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, nothing applies to them. They’re elitist, they’re above the rules and regulations. ‘That’s for you, but it’s not for me.’ That’s the basic statement, if you like, and we’ve seen examples of that. But also (and this is very interesting now) when a person changes the goalposts, when they say one thing and then claim another — by the way, narcissistic people are also inveterate liars: they just say, ‘Well, hang on a second, I never said that; that wasn’t what I meant’ — and [when] it’s that kind of relationship you’re talking about, [then] this introduces confusion.
Good cop, bad cop
Now, this is very, very important, because when you introduce confusion and you have people saying, ‘Well, that’s not what I understood you said, and I was trying to do the best I could’, and then you’re being given out to [nagged] and told that you could be caught out in lies. And when that happens, the confusion itself leaves you open — and this is very interesting; this is where it all comes together — there are three ways, they say, that you can induce, open up somebody’s mind.
This goes for studying hypnotherapy or NLP techniques or anything like that like that. This is the structure, this is the formula, and it’s a very simple one, and it’s this: that you open up the person’s mind of their subconscious. You open it up to suggestion. Now, how do you do that? There are three ways that you do it.
Scare ’em witless for starters
The first way is with a fright, so you introduce something that causes fear — like, ‘The coronavirus is coming, it’s going to wipe out …’ I heard figures at the beginning like ‘600,000 people will be affected’, and all this sort of thing and, you know, we were looking around at a society where everything was working normally, but this was the projection, so fear is one of them. When you introduce fear, you can then suggest something to those people, and that suggestion will go in at a very deep level.
So, you know, we have to lock up our elderly; we have to, you know, stop people from working; there’s a whole list of things which they have done: they’ve taken away our free speech, they took away our traditions, you know, and things like that. We did it on the back of fear, so they introduced fear. So it was like, ‘The Russians are coming! There’s going to be an annihilation!’ Like, we had a period in this country when we thought we were going to be nuked at one stage, and like the fear had us all running around: it’s the very same today, that fear is on the go.
Allowed today, verboten tomorrow
Now, the second one is where you introduce confusion. So I say to you today, you cannot travel more than two kilometres from your house. If you’re over 70, you can’t leave the house at all. You know, a couple of things like that, and as I’m going along I’m introducing other things, and some of them don’t make sense, right? You’re saying to yourself, ‘Well, how could that be? I mean, that’s not right!’ Now, the introduction of that confusion leaves you open to further suggestion, so that you can go in there and you can put in something [as a message], and you can say, ‘Well now this is what you should be doing.’
I’ve heard it on RTÉ again: our friend Ryan Tubridy said — this is all in the last couple of weeks, it’s not a long time ago, this is just history, and I saw people there, and they were great, they were all doing the right thing — you’re introducing this kind of phraseology: ‘doing the right thing’. I was in Dublin there a few days ago, and I was dropping someone up to the airport to get a flight, but as I was going up to the airport, they have signs across the M1. They’d usually say ‘15 minutes to the airport’ or ‘Half an hour to the airport’, or maybe the number of kilometres. But what’s up there now? What’s right across the M1? And this is where programming becomes so invasive and pervasive in our lives. I think it said ‘Hold Firm’.
DC: Stay Safe, Protect Each Other, Wear a Mask, Stay at Home.
JA: That’s right, ‘Stay Safe’, ‘Hold Firm’ and ‘Protect Each Other’.
Right, [let’s take] ‘Hold Firm’. Now, if you’re holding firm, that’s a suggestion, and you say, ‘Well, what’s wrong with that?’ If you’re holding firm, that means you’re holding firm against something, there’s an enemy out there, you have to stand your ground, you have to … If you’re talking in that kind of language, you could be talking to people in a boxing ring, and this is kind of the subtle manipulation, but I saw three of those signs across the M1 as I was going up towards the airport, and three of these of these big signs across the way: Hold Firm, Stay Safe, and Protect Each Other. That’s what was written on it.
Now, that’s using every aspect that they can use to bring this fear-mongering, this control, into place, and that is at the stage of where you have introduced the fright. You have introduced the three things: you’ve introduced confusion, you’ve introduced the fear, and the last thing — and hopefully this won’t happen — but you introduce [a stage] where what they say is that the bodily integrity is broken. In other words, somebody comes along and they are in a park they shouldn’t be in, or they’re on a train and they’re not wearing a mask and they refuse to wear it and things like that, and the Guards [Gardaí, police] are called. And I heard, I think it was Rowan Croft was on, and he had on Melissa, who had a child at home who needed pain medication. She went into a chemist’s shop in Wexford and the Guards were called. She left her money, she left her prescription, and she went outside, and I think she sat on the windowsill or something. The Guards were called. I think she didn’t have a mask. I think that was the issue, and the Guards were called.
Invading the victim’s bodily integrity
So now the bodily integrity is beginning to get threatened. And this is one of the final places where, when everything is threatened, whatever is said goes in very deeply. And if you can get that going at a macro level in the political scene, then you’ve got the third thing, the third point [by which] people can be deeply programmed. So you’ve got the confusion, people trying to the right thing, and then they say, ‘That’s not what it was last week,’ and, ‘No, I don’t like the feeling of this, they say they are locking us up.’ You know, I know 70-year-olds who are much fitter than I am, and they were being locked up in their houses. Simon Harris came on in the beginning, and he said, I remember this distinctly — this is at the height of the beautiful summer that we had, and we weren’t in Hong Kong where we could think it’s because of the smog or whatever; we have a beautiful Atlantic breeze coming in here in the West [of Ireland] — he said, ‘Normally, yes, going out in the fresh air is good for you, having your family around and supporting you is normally good for you and exercise is good for you; but just for the next couple of weeks we’re going to just lock you down and you can’t leave the house.’ Now, that was what was said, that’s what he did.
The still, small voice of reality
It wasn’t the coronavirus that did it: they implemented this stuff and they rolled it out, and this is what made people feel bad. This is what denigrates people, they come away intuitively knowing, ‘Yeah, I know they said that they were going to help us and they’re doing it all for us to protect us, and all that kind of thing.’ But something is ringing in the back of their head saying, ‘This is bullshit.’ And I actually compare it to the fable The Emperor’s New Clothes, where two fraudsters come and they have invisible clothes and they sell it to the Emperor and he’s afraid to say something is wrong with these invisible clothes, so he goes along with it even though he can’t see them. That’s what you’re talking about.
You’re also taking about something — if I can draw just one other analogy — [where] if you have somebody coming to your door and they say, ‘I’m in the area anyway and I notice there you have some loose slates and I see your house needs painting and I could do it for a cheap price,’ but they’re really casing the joint for some other reason, right? They might want to see what you have in your house, they’re trying to see if there’s anything good to take and things like that, they’re fraudsters.
Reverse-engineering of therapy
Now, when you have that kind of situation, you can be taken by the narrative: the narrative is Covid, oh my God, you’re taken by it, and you go with the story. And when you’re going with the story, you forget to use your own intuition, your own critical thinking. And you go with the story because of the fear, because of confusion and because your bodily integrity can be also threatened, which is the Guards and security and extra vehicles and all this kind of thing.
I don’t know, I hope I’m explaining this well: that’s how programming is done. You do it in a hypnotherapeutic sense, you do it with the client sitting in front of you. But [there,] you’re doing it for their upliftment, for their enhancement, to empower them to do whatever they need to do, you do it for a different purpose altogether. So wherever you have two people communicating, wherever you have societies talking to each other and things like that, this kind of interaction goes on in a very normal way; but when it’s done in an insidious way, and when it’s done with the government in collusion with the mainstream media and the HSE, that has my mind boggled, it really has.
DC: Well, John, you’ve explained it brilliantly, I’ve got to throw something in there, which is when we are trying to reach people — and I’ve encountered this, and I know a lot of people watching and commenting will be able to confirm that they have experienced this in their own personal lives, among friends and family — I’ve always felt that this hypnotic suggestion that people have consumed, this propaganda, sort of has this inbuilt defence mechanism — that’s how I have described it; you might have a technical term for it — but it’s anger.
And so, if you try to bring someone out of it and explain to them, just with facts and reason and data — right? — very tactfully, ‘Well, these are the data; these are the facts; let me show you what I;ve discovered when I’ve done a little bit of research,’ what happens is they get angry! And it’s from 0 to 60 — I’ve seen this, where people are perfectly calm, and you challenge this belief and they get angry. It’s almost as if the propaganda in their mind, the virus of their mind, so to speak — that’s the real issue here — has this security system in place, which puts up a wall. How do you describe that? What’s actually happening there, on a hypnotherapist level?
The abusers have left a defence mechanism behind
JA: Sure. Well, if you’re programmed, you know — as we have explained about the pervasiveness of the programming that’s going on — we can talk, as I said, about what I’ve heard them saying on the radio and the TV: there’s loads of examples of that now at this stage, having gone through the [first] six months, where they’re not asking questions, where they’re just programming fear, all that kind of thing.
Now, this is where the real manipulation comes in, because this has to be contrived. It has to be a contrivance, it has to be a collusion, it has to be done very precisely; and that’s is what I think is happening on the mainstream media. What I think is that the contrivance blanket, the collusion, is so massive that even I find it hard to believe that presenters and people on the mainstream media that I know — and that I sort of admired over the years for their ability to talk and interview and things like that — have gotten drawn into this and are now doing it in such a way that there are no questions being asked.
So they talk about the three minds, okay, if I can just divert a little bit for the moment, to answer your question. The three minds. The conscious mind that we feel with every day of our lives, [when] we are consciously doing stuff. And we have the emotional mind, and then we have the reptilian mind. And the reptilian mind is the most basic survival instinct that you can get. Now, there is a very famous American hypnotist who says if you get control of the reptilian mind — if you can communicate with the reptilian mind — [then] the reptilian mind rules the roost. And it’s a bit like like when you’re in your house and you look down on the ground and there is a rope. And for that second, the reptilian mind will pounce in with that ‘Snake!’ It’s your survival instinct. It gets the message through to you, and then you make a jump and you say ‘Oh my God!’, and then a few seconds later you say, ‘Oh, sure I thought it was a snake!’
So that’s the kind of scenario you have: the reptilian mind gets there first, it gets there in a nanosecond, before the conscious mind has made up its mind about anything. Now, the reptilian mind, they say, in regards to programming, it asks the questions. Is it safe? ‘No, it’s not safe at all because you have this coronavirus and it’s going to kill and affect so many people, and we have 200 more cases today’. Okay, so it’s not safe. It asks a second question. The first question is, ‘Is it safe?’, so that kind of stimulates the survival instinct. And then the next question is, ‘Can I eat it?’ ‘Is it going to be of some benefit to me?’ It’s kind of just a reptilian response: is this going to be dangerous, or is this going to be safe?
And the last question: they say — and this is where marketing comes in, in a big way — they say, ‘Well, can I mate with it? These are the three basic instincts: Is it safe? [Is it food?] Can I mate with it? They are the three basic primal things, and they get there before anything else, which is what keeps you safe: it makes you jump!
Now, if you have been programmed at this big level [with], as I say, ‘Coronavirus is coming, it’s not safe, it’s not safe to go outside!’, [then] you have elderly people and other people that won’t even go out shopping — to this day — that used to go out shopping, that used to go to the pub. They have no pub to go to now, they are isolated from their families.
All the characteristics of abuse have been put in place, and it’s control. And when you have that, it kind of explains [the ineffectiveness of] you coming out with a statement that is just logical, conscious: your critical mind is just working, and you say the virus hasn’t killed anybody at the moment, [deaths] are down, we have no new deaths, even though we have new cases and the cases can be put down to the suspect test, the PCR test. And you say this, but that’s all on the logical level, when in actual fact they have been programmed almost on this primal level, this instinctual level. It kicks in, and that’s when you get this ‘Oh my God, do you hear what he’s saying!’, and that’s what you’re talking about. Does that answer your question?
DC: It does, yes, because it’s quite extraordinary. It does explain why people’s walls go up just so quickly. I suppose really the question is: What is the best way to reach people who are — I don’t want to say so far gone, because I don’t want to give up on our brothers — but how do you speak to them?
Restoring the mind through intuition
JA: Well, you do it on different levels, the very same way that these people have been programmed, as we have been programmed as a society, the very same way in which they have done that: you sort of do it back. In other words: rather than, I suppose, by explaining the model, that’s what I would be attempting to do here today — by explaining the model and saying ‘This is how it has happened’.
It is a bit like the fraudsters who came to your house and they wanted to paint and do everything, you know, but they were just thieves. Somebody might say to you, ‘You know, those people were down in such a place there the other week and there was suspect activity.’ That would be one little bit [of the puzzle]. They’re chipping away at it altogether. But the biggest one that people can pay attention to is this: For most healthy people in the centre of this narcissistic-to empathetic spectrum — most people in the centre — most people will have an intuition so that people come and they are suspect. They know something is wrong here.
Their body will tell them, and they will refer to their own bodily functions to tell them. You might have a little knot in your stomach. And this is how people get out of abusive situations. They say, ‘You know, they’ve done this for me and they’ve done that for me,’ and there is an obligation, or they are made to feel guilty and they are held in place for a long time until things begin to become so apparent to them that their intuition kicks in. They have a knot in their stomach. They’re finding that they are not as happy as they used to be; they turn to alcohol. They turn to other means of alleviating or ameliorating their pain, and that kind of thing. That is the intuition kicking in.
Now, how does your intuition kick in? It kicks in in a very precise way. What you are talking about is incongruency, and I will just explain that one. Incongruency is where you look at somebody and they present a very good case to you. You know, like the fraudster who comes to your house and he says, ‘Your house needs painting and your roof needs fixing, because I am here and if you pay me so much then I’ll do a good deal’ — that kind of thing. He is really a fraudster and he is after something else. Now, your intuition of incongruency is when anybody gives this message to you. The people that are giving the message — what set me off in the beginning was the incongruency, and that is that their bodies and their language and their tone of voice doesn’t match the actual message they are giving.
Now, it takes a lot of training. People can do it. There are people who are very good at manipulating and telling lies, but generally speaking, with this number of people in the country [being tricked] as we have it so far, [they know that] something is incongruent about the whole message. So [take] the examples that I gave there, for instance, the ‘We are with you’ speech, then talking about the vehicles: there is a mismatch between what they are saying. ‘We are here to help you’; ‘We are going to give you all the backing that you need’; ‘We are going to pay you when you are out of a job’ — all this kind of thing. But we are mounting up bills; we are also not going to tell you that your job will still be there in six months’ time. We’re going to close you down. We are not even going to allow you into the church so that you can praise God. We won’t allow you to sing, when you are in the church, even if you do have only fifty people at a wedding — or whatever the number is now; we won’t allow you to sing. The manipulation and control is there. That is what they are doing. Of course, they are saying it is for your good, but there is an incongruency. It’s a mismatch, and that’s how people get out of these relationships; that’s how people get out of abusive situations.
It is because they are being told and logically spoken to: ‘Look at all I have done for you — and you repay me like this!’, whatever the issue might be. They are playing on the guilt; they are playing on so many things. But that same person could have put the other person into hospital with a punch in the face or whatever two weeks earlier, and his apology would be, ‘I’m so sorry for that — but if you weren’t so annoying, we wouldn’t have this problem!’ In other words, it was your fault that I had to punch you and put you into hospital. That is on a micro level; we are talking about relationships. It is a form of — what did you call it before? — it is a form of gaslighting, and gaslighting is another red flag when you see that happening.
In other words, telling you that they are looking after you, they are looking after every aspect of your life. They are going to pay you money. But you can’t leave your house. And when you are on your bicycle, you will have people who were told, ‘You have gone too far.’ Remember those comments? They were ‘gone too far’ on their bicycles out in the country. Right?! You have to put a mask on now when you’re going into every shop, and when you are travelling. It’s a muzzle. I have heard it referred to as a face nappy, a muzzle. These are all denigrating types of language.
The ‘deadly virus’ is another one. Everything to instil fear. I had a list of them here. Let me see if I can get them for you. Even, like, the ‘frontline workers’ — that’s another example of where you are getting what is called ‘inferred suggestion’. In other words, ‘I am not saying to you that this is a very dangerous situation, but I will refer to people as frontline workers and I will praise them for risking their lives.’
DC: Despite the fact that there was so much evidence of not only empty hospitals, John, but these TikTok videos of dancing nurses in hospitals. And actually, to a degree, and on that point, John, of the dancing nurses: I have actually seen that there were examples sometimes in the mainstream media of them actually showing these videos as a sort of a light-hearted interlude …
JA: If you want an example of gaslighting, that is it.
DC: Yes, exactly.
JA: You are imposing these restrictions; you are gaslighting the nation; you are telling them that it is wonderful, that the children are waving in to Nana and Grandad, but they are in lockdown. You are telling them that these frontline workers … We’ll do a dance on the street. We have pictures of them singing in Italy from their apartments. It is a gaslighting situation. What they are saying to people is, ‘Do not refer to your own inner intuition, do not look at your own critical thinking; refer to me instead,’ whatever that ‘me’ might be. It could be the health authorities, politicians or the Gardaí — but ‘Make sure you refer to me’.
There is a terrible, terrible ad on the television at the moment, and also a corresponding ad on the radio, where they are telling people not to look at social media, make sure it’s safe — and this is their wording actually on it. You would be included in it, Dave, and I would be too, now, at this stage. They are saying, ‘Get the source that can be trusted. You will need to move past the rage.’ This is their direct suggestion. They don’t go into …
DC: The ‘rage’ and the ‘fear’, John: despite the fact that they are the ones spreading the fear, they blame it on us.
JA: There are two aspects to this. Number one is that is exactly what they are doing. They are saying ‘the rage’, ‘the deception’ and ‘the fear’, and they back it up it with noise and people running around and giving out [scolding] and all this kind of thing, right. Then they say, ‘Now more than ever, integrity matters, trust matters and quality journalism matters.’ That is what really gets me at this stage. They do not say what it is that they are talking about. They do not say, ‘We are backing it up with science,’ or, ‘The evidence is this.’ They are just appealing to your emotional brain and they are appealing to your reptilian brain, by showing these quick images on the television. I saw it there last night: they had these quick images of people shouting and noise. So there is the rage and everything else.
Now, there is one very interesting aspect to this. Getting back down to the micro [level] again: in narcissistic relationships, the narcissist has a target. He is the perpetrator; there is a victim in it, even though the victim might be doing the dance in it as well, by being compliant and everything else, but that is another story. The aspect of this that I would like to highlight is that one of the red flags of narcissistic relationships — if you are looking to know how to recognise it — one of the red flags is that whatever they say that you are accused of, whatever you are doing that they don’t like, [whatever] they want to reprimand you for and make you feel guilty about, whatever that is — there is usually, usually a strong aspect [of that very transgression] in their own behaviour.
That is exactly it. So what they are saying is, ‘Get past the rage, get past the deception and find the truth.’ That is what you have to do, because that is what they are guilty of, right, and that is actually one of the red flags, because that is how they gain control over their target.
DC: Well, I have never seen RTÉ do something like that [before 2020]. In other words, to beg the public, ‘Please trust us, because we realise that some of you are waking up and that you are leaving the matrix. You are leaving the plantation that we have created for you. Please come back.’
JA: Well, that’s exactly it, Dave. Yes, that’s exactly it. Their backs must be against the wall at this stage, because they are really pushing this out. As I say, even the signs over the M50 going up to the airport: they are using these signs now to reinforce it. They are using the language that all the presenters are using, and they are getting the co-operation of RTÉ and they are complicit in this. They are using it in this way. They are not applying themselves to the science; they are not applying themselves to having debates, discussions nothing. It’s all missing.
They are not even asking relevant questions when they are in an interview situation. They will ask soft questions. A soft question would be ‘Well, how is the government now responding to the spiralling number of cases?’ That is a soft question. It really is, because there are a whole load of assumptions there. In other words, ‘There are a spiralling number of cases, which is deadly, and what is the government going to do to protect us all?
DC: Yes, and this is something I want to interject, because I have a little quote that I want to read to you, and I have read this before on the channel. It is in the nature of totalitarianism that the rules after a certain point are not supposed to make sense; they are just supposed to be followed, and you can only really do that … Yuri Bezmenov described it, in the Marxism version, that there are four stages, which are demoralisation, dehumanisation, crisis and normalisation.
So we have had the crisis, they have dehumanised and demoralised people; I mean literally dehumanising people, John, with a face mask. Demoralising them, humiliating them. And then we had the crisis, this virus. It is destroying our economy, it is destroying our way of life, it is destroying the social bonds and cohesion between people.
And then you have this final stage of this New Normal right now. The book that I want to read, two paragraphs here, this is from a book written by Theodore Dalrymple in 2012. It is called The Wilder Shores of Marx: Journeys in a Vanishing World, and it is about propaganda. Just briefly, he says:
[W]ithin an established totalitarian regime the purpose of propaganda is not to persuade, much less to inform, but rather to humiliate. From this point of view, propaganda should not approximate to the truth as closely as possible. On the contrary, it should do as much violence to it as possible. For by endlessly asserting what is blatantly untrue, by making such untruth ubiquitous and unavoidable, and finally by insisting that everyone publicly acquiesce in it, the regime displays its power and reduces individuals to nullities.
Now, just imagine that with people walking down [Dublin’s main shopping area] Grafton Street with face masks, or on the bus or on the train! [Dalrymple continues:]
Apart from the massacres, deaths and famines for which communism was responsible, the worst thing about the system was the official lying: that is to say the lying in which everyone was forced to take part by repetition, assent or failure to contradict. I came to the conclusion that the purpose of propaganda in communist countries was not to persuade, much less to inform, but to humiliate and emasculate. In this sense, the less true it was, the less it corresponded in any way to reality, the better; the more it contradicted the experience of the persons to whom it was directed, the more docile, self-despising for their failure to protest, and impotent they became.
JA: Yes, that is a really nice piece. I would just back it up. There is a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a philosopher, called Gabor Maté. He has a ten-minute clip on YouTube [six-minute version here]. He talks about Karl Marx and he says there are four ways — exactly what you are after saying there, I am just re-emphasising what you are saying, but he puts it in very human terms — he says there are four ways to alienate people.
In other words, when you are saying ‘alien’, [the trick is] to make it part of you, run against yourself, as it were. If you want a correspondence in a physical terms, you would be taking about autoimmune disease or that kind of thing. He says you can be alienated from nature, and the way we do that is we disassociate from nature, if you like, many times. You can alienate from society, and that means family, tribe, friends. Now, is this all ringing a bell for us?
DC: Social distancing …
JA: Yes, exactly. He said you can alienate people from their job. Now at the moment, they are absolutely running us into the ground in debt. There is going to be a flux of jobs to which people are not going to be able to return. Then they will find their money is cut; the so-called softening of this approach as well. And then, basically, he says, it alienates people from themselves.
And this is what I am trying to do: reconnect people with their own experience. In other words, begin to [ask]: ‘How do I feel when I am locked down? Is that okay?’
I heard a poor man and he was talking to somebody about his wife who had died and he couldn’t go to her funeral, and he was crying on the radio and he was saying, ‘I felt like just going down there and being at the funeral.’ He said it was terrible. ‘But,’ he said, ‘I wanted to do the right thing, and I just felt staying at home was the right thing.’ He was deeply programmed, the poor man. He was deeply got at. This was earlier [in the year], you know. But that’s alienating people from themselves. They have an experience, they have a feeling, they have a connection inwardly, they see the incongruencies, but somehow they mask the incongruencies that are taking place.
So, you have the wife that looks at this abusive husband, and ‘Yes, he put her into hospital a few times, he did this and he did that,’ but you know, ‘He’s going to — he promised me that he was going to go to therapy and it’s going to be all okay in a while.’ So they’re kind of addicted to this process of keeping the [hope of changed behaviour], be it the politicians, be it a partner, be it on stage — notice you have the same thing. It’s the same. It’s the same programme, it’s the same predictability, it’s the same issue of how it’s rolled out.
Programming the suggestible
And we’ve discussed the issues here, like different ways that you can programme people. There’s even a therapy, if you like, if you call it that, I think it’s called a primal intervention, I’m not quite sure of that now, and it’s where people who are first responders, ambulance drivers, — you know, maybe fire brigades, even policemen, all this kind of thing — and they find that [victims latch on to] the information or the statements that they make to the victims in this circumstance — be it a crash, or [whatever].
And this is exactly what we were talking about before: the crash. The integrity of the body is damaged. The fear, you know.
It could be people in different situations. Ambulance people pick up drunks off the street sometimes and find themselves in these weird situations. And what’s actually said to people in those situations can be very profound and powerful. It can be more powerful than maybe a couple of hours of therapy afterwards, when it’s said in that [immediate] situation.
And this is what we’re talking about: to understand what’s actually being said to you and that it corresponds with how you feel about society. Hence your anger when you hear somebody, you know, makes a point, and you say [in response], ‘That doesn’t make sense,’ and they say, ‘Oh my God, sure lookit, you’re only being a conspiracy theorist!’
You get what I’m saying here? It’s well understood that in these situations, people become very suggestible. And then if you get them making their reference, their terms of reference are outside themselves. So the poor woman that’s looking at an a abusive husband: she looks at him to see ‘Is he smiling, is he not smiling’, right? So the reference is gone from herself and now lies with the abuser, who can decide, ‘Ah, you know, I’ll be good to her today; tomorrow I won’t be so good, and I’ll keep that lack of continuity going.’ And I think we discussed that the last day as well — that’s one way, by the way, of controlling people: when you break down on continuity.
DC: Yes, and it’s also the environment that they create, which is sort of the world-building aspect, effect, as I would describe it.
So, you talked about this before: If you’ve got a radio DJ, maybe doing an interview with someone, and they could be talking about anything: talking about farming, talking about someone’s new book, they could be talking about cooking, they could be talking about football — it doesn’t matter — and they will throw in something like, ‘So how are you?’ They are having a conversation between each other, obviously the audience is listening in on the radio, and they are talking about, you know, they say something like, ‘How are you handling these unprecedented times?’, or whatever it is. Talk a little about that — you had a term there.
JA: That was a very important one, yes, because that’s what’s happening too. Again, [it was] the discussion that I heard on the radio on Sunday, and there was somebody talking about [the news that] they were re-introducing Dempsey’s Den [vintage TV show for children], right? That’s what it was. And it was making some kind of a comeback in some sort of form or another, you know, and the person that was reintroducing it was sort of praising it and saying, ‘You know, I always liked that programme and [the characters] Zig and Zag, and everything.’ And then, in the middle of it — and it took me a while to spot this, because I don’t always spot it straight away either, [even though] I’m looking into this all the time — but what she said was ‘It’s the injection we need.’
There you have a little [instance of] what’s called an embedded command. It’s an embedded suggestion in the middle of a discussion that had nothing to do with it: ‘It’s the injection we need.’ So you can [chalk] that one up to whatever you want. What does that mean? What was being said to you, even thought it was covert and under the wire? So, talking about something like a TV programme — that’s exactly what you are talking about — [you get] these suggestions.
And another one was — again, just going back to last Sunday — there were either items of news on Sunday in the middle, sometime around the twelve o’clock, one o’clock mark, it was round about that. And I was in the car and I was travelling, right, and there were eight items. Now, seven of them were all about the ‘worldwide spiralling cases’, you know: ‘What’s the hospital capacity?’, ‘What’s the concerns the government have for the hospital capacity?’. It wasn’t, you know, asking exactly ‘What is the capacity?’, ‘How many do you expect in?’; there were no kind of really hard questions. But it was a suggestive question, you know: ‘What are the concerns of the government regarding hospital capacity?’ — meaning that, when you go away, if you only just heard that alone, you’d be saying, ‘Oh my God, the hospitals are going to fill up, and they won’t be able to treat it,’ you know?
Bring on the influencers
Next one on the list was, you know, ‘Can influencers’ — and this was a kind of a new one on me: influencers, right? — ‘Can influencers turn the tide in young people’s attitudes?’ They didn’t say what was wrong with the attitude, what was happening with them. They didn’t say it was to turn the tide. They want to kind of get people, and they were talking about ‘influencers’ on social media, getting young people to say things that they want them to say, so that they turn the tide.
What was the tide? I don’t know. [The mainstream media talking point is:] ‘With cases worldwide spiralling upwards,’ you know, ‘we check in with a worldwide leading epidemiologist ‘ — that was another, again, a headline leading in. And of the eight items, every one of them carried this message, you know. ‘We talked to a GP [general practitioner, family doctor] and a business owner’ — and of course the GP came on and more or less was saying, ‘Oh, you have to cocoon,’ you know, and, ‘If you know somebody who has it, that was tested positive — whether they had symptoms or not , or whether you were in total contact or not — you have to cocoon!’
And she [the same doctor on TV] said, ‘That means …’ — she actually said it out — ‘you don’’t go to school, you don’t go to work.’ And it’s for the person that was in contact with the person who was tested positive, as well as for the person who tested positive. So now, when you think of the connection and the number of people that you are beginning to talk to here, [the order is]: ‘Don’t go to school; don’t go to work, you know, and cocoon yourself for two weeks’, you’re talking to an awful lot of people. And this was being given out, this was all in the news items.
Now here’s an interesting one for you, Dave, and I thought this one was brilliant myself. At the end of the news, there was one of these, you know, these light kind of … at the end of the news sometimes they gave it, a human [interest] story somewhere, something like that, and they were saying like, ‘Well, now we’re going to go somewhere and we’re going to talk to people who are mountain biking, right.’ And she said — this was a statement she said — ‘And mountain biking is proving to be a tonic in these worrying times.’ They couldn’t even leave that one alone, they had to get in this suggestion that ‘we’re in worrying times’ and all this kind of thing, and then she went on to talk to people who aren’t talking about the Covid at all and were talking about their mountain biking. But the mountain biking, it was proving to be a tonic for these worrying times: no description, no saying exactly what was meant. I hope I’m getting across the absolute invasiveness of this type of programming and how the media — not the social media; the mainstream media are so involved in it.
DC: It’s torture, John. It’s mass psychosis. It’s torture, and they should be — to be honest, I think it’s a form of — it’s pure treason at this point, what they’ve done to people. But I tell you what, though: they’re complicit in the most anti-human scam of all time. It’s a crime against humanity.
But let me tell you, with all of this and what it’s done to people: even if this thing was to just magically stop tomorrow — ‘Right, that’s it! Open up everything now, life back to normal!’ — the damage that this has done to people’s psyche, their sense of trust: talk about what this has done, because, you know, you mentioned before — people who are in relationships with narcissists or even people who are maybe psychotic, what happens to the victim, what mental state do they have afterwards?
JA: What happens is this: that even when they break contact with the perpetrator, put it that way, even when they break contact with the perpetrator, they go through years of — it can be years, right; some people are different, some people are more resilient than others but it can be years — they might have developed a dependence on alcohol, they might have suicidal ideation, they could seem depressed, they could feel alone. The alone feeling very often leaves them open to what’s called vacuuming.
And what they mean by vacuuming — these are all terms that came in with [study of] narcissistic relationships; the vacuuming means that when they’ve done with you [they will implement] the fourth part — we’ve discussed three of them, [this is] the fourth part of the relationship — they will dump you, they will go and they will leave, and then the vacuuming is where they come back in and, you know, they say, ‘I’m a changed man, and I’ll do this and I’ll do that.’ Even though the person knows the history — it’s in their consciousness, the history about the abuse, about what they went through — there is a deep, deep loneliness, right, and that’s the addiction, it’s [driven by] the deep loneliness that they now go through, because they’re not in a new relationship, maybe.
Maybe it’s because they went into a new relationship but didn’t address their own low self-esteem before doing that; they didn’t address their own boundaries; they didn’t address what was wrong with themselves; they kind of got it about the other person [but not themselves].
And this is the fourth phase: [abusers] leave and [victims] do whatever they’re doing, but then they might be connected with that person through children, they might be connected through property, through business, through jobs; they can be connected in various ways that hold them in place.
Recovering the boundaries you gave away
And then they have to look at their boundaries: they have to say, ‘Well, what boundaries were there, what did I give to these people, what did I give away to them?’. And this really is an interesting one, because here you have to get people to be reflective about how they are giving away their own esteem, their own sense of reference, their own intuition.
We talked about incongruency before, where you become an apologist for the other person, even though they are doing horrific sorts of things. You become an apologist and you say, ‘You know what: the government needed to do something and they had to have that lockdown.’ And I even heard people saying, ‘You know, I think they’ve taken the lockdown up too soon and they were letting people back to school too soon.’ I’ve heard this kind of thing, because they are locked into this thing of, you know, that first of all you have to admit that you are complicit in the relationship — and this is [a challenge] for the empath, the person who was doing their best and who was a lovely person, they were trying to make things right, they were trying to fix the marriage maybe, the relationship.
The same goes politically for the people who are trying to be compliant, because these are good people that are going out and they want to sort of do the right thing. They are going out there, and they are programmed that way, and they have to look at [the issue of]: ‘Did I feel good about what I was doing, was there a knot in my stomach, was there something telling me that this isn’t right?’, and to look at these kinds of incongruencies and the whole thing, situation, and then to start establishing boundaries for themselves.
To establish a boundary, now, you have to decide — in a relationship, for instance, in a one-to-one relationship, you know, you have to help people, if you were in therapy with them — you would be helping them to establish boundaries, to establish self-esteem, their self-dignity, their trust in their own judgement, and in their own critical thinking, their judgement of their own experience, right?
So you have them going through this thing, but they gave all of that up and made [all] the reference to the other person. And this, by the way, in the — what would you call it? — parlance of narcissistic, abusive relationships and narcissistic dynamics that you get in families, narcissistic dynamics that you get in society — this is called ‘where the flying monkeys come in’.
What the ‘flying monkeys’ refers to is where you begin to, because you are manipulated into it, you begin to give away what you thought was right, to another person. And it’s so covert, it’s a bit like this: If I’m — God forbid, but if I’m in a relationship and I’m abusing the other person and I want to control them, I don’t go to them and say, ‘You know, I think you should do this.’ That’s very overt; people do that, but it’s not effective.
But what I might do is, I might go to their sister or their brother, or I might go to their best friend, and I’d say, ‘You know, I’m really worried about that person, I’m really worried about John. You know, he’s drinking a bit much or he’s doing this and that.’ And then they are used as what’s called the flying monkeys — it’s a reference to the [Wizard of Oz] fable about Dorothy and the Wicked Witch of the West: she usen’t [didn’t use] to go out herself, but she’d send flying monkeys — in the fable, you know, if you’re familiar with the story. But the flying monkeys used to go out on her bidding, and they would do this.
So I would stroke somebody else’s ego: I would take your brother or your sister, and somebody that I kind of got along with. These people can be very charming by the way they can, you know, be very convincing and say, ‘I’m worried about Dave,’ or, ‘I’m worried about John,’ and, you know, ‘Just now, I think, you know, I’m just now at my wits’ end, really; really, I don’t know what to do you know, do you think you could have a word with him?’
Now you’ve got your flying monkey and their ego is stroked, and they think this is very important, you know, and [they reason,] ‘I do love this person and I’ll go and I’ll help them and I’ll help this [gaslighting] man, he seems to be doing his best.’ And [so] I go along to that person, and I say to him, ‘Do you know, well, I was talking to such a person there the other day, and I know they’re very concerned — and so am I, to be honest,’ you know.
Now, the flying monkeys in this case are the mainstream media and the HSE: they’re absolutely the flying monkeys, without a shadow of a doubt. Again, [witness] the statement of Micheál Martin saying, ‘It’s not me, it’s not the government’. Actually, his words were, ‘It’s not the government that are updating restrictions; it’s the virus!’
DC: As if the virus could pass legislation.
JA: And that’s what they are being told, and that was his statement and he said it very forcibly. But they are the flying monkeys.
2020 will be denied in 2021
DC: As we bring it to a conclusion, I can predict something happening — and I think you can as well — which factors exactly into what you describe very well there, which is that when what I’ve described as the dam breaks and the truth emerges, I think a lot of people will be in denial and will probably just want to shake off 2020 as a bad dream: ‘We don’t talk about it, let’s forget about it because I don’t want to admit the fact that I was fooled’. That’s a very hard thing for people to accept let alone, the behaviour they went on with. It brought out the worst in people. It brought out the ‘Get away from me, you’re standing too close to me!’ or ‘Where’s your face mask?’, and, really, total strangers feeling entitled to say that kind of thing and emboldened to treat each other quite poorly in some instances. That is definitely a scar tissue that is sort of left after this. But I tell you one thing I would predict.
I would say — and you’ve already seen Leo Varadkar make overtures, in terms of, ‘Should we continue some of the restrictions?’, and this kind of thing — I think what they’ll do in a year or two’s time is you’ll have the media start to try to take the side of the public. I think [their] trying to entertain the likes of Dr [Martin] Feeley and his debate with Professor [Sam] McConkey is the beginnings of that, and even the BBC in the UK have started to call them anti-lockdown protests.
They’re not calling them ‘conspiracy theorists’, they’re not calling them ‘far right’ now, they’re actually just calling them ‘anti-lockdown protests’, so I think the instruction is there that they know the dam is breaking and so they are kind of giving it their due. So I think what’s going to happen is that eventually it’s going to be sort of like, in a year’s time you’re going to hear the media say, ‘We were trying to hold them to account.’ They are going to try and spin it, to save themselves, and try to seem like they were always on the side of the public. And the politicians might do something similar, where they’ll do this quick change, where they’ll change sides.
JA: That’s not a prediction, Dave, that’s just happening, you know. Also, I would say this, as a closing comment: I would say that we are very near to the end of the cycle. The cycle goes around: it goes with the lovebombing, the idealisation, followed by the denigration, the breaking down of the other person, the maintaining of control, and the abuse begins to kick in. The people will deny it and they will say, ‘They are doing it for the best reasons,’ and all this kind of thing. I’ve heard these discussions.
Abandoning the victim to his fate
And now we are coming to the abandonment phase, right? That is where they will possibly lock down the whole country, and they will give an excuse for it and all of that kind of thing. I think that probaly is somewhere down the line, where the security forces will be called in to certain areas, and this is just based on this model.
We’re not even talking about coronavirus here. We’re talking nothing of the sort. We’re not going on the evidence of Ivor Cummins, of Dolores Cahill, John Ioannidis, or I think it was Karol Sikora, the epidemiologist, who said back in April — no, it was a little bit later — that the virus was actually over. The curve was done. It had gone through the population by May. This goes along with what Ivor Cummins has presented, and it goes along with what Dolores Cahill was talking about.
That’s on a logical level, but these people — remember that it’s like the fraudsters coming to your house — they want to stage something. It’s a different level of thinking. And [meanwhile,] you’re talking about the virus and the statistics and all the logical reasons you have for it. That just helps to introduce confusion, because they are not doing any of [that], and you’re saying, ‘Well, wait a minute: why are they doing that now when this is practically over and there’s no deaths?’, or whatever. That’s just the confusion. They will keep pummelling this into people with the fear and the confusion and the New Normal, and all this kind of thing.
But the final part of it is this: that these people do not know when to stop, and the reason why they don’t know when to stop is that they don’t have much empathy for the Irish public, for the people with jobs, homes, families to run. They say they do, but they don’t actually have it, because what they are talking about is power, is manipulation, and is this control, and they like the attention.
What the narcissist gorges on
Control, manipulation and attention. They’re getting attention. That’s called ‘narcissistic feed’, and they bloom on narcissistic feed. So whether it be our Taoiseach, or our ex-Taoiseach, when he comes out and stands in front of the nation, this is narcissistic feed. Could it be anything else? At this stage, I don’t think so, simply because they’re not making sense any more.
But they don’t know when to stop, these people, because they’re not in touch with the people. They are not in touch with what’s happening on the ground, nor some of them — some of them, I say — do not care. This is not a diagnostic, by the way: we’re not calling these people [narcissists], we are only calling it a narcissistic model. We are putting it in a model [so] that people can see what’s happening; and when you see what’s happening, that can serve to wake you up a little bit.
And, as I say, we’ve touched on it. We have touched on the virus, we’ve touched on the statistics, we’ve touched on the nonsensical aspects of some of it, and all this kind of thing. But that’s not the purpose of this discussion. The purpose of this discussion is to wake you up and let you see what’s already happened: it’s already in our history, in our experience.
Rinse and repeat at higher speed
It’s there in this programme, and the final part of the programme is abandonment. What will that do? What shape will that take? Maybe some of them will have a go a putting the security forces in place, I’m not sure, but we’re in that phase now, because we’ve gone through the other three. And after that phase, by the way, the cycle can start over again.
So what happens there on an individual level — where, we’ll say, if somebody is vacuumed, is re-groomed back into a relationship — usually, what happens is that the relationship now goes through the same cycle again; but this time, it goes through it at a faster, accelerated pace, so the lovebombing will last a shorter length of time: it will go straight into the denigration and devaluing very quickly, and then it will go into the control and the abuse. I remember hearing many years ago, on [Irish national flagship talkshow] the Late Late Show, somebody talking about [how] she was in a abusive relationship for fifteen years and she didn’t know why. She said, ‘To this day, I do not know why I stayed in it’. Fifteen years she was in it, but she stayed in it because of all the stuff we’ve talked about now, that leaves you locked in it. You’re addicted to it.
You’re waiting for this moment when the person will give you validation and say, ‘I’m so sorry about what I did there, and I’m mending my ways,’ and to actually mean it, right. That will never happen, but what holds you in place is the hope that it will happen. The hope that they will say, ‘We’re going to end the lockdown now, towards the end of the year.’ They will give you little bits of hope at times, and that’s what will happen, but the control will increase.
DC: Oh, yes. It’s very possible that they will even give people Christmas, right, and people will say, ‘Oh, aren’t they so generous to let us have this Christmas?’
JA: Yes! You forget that they are actually giving you something that was actually your right to have in the first place. And that’s the control aspect, that’s the insidious aspect of it: that you have given away all of this, and it’s like the Stockholm syndrome again. You have been kidnapped by this group, and then suddenly one of them comes in after torturing you or beating you up or doing whatever, and they offer you a cup of water and you say, ‘Thanks so much for that’, and then you establish this sort of relationship.
It’s a narcissistic relationship, it’s an abusive one, but you’re kind of locked into it, and that makes you very attached to the person that’s locking you in.
That’s what’s happening. That’s the whole roll-out of it, Dave, from beginning to end. We’ve gone through it. In one way, the model is very simple, in one way, but as long as you get it, and I hope I’ve described it.
DC: Yes, brilliantly, John, and I hope that Irish people take it on board and listen to it. And, indeed, this is global and it applies to whatever country that you’re in, to varying degrees.
Loving your own people back to sanity
JA: Yes. I’ve taken Ireland because I live in Ireland, and I see the Irish people and I see a beautiful island of really healthy, beautiful people. And even if they are wearing masks and they are compliant, I’m not against them in any way. It’s a wonderful nation, but we’ve been infiltrated and this relationship has sort of sprung up. And all of a sudden, we’ve found ourselves in the thick of it. It may have come from higher up, like globally or whatever, but that’s the relationship we’re in.
And if they [can just] see it, if they see the model, if they can see what’s happening, looking at just the history — don’t mind all the stuff about the actual virus itself; there’s other people that you can refer to about that, like Dolores Cahill, Ivor Cummins, or any of those, or yourself listening to your programme; they will go through that with you, but that’s only the logic — but be aware of the deep, deep programming, the conditioning, the suggestibility, the hypnosis, the NLP, neurolinguistic programming.
This is what it’s called: programming. And when you look at it on the micro level and you see the relationships and how they pan out, and when you describe this model to people, I’ve had situations with people when they’ve sat back and they said, ‘Oh my God, it wasn’t my fault, it wasn’t my doing; I’m not guilty of this, I’m not mad.’ They have various terms like this, and it’s like a great lifting, you know.
They still have a lot of work to do at this stage, but after that initial lift, you can see it almost transforming their face and their eyes, and some of them cry, some them smile. And it’s like a lifting that happens, and this lifting can happen to you, it can happen to anybody: all you have to do is understand how It was put in place. How it happened, you know, the programming that was involved, the stages that were involved like we discussed, and when you come to a kind of … there will be a moment, and it won’t come from logic, working it out, very often.
But there’ll be a moment, and it won’t come from logically working it out, but there’ll be a moment, maybe in a week’s time, when something will click in you and you say, ‘Oh my God, that’s what I’ve been doing all this time’. And that can release you from the bondage of abuse or the bondage of political tyranny. You still have a lot of work to do, or you still have to make it known — I don’t know what happens politically to change this, but there is a lot of work to do — but that is a great place to start.
DC: It is, John. You described it brilliantly, and I think a lot of people are going to get a huge amount out of this interview, so I’m very grateful for having you on because this has been — you know, we can talk about data, we can talk about the modelling, we can talk about the flawed statistics and everything else and the studies and the PCR testing and all this; I can go into [that] with Dolores Cahill or whoever it is — but this is the remaining piece of the puzzle, which is the psychological component of it.
Because you can present people with all the information, you can explain to them that 2+2=4 and they’ll still believe it’s 5, and they’ll get angry with you — ‘For how dare you, telling me the truth!’, and that’s the reason. It’s about trying to get them to understand that they’ve been deceived and the pattern of behaviour that they’ve actually got in[to], and the pattern of thinking, the very destructive pattern.
JA: I hope people get that. It’s not a judgement, it’s not any kind of … it’s just way of explaining pattern, a model. It’s a map, and a map will make more sense [of your situation] if you’re out of breath and you happen to see on a map that you’re climbing a mountain and you were told you were on flat land. Well, it will kind of explain something, do you know? It’s all of this. It’s not a diagnostic of anybody in a psychiatric way.
It’s just that we use — I have used, for the want of a better word — this narcissistic agenda, but it doesn’t mean that we are diagnosing people with narcissism or NPD [Narcissistic Personality Disorder]. They could be there too, but [this is] to make them see the pattern and release themselves from the bondage, and without judgement of anybody. If they just released themselves, just woke up to that, [that] would be a tremendous amount of good done. And listen, Dave, you’re great for putting it on. You’ve showed great patience with me and all of that kind of thing, so really, I’m thankful for that: not personally for me, but just for the fact that it’s out there now, and that somehow it will filter out to people. And I hope they get something out of it.