Part 3: The Biggest Psy-op I Know of.

But you are going to have figure it out yourselves.

The responses to parts 1 and 2 of Psyop have been incredible. Observing how people react to the articles, and their responses in the comments has been enlightening. I thank everyone who took the time to comment. So why am I making Part 3 undefined in that I won’t name the biggest psyop?

The reason is if people do not learn and practice for themselves how to get out of psyops, then it is easy for them to get trapped again, even if they figured their way out of “No Virus” or “Flat Earth” ones. If people think for themselves, it is far better than having me or anyone else think for them. That is my opinion. What I realized with Parts 1 and 2 of Psyop? was how many people in the freedom movement are letting someone else do their thinking for them. Many are repeating arguments they were taught to repeat because they think the person they are mimicking is an “authority”. This type of problem is also detailed in my article “Professionals vs Parrots” regarding an expert from British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons.

What I noticed about the discussions in the comments of Parts 1 and 2 of Psyop? were patterns of thought to similar to something I saw on Facebook feeds prior to the pandemic. The pattern of thought centered on ignorance and ridicule. These were forwards from Doctors and Nurses making fun of “antivaxxers”, all the while ignoring the evidence of side effects. One of the individuals who’s ridicule posts were at the top of my newsfeed, was a woman who I went to medical school with. Her brother became famous in Canadian media for trying to introduce legislation to force children to get vaccinations. Thankfully, he was defeated after a number of American families came up to Canada to testify in the New Brunswick legislature about how their children suffered irreparable harm after vaccination. In response to her facebook post promoting her politician brother’s stance on forced vaccination, I made the comment that everything we do as doctors has a side effect. Vaccines are no different. She never responded. Even though she was taught the same as I was taught, and we both graduated from Dalhousie Medical school in the same class, I cannot fathom the possibility that she graduated without learning there are side effects to everything we do as doctors. So how could a fellow doctor who knows about side effects all of the sudden be ignorant of them? How could she just turn a blind eye to the evidence and push for forced vaccination? Did she skip ethics class in medical school?

Years later, I sent her another message about COVID-19 mRNA side effects, and she then deleted me as a friend. Ridicule of “antivaxxers” posts appeared on the top of my newsfeed from nurse and doctor friends in the years preceding the pandemic. There was complete denial of the inconvenient truths about childhood vaccines, especially the SIDS side effects that a pediatrician professor at Dalhousie medical school taught all of us.

I could detail further the similarities between the “Antivaxxers aren’t Scientific”psyop and the “Flat Earth” and “No Virus” psyops; but I value much more the observations of my readers and would like to hear their ideas from reading the articles and the comments.

---

My wish for danielnagase.substack.com is for people to read and learn how to think, not what to think. The one thing I noticed in cult thought systems is the demand to comply with “what to think”. Sometimes, compliance is via seduction (emotional reward), other times it is with threat (ego damage or fear). However, without knowing all cult thought systems, I cannot yet make the claim that all cult thought systems tell people what to think. Learning all cult thought systems seems like a tedious task, so I approached the problem from a different angle¹.

• It is theoretically possible there are false thought systems out there that manipulate how people think as well what they think?

From a theoretical design standpoint of maximum possible deception, the most complete way to trap minds in falsehoods would be to eliminate any thought processes that might be able to expose and release trapped minds from their beliefs. The mathematical concept of difference can be expressed verbally as a discrepancy.

Discrepancy Analysis (or mathematical difference) is extremely dangerous to any thought system that deviates from reality.² Why?

Because if there exists a difference between what is “thought” to be and actual reality, some people might engage in thought processes to reduce the difference between what they think, and what the real world is. When the difference between a theory and reality is reduced to 0, then there is equality. That is the theory is reality, with no mistakes. Any false thought system therefore will collapse and become a true thought system if a process is applied to reduce the difference between theory and reality.

A true thought system thus has no difference between theory and reality resulting systemic equality.

Test this simple 1 sentence thought system that I describe in Principa against reality.

• “Every individual holds the life of other women and men.”

(There is one discrepancy. I’ll leave it for all of you to figure out, and think about why I left a discrepancy in the statement. Hint, the difference is from a defect of process where I did not take the idea to the limit.)

---

False thought systems

Now that we know 1 process (mathematical difference) that is capable of breaking false thought systems, how would a false system be designed to prevent processes from letting minds escape? Are there types of false thought systems that can control thought?³

How about language?

Is there a way to design language such that it prevents thought?

Without knowing it, I first encountered language censorship of thought when I learned French.

In French, I learned 5 verb tenses, though French linguists note there are 21.⁴ What 5 verb tenses allowed me to do in French that I could not do in English without great effort, was describe ideas about future and past that did not exist within the thought system known as the language of English.

So by designing a language where certain concepts are absent, and having minds work within that language from an early age, is it actually possible to erase some ideas from existence?

I think yes.

Until better languages are learned, which are able to express those “non-existant” ideas, language itself can be a thought control capable of controlling not only what people think, but how they think as well. This is significant because mathematically, the process of how is one integral over and above what. Language can shape how people think and even prevent people from using certain processes of thought by virtue of their non-existence within that language. e.g. English vs French.

---

What’s the solution?

There is 1 thought process that can defeat any thought limitation system that might be embedded within a language.

That process is Creativity.

With imagination, ideas for which no words exist can be described by creating new words, or phrases to convey the idea erased by language limiters. Mathematics offers an example of creating new terms for concepts. For example real numbers have square roots. However, although negative numbers exist, they have no “real” square root because no 2 numbers that are exactly the same can be multiplied to make a negative number. e.g. -3 x -3 = 9

The term “i” for imaginary was created to represent the numerical entity that when multiplied by itself creates a negative number. e.g. 3i x 3i = -9

So where language is lacking, a creative mind can share the thought for which there is no word by creating one. For any process that does not exist yet, creativity can make one. So theoretically no thought system is unbreakable with creativity. All thought traps are therefore breakable in the creative mind.⁵

1. (Imagined)

• Socrates, “Do you know why dogs tilt their head if they don't comprehend something ?

• Plato, “No I don't. Why??”

• Socrates, “Because they're looking at things from a different angle!”

• Plato, “That would make sense, as dogs are primarily visual problem solvers, id est. How to catch a ball, Climb a countertop to steal a treat, and Bite a stick. Tilting their head to look at the visual problem from a different angle seems like a logical way to change perspectives to find a solution”.

2. (There is a mathematical integral above this where the thought system actually creates reality, but that is beyond much of what we are capable of observing in this reality. A number of ancient philosophies, religions and “physicists” cover this idea.)

3. For a video of product being mathematically a dimension below process; and process being one mathematical dimension below purpose, see:

https://rumble.com/v2g2bla-11th-commandment-medicine-hat-ab.html

4. https://www.busuu.com/en/french/tenses

5. So the next philosophical question is what is the point of breaking thought prisons, especially if some people like them or find comfort in them.