THE ROLES OF PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT AND SOCIAL ENGINEERING IN REALITY REVISIONISM
October 2, 2014 by Crystal Clark
REALITY REVISIONS BY DEFINITION
Reality revisions are agenda-driven and thereby fictitious narratives carefully scripted to revise an entire global reality in order to meet or fulfill that agenda. These are major, major paradigm shifts of generational proportions that summarily pre and re-define the future victor and victimhood status of billions. These shifts aren’t meant to change the perception and therefore direction of reality for a day, week, or months, but permanently. These revisions are as horrendous as they are gargantuan in sheer size and scope, their purpose is to forever alter the organic course of the human race in the writers’ favors, and with a body count already in the multi-millions, will stop at nothing to achieve it.
The purpose of this article is to explain why and how these revisions are made, with a healthy reminder that they can’t continue without your participation, nor will there be ANY victors left standing if they do continue.
These revisions are not only the cause of every major war this planet has ever seen (including class and weather warfare) but have also repeatedly ensured the wrong people were targeted in nearly every case—that would be the competition or “competing reality,” up to and including actions that support it and those who know what it is. Reality revisions have become so pervasive, the word “suicided” has become a permanent fixture of our lexicon in response to the presence, affectations and reverberations of these revisions, and are why we feel increasingly haunted by an Orwellian ghost reminding us that in times of universal deceit, telling the truth is revolutionary act. Furthermore, if these revisions were not really happening, neither would the global mass-surveillance system and the life it breathes into the pre-crime, thought-police-state necessary to enforce it. This includes indefinite detentions and sanctioned drone strikes (murder) without a trial first.
This is going to be a lengthy article, but should your reading experience parallel my own while writing it, I suspect you’ll have your own personal encounters with Orwellian ghosts of realities passed. As the phrase, “I write to discover what I know” floated in, I suddenly found myself reflecting back to a book I wrote several years ago about competing realities and a group of characters referred to as “simuls”—an odd group of people who could recall two different realities simultaneously. Perhaps it meant more than I thought it did at the time. Ironically (or not) the title was When Tomorrow Comes, and I can’t help but wonder if “tomorrow” has finally arrived and I’ve somehow managed to catch up with myself. Stanger things have happened, of that I’m sure.
TRUE REALITY VS. THE SCRIPTED NARRATIVE REPLACEMENT (REVISION)—BEYOND WHITE LIES
Pulling off a reality revision is no small feat, which is why mistakes are inevitably made. That being the case, like any other criminal endeavor, traces of evidence are always left behind. These can be found in irreconcilable anomaly or discontinuity in the story line or replacement narrative—a fact exquisitely portrayed in the Matrix Trilogy when Neo became confused at seeing the exact same black cat walk by twice, and was then told it was a glitch (in continuity) indicating they “changed something”. My friend and colleague James Horak refers to these discontinuities as anomaly, while I may refer to them as holes or gaps in the story/narrative. Regardless of what we call them, they do in fact exist, and as the late (and great) Kevin Smith would also often point out, wherever he found one of these black holes, he knew they were hiding the truth, and therefore had to be investigated to find it. This is a true understanding of our predicament and the mark of both research and researcher without an opposing agenda.
Reality revisions are the result of carefully scripted changes in the predominant, widely held narrative. I used the term ‘widely held narrative’ rather than the word reality because as it stands, so many revisions have already occurred that the truth and narrative not only vary wildly, but belief in the scripted narrative (revised reality) is now the predominant view.
Unsurprisingly, reality revisions are handled and treated in much the same manner as a literal script. This means that the story/plot and characters must be carefully and methodically developed over time, regardless of the size of the climax, main event or ‘tipping point’ in the story. Failure to perform the pre-climax set-up properly, means the difference between a mega revenue-generating blockbuster and a B-rated movie, or in the case of a reality revision, the difference between success and failure. In other words, the story has to be sold properly—it has to be believable to the audience. With this in mind we know that changes in the narrative (or changes in language, as Orwell pointed out) are slowly building and creating a new reality revision and require the following:
- Originators/imaginers/benefactors of the new story
- Funding/wealth transfers (size of the production equal to the size of the funding or transfer)
- Script writers
- Managing agents
- Props & sets
- Lead actors/actresses
- Supporting actors/actresses
- Opposing ideologies
- Heroes & villains
- Victims & victors
- Theaters, venues, showcases
- Sales force & Marketing for repetitive reference
- Lateral narrative binders
Lateral Narrative Binders
As the ‘real world’ audience is in the billions, certainly operating in this particular theater is a little more complicated, and therefore requires the use of something I refer to as narrative binders. These are beyond the roles of lead or supporting actors, and operate outside of normal marketing parameters. Their function is to reinforce the narrative while operating both subliminally and in the margins, for differing reasons and in several unique ways:
- Narrative binders are the glue and filler used to bind the narrative together tight enough that the holes or breaks in continuity become imperceptible; install and/or create psychic (psyche) blocks within the minds of the intended audience through constant redirection back to the new narrative or revision; the mortar filling/hiding the spaces (discontinuity) between the bricks.
- In a real-world scenario, lateral narrative binders surround and infiltrate the daily personal lives (margins) of the audience, both before the audience member has shown up to watch the production, and continue long ‘after they have left the theater,’ so to speak.
Being that in reality an individual’s entire life and world are the stage, for our purposes here, television news outlets suffice as the theater and the home viewer as the audience member. (Note that television news outlets are owned and operated by #1 on the previous list, and are used to satisfy requirements #4, #7 and #11 of successful story writing). Ironically (or not, again), lateral narrative binders working in the periphery or margins of audience member personal experiences, both pre and post event, are often blockbuster movies all repeating (pre-marketing) or pre-seeding a theme central to the coming reality revision that will later be broadcast through the news as a real event.
Pre-event lateral narrative binders are, in and of themselves, a form of subliminal “pre-selling” of an event that has yet to happen—an event the audience member does not yet know is going to happen—and are consequently extremely effective mechanisms of steering thought and perceptions in a pre-determined direction to achieve maximum “buy-in” during the actual revision attempt.
PREVIOUS USE OF LATERAL NARRATIVE BINDERS & PRE-DEFINING EVENTS
An example of this would include pre-seeding a narrative binder into a newspaper, in the form of a claim that a specific country (character), which the new narrative has already begun to pre and redefine as the villain (terrorist), “has weapons of mass destruction,” prior to the intended reality revision (war against a competing reality). If a recognized authority figure (lead actor) were to later appear on a news program (enter the stage of the theater) to sell this new war or reality revision, they would then quote the previously seeded source (pre-event narrative binder) as proof the reasons for the intended revision are already well-known and documented by others.
Considering that example was based on real events it may sound familiar. Not only was the Iraq war started over a lie, but was also the beginning of a massive global reality revision responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people competing for, and living in, a different reality than the one the revision created—their reality was stolen and replaced with someone else’s version.
Other examples of previous and current narrative binders, which indicate an intended reality revision is about to occur—can be found in everything from the Nike poster marketing footwear on a human calf with the flesh blown off, before the Boston Marathon bombing happened, cartoons and television programs showing the destruction of the twin towers prior to 911, over-hyping and over-televising minuscule opposition to referendums to prevent discussion or investigation of an opposing reality revision (in the form of rigged election results) to even the constant barrage of a (trending) “hostile alien” meme (a villain bait-and-switch in the “terror” narrative) found in several major motion pictures in the last two years. This is alongside a marked increase in major class division/warfare dramas being played out in post-apocalyptic and dystopian themes; sometimes a combination of them all in the same film or series.
Reality revisionists have, as arrogantly expressed in their own writings, given themselves—and only themselves—the power to mold and shape the reality narrative so completely they refer to the rest of us as mere onlookers and spectators. Additionally, given some serious thought, we may ultimately discover that it is this very specific distinction (between the writers, performers and spectators) underlying the entire premise behind ‘class warfare’ to begin with.
Their preference for the word “theater,” especially in military or wartime operations, is rooted in the reality revisionist mindset and their painfully blatant use of ‘crisis actors’ (supporting actors used to sell the revision) confirms it. They have made themselves the sole writers, producers, financiers/lenders, lead actors and beneficiaries of a fictional reality narrative that we, the audience, are expected to believe is real. And I do mean expected. That’s what the thought police, data-mining fusion centers, and giddily awaited pre-crime divisions are for.
As explained many times before, in both written articles and radio shows, THIS is what the global surveillance network is really for—it’s being used to identify and weed out the dissenters and heretics from the official narrative of reality. It’s not being used to catch international or homegrown “terrorists,” which is why they never manage to find any they haven’t purposefully and personally funded and written into the script as supporting actors. That will only remain true, however, until the next revision is complete, and I can assure you it’s already underway.
THE ROLE OF RE-BRANDING DURING A REALITY REVISION
We have seen extremely blatant examples of rebranding coming from our government(s) the past decade, an example I point to often being the President’s rebranding of a Dronestrike Kill List to a Disposition Matrix. Rebranding is often thought of as a method whereby a harsh truth can be softened and made to become more palatable. This is certainly true, happens often and quells resistance. But what about the kind of rebranding one finds in the old bait-and-switch technique, which is, in itself, a pre-condition or necessary companion of a reality revision?
Rebranding for the sake of redefining can be read as a harbinger of reality narrative revisions. This is important: rebranding for the sake of redefining can be read as a harbinger of reality narrative revisions. For example, when a storyline is becoming more complicated to set the expectation of a nearing twist or drama, either a new character is introduced or an existing character is redefined as somehow being duplicitous or disloyal to the others—this is where the plot thickens. With that in mind, let’s apply the previous 13 reality revision requirements to the 911 (narrative) chapter of the script.
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE FOR & BY THE ELITE: Chapter 911 (Written by the elite)
- Originators/imaginers/benefactors of the new story: Elite championing for their New World Order Nirvana (Global Governance)
- Funding/wealth transfers (size of the production equal to the size of the funding or transfer): Bribes and global surveillance systems are expensive, and we know that just before (pre-event) 911, Rumsfeld announced the “loss” of 3 trillion dollars. After 911 there have been massive transfers of wealth from the housing crisis, bank bailouts, declaration of perpetual war for the MIC, and several more trillions of dollars have been lost again. These transfers indicate expected continuing production costs.
- Script writers: Social Engineers (members of CFR & TC), think-tanks
- Managing Agents: Social Engineers, Corporate heads, media moguls, officials
- Props and sets: non-existent airplanes
- Lead actors/actresses: social engineers, media moguls and officials
- Supporting actors/actresses: News anchors (teleprompter/script readers), disinformation agents, controlled opposition
- Opposing Ideologies: Islam vs. Christianity
- Heroes and villains: Heroes: people willing to fight for white American Christians. Villains: people willing to fight for brown Islamic Arabs
- Victims & Victors: The original narrative proclaimed white, freedom-loving, Christian Americans as both victim and victor; true victims are the millions of middle-eastern people whose countries are destroyed and family members are dead
- Theaters, Venues & Showcases: Middle-Eastern war theater, Zionist Christian churches, all forms of media
- Sales force & Marketing for repetitive reference: see numbers 4, 6, 7, and 11
- Lateral narrative binders: coming from enumerable sources; usage example previously provided
The events of 911 were a tipping point in a missive, GLOBAL reality revision meant to change the perception and therefore direction of reality permanently, and it isn’t the first. Repeatedly we were told these heinous acts of terrorism were committed by those who hate freedom and free people, which is the one thing they actually told the truth about. It’s important to remember that reality revisionists use these revisions to eliminate the competition or competing reality. It is an impossibility for an oppressive, elitist global government (for and by the elite) to establish itself among free peoples with governance established for and by the people. Their power ends where our freedoms begin—it’s like turning a dial—when you turn our freedoms down you turn their power up, and when you turn our freedoms up you dial their power down. These reality revisions are designed not to simply turn the freedom dial down, but to ultimately turn it off. The last few major revisions are meant to accomplish this, one of which is currently in progress and accelerating.
THE NEXT REALITY REVISION: The Coming Digital Age, Net Neutrality & the Growing Problem of Freedom of Speech and Thought
In the same way changes in the ‘official narrative’ are used to build (up to) a reality revision, so too do reality revisions build on one another—they are progressive, each paving the way for the next. If the reality revision currently underway completes, the institution of which would have been impossible without the last one, the freedom dial will be turned so low it will become nearly imperceptible. This revision has been planned for some time and has been written about extensively by those involved in its facilitation. There have been marked increases in the narrative associated with this revision, changes in the narrative including the rebranding and redefining needed to set up the revision, and lateral narrative binders are seeping out with increased regularity.
This revision is something I have written about before and discussed several times in radio interviews in the last couple of years. It’s also why I have been so vocal about the misplaced trust in digital currencies—even bitcoin. My extremely strong opposition to the idea doesn’t stem from an inability to see the need for alternatives, but rather the ability to perceive that as these alternatives continue to develop in the wrong narrative of reality, they are consequently helping to feed and enable it. Right idea, wrong circumstances. It is imperative to recognize that reality revisions are carefully designed to eliminate a competing reality. Given the aim of the current revision underway, I can assure you that in no way are digital currencies (or digital anything for that matter) competing with the intended changes, and quite frankly, I’ve found it rather astonishing that more people don’t recognize this. If the current revision goes off without a hitch, in time we may look back on digital crypto currency as one of the most successful lateral narrative binders ever employed.
One Revision Begets Another: We are either with them, or against them
Not long after the 911 global reality revision, world leaders rolled out their own special version of Orwell’s 1984, complete with mass surveillance and invigorating patriotic chants of, “you’re either with us or against us”. They were careful and precise as to how they sold this new ‘terrorist’ threat in the beginning—freedom-hating, murderous, duplicitous, well-defined and middle-eastern characters the audience was expected to believe killed over two-thousand people by flying airplanes into the twin towers (building 7 apparently being written off as a sympathy collapse). Because evidence of a revision is always left behind in the form of anomalous holes or discontinuities in the new narrative, we now know the story surrounding the event was a fiction (hence the reality revision) yet it was a precondition to pave the way for other future revisions in the form of rebranding and redefining. Certainly you can’t rebrand the image of a terrorist in a story line that never introduced them to begin with.
Now that the terrorist or primary villain has been introduced, careful and deliberate rebranding is being used to broaden its scope and definition—the action is picking up. Wildly redefining the behavioral patterns of a terrorist now puts Christians, protesters, returning veterans, and basically EVERY victim of the revision, who are now waking up simply because they have been victimized by it, in the same category as a terrorist. This is a bait-and-switch altering the official terrorist narrative to now include ordinary people—this introduces a plot twist known as the homegrown threat.
This too was done to engender, within the audience and/or spectators, the expectation of another drama in the near future, and that drama is here. Remember, this rebranding or change in the terrorist narrative began at least a couple of years ago and is now working its way to a climax. Very specific lines are being drawn in the sand between your future place as an audience member/spectator, and their future place as writers, directors and producers of a film called The New World Order (global governance for and by the elite): you are either with them, or against them.
What I’m hoping to make abundantly clear at this point, is what this revision is ultimately for and about: putting you in your place as a spectator or member of the spectator class, and ensuring you stay there. Attempts to maintain, or create a competing reality, or interfere with their own reality revisions in any way—in thought, deed, or protest— will mean you are over-stepping your spectator class boundaries and are therefore against them. THAT is the line being drawn, and the system necessary to enforce it is almost complete. Moreover, if you continue to abide by your invisible (and currently *self-imposed*) spectator class boundaries, there will be absolutely nothing to prevent it. This is a major, major reality revision with extremely undesirable consequences, even for those that don’t see it. Below is a brief look at the progression of the narrative in this regard.
The following statements come from an article titled: Obama lays framework for purge of online opponents, and was written February 13, 2013—almost two years ago:
Under the guise of curbing the “radicalization” of U.S. citizens and identifying and purging potentially violent persons from the Internet, the White House has initiated the creation of a new interagency working group to address what it calls a growing problem.
The White House issued a fact sheet delineating the broad objectives of the plan.
If Wiktorowics were referring exclusively to terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, then no red flags would be raised whatsoever concerning the new program. But he never specified nor defined terms such as “violent supremacist groups” or “violent sovereign citizens.”
The Obama Administration has already caused the alarm bells to ring on several occasions as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released several internal memos referring to conservative Christians who believe the Bible, pro-life citizens who are against abortion, Tea Party activists, and political conservatives who believe in a strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution as “potential homegrown terrorists.”
And in the current gun rights debate, sovereign citizens have gone on the record to oppose the Obama administration’s all-out assault on the Second Amendment, vowing to disobey any law that would violate their unfettered rights to keep and bear firearms.
It would be difficult to imagine this administration, with its radical leftwing mindset and agenda, viewing such widespread displays of defiance as anything other than a direct threat to its power, and thus, a perfect motivation for declaring such citizens to be potentially “violent sovereign citizens.”
Remember that reality revisions are designed to cause global changes. These next statements were taken from the September 26,, 2014 edition of the Sidney Morning Gazette (Australia) in an article titled, Terror laws clear Senate, enabling entire Australian web to be monitored and whistleblowers to be jailed
Australian spies will soon have the power to monitor the entire Australian internet with just one warrant, and journalists and whistleblowers will face up to 10 years’ jail for disclosing classified information.
The government’s first tranche of tougher anti-terrorism bills, which will beef up the powers of the domestic spy agency ASIO, passed the Senate by 44 votes to 12 on Thursday night with bipartisan support from Labor.
Anyone – including journalists, whistleblowers and bloggers – who “recklessly” discloses “information … [that] relates to a special intelligence operation” faces up to 10 years’ jail.
Any operation can be declared “special” by an authorised ASIO officer
The new bill also allows ASIO to seek just one warrant to access a limitless number of computers on a computer network when attempting to monitor a target, which lawyers, rights groups, academics and Australian media organisations have condemned.
They said this would effectively allow the entire internet to be monitored, as it is a “network of networks” and the bill does not specifically define what a computer network is.
ASIO will also be able to copy, delete, or modify the data held on any of the computers it has a warrant to monitor.
The bill also allows ASIO to disrupt target computers, and use innocent third-party computers not targeted in order to access a target computer.
This is where narrative changes begin to progress even further towards the coming revision, as foretold in the book, The New Digital Age. These words came from Britain’s Home Secretary Theresa May leaves Downing Street in London, September 25, 2014 (Reuters/Luke MacGregor) as reported by RT in an article titled: Extremists may face broadcast ban, social media vetting – home secretary [Published September 30, 2014 11:18}
Powers banning extremists from appearing on TV and which allow police to vet “harmful” Individuals’ social media activity would be enforced if the Conservatives return to power next year, Home Secretary Theresa May is set to announce.
The party manifesto will also pledge to introduce time-limited Extremist Disruption Orders to curb individuals’ right to speak at public events and control their social media usage. The maximum sentence could be up to 10 years in prison for breaking a banning order.
Announcing the plans at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham on Tuesday, May will also promise greater powers for British police to access internet data.
Police and intelligence services would accrue greater access to details of when and where phone calls and emails are sent, but not their content.
Targeted individuals could be banned from taking part in public protests, certain public spaces, from associating with named people and from using broadcast media if deemed a threat to “the functioning of democracy.”
The Home Office counter-extremism strategy would encompass “the full spectrum of extremism” extending beyond radical Islamism to include far-right and fascist organizations.
Orders would target those who undertake activities “for the purpose of overthrowing democracy,” a broad definition that could encompass political activists of many different stripes.
Net Neutrality & the coming digital age
One of the best ways to prevent this revision from happening is to stop net neutrality in its tracks. This is critical as its entire purpose is to neutralize individual efforts to operate beyond their designated spectator class distinctions. If you want to end the progression of reality revisions altogether, preventing the fruition of treaties that amount to nothing less than a corporate charter for this new global governance, like the Trans Pacific Partnership (which also supports net neutrality), is critical. Additionally, as the statements in the previous articles highly suggest, synchronized moves by other governments around the globe are their own form of lateral narrative binders. Below is a segment of a recent speech given by the UK Prime Minister that echoes the same mindset. Listen carefully to how the narrative is set up and slowly changes to introduce the term “non-violent extremists”:
All of this synchronistically parallels statements made in a book published by Eric Schmidt (of Google) and Jared Cohen: THE NEW DIGITAL AGE. The book was published last year (2013) and the Copyright is shared between Google and Jared Cohen. The introduction of the book begins making a case for the dangers of an internet lacking “top down control” and discusses how the spread of communication technology has served to “reallocate the concentration of power away from states and institutions and transfer it to individuals,” further explaining that as a result [of that power transfer] ‘authoritarian governments’ will find a technologically connected population “more difficult to control, repress and influence…”.
I can’t recommend the book enough for a spectacular glimpse of planned future reality revisions, and the authors were even kind enough to help us redefine the three *new* classes of people in this heavily neutralized internet future—the lowest class being called the “aspiring majority”. I expect you’ll note the masterful rebranding of the spectator class in that one. This is doubly true when one realizes, as their own writings state, that people the government doesn’t like will have their access to the internet removed—that’s code for being forced into the aspiring majority class—punishment for forgetting one’s place. That may not seem like cruel and unusual punishment at the moment, but if and when the transition to a fully digital currency is made, it will be. This is an intended goal that is being furthered and encouraged by people like Bill Gates via the Better Than Cash Alliance.
Lateral narrative binders in this regard have been seeping out everywhere in the past few years, from the Behavioral Policy Agreement found in the Windows 8 release, to the pressure of having a singular and trackable online ID for access. The latter is associated with past and current narrative binders in the idea that those online or virtual personas may be kidnapped and held for ransom (according to Eric Schmit) and re-affirming lateral binders in the MSM reporting things like millions of gmail accounts being hacked, are all clearly moving the narrative in this direction.
In summary, the fact of the matter is, there are, and always have been, two completely different realities competing for full manifestation. I ask you once more to give them both, and their inevitable outcomes, some serious consideration and deliberation while the choices are easier to make and still available. The crossroad is on (y)our doorstep, so please, share this information with others so they may do the same. Do we really want to live in a world where our personal right to self-determination—and everything that right represents—has been written out of the script?