What inspired me to write The Great Hijacking of the Mind i is mainly the current political climate we find ourselves in. It’s definitely an interesting time, to say the least. As we all witness this global tension rising among different and opposing groups, whether political, philosophical, or whatever the case may be, it might seem as if something new or some uncharted and dangerous territory is on the rise. But as I see it, none of this is new. Rather, we are becoming much more aware of how we participate with our own views and understanding in different world affairs, starting with, of course, our own little communities or the place we call home, wherever that may be.

We are definitely moving beyond the first quarter of the 21st century, so it may be natural that so much of our understanding is being challenged, leaving us confused or, hopefully, reconsidering a little bit of what we’ve been so sure of until now. One thing I find interesting in my observations of the current political climate here in the U.S. is the unconscious need to be validated and proven right. The truth is, there’s a little bit of truth in all our differences, including our political or philosophical views. From a spiritual perspective, the world moves better not when we negate one aspect of reality, but when we accept all aspects of it as parts of a larger picture, a greater puzzle of that same reality. Meaning, I can admit that I’m a badass and I don’t give two sh*ts about what people have to say about me, but the larger reality underneath that is that I may just be terrified of being seen as unfit or a bad person.

Social Conditioning & Critical Thinking

Having said that, I want to start by explaining what I mean by the Great Hijacking, as highlighted in the title of this post. First of all, it’s crucial to realize, if we haven’t yet, just how fragile and malleable our minds can be. This is why, when someone commits a certain crime, it almost immediately instills a virus in other people’s minds, inciting those same actions. For instance, we can see how that plays out among young people in the UK with knife crime or here in the U.S. with gun violence. Just recently, after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, almost immediately, someone committed the same crime targeting federal agents.

Now, since I brought this up briefly, here is where I stand on what happened to Charlie Kirk. No one deserves to die like that, whether we agree with him or not. And if, for some reason, we can’t feel that to be true or have it resonate with us, it may call us to address some underlying and unresolved things we may not even realize we carry. In other words, a distortion that has seeped into our minds, but we are unable or rather choose not to see it, often shaped by societal programming.

Did I like Charlie Kirk? No, I didn’t like him. Actually, I found his face very unlikable, and I even jokingly commented on some of his videos that he needed some major therapy to address his mommy issues. Did some of his debates make sense? Absolutely, yes. A lot of his open debates were logical and rooted in facts. Did I agree with everything he debated or the angles he took on certain issues, especially regarding women’s rights or religious understanding? Of course not, as many others didn’t. I actually found him to speak in a holier-than-thou manner, as if he were morally superior, and people like that don’t rub me the right way, even when they present themselves as religious. (I will cite the Bible below for why that is)

But again, to have someone assassinated for open debates and for building a brand around their own perspective is absolutely wrong. No one deserves to go like that. If we truly want change and to be a positive influence for future generations, we can strengthen our arguments instead, write books, or become better spokespersons to open people’s minds. Eliminating someone, especially while they are openly debating, is utterly delirious and will not eliminate the root of the problem.

John 8:3–11

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”

They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Mass Influence Psychology | The Great Hijacking of the Mind

As someone who is generally more emotionally in tune with the collective, I did feel the loss, as it was felt by many, and I still can’t believe something like that happened in 2025. But funny enough, I also felt the unspoken relief or lightness that I believe was shared by many in the collective, especially here in NYC, who strongly disagreed with his ideology and viewed him as a potential threat in society. Now the real question is, did I view him as a potential threat to future generations? As an independent writer, I feel it is my duty to be completely honest with my audience, so I’m going to tell it like it is. Yes and no, but here’s the thing. This is a crucial point in understanding what I mean by The Great Hijacking of the Mind.

Yes, because if we want to advance in society but are offered ways of the past, adhering to a way of life that requires moving backward in time rather than finding a new solution, it is not advantageous in any way and is potentially dangerous, in the sense that the same cycle will be repeated. Anytime you watch someone with some sort of influential platform, whether they are a social media influencer, a YouTuber with a large following, a podcaster, or whatever the case may be, and they’re presenting arguments that seem more than reasonable and align with much of what you believe, but then offer to take us backward in time and adhere to an ideology of the past that has already proven not to serve society well, such as “women belong in the kitchen or women don’t have the intellectual capacity of a man,” it is a huge warning sign.

When Ideology Takes Us Backward in Time

If you ever notice someone with influence who isn’t offering new solutions to move us forward into the future, but instead drags us backward while suppressing the ways in which we have already progressed or evolved, they are complete phonies, and you are wasting your time listening to them. We have moved past power struggles in society, and it’s still shocking to see women on YouTube, even today, openly say that they’d rather have men take on professional jobs while they stay home, change diapers, and represent all women in this way. It is an abomination. While some women may prefer that, and that is completely okay, influencing young women in this way is obviously complete delirium. We have great doctors, scientists, journalists, politicians, writers, and women who will come with their own calling in life and would rather spend time doing something far more interesting than merely changing diapers. Not that there’s anything wrong with changing diapers, for God’s sake.

These people may come across as experts in history and politics, delivering what feels like the best hour of podcasts you’ve had in months, only to incite their venom in the end and reveal their true colors. It shows that they have not matured or experienced life enough, are incapable of being in touch with reality, or have some sort of underlying mental dysfunction. And this is just one example among many that you’ll find out there in this Great Hijacking of the Mind.

No, he wasn’t a threat because at the end of the day, his debates had substance but his influence was not powerful enough to shift the collective trajectory of human evolution. We always finds a wayeven when some try and amplify outdated ideologies, and this goes for anybody, not just Charlie Kirk. They don’t last because consciousness keeps expanding. He was more of a symptom of a collective wound rather than the wound itself. A reflection of what still needs healing in our society, not the root cause of it, such as a lack of tolerance.

So beware of who you allow to influence your mind and shape your perspectives in life, whether man or woman. Listen to your body. The body knows. From a spiritual perspective, moving toward the future is moving toward truth. The future is closer to our origin, while the past is further away. This is, both metaphysically and spiritually speaking, something that may be easier for some to grasp, but it’s really not complicated.