Part I - Models of Synthetic Telepathy | Part II - Acoustic Signal Modulation | Part III - Working Models
Part IV - Bayesian Stopping Criterion
Part III: Working Models Under Mind Control Torture
Allen Barker, Sept. 15, 2002
again builds on the model structure developed earlier in "Models
of Synthetic Telepathy." See that article and the links therein
for the basic background information. See also the previous article
in the series, "Surreptitious
Acoustic Signal Modulation, Voice Projection, and Direct Brain Interface."
All the articles in the series are listed at the end. This current article
starts off describing audience models, as a foundation for working models
to apply in the world. I then discuss working models. In the section
following that I describe and analyze some of the harassment I have recently
been subjected to. Then, as with the earlier articles, I end with some
general thoughts on the situation.
An audience model
is a model of who all has "access," at one level or another, to your private
thoughts and other private information. It is also a model of their intentions
and consent status.
There can be
various levels of "access," first of all. The levels of invasiveness
range all the way from violating your private thoughts, to monitoring video
and audio surveillance of you in your home, to tracking your actions outside
your home, to reading your "private" email, etc. (In the spy world,
once you get one agency watching or monitoring you, you are liable to get
several.) For a large group of mind control victims the primary concern
is their own private thoughts and mentation, and who has "read" access and
"write" access, so to speak.
The basic audience
model concerns the public. Who in the general public can "access the
thoughts," consensually or nonconsensually, wittingly or unwittingly, of a
particular victim? At one extreme is a pure "voice to public" model
where almost everyone can access your thoughts but they maintain a conspiracy
of silence about it (or else are unwitting). The other extreme is that
only you and the torturers in the underground bunker (literal or metaphorical)
have access to your private thoughts. [Some victims may have even been
psyoped into thinking their thoughts are read when they are not, but for many
it is real.] Keep in mind that there will be deception operations to
conceal the true audience model and focus blame on the wrong people, as well
as "voices" which will impersonate anyone you know or interact with.
Why an audience
model? Victims have to interact in society each day. Unlike in a prison
camp operated according to the Geneva Convention, the torturers do not have
to feed the prisoners or provide them with any shelter. The prisoners
have to try to support themselves despite the ongoing and constant psychological
and often physical torture. They have to deal with a very real conspiracy
to keep them from success at whatever livelihood they choose or are trained
in -- and which exploits them in any way possible. They have to choose
a livelihood that they can somehow succeed in despite having their every thought
stolen from them the moment they think it and Bergeron harassment when they
try to concentrate. Thus many professions tend to be ruled out or made
purposely more difficult for these "free citizens." In whatever they
do, they have to deal in public with whatever audience model has access to
their most private thoughts and where people try to inflict trauma by way
of that. Then again, mind control has already stripped these citizens
of every fundamental, inalienable human right already, right at the root of
freedom of thought.
voice-to-public standard model
Perhaps the best
way to illustrate audience models and think it through here is with an example.
I will call this example model the "voice-to-public standard model." Assume
the standard model of all technology. Assume some collection of victims
with direct brain interfaces to the underground bunker control center.
Assume a voice-to-public model whereby the underground bunker sends out a wide-field
signal containing portions of a victim's private thoughts. How this wide-field
send occurs could vary: from an EM signal, to widespread acoustic signals, to
direct brain interfaces in the "audience" members' heads too. The important
point is that a large segment of the population receives the signal. Exactly
which segment receives this wide-field send is unspecified, and presumably is
controlled by "the man in the middle." In one model, for example, perhaps
all agents in some nameless agency have access to the victim's thoughts and
the control to vary the connection topology among the consensual and nonconsensual
"brains" on the network. In another example, perhaps a wide-field microwave
hearing broadcast is used in one area, and an acoustic modulation is used in
another. This network traffic may be delivered to specific targeted individuals
via voice-to-skull devices or brain interfaces, or might be sent out on larger
"amps" or "antennae" that broadcast to some segment of the public at large.
some of the "audience" members are witting, and some are unwitting.
The witting ones know it is a technological send. Some may have just
figured it out, but the perpetrators or consensual collaborators are also
in this group. The unwitting "hearers" have never consciously noticed
the signal or paid attention to it, though there may nonetheless be subliminal
and unconscious effects. There is yet another group, which I sometimes
call "half-witting." They know something about the true model [here
assumed] but have been psyoped into a false belief system about it.
They may know about the "hearing" and something of the true "send" source
in the victim's mind, but may, for example, think that they are psychic and
have special powers. They may also know nothing about the "man in the
middle" and assume it is some sort of a natural peer-to-peer communication.
from this particular audience model? Consider the consent status of
the "audience members." Any unwitting audience members or "hearers"
are clearly nonconsensual, and any half-witting audience members clearly did
not give informed consent. The consent status of witting audience members
is indeterminate. Remember what mind control victims have been through,
with vicious harassment and street theater constituting torture. Any
unwitting audience member cannot really be held accountable for this.
The witting and half-witting ones are responsible. Even the half-witting
ones know enough to know what they are doing even if they do not know the
full true model. The sorts of gleeful sadistic torture that victims
have seen indicates that. It would only take a few "audience members"
out to get a particular victim for them to be able to inflict torture.
has been inflicted the victim obviously thinks like a person under torture.
In this way a few pigs can set off a snowball rolling down a hill called gutter
culture, when the other audience members -- or just the general public --
then start to harass and criticize the victim for the torture-inflicted
thought patterns and for speaking out and resisting. If professional
torturers start off the torture and do the initial dissection and trigger
installation then even the amateurs can later pick up the triggers.
It is a vicious cycle, but at its root is nonconsensual brain rape.
From a few vicious pigs to shaming the nation. Familiarity breeds contempt,
and this can hold true even when that familiarity is forced onto the victim
and the rapists keep returning to rape again and again. Even the audience
members who do not directly inflict the torture still do nothing to stop it
and maintain the conspiracy of silence that allows it to continue.
Are there any
nonconsensual "hearers" or "audience members" besides the direct victims hearing
their own thoughts and being harassed? Suppose there are, perhaps half-witting.
(This also assumes that they can't easily just "tune out" a "voice.")
In this case they are victims also, in a way, though not as extreme as those
whose thoughts are raped and broadcast. They are forced to "hear" things
without their consent, though presumably not relating directly to them or
used directly to destroy their minds. In this case, though, they are
also participating in the conspiracy used to violate themselves and torture
others to death. By keeping silent they are collaborating (though some
might claim it is through intimidation). They apparently get to "hear"
people being tortured to death, and many of them seem to participate.
What sort of
person forced to hear another's thoughts would want to hear that person undergo
torture, versus have normal thoughts? Entertainment for sadists? The
nonconsensual senders certainly did not choose to have their thoughts opened
to the world for anyone to exploit and turn against them. To blame them
is like blaming the rape victim for having to witness the crime against her.
Blow up machine and shoot the operator, don't blame nonconsensual rape victims.
Audience members in this model could have tactfully approached victims like
civilized human beings and let them know what was happening, but that did
not happen. The victims know they are conspired against to keep information
away from them, and it concerns something as vital as their being tortured
every day. Thinking about this can be one of the most dispiriting things
and makes one want to assume an "all baboon" audience model. How do
you even look a person who does that in the eye with anything but contempt
Are there any
"friendly senders"? You have to be a bit careful about assuming "friendly"
senders, whether you assume they are consensual or not. You do not want
to Stockholm syndrome on harassers or give them an opening -- which they will
take anyway, with impostors and impersonators of anything they see you respond
to. The evidence I've seen shows almost no senders who can really "converse"
and none give actual useful or verifiable information except unintentionally.
I am the only one on "my channel" who actually sounds like a real person thinking
to himself. It is probably similar for other victims. Apparently everything
I even slightly think at the back of my brain blasts out to God knows who
around the globe on whatever network or medium. It is as if the network
administrator put me on multicast mode. And apparently even when I just
talk out loud the signal goes out too. As much as humans flap their
lips all day long, no one else on the channel sounds like they are actually
talking normally, let alone thinking. It would be a cacophony.
This indicates a strong asymmetry. The other "voices" tend not to even
be able to string two sentences together or do much but repeat the same formulaic,
manipulative, harassing, directing, and triggering phrases. This implies
no "friendly" senders.
On the other
hand, you also do not want to limit your own freedom to engage in alternative
modes of thought. This includes conversations "with yourself" without
compromising your principles or opening yourself to manipulation. You
need to be able to let your guard down at times without worrying about it.
Once you know you mind has been violated you have to question even "your own"
thoughts. [And to anticipate a spinning pig, it is clearly not all
an internal conversation because of the many external confirms and the nature
of the imposed signals.] IFT of course allows you to do that, but you
need to be very careful with it. Note that you have two classes of feedback
on your "private" thoughts. You have the voice-to-skull senders but
you also have "hearers" giving feedback on the normal channels such as regular
speech that you are listening to, email, etc. Remember that if they
maintain the conspiracy of silence used to torture you and others (often to
death) then they are complicitous in the crimes. Ignoring all senders
and remaining orthogonal except for data gathering seems to be the best policy
This brings me
to what I call a working model. Multiple model reasoning is an extremely
powerful technique that can allow you to reason despite missing information.
It is surprising what all follows just from what you do know. Nonetheless,
for everyday thinking it is much easier to have a single model and not have
to evaluate everyday data across several different ones.
Having a single
"everyday wear" model also helps in developing certain guidelines for your
own thinking. You have complete freedom of thought, but within that
freedom you can choose how to hold your own mind -- or at least what to train
yourself toward despite whatever obstacles, internal or external. Not
all thought patterns are productive, some are destructive, and certain ways
of dealing with even external harassment may be better than others.
There are a
few criteria for choosing a working model. First, it should be as widely
model-neutral as possible. It should naturally incorporate as many of
the important points of the other models, according to how likely they
are. That is, it should be something like a weighted maximum likelihood
model, fitting the known data. Notice how the example model above, the "voice-to-public
standard model," subsumes the pure natural model and mixed model for
most practical purposes. Some half-witting "audience members" were psyoped
into thinking they are psychic. [Diehard mixed model fans can still
assume the natural model additionally, but the standard model with fake psychic
psyops is still there, as are technological psychic suppression units as a
new feature.] For me, a head-in-the-sand model is unacceptable, but
some people prefer to just pretend that none of this happens at all.
That is similar to my preferred model, but I think it is necessary
to add a justice process that does see and notice everything, gather
data, and freely talk and write about it all.
As a second
criterion, the working model should not lead to Stockholm syndrome.
Victims have been tortured for years and should not assume any model where
they dignify those Nazi pigs in any way. People have been tortured to
death, and others are still tortured with that intention. Any "audience"
has at best remained silent and watched while these atrocities were committed.
A few may have worked behind the scenes to end it, but then again after France
was liberated everyone claimed to have been in the resistance. Keep
in mind also that the "audience" mind control victims encounter is not generally
a uniformly distributed one. Harassers tend to be drawn to distraught
mind control victims like a magnet.
As a final criterion,
a working model should be one that allows you to live your life as well as
possible given the circumstances of torture that you obviously did not get
to choose. It should also allow you to keep protesting and resisting
the ongoing human rights abuses. I will not describe my actual working
model here, because I am still working on it and, as always, am free to change
it. I have given enough indications of what it is like. Others
are free to come to their own conclusions about their own working models.
My Recent Observations
In this section
I describe and analyze some of the recent harassment I've been subjected to.
As usual I directly describe what is going on without worrying whether someone
will second-guess it or try to smear me. I again use the electric guitar
amplifier analogy mentioned in an earlier article. Music analogies in
general tend to apply when complex sounds are being produced and analyzed
by the brain. Consider a "signal" as going from the brain's thought
process, to an effects loop where it is further processed and added to, to
an amp producing audible sound, and back to the ear -- or perhaps bypassing
the ear and going right to the auditory cortex in some models. [Recall
that the modulation might be applied at the send of the sound source, but
if you assume direct brain or ear manipulation it might also be applied at
the receive end. See the previous articles in the series for more discussion
of that point.]
"Amps" in this
case can be things such as air conditioner noises, refrigerator noises, or
computer fan noises. They can also be fake chirping crickets and calling
birds, or overlaid signals hidden in the ambient noise of those natural sounds.
Such "amps" have different speeds at which they can be modulated with voice
or have it hidden in their ambient noise. This follows from the
characteristic frequencies and rhythms in the noise source. (To be heard
in the orchestra but not stand out too much you have to not be too much louder,
play in rhythm, and play with similar, harmonic frequencies.) For a
quiet send to be heard through somewhat loud background noise without trying
to overpower it, it needs to be matched to the background. Partly this
is just a practical matter of acoustics, but it can also be a way to try to
keep the sends subliminal. Some "amps" are more articulate than others
when voice modulated, and produce very clear speech, as opposed to more muddled
ones. Articulateness is largely a function of response speed and the
presence of higher frequencies.
Lately I have
been harassed every night by what I call Articulate Cricket. This is
a blatant voice modulation on a cricket tone. (See the earlier articles
in the series for discussion of the possible modulation methods.) Believe
me, I've heard crickets all my life and didn't just "not notice" such blatant
voice signals. If you listen very closely, it seems to be a voice signal
overlaid on top of the natural cricket sound -- though I wouldn't rule out
a complete fake cricket sound. Try listening to it as two sounds,
the ambient and the overlay. It is like someone or some machine "speaking"
to the rhythm of the ambient chirping, with a similar frequency, modulation,
and directionality. The matching of seeming directionality and
volume levels is an interesting piece of information, as discussed in an earlier
I doubt any
real cricket can truly be as articulate with the English language (always
English) as the sounds they harass me with. All the phonemes come out
crisp. What are the chances that a real cricket, by rubbing its wings
together, can make all the sounds of the human vocal tract? Chimpanzees
can't even do that; a parrot only learns a few phrases over a long time period.
Why do the crickets and cicadas repeat the same dumb conditioning and harassment
phrases as the refrigerator and air conditioner, except "chirpified"?
If you listen as two sounds, sometimes the harassers seem to "miss a change"
when a group of crickets is chirping and the patterns shift. If two
crickets are chirping out of phase sometimes the "one syllable per chirp"
triggering of the speech overlay gets mixed up and the syllables of a sentence
alternate from one cricket to the other. When the cricket overlay is
tracking your subvocal thoughts ("locked on") with direct feedback you can
change your thoughts (when "talking" on the cricket) but you typically cannot
change the speed of the underlying cricket chirp.
Often the voice
modulation will only start up a few seconds after you consciously direct
your attention to something like the cricket sound or air conditioner sound.
Listen to the sound in those first few seconds to get the background.
Other times, the voice modulation being there is what causes you to notice
it. When working at my computer it will often "chirp out" whatever I
am thinking as I am typing, like the letters as I think them. It also
likes to do things like "announce" my passwords, presumably as an attempt
to demean and anger me. The cricket at least is easy to block; earplugs
or a pillow over the head cuts out those high frequencies. Other sources
tend to start up then, in whatever regular background signal there is to hide
an overlaid harassing voice in.
So the crickets
noises are just one more cover for harassing voice modulation and use the
same jackal-like trigger algorithm and strongly conditioned phrases.
For instance, after someone suggested I try something like Tylenol PM to get
some sleep with all the harassment going on, the cricket added the sleep deprivation
goad, "he's addicted to sleeping pills," to its list of autopig phrases.
Without any dismay you can see right through the American clown suit to what
is nothing but a despicable torture technique. What if someone purposely
harassed you all day and all night and violated your most private thoughts
and moments? Would you be fooled if the wielder of the cattle prod wore
a clown suit? You would shoot that clown dead if the police couldn't
stop him, and any jury in the country would agree it was self-defense.
But the cowardly American "warriors" hide in bunkers to treasonously torture
the domestic population. They use that cover of secrecy as one of their
torture goads: "he doesn't have any idea how we do this," is a fairly common
autopig taunt these days.
There may be
a combination of methods being used, but the evidence seems to indicate that
at least some of the the modulation is taking place at the ear or brain.
That is, modulation of the received sound rather than modulating the
sound at the source. Taped sounds tend to get different overlays placed
on them when replayed (though masking techniques might be being used here).
It is like they detect the sounds as you hear them, telemeter them out, hear
them themselves in realtime, and then send back an overlay -- whether by direct
brain interface or other techniques bypassing the external sound.
effect I have noticed about the modulation of certain sounds like the air
conditioner noises and computer fan noises is that if you are paying attention
sometimes you can detect when they turn on the machine. The sound gets
a more ragged, annoying tone to it -- almost like someone stepped on a light
distortion pedal. Then the voice kicks in within that band of sound.
If the sound is actually modulated on the "receive" end, at the ear or brain,
then in this case the fuzzy sound of "turning on the machine" may be a ruse
to make the modulation sound external. Or else it may be a technique
to help blend in the voice overlay with the ambient noise. Or there
may be both external acoustic modulation techniques and brain/ear-level modulation
methods being used in conjunction.
Very often the
subjective effect seems blatantly to be external modulation
at the source. Some in the "public" -- or at least some street theater
actors -- seem to hear the sounds also, by whatever modulation method.
Nonetheless, when the brain itself is being tampered with with the intention
of harassment, manipulation, and deception you have to at least suspect that
the sound is only made to seem externally modulated on the send.
You also have to consider conditioning effects as a form of purposely inflicted
brain damage when you are bombarded with the same harassing or triggering
phrases 100,000 or more times (as with Ewen Cameron's psychic driving).
Sometimes anyone can hear sounds that sound something like words when a line
printer is printing or a train is going by, etc. The voice modulation
I am describing is completely different, interactive, and blatant.
You can draw
some interesting conclusions from what the "effects loop" of an "amp" contains:
turn the harassing voice modulation off. It is then that you really realize
what a stressful thing it is to be constantly berated by the voices of vicious
pigs you know are trying to drive you to suicide, in a society where it continues
and continues. You find yourself tensing up when you listen even to the
unmodulated sounds of crickets or air conditioners. Any second
you expect the same old harassing taunts to start up again. Soon enough
they do -- and you knew all along that they were still monitoring your thoughts,
anyway. You know exactly how they operate after a while, so it is no surprise
when they start up again. After I posted my article "human rights update"
a short while back the harassment was cut back dramatically. (That was the article
where I described how they were taunting me with phrases like, "are you having
fun being tortured to death?") The harassment then slowly seems to build
back up. The times when it does decrease or increase often tend to correspond
to external events. If I get back to making progress on my math paper
I know it will instantly ramp up. For now, then, writing this is the most
important thing for me to be working on.
-- a slower "amp" will save up and finish your more rapid thought.
line -- your thoughts repeated with a delay of a couple of seconds.
and hold -- a thought is held and repeated back over and over.
-- sometimes a different word or phrasing is substituted in.
direct connect -- a fast "voice" that can keep up with your fastest
verbal thoughts (unlikely to be a relay man in middle there).
-- comments, jeers, taunts, and "advice" that you did not think, often using
words or phrasing that you would not have used.
-- a machine-simulated RTI with simple syntactic transformations on your
thoughts and phrases in the "harassment database" repeated ad infinitum.
-- an RTI that tries to summarize your complex thoughts in simplistic English.
effect -- process voice to have a cricket-like sound to it and match
syllables to trigger off of an ambient chirp sound as an overlay.
has been a true revolution in military (and civilian) affairs thanks to secret
research during the Decade of the Brain in the 1990s -- or earlier.
Again, there are many techniques and any victim may experience one or several
at different times. They are always improving the technology, and there
is always something new to test on nonconsensual citizens. Apparently
also there is theft from and suppression of open technology researchers.
The pigs may try to excuse torture by saying something like "they are only
trying to slow you down," but torture is torture is torture is torture.
What gives them any right to extrajudicially "slow down" a free civilian citizen's
intellectual work even if they didn't use torture and you bought that
phony line? They can call anything having to do with math or computers
"dual use"; toilet paper is dual use. (Most mathematicians or computer
scientists would laugh if you openly tried to tell them my research
was any threat to national security.) There is something in free enterprise
called hiring someone or buying their work or approaching
them like civilized people and discussing things with them.
What a pathetic
supposed rationalization; but then again I have seen about all of them by
now. Once they start torturing someone they cycle through the rationalizations,
hoping one will stick. There's another one that makes me out to be a
danger to all the poor little kids reading the internet and exposed to my
dangerous ideas. That one is supposed to justify my harassment and the
rapists acting as cointelpro agents and censoring "gatekeepers" on the internet.
And what about all the other mind control victims? Do they make up different
rationalizations for each one? Why is it never real criminals like murderers,
rapists, and torturers who get the mind control treatment? [Though of
course they still have basic human rights and would have to consent to any
brain monitoring.] If I throw a soda can out the window it is treated
like the crime of the century.
Phony gradualism. People are being tortured. Society is
currently set up to deny it is happening at all. The gradualist says
you need to slowly move the current level of "allowed" public discussion toward
the true state. Will it ever get anywhere near? In some things
the gradualist approach may be justified, but remember that these are real
human beings being tortured every day. "Maybe in 50 years of being tortured
every day the truth will come out" is easy to say if it is not you being tortured
-- though callous and cruel. I respect a sincere gradualist,
though I do not share the same opinion in this case. Too often it is
just a manipulative tool of the American social control system. I tend
to describe things the way they really are when people are being tortured,
and in this case I am also one of the victims. Things can change
rapidly at times -- sometimes noticeably, like when a newspaper breaks a real
story or a major world event happens, but other times more subtly.
the rapist blames the victim, always
The cake theorem:
You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't play-act like a prude and
expect to embarrass people with their private sexual and toilet habits, etc.,
when you are the sadist voyeur raping them and attempting to demean them.
There are some instances where the cake theorem does not apply, which are interesting
to note, but this is not one of them.
2) inflict and blame [for the effects inflicted]
3) inflict and "advise" [on how to deal with what they inflicted]
4) the thief complains of stolen goods
5) peeping tom wants to use the TV remote too
6) the rapist complains of having to rape the victim
7) the rapist tells the victim he's really helping
8) the rapist plays for sympathy like the rape victim hurt his feelings
9) the rapist puts the victim "on display" and blames the victim
10) the rapist claims embarrassment at the act of rape
11) the rapist smears the victim to any "audience"
12) Mengele impugns the "morals" of the rape victim
13) categorize and blame [based on phony implications of the assumed
14) the propagandists smear, trigger, and try to discredit
canonica. This is a personal thought-algorithm of mine (and probably
of other people as well, but I named it). You can take a personal situation
involving real people and apply algorithm generica to consider it in a different
or more general setting. But you still think in terms of those people
acting as canonical elements of that different or more general setting.
That does not reflect on the actual people involved, and in fact the semantics
of bad parses or unlikely tree branches can still yield perfectly good instances
of canonica. The actual people are in a sense forked off or cloned as
canonical examples or thought handles for this particular idea -- even if
it does not literally apply to them. If you know this in your own mind,
don't worry about a rapist misinterpreting it. NPT, IFT. Adults
do not have to think only thoughts suitable for children or rapist morons
-- and children also have complete freedom of thought.
It is sometimes
even a useful exercise to imagine everyone around you in their underwear,
as public speaking teachers sometimes recommend. For that matter, if
you want to imagine getting nasty with that sexy person you saw in the grocery
store then that is OK too, though I prefer to keep my fantasies impersonal
so they don't interfere with my real-world interactions. What it means
or doesn't mean is my own private business. It is your free mind; you
get to choose how to use it. I personally don't really want to know
your private fantasies, but some people are obsessed voyeurs. If you
think "gosh I'm not supposed to think that" then you almost surely will think
it, especially if you know there is an "audience."
of the harassment is to harass and torture. They want to
drive people to suicide for their sadistic amusement and whatever larger political
purpose (or experiment) the lowest-level scum were hired for. They want
to keep people from being able to think. (Not that they won't steal
from what you are able to think.) In my case recently, they turned
on the constant auditory harassment when I tried to write a math paper.
They keep telling me to be a guitar player, over and over. They "reinforce"
that, if that is the word, and harass other thought. Of course if I
decide to do that (independent of their "advice") they'll likely start harassing
that too, perhaps telling me to be a dentist next. They'll feed back
to you anything they think you will fall for, and reinforce any anxieties,
misconceptions, or perceived weaknesses. Drip, drip, drip. No
matter how stupid it is. Constantly. This is a psychological operation
intended to destroy people's minds. It is difficult to describe all
the effects of such torture continuing for months and years.
Do not even
entertain the goads and phrases that come in on channels that supposedly do
not exist from people you do not even know. Observe for data purposes, but
do not even accept the premises implied in the nonconsensual incoming.
They will have you thinking like a moron if you'd let them, and that includes
even accepting their phony premises "from the other side," where you refute
them as if the underlying premise is sound. Don't debate the autopig,
even if it is easy (unless you feel like it). No semantics except for
data gathering, after you consider the nature and source of the signal.
harass and goad day and night, computer aided.
-- verb, to turn into a weapon, a means to kill, destroy, manipulate, or control.
Potentially applies to anything, with the applier being domestic or
weaponize technology, weaponize religion, weaponize psychiatry, weaponize
nationalism, weaponize ignorance, weaponize superstition, weaponize smug pigs
in a superpower with a phony superiority complex who think they are living
in Disneyland, weaponize the suburb, weaponize the mind.
want to trade you something imaginary for something real. Their empty promises
are like deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge. Your actions or non-actions in
response are real, though. If your phone is not ringing with a real
person on the other end or you do not have it on paper it is not real.
Ignore their con games and focus on your own actions in the reality.
The actual present
sounds like the future. Welcome to the present.
no illusions about American politics and society. Americans are the biggest
two-faced hypocrite torturers on the planet. Our elected representatives are
either complicitous, ignorant of the true situation and kept that way, or
suspect the true situation and are powerless against the unelected shadow
government. If a former East German citizen described events like the
US mind control victims describe and blamed the Stasi, Americans who know
the technology exists would believe it and at least sympathize with the victim.
[The newspaper wouldn't print it, because it would reveal the existence of
the political torture and harassment technology still used in the US.]
What is the difference then? What makes someone think that the same
thing in one place is political torture but in another it is "delusional"?
There is even a psychological diagnosis called "Stasi Persecution Syndrome,"
but no corresponding diagnosis for American secret police operations.
The difference is the widespread expedient lie and public delusion that such
abominations do not take place every day in the USA (such as with operation
mind control). The Big Lie technique is still at work in 2002.
The Ministry of Truth declared it a thoughtcrime to speak or even think such
Part I - Models of Synthetic Telepathy | Part II - Acoustic Signal Modulation | Part III - Working Models
Part IV - Bayesian Stopping Criterion