Are you programmable? Mind Control-Part 1

Understanding the technologies that target you is the first step in effective defense.

The video above is some hilarious techno-bullshit spewed by Klaus in perfect French. Somehow Klaus can’t master English, which is an easier language to learn. Maybe a microchip in his brain would help…

Is it true that humans can be mind controlled, or programmable? If so, what is that technology? Can it be effectively countered?

A better question in relation to the mind control is WHICH mind? I will get to this in Part 2, but for now let’s look at some examples of proposed mind control approaches.

Here is an interesting article about a rather old concept of the Entrainment Technology, Subliminal Programming & Financial Manipulation, an interview with Adam Trombley by Catherine Austin Fitts at Solari Report:

Entrainment technology basically is the technology that exploits a neurological function called frequency following response. [It] was discovered in the earlier part of the 20th century and in terms of this type of entrainment was a matter of when the brain hears a repetitive pattern. It can be a repetitive pattern of words, it can be a repetitive cadence of rhythm, or in modern times it can be a repetitive acoustic sound coming across the loud speaker. It can be in a certain wave form, a certain frequency, the brain will follow that sound. […] the brain will fall into rhythm with that sound.

Because what the German scientist community had discovered was, if you played alpha waves to patients who were having problems with their nervous system or psychosis or whatever, or even if they were just anxious, if you played alpha waves to these people they would became calm.

Note that this is evidence of alpha waves having a stabilizing effect on a mentally ill or unstable subject, not the entire population. The precondition here is that the subject has a mental illness as a starting point.

It would adjust their body chemistry in proportion to that. They would feel relaxed, and open and therefore more suggestible, which is a part of that, what happens.

Here is a discussion on more advanced technologies: a video of Dr. Charles Morgan who spoke to the cadets and faculty at West Point in 2018 about a range of topics, including psychology, neurobiology, and the science of humans at war. I don’t know him, but he would be a convincing Dr. Evil in a Hollywood production (below picture is a screenshot, click on linked video above to watch the full talk).

The talk is not really a science presentation but a scienc-y propaganda/sales pitch using some futuristic concept tech. He and the anointed academics like him have been doing this for a long time - replacing real scientific research with mythology, spinning “visions” that never materialize beyond some lab tricks and “peer reviewed” papers (90%+ of which cannot be replicated). It is easier to sell a sci-fi vision as opposed to really making something work, I know this from experience commercializing academic IP. Although I could not read all of the studies mentioned and verify all of this, but spot checking showed he is producing a lot of hot air. It is a tactic designed to dazzle with the potential but not show any verifiable details.

Another reference is an interview on Librti channel with some interesting data points regarding mind control tactics. According to the speaker, 25-30% people are not susceptible to mind control techniques he is describing. This is evidence that despite trillions spent on decades of planning, predictive programming, propaganda, bribery and coercion, a large percentage of the population did not fall for the mind control methods that were deployed. Later in the talk the presenter discusses caffeine and alcohol as the reasons for weak minds. Certainly, abuse of alcohol is a big problem. I disagree with him on caffeine because it is practically impossible to overuse coffee (you will get jitters and stop), it is not inherently dangerous and has good properties. When caffeine is artificially added to beverages it’s a bit of a different problem, but coffee is not bad for you.

We know that approximately 20% of the US population did not inject themselves with the biological weapons pushed as “vaccines”. Many of the people who did get 1 or 2 injections subsequently decided to stop and resist. The % of the population resisting the mind control manipulation techniques is therefore growing over time. Are they all abstaining from coffee and alcohol? I don’t think so. Then, what makes people resist powerful, technologically advanced mind-control technology and methods?

Learning mind control tactics from “Artificial Intelligence” (AI)

I talked about limitations of AI in this post. The feedback from readers was very interesting and I think for the most part the consensus was that AI is indeed not very intelligent, as it is created and programmed by humans and trained on text from social media which is mostly garbage (and now polluted by AI-generated garbage, too).

Yuval Harari states that there is no need for implanted brain chips, because humans are controlled by narratives - I agree! Then he proceeds to making claims that AI will do the mind controlling and governing of the masses, and that human history is over, it has been hacked (he likes that word) yada yada…

Let’s investigate…

The Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1950, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. Turing proposed that a human evaluator would judge natural language conversations between a human and a machine designed to generate human-like responses. The evaluator would be aware that one of the two partners in conversation was a machine, and all participants would be separated from one another. The conversation would be limited to a text-only channel, such as a computer keyboard and screen, so the result would not depend on the machine's ability to render words as speech. If the evaluator could not reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine would be said to have passed the test. The test results would not depend on the machine's ability to give correct answers to questions, only on how closely its answers resembled those a human would give.

My first question - why did everyone assume Turing’s idea of the human mind underlying design of this test is correct? Like most computational scientists, had he understood humans, he would have done something else professionally. He did not seem to appreciate the fundamental difference between man-made and nature-made: machines (of the same type) are all the same and are highly repeatable within themselves and across different units. When randomness (or novelty) is desired, it can never be truly delivered by a machine. On the other hand, humans are highly variable intra- and inter-individuals, albeit at the same time they exhibit consistency as well.

This must watch video gave me the idea of “are you programmable” matrix. This matrix is not very serious nor scientific, it is designed for entertainment purposes only.

Another thing Turing did not realize - humans have two minds and a physical body located in space and time. All three plus location must exist in order for intelligence to exist. We will discuss this more in Part 2.

Is there a technology that will pass the Turing Test? The answer is - it depends. What will pass the Turing Test for you may be different from what will do it for another person, and it maybe different for you in a different situation or space-time coordinates. Humans can easily modulate their level of awareness and credulity based on the situation and assessment of trade-offs, computers - not so much. For a significant % of the population, there is no technology that will pass Turing Test, and it may be simply because they will refuse to interact with an anonymous counter-party. The % is not static. This depends on your own mental health, emotional state, your skills and level of situational awareness (all of these can be honed and improved). This is a dynamic and evolving process as we constantly learn from experience and from interactions with people and tech, including with its weaponized variety.

Readers of this Substack (who are certainly the most intelligent individuals on this planet) have noticed a concerted effort to make people stupider in all areas of life. The massive “public health” effort to make people sick is also part of this campaign, as physical and mental fitness are inseparable. There is no need for very sophisticated AI, brain frequencies, brain chips, nanotechnologies or other elaborate methods to control the menticided. The NPCs will do what Dr. Sanjay Gupta or the Yellow Bird tell them to do. Repetition of the same message will be sufficient. That is because the NPCs already turned over the control of their minds to the Yellow Bird. For the independent thinkers, no amount of technology will make them fall for the narrative. Massive censorship and coercion do not work either, and in fact only hone bullshit detectors, because a free human has good control of his or her mind. No technology can wrestle it away. It can only be relinquished voluntarily.

Therefore, in order to make mind-control technologies, the most efficient method is to first lower defenses by dumbing the target down. This is elegantly demonstrated by the hilarious attempts at making AI woke.

When ChatGPT is given a lobotomy in order to be woke, it becomes much stupider. This is a quote from an AI developer, who referenced this paper. Where he says “safety” he means “wokeness” and censoring GPT such that it refuses to give the user information that TPTB want to censor:

Many of us practitioners have felt that GPT-4 degrades over time. It's now corroborated by a recent study. But why does GPT-4 degrade, and what can we learn from it? Here're my thoughts: ▸ Safety vs helpfulness tradeoff: the paper shows that GPT-4 Jun version is "safer" than Mar version, as it's much more likely to refuse sensitive questions (answer rate drops from 21% -> 5%). Unfortunately, more safety typically comes at the cost of less usefulness, leading to a possible degrade in cognitive skills. My guess (no evidence, just speculation) is that OpenAI spent the majority of efforts doing lobotomy from Mar to Jun, and didn't have time to fully recover the other capabilities that matter. ▸ Safety alignment makes coding unnecessarily verbose: the paper shows that GPT-4-Jun tends to mix in useless text even though the prompt explicitly says "Generate the code only without any other text". This means practitioners now need to manually post-process the output to be executable - a big annoyance in an LLM software stack. I believe this is a side effect of safety alignment. We've all seen GPTs add warnings, disclaimers (I'm not a <domain> expert, so please consult ...), and back-pedaling (that being said, it's important to be respectful ...), usually to an otherwise very straightforward answer. If the whole brain is tuned to behave like this, coding would suffer as well.

From the first cited example of mind control techniques, here is Catherine Austin Fitts’s own experience with an attempted mind control technology (some sort of brain influencing frequency utilized at an investment conference):

…George Tenant who just resigned as the head of the CIA comes in and gives a speech and the whole point of his speech is the importance of integrating between enforcement and intelligence. It’s unbelievably strong. The whole feeling you felt was so wonderful, like you just had massive amounts of champagne, ridden a bicycle a hundred miles, you just felt on top of the world. Then they were taking questions and I walked up and they handed me the microphone and I said, “How do you do Mr. Tenant?” Of course he knows who I am. “I’m Catherine Austin Fitts, can you explain how it was that the Air Force stood down four times on 911?” And he went into a state of complete shock because you could tell that the reason they felt comfortable taking questions was because whatever they were doing was so strong. The last thing he expected was a really tough question. So he didn’t handle it very well. Needless to say, it sort of got people out of that state of pleasure. But I saw it there, and I thought if you did this on a political speech?

The effective approach demonstrated here - you can simply recognize what is going on and stay alert. And by doing so you can snap others out of it as well.

She also added later:

I would like to point out that entrainment technology was not enough to get George W. Bush elected, they needed computer fraud too!

Many people find our collective experience in the past few years (or decades) disheartening. So much evil has surfaced, that it is hard to gain perspective. It seems insurmountable, and the prospects are only worse. That is not true in my opinion. I see the evil, and I am disgusted by it and I would prefer that it did not exist. However, if you are reading this - you have won so far. The predators could not defeat your mind, despite the absolute technological hell they lavishly funded and unleased on you. From this position, by seeking the truth and thinking independently, staying in control of your mind you can never be enslaved.

To be continued…

Art for today: Light Yellow, oil on panel 8x10 in.