Mind Control, Social Engineering, MK Ultra & Entrainment Technology

Mainstream Science Now Resembles CIA Mind Control Programs to Wipe Memories

Source: ActivistPost.com
Aaron Kesel
August 19, 2017

Years of research on mice proves that scientists can weaken or strengthen particular memories from the brain or outright delete inherited memories, the Guardian reported.

Scientists hope that the new discovery could potentially be used to help those with cognitive decline or post-traumatic stress disorder by removing fearful memories.

“We can use the same approach to selectively manipulate only the pathological fear memory while preserving all other adaptive fear memories which are necessary for our daily lives,” Jun-Hyeong Cho, co-author of the research from the University of California said.

The researchers used those mice to examine the pathways between the amygdala area of the brain responsible for emotional memories and the area that produces particular sounds. They played a series of low- and high-pitched tones that shocked the mice’s feet with electrodes on the high-pitched sounds.

“These mice are special in that we can label or tag specific pathways that convey certain signals to the amygdala, so that we can identify which pathways are really modified as the mice learn to fear a particular sound,” Cho said. “It is like a bundle of phone lines,” he added. “Each phone line conveys certain auditory information to the amygdala.”

The team then discovered it was possible to completely erase fearful or unwanted memories using a technique called optogenetics, while medication has been used for this purpose to remove the negative associations of some memories.

This technique involves using a virus to introduce genes into particular neurons in the brains of the mice that were involved in the “high-pitch” pathways.

Once the virus was inside the cells, the genes resulted in the production of proteins which responded to light, allowing researchers to control the activity of the neurons.

Taking mice with the fearful memories, the team exposed the neurons involved in the “high-pitch” pathway to low-frequency light – an approach which weakens the connections between the brain’s neuron transmitters.

“It permanently erases the fear memory,” Cho said. “We no longer see the relapse of fear.”

‘The fact that you can parcel out these memories and manipulate them in a predictable fashion is remarkable,’ Sumantra Chattarji, an expert on memory at the National Centre for Biological Sciences in Bangalore, India told New Scientist.

‘This was impossible a few years ago.’

In another study from 2015, MIT scientist found that in animals that developed PTSD symptoms following chronic stress and a traumatic event, serotonin promoted the process of memory consolidation. When the researchers blocked the amygdala cells’ interactions with serotonin after trauma, the stressed animals did not develop PTSD symptoms, while blocking serotonin in unstressed animals after trauma had no effect.

Then earlier this year scientist from MIT and a team in Japan discovered how memories were formed simultaneously in the hippocampus and the cortex by watching how memories responded to an electric shock. In other words, one is for the present short-term and the second is for the long-term.

Scientists have also discovered that generations pass on memories to each other.

None of this is new, this is the overt or clear world scientists catching up with the black-budget scientists in bases like s4.

There was a series of CIA mind control programs including BLUEBIRD, ARTICHOKE, MKULTRA, MKSEARCH and MKNAOMI during the ’50s to ’90s. The CIA sought to blank-slate test subjects wiping memories through drugs, electric shock, high-pitched sound and other torture techniques.

Dr. Ewen Cameron was partially backed by the CIA during project MKULTRA and used electrodes to zap the memories from his unwitting patients’ brains during the 1950s. This method of torture was called “psychic driving.”

After horrendous electric shocks, drugs were given to the test subjects to put them into days of prolonged delirious sleep. Cameron would then subject them to audio tapes he made, in which he repeated certain phrases thousands of times, with the hope of producing new personalities within them.

A 2012 lawsuit filed by veterans’ groups, against the CIA and the DOD, refers to Cameron’s methods. The suit also states that two researchers, Dr. Louis West and Dr. Jose Delgado, working together under the early CIA MKULTRA subproject 95, utilized two protocols: brain implants (“stimoceivers”) and RHIC-EDOM (Radio Hypnotic Intracerebral Control-Electronic Dissolution of Memory) to program the minds of victims.

Translation: they sought to bury memories, and implant false memories that never happened.

The CIA ultimately found that stress and sleep deprivation can make people more susceptible to false memories as have other researchers.

Neuroscientists in France implanted false memories into the brains of sleeping mice in 2015. Using electrodes to directly stimulate and record the activity of nerve cells, they created artificial associative memories that persisted while the animals snoozed and then influenced their behavior when they finally woke up. MIT scientist also achieved the same result using mice in a similar experiment prior in 2013.

Meanwhile, Japanese researchers have developed a trick to implant false visions into people’s brains, altering the way they experience the world and potentially even the way they think.

The gap is decreasing from what covert science knows and what overt science knows – or the clear world and the black-budget world of military intelligence minds.

Psychographics 101

Source: CorbettReport
James Corbett
June 30, 2017

SHOW NOTES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=23153

What do you get when you combine behavioural science with big data and use the new Frankenstein hybrid to better influence people’s thoughts, opinions and desires? Why, psychographics of course! Join James today as he delves into the murky world of billionaire hedge fund owners, creepy thought manipulators and the Trump campaign.

Symbolic Pics of the Month 05/17

Source: VigilantCitizen.com
VC
May, 2017

In this edition of SPOTM: Ed Sheeran, Britney Spears, Bella Thorne and so much proof that the industry is controlled by people worshipping the one-eye sign.

There are a quite a few articles about Britney Spears on this site. Why? Because she is one of the most obvious cases of Monarch programming in the entertainment business today. Everything about her screams out mind control – even her Instagram account. Here are some images that were posted by Britney (or whoever controls her social media accounts) in the recent weeks. They are 100% drenched in MK symbolism.

A painting of a young girl who has a monarch butterfly on her head while hiding one of her eyes with another butterfly. Pure Monarch programming symbolism.

Pretty much the exact symbolism as the image above.

Another butterfly with a caption that creepily alludes to MK programming: “we’re all a little fragile”. These are only a few examples of the many MK-related images on Britney’s Instagram. Take a look at the comments of this image. At least, there’s some VCs out there.

Of course, the one-eye sign popped out everywhere last month, in places that clearly indicate who and what is under elite control.

Music industry darling Ed Sheeran has one eye hidden in Clash Magazine. But wait, maybe it is just a coincidence. He’s too quirky and charming to be doing that kind of stuff.

Nope, more intentional one-eye action to let you know who he’s working for. But wait, maybe it’s another coincidence. He’s so down-to-earth.

Camila Cabello left Fifth Harmony to pursue a solo career. Does that mean that she’s free from elite control? That guitar stuck on her face indicates: NOPE.

I particularly dislike it when kids are used to do the one-eye sign. But it happening everywhere around the world. This is an ad for a kids clothing brand in Eastern Europe.

As usual, the one-eye sign was prominently featured on magazine covers all over the world. They’re a constant reminder of who owns this entire industry – yet not many people see it.

The cover of Bazaar Turkey was all about the one-eye sign.

Bazaar Australia (yes, the same magazine as above). Another one-eye sign.

Oh my gosh… It’s Bella Thorne … with one eye strategically hidden.

Vogue Germany featuring the high priestess of the industry. Even she needs to pay tribute to the elite once in a while.

Ellie Harrison is becoming somewhat famous in the UK. For this reason, she somewhat needs to hide one eye for no particular reason in professional photoshoots.

The original Blade Runner movie came out over 35 years ago. Unfortunately, a whole lot has changed in the entertainment business since then. It is now owned by a very small group of people. This poster for Blade Runner 2049, which features an obvious one-eye sign, reminds us of who owns the movie business.

Free A Girl is an “an international organization dedicated to freeing young girls from forced prostitution”. Their latest promotional campaign features young girls wearing masks and unboxing sex toys. These troubling scenes are juxtaposed with even more troubling scenes of young girls being offered to men. While, at face value, the intentions of the ad are good, doesn’t this entire thing actually further the sexualization of children?

Is showing girls playing around with big phalluses a good idea? Doesn’t this kind of thing please the very people the organization is supposedly working against? And what’s up with the butterfly masks?

Speaking of the sexualization children, fashion designer Pearl Lowe was heavily criticized for featuring her own 11-year-old daughter in suggestive pictures in order sell clothing. The collection of pics on her website is downright disturbing: Revealing costumes, heavy makeup and, yes, even Beta Kitten symbolism. I’m not even comfortable featuring these pics on here but someone needs to call that crap out.

On the left, the 11-year-old girl is wearing an outfit similar to the uniform of Playboy bunnies in the 1970s. In what situation would a young girl ever wear this?

A “sexy” leopard outfit with a matching hat. Pure beta-kitten symbolism. Once again, what child would wear this? Where? When? With Who? I don’t get it. It actually looks like the type of stuff sick people would force children to wear.

A dualistic black-and-white pattern used in MK programming. The entire “collection” sends out a sickening vibe.

On May 7th, Emmanuel Macron won the French elections. The next day, several French citizens e-mailed me the same symbolic image which appeared on TV across the world.

Macron’s victory speech with the Louvre’s pyramid perfectly centered in the background, complete with an illuminated apex. Dominique Stezepfandt’s book “*François Mitterrand, Grand Architecte de l’Univers”* declares that “the pyramid is dedicated to a power described as the Beast in the Book of Revelation (…) The entire structure is based on the number 6.” The official brochure published during construction stated that the pyramid was made of 666 panes. This was later dismissed as an “urban legend” (although the info was printed right in the official brochure).

Another pic sent by another reader. Inb4: “ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WERE ROOTING FOR LePEN!?!! SHE’S A FASCIST!”. This site is not about rooting for politicians, it is about symbolism – no matter who’s is power. This is a very symbolic pic.

Special thanks to everyone who sent in pics!

The Vision Of Technocracy

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
May 24, 2017

“Well, boys, we’ve got this strange thing called THE INDIVIDUAL. Could somebody tell me what he is? He’s not conforming to our algorithms. He’s all over the place. And while we’re at it, what the hell is this IMAGINATION? It keeps slipping out of our grasp, it doesn’t fit the plan…”

PART ONE

—Technocrats say they want to wipe out poverty, war, and inequality. But in order to achieve these lofty goals (or pretend to), they need to re-program humans—

Technocracy is the basic agenda and plan for ruling global society from above, so we need to understand it from several angles.

Consider a group of enthusiastic forward-looking engineers in the early 20th century. They work for a company that has a contract to manufacture a locomotive.

This is a highly complex piece of equipment.

On one level, workers are required to make the components to spec. Then they must put them all together. These tasks are formidable.

On another level, various departments of the company must coordinate their efforts. This is also viewed as a technological job. Organizing is considered a technology.

When the locomotive is finished and delivered, and when it runs on its tracks and pulls a train, a great and inspiring victory is won.

And then…the engineers begin to think about the implications. Suppose the locomotive was society itself? Suppose society was the finished product? Couldn’t society be put together in a coordinated fashion? And couldn’t the “technology of organizing things” be utilized for the job?

Why bother with endlessly arguing and lying politicians? Why should they be in charge? Isn’t that an obvious losing proposition? Of course it is.

Engineers could lay out and build a future society that would benefit all people. Disease and poverty could be wiped out. Eliminating them would be part of the blueprint.

This “insight” hit engineers and technicians like a ton of bricks. Of course! All societies had been failures for the same reason: the wrong people were in charge.

Armed with this new understanding, engineers of every stripe began to see what was needed. A revolution in thinking about societal organization. Science was the new king. And science would rule.

Of course, for an engineered world to work, certain decisions would have to be made about the role of the individual. Every individual. You couldn’t have an air-tight plan if every human were free to pursue his own objectives. Too many variables. Too much confusion. Too much conflict. Well, that problem could be solved. The individual’s actions would be tailored to fit the coordinated operations of the planned society.

The individual would be “one of the components of the locomotive.” His life would be connected to other lives to produce an exemplary shape.

Yes, this could imply a few problems, but those problems could be worked out. They would have to be worked out, because the overriding goal was the forming of a world organization. What would you do if one bolt (an individual human) in one wheel of a locomotive was the wrong size? You would go back and correct the error. You would re-make the bolt.

Among technocrats, the overall vision superseded the glaring need to “remake” individuals who would fit in. It was perfectly all right to re-program the individual.

Other people entered the game. High-echelon Globalists saw technocracy as a system they could use to control the population.

Essentially, an already-misguided vision of a future technocratic utopia was hijacked. Something bad was made much worse.

In a nutshell, this is the history of technocracy.

A locomotive is a society? No. That was the first fatally flawed idea. Everything that followed was increasingly bizarre.

Unfortunately, many people in our world believe in Globalism, if you could call a partial vague view a legitimate belief. They dreamily float on all the propaganda cover stories—greatest good for the greatest number of people; no more poverty; equality of sharing; reducing the carbon footprint; a green economy; “sustainable development”; international cooperation; engineering production and consumption of goods and services for the betterment of everyone; and all of this delivered from a central platform of altruistic guidance.

If you track down the specifics that sit under these cover stories, you discover a warped system of planning that expresses control over the global population.

The collective utopia turns out to be a sham.

Waking up is hard to do? Breaking up is hard to do? They must be done.

A workable technological fix is a very nice achievement when the project is a machine. But transferring that glow of victory to the whole of society is an illusion. Anything that calls itself education would tackle the illusion as the first order of business.

Engineering society requires engineering humans.

That is the fatal flaw.

It’s called mind control.

PART TWO

Any genuine artist, any builder of communities, any sane activist, any honorable visionary stands outside technocracy, and is not part of this program.

Instead, his thrust is toward more individual freedom and a more open society with greater decentralization of power.

Decentralization is the key.

The use of technology does not imply living inside its control. The use of technology does not imply that society should be laid out like a giant machine with fitted parts.

Those futurists who have offered “overall plans” for the disposition of society generally ignore or sidestep the issue of who is going to administer the plan. To say this is an error is a vast understatement.

Where is one far-reaching center of power in our world that would run society with a primary concern for the freedom of the individual?

We are looking at an inherent contradiction. All such centers of power are, first and foremost, dedicated to their own survival. And after that, they are dedicated to control of the territory they believe they own. THE INDIVIDUAL is a messy thing that needs to be sidelined or dealt with as a disruptive element.

I speak to those people who understand that the idea of the free, independent, powerful, and creative individual is being sidelined, shelved, sent down the memory hole. This is no accident. This isn’t just a devolutionary trend. Technocrats see this as a necessary action, in order to “clean up” their equation for the civilization they’re building. The individual is a slippery variable that throws a monkey wrench into formulas.

PART THREE

Imagination never dies.

It belongs to the individual. It isn’t property of the group.

It enables solutions that eradicate problems and get out ahead of problems before they raise their heads.

Time and time again, the individual, as he wends his way through life, encounters persons and organizations that consider imagination a negative. In the clearly defined shapes of society, imagination must take a back seat to planning.

Is the individual resistant to such manipulations, or does he give in?

This is the key question.

Does the individual view society as an operation that can potentially lift up individuals and empower them? Or does he give in to the idea that society should create more and more dependent people?

The individual can be a source of spreading freedom, or he can defend the notion that there are an endless number of “entitlements” that must be honored.

Technocracy promotes entitlements as a doorway into the future. Its ultimate entitlement goes this way: you have the right to be re-programmed to believe you have a slot in the future world; we will make this slot as attractive as possible; you will serve the overall good as we engineer it.

That is the fundamental justification for the Welfare State. It’s the justification for a future technocratic policy which will assign citizens energy quotas. A citizen would be permitted to consume a set amount of energy in a given time period. (So-called smart meters are a step in that direction. The meters enable more specific measurements of energy consumption.)

This is how technocracy imagines the future…

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

#SmartReads | What’s On Your Bookshelf? – Questions For Corbett | #CorbettReport

[Editor’s Note]

The recommended books portion comes at the 6:15 mark.
______________________________________________________________________

Source: TheCorbettReport
James Corbett
May 1, 2017

SHOW NOTES AND MP3: Is it possible to mind control an assassin? Is overpopulation hysteria justified? How would a free society cope without police? Find out the answers to these and other listener questions as James gives you a tour of his bookshelf.

Mind hacking: Scientists want new laws to stop our thoughts from being stolen

Source: RT
April 26, 2017

Researchers have called for radical new legislation protecting people’s thoughts from being stolen and maybe even deleted.

Biomedical ethicists Marcello Ienca and Roberto Andorno believe that while rapid advances in neurotechnology have created opportunities in modern medicine, they also present new challenges for human privacy.

Writing in the journal Life Sciences, Society and Policy, the pair have warned that brain-hacking and “hazardous use of medical neurotechnology” could threaten the integrity of our thoughts.

The ethicists wrote: “We suggest that in response to emerging neurotechnology possibilities, the right to mental integrity should not exclusively guarantee protection from mental illness or traumatic injury but also from unauthorised intrusions into a person’s mental wellbeing performed through the use of neurotechnology, especially if such intrusions result in physical or mental harm.”

The proposal sets out four new human rights laws: the right to mental privacy, mental integrity, cognitive liberty and psychological continuity. It is hoped that, in the future, these laws could be used as safeguards preventing people’s brains from being read or stimulated without their consent.

Fear of cognitive intrusion is not paranoia borne out of science fiction, they say.

Last year, the US military successfully tested electrical brain stimulation technology aimed at enhancing the performance of soldiers in high-pressure situations.

In 2011, scientists at the University of California in Berkley used brain scans to recreate scenes of movies participants in the project had already seen beforehand.

Recently, Facebook announced they have set up a research shop known as Building 8, a project designed to develop technology that would allow the social media giant to read users’ minds.

There are currently no laws governing the collection of brain information and Ilenca and Andorno fear “the indiscriminate leakage of brain data across the infosphere”, in the same way as personal information is shared now.

Ienca said: “Neurotechnology featured in famous stories has in some cases already become a reality, while others are inching ever closer, or exist as military and commercial prototypes.

“We need to be prepared to deal with the impact these technologies will have on our personal freedom.”

Ann Coulter UC Berkeley clash reveals massive covert op

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 25, 2017

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter’s scheduled speech at the U of California Berkeley is off, it’s on, it’s been delayed, the student groups sponsoring her appearance are suing the University, she’ll speak indoors, she’ll speak outdoors, and on it goes.

University officials have said they can’t guarantee Coulter’s security, unless, apparently, she gives her speech during the week in the afternoon while most students are studying for their final exams. Why don’t they schedule her talk somewhere in Alaska at three in the morning? That’ll work, and free speech will emerge victorious.

Aside from paid agitators brought in from the outside by George Soros money, the student body at the University is opposed to Coulter speaking, or they’re too passive to care, or they’re too cowed to step up and demand she has the right to air her ideas.

Here is the op: the University bosses have brought all this on themselves. Their claim that they can’t protect Coulter may be true, but that’s because, for decades, professors have been teaching crap and pap and programmatic socialism and various forms of collectivism, and they have purposely neglected the Bill of Rights and individual freedom.

University bosses have been seeding departments with teachers who are so far to the Left they can’t get dressed in the morning without government aid. And the radical Left is all about debate only in the sense that they want to curtail it, shut it down, destroy dissident voices, and thereby save the world.

So naturally, in the fullness of time, students are going to follow suit and get in line. Rational discussion of opposing ideas? Never heard of it. Why in the world would they allow Ann Coulter on campus to spread dangerous thoughts?

Dangerous=someone somehow might start to think on his/her own, against the prevailing tide.

There is no room for this at UC Berkeley.

Behind this buzzing swarming cloud of totalitarian policy, there are, of course, genuine issues students could be investigating. But that must not happen. I’m talking about money, as in: who is sponsoring research projects at Berkeley? Projects related to the war machine; psychiatric “mental health” toxic-drug research; GMO research; and other mega-corporate favorites.

For example, the book, “Engineering and War: Militarism, Ethics, Institutions, Alternatives,” mentions a $70 million program that links no less than 200 US colleges in a Homeland Security program, to establish a DHS “center of excellence.” “Experts” from UC Berkeley are involved. What’s that all about? Colleges all over the US are cooperating and collaborating.

“Well, let’s keep that project quiet. Instead, let’s have students protesting and rioting against free speech. Let’s have them feeling triggered and demanding safe spaces where they can drink hot chocolate and play with model trains and dolls.”

For many decades, US colleges have been feeding from a federal money trench to aid and abet the national security state. That would include expanding surveillance on American citizens, profiling, and various forms of propaganda, for starters. If you factor in DARPA, the research arm of the Pentagon, you would be talking about research on the brain and cutting edge mind control.

But instead, no, don’t look there; keep Ann Coulter from speaking at Berkeley. Save humanity.

As I reported several months ago, 25% of US college students, last year, were diagnosed or treated for a mental disorder. Let’s not have students thinking about that. Let’s not have them thinking about the toxic effects of the psychiatric drugs. No. Let’s not have them realize they’re guinea pigs in an unending op to addle their brains.

Instead, let’s have them keep Ann Coulter from speaking at Berkeley.

And certainly, as colleges and universities across the US raise their tuition and matriculating costs to the sky—BECAUSE the federal government has a deep-pockets student loan program—let’s not make that connection. Instead, let’s saddle college graduates with massive debt.

As they walk off campus for the last time, contemplating their future of trying to pay down that debt, they can congratulate themselves, because they kept Ann Coulter from coming to Berkeley.

And thus saved the world.

“What did you do at college, Daddy?”

“You mean way back when, before I went on Welfare? I kept a fascist from giving a speech. I can’t remember her name now. But she was a threat, believe me. We had guts. It took a few thousand of us to keep her away. There were rumors she was bringing a few tanks and weaponized anthrax with her…”

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

Facebook and Google use casino-style brain manipulation tactics to ADDICT users to their mobile apps

Source: NaturalNews.com
April 15, 2017

If you’re someone who ‘can’t live without’ social media or know someone like that, there is science behind the addiction, and while sinister, most people who can’t stop checking Facebook or Google have no idea how they became so hooked.

It’s a mind technique the social media giants use to make us feel as though we can’t live without them, according to a former Google product manager.

As reported by the UK’s Daily Mail, the tactics are underhanded and designed to get our brains hooked on checking our smartphones, says Tristan Harris, who noted that technology companies are using mind techniques similar to those used by casinos. These techniques are meant to addict people to their phones and the constant access to social media content.

Harris said the technique is employed by computer programmers and is called “brain hacking.” He noted further that the techniques are essentially damaging the minds of future generations. (RELATED: Former Facebook employees admit to the routine censorship of news stories; artificial injection of government propaganda into trending news list)

“This thing is a slot machine,” Harris told CBS News in an interview, adding that the tech world would prefer that everyone was kept in the dark about brain hacking.

“Every time I check my phone, I’m playing the slot machine to see, ‘What did I get?’ This is one way to hijack people’s minds and create a habit, to form a habit. What you do is you make it so when someone pulls a lever, sometimes they get a reward, an exciting reward. And it turns out that this design technique can be embedded inside all of these products.”

The rewards include “likes” to the things you post, cute emojis included in text messages and a growing number of followers. Google, Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms all take advantage of “brain hacking.”

Harris said programmers have an entire “playbook of techniques” they utilize to get people using the product – the apps, in this case, as well as the social media sites – for as long and as often as possible. (RELATED: Facebook could face child pornography charges in Britain)

One of the more popular messaging services – if not the most popular right now – for tweeners and teenagers is Snapchat. The app comes with a feature, known as “streaks” that indicates the number of days the user has sent messages back and forth. After awhile, kids begin to think they don’t want to lose their streak, so if they are going to be away from Snapchat for a while – say, on a vacation with parents – they will often give their password to friends who will then log in and help them continue their streak with the other person.

“And so you could ask when these features are being designed, are they designed to most help people live their lives? Or are they being designed because they’re best at hooking people to use the product?” Harris said.

In the end, he said, the titans of Silicon Valley may or may not know they are shaping the thoughts, feelings and actions of hundreds of millions of people – though it is a safer bet to assume they know exactly what they’re doing.

“There’s always this narrative that technology’s neutral. And it’s up to us to choose how we use it. This is just not true,” Harris said.

Technology isn’t at all “neutral,” he insisted. Apps are designed in particular ways to make users engage in them for as long as possible, because that’s how tech-media companies like Facebook and Google make their billions.

Tech insiders don’t normally reveal such secrets, but Harris felt a need to speak out. Just a few years ago he was working in Silicon Valley living the dream. He dropped out of a master’s degree program at Stanford University to launch a tech start-up, which was bought out by Google four years later, with the company offering him a position as a product manager. He started feeling overwhelmed while there. (RELATED: Facebook To Become Left-Wing Propaganda Echo Chamber With Orwellian Plan To Label Independent Journalism “Fake”)

In the end, he wrote a 144-page “manifesto” which concluded that a handful of techies at just a few companies are influencing the thoughts and actions of a billion people, thus “weakening’ personal relationships and “destroying our kids’ ability to focus.” Find more news about the negative influence of technology on human lives at GLITCH.news.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Study: Manipulating The Brain To Create Honest Behavior

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 11, 2017

Medicalxpress reports: “Researchers at the University of Zurich have identified the brain mechanism that governs decisions between honesty and self-interest. Using non-invasive brain stimulation, they could even increase honest behavior.”

In an experiment involving rolling dice, where cheating would increase volunteers’ earnings, “researchers applied transcranial direct current stimulation over a region in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (rDLPFC). This noninvasive brain stimulation method makes brain cells more sensitive i.e., they are more likely to be active. When the researchers applied this stimulation during the task, participants were less likely to cheat.”

That result was only obtained with people who weighed moral choices. For volunteers who were wholly committed to cheating, the brain-manipulation had no effect.

This experiment reveals where brain research is going. Change the brain, change behavior. It’s a simple premise. It’s also a dangerous premise, because “greater good” is used as a justification for imposing ironclad behavior.

Of course, there are many people who can’t see consequences, who care nothing about free choice, who would favor this kind of societal control. They would say, “Increasing honesty is a good thing. It doesn’t matter how it’s done.”

In fact, these people would claim it’s extremely positive if people can’t act dishonestly, no matter how hard they try. So much the better.

Why not engineer civilization according to principles of good behavior? Lay down the principles, and then manipulate the brains of the population to obtain that desired result.

Everyone would “do good.” Except everyone would be a walking talking robot.

This distinction escapes a great many people. “What’s freedom anyway? What is this thing called free choice? Who cares?”

In fact, the medicalxpress article includes this gem: “the new [research] results raise the question to what degree honest behavior is based on biological predispositions, which may be crucial for jurisdiction. Michel Maréchal summarizes: ‘If breaches of honesty indeed represent an organic [brain] condition, our results question to what extent people can be made fully liable for their wrongdoings’.”

Why bother prosecuting cheats and liars and con artists and frauds? The perpetrators had no choice in the matter. They were controlled by their own brains. Instead, do away with the court system and treat these offenders. Change their brains. Then they’ll be honest. Substitute a good program for a defective program.

If you’re looking for a word to describe this heinous approach to human behavior and action, try technocracy. It posits the notion that society must be engineered by scientists. They define and plan the outcome, and they achieve it.

DARPA, the technical-research arm of the Pentagon, is leading the way in a mission to program the human brain.

What could go wrong?

In a word, everything.

For example, DARPA is deeply involved in developing the cortical modem, a little piece of equipment that costs about $10.

The gist? Insert proteins into neurons, and then beam photons into those proteins, thus creating image displays that bypass the normal channels of perception.

Virtual reality with no headset. The project is still in its early stages, but the direction is clear: give the “user” an image display beyond his ability to choose.

It’s touted as an overlay. The person, walking down the street, can still see the street, but he can also see what you give him, what you insert into his visual cortex. Of course, as the technology advances, you could take things further: block out physical reality and immerse the person in the virtual.

DARPA’s enthusiasm about this project, as usual, exceeds its current grasp, but its determination to succeed is quite genuine. And the money is there.

Here is a DARPA release (5/27/14) on the upcoming “brain-mapping” plan, in accordance with Obama’s initiative aimed at “preventing violence through improved mental health”—otherwise known as Clockwork Orange:

“…developing closed-loop therapies that incorporate recording and analysis of brain activity with near-real-time neural stimulation.”

Translation: Reading myriad brain activities as they occur, and influencing that activity with various inputs/interferences. Drugs, electrical currents, nano-entities, etc.

Here’s another DARPA quote. This one lays out the foundation for the brain mission:

“…The program also aims to take advantage of neural plasticity, a feature of the brain by which the organ’s anatomy and physiology can alter over time to support normal brain function. Plasticity runs counter to previously held ideas that the adult brain is a ‘finished’ entity that can be statically mapped. Because of plasticity, researchers are optimistic that the brain can be trained or treated to restore normal functionality following injury or the onset of neuropsychological illness.”

Neural plasticity: the idea that brain activity is always changing and, therefore, can be externally molded by operators to fit a conception of “normalcy,” whatever that is, whatever “authorities” decide it is.

Chilling? Of course.

In the long run, this has nothing to do with “recovery from brain injuries.” That’s the cover story. The real goal is programming the brain to fit certain parameters of functioning.

Those parameters will certainly exclude: rebellion, independence.

Here is a quote from a journal article, “The Plastic Human Brain Cortex.” (Annual Review of Neuroscience, Vol. 28: 377-401, July 2005)

“Plasticity is an intrinsic property of the human brain…The challenge we face is to learn enough about the mechanisms of plasticity to modulate them to achieve the best behavioral outcome for a given subject.”

“Modulate them.” “Achieve the best behavioral outcome.” Who defines that? Obviously, not the individual.

Notice the point of view: intervention is a given.

The brain will not be allowed to function on its own.

Behind all brain research lies that premise.

It’s no surprise that, in this technological age, the preferred method of mind control would involve an invasion by “experts.”

There are many, many brain-research professionals, and millions of laypeople, who believe that “intervention” is justified because it “corrects a chemical imbalance” in the brain. This is a myth.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the myth to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times (“Psychiatry’s New Brain-Mind and the Legend of the ‘Chemical Imbalance’”) (paywall) with this staggering and stark admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion [of mental disorders] was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”

No, intervention is all about brain control, not brain health.

What DARPA’s program entails is altering the fundamental relationship between you and your brain. That’s the bottom line.

The alteration will throw up roadblocks. It will shrink the sum of what your brain can do.

The ongoing DARPA brain-programming mission isn’t merely a two-year program or a five-year program. It’s permanent.

It’s the gateway to a controlled society.

And it’s perfectly understandable that this project would come from DARPA, which is an arm of the Pentagon, which is the foremost proponent of “military thought” in the world.

The military is interested in, and devoted to, the issuing of commands and obedience to those commands. Stimulus, response.

The military vision of society is: define the functions of each citizen, coordinate those functions to produce overall “harmony through obedience.”

Since this is the true definition of insanity, and since it is impossible to secure, over the long-term, enough voluntary cooperation to build such a civilization, the target is the brain.

Train the brain, train the collective.

Consider this analogy for you and your brain, and what the objective of programming is:

The rider and the horse. Previously, the rider took his horse far and wide. The rider went where he wanted to go. The horse was willing. But then something happened. The horse was altered, rebuilt. Now he could only move a mile in any direction from his starting point. At the boundary, he stopped. He turned around and returned home. That was the rule. The rider of course wanted to go farther. But the horse was no longer capable.

The “plasticity” of the horse was reduced.

The horse was now normal.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

	13 Great Reasons To… on Book Review: A Different Kind…
	13 Great Reasons To… on How A Generation Lost Its Comm…
	13 Great Reasons To… on The Catastrophic Decline Of Pu…
	Richard Dolan – A Br… on Richard Dolan – A Breaka…
	A Breakaway Civiliza… on Richard Dolan – A Breaka…