Secret DARPA Mind Control Project Is Real: Leaked Document - Narrative Disruptors And Inductors

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by The GUT

 

Storytelling?

Yes. Yes it is.
Persuasion? That too.
Yes. That is what we are talking about here.

Storytelling and/or propaganda with technological tweaks. One of the prior posters talked about a parent using storytelling to basically educate their children in a variety of things based on their own life experience. Whether the parent's narrative is effective depends on the parent's storytelling capabilities and their ability to detect cues in the listener. DARPA, on the other hand, is looking at how storytelling/narratives trigger off different responses in the brain, presumably to make better propaganda in enemy nations that will trigger off those more persuadable centers of the brain and promote less rejection. In a way, it's not that much different from the attempts in the past to use embedded subliminal material within the same thing. It's also totally incomparable to a parent presenting a narrative for a child because to have the same intricate level of response awareness, it'd require a fMRI and I presume CPS would have a problem with that. There's a difference between being a great and persuasive orator and using technology to do the same thing.

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
As someone who constantly worries about a 181 Flag, I understand the pressure of inventions and technological discoveries getting into the wrong hands...but I don't think that makes someone a "mad scientist." Far more positive advances have come from science than destruction. Science is simply a tool.... Accountability lies on the shoulders of those who wield the results of it.

I agree. And I sincerely respect you. But we could really use you here as far as helping reveal some real "mad scientists" that aren't as ethical as I certainly believe you to be.

I bet you've run across some in your day.

It's been my experience that the problem lies with unethical individuals as a whole, regardless of which field they choose - medicine, science, law enforcement, politics......hell, even religion.

This discussion is bringing to mind someone looking at an Apache Server Commands page for the first time, and not getting that a list of commands can hijack someone's browser who has no idea how any set of commands can be put together to tailor certain behaviors.....

In the case of the browser, a list of commands can limit certain web content, for instance, acting as a filter.
In computerspeak, we can this "creating a filter."
In real life, we call it: censorship, especially if it's done without someone who is using the computer daily, knowing this, then thinking they are informed, etc...

See how that works? Very simple premise, presented as a metaphor for how some take this research and its intended purposes, and how others are just looking at it as a simple piece of information, without the connections as to what it could be used for and the extrapolated effect that would have.

As WhiteAlice said, and it's the same point TheGut has made about the Nazi "history," controlling how governments are perceived, campaigns of disinformation (remember the term coined during Reagan's administration when it was admitted openly that said information had a "campaign" of such going on), is certainly a salient, and very important point. I find it a little amazing that there are so many on a conspiracy site that would even bother arguing that.

As for Phage's point about if persuading another person could be considered mind control, I almost laughed. Sorry, there's a world of difference between people discussing things and defending their points or analytical conclusions in debate and MK ULTRA topics and research, such as TheGut referenced.

This is part and parcel of the surveillance system of the NSA, as well: to collect the narrative of your personal life, and how it is responded to, as well as how you deal with it under certain stress or stimuli. Are you telling me that advertisers need to know a detailed logs of your travel activity through your cell phone?

And as for Bybyots's assessment, Natural Language Processing is surely interesting, but there is also Neuro Linguistic Programming, and if I'm not mistaken (I will look for a link on this), DARPA's been right up in the middle of that, too. What you say, how you say it, and many, many "scientific" programs related to getting you to say it.

I proffer another legal term: Motive. It's not just foreign elements that such technologies anticipate, but domestic activism, it seems, as well. From the momma-baby-daddy of non-lethal weaponry: Col. John B. Alexander.

..."Another category of concern is against whom non-lethal weapons might be employed," writes Alexander with his characteristically blithe understatement.

"Paranoia is running rampant in the United States. We have addressed the militia movements and surprising widespread support that conspiracy theories receive."

"Distrust of the government by not thousands but tens of millions of US citizens is confirmed in public opinion surveys," he continues. "The skepticism and controversy has been fueled by recent revelations that the US government has routinely lied to the people about such varied topics as human radiation experiments, withholding treatment in the Tuskegee prison syphilis experiments, the oppressive actions of the Internal Revenue Service, the amount and geographic area covered by fallout from nuclear testing, and even UFO sightings."

"Many of these conspiracy theory adherents believe that the government -- or some other supranational organization -- is attempting to take freedom away from the citizens. Some of them see non-lethal weapons as tools to facilitate those objectives. They believe that these weapons could be used to enslave them for some unstated nefarious purpose." Don't worry, says Alexander reassuringly, everything's under control. You just don't know how much.

"The fallacy of this logic should be readily apparent," he continues. "Sufficient force already exists to accomplish this task...
www.umsl.edu...

Not only has Alexander spoken at some length in the past about "electromagnetic measures" he has also briefed the Council on Foreign Relations and has co-authored a paper on the "wisdom" and in progress actuality of increasingly blending and militarizing state police forces.

There's a difference between being a great and persuasive orator and using technology to do the same thing.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Absolutely, there is. And therein lies the whole point, here. What we are actually discussing is technologies being employed on people without consent or full understanding of what they are and what they do, to make them more malleable, perhaps, or accepting, or downright skirting their own volition with the application of technology.

That's a world away from debates between people, or telling a story to get one's point across. And it's also right in line with the purposes of projects like Ultra: doing away with the peskiness of having to convince people in all kinds of settings, even employment....such as agents in alphabet agencies.....of having their own minds and questioning authority and orders and being in possession of what CIAGypsy wisely alludes to: ethics.

reply to post by Phage


I'm just saying that it is possible, maybe not now, but maybe soon. Also, that you'd only need to equip 1/1000 devices w/ it to get a good sample.

Radiation is obviously not the same as EMF, but you can use radioactive material (even something as simple as a Na/H2O reaction, wouldn't even need the isotopes), and extract and direct the energy. Unfortunately, yeah, you'd have to shield the hell out of it (20 lb, for sure), but they're doing some cool stuff with super-light ceramics.

Or, you could contain that field within another field, generated, say by the output of the laptop's primary functions.

And the sensory apparatus, if you'll pardon my 19th cent. vernacular (we can also call it the pick-up and amplification software), could be developed to compensate for the loss on the magnet. As long as the readings, however faint, were isolated by way of effective shielding, it's sort of possible.

The cheapest components I can come up with are sodium and water, and some kind of clever engineering, but... I can't bring the math to it.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ErgoTheEgo

 

I would be willing to put more stock in the fact we spend more time telling children stories and constructing a social narrative they are supposed to follow in order to feel good than teaching how to process information and build personal structures of understanding.

Or perhaps it is something hardwired. Like language. Something which evolution gave us. Storytellers are held in high regard in all cultures, aren't they? Could it be that effective storytelling has survival advantages?

At its most fundamental form storytelling is constructing a logical, plausible, and self-reinforcing series of events and/or concepts.

We are hardwired for both the survival and enjoyment of logical structures. Whether those logical structures are scientific reasoning, mythological personification, political obfuscation, marketing manipulation, manipulation of the physical world, social navigation, etc... is up to the context.

That people are drawn to patently false, no right answer but you must agree with us, or manipulative "mind control" story telling is not, in my exploration, an indication of what is hard wired, but what is reinforced repeatedly.

An enormous amount of the social story being provided to children is absolutely and patently false in all ways except one... if you don't adhere to and re-tell the story... you will find it much much more difficult to integrate your own logical narrative in. Which is generally felt through social rejection in some form be it social groups or career groups.

You will be hard pressed to find people who don't consider their beliefs and the "stories" they follow to be illogical. They are drawn to their beliefs because from their vantage they are logical. Understanding WHY they are logical to the person and interacting in a way that merges your and their logic structure into a larger coherent narrative builds bridges and generally results in the survival of the genuinely more logical structure.

We don't reinforce that aspect of story telling when dealing with the "real world"... if someone's logical narrative makes no sense to us... we aren't in general taught how to cross that river, but are instead taught how to alienate or reject (either politely or rudely).

"Many of these conspiracy theory adherents believe that the government -- or some other supranational organization -- is attempting to take freedom away from the citizens. Some of them see non-lethal weapons as tools to facilitate those objectives. They believe that these weapons could be used to enslave them for some unstated nefarious purpose." Don't worry, says Alexander reassuringly, everything's under control. You just don't know how much.

"The fallacy of this logic should be readily apparent," he continues. "Sufficient force already exists to accomplish this task...

reply to post by The GUT


Sorry, Gut, I lifted just a piece of Alexander's statement, because I feel this is all important, as well, in realizing the implications of this kind of technology. And he evidently believes people to be intellectually challenged, they won't get this:

Again, it is about skirting the will and freedom of will of the person the tech is employed on, without laying a finger on them. In this way, perhaps this neural stimulator is a little different, but I don't think so. It always starts this way with this kind of thing, but when they get to a weaponization stage, the goal will be how to achieve the stimulation results without touching someone of the subject in question being able to see any device, or at least associate the stimulation coming from the device.....

Here the point is plausible deniability, and its fundamental to most of what these agencies do.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
reply to post by Phage

 

The cheapest components I can come up with are sodium and water, and some kind of clever engineering, but... I can't bring the math to it.

edit on 30-7-2013 by Eidolon23 because: Dampen, transmit, recieve, amplify and ugh. Eff it, just make a laser.

Hmmm, sodium and water? Kind of like a lithium battery?

Originally posted by tetra50

Originally posted by Eidolon23
reply to post by Phage

 

The cheapest components I can come up with are sodium and water, and some kind of clever engineering, but... I can't bring the math to it.

edit on 30-7-2013 by Eidolon23 because: Dampen, transmit, recieve, amplify and ugh. Eff it, just make a laser.

Hmmm, sodium and water? Kind of like a lithium battery?

Mm, not really, there's a violent energy that occurs when you spark a Na/H2O reaction, lithium/water isn't as volatile? Probably wouldn't work unless you twerked the amplification like a mofo, and you need energy for that process, too. But, the problem is really in the shielding, and of course, renewability.

And the probability that occasionally someone would go all Scanners and hemorrhage out their head orifices, and then you'd be saddled with snowballing lawsuits.

Unless the whole point is to bathe you in Delta Waves to soften you up for the NLP and the light shows.

Huh. 2nd.

Document. PDF:

The Electromagnetic Spectrum in Low-Intensity Conflict by Capt. Paul E. Tyler. MC. USN

The exploitation of this technology for military uses is still in it's infancy and only recently has been recognized by the United States as a feasible option.

Note: ^^^Circa 1986^^^ that is. More:

Currently available data allow the projection that specially generated radiofrequency radiation (RFR) fields may pose powerful and revolutionary antipersonnel military threats. Electroshock therapy indicates the ability of induced electric current to completely interrupt mental functioning for short periods of time, to obtain cognition for longer periods and to restructure emotional response over prolonged intervals.

reply to post by The GUT

Surely, then, Phage, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not suggesting that the storytelling (Propaganda) of the Nazis was acceptable?

No I'm not.
Was the wartime anti-nazi propagation acceptable?

reply to post by WhiteAlice

It's also totally incomparable to a parent presenting a narrative for a child because to have the same intricate level of response awareness, it'd require a fMRI and I presume CPS would have a problem with that. There's a difference between being a great and persuasive orator and using technology to do the same thing.

The difference being that an orator does it intuitively? Someone mentioned nazism. Did Hitler employ MRIs and TMS?

reply to post by ErgoTheEgo

Understanding WHY they are logical to the person and interacting in a way that merges your and their logic structure into a larger coherent narrative builds bridges and generally results in the survival of the genuinely more logical structure.

And that is what this research is about. Understanding why people can believe what people tell them based on nothing but the way the story is told.

The survival aspect is clear, it would facilitate the transference of acquired knowledge. However, like other aspects of our evolutionary heritage, it can also work against us.

Originally posted by Phage
Was the wartime anti-nazi propagation acceptable?

Then there is a difference between storytelling & propaganda, eh? Glad to see you getting with the program and expanding your worldview.

In answer to your question: Depends on how coercive and invasive it was.

"Persuasive Speech" and "Propaganda"--especially of any electronic sort, are worlds apart imo.

reply to post by The GUT

Then there is a difference between storytelling & propaganda, eh? Glad to see you getting with the program and expanding your worldview.

I don't know how you got that from my statement and you didn't answer my question.

Originally posted by Phage
I don't know how you got that from my statement and you didn't answer my question.

I see how I got there. And I suspect you do, too. And I did answer your question.

reply to post by Phage

In answer to your question: Depends on how coercive and invasive it was.

It was a yes or no question about wartime anti-nazi propaganda just as your question was a yes or no question about pro-nazi propaganda.

"Persuasive Speech" and "Propaganda"--especially of any electronic sort, are worlds apart imo.

I disagree.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

It's also totally incomparable to a parent presenting a narrative for a child because to have the same intricate level of response awareness, it'd require a fMRI and I presume CPS would have a problem with that. There's a difference between being a great and persuasive orator and using technology to do the same thing.

The difference being that an orator does it intuitively? Someone mentioned nazism. Did Hitler employ MRIs and TMS?

edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

That is absolutely the difference. A great and convincing orator does it intuitively and is persuasive not only in how s/he addresses his/her listeners but, more importantly, in the arguments for his point of view. An orator's argument is accepted or declined based on ability to orate and on the perceived merits of his/her idea and how embraceable they are by their audience. In terms of Hitler (and I try to avoid Hitler in debates out of respect for the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy lol), he simply was a great orator and presented an argument that was one that became embraced by the German people based on its perceived merits. He didn't use fMRI's or TMS. He didn't have to (obviously). That's kind of my point. Even Hitler, as repugnant of a figure as he was, didn't need that crap.

If the best we can do is respond with is studies of those little mental intricacies, then that's a pretty hefty failure. If it smells like propaganda, it's still going to be detected as American propaganda and relying on mental trickery is just going to get shut down the moment it starts. One thing that they found in MK-ULTRA was that when dealing with an enemy combatant, even hypnosis was rejected. It takes trust and that was purely lacking.