Comment on this article |
Email this article |
US Covert Fascism (english)
31 Oct 2003
This is an article by scientist Allen Barker on highly advanced Modern US secret police tactics and psyops
This is an article by scientist Allen Barker on Modern highly advanced US secret police tactics and psyops. He hosts an ecxellent site at http://www.datafilter.com/mc
which has been awarded by USA Today as a USA Today Hotsite:
Working Models Under Mind Control Torture
Allen Barker, Sept. 15, 2002
This article 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.
Example: The 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.
Assume that 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.
What follows 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.
Once 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 or disgust?
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 in general.
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 article.
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.
One interesting 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:
Buffers -- a slower "amp" will save up and finish your more rapid thought.
Delay line -- your thoughts repeated with a delay of a couple of seconds.
Sample and hold -- a thought is held and repeated back over and over.
Paraphrase -- sometimes a different word or phrasing is substituted in.
Rapid direct connect -- a fast "voice" that can keep up with your fastest verbal thoughts (unlikely to be a relay man in middle there).
RTI -- comments, jeers, taunts, and "advice" that you did not think, often using words or phrasing that you would not have used.
AP -- a machine-simulated RTI with simple syntactic transformations on your thoughts and phrases in the "harassment database" repeated ad infinitum.
MCI -- an RTI that tries to summarize your complex thoughts in simplistic English.
Chirp 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.
They can 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.
Apparently there 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.
Some General Comments
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.
1) the rapist blames the victim, always
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 category]
14) the propagandists smear, trigger, and try to discredit
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.
Algorithm 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."
The goal 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.
$10/hour torturers harass and goad day and night, computer aided.
weaponize -- verb, to turn into a weapon, a means to kill, destroy, manipulate, or control. Potentially applies to anything, with the applier being domestic or foreign.
Weaponize medicine, 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.
They always 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.
Please have 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 things.
Other Articles in the Series
"Models of Synthetic Telepathy" -- The basic model structure written out, plus general comments. The later articles work from this model structure. http://www.datafilter.com/alb/modelsOfSyntheticTelepathy.html
"Surreptitious Acoustic Signal Modulation, Voice Projection, and Direct Brain Interface" -- Ways that harassing audio voices can be technologically sent to victims, plus general comments. http://www.datafilter.com/alb/acousticModulationAndBrainInterface.html
"Working Models" -- Trying to select or create a model that lets you somehow function in the American secret police state while under torture, plus more general comments. http://www.datafilter.com/alb/workingModelsUnderMindControlTorture.html
"Bayesian Stopping Criterion and the Optimization Theorem" -- When you've gathered enough data, and how best to react. With general comments on triggers, society, and propaganda.
"We've been watching you a long time. We know more about you than you think." -- What an RTI blurted out, angry, when I told him he was "powerless."