This is the third of a three-part series of essays on mind control. As the earlier essays explained, “mind control” is the term commonly and historically used to describe clandestine operations to alter human behavior and thought. The series focuses mainly on high-technology techniques involving, for example, surveillance devices and electromagnetic weapons — though victims of all sorts of mind control techniques have common experiences and sequelae. The first essay of the series, “Motives for Mind Control”
, dealt with some of the reasons that mind control harassment, torture, and exploitation happens and why it continues. The second part, “Resisting the Mind Control State”
, dealt with ways to protest and resist mind control abuses in a supposedly “free” society. In this final part, I explore some of the methods and techniques that victims have developed to help them resist these ongoing human rights atrocities committed every day against their bodies and minds. In a sense we are going to have a look at mind control torture from the torture victim’s point of view, from “inside” the mind of the victim.
This essay is written from the point of view of someone experiencing real torture from externally induced mind control phenomena, including induced voices in the head, surveillance, harassment from various sources, and nonlethal aversive jolts. While I make no secret of the fact that I have personally been subjected to a similar sort of mind control torture, this is not my story. Of course it is influenced by events I have experienced, but the essay is a composite from my interactions with many mind control victims (and provocateurs) over the past few years. I will save the actual details of my own experiences for my lawyers or for prosecutors when that time comes, or perhaps for other writings I might choose to make public. Thus, in keeping with the earlier parts of the series, you do not even have to believe me about my having been tortured — though it all happened. There are many people in the world, including many American citizens, who have experienced very similar things. You can even think that all of those people made it all up, and still have to be concerned despite your Holocaust denial. The technology undoubtedly exists right now to carry out the sorts of torture operations described in this essay, and will only become more advanced with time.
I cover a lot of different techniques and possibilities in this essay, but keep in mind that the truth is bad enough. What we already know and can document is bad enough, and is only the tip of the iceberg. In the spirit of mentioning all the possibilities, though, let me briefly discuss mental illness here. There truly are some people with mental illnesses which occur naturally. There are also people with mental illnesses which were externally and purposely inflicted, for example by harassment operations. And there are mind control victims who are completely normal except that they have undergone years and years of some of the most hideous torture imaginable — in a lying, despicable society that denies it, ignores it, and further tortures the victims. We know this from documented sources; what the government has admitted is bad enough. I hope this essay will prove helpful even to victims who suffer from true mental illness. I call them victims also because the cowardly U.S. government has hidden behind the skirts of the mentally ill to commit some of the worst atrocities imaginable, and the truly mentally ill are victimized by this as well. The mentally ill are also known to have been used as guinea pigs in mind control experiments precisely because they would tend to be disbelieved and are relatively powerless victims for torturers to experiment on. Some victims may have been poisoned by drugs engineered to cause them psychological problems — and I do not mean ordinary street drugs. Others have had psychosurgery, microwave harassment, etc., which can cause organic problems in addition to psychological problems. And of course, the mind is really not separate from the body and psychological torture is just as bad as direct physical torture.
Most people are still free to think what they want — to the extent that that still means anything — and some will try to second guess the victims and provide armchair diagnoses of the victims’ problems. People who try to dismiss true torture victims as just mentally ill will receive and deserve the utmost contempt from the victims and from those decent people who know what is really going on. And we will remember. For the reasons described in Part II, the psychiatric and psychological “communities” cannot be trusted, except for a few actual healers here and there.
Much of this essay contains a sort of analysis that it is fashionable among the pseudo-intelligentsia to dismiss as just black-and-white thinking. These people have their sixth-grade epiphany that not everything is black-and-white, and for the rest of their lives go around justifying anything convenient with this amoral relativism. They never realize (or it just does not suit their lies) that while nothing is black-and-white, some things are close enough that they might as well be. I will be writing about Nazi pigs, and I mean this in the sense of “Mengele the Nazi pig,” not any other cultural pig association. Those who dismiss this sort of thinking perhaps would think differently if they had ever experienced real torture or were capable of the slightest bit of empathy. There is no doubt that this sort of thinking has been misused and misapplied at various times, but I cannot worry about how every moron might misunderstand or misapply what I write. People may well misapply things I have written here, or use them to create some propaganda distraction from what I am actually writing about, but I am describing it the way it is. If you don’t call a Nazi a Nazi you end up with Nazism by some other name.
Every victim has had to develop his or her own method of coping with the torture. I am not trying to impose my methods on anyone. A religious person under torture finds strength in his or her religion, so some Zen Buddhist philosophy may necessarily be apparent in my writing. In the ignorant U.S. there are still people who will blame a victim for being Buddhist, a major world religion. Of course Mengele the pig tries to justify and rationalize his acts of torture in any and all ways possible. There are the usual myriad ways of blaming and smearing the victims and rationalizing away the acts of the torturer.
I hope that this essay will help some victims. I know that I have benefited from the work of other victims who had the courage to speak out about their experiences. Much of this essay deals with the mental “game” of mind control, which is of course not a game at all to the torture victims. You can compare it to having to face mock executions each day. There is also the physical intimidation many victims experience. As a victim might put it, if it is all in my head then who harassed me on the highway? Why did my mail all arrive opened? Why did my phone regularly ring twice a day with hang-up calls? Why did many of my internet posts stop propagating anywhere? Why did a police car pull up beside mine every time I talked about China, on the drive to my honeymoon? The unfortunate reality is that the victims have to develop their own methods to deal with the constant, credible physical threats of death or worse. I wish I could help there, but I do what I can. This is a barbaric and savage nation.
What is a Firewall? – For the purposes of this essay, let me digress a bit here and describe the concept of a firewall. A firewall, in the historical sense, is a wall built between connected buildings and specifically constructed so that a fire in one unit of the structure will not spread to the other units. In a more recent sense, a firewall is a device on a computer network that keeps nodes of the network separated, for instance so that a hacker attack on one node of the network cannot spread to connected nodes of the network.
For our purposes, we can consider all the computers on a network to be like houses on a street. (Network engineers, please bear with me.) Each house has several doors into it, which correspond to what are called ports on a networked computer. A computer actually has thousands of ports, but the principle is illustrated by considering a house with several doors. All the houses have inhabitants in them, who send out messengers to the other houses: But some houses send out the equivalent of burglars also. When the inhabitants of one house want to communicate with the inhabitants of another, they send a messenger to a particular door of the house they want to communicate with. The messenger knocks on the door.
Now, the inhabitants of the house can either open the door and let the messenger in or ignore the knock. If they let the messenger in, they can restrict what he is allowed to do while in the house. The messenger may, for example, pick up a piece of paper and carry it back to his house. This would correspond to a file transfer over a network. If the inhabitants of the house accidentally leave a door open, though, a messenger may be able to come in the house without permission and do whatever they like, again without permission. (There are many doors because a messenger occupies a particular door the whole time he is “in the house.”)
A firewall, in this analogy, would correspond to a complete facade built around a house (or group of houses, to be picky). The actual house is not even visible from the street. The doors of the original house are only visible to messengers if the inhabitants of the house build corresponding doors in the facade. To enter the house in this scenario, a messenger would have to first knock at some visible door of the facade, be allowed in, and then knock at and be allowed into the actual door of the house. In this way the security of the house is greatly increased from unwanted intrusions. (And you can have a collection of trusted houses “inside the fort” which are less protected from each other.)
The title of this essay, “Mental Firewalls,” comes from an article by Timothy L. Thomas which appeared in the Army War College journal Parameters in Spring 1998. It was titled “The Mind Has No Firewalls.” The Army has an often honorable tradition going back to the Revolutionary War, the minutemen, and so forth. But it also has had and still has some treason in its ranks. This is just the “ground truth,” the “facts on the ground.” An army that tortures the domestic population is an occupation army. Treasonous Nazi pigs, in this real sense rather than some spin machine crap or some pathological liar’s bullshit, must be dealt with accordingly. This holds for all branches of the military. This holds for law enforcement as well. It holds for all intelligence agencies also. It holds even when they pretend the torture devices “don’t exist.” Even if the victim does not realize what is happening to him or her, it is still torture. Informed consent must be truly informed. Torturing an American citizen is at least as treasonous as selling the nation’s top secrets to a foreign power.
Thomas’ article was in fact entered into evidence as part of a lawsuit by Harlan Girard of the International Committee for the Convention Against Offensive Microwave Weapons. The article’s central metaphor is that human beings are like the computers on a network, except that they do not have the ability to control the information traffic entering and leaving them. Their ports, or doors, are wide open. This sort of analogy was prevalent during the military “information warfare” buzzword phase, and illustrates the sort of thinking that was going on at the time. [On a note of caution, not all of Thomas’ article should be taken literally; whether purposefully or not there is some likely disinfo there.]
Deception Operations Against the Human “Biocomputer” – What is it that corresponds to your reality? What do you perceive, and how do you make your decisions? You receive information through your eyes, ears, and other senses. You read the information from the writers you choose to read, and listen to the speakers you have access to — very often these days from TV, radio, or the internet. You think to yourself, in your private inner voice. You visualize and imagine. In information warfare against individuals all of these are thought of as nothing but information channels that can be blocked, censored, co-opted, faked, forged, impersonated, or otherwise controlled to manipulate an individual. If you can control all the information an individual receives then you can control their whole perceived reality. Like the hypnotized subject who does something which violates his ethics while being persuaded to imagine he is doing something else entirely, the information warfare subject is acting in a fantasy world created precisely to manipulate him to do what his controllers want. This is known as a deception operation.
Such complete control, as far as I know, is not yet possible, but the principles still hold for whatever approximation can be achieved. And the principles have been put into practice. Of course “information warfare” is a buzzword and most of it is just a take on the ages-old practices of propaganda, lying, and manipulation. But a new buzzword generates funding, and perhaps more importantly serves to morally distance the new “clean” practices from the dirty, filthy business of amorally manipulating human beings like pawns, with complete disregard for unalienable human rights. What was new at the time of information warfare was 1) the internet as a widespread societal force, and 2) the wider development of neuroinfluencing and so-called nonlethal weapons that can directly influence people’s brains.
As medicine and technology develop ever more advanced prosthetic devices, people will increasingly become cyborgs — as is already happening. Because of this trend these issues will become increasingly clear with time. That is, it will become increasingly common to have computer devices implanted in one’s body. If someone hacks into your home computer and steals or manipulates your data then a crime has been committed and you should rightly be angry. But if someone hacks into your physical body, brain, and mind the violation is incomparably greater.
Multiple Victims, Multiple Perpetrators – The above example is only the most elementary, of course. What if two victims were interacting, how could a pair of them be manipulated? The variations include two nonconsensual victims, or a consensual harasser messing with a nonconsensual victim. There are also witting and unwitting victims; some have figured out parts of what is going on (intended or not) while others have not. Some have been purposely duped into misinterpreting what is going on — they may think they are psychic, for example. What about wide-field projection devices? If two interacting people are given the same subliminal stimuli, how might they interpret it? If you weren’t paying close attention, would you know if you were the sender or the receiver? Especially if the manipulation continued for a long period without your awareness, perhaps even from childhood. When PTSD is purposely induced, the victim is that much more susceptible. Then you can consider the case where there are far more than two victims interacting: a society of would-be slavemasters and those they would hold as slaves. The general situation involves multiple victims and multiple perpetrators, all interacting.
There are many, many different scenarios. I even considered writing an academic paper on the topic, something like “Mind Control Games People Play.” Suppose you assume a particular set of technologies is available. What logically follows from that? It is like science fiction except that the reality these days is beyond science fiction. The military might call it wargaming. It is amazing the hideous sorts of operations that are possible with only your basic secret video/audio surveillance of an individual. Now assume that a targetable voice projection device exists. What could the people controlling it do in the worst case? What sorts of deceptions could they carry out? What countermeasures could be adopted? When it really does exist and the consequences are so far-reaching, isn’t it unconscionable to leave the public in the dark about it? Could a politician resist abusing this secret power?
For the purposes of the rest of this essay I will assume our composite victim has been “injected” or implanted somehow with a “brain bug” that transmits tracking information as well as audio and video of the sights, sounds, and internal subvocalized “thoughts” the nonconsenting victim experiences. This is something like an advanced form of the CIA’s “Acoustic Kitty” project from the 1960s, where a cat was wired up as a motor-controlled listening device to be used in spying. The difference is many years of technological refinement — integrated circuits were not even available then, let alone nano-scale devices — and the obvious difference that a human being is being tortured. I assume that this device can also inject sounds which the victim perceives as if he or she “heard” or “thought” them in internal speech. This is somewhat less control than what some victims report experiencing, but nonetheless is sufficient to illustrate most of the methods. Even if such devices are not available to some particular group, variations of most of the techniques can be created by lower-tech methods like standard surveillance devices and external “zapping” or voice projection devices which are publicly known to exist. The point is not the particular technological implementation, but what the victim experiences.
Reasoning Under Uncertainty – One thing that the mind controllers do — and which manipulators and propagandists have done for all time — is to exploit weaknesses in human reasoning. The brain is a fantastic, beautiful organ of the human body; no human being on the earth should ever be tortured. But humans also tend to have some weaknesses in evaluating data compared to, say, a mathematical algorithm. One difficulty lies in dealing with uncertainty. The mind control victim is literally overwhelmed with uncertainty and must sort things out as best as he or she can. The victim has to consider every weird thing that has ever happened to him or her, whether it is related, and knowing that the mind rapists will see this thought process and try to reinforce any misconceptions. Another difficulty is dealing with distractions, especially when they come in on a hostile “channel” that the brain was never meant to be accessed on. Proportionality and scale are another difficulty, and people tend to think binary rather than continuous, and one-dimensional rather than multi-dimensional. People often have a tendency toward superstitious thinking. Finally, in a social sense, people are very bad at dealing with big lies, i.e., conspiracies of liars.
The Nazi Pig Theorem – The adjective, “Auschwitz-level,” to describe these crimes, is not hyperbole. If you do not feel like you need to vomit, you probably do not really understand the full sickness of mind control crimes. Gordon Thomas wrote in the introduction to his book Journey Into Madness: The True Story of CIA Mind Control and Medical Abuse: “In working on this book I have had to come to terms with my own emotions — disbelief, bewilderment, disgust, and anger and, more than once in the early stages, a feeling that the subject was simply too evil to cope with. Nothing I had researched before could have prepared me for the dark reality of doctors who set out to deliberately destroy minds and bodies they were trained to heal.” Torturers can never blame their victims, though they invariably try. These torturers are the sorts of people who will repeatedly hit a bound and gagged victim with a stick and then try to claim the victim caused it. They’ll steal from you and then complain about the property they stole; they’ll rape you and sneer at the quality of the “sex.”
This brings me to what I refer to as the Nazi Pig Theorem (NPT). Strictly speaking it is a metaphorical axiom, but it can be very useful to the torture victim. It basically asserts that if you act like Mengele then you are a Nazi pig. Then there are a few obvious conclusions that are also part of the “theorem.”