Pending case to judge whether sending strobing images to someone with epilepsy can land you in jail

I’ve long wondered what sorts of additional risks epilepsy sufferers may face. Specifically, the use of technologies tailored to their epilepsy to cause them special harm, for example at times that could cause special damage in their social lives or especially career.

I do not know the full scope of risks faced by epilepsy suffers in the age of proliferating neuroweapons, but this case is interesting on a few grounds.

1) The strobing image itself was deemed as a weapon on the basis of the INTENT to cause harm,

2) Not only that, due to the potential risks for an epilepsy sufferer, combined with the apparent knowledge of the perpetrator, the grand jury considered the weapon to have been a “deadly weapon”, thus making the perpetrator liable to as much as 10 years in prison.

More detail here.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

1960s sci-fi horror or 2019 reality?

The government should retain a comprehensive library relating to what is captured from previous thought processes (harvested using one of the variety of possible means of doing so). Then, entrust an AI to clear your every passing thought through a filter, for the purpose of then making use of pain stimuli and pleasure stimuli, in conjunction with reminders of previous physical experiences and/or thought processes, to ensure maximum compliance on the long hard road to heaven.

Upon completion of certain training processes, individuals are to be accorded maximum freedom in setting further training options, for example to switch preferred settings between”work hard” and “work harder” or “be curious” and “be curioser”.

Community valuation projects can regularly provide re-education opportunities for those who have difficulties upholding the scope of “work hard” and “work harder” freedoms benevolently endowed upon them. For practical purposes, this could be something to the effect of strapping an EEG and neurostimulation helmet onto someone (much like a BCI), for neurotraining to maximize their utility to the hive until some future date where they can be benevolently re-endowed with the one-and-a-half freedoms listed above.

Posted in Agriculture, Arts, media & society, Epistemology, History, International, Philosophy, Philosophy, spiritual, Physics, Political philosophy, Political science, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

A variety of anti-unclarified tomfoolery, relating to the present situation of psychological warfare

The democratically elected government has not solved the problem/revolution yet, so we need a revolution to get rid of the democratically elected government so we can solve the revolution problem.


Any back, any stab, any back stab-boy.

Any fall, any boy, any fall fall-boy.


The meaning of “I’m going to find you” after a disagreement.


Freedom is saying whatever the fucking fuck.

While wannabe puppet masters, pockets full of sticks and carrots tailored to every person and situation, abound.

Stringless freedom anyone?


Never say if bad things are being done to you, or else those bad things will be done to you.

By this means, things will improve rapidly.


If you don’t think in the way I want you to just right now, I will interrupt you significantly.

However, when you follow what I want you to do, things will progress rapidly with minimal effort and great ease.

Don’t you see how hard it is to think for yourself? And how much easier life is when you let someone else do your thinking for you?


Many people seem to have overcome nearly every inhibition except to speak clearly about what is happening before them.

Some tricks to divert attention from this fact include (a strong contradiction to what I just said, yes) things like literally speaking out the precise actions observed in one’s vicinity. For example, to state specifically minor things about what a nearby person is doing.

But in focusing on the trees, despite pervasive awareness of the notion of a forest, active discussion of the forest appears practically banned.

“Intent, not content, is what determines culpability”.

We should be discussing the intended outcomes of a communication, and not distracting ourselves (excessively) with the thousands of cuts it may form a part of in the process.


Ever heard of the idea that those cultures which are inflexible with regard to adapting to changing circumstance have in some occasions “lost” specifically due to this unwillingness to adapt?

Therefore, if you do not adapt you will lose.

So, roll over or lose.



“You’re so stubborn”

He does not roll over. Hence, I conclude that he either likes being hit or does not like biscuits. Maybe if I hit him severely, with a lure of biscuits in the background, while making “roll over” motions?

He was too stupid to roll over. That’s why we got rid of him. I guess he just didn’t want to stick around.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Economics and philosophy, Economics, pure theory, Epistemology, Philosophy, Physics, Political philosophy, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

99 is not 0 and 1 is not 100

In psychological warfare situations with risk of brainwashing and various thought reform techniques, the relevance of “99 is not 0 and 1 is not 100” can hardly be overstated.

1 is not 100

The possibility of something is not evidence of its ubiquitous presence.

For example, if something is “in the system”, this does not mean it controls the entire system. 1 is not 100. Similarly, 10 is not 100.

99 is not 0

The possibility that something is not, is not evidence that it always is not. Also, if it is possible that something is not the case, this is not itself evidence to the contrary.

Much like 1 is not 100, here we have a situation where 99 is not 0.


99 is not 0 and 1 is not 100. Whether or not it appears surprising that such simple truisms may prove extremely useful in psychological warfare geared towards thought reform, brainwashing, etc., the fact that 99 is not 0 and 1 is not 100 may in fact be very useful to keep in mind with some regularity.


One sort of practical situation of concern relating to a failure to fully integrate “99 is not 0 and 1 is not 100” logic is in the process of making what some individuals might believe is an extremely clever comeback, or perhaps diversion, to some statement or argumentation that they disagree with. However, in the process, the failure to fully integrate the “99 is not 0 and 1 is not 100” logic leaves them vulnerable to an outcome which may be described as a “brainwashing myself through my mouth” kind of problem (a rather unfair characterization, in many ways, but also illuminating, perhaps).

This is exacerbated by other issues that I’ve written about extensively elsewhere, but I don’t really feel like getting into that right now.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Epistemology, Philosophy, Quotidian, Web and computing | Leave a comment

Protect your culture by never expressing it

If you say anything about your culture, this will provide “them” with an opportunity to develop propaganda in order to destroy your culture.

Therefore, to protect your culture, the best strategy is to never think it, let alone be the fool who puts their culture into danger by expressing it.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Epistemology, Philosophy, Philosophy, spiritual, Political philosophy, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

A generic who dunnit list

The Russians
Witches and wizards, etc.
Maybe university professors?
Religious fundamentalists of various stripes and colours
Marxists, maybe in cahoots with the devil
Global dominationists
Powerless people who feel empowered by (insert programming here)

All of the above and others

Posted in Arts, media & society, International, Political science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

“We will know you”

I.e., we will find something, ANYTHING, that might shut you up while conditioning you to do as we please. Or at least to stay shut up while we try.

“We will know you”.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Economics and philosophy, Economics, pure theory, Epistemology, Philosophy, Philosophy, spiritual, Physics, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

Interesting observation relating to efforts to combat BS with truth

Ideally, I would like to prepare the reader to digest the following with a maximum of self-discrediting by my choice of works. The following statement arises from discussion on techniques perfected by tobacco companies in the 1960s and onward to divert attention from truths connecting tobacco and cancer:

Several studies have shown that repeating a false claim, even in the context of debunking that claim, can make it stick

The whole piece is here. In relation to false figures presented in the Brexit campaign:

The false claim was vastly more powerful than a true one would have been, not because it was bigger, but because everybody kept talking about it.

If you’re looking for reasons to disagree with this statement, there’s no point in trying to convince you anyways.

In the meantime, try to think for yourself from time to time.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Epistemology, History, Philosophy, Plants, Policy, Science | Leave a comment

Neurotech viruses #323″: Apply negative and positive conditionings at will until the following proceeds with ease

I need a machine that reads people’s minds when they read the news, and scouts out for any possibility of any content with any potential ideological colouring.

Having identified any instance of content with any possible ideological colouring, the machine will then interrogate the individual, with rapid alterations between contradictory, or at least somewhat opposing perspectives, until it is possible to model the highest probability pathway to indoctrinating them with the views that will maximize a) my power over them and b) the power of the people who sequentially came to control my thoughts through a similar process.

The result has high viral potential.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Economics and philosophy, Economics, pure theory, Epistemology, Philosophy, Physics, Political philosophy, Political science, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

Extremely concise statement on why it is good for the economy to spend taxpayer dollars on basic sciences research that will often not pay off, and when it does is generally a long time from now

According to MJ Boskin, former economic adviser on George HW Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers:

Private markets invest too little in basic science,” he writes, “because private investors are unable to appropriate the returns.

More at Project Syndicate

At one level, this is subsidies for beer guzzling students to put their heads towards scientific advancement. It may also involve direct handouts to firms (generally not preferred by economists because there is too much risk of waste in a “picking winners” approach) and regulatory or tax/subsidy approaches which shape the competitive environment (a carbon tax, for example, stimulates research in clean energy).

Because other people benefit, a 100% greedy individual will underinvest in effort, because they only care what benefits accrue to them, and not other people. So the government needs to pick up the slack by providing incentives.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Business and entrepreneurship, Development, Economics and science, Economics, social and commercial policy, Policy, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment