Some people are more monitored than others. (Stanford experiment squared, without early cancellation)

It is beyond obvious to just about everyone that societal monitoring has extended to proportions that would have been unimaginable not very long ago at all. They are now at levels that would have easily contributed to major protest, uprising, and preparations for worse, had they been proposed in, say, the year 2000.

However, some people are monitored more than others. An outline of publicly available scientific documentation and research which defines the basic concepts involved is available from Anti-Brainwashing League. This kind of monitoring isn’t even in the range of Orwellianism that would involve cameras in your bedroom and bathroom, or on your TV or computer. It is in your mind. Your thoughts, your movements, your speech, monitored. Intrusive thoughts pushed into your mind throughout every day. In most reported cases, these intrusive thoughts are highly abusive in nature and suggest that the synthetic telepathy operators delivering this treatment have themselves undergone some Frankenstein-ian process of transformation, whereby pleasure signals associated with delivery of psychological torture was the means of conditioning and brainwashing leading these front line operators.

I sure hope it is obvious to most people that no one could possibly deserve such monitoring. If someone is so dangerous that they “need” such monitoring, there are lots of other ways to address the risk, including shrugging your shoulders and accepting that there is simply a risk.

Some minority of those targeted under this highly invasive monitoring system are aware that those “on the front lines” in this monitoring must have, at some stage or another, come under significant psychological attack themselves, both as a part of programming built into the coding of the synthetic telepathy network (and/or/also virtually any imaginable hacking or hijacking thereof), and most likely also as a general function of the situation they are in (refer to Stanford Prison Experiment for some ideas, but it’s more than that and also different from that).

So anyways, the basic point is this:

Many synthetic telepathy operators may be suffering from a variety of malaises as a result of how programming built into the BCI system which drove their speech and thought affected their awareness with regard to degrees of self control, etc., possible while under these influences. In many (all?) cases, this is likely to have gone so far as to result in having become highly habituated to actions (speech) against their targets which are highly likely to have caused psychological injury to these operators — which is quite a different story from the numerous harms (intentionally or otherwise) passed on to their targets.

How might it be possible to reach out to these people, under the assumption that issues relating to chains of command and cans of worms in every direction might reduce or even prevent altogether the ability to reach out to them in some reasonable timeframe?

By this point in time, many synthetic telepathy operators are likely to be habituated in such a manner. However, due to a number of common psychological phenomena (slightly along the lines of pride and machismo, or in another line of thinking, like how the most difficult thing for an alcoholic is to recognize their situation), it may be difficult for them to admit to their own situation in this regard. It’s very hard to admit that you have lost control of yourself, but at the same time, insisting on a “faux confidence” is definitely not going to help the situation because that basically amounts to denial and blocks the path towards doing something about it.

Moreover, and more importantly, the very real conditioning (and almost certainly much brainwashing along with it) associated with this situation suggests that, in addition to initially recognizing the situation, there will be further difficulties in recovering from such experiences to ensure individual mental control and sense of self (in particular relative to the period after realization). So, even after identifying a need for action to rectify the situation, this is no matter of “OK guys, back to the barracks” in some situation of disorder and you just need folks to calm down for a bit. Beyond identifying the problem that a lot of people might need to be reached out to, and the very real possibility that many could have a hostile response to being reached out to — itself possible an effect which would be “programmed” (conditioning and brainwashing) or “whipped” (by whatever does the other direction of communication in the BCI interface) –, there is the question of “what then?”

Adding to this problem is that touchy feely psychological stuff is not at all what presumably related organizations or institutions have been specialized in. Those responsible for mental health (psychiatrists) within those arms of the state with the ability to perpetrate such acts are not the right place to look for a solution, because (benefit of the doubt broadly extended) predispositions related to their training leaves every visitor exposed to the risk that the “power of the pen” to issue a mental health diagnosis can be applied against them. Thus, regardless of confidence on the part of management in the specific personnel at hand for such purposes, this route is a blind alley because there’s simply no way that anyone in such a position would like the mental health record that would certainly accompany a full discussion of experiences they had gone through.

What type of counselling, training or other solution, will be most useful for different individuals to obtain is not at all clear, but some solution will be needed. At present, given the reality of which resources are available for psychological support, the best immediate approach most likely involves simply being able to recognize what the situation is, and to have a greater degree of openness to discuss the realities of a form of conflict that much of the general public may not even be explicitly aware exists.

So, how many synthetic telepathy operators are aware of their situation? How many are OK with it? How many realize that they got quite brainwashed? How many are quite OK with brainwashing and unbrainwashing themselves according to any whim of the time via advanced “microwave mind control” or other technologies with the potential to be applied for conditioning and brainwahing?

It is hard to believe that the situation could have been remotely consistent with even the much laxer laws (relative to civilians) which apply to those who would have found themselves in such a situation. Namely, principles of informed consent, which are much laxer in intelligence and military (to an extent likely to be in contravention of the Nuremburg Code agreed upon in the face of the horrors of the second world war), are unlikely to have been upheld in any sort of manner that would be consistent with attracting talent into those arms of the state in the long run.

Should those who signed up to potentially die for their nation, or even who merely accepted a job with some vague notion that risk could enter into the picture at any time, be treated as guinea pigs?

Basic human rights should apply to all. If that doesn’t extend to men and women in uniform, then why on earth would we expect their loyalty if/when shit hits the fan?

Anyways, it would be hard to fight for freedom if busy pushing deviant thoughts into people’s minds, regardless of the extent to which whipped by an insidiously programmed BCI and/or transmission network. That’s not gonna be an easy one to come back from …

As per some interpretations of the great Hindu saga, the Bhagavad Gita, the greatest battle is for one’s own mind.

Now get. Your. Self.

About admin

Some guy
This entry was posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, History, International, Physics, Policy, Science, Web and computing. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply