Organized Stalking Electronic Harassment - Allen Barker’s Models of Synthetic Telepathy - targetedindividualscanada-wordpress-com

Targeted Individuals Canada
TI post heroes cases vids links pdf bks read pic

freedom of thoughts, beliefs, opinions and expressions

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom s is part of Canadian Constitution that protects its citizens from hum an rights violations.

pod

list

Type text to search here...

Archive Posts Tagged ‘audio recording’

RSS feed

Tw itter

ABOUT TIS CANADA
Allen Barker’s Models of Synthetic T elepathy
August 31, 2012 HRC C omments off This is a site for activism, advocacy and networking for people who are targeted by organized stalking and electronic harassment as well as people who supports the TI community and who believe these criminal activities are a violation of human rights legislations in C anada and around the globe.

This video can Please switch to a browser that pr

OSEH from HRC on Vimeo.

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site may contains copyrighted materials the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, & social justice issues. We believe this is not an infringement of any such copyrighted materials as in accordance to the the fair dealing clauses of the C anadian C opyright Act, that allow users to engage in certain activities relating to non-commercial and not for profit research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting. We are making an exerted effort to mention the source of the material, along with the name of the author, performer, maker, or broadcaster for the dealing to be fair again in accordance with the allowable clause. For more info visit: Wikipedia: Fair Dealing C anada TI - Targeted Individual - is a person being targeted with OSEH by a group of individuals called "perps" for the purpose of human experimentations. *** OSEH - Organized Stalking Electronic Harassment - are methods use by perps in targeting a specific person for the purpose of inducing harm and possibly death. *** DEW - Direct Energy Weapon - are device used for OSEH purposes, weapons can be microwave with pulp frequencies, v2k or other electronic and hearing devices. *** V2K - voice to skull device - is a weapon use for transmitting voices with low or high frequencies. Voices can be for commands or harassments attacks that may look like the TI's own voice. V2K can also use to induce or manipulate dreams or to deprived TI sleeps.

Part I: Models of Synthetic Telepathy by Allen Barker This article, the first of a series, deals w ith models of the mind control netw ork. It is an elaboration and summary of some of the ideas expressed in my earlier essay “The Autopig.” See also “Mental Firewalls” and “Special Powers and ESP.”. For a list of some of the basic abbreviations used in the current series, see the document outlining abbreviations used in the essays. The later articles in this current series are listed at the end. Please bear w ith the intro, even if the ideas seem unfamiliar at first. The sections near the end should make sense even w ithout a complete grasp of the early sections, and w ill tend to clarify the ideas and make them more concrete. I do not cover the mental illness possibility and cover lie here because I have discussed it elsew here, but remember that torture is not called torture because it is a picnic in the park. It leaves scars and sequelae. Model independent reasoning – In the context w e are w orking in, a model is an assumed framew ork for w hat facts hold. There are various possible models. Multiple model reasoning involves considering various models simultaneously. Model independent reasoning involves making decisions or coming to conclusions that hold in all models — or at least in all tangibly likely models or in some collection of models. As a brief example, consider this binary tree split: Either the government is involved directly (CIA, etc.) or it is not (and non-government people are the perpetrators, w ith government at most indirectly involved). These are tw o models (or classes of models). It can be useful to evaluate the facts and the data w ith respect to each of these models. In some cases the government is directly involved and in others it is not, so this is an individual, victim-based model system. What model independent conclusion can be drawn? – The government is culpable and is the responsible party to petition for redress in both cases. So this conclusion is model independent w ith respect to those models. In the first case the culpability is obvious. In the second, it is clear that one of the main functions of government is to protect the citizens, especially their fundamental rights. The most fundamental right, underlying all others, is the freedom of thought. By refusing to fairly consider victims’ claims and implicitly supporting such repression the government is also indirectly at best supporting a system of repression. These “psychic lynchings,” — under any model — are very much in line w ith the long US history of civil rights abuses w hich the government has long turned a blind eye to. Note also that most victims still undergo criminal stalking and harassment in addition to the mind violations — w hatever the model. The standard model – I refer to the assumption that technological mind control techniques are the underlying mechanism for most mind control abuses as the standard model. This

Twitter Updates
Allen Barker's Models of Synthetic Telepathy w p.me/pY0ME-TO 1 day ago Yasser Arafat's Death Becomes a Murder Investigation in France - World New s - ABC New s Radio
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

are the underlying mechanism for most mind control abuses as the standard model. This model also includes techniques such as drugging and hypnosis — w hich are know n to have been applied in projects like MKULTRA and Bluebird — as w ell as the combinations of these techniques w ith recent technology like voice-to-skull transmission devices. As an example of an alternative model, consider w hat I call the natural model. This model assumes that w hat is occurring w ith many mind control victims is the abuse of natural psychic abilities. For example, it might be originating from a hostile remote view ing/harassment unit. Or it may be some other group of evil people w ith assumed real “psychic pow ers” sufficiently strong to cause the reported effects. I call the model w here both technological methods and natural psychic methods are employed the mixed model because it is a mixture of both the standard model and the natural model. This brings up the main split that w ill be considered as an example in this article. Is it technology or some natural psychic phenomenon? As I have pointed out in the above links, for many purposes it does not matter and the conclusions are model independent. The standard model is pure technology. We know that it exists. Psychic phenomena strong enough for the voice-to-skull phenomena reported by victims, if it exists, must have been kept secret by a conspiracy lasting millennia. There are various other incongruities w ith the natural model, including “facts” w hich are missing their logical consequences and thus are suspect. (This is especially true w here those consequences are subject to arbitrage or profit — though that can also be a motive for secrecy.) The natural psychic model w ould require a “psychic mafia” holding for generations, including for children, adolescents, and old people on deathbeds. It w ould require some enforcement mechanism so that even the disaffected members w ould not reveal a conspiracy that w as not there to help them at all. As I have also pointed out, though, the standard model of pure technology exists right now . Thus, in the current w orld, the pure natural model is obsolete (if it ever held). Could you tell the difference? So w e have either the standard model or a mixed model w ith both natural psychic effects and technological ones. Exposing the technology helps to bring out the the concepts and the violations even in the unlikely case that the natural model holds and a w eaponized “psychic space” is the source of some people’s harassment. Thus the decision or conclusion to bring out the existence of the technology and its know n history of abuses follow s in both the standard model (directly) and the natural model (indirectly). [And is the right thing to do regardless, because of the victims still suffering and denied redress. Human rights are axiomatically model independent w ith regard to any model.] Why consider the natural model? – Although it provides a very good example of multiple model reasoning, there are some good reasons for victims to avoid the psychic model altogether. It may be used as a psyop to distract from the technology — even that w hich is know n openly to exist. It may be used to deceive technology victims into thinking they are “just psychic” and that the torture is “natural” (w hich it is not in either model). It is hard to take a natural psychic model to court, and so justice w ould have to proceed on other channels. The very association may be (and at times has been) used to connotationally tar mind control victims and their human rights plight w ith the “kookiness” that psychic phenomena tend to be regarded w ith in our society. The reasons I consider the natural model — even though I think the evidence supports the standard model — are as follow s: It is how the technology w ould seem to unw itting victims. There could w ell be a standard model w ith a psyop of a natural psychic model built on top of it. That is, many people w ith MC technology used on them unw ittingly may be fooled into thinking they are psychic and know nothing of “the man in the middle” or the technology. The concepts of “telepathy,” etc., are very familiar to many people from books and movies. Many people are even familiar w ith thinking about things like nonconsensual psychic attacks on their minds. In this sense it provides a natural introduction to some elements of the subjective mind control experience, i.e., how it feels to a victim. (This empathy may then extend to real, technological victims of similar horrors.) Of course the differences also need to be sharply highlighted. If w e assume the natural model is not “magic,” then there is a physics and a brain mechanism involved. If so, then this biological system can be and almost surely has been reverse engineered. This actually increases the likelihood of the standard model (or mixed model under this assumption) in many w ays. Taking a multiple model approach generally minimizes the chances of being surprised should things turn out differently than you supposed originally. Many people believe the natural model already, w hether it corresponds to ground truth or not. Such people are potentially attractive victims to those testing the technology, so they should be alerted to that possibility. Some people may psychologically prefer the natural model and be unable to cope w ith the standard model because they cannot deal w ith the idea that other humans w ould essentially put them in a technological cow pasture to exploit and manipulate them. Please do not forget that the technology does exist and w hatever the status of the “natural model” there are technological MC victims. Finally, there is something I call algorithm generica. This algorithm allow s you to generalize or reason by analogy across models. It is amazing how much reasoning — if you do the real, hard reasoning — carries over to other models from thinking about a particular model. W hole subtrees remain essentially intact, to use the tree analogy. Generica is a bitch, as I say. Reasoning around uncertainties – In reasoning it is important to know as much as you can, but also to keep in mind w hat you do not know . Many people know a little that some others do not, but think they know much more than they actually do. Model independent reasoning allow s you to take uncertainties into account and find that, for some conclusions, w hat you do not know does not matter. W hat you know is enough. Of course this depends on your choosing the models correctly and covering all the possibilities. Bad data or deceptive data can be w orse than no data: set a reasonable threshold and toss the garbage. This ends the

fb.me/1QdJm2vxP 3 days ago Massacre in Daraya Could Be Deadliest of Syrian Conflict - World New s - ABC New s Radio fb.me/1QUTTZlJp 3 days ago Excerpts from Journey Into Madness, by Gordon Thomas 1/2 w p.me/pY0METT4 days ago
Follow

Recent Posts
Allen Barker’s Models of Synthetic Telepathy Excerpts from Journey Into Madness, by Gordon Thomas 1/2 Excerpts from Bluebird by Colin Ross Microw ave Harassment and Mind Control Experimentation How I Decided to Become a LoudMouthed Woman By Kathy Kasten

Archives
Select Month

links
Definitions HRC @ Facebook Group HRC @ Scribd HRC @ Soundcloud HRC @ Vodpod HRC @ You Tube HRC TIS Canada @ Facebook HRC TIS Canada @ Tw itter OSEH @ Vimeo Stop Bullying! Canada! TIS Canada @ Blogspot TIS Canada @ Livestream TIS Canada @ Podbean TIS Canada @ Vimeo TIS Canada @ You Tube

Email Subscription
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Join 297 other followers Sign me up!

Blog Stats
167,214 hits RSS - Posts RSS - Comments

Human Rights Canada
Like 329 people like Human Rights Canada

Michael

A nna

V ik

C lifton

C hristine

Daniel

Gagga

Mohammed

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

introductory part of the article. The remainder is a less structured collection of ideas and questions. If fully developed the above ideas w ould lead to a w hole book, at least. These paragraphs hint at w hat that might look like. Victims in such situations probably do not need it all spelled out. And as the saying goes also, some horses start at the shadow of a w hip. The main purpose of this article is to get the information out to those it may help. I mainly deal w ith “telepathy,” natural or synthetic, by w hich voices and other audio productions are sent to victims in a voice-to-skull manner and w hereby the victims’ inner subvocal speech is transmitted out to others. General Concepts in Synthetic Telepathy Models – Recall that an RTI is a realtime idiot, and is like a DJ at a radio station you are forced to listen to constantly and cannot turn dow n. They can access your private thoughts and harass you w ith this fact in their “broadcast.” An AP is an autopig, w hich is an AI-like machine or expert system doing the job of an RTI. The combination is similar to a DJ playing taped segments betw een live segments. Model neutral decisions. – Rather than being completely model independent, some decisions are model neutral. This means that they hold in some models but for the other models they do not make any difference one w ay or another. The third ear. – This is a useful w ay of considering auditory phenomena not coming from the ears (or coming to the ears in a disguised w ay, w here such a send is not apparent; certain know n devices are capable of doing this). It is nothing but a sixth sense, w hether it is natural or artificial. Even if it is a brain implant, it is essentially just like an additional sense organ. If you w ould not believe something sent to your real ears, w hy w ould you believe it if it w ere sent to your third ear w ithout your consent? Partly this is because of denial of the phenomenon and the fact that people tend to confuse such signals w ith their ow n inner verbal thought processes. The modulation of such speech signals is typically pathological lies meant to harass, distract, and manipulate victims. Some such applications are subtle, w hile others are the blunt Chinese w ater torture of constant harassment. In the nonconsensual case, it is just like if Ew en Cameron forcibly strapped headphones onto your real ears and forced you to listen to harassing or manipulating audio 24 hours a day. New term. – The Cameron number of an autopig phrase (or RTI phrase) is the number of times it has been repeated. W hen a phrase has a large Cameron number it tends to become a strongly conditioned phrase (SCP). This essentially causes a form of brain damage to the victim. There is a tendency to hear such a phrase even w hen only vaguely similar phrases are heard, both on the third ear and through the actual ears. Netw ork structure of the communications channel. W hat w e are dealing w ith in an abstract sense is a communications channel. The fact that it is often nonconsensual does not change this. The nodes of such a netw ork are people, both perpetrators and victims. Some nodes might also be machines w ith AI-types of monitoring or harassment softw are. There is such a netw ork structure in all models, though the exact details w ill vary. Considering questions of netw ork details helps in fitting the data you gather to a particular model, though bew are that psyops are intended to purposely conceal the real, underlying structure. These are some things to consider: Local vs. regional vs. global. – Is there a spatial component? I.e. do people nearby tend to send or receive more strongly than those far aw ay? Note that local interactions tend to be more noticeable than larger-scale ones because you have more direct feedback from individuals. More distant realtime spatial feedback might come from live radio or TV, for example, or a long-distance phone call. I have noticed a strong non-local component in my situation, but there may be a local component also that is partially masked by this. Of course a global or regional effect also tends to be local. Send power vs. receive power. – Do some on the netw ork send more strongly than they receive (i.e. more volume)? Do some receive more strongly than they send (i.e. more sensitive to w eak signals)? “Control” or “consent” status. – Do some nodes on the netw ork have more control over the data they send or receive than others, such as an on-off sw itch or volume control? Are some w itting versus others that are unw itting? Spatial distribution of senders and receivers. – If there is a spatial component, w hat is the geographic distribution of people w ith the various send vs. receive parameters? Audience model. – Is there a silent “audience” larger than the direct participants, the equivalent of Usenet lurkers? In the case of harassment, do they enjoy the “rape show ,” just tolerate it, or w ork to help the victims? Subnetworks. – If there are localized subnetw orks (or spatial regions, assuming a spatial component), are there different “cultures” w ithin such subnetw orks? Might harassment occur on one subnetw ork, silent monitoring occur on another, and maybe even something useful and consensual on another? On the notion of subnetw orks, there are several w ays such can arise. Note that they need not be completely isolated from each other, just clusters of higher connectivity. As an example, if the effect had a spatial component then spatial subnetw orks w ould arise. They might also arise even w ithin a spatial region. For example, if a frequencyspecific nonthermal EM effect w ere responsible and people varied w ith respect to w hat frequencies they “sent” and responded to most strongly (according to their physiology and perhaps learning effects). Psychic suppression units. – If you assume a mixed model — or even a w eaponized pure natural model — might there be the psychic equivalent of cointelpro? Control freaks seek out any channel for control and manipulation of individuals and groups. How might a “groupmind” be affected by manipulating or torturing a few select individuals? How might political murders or discrediting campaigns be carried out? W hat sort of economic exploitation w ould be

F acebook social plugin

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

possible? Ground truth is the correct model. – Keep in mind that the real “audience” and “perpetrators” are only those specified by the correct model (w hich is unknow n). In conditionally evaluating any model, keep in mind w hat assumptions are assumed true w ithin the model. This can avoid some fuzzy confusions across models w hich can tend to occur. Ultimately internal, though also w ork on the external. Your reactions and response to mind control of this sort is ultimately internal. In some models you cannot ever “turn off” the signal w ithout externally turning off or blow ing up the machine responsible. (Shielding is another possibility, but there has been no reported long-term success in blocking the signals.) This is like if Ew en Cameron forcibly put earphones on your real ears that you could not remove. You w ould have to hear the sound. In other models such as certain EM models you might be able to modify your brain’s response to “tune out” the sounds. In either case, you need to internally adjust your ow n response to understand and either tune out or ignore the incoming assault. W ith the Cameron earphone sorts of models this is difficult, and the conditioning w ill take its toll, but that is w hat you have to w ork w ith until external actions can change the external situation. It may help some victims to w ork on their ability to focus their attention on tw o or more places at once, though of course such divided attention tends to cause performance degradation. Psychosexual torture. – Torturers very often tend to focus on sex. This is the equivalent of torturers in a Central American country attaching electrodes to victims’ genitals and shocking them. This is a very common sort of thing among torturers. W hy is that? Here are a few possible reasons: Violating the victims’ sexual organs is intended to demean the victims. – The torturer displays the pow er to strip the victim of the ordinary sorts of societal expectations of privacy. Because the genitals are typically private, exposing and assaulting them may cause a real (though undeserved) sense of shame in the victims. The torturer makes clear that the victim is a 2nd class citizen at best, not deserving of the cultural norms, social mores, and social compact of “real” citizens. The sadistic violator w ants to also be a prude, and exploit such societal expectations w hile violating them at an almost unthinkable level. They’ll harass people until they destroy their private sex lives, w hile the culture peddles Viagra to the public to sell people a sex life again. Torturers, at least the low est-level lackey torturers w ho carry out the actual physical deeds, tend to be sadists. (Those at higher levels tend to be amoral and conscienceless, treating people as w orthless fodder, but tend not to w ant to get their hands dirty or have anything to do w ith the victims directly.) Sadists focus on genitals because it increases the terror and trauma to the victim, but also because it increases their thrill w ith the act of torture. People are infatuated w ith sex, and love to titter and gossip about it. Thus sexual gossip and smears put out in a w hispering campaign w ill tend to spread. Similar sorts of reasoning hold for other sorts of privacy violations flaunted to the victim, including the violation of the privacy of the victim’s mind (w hich also is the primary sexual organ, or so sex therapists w ould tell us). In all models: Adult torturers teach children or young adults how to torture and thus perpetuate the cycle of atrocities and repression. General Observations – The follow ing are more of my observations of the techniques that certain mind control torturers employ. As I w rote in my essay “Excuses and Manipulations in Mind Control,” torturers w ill first torture a victim for w hatever reason. Usually because they thought a victim w as vulnerable or they could get aw ay w ith it. They w ill later concoct various “reasons” and “rationalizations” for w hy they did it. These often tend not to be even sensical on the surface level, but are employed in the subtext and on the trigger level. This both keeps the conspiracy informed of how to “rationalize” the atrocities and keeps the victims traumatized and in “dismay fatigue.” It is systematic, brutal as hell, and organized. There are large numbers of people w ho run the operations in w hat can only be described as a supremacist sense. A bunch of lilliputians w ho conspire and use their secret torture conspiracy to keep others dow n. Something like the conspiracy that tried to keep men like Paul Robeson dow n even though the people involved w ere several orders of magnitude his lessers. How large a population is conditioned and propagandized unw ittingly by the same people involved in the mind control operations? Either by w idespread or w ide-field mind control methods or by the standard propaganda and cointelpro methods? In the space of the third ear there may be multiple voices. These might all be one machine programmed to distract and manipulate. They may be some bunker RTIs, often “enhanced” w ith autopig machines like radio DJs running taped announcements betw een live segments. In a model containing the natural psychic model as a submodel, or in a standard model w ith interconnected groups (perhaps deceived by a psychic psyop), these voices may represent individual, real people. Some are overtly machinelike, repeating Cameron phrases w ith numbing, annoying, and damaging regularity. Others actually say new things from time to time — though one that can string together tw o sentences in succession is rare. Occasionally you even get one that can “converse.” Thus far they invariably refuse to respond to the protocol authentication challenge of “w hat is the cosine of xxxx in radians to six digits after the decimal.” (That allow s a hard confirm of a true external and a rough authentication.) Note that even in the standard model there can be different groups — perhaps different intelligence agencies — on the same channel and accessing the same victims. W hatever the ground truth, the voices are not all pushing the same agenda and some argue w ith others. How to interpret this is modeldependent, but in a mixed model or certain “psychic psyop” standard models there may be some halfw ay semi-decent people on the channel (w ho still maintain the conspiracy used to torture). Or it may all be a good Nazi, bad Nazi act. One game that voices in collusion play is the “false defender” game, a variant of good Nazi, bad Nazi. The bad Nazi w ill harass and goad and a good Nazi w ill seem to defend the victim.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

But the “defense” assumes all the phony premises of the bad Nazi and treats an illogical, harassing pig as a regular “person” w hose idiotic babble is w orth serious consideration. In the space of autopigs and RTIs there are several sorts of processes I have not listed before. They are: Distraction autopig. – Like a cointelpro agent they w ant to distract from any thought they deem “subversive.” They also just generally distract like a Bergeron pulse, interfering w ith anyone trying to seriously think. They often tend to use sex-type distractions such as “sex w ith an underage girlfriend” or the more graphically repugnant “sex w ith a 10 year old.” These distractions seem to occur more frequently if the voice-space “conversation” tends tow ard any dissent… They mainly just distract victims trying to think or get any w ork done. Platitude boy is a new named AP-RTI (autopig-realtime) w hich repeatedly spew s some common cliche or platitude. Logical negation boy just parrots the logical negation of anything you think. Sort of like a 5year old: “It is x,” “No, it is not x.” The echo repeats your thoughts, for w hatever reason or motive or intention. Timid boy alw ays tries to induce anxiety or doubt in something you think or say. “You made a big mistake.” “I w arned you.” Beavis and Butthead are tw o babbling morons w ho think they are the Marv Alberts of the rape show . They provide their running commentary of anything you think (or even dream) as filtered through their idiotic aw areness. They w ere actually named by some other “voices” w ho also seemed annoyed by their incessant babble. They constantly harass and attempt to demean. If any of the “underground bunker” sorts of models hold, these tw o sound like they are sitting in a booth dow n there w ith microphones and headsets, harassing. A babbler is a process that just babbles seemingly random, non-connected w ords — usually at a level just perceptible. It may be part of a trigger search algorithm, looking for w hat you react to. It is similar to the techniques used in technologies like the Russian acoustic psychocorrection devices now ow ned by a Richmond company. The usual tiresome processes “listen” to w hatever you are thinking about and babble about them. If your thought included the w ord “Volksw agen,” for example, the AP-RTI w ould then essentially let x=” Volksw agen” and plug that value into several of the AP phrases of one variable. It is really syntax-level stuff, often not even making sense. They also repeat the AP phrases w ithout variables constantly. The ugly distorting mirror. – You think a fraction of some thought. Before you can even finish the thought train, it is telemetered out to some filthy rapist. This rapist first interprets your half-thought in terms of his or her ow n idiot aw areness. This distorted, ugly reflection is then sent back at you as if it somehow represents your w hole thought. Besides the basic miscomprehension of the raped thought, the return signal also reflects the purposeful, sadistic intention to harm you and cause trauma. This external kneejerk can derail your normal thought train easily if you let it. If you think like a moron you’ll be a moron. (Your internal kneejerks and conditioned thought habits can be hard enough to deal w ith w ithout some external idiot’s hateful reflection also imposed on you.) Garbage in. – If you have a filth channel coming in, you w ill have some filth associations. That is just the nature of the brain. That specifically refers to the third ear, but also applies to new spapers, TV, etc. Understand how the thought arises. Observe. It does not reflect on you. The best and most useful brain circuits, w hen fed trash and filth, w ill tend to produce trash and filth. Don’t spin your w heels on w orrying about this crap. Observe and stay aw are and unperturbed. The pigs, if they are real people, are revealing their ow n filthy selves and minds. Point that out to any “audience” in w hatever model you are assuming. I change models like I change a pair of pants. You do not have to explain. I am w earing blue jeans now . Kick you in the leg till you limp, then blame you for limping. – They’ll torture you for a year and then “blame” you for thinking like a torture victim. Similarly for all years thereafter. They’ll autopig you w ith a phrase 100,000 times and then blame you for tending to think that phrase. They also rush to both reinforce and ridicule any such tendencies. After a phrase becomes strongly conditioned, even a snippet of it or a similar rhythm can tend to set it off. The victim w ill anticipate hearing it, because he or she has been conditioned to expect it after so many occurrences. One common thought occurrence is for a random noise on any ear to trigger a strongly conditioned phrase (SCP). – Even just the anticipation of such an event is seized upon by an RTI-AP to mock, goad, and reinforce the SCP. The mind rapists also seem to be able to access the “pre-subvocal area” and see you forming an idea there. Even if you choose not to subvocalize it, they w ill often pick up pieces of it for their harassment. You can test this by barely thinking something but not even subvocalizing it, and quietly observe w hat happens. You can sometimes even “lead” the voices that w ay. Triggers and SCPs tend to w ork tw o w ays even betw een torturer and torture victim, and barely thinking an SCP is more likely to set off the particular RTI or AP w hose phrase it is. In an AI sense it seems something like a blackboard system running off of your brain data. (Keep in mind the effect of conditioned internals here, though.) Stockholm syndrome is induced by forced intimacy plus abuse and torture. W ith third ear Cameron harassment directly into the brain this can happen if you are not careful. After years of abuse, they’ll pretend to be your “friends.” Like the bait and babble and bait and trigger, this is only to get you to pay attention and open up to the next traumatic brain insult. The trigger search algorithm. – This algorithm repeats w ith mind numbing regularity. The RTIconverted by Web2PDFConvert.com

APs are not called idiots for nothing, but one thing they are good at is spotting any sort of reaction to their goading and babbling. This is especially true of any sort of trauma or distress reaction. They notice this like a pack of jackals sensing a w ounded animal. They home in on it instantly. Any sort of perceived w eakness quickly draw s their attentions. Anything they notice you responding to is likely to be sent to the trigger search algorithm for “testing.” They also repeat the trigger search algorithm at periods of, say, 30 minutes, 1 hour, and often 1 day and several days later. If the test “succeeds” then you get a new autopig phrase goading you long-term. They also w atch as you read things and go about your daily life for anything that might get a reaction or be associated w ith a traumatic situation. Some of these paths like new spapers and radio are also employed deliberately as feedback pathw ays in trying to trigger or goad the victim. Professional triggerers. – The RTIs and their AP machines are the low est-level sorts of Brow nshirt harassers and goaders. They are the useful idiots for others behind the scenes. They constantly harass to annoy and w eaken the victim. They drip, drip, drip, like w ater torture. In the background there are also w hat I call professional triggerers. They w ill lurk in the background or be called up w hen the victim needs extra suppressing. They trigger based on a long history and profile of the victim, and quite pointedly. You can even sometimes hear them directing the low er-level harassers as to the “theme” of the next harassment skit. I call one of these “Major Mengele Psych Degree.” Why are spies called spooks? – They are called spooks because they are spooky, or at least try to be. That is their first line of operation. They w ant to intimidate w ith a bare, deniable hint of blackmail, for example. They w ant to scare you, intimidate you, or confuse you in a w ay they can deny and that others w ill not pick up on — “you must be crazy.” They also bluff and lie constantly, and create various deceptions w hich they then try to market to their targets. They w ant to induce anxiety and uncertainty in their targets, and alter their courses of action from w hat the spooks at least imagined it w ould otherw ise be. In anything you read there tends to be the text, the subtext, and the subsubtext. Like w ith harassing audio, harassing and smearing subtext tends tow ard playground level stuff — though applied and implied by supposed adults. The subsubtext represents the underlying intention of the subtext and the deeper implied message. It tends to be picked up by those used to “reading the tea leaves” as opposed to only picking up bits of the basic smears directly betw een the lines. Keep in mind that all the subtexts tend to be BS; people can lie betw een the lines more deniably than on them. An Example Model – The remainder of this article presents a particular hypothetical model scenario as an extended example. As an exercise, assume the unlikely case of the purely natural model. Assume that some subset of people are born w ith some natural ability as “hearers.” Assume they have managed to keep this situation secret for centuries via a strong taboo and mafia-like omerta. Assume that even children w ith such abilities somehow know not to talk about it, and that attempts to w rite about it or tell people meet w ith suppression. Assume also that there are some people w ho are naturally strong “senders.” Assume that strong “senders” in many cases do not even know that they have this somew hat rarer gift/curse. How w ould they know , if they do not “hear” and the hearers keep it a secret? The “hearers” participate in a conspiracy w hich is used to keep the unw itting “senders” vulnerable and exploitable. Suppose that, besides just listening, exploiting, raping, and peeping at these “senders,” some of the “hearers” decide to have sadistic fun w ith them. These “senders” are harassed and driven crazy if even a few “hearers” decide for w hatever reason they do not like them or just w ant to. They may be driven to suicide or may be driven to the w aiting arms of psychiatry w here they are drugged into being zombies. Perhaps these “senders” are even just like the “hearers” except that they are the equivalent of deaf people exploited w orse than any freak show “entertainers.” Suppose this mafia-like conspiracy is w idespread and uses triggers and other such techniques to maintain control of those not in on the secret — as w ell as to police its ow n members. These triggers w ould develop over the years until they w ere almost stylized caricatures of the “best” triggers that the harassing jackals finally homed in on. Like a pathetic w ord or symbol representing how to put dow n any particular person and w hich even children could use — never mind if it is stupid or reveals atrocities on actual inspection. The victims tend to be dismayed at the stupidity and the evidence of w idespread conspiracy against them, more than the actual pathetic triggers. Not all such “hearers” w ould actually be Nazis in this model — though collaborator is close. In fact the majority might even be like the “good people” w ho did nothing even as they heard the cries from the death camp dow n the street. If a “sender” also had some “hearing” ability, or developed it over the course of time, he or she might not know how to interpret it. If harassment had already started, this w ould be just one more harassment feedback path to the victim. A w ay to manipulate and goad the victim. The victim might think it w as technology because such technology does indeed exist. Alternately, technology might be used for a “send” to the victim, w hile the victim’s natural “send” ability w ould be used for the return “hearing” feedback path from the victim. The victim w ould be traumatized, angry, suspicious, and confused, not know ing w hat w as happening. How does this model meet with the facts? – W hat inconsistencies and unlikelihoods does it have? How w ell does it explain w hat mind control victims report experiencing, such as going into a library and having people snickering at them and goading them w ith their ow n “private” thoughts? If the “senders” knew that they tended to send more strongly, w ouldn’t they be in an interesting position. How could “senders” ever learn to control and use their abilities if they never got any feedback but harassment? W hat psyops could create the illusion that this model holds? W hat “experiments” could a victim or other person conduct to support this model over another one, in the face of psyops and deception ops? W hat if a “sender”

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

gradually became a “hearer” too, even under harassment? Could it be distinguished from a technological “send” to the victim? Assuming this model holds, how could a victim know ing this ground truth best deal w ith the harassment and come to uncondition himself or herself from the pathetic triggers and ongoing harassment? If the natural model is not magic, how does the advance of technology play into things? Are there any curves crossing or about to cross? How does the new mixed model, w ith the standard model throw n in, change things? Everyone has a cell phone these days, and soon they’ll be so tiny people w ill mount them on their heads or affix them to their bodies (neurophone-phone?). That is a consensual sort of netw ork essentially like the ones discussed in this article. Even the open, non-secret technology related to synthetic telepathy is advancing rapidly. Consider the above model, in both its strong points and w eak points. Think about the supporting data and possible experimental design. This is a useful exercise in any case, both to practice thinking in terms of conditional models and because parts w ill generalize to the mixed models and standard models. Generica is a bitch. Part I – Models of Synthetic Telepathy Part II – Acoustic Signal Modulation Part III – Working Models Part IV – Bayesian Stopping Criterion Official Web-site: Datafilter – Mind Control JDH File Part II – Surreptitious Acoustic Signal Modulation, Voice Projection, and Direct Brain Interface by Allen Barker This article deals w ith the technology to surreptitiously or overtly send “voices” to people. This is a longtime dream of psychological w arfare and operations people, and much research and development has gone into it. Huge sums of money have been spent developing w ays to send voices, in any and all w ays, to targeted people. Many technologies are openly know n to exist, and more sophisticated ones no doubt exist in secret. One name for this is synthetic telepathy; another is voice-to-skull (V2S) technology. I also discuss methods for sensing brainw aves and converting these to voice signals, i.e., brainwave-to-voice (B2V) devices. I assume the standard model of all technology, but at the end I mention the mixed model for those into that (and for the reasons I have outlined earlier). For the background of the model system on w hich this article is based, see the previous article in the series, “Models of Synthetic Telepathy.” Later articles in the series are listed at the end. I cover a lot of possibilities, w hich I hope is not confusing. But the reality is that under uncertainty you have to keep all reasonably likely models in mind. As before, I do not cover the mental illness possibility because I have w ritten about that elsew here. I have gotten enough external confirms to know my case is not that. There are many other credible victims, there is a long history of US mind control abuses, there are documented victims still ignored, and all of the technology either exists in the open or likely exists in the secret sector. Subliminal and surreptitious voices – Of all the sounds that can be sent, w hy voices? W hy the fascination w ith that, as opposed to other sounds? The obvious reason is deniability, since our society is currently set up so anyone claiming to experience such things risks being called crazy, and anyone talking of such things risks being called a kook. The deeper reason is because human beings are social animals living in a society and communicating by language. People tend to think in terms of language. People can be controlled by language. You can put a voice projector in a dog’s brain and tell it to “sit” and “stay,” but only humans can take complicated directions in language. In this sense, humans are more vulnerable than other animals. Consider how language is used by the con man, the hypnotist, the politician, the law yer, and the preacher. The playground taunter. Words can indeed hurt you. There are many methods for sending surreptitious sound. Openly know n devices exist w hich can localize sounds to a particular location from 30 yards and more, for example. In a simple application, one could just hide a small piezo speaker to simulate high-frequency sounds like bird songs and crickets chirping. (One might also consider the effects of certain EM w aves on real crickets and birds.) One technique to hide subliminals is to mask them w ith ambient noise in the environment. This noise might be purposely created and disguised as ambient, like a fake bird call that is run for a w hile and then has subliminal speech slipped in, or it may be naturally occurring noise that the voice modulated signal is matched to in frequency. This is analogous to hiding the transmission frequency of an audio bug near something like a radio station to make detection difficult. Another technique to hide subliminals is to process the signal so it does not consciously register as a voice signal but has some subconscious effect. On something like a direct brain send a very low “volume” signal may register subconsciously but not consciously. The main technique this article deals w ith is subliminal voices hidden in the natural sounds of appliances like air conditioners, refrigerators, computer fans, and other electric devices, especially those w ith motors. This follow s largely from my ow n empirical study of the harassing voices I am bombarded w ith day and night, as w ell as from listening to other victims. I speculate on some possible methods of modulating and sending such voices. For a description of some experiments in this regard, see the w eb site [ .... ], w here it is described how a computer disk drive’s sound can be modulated w ith transients on the pow er line. According to a demonstration there by John Vincent, “transients and RF on 120VAC Neutral return and ground lines can and do induce annoying acoustic resonance into various appliances.” Any sort of controllable acoustic effects can likely be voice-modulated. Sound might even be modulated onto the low -frequency signals of acoustic sources like large transformers, and thus carry over large distances. In a city there is almost now here you can go to escape the hum of motors and electrical devices. For people who hear voices “in their head,” try this just as an experiment. – If you hear a

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

voice, stop and listen closely to the ambient noise, especially hums and rattles of electrical equipment. Turn your head slow ly to see if it has a directionality. In my case that turns out to almost alw ays be the source of the “voice.” It seems like it is in your head, but it may be externally sent to your “simulated third ear.” The Russian acoustic psycho-correction devices w ere reported to use such an acoustic modulation technique to cause a voice that seemed to originate in a person’s head (and the rights are currently ow ned by a Richmond, Va. company). Musicians and audiophiles may have a better ear for this, since they are used to picking out one part of a sound from a soundscape. The sound is very directional to the sound source w hen you externalize it. Besides the ever-present electrical hum, there are other sources of sound like jets passing overhead that might be voice-modulated or have voice signals hidden under them. At least as early as Vietnam, psyop sounds w ere broadcast from helicopters, for example. I mentioned possible pow er-line modulation methods above, but there are other possibilities. How might a pulsed EM w ave interact w ith an operating motor for example? The motor effect might even be a side effect of another send technique. There are other methods of sending voice-to-skull, like pulsed microw ave techniques. These might be matched to the ambient noise in order to hide the signals, or even hidden in a tinnitus-like signal, natural or artificial. One technique may even be used to mask the use of another. (“I couldn’t discern the Frey signal voices because of the acoustic masking voices or frequencies.”) A complicated sound source like an electric motor driving a fan can have a fairly large spectrum. There may even be more than one voice layered in there at different frequency bands or w ith different modulations. [I've been making a few recordings to try to capture these voices that harass and berate me day and night now . It is somew hat hard to evaluate the recordings, though, because they try to mess w ith your perceptions w hen you listen. The real-w orld low frequencies permeate everything, even earplugs. I have even caught them at this a few times w hen listening to recordings. They send signals on the external ambient audio (and w hatever other send technique) to deceive you as you listen. They cannot quite keep it up consistently, though. I can pull off my headphones real fast and catch the signal in the external ambient noise. You can actually hear that they turn up the external sources w hen you have on headphones to listen. They cannot quite synchronize w ith the digital recordings if you start at a random place or move it slightly, or if you repeat it enough times. (Once I forgot to turn on the microphone and they still tried to fake a signal there.) They either w ant me to think something is there w hen it is not or they w ant me to not hear w hat is really there.] Finally, suppose there really is no external modulation — even though the signal seems highly directional and sometimes blatantly obvious. This is a very important possibility to keep in mind. It may be that, rather than modulating the signal on the audio send, they are modulating it on the audio receive in your brain. If you assume a direct brain read, then you also need to consider a direct brain send, w hich I discuss in the next section. And of course keep in mind that there are multiple techniques w hich could be used simultaneously in a large-scale operation. Direct brain interface (DBI) – Assume now a direct brain interface. The most likely model for this is some sort of miniaturized brain implants, probably a distributed array of microsensors. Assume as one model that these microsensors are injected or blasted into the auditory cortex and surrounding regions of the brain. Perhaps other sections also, like the visual cortex. They might just scattershot truly miniature sensors and have them self-organize via feedback later. Perhaps a compressed air blast up the nostril, for example. Some mind control literature mentions liquid crystals, or there may be w ays to crystallize a fluid flow ing in the bloodstream through the brain such as by external EMF; this is an interesting hypothetical model. Other methods are possible and surely under development, such as remote-sensing methods. It might also be something like some subdermal EEG (and other signal) sensors. Or there may be some fairly easily readable sources for subvocalized speech in other parts of the body, like the nerves to the voice box. For the purposes of this article I w ill assume a brainw ave reading capability over a significant portion of the auditory cortex. From my empirical “studies” there already exists fast brainw ave-to-voice (b2v) conversion softw are and the sensors to do it. At this stage I w ould assume brain implants, but the same softw are could probably be adapted to other sensing technologies as they became available. Note that in b2v the brainw aves represent both sounds heard through the ears (as w ith the cats they w ired up in the 1960s) as w ell as subvocalized and prevocalized “inner speech.” Extending this another step, one harassment technique is brainw ave-to-voice-to-skull (b2v2s) w here they read your brainw aves and feed them back to you via the external channel as a harassment technique. I have personally experienced this harassment technique. Of course it is really b2v2(RTI/AP)2s so they can process the signal and add “commentary” along the w ay. There is a “man in the middle” of the signal path. It also seems as if they are w orking on some sort of brain cloning/modeling technique to “steal” a person’s thought patterns and predict w hat he or she w ill think. And as I mentioned in “Motives for Mind Control,” prediction is a fundamental part of control. [I describe w hat they do and w rite about it, as I have all along. I've explained that before. It helps my credibility. About everything I've said before has turned out to be the case, hasn't it? I've had enough external confirms to know it is not just in my head, and no protocol confirmation to conclude that they are "friendlies." One has to alw ays consider the effects of conditioned internals, though, w ith the Ew en Cameron-style psychic driving of SCPs and sleep deprivation. That and the ongoing trigger algorithm. It is not called torture for nothing.] Consider a brainw ave-to-voice-to-skull (b2v2s) send using, for example, electrical appliances such as w ith pow er line modulation. This model accounts for victims’ descriptions of people seeming to know w hat they are thinking. The voice-to-skull is really voice-to-public, including the victim. Next time you are out on the street or in a store, pause and listen to all the background noise sources you typically do not notice. Some street theater “harassers” might

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

have figured it out and become w itting collaborators in a “game” of torture, w hile others might be influenced subliminally. Some may even pick up the signal consciously but be unaw are of its origin and think they are “psychic.” Either w ay, it w ould be quite unnerving to victims. This sort of “voice-to-public” w ide-field send model is interesting to consider. It does require a conspiracy among the conscious voice hearers to not talk about “the voices” around the voice senders (or perhaps not even amongst themselves). Aside from that it might explain a lot (and the send method could be any w ide-field voice projection device: acoustic, electromagnetic, or other). Now , suppose the send is not auditory, but only seems like it. Once w e assume brain implants the victim has to suspect all sensory input, since deceivers are messing directly w ith the brain. This holds for any technology to directly alter the brain, implanted or remote. Suppose there is a self-organizing array of miniature stimoceivers somehow implanted in the auditory portions of the brain. (Recall the tonotopic map, as the sounds are laid out by frequency in the brain.) If a sound is coming in, it w ill cause neural firing patterns. W hatever frequency bands you hear, there w ill be increased neural activity there. So if the stimoceivers first sense the activation level and then send the signal only if the activity is above a threshold, the imposed sound w ill seem to be part of an external ambient noise source. (W hat can be concluded in this model about strongly directionalized sound sources w ith superimposed voice? Are there techniques w here a targeted person w ould falsely attribute directionality to a signal, by falsely associating it w ith a real external sound? Would a simple send proportional to activation level do that? Are there any remote or w ide-field send techniques like EM methods that could also accomplish this sort of brain manipulation? This is an important question to consider.) One question is, if they are sending directly to the brain, at least part of the time, w hy w ould they bother to make it sound like an external acoustic signal coming in through the ears? One reason is that in a noisy environment their signal must “compete” w ith natural external sounds, and so to be noticeable it has to fit in w ith the rhythm and frequency. Another possible reason is that they do not w ant it to be too noticeable. They may try to hide such sounds in external ambient frequencies to give them more of a subliminal effect, so they don’t stand out like a sore thumb in the mind. Another likely reason, in the case of a direct brain send, is that they w ant to misdirect the victims to think it is an external acoustic modulation. This w ay the victim may claim to hear things in external signals w hich others truly cannot hear, and w ill be less likely to detect or measure the true send signal. Finally, it may simply be a w ay to drive a victim crazy and induce a schizophrenia-appearing condition in those susceptible to such conditioning. By repeatedly trauma-conditioning the victim to associate berating voices w ith external sounds, the victim w ill tend to anticipate them even w hen hearing sounds w ithout the overlaid harassment. (Can you imagine berating phrases — psychologically tailored to psychologically harm you — bombarding you for w eeks and months at a time, hundreds of thousands of times, in a psychic driving fashion?) Finally, consider direct brain-to-brain (b2b) interfaces. Consider that if the victims are implanted or otherw ise have a direct brain interface, there is a good chance that the harassers do also. In this case the underground bunker could be distributed, much like the victims’ concentration camp system is distributed to each victim’s brain and mind. W hat possibilities are available in this model that are not in a literal underground bunker model? For one thing, the perpetrators w ould be mobile, just like the victims, w ith a connection maintained everyw here they go. This might allow for street theater. W ith a direct brain interface the perpetrators w ould just have to “think” the harassment. The obvious asymmetry is that the victims are nonconsensual and do not have an on/off sw itch or a volume control. They are kept in the dark about w hat is happening by a real conspiracy of silence; a conspiracy that aids, abets, and allow s their rape and torture. One could also consider direct hookups from one brain to another at the neural level, rather than the linguistic level. This might be used to “steal minds.” Suppose, hypothetically, that you had a brilliant scientist, no morals or ethics, and w anted to “clone” this scientist’s thinking. You get 100 volunteer privates in the secret police unit w ho agree to a direct hookup. Voila! After 10 years, maybe a few of them have picked up the skills of the nonconsensual (or even consensual) scientist. (Over time the patterns w ill likely selforganize to interpolate and resemble the imposed patterns.) W hat if you then start sending to the scientist? Visual? Auditory? Motor control? W hat functions could then be controlled or influenced? There are various permutations on the theme. If this level of direct brain connection has not yet been tried on humans it w ill not be too long before it is. And w hat about machine simulation and modeling? Those ignorant of the current state of technology may scoff, but the time is now to make sure that if such experiments are (or have been) done they are done humanely and consensually. Human rights demands that all participants be consensual. (See “Motives for Mind Control,” for more on this sort of motive.) One argument against the harassers running off direct brain interfaces themselves is that they don’t sound like real people thinking. They sound like machines simulating a playground taunting, feeding back on the victims’ reactions and using profile information. That, or some goading moron at a microphone. Perhaps the RTIs actually receive training in “using” the devices or have a less invasive interface. Some RTIs may have direct interfaces, but the communication netw ork can have many nodes on it (just like an Ethernet). Imagine hooking up an autopig machine just like you’d hook up a printer to a netw ork. And an RTI’s microphone and VR monitor at another node. The difference is that some of the “nodes” of this netw ork are direct interfaces into human brains. And some of the human beings are nonconsensual and are being purposely tortured. General Thoughts on the Situation – Americans juvenilize human rights abuse. Look at COINTELPRO. Largely a bunch of sophomoric dirty tricks applied against people to discredit and neutralize them. Juvenile as they are, to the victims they are nonetheless devastating.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

This juvenilization helps people to dismiss the abuses and the taunting ridicule. Another reason for the juvenilization and taunting is to regress people to a juvenile state. This is a common technique for interrogators and torturers. The intention is to make the person regress and be more childlike so they accept the torturer (or the “good Nazi”) as an authority figure to be obeyed. Cointelpro of the mind. Another cover deception is that it’s just children. Hmmm. Children w ho beam voices into people’s brains to drive them to suicide for amusement? How does that w ork, exactly? Are they sitting at microphones or do they have chips in their brains? They surely do not build or buy the technology. If an adult really made a child part of a torture operation then that child is a victim also. More likely it is a covert operation unit running a deception operation. Just another psychological operation, a longrunning cover, a theme for the deception. Juvenilize the victims. (And w ould it really matter in a model independent sense, w hen people are being tortured?) The voices harassing me all speak English exclusively and all have similar, though differing, accents. They sound like w hite men aged 18-40 or machine simulations thereof. As far as the indirect feedback I get about w ho seems to hear the voices, it seems to cut across all demographic boundaries. Men and w omen of all races and ages — and children also. If the Russians did this it w ould be an act of w ar. It is nothing but psychological w arfare against the domestic population. W ho are these people? W here are they? Did you vote for them? People are afraid to even talk about them. These torturers cow er in a literal or metaphorical underground bunker, harassing citizens and trying to stir up trouble. They harass, goad, and torture. They rape people in public (if you assume a model w ith an audience). They sadistically drive people to suicide for amusement. (How many?) Once you know this to be reality, what other facts have to be updated in the truth database? Facts have logical consequences. 2+2=4. If the logical consequences are hideous, many people turn aw ay and go into denial. They pretend they are living in the fantasy w orld and ignore the facts staring them in the face. Are there any real men in this society? Here is a useful model to consider, at least to clarify some ideas. It is something like the UCLA Violence ProjectViolence Project, proposed in the early 1970s. Assume brain implants or some other sensor capable of reading some significant aspect of brain functioning. The brainw aves are telemetered to the communication netw ork (maybe low earth satellite or other), the communication netw ork feeds to the underground bunker (literal or metaphorical), the underground bunker processes the telemetered brainw aves to voice, the voice signal is filtered through autopigs and RTIs, the processed signal is sent back out to the communication netw ork, and the final signal is sent to a targeted or w ide-field voice-to-skull device. Most of this is basic engineering. (A cellphone netw ork is a similar sort of setup.) In the underground bunker there are the Auschw itz guard RTIs w ho do the actual sadistic harassing, computer aided by autopigs. They are commanded by Major Mengele, w ho has a master’s degree in psychology. He uses that and his torture experience to design new pet theories of torture, control, and direction w hich he has the RTIs test on victims. W hether they “w ork” or not, the victim experiences torture. (“W hen you pull all the legs off a fly it cannot hear.” “The lobotomy cured the patient’s hyperactivity.”) W ho is the pig holding the leash of the man in the middle (Major Mengele’s commander or his commander)? How far up does the command chain of torture go? W ho profits? Those are the ones to hold most accountable and the ones to get. Not that the low er-level participants are not fully accountable. Don’t take your feedback from a bad monitor. As an electric guitar player I tend to think of the feedback sound sources as amps. It is just my nonconsensual direct brain interface sent to the “effects loop” of the underground bunker, and then sent back to “amps” around me to provide the final acoustic effect. (Of course it may also be something other than an acoustic signal at the final voice-to-skull step.) This is actually a fairly good analogy, except that the “amp” may be something like your refrigerator. If the effects loop is evil, the feedback is intended to destroy you. Like a phase-locked loop, there is a tendency to lock in and entrain w hen realtime direct feedback of your ow n thoughts is present. This may be used to control a victim. Aside from gathering data, try not to lock onto such signals if you detect them. Don’t slow dow n your thinking or w ork to articulate it on a bad amp (unless you assume an audience model you are also educating or you are gathering data). Reprogram the triggers. The trigger algorithm is a basic w ay they keep victims traumatized. Anything that gets under your skin or that might get a reaction from you is a potential trigger. They w ill often use a babbling trigger search (BTS) algorithm w here they go through a list that Major Mengele developed from studying the transcript of your harassment. They babble various phrases looking to see w hich ones get a reaction. This algorithm may also be automated. W hen they find one — a potential trigger — they send it to the trigger algorithm (TA) w hich applies it in almost a clockw ork, machinelike fashion. The “successful” triggers that cause trauma or distraction become autopig phrases to be pounded into the victim’s brain w ith a huge Cameron number. This psychic driving causes a form of brain damage w here the victim tends to hear such phrases even w here they are only hinted at (trigger abbreviation) or in random noises or anticipations. If they try to trigger you w ith some phrase that they have associated to trauma or anger or distraction, try to reprogram it. Consciously associate it w ith another concept, like human rights abuse or the trigger algorithm itself. Each time you hear it, make that association to yourself to reprogram the trigger. Assume an impostor. If you are under voice harassment, do not assume the source of the voices is local. If you are interacting in society, do not assume that those around you are the sources of the voices. In some models they might be, but even in the mixed model they may w ell be long-range manipulating and harassing voices. In the underground bunker they alw ays cow er and look for w ays to harass and goad and stir up trouble in the real w orld for the victims. They w ill impersonate anyone or, for that matter, feed back to you anything they think you might buy. They try to induce anxiety, they try to distract, and they try to stir up

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

trouble. To say the harassment channel is unsecure and unauthenticated is an understatement — at least from the victim’s view point. Information w arfare exploits such channels. The permanent w ords of the day are asymmetry, belie, and nonlocality. For more information, visit the w ebsite Mind Control: Technology, Techniques, and Politics at Datafilter – Mind Control. In particular, see “Mental Firew alls” and “The Autopig”. “We’ve been w atching you a long time. We know more about you than you think.” — W hat an RTI blurted out, angry, w hen I told him he w as “pow erless.” Optional Postscript: Mixed Model – In this final segment, I consider the above scenarios from the perspective of the mixed model of natural psychic abilities plus technology reverseengineering such abilities and/or employing other methods. Caveat: I do not think this is the correct model, but that the standard technological model is. Feel free to skip the rest of this article. I discuss the mixed model because some people do believe psychic pow ers are more than just something like enhanced intuition, and thus may be vulnerable to psyops exploiting that belief system w ith technology. It is also useful just to think about, to get a different perspective. W ho know s, it might even turn out to be partly true. How w ould you know you had such abilities if they w ere being masked by technology? Could you tell the difference (especially if you didn’t know to look)? Please see “Models of Synthetic Telepathy” for more explanation. W ith that caveat out of the w ay, I discuss the above sorts of brainw ave-to-voiceto-skull systems assuming they are some sort of natural phenomenon. First suppose an actual acoustic signal really is embedded in appliance noises, etc. How does it get there in the natural model? Perhaps the electrical patterns in a person’s brain somehow interfere w ith electrical equipment and impose a discernible pattern. Given the extremely low pow er levels of EM radiation put out by the brain, it w ould have to be a very sensitive “detection device.” Could your refrigerator be more sensitive than SQUIDs in a laboratory? Maybe there are vibrational modes (like PDE solutions) that an extremely low pow er signal can shift betw een. Something like a transistor or a catalyst. This mode shift w ould have to be large enough to produce an audible result. The results w ould somehow have to be interpretable as language. It w ould also have to operate over a fairly long range. For these reasons, this explanation does not seem very likely at all if you assume standard physics. (And how w ould other people talk on your refrigerator? W hy w ould a natural psychic hide a signal in a refrigerator rattle?) W hat if natural psychic pow ers result from an EM signal emanated from one brain and received by another brain, like w ith microw ave hearing? Justesen made some calculations in his paper that the pow er levels for the effect, though low , are still too large for the brain’s tiny natural microw ave emissions. (See the end ofJustesen.) Perhaps some people are super-sensitive to this effect, or there are other low er-pow er nonthermal effects w hich are currently unknow n. This does not seem to account for the nature of the harassers, w ho badger and demean but never seem to think like real people w ould think. W ith the microw ave hearing effect, this w ould also be just a voice effect. (And how could directional sound be sent by such methods?) Next, suppose some sort of direct brain interface at a neural level that somehow naturally occurs. Again, the problem is the transmission method w hich must operate at extremely low pow er (and often over long distances). Assuming standard physics and biology, there is no know n w ay for this to occur. Moreover, the science departments at all the top universities ignore the “phenomenon.” This implies a huge conspiracy to keep the pow ers secret or else pow ers so w eak and unreliable that they cannot be measured experimentally (and do not meet the v2s level of strong signals victims report). If people had these pow ers, w ouldn’t they w onder how they w ork? Would they just think this is magic but they can learn about the eyes and ears in a biology book? Are none of these people scientists? Can’t someone design and conduct a convincing, repeatable statistical experiment to at least show information transmission by some unknow n means? Are these people not w orried about the reverse engineering of this ability w ith technology in secret labs? Given the above, this model does not seem likely. Nonetheless there are a few possibilities. It may be that the brain can be an extremely sensitive detector w hen strongly tuned to receive a signal. If one person’s brain w ere “in sympathy” w ith another person’s brain then some sort of extremely low pow er effect might occur. It w ould be like a pencil balanced on its tip, w hich can be knocked over by a tiny force. The brain also recognizes patterns it is conditioned w ith more readily than a random pattern (and hence often incorrectly). The anticipation feeds back w ith the sensory input. So these patterns may require low er pow er levels for reception. One could also postulate some sort of unknow n biological quantum effect. As I have mentioned before, the technology exists w hether or not the natural model holds. Thus the pure natural model is obsolete and there is at most a mixed model w ith both technology and natural abilities. There could be w eak “psychic” pow ers being masked by stronger technological signals. Note that if you reverse-engineer a hypothetical natural psychic signal that operates on low pow er, you could likely turn up the pow er tremendously w hen you plug the device into a w all socket. Part I – Models of Synthetic Telepathy Part II – Acoustic Signal Modulation Part III – Working Models Part IV – Bayesian Stopping Criterion Official Web-site: Datafilter – Mind Control JDH File Part III: - Working Models Under Mind Control Torture by Allen Barker 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
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

current article starts off describing audience models, as a foundation for w orking models to apply in the w orld. I then discuss w orking models. In the section follow ing that I describe and analyze some of the harassment I have recently been subjected to. Then, as w ith the earlier articles, I end w ith some general thoughts on the situation. Audience models – An audience model is a model of w ho 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 w ay 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 w orld, once you get one agency w atching or monitoring you, you are liable to get several.) For a large group of mind control victims the primary concern is their ow n private thoughts and mentation, and w ho has “read” access and “w rite” access, so to speak. The basic audience model concerns the public. W ho in the general public can “access the thoughts,” consensually or nonconsensually, w ittingly or unw ittingly, of a particular victim? At one extreme is a pure “voice to public” model w here almost everyone can access your thoughts but they maintain a conspiracy of silence about it (or else are unw itting). 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 w hen they are not, but for many it is real.] Keep in mind that there w ill be deception operations to conceal the true audience model and focus blame on the w rong people, as w ell as “voices” w hich w ill impersonate anyone you know or interact w ith. 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 w ith any shelter. The prisoners have to try to support themselves despite the ongoing and constant psychological and often physical torture. They have to deal w ith a very real conspiracy to keep them from success at w hatever livelihood they choose or are trained in — and w hich exploits them in any w ay 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 w hen they try to concentrate. Thus many professions tend to be ruled out or made purposely more difficult for these “free citizens.” In w hatever they do, they have to deal in public w ith w hatever audience model has access to their most private thoughts and w here people try to inflict trauma by w ay 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 w ay to illustrate audience models and think it through here is w ith an example. I w ill call this example model the “voiceto-public standard model.” Assume the standard model of all technology. Assume some collection of victims w ith direct brain interfaces to the underground bunker control center. Assume a voice-to-public model w hereby the underground bunker sends out a w ide-field signal containing portions of a victim’s private thoughts. How this w ide-field send occurs could vary: from an EM signal, to w idespread 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 w hich segment receives this w ide-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 netw ork. In another example, perhaps a w ide-field microw ave hearing broadcast is used in one area, and an acoustic modulation is used in another. This netw ork 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 w itting, and some are unw itting. The w itting 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 unw itting “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, w hich I sometimes call “halfw itting.” 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 pow ers. They may also know nothing about the “man in the middle” and assume it is some sort of a natural peer-to-peer communication. W hat follow s from this particular audience model? Consider the consent status of the “audience members.” Any unw itting audience members or “hearers” are clearly nonconsensual, and any half-w itting audience members clearly did not give informed consent. The consent status of w itting audience members is indeterminate. Remember w hat mind control victims have been through, w ith vicious harassment and street theater constituting torture. Any unw itting audience member cannot really be held accountable for this. The w itting and half-w itting ones are responsible. Even the half-w itting ones know enough to know w hat 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 w ould 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 w ay a few pigs can set off a snow ball rolling dow n a hill called gutter culture, w hen 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

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

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 w hen that familiarity is forced onto the victim and the rapists keep returning to rape again and again. Even the audience members w ho do not directly inflict the torture still do nothing to stop it and maintain the conspiracy of silence that allow s it to continue. Are there any nonconsensual “hearers” or “audience members” besides the direct victims hearing their ow n thoughts and being harassed? Suppose there are, perhaps half-w itting. (This also assumes that they can’t easily just “tune out” a “voice.”) In this case they are victims also, in a w ay, though not as extreme as those w hose thoughts are raped and broadcast. They are forced to “hear” things w ithout 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. W hat sort of person forced to hear another’s thoughts w ould w ant 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 w orld for anyone to exploit and turn against them. To blame them is like blaming the rape victim for having to w itness 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 w hat w as happening, but that did not happen. The victims know they are conspired against to keep information aw ay 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 w ant to assume an “all baboon” audience model. How do you even look a person w ho does that in the eye w ith anything but contempt or disgust? Are there any “friendly senders”? You have to be a bit careful about assuming “friendly” senders, w hether you assume they are consensual or not. You do not w ant to Stockholm syndrome on harassers or give them an opening — w hich they w ill take anyw ay, w ith impostors and impersonators of anything they see you respond to. The evidence I’ve seen show s almost no senders w ho can really “converse” and none give actual useful or verifiable information except unintentionally. I am the only one on “my channel” w ho 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 know s w ho around the globe on w hatever netw ork or medium. It is as if the netw ork administrator put me on multicast mode. And apparently even w hen 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 w ould be a cacophony. This indicates a strong asymmetry. The other “voices” tend not to even be able to string tw o 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 w ant to limit your ow n freedom to engage in alternative modes of thought. This includes conversations “w ith yourself” w ithout compromising your principles or opening yourself to manipulation. You need to be able to let your guard dow n at times w ithout w orrying about it. Once you know you mind has been violated you have to question even “your ow n” 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 allow s you to do that, but you need to be very careful w ith it. Note that you have tw o 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. Working models – This brings me to w hat I call a w orking model. Multiple model reasoning is an extremely pow erful technique that can allow you to reason despite missing information. It is surprising w hat all follow s just from w hat 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 w ear” model also helps in developing certain guidelines for your ow n thinking. You have complete freedom of thought, but w ithin that freedom you can choose how to hold your ow n mind — or at least w hat to train yourself tow ard despite w hatever obstacles, internal or external. Not all thought patterns are productive, some are destructive, and certain w ays of dealing w ith even external harassment may be better than others. There are a few criteria for choosing a w orking model. First, it should be as w idely 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 w eighted maximum likelihood model, fitting the know n 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-w itting “audience members” w ere psyoped into thinking they are psychic. [Diehard mixed model fans can still assume the natural model additionally, but the standard model w ith 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 w rite about it all. As a second criterion, the w orking model should not lead to Stockholm syndrome. Victims have

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

been tortured for years and should not assume any model w here they dignify those Nazi pigs in any w ay. People have been tortured to death, and others are still tortured w ith that intention. Any “audience” has at best remained silent and w atched w hile these atrocities w ere committed. A few may have w orked behind the scenes to end it, but then again after France w as 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 draw n to distraught mind control victims like a magnet. As a final criterion, a w orking model should be one that allow s you to live your life as w ell 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 w ill not describe my actual w orking model here, because I am still w orking on it and, as alw ays, am free to change it. I have given enough indications of w hat it is like. Others are free to come to their ow n conclusions about their ow n w orking 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 w hat is going on w ithout w orrying w hether someone w ill 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 w hen 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 w here 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 w hich they can be modulated w ith voice or have it hidden in their ambient noise. This follow s 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 w ith similar, harmonic frequencies.) For a quiet send to be heard through somew hat loud background noise w ithout trying to overpow er it, it needs to be matched to the background. Partly this is just a practical matter of acoustics, but it can also be a w ay to try to keep the sends subliminal. Some “amps” are more articulate than others w hen 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 w hat 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 w ouldn’t rule out a complete fake cricket sound. Try listening to it as tw o sounds, the ambient and the overlay. It is like someone or some machine “speaking” to the rhythm of the ambient chirping, w ith 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 w ith the English language (alw ays English) as the sounds they harass me w ith. All the phonemes come out crisp. W hat are the chances that a real cricket, by rubbing its w ings 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. W hy 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 tw o sounds, sometimes the harassers seem to “miss a change” w hen a group of crickets is chirping and the patterns shift. If tw o 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. W hen the cricket overlay is tracking your subvocal thoughts (“locked on”) w ith direct feedback you can change your thoughts (w hen “talking” on the cricket) but you typically cannot change the speed of the underlying cricket chirp. Often the voice modulation w ill 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 w hat causes you to notice it. W hen w orking at my computer it w ill often “chirp out” w hatever I am thinking as I am typing, like the letters as I think them. It also likes to do things like “announce” my passw ords, 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 w hatever 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 w ith all the harassment going on, the cricket added the sleep deprivation goad, “he’s addicted to sleeping pills,” to its list of autopig phrases. W ithout any dismay you can see right through the American clow n suit to w hat is nothing but a despicable torture technique. W hat if someone purposely harassed you all day and all night and violated your most private thoughts and moments? Would you be fooled if the w ielder of the cattle prod w ore a clow n suit? You w ould shoot that clow n dead if the police couldn’t stop him, and any jury in the country w ould agree it w as self-defense. But the cow ardly American “w arriors” 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 w e do this,” is a fairly common autopig taunt these days.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

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 w hen 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 — w hether 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 w hen 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 w ithin 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 w ith 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 w hatever modulation method. Nonetheless, w hen the brain itself is being tampered w ith w ith 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 w hen you are bombarded w ith the same harassing or triggering phrases 100,000 or more times (as w ith Ew en Cameron’s psychic driving). Sometimes anyone can hear sounds that sound something like w ords w hen 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 w hat the “effects loop” of an “amp” contains: Buffers — a slow er “amp” w ill save up and finish your more rapid thought. Delay line — your thoughts repeated w ith a delay of a couple of seconds. Sample and hold — a thought is held and repeated back over and over. Paraphrase — sometimes a different w ord or phrasing is substituted in. Rapid direct connect — a fast “voice” that can keep up w ith 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 w ords or phrasing that you w ould not have used. AP — a machine-simulated RTI w ith 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 w hat 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 w here it continues and continues. You find yourself tensing up w hen 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 w ere still monitoring your thoughts, anyw ay. You know exactly how they operate after a w hile, so it is no surprise w hen they start up again. After I posted my article “human rights update” a short w hile back the harassment w as cut back dramatically. (That w as the article w here I described how they w ere taunting me w ith phrases like, “are you having fun being tortured to death?”) The harassment then slow ly seems to build back up. The times w hen 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 w ill instantly ramp up. For now , then, w riting this is the most important thing for me to be w orking 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 alw ays improving the technology, and there is alw ays 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 dow n,” but torture is torture is torture is torture. W hat gives them any right to extrajudicially “slow dow n” a free civilian citizen’s intellectual w ork even if they didn’t use torture and you bought that phony line? They can call anything having to do w ith math or computers “dual use”; toilet paper is dual use. (Most mathematicians or computer scientists w ould laugh if you openly tried to tell them my research w as any threat to national security.) There is something in free enterprise called hiring someone or buying their w ork or approaching them like civilized people and discussing things w ith them. W hat 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 w ill 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 w hat about all the other mind control victims? Do they make up different rationalizations for each one? W hy is it never real criminals like murderers, rapists, and torturers w ho get the mind control treatment? [Though of course they still have basic human rights and w ould have to consent to any brain monitoring.] If I throw a soda can out the w indow 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 slow ly move the current
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

level of “allow ed” public discussion tow ard the true state. W ill it ever get anyw here 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 w ill 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 w ay they really are w hen people are being tortured, and in this case I am also one of the victims. Things can change rapidly at times — sometimes noticeably, like w hen a new spaper breaks a real story or a major w orld event happens, but other times more subtly. Repeated themes: 1) the rapist blames the victim, alw ays 2) inflict and blame [for the effects inflicted] 3) inflict and “advise” [on how to deal w ith w hat they inflicted] 4) the thief complains of stolen goods 5) peeping tom w ants 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: Y ou can’t have your cake and eat it. You can’t play-act like a prude and expect to embarrass people w ith their private sexual and toilet habits, etc., w hen you are the sadist voyeur raping them and attempting to demean them. There are some instances w here the cake theorem does not apply, w hich 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 w ell, 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 ow n mind, don’t w orry 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 underw ear, as public speaking teachers sometimes recommend. For that matter, if you w ant to imagine getting nasty w ith 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 w ith my realw orld interactions. W hat it means or doesn’t mean is my ow n private business. It is your free mind; you get to choose how to use it. I personally don’t really w ant 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 w ill think it, especially if you know there is an “audience.” The goal of the harassment is to harass and torture. They w ant to drive people to suicide for their sadistic amusement and w hatever larger political purpose (or experiment) the low estlevel scum w ere hired for. They w ant to keep people from being able to think. (Not that they w on’t steal from w hat you are able to think.) In my case recently, they turned on the constant auditory harassment w hen I tried to w rite a math paper. They keep telling me to be a guitar player, over and over. They “reinforce” that, if that is the w ord, 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 w ill fall for, and reinforce any anxieties, misconceptions, or perceived w eaknesses. 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 w ill have you thinking like a moron if you’d let them, and that includes even accepting their phony premises “from the other side,” w here 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 w eapon, a means to kill, destroy, manipulate, or control. Potentially applies to anything, w ith the applier being domestic or foreign.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

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 w ith 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 ow n 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 tw ofaced hypocrite torturers on the planet. Our elected representatives are either complicitous, ignorant of the true situation and kept that w ay, or suspect the true situation and are pow erless 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 w ho know the technology exists w ould believe it and at least sympathize w ith the victim. [The new spaper w ouldn't print it, because it w ould reveal the existence of the political torture and harassment technology still used in the US.] W hat is the difference then? W hat 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 w idespread expedient lie and public delusion that such abominations do not take place every day in the USA (such as w ith operation mind control). The Big Lie technique is still at w ork in 2002. The Ministry of Truth declared it a thoughtcrime to speak or even think such things. Part I – Models of Synthetic Telepathy Part II – Acoustic Signal Modulation Part III – Working Models Part IV – Bayesian Stopping Criterion Official Web-site: Datafilter – Mind Control JDH File Part IV: - Bayesian Stopping Critireon and the Optimization Thereom by Allen Barker This is the final article in this series on mind control models, methods, and techniques. I think it is about finished, and there is not much I have not covered. I hope the articles help people to understand these issues by providing models, terminology, examples, and language, and that the articles w ill help to expose and end the abuses. I also hope they help victims to heal from the abuses inflicted on them. As a victim of such harassment myself, I have described some things that have helped me to cope w ith and understand the true, hideous state of affairs. This last article builds on the basic model structure described in the first article of the series, “Models of Synthetic Telepathy.” It also continues some discussion and observations from the second and third articles in the series, “Surreptitious Acoustic Signal Modulation, Voice Projection, and Direct Brain Interface;” also, “Working Models.”. For a list of some of the basic abbreviations used in these articles, see “Abbreviations.” Parts of this current article can be read literally or figuratively, but the torture is completely real as are all the examples. Remember Part II of my earlier series of articles, “Resisting the Mind Control State,” at http://w w w .datafilter.com/mc/protestResist.html. If you get angry, focus your anger and don’t be goaded into actions you have not fully considered. Act in aw areness, get the right ones, etc. The first section of this article discusses the optimization theorem and the Bayesian stopping criterion. Next, there is a section discussing triggers and general concepts related to triggers. Follow ing that I discuss some of the social and propaganda aspects of the US mind control system. There is then a section containing some general comments and a section containing
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

more of my personal observations of harassment. Finally, there is an optional postscript on the mixed model for people into that. The Optimization Theorem – I w ill start right off by stating w hat I call the optimization theorem. W hat is being optimized w ith this “theorem” is your resistance to the torture inflicted, as w ell as your ability to try to maintain your life as best as you can. The main context being discussed here is dealing w ith torture by voice-to-skull incoming, but the general principle holds in much w ider settings. It also holds for the low er-tech surveillancebased cointelpro style of harassment, for example. Optimization Theorem: It may seem paradoxical, but the best way to take action is to remain completely calm. This is not the first impulse w hen subjected to harassment and goading, and it is hard to do. It does turn out to be the most efficient response. The best w ay to slam a fist back at the face of your pig harasser is to remain completely calm and observe it or ignore it. Work in the real w orld to agitate for human rights and expose the abuses. It is like a greedy algorithm in computer science, versus an optimal algorithm. The greedy algorithm takes the best move in an immediate sense but does not look ahead to take the best overall move. The optimal algorithm w ill look ahead and not necessarily make the locally most tempting move. Try to train yourself tow ard this imperturbability. If you do get angry, focus your anger, and let it motivate you to something productive. Turn off your (internal) moron anticipator. Recall that the moron anticipator is a thought process that anticipates the likely reaction or response of a moron to something before you speak it or publish it — or even before you think it if your mind is being raped. Don’t even interpret the pigs’ incoming babbling as language. If the pigs don’t get language, don’t anticipate language. Your moron anticipator is probably a lot smarter than them, anyw ay, and just gives them fodder for more harassment. They’ll feed your anticipations right back at you. The pig incoming is just a machine, or might as w ell be. My microw ave oven alw ays says, “Enjoy your meal,” after I make tea. I can tell it 5000 times that I only made tea, but it w ill not learn. Don’t imbue the incoming, the intrusions, with any meaning. You’ve probably gathered all the data that is w orth bothering w ith on that rape channel. Don’t verbalize mentally unless you are doing it for your ow n self and w ant to. Don’t explain unless you are doing it for your ow n self. If you are not anticipating a moron raping your private thoughts you w ill not be tempted to w aste time and even dumb dow n your ow n thinking. (Of course you still need the anticipator for your public speaking, w riting, etc. — but even there, you don’t need to go complete low est common denominator or absolute most pathetic spin. You can assume some level of common sense, at least the 6th grade level of US discourse.) Y ou know how they operate. Anything a retard thinks w ill annoy, distract, anger, or otherw ise get a reaction from you they w ill throw at you. Anything they think w ill traumatize you or terrorize you. Any triggers or anything else they ever see you responding to they’ll pick up, bombard you w ith, and imitate. For example, I responded on once w ith sarcasm and anger w hen the pig said “don’t criticize the government.” They put that in the harassment file and still repeat it over and over to this day. You might call it “the w ay of the jackal.” This is true in all models, w hether RTIs or an autopig programmed by Major Mengele’s softw are people and psychological profilers. They will not respond to reason or argument. They may reflect some phrases back, “Eliza”like, to keep you engaged, but soon they reset the machine and go back to exactly the same things as before. They w ill do this on any and every feedback channel (FIP) they can, from voice-to-skull to the internet. But you know the optimization theorem. W hat they hate most is w hen you ignore them, tune them out, or drow n them out, and w hen you w ork regularly in the real w orld to end their human rights abuses. This is the most efficient response. You can talk to a machine all day long, but then you have w asted another of your valuable days and the machine has burned a few w atts of pow er from the outlet it is plugged into. My microw ave oven says “enjoy your meal” after it finishes cooking something, but I am not tempted to talk to it. I can try to tell it I only made tea and did not cook a meal, but it w ill not learn. The optimization theorem is not a form of “learned helplessness,” even though victims are put in exactly the sorts of positions w here such responses tend to arise. The victims literally cannot escape from their tormentors, w ho truly do abuse victims like an experimenter shocking a dog for w eeks on end to see how long it keeps on jumping. If the victims die, freak out “psychotically,” or commit suicide that is just amusement and data to them — perhaps making the experiment a resounding success. But human beings are not dogs, and have not only fundamental, inalienable human rights but also the pow er to reason. The optimization theorem is the result of reasoning about the true situation, and w hich variables victims currently can and cannot control. Knowing the optimization theorem intellectually is easy. Acting like you know it is difficult. The pigs use every playground trick ever invented to goad, taunt, harass, and annoy you. They sink to any level to attempt to demean and manipulate you. They w ant to anger condition you, in addition to trauma conditioning you. Emotionally, also, it is heavy, oppressive stuff to know that there are other “human beings” in your ow n society w ho not only w ant to inflict such suffering, but actually do it to you each day for their gleeful sadistic pleasure. Inside your “private” home and even inside your mind. They are the equivalent of Auschw itz guards; it is that level of depravity. There are many similarities to the Holocaust, but there are also important differences. Open repression versus secret, covert, deniable repression. Being

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

driven to suicide vs. shot or gassed and burned. People controlled in their brains by external pigs versus locked up in concentration camps. The pigs don’t even have to feed and house their distributed concentration camp victims. I heard one pig in the background of the incoming say one day — and I do not know the full context — “she does w hat she’s told.” In a purely physical concentration camp at least the victims still have their ow n private thoughts. An important difference from a physical concentration camp is that the “w alls” are, to a large extent, psychological ones. At least for now , victims still have some control over their ow n minds — w hich are the w alls of the camp. It is as if by concentrating and focusing their attention someone in a concentration camp could dissolve the gates and guard tow ers, and perhaps expose a few Nazis also. Not that this is easy at all, and it in no w ay shifts the blame to the victims for the hideous atrocities inflicted on them. There are still physical effects like Delgado buttons and voice-to-skull transmissions. There are basic conditioning effects that are “hardw ired” into human physiology, and real physical damage from torture, harassment, and stress. And of course there is all the low -tech cointelpro stuff that accompanies and intensifies the other harassment. Emotionally, there is still that death camp air. You look at people and you know . You saw groups of them conspiring to drive you to suicide or make you an empty, controlled, mindless, husk. All w hile others stood by doing nothing or even cheering it on. The ignorant and expedient w ho know something of w hat is going on often rationalize that the victims somehow “deserved it” — w hile the true criminals as bad as the w orst on any death row are treated as respectable citizens and live among normal people. This can lead to a sense of apathy after a w hile, and disgust w ith human nature altogether. These people w ere fellow countrymen, and often “friends” and acquaintances — or even family members. So there is a strong element of betrayal trauma along w ith all the rest of it. I hope the learning curve for some other victims can be cut dow n to the point w here this does not happen, and they can learn all of this before their lives and anything they still care about are completely destroyed. I hope these essays help to take aw ay the elements of surprise and secrecy that tend to keep the w alls in place, and reduce the learning curve for other victims. Bayesian Stopping Criterion – Besides remaining completely calm and working in the real world to expose and end the abuses — as in the optimization theorem — at some point you should start training yourself to completely ignore the mind control harassment as much as possible. (That is only the goal, don’t feel bad or blame yourself if it is difficult in the face of all the abuse.) W hen you are first harassed you typically do not know w hat is going on, and so even if you remain calm you still need to study and observe w hat is being done to you. You need to know , and don’t w ant to be manipulated by it. At some point, though, you have gathered enough data so that you have the picture pretty clearly. A million examples, no counterexamples, call it a rule and be done w ith it. Measurements and observations have a cost associated w ith them. In Bayesian analysis this is know n as the Bayesian stopping criterion. It is based on the concept usually referred to as diminishing returns. Below are some sample internal dialogs. They are meant to illustrate the points and provide examples, rather than to tell anyone how they should think. People have their ow n thought styles in their free minds. Don’t be afraid to think anything, even if it is something that tends to set off a pig barrage. If they get one little w edge in there they’ll try to open it w ider. Don’t cede one millimeter of your free mind and free thought. This first internal dialog is an earlier one, before the stopping criterion w as reached. Imagine RTIs and autopigs babbling their gibberish and trying to play psyop mind games in betw een each sentence. This w ould be stretched out over some time period or w ould be a period of intense torture incoming. Betw een this you w ould try to have your normal mentation, as normal as possible under the circumstances. shut up, pig. did that fool anyone? how about that one? pig babbling gibberish. w e all know how they operate. did that fool anyone? w hat’s the Cameron number on that one? shut up, pig. PBG. that’s an autopig of one variable, simple syntax transformation. that damn machine. it’s a machine, w ith a few RTIs. shut up pig. that’s 30,000 times conditioning that crap. that w as an SCP triggered by a bad parse. list-reading monkey. that w as one trick pig trying to feed back my anticipation. that’s timid boy, trying to induce anxiety. trigger abbreviation. my entourage of simulated borderline retards. Below is a sample script of some more current internal dialog. In it you don’t care w hat they even tried to say, or w hether it w as an autopig or an RTI. Again, imagine a pig trying to say something, the usual garbage, betw een each sentence. Each sentence cuts off a pig or even anticipates it before it spew s its garbage. kill it. that one too. and that one. kill that one. I don’t care w hat it tried to say. kill it. cut their pig throats. I don’t care. kill that one. I don’t care w hat model, and I don’t care how it happens. kill that one. kill it. it doesn’t matter w hat kind of lies and BS come out of their pig snouts. cut that one’s throat. kill that one. kill that one too. no exceptions. it doesn’t even get language, it just gets its pig throat cut. kill it. kill it. kill that one. bad parse, kill it anyw ay for trying to say something, that’s even better. kill that one. kill it. kill it. fake ambient, kill that one. kill it. first metaphorically, then literally. kill it. find it, make it dead. kill it. w hat is that one’s name and home address? that’s all, kill it. I don’t care how it happens. I don’t care w hat model. I don’t care w hat it tried to say. cut that pig’s pink pig throat. track that one. lock on. fire. I don’t care, pig. find that pig and kill it; that’s all that one ever hears. I know how the machine operates. It doesn’t matter if they’re RTIs or autopigs in this script, internally. All incoming gets cut off w ith the same thing. You do not bother after the stopping criterion to even sort them into RTIs vs. autopigs. In that sense it is model independent. If it is an autopig rather than an RTI then kill it means kill the machine operator and anyone else involved in the real w orld, and

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

metaphorically any influence it has in your brain. Train yourself to just cut them off. It w orks literally and metaphorically, internally and externally, for RTIs and autopigs, and for all models. It is so model-independent it is scary. In addition to the usual autopig babble, there are also certain phrases that tend to be stereotypically repeated after you “respond” to one of their primary phrases. Some examples: “took you a long time to see that,” “are you sure” (a timid boy variant), “that helped you” (operant conditioning positive reinforcement), “made you respond.” These occur just as mechanically as the primary phrases, and typically because they saw you respond even once, or you once let the phrase slip by as a “legitimate” incoming. Kill these ones too; don’t imbue them w ith any meaning either. They are just there to keep you listening — they’ve never sent a 6-digit protocol confirmation either. Alternate the above “kill it” training w ith periods w here you completely ignore them, and “say” nothing to them in your internal dialog. This is the goal, but sometimes you need to train in the “kill it” mode and shift into that, especially if you have heavy incoming. If you have to do that all day it is better than listening to one rapist pig babbling. I call a temporary shift to “kill that pig” mode “taking a coffee break.” If you find yourself tempted to respond, or distracted, go back to the above and train yourself some more to cut the pigs off and, most importantly, don’t even consider w hat they try to say. It is not even language, it is a nonconsensual cattle prod to the “ugly spot” on your brain w here that incoming arrives. Nature and source, and sensation. Optimization theorem. W hen you are completely calm and their crap does not affect you at all their BS just hangs in the air, sticking out like a sore thumb. It does not even get meaning. It then tends to fade out and w ait for another chance w hen the jackals think you are vulnerable or need to be punished for a thoughtcrime. At some level you are aw are of it even as you ignore it, because you don’t w ant to be subliminally manipulated, but it is off encapsulated in some distant zone that has no effect on you. Any time you w ant to sw itch modes to completely ignoring them, invoke IFT to clear out all the previous mental crap. Come into the present: Poof, you’re there. If you notice you’re thinking thoughts that are unproductive or that you don’t w ant to be thinking (like being influenced by externals), invoke IFT, poof them out of existence, and come back to the present. Sw itch to “kill it” mode if necessary. (Or w hatever w orks for you; that w orks for me.) “This is my free mind, and I can think anything I w ant right now . W hat do I w ant to be thinking?” Pattern recognition is a beautiful field of study. But I mean really, just w ith common sense, how many repetitions does it take before you see the pattern? If you see it, how long does it take you to act like you know it? Do 10,000 repetitions suffice? 20,000? More? W hen you see how they do it it is not that complicated, just vicious and jackal-like. At that point it is nothing but Chinese w ater torture. A dripping faucet forced to the brain can inflict the same torture: drip, drip, … drip. W hen they w ant to punish a “thoughtcrime” they intensify the goading, and similarly w hen they w ant to degrade your performance in w orking on something, etc. This is the “rheostatic capability” of the torture device as a variable aversive stimulus and performance-degrading w eapon. Don’t worry about a false reflection — or any reflection of your private thoughts off of a thought-rapist, for that matter. By NPT you do not care about a rapist Nazi pig’s opinions. If you are on a baboon safari in the midst of baboons, you do not care w hat they are hooting at you unless you are studying baboon hoots. You can still gather data, but at some point that should become almost automatic and calmly detached. After a few years of mind control torture there is not much that can surprise you. Disgust you, disappoint you, anger you still, but not surprise you. Kill the pigs. First metaphorically, then literally (though if you can do it literally first it w ill save you and probably a lot of other people some trouble). If they are 70 years old 40 years from now , kill them. W iesenthal on those Nazi pigs. I don’t care w hat model and I don’t care how it happens. (Barring some actual justice in the meantime w here the pig is sent to a humane prison cell.) I mean that quite seriously, w ith w hatever influence I have in w hatever sense. I don’t even have a “need to know ” how it happens for those purposes (though I do have a “need to know ” w hat all has been done to my body, mind, and health). These pigs torture people to death for entertainment, and they w ill keep doing it until someone slits their damn throats or locks them up. That is a sad fact, but not liking it does not change it. How many more people are going to be tortured if they are not stopped? Is the FBI going to “visit” me for calling for literally killing some sadistic torturers it insists “do not exist”? W ho use torture implements it claims do not exist (but w hich it know s do)? For calling for some action to do w hat should have been their job of ending domestic torture and arresting the torturers? Even if the torturers w ork for the government — or especially if they w ork for the government — the FBI is one agency that should have taken care of this a long time ago. If it isn’t a six-digit numeric, kill it — and even then it’s your discretion. The sadist pigs torture for entertainment. They try to destroy people’s minds and drive them to suicide. It is a repeated and ongoing conspiracy of torture and attempted murder. Kill them. First metaphorically, then literally. Get the right ones, though, and don’t be misdirected by their psyops. Kill them. You don’t care w hat they tried to say. The very fact that the pig nonconsensually and intentionally intruded on your free mind: kill them. But do it on your ow n schedule and the w ay you choose to optimize — don’t be goaded or taunted into actions. Optimization may not even involve you literally killing them, but rather working to facilitate that or otherwise stop them; remember Part II. In any model, they’ve weaponized nonconsensual access to people’s minds, trying to turn citizens’ minds, accessed against their will, into battlegrounds.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

In the usual sorts of spin that one might anticipate being used against this essay, people might insinuate that this is somehow against my religion. But I do not belong to any religion w hich tolerates its people — or any people — being tortured or made into slaves. Some might spin that I am hypocritical because I am “advocating the same things the pigs do.” But I am not. Don’t torture them, kill them humanely. I’d prefer they end up in humane prison cells, but for the time being the routes to that sort of justice are being obstructed. There is also a false symmetry implied betw een torturing, slaver-like exploiters and those w ho w ould help the victims. Betw een people committing vicious crimes and those w ho w ould use necessary means to stop them. For victims it is purely self-defense, because it is clear the pigs are trying to murder them every day and w ill not stop unless forced to. Some people may misapply or misconstrue w hat I am saying here, but I cannot w orry about how every moron might misunderstand or misapply (purposely or not) the things I w rite. We are talking about literal, ongoing, protracted torture and the sadist torturers committing these acts. And w e’re talking about justice. There are sadistic pigs in this w orld w ho try to torture me to death and inflict any sort of psychological damage they can. That is just the w ay it is right now — my not liking it does not change it. It is understandable to feel some sadness for the pitiful pigs and w onder w hy they are so sadistic, vicious, and stupid. But it is a w aste of time — and that is for the RTIs, never mind the machine APs. They’ll play off of even the emotions of pity and contempt, jackal-like. Don’t be fooled by the clow n suits and never Stockholm syndrome on the torturing pigs. Even the obsolete Model 100 autopig is still Chinese w ater torture, dripping from a high-tech faucet. Kill the pigs responsible, metaphorically and literally. We all know now how they operate, so no one w ill be surprised. They w on’t stop unless they are made to. They may back off a bit if the heat is turned up, but soon enough they’ll be right back to it. They’ll even keep using the exact same triggers on me that I have w ritten about here and described to everyone. It is similar to a scene in the movie “Jackass” w here the practical jokers are annoying a golfer by sounding a loud sound every time he gets ready to hit the ball. They keep doing it until he gets so mad he decides to drive a ball straight at them. W hen he gets ready to hit the ball at them and draw s the club back they set off the sound again. That is the sort of harassment, the level of the big superpow er’s domestic political control torture techniques. Except it is inside people’s minds, 24 hours a day. In their homes. Destroying their lives. And the harassers cow er in their hiding places far aw ay inflicting the harassment. Instilling the triggers to be passed along to those w ho can use them to repress deniably w hile acting like the blood is not on their hands, too. Triggers and Related Concepts – A trigger is some verbal phrase or sound (or image, etc.) w hich has special significance to a victim. It is a stimulus that has been selected or conditioned to cause a response in the victim. Very often it is a linguistic stimulus. Classical conditioning is often blatantly carried out to condition a victim to associate trigger w ords w ith trauma. I have had hateful-sounding RTIs spend hours in torture sessions trying to condition me like Pavlov conditioned dogs — except w ith the desired response being trauma. To get an idea of how triggers w ork by an extremely un-subtle but close analogy, imagine the follow ing. Consider a Paraguayan detention center of a few decades back, w ith brute torturers using direct violence, electric shocks to the genitals, cattle prods, etc. (and perhaps a CIA “adviser” looking on). Now suppose a victim in this detention center is undergoing a torture session. Each time the torturer zaps the victim w ith a cattle prod he shouts out “beautiful pleasure sensations.” He does this over and over. Now suppose the victim survives and somehow escapes. The victim is still in a society set up to deny that the torture center dow n the road even exists. If the victim starts to speak out she may open up the controlled new spaper the next day and read a story alluding to her and repeating the phrase “beautiful pleasure sensations” a few times. People may w alk up behind her on the street and mutter “beautiful pleasure sensations.” If she responds w ith outrage and anger she is ridiculed. Most people do not know the situation of w hy that innocuous-sounding phrase w ould make her respond like that, and they may be so naive as to think torturers w ould never do that to conceal their vicious crimes. Much of the w hole current mind control system in the US is based around triggers. Once a trigger is instilled, that is only the beginning of it. Note that a trigger is not necessarily a strongly conditioned phrase (SCP) but strongly conditioned phrases tend to be triggers. For example, they may trigger you w ith some w ords meant to remind you of a traumatic situation they observed or caused and have it w ork the first time. If so, they’ll tend to repeat it over and over, resulting in a trigger that is also a “psychic driving” SCP. Here are a few other trigger-related concepts: trigger reinforcement — This is w here the trauma associated w ith a trigger is induced by the trigger and then tends to further reinforce the trauma conditioning. It is a vicious cycle: Trigger, trauma, further association of the trigger to the trauma, trigger again, etc. (If you anticipate a trigger they also tend to quickly send that trigger to reinforce your anticipation.) If they think they see you experiencing any strong negative emotions like fear, trauma, or doubt, they’ll jump in w ith a trigger to both reinforce the trigger’s negative associations and to intensify your pain and distress. trigger abbreviation — This is w here a trigger is shortened to just one small part of the original trigger phrase. For example, it may just be the first w ord of the trigger phrase w ith its characteristic inflections. Other abbreviations are possible, in the general sense of associative keying of triggers. SCPs tend only to need a hint of a key presented to evoke the full trigger and concomitant response — and before long the abbreviation w orks as w ell as the trigger itself. SCPs leave strong “attractors” in the space of brain flow , as a form of brain damage. Even just the characteristic rhythm pattern of an SCP w ill tend to evoke the phrase. Random events also tend to evoke SCPs, a fact w hich acts as a “torture multiplier.”

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

trigger speedup — This is w here the trigger phrase is speeded up. It is very similar to trigger abbreviation, and still tends to evoke the response. They presumably hope to “slip it by” your conscious aw areness of w hat is going on. trigger transfer — This is w here a secondary trigger is conditioned to the conditioned response of a primary trigger by pairing them. It can also occur in a slow evolution of a phrase like children’s sing-song taunts slow ly morphing into other phrases and nicknames but keeping the same meaning. trigger export — Once a trigger has been instilled in a victim, anyone can use it. It w ill tend to set off a trauma response or other unpleasant reaction in the victim. So the direct torture squads instill and induce triggers in victims and then pass trigger lists on to higher-level operatives. These agents can then use the triggers against the victims w ithout “getting their hands dirty.” After a few layers of trigger transfer, the resulting trigger w ill seem innocuous to someone w ho does not know the torture conditioning that has gone into it. That is part of w hy they purposely use trigger transfer. These “innocuous” (i.e. deniable) triggers may be w orked into propaganda, internet messages, or street theater, for example. This turns out to be a very common control technique for suppressing mind control victims in the US, and it is obvious once you see w hat they are doing. This may be part of w hy they seem to prefer linguistic triggers. A common source for triggers is surveillance of a person’s home or mind. Certain codew ords tend to appear on a FIP alluding, for example, to w hat the victim did the night before in “private.” If the victim responds, such codew ords may be treated as triggers and further conditioned. By the w ay, once you know you are under conspicuous surveillance they w ill then start to insinuate that they know some other things from the surveillance, such as that your spouse is cheating on you. That typically is not true, but has the obvious intention of trying to destroy the victim’s family and personal relationships. Much of such conditioning is blatant anger conditioning: Those conducting the surveillance w ant to taunt the victim w ith their pow er to violate the victim’s privacy and induce anger. There w as a court case a few years back w here a reputed mobster w as placed under surveillance. Those conducting the surveillance w ould follow him on the street and repeat things to him like w hat his partner said during sex. The obvious intention w as to demean and anger him. He actually w on a law suit to curb the harassment, unlike the many ordinary citizens subjected to similar and even more egregious abuses. Yes, they w ould do that, they have done that, and they still do that. Another common thing is for codew ords to imply some sort of terror, extortion, or blackmail threat: to reveal something those conducting the surveillance think you w ill fear having revealed, to do something they think you fear might happen, even to harm people. W ith the threat to embarrass, for example, they typically don’t actually reveal their raped information except perhaps in w hispering campaigns or insinuations. W hat they really care about is the threat and the potential to manipulate the person w ith the threat — as w ell as their important goal of maintaining deniability. Many victims report intense bouts of cointelpro-style harassment w hen they first come under assault. The other sorts of mind assaults often accompany the cointelpro attacks or are gradually added. Then for many victims the cointelpro-style low -tech harassment subsides to a low er-level background w hile the other mind control assaults, voice-to-skull, etc., continue. I have long suspected that this is quite purposeful. The idea being to first massively traumatize the victims and induce PTSD and other torture sequelae in order to make them more susceptible to the mind control harassment. Hyper-alertness and rational paranoia can accompany such torture, for example. (“They really are out to get you.”) This might “prime” the victims to be more sensitive to the more subtle tortures and psyops that they otherw ise w ould not notice as readily. Conditioning introduces a bias in the lower-level sensory data processing. This is the hardw ired, Pavlovian sort of layer: anticipating, responding. The higher levels have to be aw are of this (consciously one might say) and take it into account. To train oneself take such biases into account and hopefully uncondition the responses — or at least understand that’s all they are. This holds in all situations, but is purposely aggravated for the purpose of torture and manipulation in the case of conditioning w ith psychic driving SCPs. Sometimes Major Mengele comes up with some phrase that he is just sure will cause trauma — presumably by studying the transcripts of your torture sessions and applying his psych training. He then gives this information to the RTIs and the autopig programmers. The phrase is then repeated over and over, even if it doesn’t actually w ork. They are so hopeful about some phrases that they just keep repeating them, presumably because they think they should w ork. For example, after they finally destroyed my marriage and my w ife decided she could not live w ith a mind control torture victim and activist any longer, they started repeating, “you’re impossible to live w ith,” over and over and over. The intention w as obvious: Taunting that they ripped my w ife aw ay from me and hoping to tap into the trauma of that separation. It w as so transparent to me w hat they w ere doing and w hat they intended that it did not w ork, but they kept repeating it. They’ll also chant over and over other phrases like “you can’t have no kids” to try to anger me based on their family-destroying abuse — literally, that is w hat they do. The pigs try to induce new anxieties and exploit any existing anxieties you might have. They w ant to alw ays stay cow ered in their bunker but inflict the maximum psychological trauma on their victims. If they think you are w orried about microw aves (or w ill become w orried about it), a favorite autopig phrase to send at you is “w e’re microw aving your w hole family.” Literally, they sent that one over and over. To me it has almost become symbolic of how they w ill sink to any depths to induce trauma in their victims, by saying anything, as long as they can stay hidden in their bunker. How many victims w ere there w ho got traumatized and terrorized w ith that, w hen there w as no microw ave and only a vicious psyop? How many got hospitalized or driven to suicide? Not that I w ould entirely rule out the microw aves or any other of the new
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

technologies being developed and tested, but typically they’ll lie about even that so you think it is something else. Even if you think they are testing such technologies on you, panic only makes things w orse. It is horrible but you almost have to come to the point w here you just shrug and observe, say, your heart beat irregularly a few beats. Are they going to murder me this time? They’ve already killed me over and over. The optimization theorem applies here, too. Victims, Society, and Propaganda – The suicide inducement squads attack you w ith thirdgrade taunting machines, in secret. They subject you to torture inside your home. They sleepdeprive you. This goes on for years. Then if you w rite the truth in the appropriate language for the crimes against humanity being committed, they’ll criticize you for not w riting some dry academic tome. If everything I say is the case — and it is — how should I respond, react, or w rite? The academic tome might let me play at some sort of externally bestow ed “respectability” that I frankly don’t need to w orry about, but it w ould also be placed on a shelf w ith other academic tomes to gather dust and no action. W hen I try to w rite a math paper or w rite computer code I get increased harassment directed at my brain. So w hat is the priority, the most important thing to w ork on? How should atrocity sound from someone under torture? W hen I also know that they torture many other people in the same w ay they torture me? W hen they insinuate that a torture victim should be “diplomatic” they really mean you should shut up or at least become easier to ignore. How diplomatic is their goddamn third-grade taunting machine? I call them pig filthy Nazi pieces of human garbage because that is w hat they are. They torture people to death for entertainment, profit, and political control. They w ant to portray themselves as all clean and dainty, w hile they have paid their thugs to drag their victims through the pigsty. How “diplomatic” w as Frederick Douglass w hen he excoriated the abominable US institution of slavery? The pigs seem to think if they can pick some citizen, harass and torture them, and install various trauma-conditioned triggers, then they get to “keep” them as slaves. If the victim speaks out, the pigs spew trauma triggers and psychic driving triggers intended, presumably, to re-traumatize the victim into silence. A curious thing is how in the larger context the conspirators seem to use the same codew ords and triggers almost as a symbolic language or a “currency” among themselves. There do seem to be different political factions even among the conspirators. Maybe they’re trying to reinforce their conspiracy, rallying sadists. Spreading triggers. Perhaps they are trying to intimidate any co-conspirators w ho might develop a conscience. W ho know s. The victim, seeing this, may be tempted to be dismayed at just how w idespread the conspiracy is — though be sure to calibrate relative to a “normal” background as discussed in “Mental Firew alls.” The actual smear against the victim is really nothing, just as Mengele cannot truly discredit or impugn the morals of a victim he dissected and exploited. Often you need to stop and think: Anyone w ho know s w hat the trigger is at all, in the first place, almost surely know s that too. “But w ait, if they knew that, they’d know that too” exposes many of the fallacies of the harassers. If they know about the codew ord triggers and the conditioning then they also know it is a vicious human rights abuse. We basically have a conspiracy of secret slavers trying to hold on to the free citizens they have abducted and treated as their property. They have experimented on, harassed, manipulated, exploited, and profited from these human beings. The w hole coded load of crap is their w ay of trying to maintain their secret atrocities, their crimes against humanity. They’ll “rate” you as if your attempts to end ongoing torture and human rights atrocities are some sort of entertainment. They’ll torture you 24-hours-a-day for years and then, if this performance-degrading w eapon w orks at all, they’ll play at being critics of your “performance” — treating the torture as if it didn’t exist, of course. This includes your private life in your home as some sort of “performance” for voyeur/spectators, not just your public w ork. They view every action you make in living your life and trying to succeed and accomplish something as if it w ere only part of their sordid “game” that they dragged you into. The w ant to keep their victims suppressed and keep them from positions w here they w ill have a voice or any real influence — all because the victim got dragged into the torture in the first place and it is self-perpetuating. They don’t w ant their victims w ho resist to succeed at any endeavor — though they don’t mind exploiting them and stealing from them anything they can. If you speak that truth, even after they’ve harassed and tortured you for years, they’ll sneer that you’re just making excuses. W here you w ould think any ordinary person w ould long ago have stopped beating a dead horse, propagandists just keep on going w ith the same tired triggers and insinuations. Perhaps they figure w ith their greater distribution pow er they can repeat something over and over to make it “more true” (w hen it w as all BS to begin w ith). Perhaps they do not w ant to change the triggers because they have invested so much effort in trying to get their audience to pick them up from the repeated subtext. And invested hundreds of thousands of Cameron repetitions to condition the victims. But as above, those w ho know w hat it means also likely know how phony it is. So w hat is it really saying? Is it like some “Heil Hitler” declaration of allegiance to the Gestapo? Is that the true meaning? The pigs exploit your desperation. You are under torture. You are rightfully desperate. The “bad Nazi” is harassing you. So the “good Nazi” has an opportunity. The “good Nazi” keeps promising to help you. As a torture victim, you tend to keep paying attention to the “good Nazi,” because there is no alternative. In the “real” w orld no one even know s (or admits to know ing) w hat is going on. You are under an intolerable torture. The “good Nazi” exploits this. The “good Nazi” can even turn “bad Nazi” from time to time and the victim w ill stay tuned in, because that seems to be the only hope. The “good Nazi” w ill promise help and anything else, as long as it is only betw een the lines or otherw ise deniable. The “good Nazi” can appear on any FIP, for example as another voice on

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

the nonconsensual voice-to-skull send. Or it might be a collaborator on a normally legitimate channel — pigs at a Mockingbird new spaper, for example. But if you buy the bait they dangle to a desperate human being under torture, they then start trying to manipulate you. W hoops! If only you hadn’t done that! Well, your freedom w as all lined up if you hadn’t done that! Your basic human rights w ill be restored soon, if only you w ill… Why would anyone listen to some pig voices in their head once they know they are externally induced? Except to track dow n those harassing pigs and kill them? It is more than obvious that they are not “friendlies,” that they are quite intentionally violating people’s minds w ithout consent, and that they try to inflict harm. They may be Russians for all you know . It is far more likely they are other Americans — but that is hardly any better. People get furiously angry if you cut them off for a parking place, but somehow w hen strange voices invade their brain and either harass them or try to direct them they act like it is nothing… People tell their children not to talk to strangers, but then these pigs invade their little heads, too. And people either think this is somehow normal or are afraid to talk about it. (And Americans have the nerve to taunt the French as “surrender monkeys,” etc.) It takes a nation of millions of idiots to produce the third-grade taunting machine. “Puritanical” prudes w ho practice sadistic, voyeuristic, serial rape in secret. And people dumb enough, duped enough, intimidated and cow ardly enough, complicitous enough, or just plain evil enough to do nothing as the big superpow er third-grade taunts its “free” adult citizens. The pathetic clow n suit does not hide the vicious psychological manipulation and Chinese w ater torture of citizens in their homes and minds. Their rape violations are not really about sex, though they are obsessed w ith it; the violations are about pow er and trying to demean people and strip aw ay their dignity. This is the “secret w eapon” w ith w hich the big superpow er tortures its ow n citizens. General Comments – These days, in thinking, I tend to have a habit of considering certain conclusions across different models. Are there model-dependent assumptions there, or does it hold in all models? If it passes a quick test for model independence, I say to myself, “put a star by that.” That assumes the “usual” set of models w hich I run things against. Recall that a model independent conclusion or decision does not depend on the assumptions of any one particular model, so is stronger in that sense than a model dependent conclusion. You can put more faith in it and act like you know it, w ithout w orrying that you’ll have to backtrack if you change models (even hypothetically, in conditional evaluations). A slightly w eaker condition than model-independent (or model-neutral) is “model-interpretable.” Model interpretable means that you have to interpret the situation slightly differently in the different models, but subject to that common-sense level of interpretation it holds in all models. An even w eaker condition I call “metaphor-interpretable.” For some situations metaphor-interpretable is good enough; for others you w ant model-independent or model-neutral. The thoughtcrime known as applied logic. There is no such thing as a thoughtcrime. Only some fascist w ho w ants to dictate w hat and how people are allow ed to think. New named RTI/AP: “one trick pig” rapes your anticipation, bad parses, or pre-verbal and feeds that back at you — usually in a pure syntactic rearrangement. Don’t let “one trick pig” unnerve you. This pig (or algorithm) is similar to people w ho try to anticipate and finish your sentences for you, except it is on an illegitimate rape channel and has pure evil intentions. It typically doesn’t even understand w hat it rapes. It hopes to grab something from your ow n thinking and reasoning process that it can incorporate into a trigger w hich w ill get a reaction from you. Or else to reinforce your anticipation of existing triggers (trigger reinforcement). In this w ay they try to turn your ow n fears, anxieties, and anticipations against you, to create new triggers for their trigger file. They are feeding pieces of your ow n thoughts back at you. I can just see the Pow erPoint slide show s the Mengele-pigs give in secret Nazi meetings, describing their nonconsensual human experimentation on the domestic population. The “brave w arfighters” hiding in bunkers are helping to keep us “free” by torturing helpless domestic citizens so they can study: stress responses decisionmaking under stress “anomalous phenomena” behavior control neural prosthesis and thought cloning conditioning and verbal triggering linguistic behavior modification covert hypnotic suggestion sleep suggestibility and dream modification sleep deprivation electromagnetic bioeffects stimulus-response measurement and modeling behavior modeling and prediction fake paranormal deception operations etc. I’m sure they give a completely different Pow erPoint presentation full of lies to the legislators and other officials w ho pretend to have oversight pow ers on such activities. If they even bother to tell them at all. They may just not mention it, or claim it is too secret for Congress (except perhaps for their lapdogs there). They similarly keep the truth from anyone in any other branch of government or position of oversight or funding w ith any sense of decency and responsibility. In reality, they are running a treasonous covert political control operation in the domestic United States that surpasses in reality even Orw ell’s imagination. [A pathetic spinner w ould try to distract from the main point here and create divide-and-conquer rifts by insinuating that I am smearing Microsoft by mentioning Pow erPoint®. Or maybe I typed a bad w ord a few sections back in describing torture, and that is supposed to distract from the
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

literal atrocities being described. They literally brought obscenity charges against papers w hich reported the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.] Here’s a practical, low-tech countermeasure against audio harassment to try. It is w orking on the symptoms rather than the cause, but I have found it to be helpful. It has its ow n appeal for those w ith an ear for music: get a CD changer w ith 5 (or more) slots get some CDs from artists you trust w ith your mind set the player up for repeat play, random or sequential, as per your tastes keep it on as background, and tune in to it w hen you feel distracted by the other crap change out the CDs w hen you feel like it No commercials, no announcers, and so no w orries about any harassment hidden there. No surprise songs. Just good music (presumably, by the fact that you selected it). This w ill hopefully provide some level of relief, at least w hile you try to heal from the injuries of previous assaults — along w ith the ongoing assaults. The harassers don’t w ant victims to even be able to relax; they w ant to keep the sparrow s flying until they die from exhaustion. One w ants to be able to ignore the Stasi-like pigs’ harassment, and it is unfortunate that you cannot just enjoy the sounds of quiet in a “free” country, but don’t be masochistic. They try to shove people into second-class citizen status w ith constant harassment inside their homes. W hen subjected to this you need time to heal, and music can be healing as w ell as helping to mask the torture signal. Further Empirical Observations of Their Methods – In the previous articles of the series I described some of my ow n observations of the sorts of technologies and techniques they have used on me. Here I present some further observations and analysis. In further observing the audio harassment, I think the “cricket algorithm” illustrates a general method they use. Recall that in this harassment they speak some harassing phrase, syllable by syllable, w ith each syllable triggering off of a cricket chirp. “Your mas tur ba shun tech nik…,” for example, w ith each syllable follow ing right after a cricket chirp. (To use one of their favorite pathetic third-grade taunts as an example. Yes, they really do that to adults in their homes in the US. Pure w ater torture.) This exact same thing occurs w hen listening to recorded cricket sounds, and changes w ith each playing. They’ve tried to synchronize it to fool me into thinking it is on the tape, but they cannot deal w ith random starting places on the tape and tend to start the phrase from the beginning regardless of w here the tape is. The same algorithm also tends to be applied to the pinging sounds that certain trucks make w hen backing up, for example. On further observation, that also seems to be how they synchronize the voice send w ith things like the refrigerator. It seems as if they first localize some roughly periodic part of the signal and filter out the rest. They then threshold that signal and trigger syllables off the peaks (rising edges, for example). Another technique, for basic “hum” signals, seems to involve first localizing the frequency band of the hum. They then take the RTI or autopig audio and limit it to that same frequency band. They then send this frequency-limited signal voiceto-skull. Sometimes the frequency-limiting is quite blatant. The same “voices” and phrases tend to occur on all the different frequency bands, as w ell as on the cricket algorithm. I’m still not sure how they give the illusion of directionality to the signal. It may be some property of the ear or auditory cortex that they are exploiting. Another possibility I’ve considered is that they may be using a Fourier series sound representation but using one of the ambient frequencies as a fundamental harmonic component. I still do not rule out that some of the harassment may be actual modulation of the ambient. They could easily be using several techniques. I also suspect that sometimes they may modulate the pow er line only to increase the hum, rattle, and periodic components of things like appliance noise — w hich they then overlay w ith the voice-to-skull cricket algorithm or the frequency-limited hum algorithm. This w ould give them more bandw idth in w hich to hide their “subliminal” signals — or at least w ith w hich to misdirect those victims w ho consciously noticed as to the signal’s true source. Another observation I have made is that during times of strong, obvious incoming there is often a noticeable scalp sensation. (It is not obviously there all the time w hen there is incoming, though.) W hether it is cause or effect or something else, I do not know . Maybe it is some communication transmission passing through the scalp in one direction or the other, or some other side effect. Maybe it results from the part of my motor cortex controlling the scalp being influenced. Maybe the scalp manipulation is even the primary effect, and over time has been trained into language recognition. Or maybe it is just some random effect w hich has become conditioned to the torture, like a certain tension that accompanies the recognition of torture. Etc. One w ay to test this w ould be to somehow completely anesthetize the scalp, deadening all muscle reactions, etc., and see if there is any lessening of the incoming. (This assumes they don’t have a secondary, backup channel on w hich to deliver voice, and assuming the scalp effect actually does have anything to do w ith it.) I’m curious if other victims have noticed a similar thing. The old (obsolete) Model 100 Autopig, with its Third-Grade Taunting module. They still use that thing, though. Same scripts and all, just like they tortured me w ith all last summer. Like you booted up an old TRS80 from 1980 and ran the same old softw are. Same old lists of triggers and crap. Same old scripts. Fake ambient distractions that get set off to try to thought control you out of some line of thinking. Same old simple syntax-level transforms on the trigger list and the raped thought-data. Autopig phrases of 0 and 1 variables. It’s clear also that the machines cannot deal w ith metaphor or irony — they don’t really “understand,” they just respond like a state machine. There also seems to be something like a nearestneighbor algorithm to find the “nearest-trigger” or “nearest SCP” to w hat you are thinking about. I can just view it from a distance now , since it is so pitiful and they’ve repeated everything 100,000 times. It w ould be laughable except that it is a serious, serious human
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

rights violation. Different voice models on text-to-voice, and a text file full of trigger strings. And a simple genetic algorithm syntax generator in the trigger search algorithm. The “fitness” function of this genetic algorithm is to maximize a trauma measure in the torture victim. Bits and pieces of the syntax and the limited vocabulary in the trigger and autopig data file are randomly recombined to form new sentences. They also mix in w ords and phrases taken from your ow n subvocalized thoughts and anticipations. Strings are plugged into the autopig phrases of one variable. Mostly the result is stupid crap that only annoys you because of the repetitive violation and the transparent intention. They hope that once in a w hile the random search w ill find a new , improved trigger for them to use to control and manipulate you. If so, they add it right to the file. Blackboard systems. Production systems. If it is not a machine or machineaided, how many full-time idiots does it take to harass a single citizen under severe harassment? W ho is paying their salaries? All day and all night. The same “voices,” largely. Repeating the same dumb phrases over and over, w ith some simple syntactic transformations and limited vocabulary. A five-year-old has a larger vocabulary than all of them put together. That is not the w ay real people think in their minds, even idiots. If it is not a machine they are probably more conditioned w ith that crap aimed at me than I am. Likew ise for any “audience” in an audience model forced to “hear” the same psychic driving and triggering crap. One phenomenon I have noticed about the harassment is that it is very attention-driven. I do not know enough about the attention mechanisms of the brain to speculate on how this happens (and I don’t expect open science does either). But the harassment tends to occur w hen you pay attention to something, or w hen you anticipate the harassment from past experiences. It is sort of a “think of the devil” phenomenon. If I hear a particular sound and focus my attention on it then about a second later they’ll often start to voice-modulate it. But don’t be afraid to think anything, even if you suspect it w ill set off a third-grade taunting. If you are afraid to think anything because of harassment you are definitely not free. If you fear thinking one thing, they’ll leverage that into tw o things, then four things, etc. The harassment is not all attention-driven. Sometimes it is attention-distracting. W hen thinking of one thing you notice them blatantly start the voice modulation on a noise source you w ere not paying attention to before — or even sending voice-to-skull in the plain. It is like they w ant to get your attention, to distract you, and to get you to start listening to their abusive manipulation audio. This often tends to happen w hen thinking political thoughts the pigs may consider “thoughtcrimes,” or w hen making a breakthrough in something like a math proof. And sometimes just w hen the jackals think they can annoy you or w ant to aversively condition (punish) some behavior or thought. Optional Postscript: Mixed Model As in several of the earlier articles I w ill end w ith an optional section on the mixed model, for people into that. The usual caveats apply, that I do not think this is the actual model but discuss it for the reasons given in previous articles. Many people do believe this model is the true one, for w hatever reasons. Some do not know , how ever, that the pure natural model is obsolete. The harassers try to exploit this as a psyop. I know that the harassment I undergo is technology. It is not that I am “just sensitive” and thus subject to “psychic harassment.” But I see certain propaganda trying to insinuate that this is all just “sensitive people stuff.” Even if that w ere the case, it w ould still be torture. People are purposely inflicting torture on other people, in any model. The machine-like jackals purposely intend to cause trauma, and suicide if they can. It is a torture algorithm w hether or not it is literally carried out by a machine. If it w ere “real psychics” doing it, someone w ould have to pay them to do it, because they do it all day long and all night, day after day. The same boring, repetitive, harassing phrases as if read off a list. It sure doesn’t sound like someone “thinking.” Often synchronized w ith the natural sounds in the victim’s environment, and remaining the same even w hen the victim drives hundreds of miles aw ay. That does not sound like a natural psychic. I do not think my refrigerator is psychic. But even if it w ere, it w ould still be torture and those pigs w ould still need to be tracked dow n by w hatever means. But suppose the mixed model holds, and that there is some natural psychic component in addition to the technological techniques. In this case, then, there must also be a huge conspiracy of silence about such abilities if they are anything more than just very vague intuitions or occasional sensations. That is, if such abilities come anyw here near the blatant, constant things mind control victims report experiencing. If so, then this conspiracy of silence has been turned back against the conspirators w ith technology. If you can’t talk about telepathy — sending or receiving — then you can’t complain w hen someone points a voice-toskull device at you and starts harassing you w ith it. If you do not know the technology exists, you may not even understand w hat is really being done to you in the first place. How convenient. In such a society, anyone w ith the covert mind control technology can torture and harass w ith impunity, by hiding behind the psychic conspiracy and mimicking psychic phenomena. Curiously, this w orks w hether psychic pow ers exist or not, in any population of people w ho believe they exist and believe they can’t talk about them. The psyop agents on the voice-to-skull w ould be quick to reinforce this belief if they thought a victim w ere susceptible to it. That, and the victim w ould tend to be scoffed at and dismissed, and w ould have any law suits tossed out of court. [Of course if the mixed model really does hold in any significant w ay then many concepts of mental illness need to be seriously reexamined. If w e hypothetically assume certain facts then w e also have to consider the logical consequences of those facts. If the mixed model does hold in a significant w ay then psychiatry has been abused as a cover for both cointelpro-style harassment and for maintaining a "psychic conspiracy."] Let’s don’t be naive: There are plenty of people in society w ho w ould just love to have this pow er and w ould use it w ith no qualms w hatsoever. Look at how many vile people use date rape drugs, for example. Mind control experiments go w ay back, as do harassment operations and techniques. If they can plausibly deny they are doing it, they w ill tend to do it, how ever

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

unethical, immoral, or criminal. If non-negligible natural psychic pow ers really exist, you can bet the CIA, NSA, DIA, former-KGB, and various other agencies have know n about them for years. Such people also tend not to believe in magic. They have a lot of money available, and plenty of amoral, unethical scientists. First the secret science lab w ould figure out the physics and the biology of how it happens. These findings w ould then be sent to the secret engineering labs, w here engineers and technicians w ould build machines based on the reverse-engineering of the biological effect. Remember also that if such natural pow ers exist they constitute a potential information path of communication and influence. Some people, on hearing this, immediately think political control. They do not w ant any such channel to exist if they cannot control it. Thus they w ould w ant to dominate it, and suppress any psychics w hose thoughts or ideas they did not like. I have called this “psychic cointelpro,” carried out by “psychic suppression units.” One could presumably suppress a psychic w ith just ordinary harassment, as w ell as w ith high-tech methods. Being able to control such a person might be even more prized. (And w ho might benefit, politically or otherw ise, if psychics w ere beaming out terror and trauma instead of living ordinary lives?) If there is a conspiracy to keep true psychic pow ers secret, then, it has long outlived w hatever purpose it might once have had. It has in fact become a danger to the conspirators themselves — w ho have had it turned back against them. Those w ho might now maintain such a conspiracy maintain one that can be used to control them, as w ell as others in society. If a natural psychic responded to another natural psychic, for example, the technological jackals w ould observe and measure that. They w ould then start imitating (“spoofing”) the signal like a mockingbird to try to manipulate things. Do the “true psychics” really benefit from their pow ers, anyw ay? Or is it just some feeling of being in a secret club, a sort of supremacy for people w ithout much else? The kind that makes for some of the most virulent racists? Something to consider in the hypothetical, if unlikely, case that the mixed model holds. The pure natural model is definitely obsolete, if it ever held. The standard model exists now . It seems like everyone has a cell phone now , and netw orks like the internet span the globe. In the near future your daughter’s earrings w ill be alw ays-on cellphones and her necklace w ill pick up her silent vocalizations like an artificial larynx. That is just one possible embodiment of consensual synthetic telepathy, w ith open, commercial technology. They are currently marketing soda machines that can send directed ultrasonic sound to passersby. Neurophones, implants, modulated microw aves, advanced sensors, the list of technologies goes on and on. The secret sector already has technology w ell beyond this, w hich can be applied nonconsensually. Now that technology has started to move into the frontier of the human brain and mind it is vital that w e as members of a supposedly civilized society maintain basic principles of consent and human rights. These are expressed in the Nuremberg Code, the Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention Against Torture, and so forth — as w ell as being tenets of basic ethics and morality. Part I – Models of Synthetic Telepathy Part II – Acoustic Signal Modulation Part III – Working Models Part IV – Bayesian Stopping Criterion Official Web-site: Datafilter – Mind Control JDH File
blog post, articles, news torture, human rights violations, targeted individuals, organized stalking, electronic harassments, direct energy weapons, voice to skull, perpetrator, C anada, law, legislations, hate crime, voyager, C riminal C ode of C anada, C riminal Harassments, Illegal, videotaping, audio recording, uttering threats, C riminal Negligence, canadian human rights, Privacy, Privacy Act, genocide, crime against humanity, physical assault, bodily harm, sociopath, C SIS Act, Allen Barker

Older Entries

Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: INove by NeoEase.

Top

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com