The key factors that underpin effective mind control implantation are known as the three Ds: Dread, dependency, debility. Remember this, it will be important.
Knowing this, let’s look at the technology landscape that exists in 2020. First of all, though, let’s acknowledge the power that exists in humans’ relationships with screen-based technologies, from cinemas to televisions to smartphones. Cinema has existed since the very late 1800s, and television from the 1920s. The first television commercial was launched in 1931, and by the 1960s it was a household item. In the mid 1960s, colour television became cost-effective for households. You might wonder why this matters; however, television causes physical relaxation. This relaxed state, combined with story, becomes a hypnotic state and makes humans much more suggestible. The content itself creates emotional patterns of association, by pairing emotion with intake of images. For example, “the world is violent” is often a fear association implanted via continuous consumption of television news, which disproprotionately presents the violent, aggressive, and negative aspects of society. By creating a habit of watching television, television programming also creates dopamine reward pathways: By tuning into a show at a given time, you are rewarded by the relaxation and the pleasure, which is disrupted if you are unable to indulge your habit.
Smartphone and computer screens work on a much more direct, Pavlovian reward system that is more obvious. In a series of pings, dings, and bells, “notifications” train humans to attach to a service or product. Obeying the “notification” results in a reward: Contact, recognition, visibility, validation (etc), which releases dopamine.
Now, this is baseline. Going into the technology itself, we see a range of platforms that are built on Pavolvian conditioning in order to ensure ongoing and continued use. Obeying the “notifications” is not a conscious act, which is why disrupting a smartphone addiction or habit can be quite difficult; it requires up to 3 seconds of waiting for the “urge” to pass, because this very simple conditioned response is embedded into the subconscious mind. It is why one must turn off all notifications in order to wean oneself from a smartphone device.
Focusing solely for the moment on social media (the dominant social platforms: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Snap), each platform contains an algorithm that takes control over the flow of information away from the user. Most platforms do this by removing the sequential time series of posting, and install an apparently random sequence that is not explained, and which most users would not be able to describe. They often have arbitrary labels (such as on LinkedIn’s “Top” or “Recent”, neither of which is defined for the end-user). The algorithms are designed in such a way as to guarantee both dependence and emotional connection; fear-based emotions such as anger, anxiety and worry are the key emotions tied to each of these sources of comfort which, in return for your attention, reward with pleasure (dopamine). The control is largely wrested from the user; people’s natural inclinations to cluster around negativity ensures its continuation.
So far, two conditions for mind control are present:
The final aspect is the way in which social media cleverly combines inaction with pleasure, to trick the mind into believing that action has been taken. If you have ever dealt with someone who is unproductive at work but always responsive on email, you have seen this last pattern in action in real time, too. It’s a situation in which the email user hasn’t done anything meaningful, but responding to an email makes them feel better (dopamine) because it feels like action has been taken (because they’ve done a thing, even if that thing is relatively useless). In any platform, this is a design that ensures inaction while satisfying the user’s desire to do something. This is most notable on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, for example, during instances that cause major outrage: Political events, impending war, natural disasters. Users will typically shout into the digital void, or “actively” share a post by someone else, or maybe share a link, but it is not the same thing as genuinely making a behavioural change, helping as a volunteer, or donating physical goods. What it does is create and reward debility: It takes capability away. The term debility literally means “away from strength”, from debilis, meaning “helpless”. Unlike trauma-based programming, programming via digital platforms creates debility without making that debility conscious. Users therefore believe that they are taking action, when in fact they are almost literally talking to themselves.
This gives us the trifecta conditions required for mind control to take place:
In this state, humans are easily programmed with new beliefs, even if those beliefs are discordant with the existing belief system.
A good example is “climate change”, which is itself a noun designed to make people believe a variety of different things. It is a plastic phrase, to which can be assigned a range of meanings, most of which are not what the phrase says. Some of those meanings include:
- that dynamic and changing environments are a result of carbon emissions (which is a result of a misleading correlation and is untrue)
- that carbon dioxide is bad (which is the opposite of the truth, because it’s the gas that allows life to exist)
- that a dynamic and changing environment is undesirable (when in fact this is its natural state)
- that a dynamic and changing environment is unnatural (which is the opposite of the truth)
- that people cause changes in the environment through an industrialized process of economic development
- that benefiting from economic development as a result of industrialization is a bad thing
- that governments who support industrialized economic development must be overthrown or changed
- … and so on.
The fundamental science, that environmental changes are due to carbon levels in the atmosphere, is utterly flawed, as is the representation of oceanic temperature changes resulting from human impact (in fact, those temperature changes are in response to something that happened many hundreds of years ago).
The plastic phrase has a shifting meaning loaded with emotional impact and debility, because it has been construed as a thing that only other people can fix, while also being presented as a time-bound, existential drama that keeps people in a heightened state of anxiety. At the same time, it pulls their attention and memory away from their own direct experiences of the world. Within this construct, a hot summer (which is normal in Australia) is construed as “a heatwave”, and is presented as being both undesirable and life-threatening, and that somehow the population and its government is to blame for it. This despite the fact that the sun itself governs the weather on Earth, and that people have very little influence on large-pattern weather changes in daily life (in which daily life does not involve large-scale deforestation or changes to natural waterways). In social media, the Climate Change narrative can (and has been) applied to almost everything; in fact the most visible person at the forefront of the narrative, Greta Thunberg, is on record saying as much.
During the 2019-20 Australian bushfire season, which was largely a result of arson and poor land management in previous years, mass media (and, thus, social media) has chanted “climate change”. In the shape of a memetic vector, this narrative became infectious and spread like the wildfire of which it spoke. Regular people saw apparent authorities (news outlets, celebrities, ‘verified’ accounts) repeating the message, and thus picked it up and, believing it due to earlier priming, then also repeated it, exposing others to the message. This is how memetic vectors spread. The situation itself is dread-causing and debilitating. The narrative has been one of inaction by government (itself largely untrue given deployment of Defence and resources to assist with extinguishment), and a continuous presentation of the message that humans are unable to do anything but must. What action is one to take, you might ask? The exhortations to take action are loud and numerous, yet the action to be taken is rarely specified or clear. This increases the sense of debility through a patterned loop (“must do something, can’t do anything, must be someone else doing something”), and it indicates a seeded belief: NOT a true call to action.
In this context, social media keeps people in a state of dread; it prevents the expression of a contrary view (because contrary views tend to attract mass, violent, and aggressive reactions) by believers, which is part of the social conditioning that keeps users in line and replicating the dominant message. By replicating the message, the user feels as if it has taken action, even though it hasn’t. And it is thus in a state of debility while also being anxious (dread-filled) about the nation, its animals, its people, its resources, and thus the subject’s own ability to maintain its lifestyle and budget. It is also addicted to the ‘stream’ of news that serves only to reinforce the debility and dread.
The subject is reduced to a state of survivalism, which prevents clear or logical thinking, and which reduces a person’s capacity to assess options or to ask a range of questions that can elicit correct and meaningful information.
It is a highly reactive state, but it is one in which humans record and retain much higher volumes of information in case it will be needed. That recording bypasses the conscious mind. This is the basis of program implantation. Much of the embedded information is not accessible by the conscious mind, because it is the subconscious that records the data, and unless the data becomes ‘relevant’, will be effectively archived.
In a trauma-based mind control program, the trauma forces the dissociation of a personality into multiple identities. This is not necessary once dependence on digital devices and social media platforms has been established, because each platform requires the establishment of a different personality type, different set of traits, different behavioural patterns. These are often tied to different names and different “avatars” or images that represent this alter. This is why a business woman on LinkedIn is an underwear-wearing or boobs-out sex kitten on Instagram; is a demure family woman on Facebook; is a “fun” transhuman mutant on Snap; is a domestic goddess on Pinterest; is an aggressive and violently opinionated socialist (or depressed, anxious pharmaceutical drug-taker) on Twitter. Each platform reinforces its alter through a series of approvals by external things (sometimes people, sometimes the platform itself). Rather than solve a personal environmental impact, a person will simply tweet. Rather than find happiness in personal satisfaction or achievements that nobody sees, a person will seek external gratification from people he or she doesn’t know. And thus the platform itself because the “handler”: It governs and directs attention, controls emotions; and reinforces the “correct” behaviour.
This is also how “triggers” are established. For example, photographs of food on Instagram give people access to much more dopamine (more likes or comments or visibility). Thus, someone will go to a restaurant and photograph the food he or she receives, and will post it to Instagram, for no apparent reason, even though it is not a logical thing to do. The trigger is receiving a plate of food. Another trigger on Instagram is visibility, which can result in narcissistic behaviour in public, such an obsession with how one’s hair looks, or a desire to talk incessantly about oneself.
With this foundation in place, it becomes easier to program sections of the population to behave in particular ways without intervening on a 1:1 basis. Screen-based digital platforms enable programming at scale. For seeding beliefs that force social compliance, changes to law, or that govern new approaches to the world, a controller or handler (or series of such) need only make visible selected media on topics that shape opinion through the three Ds (dependence, dread, debility) combined with replication, peer uptake, and authoritative reinforcement. The memetic conditions, social conditioning and group psychology will do the rest.
One can test for the uptake of a seeded belief by asking a subject to explain how and why they formed a view. A subject whose belief has been seeded using digital-based MK patterning will deflect the question away from itself and into a broader or collective “understanding” that is often just a repeat of a memetic artefact. The subject, unable to explain why he or she holds the belief, will become angry, or fearful, or anxious, or upset in any other form, in order to not have to question the program that is running. This is how many programs are never questioned or examined, because seeded beliefs act like religious beliefs: They become existential, because they are tied to existential emotional patterns. Questioning them is akin to a threat, and the program will protect itself in order to keep running.