Mind Control

I don't give much weight to conspiracy theories, also not to "mind control". Of course, everybody practices "mind control," the authorities, every talk show host and TV commentator, pundits and experts of all colors and leanings and statues. The most nimble advertising agency practices mind control and is a laboratory for deception and disinformation. We live in a world of artifice, illusions and delusions, figments, fallacies and ambiguities. Mind control is everywhere, it is practiced by everybody, it is a ubiquitous and unavoidable aspect of our life.

Yet, as the Internet is buzzing with inventive and imaginative conspiracy theories, I recently wanted to take a quick look at this topic to be sure, that I don't miss any mind-blowing revelations. First I gathered infos about the CIAs involvement in mind control:

It seems plausible, that the CIA explored and still explores various brainwashing technics and that Bluebird, MKULTRA and related projects indeed existed or still exist. After all, the CIA experimented also with LSD and hypnosis, and that is not disputed anymore. 

So, the CIA dabbles with mind control? Not a big deal, the CIA has a long history of bribing politicians and military leaders, organizing coups, training militias, distributing shiploads of weapons to bandits and desperadoes, and assassinating undesirable individuals. The CIA kidnapped perceived troublemakers by the busload to hold and torture them in secret prisons and right now the CIA conducts a worldwide campaign of assassinations per drones. Mind control seems to be a rather benign and harmless pastime, compared to the other just mentioned activities of the CIA.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund is also accused of funding mind control research.

David Rockefeller described himself as an "internationalist," translated in todays terminology: he was (not surprisingly) a supporter of globalization. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund supported all initiatives, institution, and projects that increased economic, social, and cultural integration, well aware, that a capitalist economy needs to grow, to expand, and to include as much real estate as possible. Unfortunately the Rockefeller brothers, trapped in their ideology, were unable to grasp, that the globe is finite. They were unable to understand, that there is no further expansion possible, when capitalism has engulfed the whole planet (unless we colonize Moon and Mars).

I'm quite sure that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund also bankrolled projects for education and training, that psychologist, sociologists, neurologists received grants and that advertising agencies and journalists were involved. One could easily construct any kind of mind control theories from that, but this is, as I said already about the alleged CIA involvement, not a big deal. Every big corporation practices mind control by paying advertising and marketing experts, employing PR managers and lobbyists, funding think tanks, scientists, and whole university research centers.

The HAARP microwave facility in Alaska is also rumored to be used for mind control, but that seems far fetched alone for technical and scientific reasons. I share suspicions and fears that this installation could do great ecological harm though I'm not yet worried enough to crawl into a faraday cage or spend the night in a faraday bunk bed (I would maybe consider such measures if I would have to live in Alaska.)

I don't buy these mind control conspiracy theories. I don't buy them for the above mentioned reasons and I don't buy them because such conspiracies are unnecessary and a waste of time and money. Mind control, as I declared at the start of this text, is already practiced in a big way and it is a ubiquitous and unavoidable aspect of our life.

Television and mind control

Everybody who makes the mistake to turn on television, is lost. TV, together with Hollywood, presents a virtual world, a world of illusions that not too often corresponds with reality. TV depicts a world, where consumerism, globalization, steady economic growth and the replacement of natural systems with our own artificial constructions can go on forever without negative consequences. On TV everything is fine or will be fine in the end. On TV justice is done or will be done one day. On TV the superrich become good samaritans (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Rockefeller family), political leaders are first and foremost concerned about the welfare of the people, and corporations are forces for good, guaranteeing prosperity for all.

Moving pictures are very powerful and convincing. Together with the right soundtrack they can be emotional touching and persuade the viewer, that the images he sees on a big or a small screen have indeed some conformity with reality (or what the majority of people perceive as reality) and mirror normal everyday life. Film producers, script writers, sound track composers, camera men, and actors have honed their skills now for 120 years and over all this years they became quite good in mind control.

If you ever wondered, why the American way of life is so desirable and appealing to other nations despite the fact, that 48 million Americans live in poverty and 43 millions can only get by with food stamps, just watch a few movies and TV shows.

Cuba trumps the USA in various social parameters (health care, income equality, crime, employment). The unemployment rate is between 2 and 3 percent, social security is a universal right. Poverty is one of the lowest in the developing world (fourth lowest in Latin America). The reason that thousands of Cubans still want to emigrate to the USA is television. Cubans watch the shows of US networks and they see good looking and well dressed people who drive expensive cars and live in luxurious homes.

They don't see the homeless, the destitute, the overworked and underpaid, they don't see the families who just had to leave their foreclosed homes and are packed in an overcrowded flat of a relative. They don't see the dreadful pictures from Haiti which could lead them to the conclusion that their country would very likely be in a similar state if the Bay of Pigs invasion had succeeded.

They see gang crime on "Law & Order" or on similar shows, but on these shows the criminals are dealt with fast and decisively. Justice is done and the evil guys are eliminated. The causes of crime, the suffering of the victims, the painful and bothersome judicial process, the mistrials and wrongful convictions, these aspects are not part of a TV show (except when a celebrity like O. J. Simpson is on trial).

In Hollywood films and on US TV good always prevails over evil and justice is done in the end. The bad guys meet their well-deserved fate and become the dead guys and the heroes walk or ride triumphantly into the sunset. It is so easy to resolve conflicts, just raise your gun, pull the trigger and send the bad guys to hell.

Computer games and mind control

Pull the trigger and send the bad guys to hell, this kind of thinking, based on an ideology of violence is also the basis of many computer games like: Call of Duty, Modern Warfare, God of War, Mortal Combat, Soldiers of Fortune, Gears of War, Postal, Night Trap, Smash TV, Doom, Grand Theft Auto, Manhunt, Fallout, MadWorld, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Dead Space, Splatterhouse, World of Warcraft. Every gamer will absorb and incorporate the rules of these games and act accordingly also in real life.

If this kind of thinking, if this method of conflict resolution only would be confined to film and television screens! If it only would be confined to US society. Unfortunately it is also the essence of US foreign policy and is practiced daily by US soldiers and secret agents (and drone operators).

The ideology of violence is so deeply embedded in US culture that a near change seems unlikely. The mass media outlets mirror the mood of the population and the popular mood in turn is influenced by the media, this is a feedback loop, a vicious circle that is unescapable and that ever so often spirals into mass hysteria.

Wether this ideology of violence was first ignited or taught by the media or is latent in the American psyche is a moot question, but it seems worth to remember, that the United States were created on the basis of the genocide of red indians (with 12 million victims one of the biggest mass murders in human history).

The Americans will seldom be bothered by introspections about the plight of Native Americans or slavery or more recent controversial issues like Jim Crow, McCarthyism, the Vietnam War. Mind control includes also collective amnesia.

It would be unjust to depict the USA as a lonely bad example of violence. Many societies are violent, some even more violent than US society. But the Americans have weapons, more that any other nation, and they produce weapons and sell them all around the world. Weapons and violence, what an explosive and destructive combination!

Television and mind control (revisited)

As I stated before, everybody who makes the mistake to turn on TV is lost, and it doesn't matter which channel one choses, which direction one turns the dial. For some month I was impressed by Al Jazeera, but as the Libyan war proved, this broadcaster has a hidden agenda like every other media outlet and it has to serve the interests of its financial backers (Qatar's Al-Thani dynasty, maybe the UAE and some global equity company -- who knows?)

It turned out that Al Jazeera is nothing else than another commercial TV company. It is TV the American way and accordingly its most important function -- if it is to flourish -- will be to turn dissatisfied and angry Arabs into eager consumers.

Who owns the US TV networks?

General Electric: NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Universal, Telemundo, hulu

Time Warner: CNN, TNT, Headline News, Turner Classic

Disney: ABC, ESPN, Lifetime

Rupert Murdoch: Fox, Sky, Premiere, National Geographic

Sumner Redstone: CBS, Viacom, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central

One doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to make the conclusion, that just a handful of persons exert extraordinary influence and can shape public opinion in any way they like. One doesn't have to be paranoid to be worried about this fact.

I hardly ever looked TV. My parents couldn't afford a TV box and so I grew up without television -- I read a lot of books instead. Moving pictures in general disturb me, no matter what's the source. Occasionally I try to watch MTV music video clips at the recommendation of my pupils, but the fast cuts, the hectic camera movements, and silly effect gimmicks make me feel itchy. The quality of YouTube videos is terrible, they make my eyes bleed. Video in flv format should be forbidden, mp4 is a little bit better but also tiresome to watch.

No, I don't want be bothered with blurred pictures, with shapes and colors flickering across the screen. I don't want to take all that strife and burden and ruin my eyes just to get my daily brainwash. I pity my fellow humans who are wasting their time sitting in front of a screen. It is for sure not healthy, we are not built for that, evolution has optimized us to move around, to be active, to walk and run and do things. We are not optimized for sitting motionless in front of a screen. Why not abolish TV and computer altogether? The saved time could be used for reading and writing, painting, making music, gardening, spending time with family and friends, walking in the woods, meditation etc...

I'm not addicted to television or computer, unfortunately I spend more hours on the computer than I would like to. I try to restrict my computer session to three times four hours a week. I'm not there yet….

For a few years I listened to radio via satellite (Astra and HotBird here in Europe). First to BBC, which had a reputation of high journalistic standards. Tired of UK government propaganda I migrated to NPR, which was said to be liberal. Diane Rehm, (Diane Rehm Show), Brooke Gladstone and Bob Garfield (On The Media), Terry Gross (Fresh Air) were my favorites. I realized soon that NPR, though not as conservative as Clear Channel and not as venomous and rancorous as talk radio, is nevertheless middle of the road, is pointless and dull.

The Internet and mind control

Nowadays I don't want to waste my time with mainstream media anymore. I visit Democracy Now, being still impressed and deeply grateful to Amy Goodman, I read the Guardian online, Common Dreams and various blogs. When an issue arises, I use search engines and compare the various infos, which are always conflicting, inconsistent, and incongruent. It helps to consider the source and possible intrinsic agendas. In any way, the bigger part of the infos are absurd, illogical, ludicrous and therefore easy to filter out.

Persons who realize, that the world of mainstream media doesn't match their daily experience and fatefully/hopefully turn to alternative media and to the blogosphere, are confronted with a fascinating but confusing and exhausting kaleidoscopic collage of images, a patchwork of contrasting information splinters, a cacophony of voices, including political fringe lunatics, extremist goons, religious fanatics, over the top buffoons, scoundrels, skeptics and pessimists (which are eager to share their chronic depressions,) serious and thoughtful, though naive idealist.

The diversity and variety of the blogosphere results from the convergence of distant and disparate societies/cultures and it is intentionally exacerbated. There are many deliberate attempts to add to the confusion and blur the picture even more, there are many deliberate attempts to muddy the waters!

It is easy to muddy the waters and it is just too tempting, too cheap and easy to set up a blog, a web site, upload YouTube videos, or assume a fake personality and set up multiple accounts on social media sites. Everybody can do that, individuals with good or bad intentions, con men and other criminals, contractors and government agents.

It has been proven that Wikipedia entries are regularly rewritten by corporations, governments, and secret services (CIA/FBI). Israel and the USA have recruited and trained students to assume fake personalities and participate in chat rooms, comment sections, and social media sites. These agents work in various ways, either defending criticized governments and corporations, or voicing radical views in order to attain credibility and get access to inner circles (in order to collect incriminating evidence or start a sting operation). Some of the agent provocateurs have to display a frivolous and silly attitude to discredit the cause of dissidents.

Just yesterday I read about a new scientific paper by Navid Hassanpour, titled "Media Disruption Exacerbates Revolutionary Unrest." The paper analyzes the recent uprising in Egypt, using complex calculations and vectors that are representing decision-making by potential protesters. The conclusion is, that: "full connectivity in a social network sometimes can hinder collective action," and that the decision of Mubarak to shut down Internet and cellphone services rather advanced the protest movement instead of quelling it.

Though the political or military leaders according to this study would be well advised, not to switch off the Internet at the high of a public rebellion, access would probably very fast be curtailed and content be strictly censored if there would not be an interest to:

1. give the citicens a channel to let off steam

2. be informed about the popular mood

3. track down and identify dissidents

Irritated by Chinese hackers, civil disobedience activists like Anonymous/ LulzSec, and whistleblowers like WikiLeaks, the US administration wants to more tightly regulate the Internet and has introduced various bills to control it. The "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act" of 2010 would have allowed Obama to switch off the Internet. It failed but a similar bill is now again in Congress. COICA (Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act) would have allowed the government to shut down websites who allegedly were infringing intellectual property or trademarks. Search engines and other sites would have been barred to link to infringing foreign sites. The bill was blocked by Sennator Ron Wyden of Oregon, but the Protect IP Act, a copy of COICA, is right now considered in Congress.

Disguised as an anti-child pornography bill, H.R. 1981 (Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act) wants to end anonymity on the Internet. The bill would require ISPs to keep a record of a customers activity for 18 month and hold name, address, phone number, credit card/bank account, and IP address readily available for a government investigation. Though the bill refers to pornography in its title, logs kept by ISPs could also be accessed in other cases, such as insurance fraud, divorces, terrorism, and hacking. The bill still has to make it through the House of Representatives and the Senate.

These legislative attempts to make the Internet more transparent and end anonymity and privacy are not pressing because the big web portals and e-commerce as a whole are eager to lift the vail of anonymity, to collect as much personal information as possible -- and to do the bidding of the government.

Companies already use cookies, Flash cookies and extensive databases to record every move on the net. Google+ erased accounts when it suspected the use of fake names and insists that members reveal their real identity. Facebook has a similar policy though it is not yet strictly enforced.

Even web surfers with dynamic IPs are easily to identify. As soon as the user logs in to a social network site or accesses emails the IP is correlated with the identity and all following activities are registered. The only chance to remain anonymous is to use proxy sites which relay the Internet data. The proxy sites should be though in safe countries, when LulzSec brought down the CIA’s website and released names and passwords of the US Senate’s site, the FBI seized entire servers from a hosting company to track down the activists.

I'm not bothered by the customized and targeted advertising, my ad blockers work very well and I'm also not prone to impulse purchases. I cancelled my credit card long ago and recently took out all my savings from my bank account (I also configured my bank account in a way that no overdraft is possible.) Through these measures I denied myself the possibility to shop online. I'm not worried about the targeted advertising, but I don't like the idea, that by tracking all my moves, online marketing and advertising agencies like DoubleClick, Optimum7, Majon, RickyDeez, ValueClick, are able to build a very accurate personal profile of me.

I cherish my privacy!

The question arises, what my ramblings about loss of privacy have to do with the initial theme of mind control, and in order to answer this question I first have to define the term "mind control." (I should have done it right at the start.)

A narrow definition of mind control is, that it describes the process of subjecting individuals to systematic psychological pressure and coercion or applying advanced psychological methods like hypnosis and psychoactive drugs in order to break their personality and change or implant views, ethics, values, behaviors.

Synonyms are: brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind abuse, thought control, reeducation.

A wider definition of mind control includes any attempt to influence individuals and change their thinking. This includes advertising, marketing, propaganda, as well as recent attempts by the US military, to "win the hearts and minds" in occupied countries.

Synonyms are; conditioning, indoctrination, persuasion, seduction.

When William B. Caldwell, a three-star Army general in charge of training Afghan police was accused of using "psyops" on visiting politicians, the army cleared him of any impropriety. He didn't order soldiers trained in psychological operations to influence visiting American senators in hope to get more money for the war. He only told public affairs officers to inform the senators and supply comprehensive material about the war efforts.

It was not mind control (in the narrow definition), it was a briefing of political leaders, it was the attempt to provide sound information and put things into the right perspective.

Back to privacy:

For me it is very clear that the loss of anonymity will make people more careful, will suppress dissent and criticism, will prevent calls for protest actions and civil disobedience. The loss of anonymity will quiet opposing voices and will make an open discussion about controversial issues difficult if not impossible. When Big Brother is watching, only the undaunted and most courageous will continue to raise their voice. The timid and faint-hearted will comply and obey -- and retreat into "inner emigration."

The blogosphere will become more quiet, less disharmonious, less confusing and also less interesting. The self censorship of corporate media will be step by step extended to alternative media and to the blogosphere. We will hear only one story and see only one view. We will be fed government and corporate propaganda by mainstream media, by alternative media, by everyone. This is mind control -- what else should one call it?

A few unsorted ideas, unsolved questions, and missing clarifications at the end of this text: 

There are examples, that the mind control schemes of the ruling elites not always get traction. The mind control efforts sometimes fail because the targeted population speaks another language, has a distinctive culture, and has a way of thinking, that the masters of mind control cannot comprehend. Mind control efforts flopped in many Latin American countries, in the Arab world, in some small European countries.

In such cases the masters of mind control will try to bribe the leaders of these countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrein, Columbia), and if that is not possible organize a coup (Honduras, Haiti) or occupy the country (Iraq, Afghanistan).

I daubt, that the masters of mind control in Washington ever aimed to win hearts and minds of Arab populations, at least not for their cause. Maybe they are glad if they can recruit Afghans for the Taliban with deadly night raids and drone attacks. Maybe they are glad when they can recruit Somalis for Al-ASabaab. The masters of mind control in Washington need the Taliban, Al Queda, Al-ASabaab, Boko Haram and other militant islamists as a justification for their wars, for ever increasing military spending, for chipping away civil rights, and for installing a strict surveillance regime.

Is the incitement to hate and revenge by raining down bombs also a form of mind control?