Secret DARPA Mind Control Project Is Real: Leaked Document - Narrative Disruptors And Inductors

reply to post by Phage


C'mon Phage,

They are studying everything involving how a mind controls itself via how it processes narrative. You have blind-copied great swaths from the original docs that say as much without mincing words.

If you don't like the word 'mind-control' because of the gooey connotations that are all over it, please feel free to choose a new word.

The study of Natural Language Processing and Affective Neurobiology require teams of people at universities, there is no one expert. For instance Alan Schore may have the Affective-N part of the game down; but I guarantee he depends on others for the math, as well as running the systems that crunch the math. He is also not an expert in Anthropology and Sociology. It's teamwork, Phage, for problems that are too big for one person to deal with.

Finally, people on ATS are discussing NLP and the more grave applications that are being developed from our understanding of neuroscience.

The playing field around here is leveled. We all have a lot to learn.

This isn't a "secret" project. The document isn't classified at all. It doesn't even have any controlled unclassified markings. Just some redacted contact information. And the project has a web site, something secret projects usually do not have.

It's not about mind control, either, except in the very general sense that communicating a well-crafted, persuasive message may be considered by some (though I don't know who) a form of mind control. And the project is not "employing 'Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation'" to "disrupt political dissent." They're using it in an experiment to determine how the brain processes stories. They are not driving around with sooper seekrit MRIs and tricking dissidents into getting inside them.

This is basically research on advertising. Why do their ads work, and why do our ads not work. Why do people believe the story that tells them to go out and blow up a girls school, and not the story we tell them about the friendly neighborhood Americans and the awesome school they built. It's something Don Draper would dismiss with a wave of his cigarette, because he's a humanist and believes in art and inspiration. But DARPA is, I don't know, Peggy or Faye Miller (had to look that one up), someone who believes in a more scientific method. Either way, the end result is going to be an ad campaign.

The work on central processing vs. peripheral processing, and the suppressing effect narrative has on central processing, could be useful for understanding the spread of conspiracy theories, something of great interest in the Middle East. The discussion on narrative integration and validity, which is all new to me, was also very educational. Read the proposal and get an understanding of these ideas, then apply them to see how you were tricked into believing this is a secret mind control project. You can do this at home without an fMRI ... all it takes is a little introspection.

Originally posted by Phage
Do you consider persuasion to be mind control?

Yes. If it wasn't the person would have come to the conclusion themselves merely with the information at hand.

Originally posted by Phage
Do you never try to persuade someone that you are right about something?

Yes, but I don't pretend I'm not attempting to exert a degree of control over their mind.

Providing information to form conclusions is not the same as persuasion.

Originally posted by Phage
Maybe if you were a better storyteller you would be better at it, obviously some are better than others.

I can't speak for who you were replying to, but my story telling has been scarily effective (part of my career) and has only increased my sense of responsibility for using it. Or more to the point... NOT using it and focusing on providing information... not persuasion.

Originally posted by Phage
This research aims to find out why. Why is it that people can be persuaded to blow themselves up?

I would be willing to put more stock in the fact we spend more time telling children stories and constructing a social narrative they are supposed to follow in order to feel good than teaching how to process information and build personal structures of understanding.

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Druscilla

 

You know before I read this article, and saw the whistleblowers document, I would have said all of this was a load of crap. Anyways, here is some food for thought.... Perhaps some people are less prone to disruptors and inductors? Perhaps those are the conspiracy theorists that you see here today.

Please raise your hand if you see things wrong in the US, but cant understand why the rest of the citizens are mindless and clueless zombies.

Not saying this particular theory in this post is fact, but it was fun to entertain, and could explain a lot.

edit on 30-7-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)

I am not some one who can be hypnotized. I wonder if what your talking about has something to do with this. Any other members out there who are not susceptible to hypnosis

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


First of all, the credibility and sensationalism of the source as well as the project not being top secret has already been noted on the thread. What's been going on is the discussion of the ramifications of this kind of research.

Secondly, it's the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. DARPA is not an ad agency. Advertising is the selling of a product. The selling of an ideology by a government in which the aim is to influence opinion on a subject matter is called propaganda. DARPA is not the equivalent of Peggy unless Peggy happens to be one of the top minds in any one of the fields of science and technology. DARPA was founded for the purpose of research and formation of basically cutting edge science and technology projects for the future of national defense. I never thought I'd live to see the day where DARPA was compared to a fictional female copywriter for a 60's era ad company selling soap and feminine hygiene products. The mind boggles and Eisenhower is probably rolling in his grave about now.

Mod note:

How about we stop playing psychologist on each other and stick to the topic.

Old hat rule around here: The ball, not the player. OK?

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
Not an unreasonable post in some ways. However, it assumes that the thread topic is an isolated case and that there is no other documentation of technologies or intent. Google non-lethal technology and mind-control and feel to free filter out all the stuff that's "out there" and sounds too crazy and just focus on the info that is documentable. That's what I did. You might be amazed, if you are still open enough to follow the truth wherever it might lead.

You seem rather intelligent, so I bet if you keep an open mind, you'll learn a lot here and, maybe, just maybe, be not only better educated, but mad as hell.

reply to post by ErgoTheEgo

I would be willing to put more stock in the fact we spend more time telling children stories and constructing a social narrative they are supposed to follow in order to feel good than teaching how to process information and build personal structures of understanding.

Or perhaps it is something hardwired. Like language. Something which evolution gave us. Storytellers are held in high regard in all cultures, aren't they? Could it be that effective storytelling has survival advantages?

Originally posted by Phage
Storytellers are held in high regard in all cultures, aren't they? Could it be that effective storytelling has survival advantages?

Storytelling as opposed to deliberate and politically motivated propaganda might be two different things. Add "History" to the other subjects I mentioned that might expand one's overall scholarship.

Nazi Propaganda: 1933-1945

Storytelling?

Originally posted by LoneCloudHopper2

Has anyone ever done a study to determine what percentage of scientists are either sociopathic, psychotic or downright insane? With the exception of one nice teacher I had who was a scientist (he turned down prestigious job offers because he loved to teach,) every single scientist that I have spoken with (mostly online) or observed speaking with others seems to fit the label 'mad scientist' pretty well. How many scientists online will batter Christians and call religion 'the root of all evil,' while they themselves are either a part of, or are otherwise endorsing harmful medicines, warfare technology, mind control methods, etc? How many scientists have we heard call religious people "hypocrites," from a moral position of judgement of their own, while they promote lies and harmful science against the human race?

Wow, talk about a narrow minded and judgmental post....

I am a scientist, engineer, inventor, and business owner. I am neither sociopathic, psychotic, or insane. I have created devices that have helped countless people. I am motivated by a desire to help humanity...and guess what? I believe in God and am a very spiritual individual. There is no conflict between science and faith. Science explains the "how" not the "why."

Are you one of those people who lets their kid die from preventable illnesses because you refuse to take them to the doctor? If not, then you and your family have benefited from the very science that you spit upon.

reply to post by The GUT

Storytelling?

Yes. Yes it is.
Persuasion? That too.
Yes. That is what we are talking about here.

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by elouina

 

We know mind-control is a topic the government believes in enough to put millions of dollars into. We know Central Intelligence was interested in meta-sciences, so it makes sense other alphabet government agencies more than likely put money into the types of programs. We have evidence from CIA that opponent(s) were killed because they had opposition to certain meta-programs. Hell, CIA wasted millions of dollars in remote viewing black projects. I think DARPA is just the type of agency, along with the Defense Intelligence Agency that would be interested in such a topic.

Cool thread!

If you refer to "mind-control" as psyops, then I would tend to agree...

If you refer to "mind-control" as in a Manchurian Candidate, those programs ended in the 80's due to inefficiency and cost. Again, the mind is not a programmable computer.

Do you understand the purpose of DARPA?

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was established in 1958 to prevent strategic surprise from negatively impacting U.S. national security and create strategic surprise for U.S. adversaries by maintaining the technological superiority of the U.S. military.

Personally, I would not want enemies of my country to get this technology before me and use against our citizens....and if you think scientists in other countries aren't working on these same ideas/theories, then you are very naive.

reply to post by CIAGypsy

Aww, Gypsy, I don't think LoneCloudHopper was being all inclusive, and maybe he/she has a point:

Interesting, those people include Kamran Loghman, one of pepper spray's developers. Loghman worked for the FBI in the 1980s and helped to make it into a weapons-grade material. He has also helped to write guidelines for police departments for using the spray. The New York Times found him and asked him what he made of the UC Davis incident. He told them, "I have never seen such an inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents."

And that's the thing about building weapons-grade technologies: You can't control their use.
Of course, Loghman is not the first inventor to see his creation used in a way that met with his disapproval. Alfred Nobel may be the inventor most closely associated with that sentiment, but this turns out not be quite accurate. The story goes that after inventing dynamite, he tried to make amends for it by endowing the peace prize that bears his name. But Nobel's ideological trajectory was much less clear. He believed that dynamite would help governments achieve peace through deterrence, and worked late into his life developing new weapons. He did not live to see World War I and the damage that dynamite could wreak.

A better example of an inventor with regrets is Albert Einstein, who played almost no role in the development of the atomic bomb but whose discoveries led to it. In his biography of Einstein, Walter Isaacson dramatically tells the moment when the scientist first understood the possibility of the bomb…

….Years later, Einstein came to deeply regret his letter to Roosevelt. "Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in producing an atomic bomb," he said "I would have never lifted a finger.
www.theatlantic.com...

And:

I am become death, the destroyer of worlds ~ J. Robert Oppenheimer

Originally posted by Phage
Yes. Yes it is.
Persuasion? That too.
Yes. That is what we are talking about here.

Surely, then, Phage, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not suggesting that the storytelling (Propaganda) of the Nazis was acceptable?

Nazi Propaganda: 1933-1945

reply to post by The GUT


As someone who constantly worries about a 181 Flag, I understand the pressure of inventions and technological discoveries getting into the wrong hands...but I don't think that makes someone a "mad scientist." Far more positive advances have come from science than destruction. Science is simply a tool.... Accountability lies on the shoulders of those who wield the results of it.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
As someone who constantly worries about a 181 Flag, I understand the pressure of inventions and technological discoveries getting into the wrong hands...but I don't think that makes someone a "mad scientist." Far more positive advances have come from science than destruction. Science is simply a tool.... Accountability lies on the shoulders of those who wield the results of it.

I agree. And I sincerely respect you. But we could really use you here as far as helping reveal some real "mad scientists" that aren't as ethical as I certainly believe you to be.

I bet you've run across some in your day.