This mental dilation of time makes physical torture worse than murder. The pain turns sideways to time, occupying an infinitude of paralyzed desperation.
Victims of MKULTRA don't usually get high-level briefings about the program, but I was given glimpses of what those psychopaths were up to because, for one, my direct handler had a penchant for bragging. Also, although I was only a boy when they started on me, I had a central role in advancing the techniques used on me; my ability to resist their demands on my intellect was diminished by the controls they placed on me.
Some personal observations:
- Don't believe anything about which division of which agency is up to what. The intelligence community is a shell game, and everyone of consequence has a license to compartmentalize, which means they lie about what they are doing and for whom, even to their colleagues and official superiors.
- At some point in mid-1970s a large contingent of MKULTRA, perhaps the whole remnant, decamped from the Central Intelligence Agency. From what I can tell through my tiny peekhole, they lost none of their access to facilities and assets but lost all of their accountability.
- The article is spot-on about how underappreciated the role of hypnosis is. In MKULTRA, psychology is not the science of the mind but the art of human control. Hypnosis offers the preferred leash where individuals are compelled to specific acts. I was told that the intelligence community intended to misdirect the entire academic community of psychology, distorting their research to detract attention from the proprietary techniques used by intelligence operatives; I don't know if they did.
- I've been subjected to a range of what is called torture. No one will admit it, but torture is just a recreation for the psychopath within. At most, it's a crude adjunct to clever manipulation. That said, there is nothing comparable physical pain so severe and widespread that it overwhelms your ability to retain a central identity. The desperation turns you sideways to time.
- Hypnosis doesn't scale for control of populations, but many of the refinements of instructions for hypnotics improved the handbooks of propaganda.
This conclusion to the article rings true:
>"The essence of the matter is that America’s mind control saga is not confined to the annals of CIA history, or even CIA torture rooms. In psychiatry, in social science, in the entertainment business and in social media, MKULTRA is the fabric of our lives."
>We judge these programs under the wrong assumption that it is run by the good guys
Speaking as someone who as a boy was tortured and trafficked by operatives of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America, I am surprized how little appreciation there is for the standard role of misdirection in the espionage playbook.
It is inevitable that all these obstensibly well-intended investigators will have their ranks and their leadership infiltrated by intelligence agencies of major powers, all of whom invest in child-trafficking. What better cover?
Why is this a legitimate topic on a forum that forbids trafficking in what are labelled "conspiracy theories."
The net effect of allowing a discussion of this sort is to restrict discussion to the few fragments of the record of MKULTRA that were allowed to survive.
Mr. Kinzer's book does not hint at how horrible, extensive, successful, or powerful the program was, nor does it show any cognizance of actual techniques employed in actual operations.
Since we're not allow to bring up the truth, can we just agree to avoid the topic?
I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say. Most of the records were destroyed and we're trying to piece together the evidence. What is the "truth" that we are "not allowed" to bring up?
I think the other HN thread I linked on this subject shows that you are not correct that discussion of conspiracy theories is completely taboo here. As someone quite steeped in the conspiracy world, some of the most intelligent analysis and thoughtful pushback to the "there's no such thing as conspiracies" bluepill perspective has been on HN, and in general it has not been suppressed or downvoted unless advanced in very combative terms.
Although perhaps you're right that if you start bringing up Project Monarch or the like you might get some pretty severe pushback. Even then I'm not sure you'd necessarily be downvoted to oblivion.
Specific directives (to find a suitable place to anchor itself) require awareness of the terrain and object-recognition. Either a) the fungus has stumbled upon the signals to accomplish this singular feat or b) the fungus can read the ant's perceptions and can navigate. Finding the signal seems more likely because it is much less complex an achievement.
Or the fungus "stumbled" across an effect on the ants' nervous system that was beneficial to it, so it thrived.
Emergent properties don't require sophistication. They arise despite the lack of sophistication or the ability for specific intent. That's the definition of "emergent".
Yes, like what if there is an existing chemical signal for "climb up." the fungus might emit that signal and then just ride along, without any understanding of how that happens. Because it works, those fungus do better than ones that gave a different signal.
After a while, it gives the "bite" signal and hopefully, the ant has already climbed up. Voila, the ant has served the fungus.
So maybe some pretty simple steps result in an effect that appears carefully planned?
Agreed. Read UNZ.com to catch up on the latest thought in antisemitic, eugenicist, racist, and elitist circles. Otherwise, don't get upset when dehumanizers get unpersoned.
The thing I like about Unz.com is that it doesn't seem particularly to favor one side over the other; marginalized voices of all stripes are welcome, would-be neo-Hitlers and would-be neo-Stalins alike.
To be sure, I don't have a lot of use for opinions of either stripe, but I'm glad that there's a place left on the Internet where both are suffered to exist in public, for a little while longer at least. Sticking your head under a pillow and your fingers in your ears doesn't make them go away, and all else equal, you're safer being able to keep an eye on them.
(Incidentally, the comment to which I'm responding is posted under a name that's 53 days old, with 1 karma, no submissions, 1 comment. It's almost as though someone made this account a while back so the green name would age off and then stuck it in a back pocket for eventual sockpuppeting use, but I'm sure that is merely an unworthy cavil...)
53 days ago I wrote a post but decided not to publish it. Thus am I compelled by you defend my right to publish here.
>it doesn't seem particularly to favor one side over the other
The non-racist voices, like Michael Hudson, get plenty of exposure elsewhere. They are used at unz.com to lend a civilized context to the sophistic racist writers.
>both are suffered to exist in public
Sophisticated argumentation leading to racist conclusions offends but does not enlighten and so is best ignored. There aren't two civil sides here, pretenses notwithstanding.
I don't agree with racism. But offense is irrelevant. What matters is ensuring that all people have equal access to all information so that truth may not be suppressed.
It is foolish, for anyone who cares about truth, to advocate suppression of information or opinions, by legal or other means. Because history demonstrates that, whenever such suppression is legitimized, it will be used by evil people to suppress truth.
Yesterday the cardinal sin was heresy against the church. Today the cardinal sin is racism. Tomorrow the cardinal sin will be something else. Someday the cardinal sin will be your own opinion. Only evil people and shortsighted fools advocate censorship of opposing views.
I understand that it's not pleasant to be accused of attempting to manipulate opinion. If you've spent little time here, and especially if you don't have showdead enabled in your account options, you may well be unaware of the large increase in such activity which took place here before and during the election season. The account you are using shows every sign of having been created for such purpose; I enumerated most of those signs in my prior comment. One I overlooked there is that, when frequent participants here create "throwaway" accounts for the purpose of speaking without attribution, they generally acknowledge those accounts as such. You have not done that, either.
And so far you have used this account, with all those stigmata, to contribute nothing of value; of the adjectives in your comment to which I originally responded, all save one ("latest") could be replaced with 'sinful' and the comment remain precisely as meaningful as it started out. You do nothing to support your claims of moral or intellectual failure; you merely insist upon them, and when those claims are challenged, insist on them still harder.
I grant this is a useful style of discourse among those who agree with you, or who are susceptible to believing that something is so awful that even to examine it for themselves and try to draw their own conclusions on its merit risks contaminating them with some sort of social or intellectual pestilence. You will find very few of the latter sort here, and even those of the former tend in my experience to prefer engaging on a higher level than mere accusations of heresy.
