1/25/19: I HEAR THEM W/ ELANA FREELAND AND JIAN LIANG
I HEAR THEM
MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
The proposal of depopulation and the immoral dialogue that it carries into the notion of sustainability should be a concern for every American. Especially when programs and technologies are being developed in order to supplant the human being that is free and turning him or her into a controlled drone for the furthering of the encroaching New World Order.
In the wake of some very interesting stories that take on the topics of resource depletion and “Global Sustainability,” there seems to be more compelling evidence that the mainstream narrative is being designed to prepare us for some interesting times ahead. Media companies exploiting your deepest fears are using viral marketing. Some believe that it is guerilla fear mongering to coerce us into demanding more control from our leaders.
What we are witnessing is “predictive programming” aimed at preparing you with crisis seeds that can grow into full-on crises that can be seen as reasons to declare a national emergency and turn over all government power to the executive branch.
The crisis seeds are planted and the public is unaware that there are false-flag perpetrators and agent provocateurs that carry out negligent acts that can harm or create a sense of fear or anger. It is not limited to industrial espionage it can also be carried out using media, print ads, even the Internet.
A lot of what we see and hear is created by intelligence ops in order to create discussion and action.
Ever since Aristotle spoke of humans as the “rational animal,” we’ve had a picture of ourselves as rational beings that are hampered by shortcomings like anger and fear and confirmation bias.
Cognitive science says just the opposite. Cognitive science shows us that humans just are a collection of messy little modules like anger and fear and the modules that produce confirmation bias. We have a few modules for processing logic and probability and rational goal-pursuit, but they are slow and energy-expensive and rarely used.
Reactionary override or cognitive override should prompt a rational thinker into understanding when something out of the ordinary may have the potential to be a danger in the future or even in the present.
Back in the cloak and dagger days of conspiracy speculation and fringe analytics, it was theorized that you could hide certain technologies to an extent. We have talked about the idea of alien or extraterrestrial technologies that could have been retrieved at Roswell and reversed engineered and Wright Patterson Air Force Base or Area 51.
However, over time it becomes very difficult to hide technologies because as they are kept secret, the physics surrounding the technologies usually shows up in science and engineering journals. A perfect example of a hidden technology that eventually emerged was the nuclear bomb.
While you could, in theory, hide a given nation’s development of a nuclear bomb, the physics still shows that nuclear fission/fusion is possible. Thus, if you weigh up the various factors that are required to create a nuclear device, you can make an educated guess as to the likelihood a nation has such technology.
This is why we are constantly discussing in current affairs the hidden nuclear tests and threats that appear to be overt acts of brinkmanship.
No one has thrown a bomb at us nor have we been in a nuclear conflagration so the theory is that we have silos filled with devices that will guarantee mutually assured destruction.
In order to prevent a nuclear conflict or any other terrorist activities, our alphabet agencies are in the business of intelligence gathering.
We have already demonstrated that through Collective Intelligence there can be programs called SOCI’s or “self-organizing collective intelligences” where the hive collective can put information into the internet and a program responds by giving input that the attractor has already contributed to and so it gives the illusion of confirming one’s suspicions.
It uses any means of taking an array of input of data and assessing it quickly, according to a given set of rules — they are invisible, but they are there constantly trying to please you and in some cases guide you in your decision making.
Some call it a form of grooming or a rudimentary form of technotronic mind control.
In the year prior to Ground Zero being nationally syndicated, I presented a thesis and presentation regarding what I called the Mental Manhattan Project. I was able to create a power point lecture dealing with experiments in what is called artificial or synthetic telepathy.
At the time the topic was highly controversial as there were many branches of this phenomenon that still seemed to be in its experimental stages.
Granted; there were many people who were making claims that they were targeted individuals, meaning that they felt they were being targeted electronically and were being harassed by unknown operatives.
Many of these cases have been or have been determined to be schizophrenic form of events and much of what is being reported on the Internet is a basic nurturing of mentally ill paranoid delusions, electronic harassment accompanied with stalking has been documented and there are a few cases that have been very high profile.
In 1989, a patent was issued for something called synthetic telepathy and Voice to Skull technology.
Sound is induced in the head of a person by radiating the head with microwaves in the range of 100 megahertz to 10,000 megahertz that are modulated with a particular waveform. The waveform consists of frequency modulated bursts. Each burst is made up of ten to twenty uniformly spaced pulses grouped tightly together. The burst width is between 500 nanoseconds and 100 microseconds. The pulse width is in the range of 10 nanoseconds to 1 microsecond. The bursts are frequency modulated by the audio input to create the sensation of hearing in the person whose head is irradiated.
In 1992, Newsweek reported that “with powerful new devices that peer through the skull and see the brain at work, neuroscientists seek the wellsprings of thoughts and emotions, the genesis of intelligence and language. They hope, in short, to read your mind.”
In 1994, scientists mapping the brain realized that “current imaging techniques can depict physiological events in the brain which accompany sensory perception and motor activity, as well as cognition and speech.”
Three days ago a report that was filed by The Optical Society of America stated that researchers have demonstrated that a laser can transmit an audible message to a person without any type of receiver equipment. The ability to send highly targeted audio signals over the air could be used to communicate across noisy rooms or warn individuals of a dangerous situation such as an active shooter.
In The Optical Society Journal Optics Letters, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory report using two different laser-based methods to transmit various tones, music and recorded speech at a conversational volume.
The new approaches are based on the photoacoustic effect, which occurs when a material forms sound waves after absorbing light. In this case, the researchers used water vapor in the air to absorb light and create sound.
One of the new sound transmission methods grew from a technique called dynamic photoacoustic spectroscopy which the researchers previously developed for chemical detection. In the earlier work, they discovered that scanning, or sweeping, a laser beam at the speed of sound could improve chemical detection.
For the DPAS-related approach, the researchers change the length of the laser sweeps to encode different frequencies, or audible pitches, in the light. One unique aspect of this laser sweeping technique is that the signal can only be heard at a certain distance from the transmitter.
This means that a message could be sent to an individual, rather than everyone who crosses the beam of light. It also opens the possibility of targeting one person in a room with a message while others in the room or in the area do not hear the message.
In the lab, the researchers showed that commercially available equipment could transmit sound to a person more than 2.5 meters away at 60 decibels using the laser sweeping technique. They believe that the system could be easily scaled up to longer distances. They also tested a traditional photoacoustic method that doesn’t require sweeping the laser and encodes the audio message by modulating the power of the laser beam.
So all that needs to happen is that an invisible light ray can be focused on an individual and using frequencies that can be found in most microwaves a voice or message can be beamed directly into the brain.
These are being touted as beneficial accessories that may become available after the conversion to 5G technology platforms.
Now, we know that the technology is available, we know that there have been targeted individuals that have been guinea pigs to this technology and many of these targeted individuals have been the subject of ridicule and yet we can no longer hide its potential as a mind control weapon – or a weapon used for collective control and or suggestion.
The official position of the developers will be that these technologies will be essential for the use of psychologically profiling criminals, preventing terrorism, and using this technology to read thoughts and prevent any and all threats to national security.
What is most disconcerting is the threat to what is called cognitive liberty.
The idea of the human mind as the domain of absolute protection from external intrusion has persisted for centuries.
Today, however, this presumption might no longer hold. Sophisticated neuroimaging machines and brain-computer interfaces detect the electrical activity of neurons, enabling us to decode and even alter the nervous system signals that accompany mental processes. Whereas these advances have a great potential for research and medicine, they pose a fundamental ethical, legal and social challenge: determining whether or under what conditions it is legitimate to gain access to or interfere with another person’s neural activity.
This question has special social relevance because many neurotechnologies have moved away from a medical setting and into the commercial domain. Attempts to decode mental information via imaging are also occurring in court cases, sometimes in a scientifically questionable way.
The danger is in the fact that these newer “stealth” technologies could be used at any time – and the person being targeted would not even know they were being targeted.
This technology could potentially be used against people who object to mandatory vaccination, medical kidnapping, the nationalization of our private health data, the use of toxic chemicals in food, mandatory indoctrination of children in the public education system, mainstream media brainwashing, the collection of information about our religious and political beliefs, the denial of the right to assemble in peaceful protests against the overreaching power of national and state government, to name just a few.
Brain-reading technology can be seen as just another unavoidable trend that erodes a bit more of our personal space in the digital world. But given the sanctity of our mental privacy, we might not be so willing to accept this intrusion. People could, in fact, look at this technology as something that requires the reconceptualization of basic human rights and even the creation of neurospecific rights.
I am sure that if there is any reason to create an addendum to the fourth amendment it would be to detail neurospecific rights. We would have to add that beyond unlawful search and seizure of your effects we would have to declare that any and all neurosearches or mental controlling for interrogation or for any reason should be declared unconstitutional.
Lawyers are already talking about a right to cognitive liberty. It would entitle people to make free and competent decisions regarding the use of technology that can affect their thoughts. A right to mental privacy would protect individuals against this nonconsensual intrusion by third parties into their brain data, as well as against the unauthorized collection of those data.
Breaches of privacy at the neural level could be more dangerous than conventional ones because they can bypass the level of conscious reasoning, leaving us without protections from having our mind read involuntarily. This risk applies not only to predatory marketing studies or to courts using such technology excessively but also to applications that would affect general consumers.
This last category is growing. Recently, Facebook unveiled a plan to create a speech-to-text interface to translate thoughts directly from brain to computer. Similar attempts are being made by companies such as Samsung and Netflix. In the future, brain control could replace the keyboard and speech recognition as the primary way to interact with computers.
If brain-scanning tools become ubiquitous, novel possibilities for misuse will arise, cybersecurity breaches included. Medical devices connected to the brain are vulnerable to sabotage.
Such potential for misuse might prompt us to reconceptualize the right to mental integrity, already recognized as a fundamental human right to mental health. This new understanding would not only protect people from being denied access to treatment for mental illness but would also protect all of us from harmful manipulations of our neural activity through the misuse of technology.
Now we know about this new technology and that it is now scientifically possible to use neurospecific controls on humans I believe that targeted individuals or those who feel that they being bombarded with mind control stalking or harassment – should be allowed the right to proof of psychological continuity.
They have a right to be heard without judgment and should be able to prove psychological continuity in such matters or alleged psychographic attacks.
A right to psychological continuity might preserve people’s mental life from external alteration by third parties.
Now that we know this technology is in our 5G future we need an open debate involving neuroscientists, legal experts, ethicists and general citizens in order to guarantee neurospecific rights.