Articles such as this has been published roughly every 10-15 years, in magazines or academic journals, since the inter-war period if not earlier. While "mind control" is possible - witness civil servants and the public at large believing cloth masks stops virus particles - the total control variety of turning humans into programmable robots is not, and will probably remain impossible simply due to how the brain works.
AI and computers cannot handle paradox, self-contradictions, double-think, and so on; a human mind turned programmable will lose precisely that element of randomness that is intelligence's root cause.
At best you get a drone, and we can create that anyway: enhance cultural-societal and financial traits that increases the odds of worship of authority, and decreases independent thought and analytical same, and ability to switch "mental gears" between abstract and concrete thinking, to say nothing of the ability of metacognition.
Every other decade, natural scientists have claimed (or have let media claim) that they can perform the miracle of X by very simple means. And every time it is hypoerbole. Electricity would let us control people - it doesn't, it just fries the brain and destroys brainfunctions at random. Genetics would let us breed perfect humans - it doesn't, because not only is DNA too complex, it resets itself from artificial tampering after a few generations. Drugs? Same spiel. Social engineering? Same again.
And so on.
PS: The DNA resetting is quite funny. My wife's grandfather told about how they changed the gene deciding how man eyes a fruitfly would have and where on the body the eyes should go, resulting in fruitflies covered in eyes. After about 5-7 generations, they were back to normal. For some unknown reason, the change simply didn't stick. The DNA reset on its own. How and why is completely unknown; according to how we understand DNA, it shouldn't have been able to do that. DS
I do think 'technocrats', 'experts', and their ilk consistently over-estimate the influence of such 'devices' and programs. I'm even unsure if one actually manages to 'render' a human into 'drone-like' behaviour for extended periods of time. Case in point, falling immunisation rates in the wake of the Covid 'mass vaccination' disaster.
I'll offer anecdotal evidence from among my relatives and in-laws who all now say that they trusted the gov't on the Covid jabs, but none of them trusts doctors, 'experts', and politicians any longer.
In addition, I'd offer the notion that Klaus Schwab's acolyte and court historian Nuval Harari calls the majority of people 'useless eaters', perhaps because they also recognise the time-limited nature of 'mind control' (sic).
As to the DNA resetting--this is awesome, I've never heard about it, and I'm off looking for it.
Techniques of propaganda and mind Control are already so effective that further pharmaceutical or mechanical intervention is simply unneccesary. COVID19 showed us how bad it’s gotten. You can basically manipulate large portions of the populace at will by clever use og propaganda and «nudging». This is precisely what Yuval Noah Harari meant when he said that «humans are hackable animals» - he wasn’t talking about the future. People have already been successfully «hacked» to regurgitate the thoughts and opinions the programmers want them to have.
Yes and no, I'd say: yes, because these propaganda techniques are awesomely effective; no, because they appear to wear off quickly when faced directly with 'the enemy'. Hence it works less well with, say, Covid, as opposed to the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
I think you have to «segment» the population to use a marketing term. You have some People who are «true believers» of any «official» narrative. These are the obnoxious trolls you Find everywhere viciously defending the current narrative whatever it is. Then you have the large middle segment that sort of just go with the flow but as you point out for these People the spell can be broken (it happened with covid in the end). Then you have the rare breed of «dissidents» who for some reason propaganda works less well on. This would be the yous and the mes.
An interesting observation here is how effectively the «current narrative» was pivoted from covid to ukraine allmost overnight. All the rabid lunatics who wanted to more or less execute the unvaccinated were suddenly shouting «slava ukraini» instead. I was active in some message boards at the time and it was like flipping a switch, and all the cockroaches scurried away from the covid topic over to «Putin bad» and «kill all Russians». The problem we face is that the blob in the middle will tend towards the «official» narrative, not towards the dissident views. I can’t imagine the dissidents make up more than 10% of the population. Thus, the mindcontrol over 90% of the population is effective enough. But you are right, it does require a constant barrage of propaganda to maintain the illusions.
As regards the 'blob in the middle', I suspect they tilt towards the 'official' narrative for want of alternative viewpoints, which is where media control comes in. Since we know MSM is highly concentrated and compromised (with its Transatlanticist bend), it's obvious that those who are fed that kind of 'news' will go whichever way 'the telly' tells them.
I still maintain that for the 'blob in the middle', the longer these 'narratives' are kept on life-support, the more begin questioning them, hence the need for 24-hour news-cycles to spew out 'something else' every now and then to make sure that the 'blob' continues to support 'the current thing'.
As to the 'Slava Ukraini' switch, that was one genius move (and exceedingly disgusting). I'm looking forward what the next 'big' thing might be: clearly, neither MPox nor measles are gonna do it, and I doubt the current avian flu scare will stick. Palestine/Israel seems too much of thing, but perhaps a 'retaliatory' strike on Iran might 'work', esp. as neither the solar eclipse nor 'the climate crisis' are making people move as predictively as before.
I have seen it, and I'm unsure what to make of it. It seems 'unreal', and I'm unsure if that study can be replicated. Moreover, let's not forget the preexisting biases of the 'researchers'.
My 'guess' is this: every human who ever cared for another human being--be it a spouse, child, parent, or a stranger--immediately knows that, whatever (crap) life throws at you, humans are capable of both incredible altruism (kindness) and evil (depravity). Sure, material (monetary) incentives might affect these sentiments at the margins, but whoever cared an instant for someone else knows this: in the final analysis, material benefits don't matter.
By way of analogy, the same may be said about 'religion'.
Also, the pre-existing biases of researchers in that particular 'study' should do the rest.
Articles such as this has been published roughly every 10-15 years, in magazines or academic journals, since the inter-war period if not earlier. While "mind control" is possible - witness civil servants and the public at large believing cloth masks stops virus particles - the total control variety of turning humans into programmable robots is not, and will probably remain impossible simply due to how the brain works.
AI and computers cannot handle paradox, self-contradictions, double-think, and so on; a human mind turned programmable will lose precisely that element of randomness that is intelligence's root cause.
At best you get a drone, and we can create that anyway: enhance cultural-societal and financial traits that increases the odds of worship of authority, and decreases independent thought and analytical same, and ability to switch "mental gears" between abstract and concrete thinking, to say nothing of the ability of metacognition.
Every other decade, natural scientists have claimed (or have let media claim) that they can perform the miracle of X by very simple means. And every time it is hypoerbole. Electricity would let us control people - it doesn't, it just fries the brain and destroys brainfunctions at random. Genetics would let us breed perfect humans - it doesn't, because not only is DNA too complex, it resets itself from artificial tampering after a few generations. Drugs? Same spiel. Social engineering? Same again.
And so on.
PS: The DNA resetting is quite funny. My wife's grandfather told about how they changed the gene deciding how man eyes a fruitfly would have and where on the body the eyes should go, resulting in fruitflies covered in eyes. After about 5-7 generations, they were back to normal. For some unknown reason, the change simply didn't stick. The DNA reset on its own. How and why is completely unknown; according to how we understand DNA, it shouldn't have been able to do that. DS
I do think 'technocrats', 'experts', and their ilk consistently over-estimate the influence of such 'devices' and programs. I'm even unsure if one actually manages to 'render' a human into 'drone-like' behaviour for extended periods of time. Case in point, falling immunisation rates in the wake of the Covid 'mass vaccination' disaster.
I'll offer anecdotal evidence from among my relatives and in-laws who all now say that they trusted the gov't on the Covid jabs, but none of them trusts doctors, 'experts', and politicians any longer.
In addition, I'd offer the notion that Klaus Schwab's acolyte and court historian Nuval Harari calls the majority of people 'useless eaters', perhaps because they also recognise the time-limited nature of 'mind control' (sic).
As to the DNA resetting--this is awesome, I've never heard about it, and I'm off looking for it.
Techniques of propaganda and mind Control are already so effective that further pharmaceutical or mechanical intervention is simply unneccesary. COVID19 showed us how bad it’s gotten. You can basically manipulate large portions of the populace at will by clever use og propaganda and «nudging». This is precisely what Yuval Noah Harari meant when he said that «humans are hackable animals» - he wasn’t talking about the future. People have already been successfully «hacked» to regurgitate the thoughts and opinions the programmers want them to have.
Yes and no, I'd say: yes, because these propaganda techniques are awesomely effective; no, because they appear to wear off quickly when faced directly with 'the enemy'. Hence it works less well with, say, Covid, as opposed to the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
I think you have to «segment» the population to use a marketing term. You have some People who are «true believers» of any «official» narrative. These are the obnoxious trolls you Find everywhere viciously defending the current narrative whatever it is. Then you have the large middle segment that sort of just go with the flow but as you point out for these People the spell can be broken (it happened with covid in the end). Then you have the rare breed of «dissidents» who for some reason propaganda works less well on. This would be the yous and the mes.
An interesting observation here is how effectively the «current narrative» was pivoted from covid to ukraine allmost overnight. All the rabid lunatics who wanted to more or less execute the unvaccinated were suddenly shouting «slava ukraini» instead. I was active in some message boards at the time and it was like flipping a switch, and all the cockroaches scurried away from the covid topic over to «Putin bad» and «kill all Russians». The problem we face is that the blob in the middle will tend towards the «official» narrative, not towards the dissident views. I can’t imagine the dissidents make up more than 10% of the population. Thus, the mindcontrol over 90% of the population is effective enough. But you are right, it does require a constant barrage of propaganda to maintain the illusions.
Very well-taken points.
As regards the 'blob in the middle', I suspect they tilt towards the 'official' narrative for want of alternative viewpoints, which is where media control comes in. Since we know MSM is highly concentrated and compromised (with its Transatlanticist bend), it's obvious that those who are fed that kind of 'news' will go whichever way 'the telly' tells them.
I still maintain that for the 'blob in the middle', the longer these 'narratives' are kept on life-support, the more begin questioning them, hence the need for 24-hour news-cycles to spew out 'something else' every now and then to make sure that the 'blob' continues to support 'the current thing'.
As to the 'Slava Ukraini' switch, that was one genius move (and exceedingly disgusting). I'm looking forward what the next 'big' thing might be: clearly, neither MPox nor measles are gonna do it, and I doubt the current avian flu scare will stick. Palestine/Israel seems too much of thing, but perhaps a 'retaliatory' strike on Iran might 'work', esp. as neither the solar eclipse nor 'the climate crisis' are making people move as predictively as before.
Have you seen this?
https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/religious-faith-can-be-turned-off?
I have seen it, and I'm unsure what to make of it. It seems 'unreal', and I'm unsure if that study can be replicated. Moreover, let's not forget the preexisting biases of the 'researchers'.
Therefore, I remain skeptical.
That’s pretty much where I’m at. How do we know?
My 'guess' is this: every human who ever cared for another human being--be it a spouse, child, parent, or a stranger--immediately knows that, whatever (crap) life throws at you, humans are capable of both incredible altruism (kindness) and evil (depravity). Sure, material (monetary) incentives might affect these sentiments at the margins, but whoever cared an instant for someone else knows this: in the final analysis, material benefits don't matter.
By way of analogy, the same may be said about 'religion'.
Also, the pre-existing biases of researchers in that particular 'study' should do the rest.
Many people have a strange love/hate relationship with their fellow human beings.