A FEW TAKE OUTS FROM THE MANY HOURS OF LECTURES AND NEWS BELOW
Giordano admits there are nanobots that can take over insects and turn them into “biodrones”. But pretty much same thing can be achieved with people, it’s just a matter of complexity.
The brain is a battlefield and the drones for it already exist.
The brain is as hackable as any cheap tablet, if not more, due to lack of protection. They can do that non-invasively, even from the satellite, as we’ve warned you the past two years.
From MK Ultra to breaking the fabric of society, neurotechnology has now almost unlimited capabilities.
Meet Dr. James Giordano, Ph.D., Chief, Neuroethics Studies Prog, Georgetown UMC
Dr. James Giordano is Chief of the Neuroethics Studies Program in the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics, and a professor in the Department of Neurology, and Graduate Liberal Studies Program at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. He is Clark Faculty Fellow of Neurosciences and Ethics at the Human Science Center of Ludwig Maximilians Universität, Munich, Germany, where he previously was JW Fulbright Foundation Visiting Professor. Dr. Giordano is William H. and Ruth Crane Schaefer Distinguished Visiting Professor of Neuroethics at Gallaudet University, Washington, DC; is appointed to the Neuroethics, Legal, and Social Issues Advisory Panel of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and is a Fellow of the Center for National Preparedness at the University of Pittsburgh, PA.
His ongoing research focuses upon the use of advanced neurotechnologies to explore the neurobiology of pain and other neuropsychiatric spectrum disorders; the neuroscience of moral decision-making, and the neuroethical issues arising from the use of neuroscience and neurotechnology in research, clinical medicine, public life, international relations and policy, and national security and defense (for additional information, see: http://www.neurobioethics.org)
The author of over 200 peer-reviewed papers, and 7 books in neuroscience and neuroethics, Dr. Giordano is Editor-in-Chief of the journal Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine; Associate Editor for the journal Neuroethics; and Executive Editor-in-Chief of the book series Advances in Neurotechnology: Ethical, Legal and Social Issues (published by CRC Press). –
NEUROTECHNOLOGY IN NATIONAL DEFENSE – DARPA’S DR. JAMES GIORDANO @ MAD SCIENTIST CONFERENCE 2017
His following lectures are just incremental actualizations to the one before, the backbone is largely similar, but there’s some rewarding gold nuggets to be found in each of them, if you have the patience. And I’m going to complement him with some flashbacks from our own reporting.
This presentation is part of the ‘Brain Science and Effective Leadership Series,’ hosted by the Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership. Dr. Girordano is with the Georgetown University Departments of Neurology and Biochemistry, working in the Neuroethics Study Program, which is a part of the Program in Military Medical Ethics. He also is a Fellow of the Program in Biosecurity, Technology, and Ethics at the Naval War College. In this invigorating and, at points chilling, talk he discusses various potential uses of neurocognitive science in military and intelligence operations, and sketches ethical issues, and angles of analysis that will arise as both allies and adversaries develop such tools, relating them to existing laws of war and conventions.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
They call it “neuro-evidence”. Planting memories, “de-biasing” people or refusing their parental rights because the machine read bad thoughts in their mind? These options are on the table too.
If you’re still naïve enough to think these talks at Davos remain inconsequential, read this:
“As neuroscientists decipher the workings of the brain, new questions will be raised about decoding memories, ascertaining intentions and defusing criminal behavior. What if neuro-evidence is invited into the courtroom? neural monitoring brain testify against you Join an in-depth discussion that explores the possible, plausible and probable impacts of neuroscience disrupting the justice system. This session was developed in partnership with TIME.” Recorded at Davos 2016 WEF reunion, published by the World Economic Forum on Jan 23, 2016
Speakers:
· Nita A. Farahany, Professor, Law and Philosophy, Duke University, USA.
· Jack Gallant, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of California, Berkeley, USA.
· Brian Knutson, Associate Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Stanford University, USA.
· Sam Muller, Director, Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law, Netherlands.
Moderated by Rana Foroohar, Assistant Managing Editor, Business and Economics, Time Magazine, USA.
“Long the preserve of stage show performers and confidence tricksters, the ability to read minds has always fascinated humans. The possibility that our inner thoughts and feelings could be accessed by another is both thrilling and terrifying.
We are already at the point where some thoughts can be identified externally. So as neuroscientists decipher the workings of the brain, new questions are being raised about decoding memories and ascertaining intentions. This has obvious implications for criminal behaviour. What if neuro-evidence is invited into the courtroom?
At the moment the technology is in its infancy and has been primarily focused on aiding communication and movement for disabled people. But the fact that scientists can already identify some words that people are thinking is an extraordinary step.
Experts in the brain decoding field acknowledge that accurate interpretations of a person’s thoughts and memories remain a long way off but there is no doubt that technology in this area is advancing steadily.
If people’s inner worlds could be accessed it would have a profound effect. Who, if anyone, would we agree to share this world with? Under what circumstances would we countenance someone’s thoughts being accessed by force?
The courtroom is always confronting new technologies in the fight against crime. Fingerprinting, so-called lie detection technology and DNA profiling were all cutting edge when first presented in evidence. All have been used countless time to convict, and indeed acquit, suspects. And brain scans are already used in evidence, in one case to successfully argue that a suspect should be spared the death penalty.
But the courtroom setting presents many potential problems when it comes to reading people’s minds. Would coaching allow a suspect to fool the technology? Would reading minds be a form of self-incrimination, something many courts allow suspects to avoid doing? And what if someone mistakenly believes they may have committed a crime?
If your brain confesses but you insist on your innocence, who can the jury trust?”
BONUS
Davos 2016 – Life in 2030: Humankind and the Machine
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Remember: “The war abroad always comes home”. And this one “starts with hyper-connectivity”.
“Cognitive warfare, when practiced effectively has strength, an insidious nature and disrupts our ordinary understandings and reactions to events. The term, cognitive warfare, requires some dissection and interpretation in the context of national security; broadly defined it is a disinformation process to psychologically wear down the receivers of the information. It is strategically spread through information resources like social media, networking, Internet resources, videos, photos taken out of context, simplistic resources like political cartoons and even well-planned websites that encourage the making of disinformation.”
Canada – NATO Innovation Challenge Fall 2021: Cognitive Warfare – 2021
Informational webinar on October 5th as Canada hosts the Fall 2021 NATO Innovation Challenge organized by Canadian Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM), Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) and the NATO Allied Command Transformation (ACT) iHub. Innovators will have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the concept of Cognitive Warfare as well as the Innovation Challenge’s eligibility requirements, application process and timeline.
Commenting on the video above, The Gray Zone notes:
The other institution that is managing the Fall 2021 NATO Innovation Challenge on behalf of Canada’s Department of National Defense is the Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM).
A Canadian military officer who works with CANSOFCOM, Shekhar Gothi, was the final panelist in the October 5 NATO Association of Canada event. Gothi serves as CANSOFCOM’s “innovation officer” for Southern Ontario.
He concluded the event appealing for corporate investment in NATO’s cognitive warfare research.
The bi-annual Innovation Challenge is “part of the NATO battle rhythm,” Gothi declared enthusiastically.
Gothi reassured corporate investors that NATO will bend over backward to defend their bottom lines: “I can assure everyone that the NATO innovation challenge indicates that all innovators will maintain complete control of their intellectual property. So NATO won’t take control of that. Neither will Canada. Innovators will maintain their control over their IP.”
The comment was a fitting conclusion to the panel, affirming that NATO and its allies in the military-industrial complex not only seek to dominate the world and the humans that inhabit it with unsettling cognitive warfare techniques, but to also ensure that corporations and their shareholders continue to profit from these imperial endeavors.
Since the early days of the Alliance, NATO has played an essential role in promoting and enhancing civil preparedness among its member states. Article 3 of the NATO founding treaty establishes the principle of resilience, which requires all Alliance member states to “maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” This includes supporting the continuity of government, and the provision of essential services, including resilient civil communications systems.
A Taipei think tank and observers in Taiwan say China is trying to influence residents with “cognitive warfare,” hoping to reverse opposition to Beijing’s desired takeover of Taiwan so it can be accomplished without having to go to war.
Taiwanese attitudes have been drifting away from the mainland, especially among the younger generation, whose members see themselves “born independent” with no ties to China.
China’s effort, these analysts say, includes tactics ranging from military intimidation and propaganda to misinformation spread by its army of online trolls in a bid to manipulate public opinion. They say the complexity and frequency of the effort puts Taiwan on a constant defensive.
“Its ultimate goal is to control what’s between the ears. That is, your brain or how you think, which [Beijing] hopes leads to a change of behavior,” Tzeng Yi-suo, director of the cybersecurity division at the government-funded Institute of National Defense and Security Research in Taipei, told VOA.
Liberal democracies such as Taiwan, that ensure the free flow of information, are vulnerable to cognitive attacks by China, while China’s tightly controlled media and internet environment makes it difficult for democracies to counterattack, according to Tzeng.
China’s campaign has intensified since the outbreak of COVID-19, using official means such as flying military jets over Taiwan, and unofficial channels such as news outlets, social media and hackers to spread misinformation. The effort is aimed at dissuading Taiwan from pursuing actions contrary to Beijing’s interests, the report said.
China has used these tactics to attack Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen’s administration, undermine support for democracy and fuel Taiwan’s social tensions and political divide, it said.
NATO Releases Disturbing Stance on Cognitive Warfare
Cyber and economic warfare are often seen as the future of war. There is, however, a new type of warfare being discussed. It is called “cognitive warfare.”
Cognitive warfare, similar to information warfare, involves the the swaying of public opinion as a means of war. What differentiates the two, is that information warfare is simply defined as the manipulation of public opinion via propaganda. Cognitive warfare, on the other hand, involves the literal manipulation of the human brain. Seems far fetched? Well according to a NATO-sponsored study, it is now being classified as a “sixth domain” of warfare. While even acknowledging the horrific dangers of this type of warfare, the report goes on to claim NATO should develop the means to use cognitive warfare to get ahead of China and Russia. There is far from any proof that either countries are developing cognitive warfare capabilities, with reports of information warfare being falsely labelled as “cognitive warfare.” The NATO Association of Canada has even admitted that cognitive warfare is “one of the hottest topics” for the military alliance.
The fact that NATO is lying about the ambitions of its enemies when it comes to developmental warfare is not surprising. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO has repeatedly exaggerated the threat of Russia in order to expand its influence eastward. Could the US government use these false pretexts in order to convince the public that cognitive control over our minds is necessary to defend ourselves? If you think that’s far fetched, then just look at how successful the government was in pushing for vaccines on children. Despite the overwhelming evidence that vaccines for children are unnecessary (studies have shown children are more likely to die from the vaccine than COVID-19 itself), the government has successfully manipulated a large portion of the public into believing they are indeed necessary. In the future, will some people be convinced to willingly volunteer to have chips placed in their heads, in order to protect themselves from “Russian cognitive attacks”?
Speaking to the South China Morning Post, Lu Li-shih, a former teacher at the Republic of China Naval Academy, said: “This staged photograph is definitely ‘cognitive warfare’ to show the US doesn’t regard the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] as an immediate threat. “In the photo, Commander Briggs looks very relaxed with his feet up watching the Liaoning ship just a few thousand yards away, while his deputy is also sitting beside him, showing they take their PLA counterparts lightly.” One Hong Kong newspaper reported that the photo sent one clear message to China: “We’re watching you.” The image comes as the US and the Philippines begin two weeks of military drills in a show of force against China after hundreds of ships anchored off Whitsun reef last month.
COGNITIVE WARFARE
By Emily Bienvenue, Zac Rogers & Sian Troath May 14, 2019– THE COVE (Australian Defense publication)
The term cognitive warfare has entered the lexicon over the last couple of years. General David L. Goldfein (United States Air Force) remarked last year we are “transitioning from wars of attrition to wars of cognition”. Neuroscientist James Giordano has described the human brain as the battlefield of the 21st Century. Cognitive warfare represents the convergence of all that elements that have lived restlessly under the catch-all moniker of Information Warfare (IW) since the term’s emergence in the 1990s. However, military and intelligence organisations now grappling with this contentious new concept are finding cognitive warfare to be something greater than, or as Gestalt intended, different than, the sum of these parts. Cognitive warfare is IW with something added. As we begin to understand more about what has been added, awareness is growing that western military and intelligence organisations may have been caught playing the wrong game.
As Martin Libicki explained, IW burst onto the scene in the early 1990s in line with the shift from attrition-based to effects-based operations and the increasingly digitised and networked infrastructure underpinning contemporary warfare. It overarched lines of effort in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), electronic warfare (EW), psychological operations (PSYOPS), and cyber operations that in general raised the need to contend for and take advantage of control of information flows. These elements overlapped but remained disparate and lacked a unified concept and unity of effort. Despite the desire for integration being an ever-present agenda item, such unity did not eventuate and the individual streams continued to evolve, driven by more-or-less separate military and intelligence communities of interest.
The various elements under the IW construct were largely pursued throughout the ensuing period as adjuncts in support of objectives defined by the traditional remit of military organisations – namely, to deliver lethal kinetic effects on the battlefield. The War on Terror provided an unconventional sandbox for the refining of IW elements; but again, little impetus emerged for their drawing together under a unified concept. Influence operations across both cyber and human terrains remained episodic and an adjunct to a kinetic main effort – even while the separation between victory on the battlefield and the capacity for enduring political successes became starker. The disconnect should have been more unnerving for Western military organisations. The capacity for an adversary to contend for battlefield victory below the threshold of conventional conflict is only one aspect of asymmetry. The disconnect raises the more fundamental question of why, if battlefield superiority was demonstrably not resulting in political success, would a conventionally inferior opponent pursue such a pathway at all? What if strategic success – the causing of a preferable behaviour change in those with which we contend – could bypass the traditional battlefield altogether?
For the nation-state adversaries of the US and its allies, the disconnect provided an opportunity to observe and to learn. While the ‘winning without fighting’ ethos is a well understood heuristic of Chinese strategic culture, as Wirtz has suggested also, Russian strategic culture has consistently excelled at imagining some of the non-intuitive and strategic level implications of technological change. Much more than mere opportunism, Russia’s unfavourable geo-strategic circumstances, combined with its deep distrust of US intentions, forced it to render strategic level gains from a weakening hand. Here-in lies the temporary advantage it gained in finding and filling the gap between IW and cognitive warfare. As Clint Watts has surmised, where IW described a war ofinformation, the cognitive battlespace is a war for information as it is transformed into knowledge via the processes of cognition. The technologies of the networked digital age, conceived by the US and its allies as an accumulation of advantages on the conventional battlefield, and unleashed by the clamour for profit of the commercial sector, were transformed into a strategic gift for an imaginative adversary and thus presents us with the current dilemma. The convergence of IW into cognitive warfare has been forced upon us.
This gift emerged in the mid-2000s with the advent of hyper-connectivity, largely a product of the social media phenomenon and its attendant business model based on accessing the constant attention of the human brain. This phenomenon created the bridge between IW and cognitive war which has been exploited by an unscrupulous adversary. Hyper-connectivity created the opportunity to transform IW from a set of episodic activities, largely associated with operational lines-of-effort by military and intelligence practitioners in support of lethal and kinetic effects on the battlefield, into a single continuous effort to disrupt and deny the cognitive conditions in which whole societies are situated. Cognitive warfare gathers together the instruments of IW and takes us into the realm of ‘neuro-weapons’ – defined by Giordano as “anything that accesses the brain to contend against others”. When coordinated and directed at open liberal democratic societies, cognitive warfare has paid off in spades. The capacity of open societies to function – to sustain and renew the narratives upon which their superior material strength relies – gets quickly scrambled when certain cognitive processes are exposed to manipulation.
It remains an item of curiosity how American and allied military and strategic culture, imbued as it is with the insights of John Boyd and many others, has been slow to recognise the shift in orientation. Boyd’s OODA loop may be one of the most bastardised concepts in modern military strategy, but its central insights are absolutely prescient for the age of cognitive warfare. The loop’s second “O” – Orientation – subsumes each of its other points. Getting orientation wrong, no matter how well an actor can Observe, how quickly they can Decide, and how concisely they can Act, can nonetheless mean the actor is caught playing the wrong game. It centrality is made patently clear for anyone who actually reads Boyd, or any of a number of good biographies of his work. It is imperative that this strategic culture understands the way in which its own orientation has been turned against it.
As digitised and networked warfare has matured and evolved over the last 25 years into its contemporary iteration of Multi-Domain Battle (MDB), it has pursued better observation through superior ISR, better decision-making through big data and machine learning, and better action through the constant advance of military-technical capabilities. Its orientation, however, has remained the same. As Albert Palazzo has iterated, MDB remains oriented toward a military problem solvable by lethal kinetic means in which political success is considered as a follow-on phase and to which influence operations across cyber and human terrain remain adjunct lines of effort. What is becoming clearer is that the age of cognitive warfare is highlighting the joints and fissures in this basic construct to an unprecedented extent. General Michael Hayden has made this point in his 2018 book, The Assault on Intelligence.
Cognitive warfare presents us with an orientation problem. Adversary actors have strategised to avoid a confrontation with US and allied forces at their strongest point – namely, in high intensity conventional warfare. They have pursued gains in various domains that remain under the threshold of inducing a conventional military response. While US and allied forces have mused over ways to bolster below-the-threshold capabilities, the adversary has been busy changing the rules of the meta-contest. By denying, disrupting, and countering the narratives that underpin US and allied legitimacy, and by stifling our capacity to regenerate the preferred narrative via sophisticated and targeted disinformation operations, the adversary has changed the context within which force and the threat of force is situated. In other words, the diplomatic power of the traditional force-in-being of allied militaries to influence the behaviour of others is being diminished. Furthermore, the actual deployment of lethal kinetic capabilities will be subject to a similar reorientation where and when they occur. Simply put, lethal kinetic capability, as the traditional remit of military organisations, has undergone a reorientation at the hands of an adversary enabled by the hyper-connected digital age to manipulate its context to an unprecedented extent.
Cognitive war is not the fight most professional military practitioners wanted. A little discussed aspect is the extent to which our military and strategic culture perceives it as a deeply dishonourable fight. A cultural bias – if not a genuine cognitive blind spot – is at work and has slowed our response. But national security, before it is about winning kinetic battles and before it is centred on the profession of arms, is at its core about ensuring that people are safe to live their lives: it is about keeping the peace and protecting the population from harmful interference. This includes the harm that disrupts our capacity to conduct our collective social, economic, and political lives on our own terms.
About the Authors:
Emily Bienvenue, Zac Rogers & Sian Troath
Dr Emily Bienvenue is a Senior Analyst in the Defence Science and Technology Group’s, Joint and Operations Analysis Division. Her research interests include trust as a strategic resource, the changing nature of warfare, and competition below the threshold of conflict.
The views expressed here are her own and do not represent the official view of the Australian Defence Department.
Zac Rogers is a senior researcher at the Centre for United States and Asia Policy Studies and PhD candidate at the College of Business, Government, and Law, Flinders University of South Australia.
Sian Troath is a PhD candidate at Flinders University, and a combined Flinders University-DST Group research associate working on Modelling Complex Warfighting (MCW) Strategic Response (SR) 4 – Modelling Complex Human Systems. Her areas of expertise are international relations theory, trust theory, Australian foreign policy, Australia-Indonesia relations, and Anglo-American relations.
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Australian Army, the Department of Defence or the Australian Government.
Ownership of mainstream media and popular social media is imperative to control desired narrative during psychological and military operations. In the last 30 years, it has been the accessibility and freedom of the internet which has been invaluable for the communication of independent and objective analysis which is often evidence-based rather than information used in cognitive warfare for perception manipulation.
We now live in a time where the powers that shouldn’t be are scrambling to find methods to disrupt these free lines of communication without appearing to be an all-out assault on freedom-of-speech; so the current methodology is slow implementation of concepts like “community standards” violations to shut down people who are often disseminating information that government does not want communicated. When a new forum is formed that allows freedom of speech—that forum quickly attracts attention and efforts are quickly made to either buy out the forum and disparage it publicly — sometimes labeling it as politically “right-wing” which automatically loses most users who may identify as politically “left-wing.”
With the popular accessibility of the internet starting in the 1990s, the exchanges of information and ideas have been facilitated throughout the globe. Before internet popularity, channels of information were mainly held by mainstream media corporations. In the last twenty-five years, billions of people worldwide have been exchanging information instantly outside of official government and corporate filters. These developments have fractured the monopoly on information once held by government and corporations on behalf of elite interests worldwide.
A significant percentage of the global population still blindly trusts corporate mainstream media and prestigious academic sources of news and information without verification. These same people instinctively avoid ‘alternative’ sources of news and information. However, a growing number of people have awoken to the realization that mainstream media sources of information are agenda-driven and often purposely deceiving while engaging in systemic censorship. These are the people more inclined to seek alternative sources of information and communicate using channels free from corporate and academic monopolies. The current battle to disturb and eventually shut down these channels are extremely important to one-world-government social-engineers. This is a major battleground in today’s cognitive warfare.
As we enter the mid-2020s, it will likely be increasingly difficult to freely exchange evidence-based and independent research and analysis on the internet. There is a cognitive war against freedom of information in the emerging totalitarian global scheme. Unlike conventional warfare, cognitive warfare is everywhere a communication device is used. Independent researchers, analysts, and journalists are being disrupted and banned from forums like YouTube and Facebook.
To counteract cognitive warfare and ultimately avoid a one-world-government dystopia—engage your neighbors and build local and personal relationships of information exchange and commerce as opposed to relying on long-distance electronic communications. Get off the grid as much as possible and reverse the psyop of ‘social-distancing’ that the Covid-19 operation has promoted for the last year and a half.
OTHER ANGLES
Cognitive Electronic Warfare: Conceptual Design and Architecture – 2020
Computing revolution is heralding the transition from digital to cognitive that is the third significant era in the history of computer technology: the cognitive era. It is about the use of computers to mimic human thought processes, such as perception, memory, learning and decision-making in highly dynamic environments. In recent years, there is a growing research interest in the development of cognitive capabilities in radio frequency technologies. Using cognition-based techniques, a radar system would be able to perceive its operational environment, fine-tune and accordingly adjust its emission parameters, such as the pulse width, pulse repetition interval, and transmitter power, to perform its assigned task optimally. It is certain that traditional electronic warfare (EW) methods, which rely on pre-programmed attack strategies, will not be able to efficiently engage with such a radar threat. Therefore, the next generation of EW systems needs to be enhanced with cognitive abilities so that they can make autonomous decisions in response to changing situations, and cope with new, unknown radar signals. Because the system architecture is a blueprint, this paper presents a conceptual cognitive EW architecture that carries out both electronic support and electronic attack operations to synthesize close-to-optimal countermeasures subject to performance goals.
The cognitive warfare: Aspects of new strategic thinking
Combining the strategic observations on revolutionary war – those made by Colonel Trinquier during the war in Algeria, in particular–with US strategy regarding information warfare, the authors Harbulot and Lucas, leading experts at the French École de guerre économique, and Moinet, Director of the DESS (Intelligence économique et développement des Entreprises) – place their emphasis on the profoundly innovative and strategic role played by information warfare and on its implications for companies. Naturally enough, it emerges with clarity that the authors’ intention is to utilize cognitive warfare in defense of the interests of French companies against their US competitors.
It is undeniable – in the opinion of the authors – that the date of September 11, 2001, represented a change in strategic thinking of fundamental importance. Undoubtedly, the war in the Persian Gulf, the US military intervention in Somalia, and the conflicts in former Yugoslavia had already presaged – even if in terms not yet precisely defined – an evolution of military strategy in the direction of newer strategic scenarios. It is enough to consider – the authors observe – that at the time of the invasion of Kuwait, US public opinion was mobilized following a disinformation process planned at military level or more exactly, at psychological warfare level. In this regard, it is sufficient to recall how the televised landing of US troops on the beaches of Mogadishu, the televised lynching of a US Army soldier enabled the marginalization of the politico-military dimension of the civil war in progress. Yet the importance ascribed to the manipulation of information was determined by the conviction – which proved to be correct – that the absolute mastery of the production of knowledge both upstream (the educational system) and downstream (Internet, media audio-visual means) can ensure – the authors emphasize – the long-lasting legitimacy of the control of world affairs.
Yet in light of the American political-military choices and reflections on the revolutionary war in Algeria, French strategy felt the need to define in strict terms exactly what information warfare is. First of all, the expression used in the context of French strategy is the one of cognitive warfare defined as the capacity to use knowledge for the purpose of conflict. In this regard, it is by no mere chance that Rand Corporation information warfare specialists John Arquilla and David Rundfeldt assert the domination of information to be fundamental to American strategy. Secondly, the ample and systematic use of information warfare by the US creates the need – in geographical-strategic terms–for the European Union to do some serious thinking on cognitive warfare. On the other hand, the absence of legal regulation of manipulation of knowledge in the architecture of security inherited at the end of the Cold War can only lead to serious concern above all for economic security of European companies and must consequently bring about the formulation of a strategy of dissuasion and the use of subversive techniques that must be capable of creating barriers against attempts at destabilization.
The work is primarily done by CISA, a DHS sub-agency tasked with protecting critical national infrastructure.
DHS, the FBI, and several media entities are having biweekly meetings as recently as August.
DHS considered countering disinformation relating to content that undermines trust in financial systems and courts.
The FBI agent who primed social media platforms to take down the Hunter Biden laptop story continued to have a role in DHS policy discussions.
Jen Easterly, Biden’s appointed director of CISA, swiftly made it clear that she would continue to shift resources in the agency to combat the spread of dangerous forms of information on social media. “One could argue we’re in the business of critical infrastructure, and the most critical infrastructure is our cognitive infrastructure, so building that resilience to misinformation and disinformation, I think, is incredibly important,” said Easterly, speaking at a conference in November 2021.
The Intercept
If it is the job of the US intelligence cartel to regulate society's cognitive infrastructure, then it is the job of healthy human beings to disrupt the cognitive infrastructure.https://t.co/KXrmaHX4SJ
A. Gliozzo, C. Ackerson, R. Bhattacharya, A. Goering, A. Jumba, S. Y. Kim, L. Krishnamurthy, T. Lam, A. Littera, I. McIntosh, S. Murthy and M. Ribas. (2017, Jun.). Building Cognitive Applications with IBM Watson Services: Volume 1 Getting Started. [On-line]. IBM Redbooks. Available: http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg248387.pdf [Dec. 10, 2020].
A. J. Butt, N. A. Butt, A. Mazhar, Z. Khattak and J. A. Sheikh. “The soar of cognitive architectures”. In Proc. 2013 International Conference on Current Trends in Information Technology, 2013, pp. 135-142.
C. D. Wickens and J. G. Hollands. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2000.
C. F. Beckmann and S. M. Smith. “Probabilistic independent component analysis for functional magnetic resonance imaging”. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 23, pp. 137-152, Feb. 2004.
C. Horne, M. Ritchie and H. Griffiths. “Proposed ontology for cognitive radar systems”, IET Radar, Sonar and Navigation, vol.12, pp. 1363-1370, Dec. 2018.
C. Tromp. “The diffusion and implementation of innovation”, Innovative Studies: International Journal, vol. 2, pp. 18-30, Dec. 2012.
D. A. Norman. “Cognitive engineering and education”, in Problem Solving and Education: Issues in Teaching and Research. D. T. Tuma, and F. Reif, Eds. New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 1980, pp. 81–95.
D. D. Woods and E. Roth. “Cognitive engineering: Human problem solving with tools”, Human Factors, vol. 30, pp. 415–430, Apr. 1988.
D. M. Zasada, J. J. Santapietro and L. D. Tromp. “Implementation of a cognitive radar perception/action cycle”. In Proc. 2014 IEEE Radar Conference, 2014, pp. 544-547.
D. Norman. The Design of Everyday Things, Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Basic Books, 2013.
G. E. Smith, Z. Cammenga, A. Mitchell, K. L. Bell, J. Johnson, M. Rangaswamy and C. Baker. “Experiments with cognitive radar”. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, vol. 31, pp. 34-46, Dec. 2016.
G. Pettersson. “An Illustrated Overview of ESM and ECM Systems”. MSc. thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, United States, 1993.
G. Zhang, H. Rong and W. Jin. “Intra-pulse modulation recognition of unknown radar emitter signals using support vector clustering”, in Proc. 3rd International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, 2006, pp. 420-429.
J. E. Kelly III and S. Hamm. Smart Machines: IBM’s Watson and the Era of Cognitive Computing. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013.
J. Friedenberg and G. Silverman. Cognitive Science: An Introduction to the Study of Mind. Sage Publications, 2006.
J. Guerci, R. M. Guerci, M. Rangaswamy, J. Bergin and M. Wicks. “CoFAR: Cognitive fully adaptive radar”. in Proc. IEEE Radar Conference, 2014, pp. 984-989.
J. Guerci. Cognitive Radar: The Knowledge-Aided Fully Adaptive Approach. Norwood, MA: Artech House, 2010.
J. Konwles. “Regaining the advantage – Cognitive electronic warfare”. The Journal of Electronic Defense, vol. 39, pp. 56-62, Dec. 2016.
J. M. Fuster. Cortex and Mind: Unifying Cognition. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2003.
J. Mitola III and G. Q. Maguire, Jr. “Cognitive radio: Making software radios more personal”, IEEE Personal Communications Magazine, vol. 6, pp. 13-18, Apr. 1999.
J. Pang, Y. Lin and X. Xu. “An improved feature extraction algorithm of radiation source based on multiple fractal theory”. International Journal of Signal Processing, Image Processing and Pattern Recognition, vol.7 pp. 237-242, Jan. 2014.
J. R. Anderson. “Is human cognition adaptive?”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 14, pp. 471–485, Mar. 1991.
J. Wang. Associative Memory Cells: Basic Units of Memory Trace. Springer, 2019.
K. Krishnan, T. Schwering and S. Sarraf. (2016, May). “Cognitive dynamic systems: A technical review of cognitive radar”, arXiv:1605.08150. [On-line]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.08150 [Dec. 10, 2020].
K. L. Bell, C. J. Baker, G. E. Smith, J. T. Johnson and M. Rangaswamy. “Cognitive radar framework for target detection and tracking”, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 9, pp. 1427-1439, Aug. 2015.
L. E. Brennan and I. S. Reed. “Theory of adaptive radar”. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. AES-9, pp. 237-252, Feb. 1973.
M. A. Brandimonte, N. Bruno and S. Collina. “Cognition”. in Psychological Concepts: An International Historical Perspective. K. Pawlik and G. d’Ydewalle, Eds. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 2006, pp. 11-26.
M. E. Khan, S. G. M. Shadab and F. Khan. “Empirical study of software development life cycle and its various models”, International Journal of Software Engineering, vol. 8, pp. 16-26, Jun. 2020.
M. S. Greco, F. Gini, P. Stinco and K. Bell. “Cognitive radar: A reality?”, arXiv:1803.01000. [On-line]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.01000 [Dec. 10, 2020].
N. S. Lanjewar and D. Rane. “Cognitive computing applications”, in Proc. 2nd National Conference of Recent Trends in Computer Science and Information Technology, vol. 5, 2019, pp. 54-59.
P. Gärdenfors and A. Wallin. A Smorgasbord of Cognitive Science, Bokförlaget, Nora: Nya Doxa, 2008.
Q. Wei, Q. Xu, Y. Pan and G. Zhange. “A novel method for sorting unknown radar emitter”. In Proc. 2009 IEEE International Workshop on Intelligent Systems and Applications, 2009, 4 pages.
R. Adams. “Cognitive science meets computing science: The future of cognitive systems and cognitive engineering”, in Proc. of 31st International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, 2009, pp. 1-12.
R. J. Anderson. Security Engineering — Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Pub, 2008.
S. Andrews and M. Sheppard. “Software architecture erosion: Impacts, causes, and management”. International Journal of Computer Science and Security, vol. 14, pp. 82-93, Jun. 2020.
S. Banerjee, J. Santos, M. Hempel and H. Sharif. “A new railyard safety approach for detection and tracking of personnel and dynamic objects using software-defined radar”. in Proc. 2018 Joint Rail Conference, 2018, pp.1-10.
S. Feng, P. Setoodeh and S. Haykin. “Smart home: Cognitive interactive people-centric Internet of things”. IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 55, pp. 34-39, Feb. 2017.
S. Haykin, Cognitive Dynamic Systems: Perception–Action Cycle, Radar, and Radio. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Press, 2012.
S. Haykin, Y. Xue and P. Setoodeh. “Cognitive radar: Step toward bridging the gap between neuroscience and engineering”, in Proc. of the IEEE, vol. 100, pp. 3102–3130, Nov. 2012.
S. Haykin. “Cognition is the key to the next generation of radar systems,” in Proc. 13th IEEE Digital Signal Processing Workshop and 5th IEEE Signal Processing Education Workshop, 2009, pp. 463–467.
S. Haykin. “Cognitive radar: A way of the future”, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 23, pp. 30-40, Jan. 2006.
S. Haykin. “Cognitive radar” in Knowledge Based Radar Detection, Tracking and Classification. F. Gini and M. Rangaswamy, Eds. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 9-30. 2008.
S. Holtel. “Artificial intelligence creates a wicked problem for the enterprise”. Procedia Computer Science, vol. 99, pp. 171-180, 2016.
S. Kuzdeba, A. Radlbeck and M. Anderson. “Performance Metrics for Cognitive Electronic Warfare – Electronic Support Measures,” in Proc. 2018 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), 2018, pp. 151-156.
S. Nirenburg. “Cognitive systems as explanatory artificial intelligence” in Language Production, Cognition, and the Lexicon. N. Gala, R. Rapp and G. Bel-Enguix, Eds. Springer, 2015, pp. 37-49.
V. N. Gudivada, “Data analytics: Fundamentals”. in Data Analytics for Intelligent Transportation Systems. M. Chowdhury, A. Apon and K. Dey, Eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc., 2017, pp. 31 – 67.
W. L. Melvin and M. C. Wicks. “Improving practical space-time adaptive radar”. in Proc. 1997 IEEE National Radar Conference, 1997, pp. 48–53.
Y. Zhang, G. Si and Y. Wang. “Modelling and simulation of cognitive electronic attack under the condition of system-of-systems combat”, Defense Science Journal, vol. 70, pp. 183-189, Mar. 2020,
Z. W. Pylyshyn. “Computing in cognitive science”, in Foundations of Cognitive Science. M. I. Posner, Ed. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1989, pp. 49-92.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
I can’t find the irony because I’m distracted by the facts. The highlights in the text are mine, they are the key.
Flipping a Switch Inside the Head
With new technology, scientists are able to exert wireless control over brain cells of mice with just the push of a button. The first thing they did was make the mice hungry.
By W. Wayt Gibbs, APRIL 1, 2017
READY YOUR TINFOIL HATS—mind control is not as far-fetched an idea as it may seem. In Jeffrey M. Friedman’s laboratory, it happens all the time, though the subjects are mice, not people.
Friedman and his colleagues have demonstrated a radio-operated remote control for the appetite and glucose metabolism of mice—a sophisticated technique to wirelessly alter neurons in the animals’ brains. At the flick of a switch, they are able to make mice hungry—or suppress their appetite—while the mice go about their lives normally. It’s a tool they are using to unravel the neurological basis of eating, and it is likely to have applications for studies of other hard-wired behaviors.
Friedman, Marilyn M. Simpson Professor, has been working on the technique for several years with Sarah Stanley, a former postdoc in his lab who now is assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and collaborators at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Aware of the limitations of existing methods for triggering brain cells in living animals, the group set out to invent a new way. An ideal approach, they reasoned, would be as noninvasive and non-damaging as possible. And it should work quickly and repeatedly.
Although there are other ways to deliver signals to neurons, each has its limitations. In deep-brain stimulation, for example, scientists thread a wire through the brain to place an electrode next to the target cells. But the implant can damage nearby cells and tissues in ways that interfere with normal behavior. Optogenetics, which works similarly but uses fiber optics and a pulse of light rather than electricity, has the same issue. A third strategy—using drugs to activate genetically modified cells bred into mice—is less invasive, but drugs are slow to take effect and wear off.
The solution that Friedman’s group hit upon, referred to as radiogenetics or magnetogenetics, avoids these problems. With their method, published last year in Nature, biologists can turn neurons on or off in a live animal at will—quickly, repeatedly, and without implants—by engineering the cells to make them receptive to radio waves or a magnetic field.
“In effect, we created a perceptual illusion that the animal had a drop in blood sugar.”
“We’ve combined molecules already used in cells for other purposes in a manner that allows an invisible force to take control of an instinct as primal as hunger,” Friedman says.
The method links five very different biological tools, which can look whimsically convoluted, like a Rube Goldberg contraption on a molecular scale. It relies on a green fluorescent protein borrowed from jellyfish, a peculiar antibody derived from camels, squishy bags of iron particles, and the cellular equivalent of a door made from a membrane-piercing protein—all delivered and installed by a genetically engineered virus. The remote control for this contraption is a modified welding tool (though a store-bought magnet also works).
The researchers’ first challenge was to find something in a neuron that could serve as an antenna to detect the incoming radio signal or magnetic field. The logical choice was ferritin, a protein that stores iron in cells in balloon-like particles just a dozen nanometers wide. Iron is essential to cells but can also be toxic, so it is sequestered in ferritin particles until it is needed. Each ferritin particle carries within it thousands of grains of iron that wiggle around in response to a radio signal, and shift and align when immersed in a magnetic field. We all have these particles shimmying around inside our brain cells, but the motions normally have no effect on neurons.
Friedman and Stanley, with equipment they use to send radio waves. Photo by Zachary Veilleux
Friedman’s team realized that they could use a genetically engineered virus to create doorways into a neuron’s outer membrane. If they could then somehow attach each door to a ferritin particle, they reasoned, they might be able to wiggle the ferritin enough to jostle the door open. “The ‘door’ we chose is called TRPV1,” says Stanley. “Once TRPV1 is activated, calcium and sodium ions would next flow into the cell and trigger the neuron to fire.” The bits borrowed from camels and jellyfish provided what the scientists needed to connect the door to the ferritin (see How to outfit a brain sidebar, right).
Once the team had the new control mechanism working, they put it to the test. For Friedman and Stanley, whose goal is to unravel the biological causes of overeating and obesity, the first application was obvious: Try to identify specific neurons involved in appetite. The group modified glucose-sensing neurons—cells that are believed to monitor blood sugar levels in the brain and keep them within normal range—to put them under wireless control. To accomplish this, they inserted the TRPV1 and ferritin genes into a virus and—using yet another genetic trick—injected them into the glucose-sensing neurons. They could then fiddle with the cells to see whether they are involved, as suspected, in coordinating feeding and the release of hormones, such as insulin and glucagon, that keep blood glucose levels in check.
HOW TO OUTFIT A BRAIN FOR RADIO CONTROL Scientists have come up with a clever way to control neurons via radio by cobbling together genes from humans, camels, and jellyfish. They use an engineered virus to install a door into each target neuron’s outer membrane, then jostle the door open using ferritin particles that respond to strong radio signals. Once the door opens, calcium ions pour into the cell and trigger the neuron to fire. 1. To install the radiogenetics system into neurons, the scientists equipped an adenovirus with the various genes needed to make the system work. Then they squirted the modified virus onto the brain cells they wanted to alter. 2. One of the added genes produces TRPV1, a protein that normally helps cells detect heat and motion. Within each neuron, the TRPV1 protein (pink) embeds itself into the cell’s outer membrane. Like a door, it can change shape to open or shut an ion channel. To add a knob to the door, the researchers stitched TRPV1 to a “nanobody” (violet)—an unusually simple variety of antibody found in camels. 3. Iron-filled ferritin particles (green) serve as the system’s sensor. To allow them to grab onto the nanobody doorknob, the researchers tacked on a gene for GFP—a jellyfish protein that glows green under ultraviolet light. By design, the nanobody and GFP stick together tightly. The system is now connected. When exposed to strong radio waves or magnetic fields, the ferritin particles wiggle, the ion channel opens, and calcium ions (red) flow in to activate the cell.
Once the virus had enough time to infect and transform the target neurons, the researchers switched on a radio transmitter tuned to 465 kHz, a little below the band used for AM radio.
The neurons responded. They began to fire, signaling a shortage of glucose even though the animal’s blood sugar levels were normal. And other parts of the body responded just as they would to a real drop in blood sugar: insulin levels fell, the liver started pumping out more glucose, and the animals started eating more. “In effect,” Friedman says, “we created a perceptual illusion that the animal had low blood glucose even though the levels were normal.”
Inspired by these results, the researchers wondered if magnetism, like radio waves, might trigger ferritin to open the cellular doors. It did: When the team put the mice cages close to an MRI machine, or waved a rare-earth magnet over the animals, their glucose-sensing neurons were triggered.
Stimulating appetite is one thing. Could they also suppress it? The group tweaked the TRPV1 gene so it would pass chloride, which acts to inhibit neurons. Now when they inserted the modified TRPV1 into the neurons, the rush of chloride made the neurons behave as if the blood was overloaded with glucose. Insulin production surged in the animals, and they ate less. “This seems to indicate clearly that the brain as well as the pancreas is involved in glucose regulation,” Friedman says.
Friedman and Stanley hope that biologists will be able to use the remote-control system to tackle a range of neural processes other than appetite. And beyond being a basic research tool, the method could potentially lead to novel therapies for brain disorders.
For example, one could imagine using it to treat Parkinson’s disease or essential tremor—conditions that are sometimes treated by deep brain stimulation, via wires implanted into patients’ brains and connected to a battery pack tucked into the chest. Potentially, it would be less invasive to inject the crippled virus into the same spot of the brain and let it permanently modify the cells there, making them responsive to wireless control.
In theory, it might also be possible to make a patient’s own cells receptive to electromagnetic waves by removing them from the body, delivering TRPV1 and ferritin, and then putting the cells back, Friedman says. This would be a protocol not unlike those currently used in stem cell treatments and some cancer immunotherapies, in which patients’ own cells are engineered and reimplanted back into their bodies.
At this point, however, the system’s clinical usefulness is a question of speculation. “We are a long way from using it in humans for medical treatments,” Friedman says. “Much would need to be done before it could even be tested.”
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
You may have heard of the famous Brain Mapping initiative by US Government / Pentagon / Darpa. It’s been widely publicized as a version of the Human Genome project, meant to bring countless health benefits. But both are proving lately to be falsely advertised.
2013
In 2018, an US journalist made a FOIA application regarding Antifa / BLM and received a surprise bonus, which went semi-viral and faded soon. I’m digging it up again for a new autopsy required in the light of the latest revelations regarding DARPA, The Brain Initiative and others. If you’re new to this site, I can’t recommend enough using the search engine to find our articles on DARPA, biohacking and mRNA technology.
And here’s the original 2018 article, that makes much more sense when you have the knowledge I pointed at just before.
Washington State Fusion Center accidentally releases records on remote mind control
Written by Curtis Waltman for Muckrock Magazine, April 18, 2018
As part of a request for records on Antifa and white supremacist groups, WSFC inadvertently bundles in “EM effects on human body.zip”
When you send thousands of FOIA requests, you are bound to get some very weird responses from time to time. Recently, we here at MuckRock had one of our most bizarre gets yet – Washington State Fusion Center’s accidental release of records on the effects of remote mind control.
Hmmm. What could that be? What does EM stand for and what is it doing to the human body? So I opened it up and took a look:
When I first saw this on Internet I wasn’t impressed much either, seemed orphan. Now you have the context.
Hell yeah, dude.
EM stands for electromagnetic. What you are looking at here is “psycho-electronic” weapons that purportedly use electromagnetism to do a wide variety of horrible things to people, such as reading or writing your mind, causing intense pain, “rigor mortis,” or most heinous of all, itching.
Now to be clear, the presence of these records (which were not created by the fusion center, and are not government documents) should not be seen as evidence that DHS possesses these devices, or even that such devices actually exist. Which is kind of unfortunate because “microwave hearing” is a pretty cool line of technobabble to say out loud.
You know what’s even cooler? “Remote Brain Mapping.” It is insanely cool to say. Go ahead. Say it. Remote. Brain. Mapping.
Just check the detail on these slides too. The black helicopter shooting off its psychotronic weapons, mapping your brain, broadcasting your thoughts back to some fusion center. I wish their example of “ELF Brain stimulation” was a little clearer though.
It’s difficult to source exactly where these images come from, but it’s obviously not government material. One seems to come from a person named “Supratik Saha,” who is identified as a software engineer, the brain mapping slide has no sourcing, and the image of the body being assaulted by psychotronic weapons is sourced from raven1.net, who apparently didn’t renew their domain.
It’s entirely unclear how this ended up in this release. It could have been meant for another release, it could have been gathered for an upcoming WSFC report, or it could even be from the personal files of an intelligence officer that somehow got mixed up in the release. A call to the WSFC went unreturned as of press time, so until we hear back, their presence remains a mystery.
We’ll keep you updated once we hear back, and you can download the files yourself on the request page. – Muckrock Magazine
I don’t know why it’s so hard for the author to link mind control to security threats control, which is in government’s job description as it is in our personal agenda, but then again, microwave hearing is “technobabble” to him.
I find it much more startling that REMOTE brain mapping is a thing!
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button! We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness. Get it here!
The producer behind “Armageddon,” “The Purge” and “A Quiet Place” has released a trailer for his upcoming feature film “Songbird.” It predicts a dire, snowballing disease mutation — COVID-23 — that has created a horrific hellscape by 2024. But to me, first thing it reminded of is one of the first videos I edited for Silview.media. So I put them together in a new video.
Songbird is billed as a “terrifying thriller” and the “first feature film to be made during COVID-19 in Los Angeles, and about the pandemic itself”. The official press-release reads:
“The COVID-23 virus has mutated and the world is in its fourth year of lockdown. Infected Americans are ripped from their homes and forced into quarantine camps known as Q-Zones, from which there is no escape, as a few brave souls fight back against the forces of oppression.”
In July, the movie was hit with a “do not work” order from the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) because of concerns about coronavirus safety protocols.
And the first question it raised to me was: Predictive programming?
UPDATE
Looks like my instincts don’t lie, if I know how to listen
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Ladies and gents, I’m premiering a new show and SILVIEW.media 2.0 Huge production effort, considering the modest tech I can afford, almost gave up a couple of times, but here we are, worth it if you like it! Self-explanatory material, all I need is to remind you that it’s starving for your love, don’t forget to give it a like and a share if you do enjoy it Ah, well, also worth mentioning it’s made for phones, if you’re using one right now, keep it vertical and play full screen and full volume for full effect. It’s as fun as it’s serious, hope it makes your day a tad better!
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
According to Wikipedia (which is not reliable source in itself, but is an ok conversation starter here), isolation “reduces the opportunity of the abused to be rescued or escape from the abuse. It also helps disorientate the abused and makes the abused more dependent on the abuser. The degree of power and control over the abused is contingent upon the degree of their physical or emotional isolation.”
An important element of psychological control is the isolation of the victim from the outside world. Isolation includes controlling a person’s social activity: whom they see, whom they talk to, where they go and any other method to limit their access to others. It may also include limiting what material is read. It can include insisting on knowing where they are and requiring permission for medical care. The abuser exhibits hypersensitive and reactive jealousy.”
Isolation can be aided by:
economic abuse thus limiting the victim’s actions as they may then lack the necessary resources to resist or escape from the abuse
smearing or discrediting the abused amongst their community so the abused does not get help or support from others
Isolation is mentioned by BigThink as one of the four main methods of recruitment for cults: “Once they’ve enticed a recruit with approval or the promise of some fulfilling understanding of the universe, cultists then work to isolate the recruit. Often, this takes the form of a weekend retreat, where the recruit is immersed in the cult’s ideology over the course of a few days. Not only are recruits physically isolated from friends and family members who might otherwise provide a reality check, but cults often isolate recruits from outside information. Newspapers, books, TV, and web access are all censured, ensuring that the only reality the recruit gets to experience is the one presented by the cult.”
“A psychiatric overview of cult-related phenomena” (PDF here) by LOUIS JOLYON WEST, M.D., published in 1993, has a lot to say about isolation and cultism:
According to LJ West, “successful indoctrination of a cult member often includes many elements similar to political indoctrination as described by Schein (1961). The following is a list of stressors known to increase the captive’s or the recruit’s vulnerability and could apply to either circumstance:
isolation of the subject and manipulation of subject’s environment;
control over channels of communication and information;
debilitation through sleep loss, fatigue, or inadequate diet;
degradation or diminution of the self;
induction of uncertainty, fear, and confusion, with joy and certainty through surrender to the group as the goal;
alternation of harshness and leniency in a context of discipline;
peer pressure, often applied through ritualized struggle sessions, generating guilt and requiring confessions;
insistence by seemingly all-powerful hosts that the recruit’s survival — physical, mental, or spiritual — depends on identifying with the group;
assignment of monotonous tasks or repetitive activities, such as chanting, staring while immobilized, long chains of simple responses to simple commands, endless copying of written materials, and so on;
acts of symbolic betrayal or renunciation of self, family, and previously held values, designed to increase the psychological distance between the recruit and his/her previous way of life”
Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone. You can even eat some of them. CLICK HERE
Same source above provides that “young and elderly alike who are at loose ends are easy prey to those techniques and methods, which are often a combination of affection and deception (cf., the love-bom bing, the personality test, or the surrender). These techniques proceed from a positive approach but gradually achieve a type of mind control through the use of abusive behavior modification techniques. The following elements are to be listed:
• subtle process of introduction of the convert and his gradual discovery of the real hosts; • overpowering techniques: love-bombing, offering a free meal at an international center for friends, flirting-fishing technique (prostitution as a method of recruitment); • ready-made answers and decisions are being almost forced upon the recruits; • flattery; • distribution of money, medicine; • requirement of unconditional surrender to the initiator, leader; • isolation: control of rational thinking process, elimination of outside information and influence (family, friends, newspapers, magazines, television, radio, medical treatment, etc.) which might break the spell of involvement and the process of absorption of feelings and attitudes and patterns of behavior; • processing recruits away from their past lives; focusing on past deviant behavior such as drug use, sexual misdeeds; playing upon psychological hang-ups, poor social relationships, and so on; • consciousness-altering methods leading to cognitive disturbances (intellectual bombardment); use o f thought-stopping clichés, closed system of logic; restriction of reflective thinking; • keeping the recruits constantly busy and never alone; continual exhortation and training in order to arrive-at an exalted spiritual status, altered consciousness, automatic submission to directives; stifling resistance and negativity; response to fear in a way that greater fear is aroused; • strong focus on the leader; some groups may even downgrade the role of Christ in favor of the founder (in the case of some Christian sects). (Sects or New Religious Movements, 1986, pp. 10-11)”
A study from Cultic Studies Journal shows that cult members who fail to project the requisite facade (because, for example, they admit, usually with much guilt, to harboring doubts about the group) are attacked and punished, sometimes viciously. Those who persist in “failing through honesty” are, by one means or another, driven out of or ejected from the group. Those who succeed, whether without punishment or after punishment, do so because they learn to deceive themselves and others. They learn, much like hypnotic subjects exhibiting trance logic, how to convince themselves that the group is always right, even if it contradicts itself. Increasing isolation from the world outside the group, exhausting attention to activities serving the group, and hours practicing exercises that induce dissociative states (e.g., meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues) facilitate this splitting process, which in certain instances resembles what Lifton (1987) calls “doubling.” Psychological splitting enables members to adapt to the group’s double agenda, i.e., its contradictory sets of social rules. Members find themselves in a “loyalty/betrayal funnel” (MacDonald, 1988): if they remain loyal to their own perceptions about self and world, they betray the group on which they have become inordinately dependent; if they remain loyal to the group, they betray their own perception of what is real, good, and true. Dissent thus places members in a “funnel” from which there is no escape and which leads inevitably to betrayal either of themselves or the group. Hence, second-generation thought reform programs “attack the core sense of being — the central self-image, the very sense of realness and existence of the self. In contrast, the attack of first-generation programs is on a peripheral property of self, one’s political and social views” (Ofshe & Singer, 1986, p. 18). If second-generation programs, which operate in free, open societies, did not attack central elements of members’ selves, they would not survive. Information from outside the group would neutralize peripheral political and social indoctrination, much as it did to thought reform victims when they were released from captivity in Korea, China, and elsewhere.”
Temerlin and Temerlin’s early work involving trained therapists functioning as cult leaders identified the major features of the psychotherapy cults reported on here. They wrote:
charismatic psychotherapists can so manipulate the therapeutic relationship that they produce groups which function much like destructive religious cults. . .The techniques used by cult therapists. . .a) increase dependence, b) increase isolation, c) reduce critical thinking capacity, and d) discourage termination of therapy.
Temerlin, J.W., & Temerlin, M.K. (1986). Some hazards of the therapeutic relationship. Cultic Studies Journal, 3, 234-242.
Isolation is a common element of workplace bullying. It includes preventing access to opportunities, physical or social isolation, withholding necessary information, keeping the target out of the loop, ignoring or excluding.
Workplace isolation is a defined category in Dr. Deb Duthie’s “workplace power and control wheel” (PDF here)
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
SILVIEW.media 