Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Censorship Industrial Complex

CIA mind control never ended – it evolved and went mainstream

Published

18 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By James Corbett

From the CIA’s MKUltra to Britain’s COVID fear tactics, governments have spent decades perfecting psychological operations against their own people.

Surveying the battlefield

For thousands of years, military strategists have understood that an army’s success often depends not on its size or even on its armaments but on its knowledge of the opponent.

After all, as Sun Tzu observes:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

It follows, then, that the success of the globalists in their fifth-generation war on us all depends on their knowledge of humanity itself.

What makes people tick? What motivates and demotivates them? What stimuli do they respond to, and in what way do they respond?

From the viewpoint of those wishing to manipulate, control and subdue humanity, the knowledge of the human mind that can be gleaned from the answers to these questions is the most prized knowledge of all.

So, it shouldn’t be surprising to learn that not only scientific researchers but military planners and government officials have spent centuries trying to better understand humans and their behaviors – and, more importantly, how to mold, influence, shape, or outright control those behaviors.

Everyone knows about Ivan Pavlov’s experiments in conditioning. Any high schooler could tell you how Pavlov was able to condition dogs to salivate upon hearing the ringing of a dinner bell.

But how many know that Pavlov’s research didn’t end with his observation of canines? That he next began duplicating his experiments on human subjects? That those human experiments saw Pavlov and his protégé, Nikoli Krasnogorsky, scooping orphans off the streets, drugging them, surgically fitting them with salivation monitors and force-feeding them food so that these children, like Pavlov’s dogs, could be trained to salivate on command?

Source: “Ivan Pavlov Mechanics of the Brain 1926”

READ: Is the US Intelligence Community hiding secret weapons from the American public?

How many are familiar with the experimenters who followed in Pavlov’s footsteps? How many have seen the footage of John B. Watson’s “Little Albert” experiments, where the psychologist deliberately traumatized an 11-month-old baby in an attempt to refine the techniques of conditioning humans?

How many have read Watson himself bragging that “[a]fter conditioning, even the sight of the long whiskers of a Santa Claus mask sends the youngster scuttling away, crying and shaking his head from side to side”?

Source: Psychological care of infant and child by John B. Watson

How many have followed the thread from Pavlov and Watson and the “classical conditioning” researchers to the “radical behaviorists” like B. F. Skinner and his work in perfecting operant conditioning?

How many have read Skinner’s Walden Two, in which he proposes a scheme for creating a utopian society by conditioning children from birth to assume specific roles in society?

By this point, it’s fairly common knowledge that the CIA conducted mind control experiments like Project MKUltra, using operatives like Sidney Gottlieb and Dr. Ewan Cameron to administer LSD to unwitting subjects and conduct other ghoulish experiments in mental manipulation. But how many have heard of MKSearch or MKChickwit or MKOften or any of the other spin-offs of this nightmarish research?

How many know these experiments “were designed to destabilize human personality by creating behavior disturbances, altered sex patterns, aberrant behavior using sensory deprivation and various powerful stress-producing chemicals, and mind-altering substances” and were carried out on so-called “expendables” – i.e., “people whose death or disappearance would arouse no suspicion”?

How many have heard of George Brock Chisholm, who served as the first Director-General of the World Health Organization and helped spearhead the World Federation for Mental Health? How many have read the transcript of his 1945 lecture, “The Reestablishment of Peacetime Psychiatry,” in which he declared, “If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility”?

And how many are aware that Chisholm’s call to action was heeded by men like British military psychiatrist Colonel John Rawlings Rees, the first president of Chisholm’s World Federation of Mental Health and chair of the infamous Tavistock Institute from 1933 to 1947?

How many know the story of how Dr. Jim Mitchell – a military retiree and psychologist who had contracted to provide training services to the CIA – took the findings of Dr. Martin Seligman on the psychological phenomenon of “learned helplessness” and weaponized them for the CIA in the service of the agency’s post-9/11 illegal torture program?

Whether the general public is aware of this documented history or not, the record shows that the last 125 years of research into the human psyche has been conducted – or at least weaponized – by Machiavellian manipulators and secret schemers whose intent is to socially engineer the masses.

And, as the science of the mind progresses in the 21st century, these social engineering schemes are only getting more effective.

The information war

The alternative media has certainly had cause to note that we here in the 21st century are the (largely unwitting) targets of a large-scale information war. This war is being waged upon us largely (though not exclusively) by our own governments.

Occasionally, stories of some of the campaigns in this war break through the information blockade, and the public catches a glimpse of the battle that is being waged against them on all fronts.

Bemused Canadians, for example, were able to read about the Canadian military’s bizarre “wolf letter” psyop in the pages of The Ottawa Citizen back in 2021. But any concerns that might have been raised by this psyop and its wild story of forged government letters and recorded wolf noises were soon quelled by the usual establishment lapdog journalists.

The whole thing, we were told, was caused by “a handful of military reservists testing psychological tactics at a weekend exercise” and “new control measures are now in place to ensure psychological operation exercises and influence activities do not reach unintended audiences” – so, obviously there’s nothing more to worry about!

Residents of the U.K., meanwhile, got their own glimpse of the infowar in 2021 when members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour (SPI-B) – a group providing “independent, expert, social and behavioural science advice” to the U.K. government – admitted they were guilty of “using fear as a means of control.”

Tasked with providing insight on how to make Britons compliant with their government’s lockdown, social distancing, masking, and other restrictions at the beginning of the scamdemic, the SPI-B experts urged the government to increase “the perceived level of personal threat” from COVID-19. Multiple members of the SPI-B team later expressed regret about the scheme, calling it “totalitarian” and unethical.

One SPI-B member confessed: “You could call psychology ‘mind control.’ That’s what we do.”

Another put it even more bluntly: “Without a vaccine, psychology is your main weapon … Psychology has had a really good epidemic, actually.”

But to the extent that these operations ever come to public light, it is almost always in disconnected and decontextualized stories like these. Those Canadians who learned about the “wolf letter” psyop, for example, likely never read about the SPI-B scamdemic psyop, let alone connected the events together as evidence of the all-out infowar.

In recent years, however, the existence of the infowar has not only become undeniable. It is undenied.

The cognitive domain of the information battlespace

In 2022, the Associated Press published “‘Pre-bunking’ shows promise in fight against misinformation,” an article touting new research that claims to show progress in the creation of new weapons in the information war.

After detailing the usual examples of the scourge of “misinformation” – i.e., observations that erode public faith in “democratic institutions, journalism and science” – the article then reports uncritically on new techniques that are being developed to trick the public into once again trusting these demonstrably untrustworthy institutions:

New findings from university researchers and Google, however, reveal that one of the most promising responses to misinformation may also be one of the simplest.

In a paper published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, the researchers detail how short online videos that teach basic critical thinking skills can make people better able to resist misinformation.

The researchers created a series of videos similar to a public service announcement that focused on specific misinformation techniques – characteristics seen in many common false claims that include emotionally charged language, personal attacks or false comparisons between two unrelated items.

Researchers then gave people a series of claims and found that those who watched the videos were significantly better at distinguishing false information from accurate information.

Although research like that touted by the AP is ostensibly civilian in nature, the fact that this information campaign is part of a literal military battle that is being waged against us is now starting to be admitted, as well.

In 2023, for example, the Japanese military officially added the “cognitive domain” as the latest new battle domain added to Japan’s National Defense Program Guideline. In addition to the traditional domains of territorial land, water, and airspace, and to newly added domains like space, cyberspace, and the electrogmagnetic domain, Japan’s defense authorities now claim the cognitive space as part of their remit.

According to The Global Times:

The building of such cognitive capability would also be written into the National Security Strategy, one of the three major diplomatic and security documents to be amended before the end of 2022, VOA Chinese reported, citing the theory that the Japanese defense authorities and the Self-Defense Force attach great importance to the “misinformation” released by Russia and China, consider that information spread in the Chinese language is a global trend and that cognitive warfare by the island of Taiwan against the Chinese mainland provides valuable experience for research and study.

[…]

Analysts said that cognitive warfare is a combination of digital information, media and spy technology that leads public opinion to extremes in order to affect the basis of diplomacy between countries and to realize the goals of political manipulation, citing the U.S.’ infamous “peaceful transfer of power” strategy in other countries as an example.

The recognition of the “cognitive domain” as a literal battlefield is not limited to the Japanese defense forces, however.

In 2019, the Chinese State Council Information Office released a white paper on “China’s National Defense in the New Era,” arguing that “[w]ar is evolving in form towards informationized [sic] warfare, and intelligent warfare is on the horizon.”

In 2022, Motohiro Tsuchiya, a professor at Keio University, wrote an article on “Governing Cognitive Warfare” for Governing the Global Commons: Challenges and Opportunities for US-Japan Cooperation (a publication of the German Marshall Fund of the United States!) in which he warned that the threat of “intelligentized warfare” by China and other U.S. State Department bogeymen necessitated U.S. cooperation to “create and promote rules and norms that can effectively govern cyberwarfare.”

And, perhaps inevitably, it wasn’t long before it was discovered that the real threat in this new “cognitive domain” isn’t the ChiComs or the CRINKs or any other outside force, but… *drumroll, please*… online conspiracy theorists!

That’s right, in 2023, Tomoko Nagasako, a research fellow at The Sasakawa Peace Foundation, penned “The Threat of Conspiracy Theories in the Battle for the Cognitive Domain – A Consideration of the Status of Conspiracy Theories in Japan Based on Attempts at Regime Destruction Overseas.” As you might guess from that title, the article provides “an overview of the state of conspiracy theories overseas and in Japan,” details how these dastardly conspiracy theorists present a threat to national security “[f]rom the perspective of cognitive warfare,” and proposes countermeasures to address these grave dangers to the nation.

And what “conspiracy theories” does Nagasako cite in her piece? That there exists a “deep state” over and above the surface-level government, that the COVID vaccines were harmful, that the U.S. has conducted biological weapons research in Ukraine in recent years… you know, the usual harebrained ideas that only kooky conspiracy realists would even entertain.

Yes, for those who haven’t received the memo yet: there most certainly is a war for your mind. It certainly is taking place right now. It is being waged by militaries around the world. The target of these wars is, more often than not, these very militaries’ fellow countrymen.

To those who are just waking up to this war, you have my deepest sympathy. Realizing that you are a target in a battle you didn’t even know you were fighting in a “cognitive domain” you never even knew existed must be wildly disorienting, to say the least.

But here’s the bad news: new technologies are being developed that will make all of this history – from Pavlov to Skinner to Mitchell to SPI-B – and all of these secret operations – from MKUltra to MKChickwit – and all of these military campaigns – from Chisholm and Rees and the machinations of the Tavistock minions to the ChiComs and the Japanese and the development of cognitive warfare – seem like small potatoes.

As we shall see in a follow-up article, the technology to rewire the brain – quite literally – is already being tested and deployed. And, once these technologies are ready to be unleashed on the public, they may bring the age-old dream of the dictators for total domination of the human population to reality.

Reprinted with permission from the Corbett Report.

Censorship Industrial Complex

Ottawa’s New Hate Law Goes Too Far

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Ottawa says Bill C-9 fights hate. Critics say it turns ordinary disagreement into a potential crime.

Discriminatory hate is not a good thing. Neither, however, is the latest bill by the federal Liberal government meant to fight it. Civil liberties organizations and conservative commentators warn that Bill C-9 could do more to chill legitimate speech than curb actual hate.

Bill C-9 creates a new offence allowing up to life imprisonment for acts motivated by hatred against identifiable groups. It also creates new crimes for intimidation or obstruction near places of worship or community buildings used by identifiable groups. The bill adds a new hate propaganda offence for displaying terrorism or hate symbols.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) warns the legislation “risks criminalizing some forms of protected speech and peaceful protest—two cornerstones of a free and democratic society—around tens of thousands of community gathering spaces in Canada.” The CCLA sees no need to add to existing hate laws.

Bill C-9 also removes the requirement that the Attorney General consent to lay charges for existing hate propaganda offences. The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) calls this a major flaw, noting it removes “an important safeguard for freedom of expression that has been part of Canada’s law for decades.” Without that safeguard, decisions to prosecute may depend more on local political pressures and less on consistent national standards.

Strange as it sounds, hatred just will not be what it used to be if this legislation passes. The core problem begins with how the bill redefines the term itself.

Previously, the Supreme Court of Canada said hatred requires “extreme manifestations” of detestation or vilification that involve destruction, abhorrence or portraying groups as subhuman or innately evil. Instead, Bill C-9 defines hatred as “detestation or vilification,” stronger than “disdain or dislike.” That is a notably lower threshold. This shift means that ordinary political disagreement or sharp criticism could now be treated as criminal hatred, putting a wide range of protected expression at real risk.

The bill also punishes a hateful motivation more than the underlying crime. For example, if a criminal conviction prompted a sentence of two years to less than five years, a hateful motivation would add as much as an additional five years of jail time.

On paper, most Canadians may assume they will never be affected by these offences. In practice, the definition of “hate” is already stretched far beyond genuine threats or violence.

Two years ago, the 1 Million March for Children took place across Canada to protest the teaching of transgender concepts to schoolchildren, especially the very young. Although such opposition is a valid position, unions, LGBT advocates and even Newfoundland and Labrador Conservatives adopted the “No Space For Hate” slogan in response to the march. That label now gets applied far beyond real extremism.

Public pressure also shapes how police respond to protests. If citizens with traditional values protest a drag queen story hour near a public library, attendees may demand that police lay charges and accuse officers of implicit hatred if they refuse. The practical result is clear: officers may feel institutional pressure to lay charges to avoid being accused of bias, regardless of whether any genuine threat or harm occurred.

Police, some of whom take part in Pride week or work in stations decorated with rainbow colours in June, may be wary of appearing insensitive or intolerant. There have also been cases where residents involved in home invasion incidents were charged, and courts later determined whether excessive force was used. In a similar way, officers may lay charges first and allow the courts to sort out whether a protest crossed a line. Identity-related considerations are included in many workplace “sensitivity training” programs, and these broader cultural trends may influence how such situations are viewed. In practice, this could mean that protests viewed as ideologically unfashionable face a higher risk of criminal sanction than those aligned with current political priorities.

If a demonstrator is charged and convicted for hate, the Liberal government could present the prosecution as a matter for the justice system rather than political discretion. It may say, “It was never our choice to charge or convict these people. The system is doing its job. We must fight hate everywhere.”

Provincial governments that support prosecution will be shielded by the inability to show discretion, while those that would prefer to let matters drop will be unable to intervene. Either way, the bill could increase tensions between Ottawa and the provinces. This could effectively centralize political authority over hate-related prosecutions in Ottawa, regardless of regional differences in values or enforcement priorities.

The bill also raises concerns about how symbols are interpreted. While most Canadians would associate the term “hate symbol” with a swastika, some have linked Canada’s former flag to extremism. The Canadian Anti-Hate Network did so in 2022 in an educational resource entitled “Confronting and preventing hate in Canadian schools.”

The flag, last used nationally in 1965, was listed under “hate-promoting symbols” for its alleged use by the “alt-right/Canada First movement” to recall when Canada was predominantly white. “Its usage in modern times is an indicator of hate-promoting beliefs,” the resource insisted. If a historic Canadian symbol can be reclassified this easily, it shows how subjective and unstable the definition of a “hate symbol” could become under this bill.

These trends suggest the legislation jeopardizes not only symbols associated with Canada’s past, but also the values that supported open debate and free expression. Taken together, these changes do not merely target hateful behaviour. They create a legal framework that can be stretched to police dissent and suppress unpopular viewpoints. Rest in peace, free speech.

Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Conservative MP calls on religious leaders to oppose Liberal plan to criminalize quoting Scripture

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Quoting the Bible, Quran, or Torah to condemn abortion, homosexuality, or LGBT propaganda could be considered criminal activity

Conservatives are warning that Canadians should be “very afraid” of the Liberals’ proposal to punish quoting Scripture, while advising religious leaders to voice their opposition to the legislation.

During a December 6 session in Parliament, Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Larry Brock warned Canadians of the very real threat to their religious freedom thanks to proposed amendments to Bill C-9, the “Combating Hate Act,” that would allow priests quoting Scripture to be punished.

“Do Christians need to be concerned about this legislation?” MP Bob Zimmer questioned. “Does it really threaten the Bible and free speech in Canada?”

“They should be very afraid,” Brock responded. “Every faith leader should be very afraid as to what this Liberal government with the support of the Bloc Quebecois wishes to do.”

“As I indicated, religious freedom is under attack at the hands of this Liberal government,” he declared.

Brock stressed the need for religious leaders to “speak out loud and clear” against the proposed amendment and contact their local Liberal and Bloc MPs.

Already, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops penned an open letter to the Carney Liberals, condemning the proposed amendment and calling for its removal.

As LifeSiteNews reported earlier this week, inside government sources revealed that Liberals agreed to remove religious exemptions from Canada’s hate speech laws as part of a deal with the Bloc Québécois to keep Liberals in power.

Bill C-9, as reported by LifeSiteNews, has been blasted by constitutional experts as empowering police and the government to go after those it deems to have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way.

As a result, quoting the Bible, Quran, or Torah to condemn abortion, homosexuality, or LGBT propaganda could be considered criminal activity.

Shortly after the proposed amendment was shared on social media, Conservatives launched a petition, calling “on the Liberal government to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.”

Already, in October, Liberal MP Marc Miller said that certain passages of the Bible are “hateful” because of what it says about homosexuality and those who recite the passages should be jailed.

“Clearly there are situations in these texts where these statements are hateful,” Miller said. “They should not be used to invoke or be a defense, and there should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.”

His comments were immediately blasted by Conservative politicians throughout Canada, with Alberta provincial Conservative MLA and Minister of Municipal Affairs Dan Williams saying, “I find it abhorrent when MPs sitting in Ottawa – or anyone in positions of power – use their voice to attack faith.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X