Belief in higher forces who take an active interest in the affairs of humanity is the historical rule. What we have today is the exception.
“Put the nightmare together. If you do not wake up screaming, you have not put it together well.” —R.A. Lafferty
“The expression cosmic irony or irony of fate stems from the notion that the gods (or the Fates) are amusing themselves by toying with the minds of mortals with deliberate ironic intent. Such irony arises from sharp contrasts between reality and human ideals, or between human intentions and actual results.” —Wikipedia
“Ecce homo.” —Pontius Pilate, presenting to the hostile crowd the bound and tortured Son of Man (who could be seen as representing or symbolic of humanity), who was then crucified and who shouted, “My God, why did you abandon me?”
Some cases of paranoid schizophrenia include aspects or details that can’t be explained through conventional points of view. Perhaps the same can be said of all cases, but the rarity of detailed case studies necessitates a show of humility. At any rate, the term ”paranoid schizophrenia”, as it has been used by psychiatrists, is a vaguely defined syndrome that can mean almost anything. This is partly why I have recently invented the term ”complex psychosis” to cover all psychoses that must have been caused by a system of mind control or a numinous and inexplicable Jungian or quasi-Jungian collective unconscious — a sort of god below the surface – you can’t find by studying neuroscience or physics.
Complex psychosis involves losing control of your mind in a way that seems scripted or lacks an adequate neurological or environmental cause. It may involve what seem like scripted hallucinations and orchestrated coincidences. Could the concept of mind control be useful here? Experiences of being overtly controlled, typical in “delusions of control”, always pointed to the conclusion that psychosis is about mind control as well, but of the covert type.
When properly defined as an inability to understand reality (not consensus reality, but what actually makes sense and what doesn’t), psychosis is caused by a dysfunction in terms of which cognitions and memories activate in the person’s mind and when, and which cognitions and memories are completely suppressed, as if the brain were being controlled remotely to experience certain cognitions and not experience certain other cognitions. This inability of the person to recollect and reflect freely is what leads to delusion.
In paranoid schizophrenia, a typical element according to some sources is also some form of perceived, persistent harassment or manipulation, the source of which is often misattributed but doesn’t need to be (the correct attribution is: I Don’t Know). Psychosis may or may not accompany this sort of harassment.
Its source is likely to be external, as there is no physiological evidence of any “subconscious mind”. There are simple automated, innate or learned, neurological processes that could be called “subconscious” because they require little to no conscious effort, but “a second mind” is likely a myth created by a mind control system through its puppets to hide its toying with humans behind the smoke screen of an inexplicable “unconscious”. The whole phenomenon of hypnotism, for example, is such a deception, as I discuss in section 14.
Similarly some particularly sophisticated dreams, voices, and series of hallucinations point to the existence of an external, intelligent and creative entity that is responsible for their creation. They couldn’t have been produced by a spontaneous string of associations. Neuroscience doesn’t explain them. Emergence itself is foreign to the human brain. And many dreams consist of material not found in the memory — a further clue that dreaming isn’t natural to humans, but a product of the mind control system, perhaps an unconscious virtual-reality artificial-intelligence “god” or other machine, the only plausible thing I can think of with the sheer “mental” capacity for manipulating such amounts of data (as well as the quality of never becoming bored of it).
Some series of synchronicities (stunning coincidences) reveal the existence of mind control so subtle that the controlled rarely even suspect they have been controlled — not because of amnesia, but because of control so sophisticated it goes unnoticed. Such series of synchronicities have been experienced by normal, healthy individuals across cultures and ages, some of them historical in scope and easily verifiable. They couldn’t have occurred without some entity controlling humans and thereby orchestrating events.
Precognitive dreams, precognitive hallucinations, mass hallucinations, and synchronicities manifesting due to psychosis, tie all these phenomena together, pointing to a common cause: a godlike entity manipulating humanity. Further analysis, such as of history, seems to imply that the force is sadistic or was built by some sort of enemies of humanity to humiliate us and abuse us for the entertainment of these hidden rulers by employing religions with inhuman goals, means, moral demands and “punishments,” induced “mental illness” and suicide, “multiple personality,” “demonic possession,” induced taboo thoughts or taboo actions, ironic fates, unjust and inhumane incarceration, war, enmity between social groups and sexes, oppression, murder, torture, rape, trauma, nightmares, social isolation, irrational shame, distorted perception of beauty, dehumanising entertainment and art, shock. The system is responsible, not just actively, but also passively by allowing seriously bad things to happen when it could have prevented them from occurring.
(I’m making the assumption that those who seem to suffer the most are not pure virtual reality illusions but, one way or another, real sentient beings. Ultimately one has to judge the degree of sadism of the system by analysing his own past experiences and how much he himself has suffered. I think that being capable of reason entails a limit on any biological or designed sadism, and my own life provides no evidence to the contrary so far, and even the most horrible tragedies one can read about are still not extreme in comparison with what could occur in a virtual reality.)
The entity can take advantage of both our bad impulses and our benevolent impulses, creating either out of nothing when necessary. An example would be multiculturalism, which is supposed to be benevolent but in practice often leads to conflict and other problems.
Its control isn’t limited to creating impulses or manipulating emotions. My personal experience is that it can control the individual fully, even without the individual ever realising he is being controlled unless he is meant to “wake up”.
So called gang stalking is likely a mixture of group mind control of unwitting humans made to appear perpetrators, of additional induced paranoia in some cases, and of hallucination in some.
The entity can possess individuals and suppress memory. This means, among other things, that missing, seemingly stolen items may have been thrown away via possession of the targeted individual; not necessarily by “gang stalkers”. It also means that the extent to which innocent people can be made to seem like knowing perpetrators or gang stalkers is great. (If this is a virtual reality, then we may assume that not all apparent humans are more than pure illusion. The system could use such illusory humans easily for carrying out all sorts of stalking and harassment, because they would have no memory that needed to be kept coherent and continuous without blackouts.)
Recent meta analyses of anti-psychotics indicate that such drugs are rarely more effective than placebo. The brain-disease model of schizophrenia appears to be currently unfounded, more generally as well.
Some sane things to do with this information in mind: stop forcing antipsychotics on those who self-report that such drugs are making them worse not better; create mental hospitals where there are things to do and the patient is treated humanely; forced hospitalisation only in extreme cases; more rights for the afflicted in general; use money from drug company profits to accomplish all these things; create prisons that are more humane; be more careful about what you believe or do; don’t hurt others, it will only be used against you in a typical psychopathic fashion if you are truly responsible even in a slight way.
And instead of trying to transcend your “karma” or be a “hero” or whatever, relax, go fishing, listen to Mozart, play a video game. There is not enough free will for anything to matter much and humans aren’t in control more generally speaking. There is hopeless, then there is comically hopeless. The situation of humanity resembles the latter, by design I might add. Take a good look at our bloody & insane history and tell me how we act in any way different from what you’d expect if I were 100% right on every point. I am only writing all this because I hate being the only person who has a clue, and I’d love to have stumbled on a website like this a few years ago instead of going through everything I did and ultimately having to write it myself. I hope that what I have written here will allow some people to get rid of their paranoia about humans, just as these ideas did in my case.
(This is a revised introduction, and I have revised the following article only partially, so expect some unevenness. I should rewrite, reorganise, and expand most of the stuff after this intro, but I don’t think many bother to read all of it even now so I’m leaving it as it is, for the time being.)
1. Confusion About Psychosis
Psychosis is defined as a loss of contact with reality, and such loss is indicated by delusions that seem irrational and contrary to memes popular in the culture or subculture that the person belongs to. A psychotic delusion is therefore defined as an irrational belief arrived at through a process that isn’t social. The diagnostician has the unenviable task of deciding which such beliefs are truly irrational and which are merely unconventional explanations of strange experiences. Very often the latter are mistakenly thought to be the former, and in any case humans tend not to be great thinkers while simultaneously they tend to exhibit a psychological need for certainty, so that any attempt at an explanation of a strange phenomenon is likely to lead to a few incorrect hypotheses of which one is quickly chosen as the one in which belief is invested.
At this point someone might want to further define a psychotic delusion as something that makes it difficult for the patient to function adequately in the community which he is part of. That’s probably as useful a definition as anything when trying to decide whether to intervene in someone’s life in unwanted ways. To those of us interested in a full understanding of paranoid schizophrenia, it need not be the end. As Nietzsche pointed out, reality may be such that truly understanding it would mean our destruction. On the other hand, the characteristics of a belief that makes a person unable to function in human society are culture dependent, so a definition that is useful for the purposes of rehabilitation in one culture will nevertheless be inadequate as a timeless insight into the condition itself. Cultures change, but what happens in the brain and mind of a person during psychosis is a timeless process.
A better definition of psychosis, therefore, would be a mental state where memory does not function properly and something outside the consciousness seems to be making the conscious mind have extraordinarily irrational beliefs as if parts of the brain had split off to form an entity of its own that can control memory processes. Emotions, motor centers and other things are sometimes described by schizophrenics as being temporarily outside their control, as being unmistakably controlled by some intelligent and apparently conscious entity (though rarely if ever all at once). Invasive thought control during psychosis would primarily be such that the psychotic doesn’t realise that his thought processes are being controlled. That’s why “delusions of control” are not a necessary part of such psychosis.
2. The Uselessness of Drug Trials Without a Proper Understanding of Psychosis
Antipsychotics have a poor reputation among serious thinkers. A Lot of side effects and not much more effective than a sugar pill in treating the condition in placebo controlled double blind trials: 41% efficacy compared with 24% for placebo, in addition to likely publication bias similar to that found in the case of antidepressants — this could literally remove any signs of efficacy compared with placebo (How effective are second-generation antipsychotic drugs? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials, 2009).
(The analysis also doesn’t necessarily mean that placebo pills are somewhat effective in treating the condition. It could simply mean that patients are recovering naturally as time passes: this is known to happen to many paranoid schizophrenics, who may experience psychotic episodes that last only for days or weeks. Or even hours or less, depending on whether by “episodes” we mean continuous psychosis or a period of time when psychotic thoughts are common.)
But what do those trials really tell us about the effectiveness (or lack of) of these drugs? I don’t think they tell us very much. The reason for that is that rational delusions are not being controlled for. Perfectly rational delusions (results of normal rationalisation, scarcity of accurate information, and so on) — possibly the majority of patients — are being classified as psychotic. It should be clear that rational delusions won’t be affected by any drug whatever, unless that drug somehow produces irrational ideation in patients, but then it would be doing the opposite of what it should be doing.
3. What Synchronicities Reveal About Psychosis
C.G. Jung popularised the word synchronicity, and believed a lot of weird stuff so probably also that some synchronicities required a parapsychological explanation. So you aren’t necessarily in bad company if you believe so also.
Anyway, Philip K. Dick writes on the 13th page of Exegesis, in a letter to Peter Fitting (June 28, 1974):
Several times I’ve had the uncanny experience of meeting people who resemble persons, characters, I’d previously made up for my novels. In Flow My Tears there’s a 19 year old girl named Kathy, as you recall, whom Jason meets; she is a girl of the gutter, so to speak, living a quasi-illegal existence. The next year, 1971, I in fact did meet a girl, the same age, living a life so similar to that of the girl in the novel as to frighten me — frighten me that if she reads the book ever she may sue. Her name — Kathy.
Dick also understood what this meant: some entity, whether part of his subconscious or God or whatever, had made him write those parts of the novels without his realising it. Such unnoticed mind control is possible, because the origin of our thoughts, attitudes, and emotions is often outside our consciousness. (I’m assuming that Dick was able to rule out personal hallucination, and that if he wasn’t, we would know about it. I’m also assuming the entity didn’t use mass hallucination instead: that the friends who I’m assuming met Dick’s new acquaintances or saw their letters didn’t also hallucinate these things.)
I would say that synchronicities are the heart of paranoid schizophrenia. These people are likely rarely in psychosis (as I define it), but they may have paranoid beliefs for most of their lives. Many synchronicities can’t be explained in a non-paranoid way without recourse to very unconventional viewpoints. John F. Nash said in an interview that he never stopped believing there was more to the way the world works than what the scientists commonly believed, but he always pretended to be normal when needed to get out of mental institutions.
There is an interesting historical synchronicity involving Buddha, Christ, and Muhammad. Buddha was born 570 Before Christ, and Muhammad was born 571 After Christ. This implies a hidden relationship between the three most important founders of religion.
See comments for synchronicity and probability.
4. Charles Fort
(Section added in April, 2013.)
In his first non-fiction book, which he destroyed, Charles Fort argued for the idea, at book-length, that humanity may be a victim of mind control. Fort wrote:
If, in acting upon us, X could only make use of what we should naturally do anyway—we should, if stimulated to action by X, think that we were but following what we call our own free wills.
Then, in the search for X, we should look not for strange, seemingly supernatural phenomena, but for things that we should have done anyway, but in a lesser degree, historical events which have heretofore been accounted for by reason, but have in them somewhere a vague mystery or an atmosphere of the unaccountable, despite all the assurances of their own infallibility that our historians have given us.
I shall try to show that X exists; that this influence is, and must be, evil to an appalling degree to us at present, evil which at least equals anything ever conceived of in medieval demonology.
(Charles Fort: The Man Who Invented The Supernatural, 2008, p. 137-138)
Needless to say, that would have been an interesting book to read. That it existed is proof that mind control theories are not the sole domain of known schizophrenics. Charles Fort was a popular all-around sceptic, writer, and researcher of anomalous phenomena in early 20th century.
The writer of the biography also concludes that Charles Fort took the book very seriously. He destroyed it after several years of not getting it published, but the reason for this may have been not so much bitterness as his new fame and reputation as a humorous and light-hearted writer on a wide variety of anomalous phenomena. Perhaps he didn’t want to risk his new public image by releasing a book that was written in a very different style.
5. Drugs, What Are They Good For?
I think the dopamine hypothesis is extremely simplistic and likely wholly incorrect. There are studies that show that schizophrenics have normal levels of dopamine in their brains, and there are newer studies that show that they also have normal amounts of dopamine receptors (except when longterm medication has altered their brains).
New paradigms involving drug treatments beyond tranquillisers are likely to prove disappointing as well until our technology and understanding far surpass today’s. Something that may complicate conducting reliable drug trials: the entity that has caused the delusions is certainly able to tell the difference between a placebo pill and the real drug, and may jokingly or as part of some greater goal respond accordingly from time to time, producing the illusion of moderate efficacy or whatever. Those familiar with parapsychology know that stranger things happen on a regular basis.
I won’t even discuss the belief that some psychiatrists have that they can estimate the efficacy of drugs merely based on their own experience in prescribing them and observing the supposed effects. It’s not science, it’s confirmation bias.
Also, the idea that you can reach a high rate of drug-treatment success by using or trying more than one drug on the same patient is partly a result of confirmation bias and partly a sign that we are dealing with the placebo effect: the drugs target the dopamine receptors that have allegedly been implicated in psychosis, so that if one drug doesn’t have an effect, then other drugs shouldn’t have an effect either — unless it’s the placebo effect that we’re dealing with.
6. What Subconscious, What Delusion?
I think it’s safe to say, from all that I’ve experienced and read, that the entity can imitate and invent characters at will. The alters in cases of multiple personality may simply be the entity, or more precisely parts of the entity, in different forms. As expected, experts are divided on whether real multiple personality even exists, as many of them realise how problematic the phenomenon is from their narrow point of view. The theoretical subconscious mind would have to be a strange thing indeed to explain multiple personality.
However, there are still many experts who do believe multiple personality exists. This leads me to a philosophical rant.
Psychiatry makes grand ontological claims about issues its practitioners know very little about. It depends, for its validity, on vague concepts that can be expanded to accommodate any data — its ethos, its Core Theory, can’t be falsified even in principle.
For instance, I can’t say that if the intrusive voice in my head tells me something I couldn’t possibly know or guess then that will disprove the idea it is somehow part of me. A properly trained psychiatrist would simply respond that if I seemed to experience such an impossible thing, this would just be further evidence I’m suffering from delusions. Similarly, if I perceive that my emotions are being controlled, that means I’m suffering from delusions of control. If I said I’ve experienced my body being controlled like a puppet, that’s just a delusion as well, never mind that I was the person who experienced it, not my psychiatrist, so supposedly I know what I’m talking about on that issue, and he doesn’t. But no, in psychiatry, subjective experience becomes meaningless and theoretical notions whose limits no one understands reign supreme.
Or if the psychiatrist doesn’t expand the vague concept of delusion to accommodate that sort of thing (for example, by postulating the existence of incomprehensible memory problems or, perhaps more common, not even bothering to think about the implications of his pronouncements), he will expand the vague concept of the unconscious mind to accommodate it instead: so it was just my unconscious mind that made me walk around like a rag doll, or predicted the future, never mind this sort of thing is supposed to be impossible.
At no point, would I have the opportunity to object with “wait, did your theory of the unconscious mind predict that sort of thing, and on what basis?” or “hey, wait a second, if anything can be delusion or hallucination, then what priviliges the conventional worldview above all others?”
The three concepts, delusion, the unconscious mind, hallucination, can, in the wrong hands, be used to account for absolutely everything that can be imagined to happen or that will happen even if no one can imagine it. It doesn’t matter what really happens in the real world. Regardless of actual facts, those three concepts can be expanded to explain away anything at all.
Nasty people call that sort of thing pseudo-science, because any hypothesis which is unfalsifiable in principle cannot be scientific. Modern psychiatry is no different from Dark Age Christianity, with its “God did it” explanation for every strange phenomenon. Both have their holy trinity which explains all conceivable phenomena in this world inasmuch as they fall beyond the confines of traditional science. If you object, you are either possessed by a demon or “lack insight”.
7. False memory
False memory is a concept that has undoubtedly been used to discredit victims of this entity, and is essential to a rigorous expansion of the concept of delusion, especially as it relates to “delusions of control”.
I do believe false memory is a real phenomenon, but I don’t believe that just any memory might be a false memory. Usually, we don’t just remember some one thing, we also remember when we started to remember it, and how it relates to other memories and events that we remember. To make a long story short, I don’t believe that false memories can be as convincing as many real memories are. They are more or less isolated, half-remembered things. So their existence is not a solid reason for discounting testimony by default. It is a good reason for doubting the validity of memories which seemed to appear out of nowhere in therapy or long after the supposed events took place.
8. Negative Symptoms
Social isolation can be a result of delusional beliefs, a world-view that produces alienation, circumstances common in the atomistic modern West, mild depression, or any other causes that aren’t evidence of the existence of an abnormality distinct from positive symptoms and their effects. The same goes for negative symptoms in general, and in any case such symptoms are not universally present in paranoid schizophrenics. There is also no reason why the entity wouldn’t be able to produce such effects as well. At any rate, it’s an undeniable fact that it can control emotions as easily as a musician controls his instrument (some of its least impressive tricks). This indicates it can just as well produce “flattening of emotions”. Its more sophisticated powers of mind control can easily be used to socially isolate anyone on earth, e.g. by controlling others to not want to spend time with the victim or hire him.
9. Can Technology Explain Mind Control?
To explain the majority of sophisticated mind control phenomena by postulating the existence of technology capable of being used for mind control, one has to assume that it is possible to construct a very advanced computer to use that technology. I think it is possible, since that appears to be what is being used.
The machine, including its artificial intelligence, need not be as advanced as you might think. It doesn’t necessarily have to be super fast in analysing and reacting to information in real time. I believe it often gives the impression of being super fast by making people go through thoughts, behaviours and experiences that it had planned beforehand. Also, for the vast majority of the time, its control is, I think, more about suppressing and reinforcing certain lines of thought or certain worldviews than about causing specific behaviours seemingly in response to specific events.
A lot of people seem to think that electromagnetism is involved in mind control. It certainly isn’t directly involved in sophisticated mind control. Neurons communicate by utilising ions, and fire as a result of a process that typically begins with positive cations entering the cell and involves ions passing to and out of the cell. EM fields have nothing to do with it. While the brain produces EM fields that can perhaps be read remotely and utilised in mind reading, the reverse is not true: EM radiation would have at most a crude effect on the psyche. So would brain entrainment or modulated magnetic fields. These topics are all distraction in practice if not by design. The fact is that godlike mind control has existed and been used against humanity for as long as history has been recorded. That’s the obvious conclusion to draw, anyway.
The perpetrators would have to be able to target specific neurons, often deep in the brain, so there really is no other way to accomplish sophisticated mind control than direct link to a machine (virtual reality) or maybe some sort of nano technology with billions of nano-bots buried in the brain. It should be possible to shut down the latter temporarily by using a strong magnet. The easy availability of such magnets suggests that nano-bots have nothing to do with mind control (on this level of reality, at any rate).
Adam Dobrin at Unduecoercion has suggested quantum entanglement as a mechanism, and this is another candidate, although it doesn’t sound very plausible to me and as he points out would require a currently unknown technology for entangling objects.
10. The Phenomenon of Apparent Organised Stalking
I think the entity, and the possible hidden civilisation behind it, loves to frame human elites and other humans as perceived criminals or conspirators. The focus of pretty much all TI’s (that I’ve encountered) on blaming governments and humans most of all and often entirely, at least initially (as even I did), indicates that the entity indeed deceives or even mind controls people to blame other people who are ultimately mere scapegoats.
I have read a description, in a psychiatry book over a hundred years old, of paranoia that seems identical to modern reports of organised stalking. However, it was only a generalised description, not a detailed case study or anything like that. But it does suggest this phenomenon is rather old.
My impression is that so-called organised stalking is a cocktail of hallucination, group mind control, synchronicity, and paranoia, involving random unknowing strangers as puppets and seeming perpetrators. I have myself often acted like a mindless puppet, causing synchronicities and exhibiting odd behaviour, so I would have to be paranoid to assume others must be conspiring against me when they behave likewise.
In some recent cases people have reported missing items, and claimed that they are missing because the stalkers have stolen them. I suppose that even signs of break-ins may have been reported, though I can’t confidently recall reports of those. It would be interesting to know whether much older reports exist of allegedly paranoid people reporting missing items.
I think it likely that in most cases TI’s have misplaced or thrown away (or been subtly controlled or flat-out “possessed” to misplace or throw away) those items themselves and the entity has suppressed their memory of it (possession may not even leave behind any memory of the time during which one is possessed).
(Old idea, which I now think involves nothing more than hallucination, induced or otherwise: I know this will sound far-fetched to most people, but materialisation and de-materialisation of an object are widely believed psychic abilities and phenomena in certain circles. There seem to be some reliable reports of such phenomena, e.g. by Daskalos in the book, The Magus of Strovolos, written by sociology professor Kyriacos Markides. My point is, the entity that is central to my theory may be capable of causing the disappearance of items. It could certainly organise the synchronicity of a break-in where only something useless was ultimately stolen.)
Finally, paranoid schizophrenia and genuine stalking or persecution by a government can both befall one and the same person. There is no reason to blame both mind control and conventional persecution on the same source, although the entity I keep referring to could have organised both.
(There are many synchronicities that can’t be explained without assuming that the entity can control, not just its supposed target, but other persons as well, whether directly or by communicating and collaborating with others of its species. Such control would in most cases remain unnoticed by those controlled, and would possibly have required years of subtle preparation. Such preparation would consist of gathering a supply of certain experiences, the memories of which the entity could employ at the right moments to produce the planned behaviours in a manner that seems unsuspicious to the victim. The somewhat late typical onset of schizophrenia may partly be explained by speculating that the entity prefers a long preparation time.)
11. A Few Words About Genes And Neurology
Some researchers are trying to make the case that schizophrenia is the result of a brain that hasn’t developed quite right due to a bad allele or some similar reason. But if schizophrenia is the result of a misdeveloped brain, then why are so many schizophrenics normal most of the time (the time between psychotic episodes)? Basically, the researchers are arguing that somehow the brain can pretend to be normal when it wants to, then it degrades for a week now and then for no reason.
Many schizophrenics also experience full recoveries, i.e. they at some point stop experiencing psychotic episodes. Why?
There have been a small number of twin studies, often used casually to “prove” that “schizophrenia” has a strong genetic basis, but the psychiatrist Paris Williams has written that they have serious methodological flaws (Rethinking Madness, 2012).
I recommend her book for further and deeper explanations of how the brain-disease model of schizophrenia is, at least currently, baseless.
12. Psychoses Associated With Known Physiological Problems
Hypothyroidism is rarely associated with psychosis even though it has a certain reputation as one of the causes of schizophrenia-like symptoms. The association is so rare that I wonder what the cause-effect relation might be. I would also have to read a detailed case study, if such a thing exists, to determine whether the symptoms indicate mind control or just general mental deterioration.
There may be a few recreational drugs that may produce something akin to complex psychosis, or might if the effects lasted longer, but correlation doesn’t imply causation, so I won’t bother to write more about this topic unless I find statistics about it that can be taken seriously.
13. Life, the Universe, and Everything
As it happens, understanding paranoid schizophrenia means you also understand a lot of other things that so far have appeared mysterious to all but the most superficial and careless of observers.
Once you admit that there is a force that can control humans without their realising it, a wide variety of odd behaviours become understandable. Some attempt explanation by introducing the term “emergence”, the idea that neurological processes are chaotic, unpredictable, inexplicably creative, emergent. To my mind, that is merely an attempt to explain the influence of the mind control system. Neurons fire in predictable patterns due to synapses; thinking has its basis in learned associations of memory, what Piaget calls “schemas”. There is no room here for emergence.
Another effort to hide the influence of the entity is conditioning people to accept intoxication as an adequate cause for any behaviour, no matter how odd or evil. It’s true that intoxicated people may do things they’d otherwise not do. But they won’t do things that they otherwise wouldn’t even imagine doing, such as rip out one of the eyes of their child and eat it (I’ve read a news piece of an event like this).
It is remarkable how often the influence of the entity is evil: demonic possession, schizophrenia, non-stress related chronic depression. In general, sick, inexplicable behaviours in otherwise sane individuals are often compelling evidence of a malevolent influence. Conversely, once you understand that this force exists, you can easily explain such baffling behaviours.
You can also profile the force by studying history, assuming that the history that seems is the history that is. The seeming history of the West is notorious for being basically one war after another, interspersed with periods of poverty, oppressive social norms, disease epidemics, gladiator shows, slave trading, intrigue, corruption, hypocrisy. In a word, insanity. If the founders of religion have been crazy schizophrenics as some experts have suggested, then what would you say about nations that then adopted these religions and crazy practices and beliefs? Sorry, it is not just the founders and their disciples who were a bit off, it’s pretty much all of humanity who has been psychotic throughout recorded history. This is another thing that is easy to explain once you are aware of the entity and its powers. And once you do, you must also admit that the force is far less than benevolent, since with all that power it mostly focuses on extracting love with one hand while tempting, punishing and causing destruction with the other.
If you are a Christian and don’t think the world is a vale of tears, perhaps you are merely lucky or young. I believe this entity allows or keeps many people happy for most of their lives, often in order to create envy in many of the tormented. I say “many”, because variety is a big thing for this force. Contrast is another. Misery is no misery if it can’t be contrasted with happiness. Hell no hell without heaven. Unfortunately, I see a trend of happiness increasingly being turned into misery even for the lucky minority: people die older and older, and this often means having to live in an institution for years, a disappointing end for most and undignified for many. Atomisation of society. Exaggerated individualism.
Capitalism, which the entity seems to enforce in order to pollute, waste, and have an excuse for making people work 40 to 50 hours per week, even though in a centrally planned economy based on public need the working hours could be reduced to ~15 hours per week and unemployment reduced to virtually zero while keeping quality of life at its current level except better due to more free time and more focus by geniuses on producing great art and entertainment. What was the first device or piece of software that you could use to force PAL movies to play 24 frames per second? It was freeware (ReClock or VLC Player). Capitalism produced its usual crap, while some guys working on their spare time created products for actual need. Typical. But then this is a civilisation of psychotics, with few exceptions.
14. Related Observations and Speculations
Suggestion and hypnosis don’t explain psychosis or mind control, only very sophisticated, total control of the brain does: some researchers of hypnosis point out that if hypnosis is a genuine phenomenon, then the individual seems to have a possibly endless number of alternate personalities (Multiple Man, 1985), an idea that is relevant in many cases of multiple personality. The difference is that, if hypnosis is real, then even healthy people actually contain numerous alternate personalities, an absurd idea on many levels, notably from the viewpoint of brain physiology. Both the phenomenon of hypnosis and that of multiple personality can easily be explained as deception by the entity. Some prominent cases of hypnotism contain comical details or features, which is a typical mark of the entity along with irony. Indeed, an intelligent species that could be hypnotised and then commanded like robots would be a very strange thing from an evolutionary theoretic perspective. So rather than explain how mind control is accomplished, these phenomena provide further evidence of the powers of the entity and its ability to orchestrate vast deceptions.
To elaborate on the above. Researchers of hypnotism long ago identified a different personality, a different consciousness that is awake when the every-day ego is in deep hypnosis and seemingly unconscious. It’s that hidden personality that is conscious and performs actions during the hypnotic state (and subtly makes the person carry out “post-hypnotic suggestions”) — I think it’s actually the entity possessing or controlling the person. Crabtree recounts a case where a person was hypnotised and told not to perceive the table upon wakening. This person then didn’t, but he still walked around the table rather than attempting to walk directly through it. It was the other consciousness that still knew the table was there, and made him walk around it. So what happens if this other consciousness is (supposedly) made not to perceive the table? Well, the man still walks around the table rather than through it. (Crabtree doesn’t say how many times this experiment has been repeated.) So is there a third personality that knows the table is there? Ernest Hilgard came up with the concept of hidden observer to explain this phenomenon. But Crabtree writes: “Recent research has discovered the presence of multiple hidden observers within individuals. It has shown that if a subject is placed in a number of distinct hypnotic states, each one will have its own hidden observer with distinguishable personality traits.” He mentions John Beahrs’s “Unity and Multiplicity” in this context, and I’d have to take a look at it to be able to write about this in more depth. However, I think it is already a well-founded guess to say that the “other personalities” are actually the entity deceiving credulous or mind controlled researchers.
As for the belief that the hypnotic state is more or less equal to normal consciousness except with more concentration, relaxation and increased suggestibility; this now popular view ignores the core of hypnosis research — the cases where the hypnotised people don’t have a recollection of what they did during the hypnotic state. I believe it is also not very relevant to mind control. Like placebo pills, any effect such hypnotic suggestion seems to have probably comes from confirmation bias, the natural tendency of humans to react to commands when they want to please and are “in the game”, or from the mind control system. It’s also good to remember that the supposed mild efficacy of hypnotherapy is relevant only when we talk about suggestions we are aware of. You can be almost certain that “subliminal suggestions” have no effect due to never even being processed to the point of leaving a mark on the brain. If the brain created neural connections due to “subliminal programming”, we would all be completely crazy.
The entity is capable of incredible deeds, and can be a good source of information. That doesn’t mean it should be trusted blindly, no matter how convincing it is most of the time or in some areas of knowledge. I believe it may explain the powers of clairvoyants. If it does, then it would also explain why clairvoyants never really accomplish much in their lives in spite of having a reasonably good access to all sorts of out-of-reach information. They may seem to know everything about you, they may give you good advice, they may know some things that will happen to you, and still have wildly incorrect ideas about how to best live their lives, or about dimensions, spirits, afterlife or whatever, because those may be the things the entity wants to deceive them about. If nothing else, that’s a slightly novel explanation of past life memories and such things: deceit by this unknown entity. So I don’t necessarily believe in an afterlife even though the evidence for it, taken at face value, is rather strong as Colin Wilson concludes in his book, Afterlife: An Investigation.
Often clairvoyants and such people are told “by higher powers” not to use their powers for profit. So the entity seems not to be something that evolved in these people (such as their subconscious mind), but is as a rule uninterested in maximising the wealth and reproductive success of even supposed clairvoyants, that is to say, people who think they are gifted, lucky, or highly spiritually evolved. (Such gifts are often considered to be genetic, but if they were, it would make sense for those genes to try to spread themselves, which they don’t seem to be doing, again extrapolating from what I’ve read.)
When the entity manipulates the person’s emotions in an obvious way, literally making the person experience an emotion and so forth, as in a typical “delusion of control” experience, its intention is unlikely to be that of influencing the person. It can influence the person just fine without making it obvious. In fact, you can be sure that when it really wants you to do something or think a certain way about something, you won’t know it.
Glossary That Isn’t Just A Glossary
Complex psychosis and simple psychosis = the former involves losing control of your mind in a way that seems scripted or lacking an adequate cause, and often involves complex rationalisations and serious efforts to understand the mysteries of the world; the latter involves simple paranoia or simple delusions or simple contextual hallucinations and the like, and can be relatively easily explained in terms of errors in natural brain functions, at least in principle. Complex psychosis, on the other had, requires the existence of an inexplicable Jungian unconscious mind or a godlike system of mind control.
Clairvoyant = a person who seems to be able to access information through means other than the known senses relatively consistently. Evidence of clairvoyance has been methodically gathered since the late 19th century. It seems also to have been demonstrated in the lab a few times, though comments to the contrary are widespread. Personal experience remains the best source of enlightenment on this issue, as clairvoyants are typically uninterested in fame or validation, and may even suffer the loss of their abilities when trying to demonstrate them to the sceptical world.
ESP = extra-sensory perception. The ability to gain information like a clairvoyant.
Mechanistic = impersonal and machine like with no room for an active God or souls or a spirit world.
Negative and positive symptoms = the former are symptoms such as social isolation and flattening of emotions (i.e. a deficiency in normal functions), the latter are symptoms such as hallucinations and delusions (i.e. something that normal people allegedly don’t have).
Schizophrenia = a syndrome, not a disease. Its main characteristic is an occasional loss of contact with reality (psychotic episodes). It’s ultimately a loose and variable collection of vaguely similar symptoms, speculated to have something to do with brain chemistry. Brain chemistry is the God of today’s psychiatrists: it’s supposed to explain everything they can’t explain.
Paranoid schizophrenia = the most common form of schizophrenia, at least today in the West. Milder than other forms, notable for little to no disordered thought/speech.
Synchronicity = meaningful coincidence. Often so striking that pure chance explanations seem more far-fetched than crazy theories about God, spirits, or aliens. Likely one of the main causes of belief in omens and fate in ancient times.