Manifesto: American Mad
Are you Master of your own Domain?
Strange question, isn’t it. “What is up with that?” you may be tempted to ask, and most rightly so. There is, I think, only one correct answer, out of the thousands and thousands of possible responses, and that is: Are you insane? To understand why this is the most appropriate response, you must understand what is really being asked, and that requires a complete understanding of the original question.
The question itself is not new. It is, I think, one that is really very old, one that has been gussied up with a new framework for a new generation, a new culture, and a new millennium. By framework I mean language. Let me rephrase the question.
Do you have Free Will? The meaning of this question is I think much more apparent. The concept of having is easily understood by the average person taught to speak the English language. Either you have - or you possess - something or you do not. In this case, the question of having or not having centers around something called free will. I could as easily rephrase the question “Do you have Free Will?” by asking “Do you possess Free Will?” These questions are nearly identical, and yet there is a very subtle, almost unnoticed difference. To have is no different in meaning from to possess. The difference between these two forms is in association. When it is said: You can’t take it with you, we do not understand the meaning to be: you can’t take your haves with you. What we understand is, you cannot take your possessions.
We also understand a possession may be stolen. We do not immediately associate the possibility of theft every time the use of the word possess appears, simply because our possessions are not under constant threat of theft. It is simply a possibility, one we silently acknowledge and guard against, while not dwelling too deeply in a morass of paranoia over it.
Anything we possess is a thing we have. This includes hopes, dreams, aspirations, ideas, ideals, convictions; and as possessions they are much less tangible than objects which may come with price tag affixed. Yet it remains true, anything we have may be stolen. There is a gap between having and possessing a thing like free will. An attentive reader will have already made the leap that has been so diabolically suggested: a concept like that of free will, however tangible it may or may not be, may be subject to theft.
So lets leap.
Any nation dedicated to the principle that all men are created equal cannot long endure the suggested thievery of intellectual possession.
The question: Are you Master of Your Own Domain is a subtle, insidious attempt to disguise intent by rephrasing the question Do you have Free Will? By rephrasing the question it removes any and all contexts in which the original question, Do you have Free Will, has been posed. These contexts help form the foundation of what we believe, informing our opinion regarding the nature of free will.
If we have heard questions regarding free will within a religious context, then issues of faith and duty to God become the context informing our opinion. If we have heard the question of free will arise as part of a discussion on the thinking of those men who produced the Constitution of the United States, then a sense of patriotic duty may inform our belief about the nature of free will. Are You Master Of Your Own Domain has none of these connotations. This question arrives without foundation, without support, of previous learning and experience. It inspires no sense of duty to either God or country.
Those who over time have evolved such questions do not care for answers to the questions they have posed. They do not care, for answers are not their intent. They have come only to steal. They call it fishing.
A Small Reality Check
Any nation dedicated to the principle that all men are created equal cannot long endure the suggested thievery of intellectual possession.
Does that statement strike you as threatening? It isn’t exactly the kind of language you expect from someone foaming at the mouth, is it. To be clear, most of the words in the above sentence come from Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, with some minor adjustments.
Consider the opening of that address:
Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.
Anyone acquainted with this address would quickly spot the similarity; and yet the implied threat still isn’t clear. It cannot be clear, until a comprehensive understanding is reached regarding the phrase: thievery of intellectual possession. Without it, no serious threat can be conveyed. I have created a signal, one that suggests the specter of civil war; a signal that is focused on a specific set of people - people who are thieves, thieves of something very special, something I have called intellectual possession. When I say Intellectual Possession, what I mean is the ownership of those things that make up personality, and inform belief. The theft of these fundamental components of human experience has, for some, been a theft of life itself.
In essence, what we have then, is a threat. It is a threat requiring two keys to be deciphered. The first key is the context, signaled by the quote: all men are created equal, signaling on a subliminal level the conflict between slavery and freedom and the Civil War that conflict produced. The second key is contained in the phrase Intellectual Possession, which it seems has no relevant context until one is provided. The pair of words combined are similar to this pair of words: intellectual property; something we all understand as being external, some thing that is owned, a product of the mind that may be passed hand to hand, bought and sold. If we associate the phrase Intellectual Possession with intellectual property we miss the intent of the message. This is not a design flaw. This technique is a slight of hand, using a contrived phrase to misdirect the general audience from the intended message.
Once the threat has been deciphered, it still has no context that is clear, immediate, and pressing; and so to us it still has no meaning. We must be able to examine the breadth and depth of the crime, the theft signaled by speech that is unfamiliar, by that phrase thievery of Intellectual Possession. If we cannot examine the crime itself, and if the language in which it is conveyed is unfamiliar - if it has no immediate, bloody association - then to us it is as if no threat had been made. It would seem that if the statement is a threat, it is heard only by those who would steal whatever it is that has been identified as intellectual possession.
This is a linguistic construct - but you can call it prose. Neuro-linguistics is the study of how language affects biology; within a behavioral context it examines behavioral change. Neural-linguistic-reprogramming is the creation of communication constructs incorporating language, and symbolic forms of communication - like tee shirts, bumper stickers, and other mediums which display pithy sayings or logos - to induce behavioral change.
Unless someone trained in the field would like to contradict me? Is there a Doctor in the house? I will be happy to note any objections - as a footnote.
Lets be absolutely clear about what has taken place. This linguistic construct is a message, a signal. Within this signal a threat has been posed, yet it is one that cannot truly be understood without a solid background in modern behavioral theory and practice. Since the average American cannot yet grasp this signal, cannot grasp the threat, it becomes difficult to enable their active participation in this discussion. In my view, this seems completely un-American.
It is with some small regret that I make the following statement. Please accept my most sincere apologies, and as you do, pay close attention.
With perhaps one hundred volunteers and a small amount of demographic research looking for specific psychological profiles within a given community, we can engineer the following:
We can identify the stimulus that is the most provocative to a given sexual predator, and we can identify biorhythmic cycles within the sexual predator to determine when and under what conditions they are most likely to act out.
We can examine couples whose dysfunctional behavior results in abuse to identify sources of friction between them, we can quantify that stimulus most likely to induce those psychological states, where and when that abuse is most likely to occur.
We can use the sum of this information to induce:
domestic abuse resulting in murder;
and these things can, with the right kind of analysis, be arranged to occur on cue.
Sounds fantastic, doesn’t it. We can arrange grotesque instances of sexual assault or domestic violence so obscene that we naturally tend to revolt against the very notion, the very possibility, that it might be deliberately induced - much less induced on cue. Many will be tempted to doubt what I insist here is true. It is so reprehensible our doubt presents itself as a comfort, a refuge, against what can only be considered as a form of insanity.
I therefore submit for your consideration evidence contained in Psychological Record 18 from 1968, where one Lloyd Homme was quoted as saying:
We have the capacity to install any behavior we want.
This is my sole intent: REVOLT.
The prospect of revolution doesn’t really sound too threatening at this time does it. I assume the truth of that statement is self evident. If the issue is not clear, if it is not personal, than the prospect of revolution is no more than a distant, flickering hope; a small and tender beacon in the faint distance, showing the way forward while our feet remain smothered in darkness. We need more light.
An examination of the process of behavioral reprogramming must take place.
It is relatively easy to put together a crude replica of the process. It is so easy anyone can do it. It is so easy in fact, that I hesitate to lay it all out in plain English, simply because it may so readily be copied and implemented with consequences beyond my control. Yet it is a process that is already in such wide use, and still remains unacknowledged, that it seems nothing short of a blunt and critical assessment will do. It is as if, in this nation, we were a pair of lovers who will not speak of love, of desire, or of commitment; instead we dwell in a dysfunctional mode of communication, the mode of silence; and in so doing we cannot meet our own needs, let alone the needs of our partner, or our union. In this case, our union is our Republic. It is ‘our Republic, for which it stands.’
To be blunt then. The process is relatively simple. If someone shouts your name as you are walking down the street you naturally turn to look. When you see the shout was intended for someone else, you think nothing of it, and go on your way.
If that happens ten times in a short afternoon, you are going to wonder: what’s up with that? You will note the oddity of it, and you may even pay a bit more attention to your environment in general. If nothing else noteworthy takes place, the event will quickly fade in your subconscious. Here is where a little bit of research may prove useful. A hook is needed, a second cue that signals identity. This second cue will instill a sense that something underhanded is at work. This becomes the first demonstration that some violation of privacy has taken place. Once that hook is identified, it must be presented in a way that connects it to the previous shouts. A pair of strangers passing within ear shot need not utter your name, not if your name has already been signaled, and your attention has been captured. All they need do is verbally express the second piece of personally identifying information.
Now for the twist. No lasting behavioral change will take place without it.
How do you feel about punk rockers? Dressed in black, the color of mourning. Spiky hair, you know the type. What if one of them actually has your name? What if two of them appear, one of them has your name, and the other says that name, and follows up with: “You messed up. Now you’re gonna die.” Attention getting? I’ll bet you would watch them walk away for a bit. So how about someone approaching from the rear - the opposite direction of your occupied attention - with a cup of very hot coffee, a spill, one that is hot, it burns, and an insistent “hey watch it! That’s hot!” as if the entire episode of the spilled coffee which you now wear is your fault. Now that the environment has your complete attention, someone may be presented who no longer says your name. All they have to do is snigger, and say “hot, hot, hot” as they pass by.
It won’t even matter if they are really sniggering over some beautiful young lady who passes or not. That they could be won’t even enter your head.
Such a process, once begun, does have the risk that some combination of the natural environment and the subject’s own expectations may spin the process completely out of control.
To some, what I have described so far may sound like nothing more than a practical joke. It is not. This is a process that has the capacity to kill. Those of us who are well acquainted with this fact must stand together and demand that this process end.
The experts in this technology, or some of them, present it as both a science, and a form of art. In their quest for elegance they often seem completely indifferent to consequence.
Consider for a moment, stalkers. We all know how notoriously difficult it can be for law enforcement to respond to a stalker in a way that ensures the victim’s safety. Already what I have presented is clearly a form of stalking, one that takes it to a new level entirely. But what if, what if it is accidents that come stalking? Accidents, and the paramedics, firefighters and police officers that attend to them with loud and blaring sirens, and flashing colored lights. If the accidents are faked then the worst we may say is that it represents a significant drain on the municipal budget, as well as presenting an inherent risk to the pubic and the first responders committed to answer the call. And if the accidents are real? Products of engineering designed with the intent to intimidate? Designed to assure the victim of this process of stalking that they must comply. Comply or the accidents continue. Comply, or they could be next. Shh, they say, shh.
Research has shown that an epileptic seizure may be induced using a bright flash of light. In Japan several years ago over 700 school children were sent to the hospital after watching a new piece of Japanese animation shown on tv. You might be tempted to suppose that epileptics are particularly vulnerable as tools within the process. Yet as epileptics their utility is somewhat limited. Within the process as I have described, there is nothing like the forecast of a plane crash or a large fireball on the interstate. With just a few short days of torment of this nature, any given subject may be driven to the point of suicide.
Or locked in a mental institution, babbling incoherently.
Or in prison, after acting out violently against a society it seems, that is bent on the destruction of the very principles on which it was founded.
I am well aware of how fantastic this all sounds. Within American society grand notions of conspiracy are widely associated with madness. When someone suddenly stands up in our midst screaming ‘they are out to get me’ we may wonder, but without evidence of conspiracy the witness is discounted. The more they rant, the easier it is for us to discount them, and sadly, this is true even among us who have seen the process.
A test may be in order. I am writing about the tools of behavioral conditioning. I am writing about neural-linguistic-reprogramming. It is not a term I have made up, it is one that was used in my presence over ten years ago. If it is a term in usage it should appear either in the encyclopedia or dictionary. Maybe Google will provide some insight.
If that fails, then try this. Take this linguistic construct to a clinician in the field of mental health. Take it to several of them. If what I have written is valid, then there will be two things to observe. The first is the lack of complete candor on the subject. The second is the appearance of an underlying sense of apprehension, or even fear. If your subject has been behaviorally conditioned to avoid responses to the question of neural-linguistic-reprogramming, then both fear and denial when confronted with the topic should be most apparent.
Silence on this issue by the community of mental health professionals seems in my view to be almost completely universal. Exposure of this process and the evident silence around it brings into question the credibility of the entire industry. When we label an individual as insane we insist their experience of reality is invalid, that it does not apply; we strip them of credibility and subject them to a degree of ostracism from society. This is power.
If we label someone as insane we invalidate their real life experience. If their experience of reality is valid, if it is real and can be reproduced, then denial of their experience becomes denial of reality. To expand such a process throughout our society must inevitably lead to a complete loss of our collective sense of identity, values, and beliefs about the world around us. Once these things are gone there may be little left but fear.
“I will not live under that yoke.”
And so I say, REVOLT. If the process is to be effective, it requires proof; proof of death, or of immediate, physical harm. Without it such practice will be revealed as nothing more than a scam, a charade, a practical joke, and silence can not be ensured. No one of us has any more right to life or to liberty than any such proof ever given, and so I say we must revolt. And if we will stifle free speech that has no other agenda but truth and the preservation of civil liberty, than this nation is no longer worthy of patriotic allegiance, and I would rather it burn to the ground by our own hands, than at the hands of others.
We must revolt.
© D. Winter