Mind melding with the CIA - Is Charlie Sheen an MK-Ultra victim?
Here are a few snippets of his recent public comments:
This isn't the first time that Sheen's personal life and beliefs have been the focus of media scrutiny and used as an opportunity to push an agenda. Back in 2006 he began to voice his opinion that the official story of the 9/11 attacks did not make sense and questions remained unanswered:
Obviously, the topic I am broaching here is the possible link between Sheen's public stance on 9/11 and his subsequent psychological collapse and the media portrayal of him (with good reason) as being 'crazy'. Despite what many think, the idea that Sheen may be the target of surreptitious psychological interference by those who would prefer he keep his mouth shut about the 9/11 attacks is a reasonable one:
Project MKULTRA, or MK-ULTRA, was the code name for a covert, illegal CIA human research program, run by the U.S. Office of Scientific Intelligence. This official U.S. government program began in the early 1950s, continuing at least through the late 1960s, and it used U.S. and Canadian citizens as its test subjects.Then there is this from a Cassiopaean session of July 1995:
The published evidence indicates that Project MKULTRA involved the use of many methodologies to manipulate individual mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs and other chemicals, sensory deprivation, isolation, and verbal and sexual abuse. While the CIA claims that MKULTRA-type experiments have been abandonded, 14-year CIA veteran Victor Marchetti stated in various interviews that CIA mind control research continued. In a 1977 interview, Marchetti specifically called the CIA claim that MKULTRA was abandoned a "cover story."
Q: (L) Do any of the STS beings have the ability to cause us physical problems, or mental or emotional problems when not in direct contact with us?If, as a result of his stance on the official version of 9/11, Charlie Sheen has indeed been targeted in one of the ways described above, he probably isn't the first. Consider the case of former MI5 agent David Shayler. In early 1996 Shayler became aware of an MI6 plot to assassinate Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi in February 1996 without the permission of the then foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind. The plan involved paying ยฃ100,000 to the (officially 'terrorist' and 'al-Qaeda-linked') Libyan Islamic Fighting Group to carry out the attack. The group was paid to plant a bomb underneath Gaddafi's motorcade but the bomb was planted under the wrong car and failed to kill Gaddafi and instead killed several innocent civilians. Shayler then left MI5 and became a 'whistle blower'. Over the next 10 years he made efforts to expose the lies about the war on terror, the 9/11 attacks and the London train bombings.
A: Certainly.
Q: (L) How is this done?
A: A number of different methods used.
Q: (L) Could you give us one or two examples of how this is done?
A: There are many: sound wave manipulation of the ultra-high frequency range would be one.
Q: (L) What do these sound waves in the ultra-high frequencies do?
A: They can alter chemical balances within the body of the subject, thereby also the brain, using the physical path to cause distress by altering these chemical imbalances into place.
Q: (L) Do these ultra-high frequency sound waves ever carry messages in terms of pre-coded suggestions that are triggered by these waves?
A: Messages are not carried in ultra-high frequency sound waves. Now, you are talking about an entirely different method. Sound wave focusing is designed to alter body and brain chemistry in order to alter such things as physical sensations, emotions, and so forth, which then may lead to the altering of mental thought patterns. But messages are not sent by ultra-high frequency sound waves. Messages are sent by something called Free Formal Imaging.
Q: (L) And what does that describe?
A: That describes the transference of thought. [...]
Q: (L) Okay. Can it be sent to a directed target?
A: Absolutely.
Here he is on the UK's Sky News in 2006:
Within a year of the above interview, Shayler had taken an unfortunate 'turn' that is not dissimilar to that taken by Sheen:
Two years later, in 2009, things weren't looking much better:
Note the comment by the narrator in the last video above that: "many supporters say this turn robs him [Shayler] of his credibility, destroying a reputation for sensible anti-establishment bravery. The path from mainstream whistle blower to 9/11 conspiracy theorist to now self-proclaimed messiah could arguably be a wish come true for the secret services that once tried to gag him."Meet Delores, the ex-MI5 officer now living as a womanShayler as 'Delores Kane' aka Jesus the transvestite.
Today, Shayler calls himself both "Messiah" - born out of his belief that he can save humanity - and also "Delores Kane" - his transvestite other self, a role for which he dons false breasts, mini-skirt and ginger wig.
Shayler told the local weekly paper: "I have realised that I am Christ and I am here to save humanity. In 2012 it is widely predicted that the world will end. It is predicted there will be a massive change in people's consciousness and we will see the end of Babylon and the end of the world as we know it. Jesus was a transvestite.''
From this we deduce that, according to the mainstream media, those who disbelieve the official version of the 9/11 attacks are half way down the road to a messiah complex and thus fundamentally unstable, or in danger of becoming so. But I have to admit that it is a little frustrating to see mainstream media journalists flirt so closely with the likely truth of the matter - that in the cases of people like Shayler and Sheen, it is not their opinions or the fact of their 'break-downs' that are most intriguing, but rather the way in which the people who obviously want to see them consigned to the loony bin keep 'lucking out' in the most coincidental ways.
Of course, very few people watching the media coverage of the Sheens or Shaylers of this world will ever consider it anything other than the titillating voyeurism of the sort that passes for television entertainment these days. And keeping the masses distracted while simultaneously ridiculing 'conspiracy theorists' is a job well done for the ruling class of this world. But before you start crediting yourself with a truly open mind because you don't believe the official story of 9/11 and accept that mind control is real and possible, consider this:
Because people have been so programmed, in myriad ways, throughout their whole lives to believe, and believe in, the righteousness of authority, the task of disabusing anyone of the appropriateness of that belief is rather difficult. But when you go down to the level of politics and political persuasions, convincing anyone of anything that runs counter to their cherished political beliefs and identifications becomes virtually impossible.
Politics is closely associated (or dissociated) in many people's minds with nationality, nationalism, family and ultimately, their own identity. Try to convince the average American, for example, that American governments have been a force for evil rather than good in the world, and you immediately challenge in him (or her) a whole host of very personal and dearly held beliefs that extend as far back as their childhood experiences of 'mom and Apple pie'.
Lay out to your British friend all the reasons that the 'Great' in Great Britain is undeserved and he may suddenly be reminded of his grandmother telling him, in harrowing detail, how much she suffered during the London 'Blitz'.
And just try telling the average member of the Jewish diaspora or, if you're feeling particularly brave, an Israeli Jew, how Israel is an apartheid state that was established on stolen land and your point will not only be lost on him, but his mind and emotions will be instantly propelled back to Nazi Germany or, perhaps, some mythical BCE 'parting of the waters' event in the Arabian desert. In short, there's a reason why politics is often on the taboo list at dinner parties.
An excerpt from Barbara Oakley's book Evil Genes explains why in more detail:
A recent imaging study by psychologist Drew Westen and his colleagues at Emory University provides firm support for the existence of emotional reasoning. Just prior to the 2004 Bush-Kerry presidential elections, two groups of subjects were recruited - fifteen ardent Democrats and fifteen ardent Republicans. Each was presented with conflicting and seemingly damaging statements about their candidate, as well as about more neutral targets such as actor Tom Hanks (who, it appears, is a likable guy for people of all political persuasions). Unsurprisingly, when the participants were asked to draw a logical conclusion about a candidate from the other - "wrong" - political party, the participants found a way to arrive at a conclusion that made the candidate look bad, even though logic should have mitigated the particular circumstances and allowed them to reach a different conclusion. Here's where it gets interesting.To the above we would add that, other than it being a painful process, the reason a person does not change their fundamental beliefs when confronted with conflicting information, even if that information can be proven to be true, is that there isn't enough motivation or 'reward' for them to make the effort. If there were, they would 'bite the bullet' and do it.
When this "emote control" began to occur, parts of the brain normally involved in reasoning were not activated. Instead, a constellation of activations occurred in the same areas of the brain where punishment, pain, and negative emotions are experienced (that is, in the left insula, lateral frontal cortex, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex). Once a way was found to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted, the neural punishment areas turned off, and the participant received a blast of activation in the circuits involving rewards - akin to the high an addict receives when getting his fix.
In essence, the participants were not about to let facts get in the way of their hot-button decision making and quick buzz of reward. "None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones." {...}
Ultimately, Westen and his colleagues believe that "emotionally biased reasoning leads to the 'stamping in' or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associationg the participant's 'revisionist' account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. 'The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data,'" Westen says. Westen's remarkable study showed that neural information processing related to what he terms "motivated reasoning" ... appears to be qualitatively different from reasoning when a person has no strong emotional stake in the conclusions to be reached. ๏ปฟ
The simple fact is that politics and political activism - trying to change anything by chasing down and exposing the crimes of political leaders - is now a dead end street (if indeed it hasn't always been so). The entire political debate from the point of view of 'truth-tellers' has long since been co-opted by (sometimes paid) hysterical shills and noise makers. At this point in human history, with a sixth extinction looming, knowing that Henry Kissinger or George Bush, or Tony Blair or Barak Obama (for just a few of many examples) are degenerate apes, inveterate liars and psychopathic nut jobs to boot, will do nothing to stave off the encroaching cyclical cosmic catastrophe that threatens the very existence of man and ape alike.
While some readers have theorized that Sott.net's recent change in focus from politics to the coming earth changes etc. was a protective measure due to the dangers posed by exposing political skulduggery, let us just say that this is not the case. In fact, it is our understanding that the powers that be are only too happy to have those with a penchant for truth-telling should, on the eve of major earth changes, waste their energies on efforts to correct an historical slate that will soon be wiped clean anyway.
The time for wrangling over the rights or wrongs of politics, modern or historical, has passed. It's time (or rather long past time) to focus our efforts on bringing into sharp relief the fact that the clock is ticking down on human life on planet earth. At stake are not just our political persuasions, cultural identifications or childhood memories, but rather the entire past, present and future of (potentially) all life on earth. Of course, convincing people of this view of reality is unlikely to be a walk in the park. Unlike politics, or political history with its phony dialectic, when it comes to cosmic catastrophe, there is no earthly authority to be aligned with or appealed to in order to save our skins. The great cosmic mix-master cares not if you are a Republican, a Democrat or a 9/11 'truther'. Of course, the idea that we, as a species, are facing some form of mass extinction (and that it is a cyclical phenomenon) goes against everything we have been told by our scientists and historians about our planet and place in the cosmos. So in the same way that people find it almost impossible to reason rationally when presented with conflicting and seemingly damaging statements about their political candidate, people will find it difficult to accept the rather 'damaging' idea that their cozy existential beliefs are ill-founded.
But here we find the one important difference between politics and impending earth changes: in politics, there is 'my party' and 'your party', a 50/50 chance of 'victory' and therefore not much motivation to break free from emotional reasoning. But with the idea of global cataclysm, we're all in the same boat, existentially speaking, and I'd wager that, on the emotional pain meter, the threat of being wiped off the face of the earth trumps having to accept that Bush lied (for example). For this reason, spreading the word about the strong (and growing) evidence for an approaching extinction level event on earth is vastly more important than chasing illusions about bringing some ignorant political evil-doer to the world court, or penning editorial pieces about the dire state of the economy. Simply stated, the time for all of that has passed. The lights are soon to go out across planet earth, and if we are to survive (or even mitigate the extent of the catastrophe) as many people on this planet need to sit up, take notice, re-prioritize and understand that we are all being stalked by something decidedly wicked.
I watched Sheens craziness last night, wondering what the heck was happening with him. And, just as you say, I had to chalk the coverage up to that voyeurism that has become a staple of television. I didn't know he'd started talking about 9/11.
And as for David Shayler... WTH? I remember when he became a whistle blower; I remember seeing him on the news exposing the government. But I never saw his melt-down. That was shocking!