2018 Full Video Transcript scraped from YouTube
“Narrative Networks to tailor Psyops & weaponizing population-wide Bio-Data”
Rumble | Telegram
This clip is from 2018: Full Lecture: https://youtu.be/N02SK9yd60s
Dr. James Giordano: The Brain is the Battlefield of the Future, 29 Oct 2018
One of the DARPA programs run by the case management by the program manager Dr. Bill Casebeer, who subsequently went on to be a program manager at Lockheed Martin and run their brain machine interfacing programs. His program was called narrative networks and one component of the narrative networks project with something called neural narratives: if we understand how it is that brains and individuals, groups, and populations respond to certain forms of imaging, memes, iconographies,
engagements, etc. the more we may be able to tailor those things through our psychological operations propaganda to be able to engage these individuals in more positive ways, or in ways that are more influential; to be able to direct their behaviours, their predispositions, and perhaps their engagements with us on a variety of levels from the individual all the way up to the political.
But then of course we move into the more harder forms of weapons. Things like bullets and bombs. Let me reiterate we’re talking about on the neuro side are drugs, bugs, toxins, and devices.
If we spill over the idea of soft weaponology into a hard weaponization, we also see the use of bio data as a viable weapon. Manipulating bio data so that I can then put into your particular medical records subtle information that may change the disposition of whether you’re sick or not. Change how you’re treated. Influence the postures that go to you in terms of insurance, care, viability for military service. By altering that information, by changing those data, by purloining those data, I essentially changed the you of you and I can do that in very subtle and insidious ways.
Furthermore I can do that on a variety of different levels that can affect key individuals, so that in
fact your medical record changes so thereby render you incapable or at least invalid to be able to serve in a way you’re serving. Or I can do that on a much larger scale – groups, populations. And if I
change those data, I change the way you’re being regarded and treated, and I can do that in one of two ways: I can do it in such a way they’re going to be regarded in a negative sense or I can do it in such a way that I’m going to treat you incorrectly: if I say for example you have a particular allergy, or you have particular sensitivities, or you have a particular disorder: you will be treated for that, and that could then
harm your health and your stability in both a short Wars approach as well as a long Wars approach.
But if we take a look at this in a little more detail, you can see that once again it falls back to the idea of what can we do to ours and what can be done to others. Clearly, one dimension, one domain of operational viability and value is to enhance the capabilities of the combat and intelligence operator across a range of scale abilities in both general purpose and more select forces, and this is the idea of neuro enablement.
Neuro enablement is referred to in a variety of ways, including performance optimization, enhancement, enablement, and maximization. These terms mean something.
You’re enabling individuals to do some aspects of a performance of a task that is germane and justified to their operational mission and that is in fact done with regard to protection of their charges. So in other words we’re saying we’re going to make you good to go and we’ve decided that this is good.
The reason this can become problematic of course is that what definition of good are we using? What we define? Whoever is defined by the proverbial “we”. What we may think be to be good might be quite different than what they – whoever the proverbial “they” is. As a consequence, we have to keep a much broader wing of opportunity and possibility open to be aware for the potential benefits, burns and risks that this type of engagement may pose.
What types of things can we do to make our people better? Well certainly we can use a variety of advanced psychopharmacological and formicalogics – in other words drugs.
I refer you to a wonderful book written by a colleague of mine professor Jonathan Moreno called “Mind Wars“. First edition came out in 2006 second edition came out in 2012. Professor Moreno does a very good job in defining explaining the history and historicity of the way the brain and cognitive sciences had been used in national security intelligence and defense operations both by the United States and more globally.
And what we see is that this is certainly not a new event we can look back into antiquity and see that there have been attempts to try to maximize the performance capability, sustainability, and protection of those individuals who are operational war fighters–literally from ancient Roman Greece all the way to the 20th and now 21st century.
It’s the tools and techniques based upon the understanding and depth that we have that increases the granularity and specificity of effect and increases the sophistication and gravitas of outcome the more we know about the brain the more you can develop ever more selective agents to affect the structures and functions of the brain and cognition, emotion, and actions and the more we can do so in a way that’s more like sharp-shooting rather than buck-shotting.
Drugs can be somewhat dirty. What I mean by that, is they can have a host of adverse effects, side effects and direct effects, and very often will find that unless we’re able to deliver the drugs directly to a particular site in the brain or elsewhere in the nervous system, they can have heterogeneity of effects throughout the body that can lead us to some undesirable outcomes.
But we don’t need to be limited to drugs no no we can also use a variety of computational brain machine interfaces that are both closed and open loop and these include things like transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation stimulating the vagus nerve transdermally.
Or if you wanted to get somewhat more invasive but certainly more specific, brain machine interfaces by virtue of deep brain and superficial brain implants.
One of the leading projects in developing state-of-the-art brain implants is a DARPA funded project aimed at the medical side for the treatment of neurological and neuropsychiatric spectrum disorders—and this program is called subnets systems based neuro technologies for emerging therapies, but you also need to appreciate is that DARPA program.
Like any program that is oriented towards engaging brain function to then alter those functions in certain ways directional ways can be harnessed what’s called dual use medical purposes that are then deep purposed to medicine and use for other agenda inclusive of war fighter enable in their enhancement furthermore we understand that there are a number of nations outside the United States some of whom are allied others that are at least competitive if not combative that are engaged in these types of programs looking at the capability for transcranial and deep intracranial modulation of brain function to improve the functional performance of military and intelligence operators across a range of viable missional tasks we are not alone in these pursuits and I think that’s something needs to be appreciated but it’s not just a question of what we can do to our own because very often in raising these questions we tend to what I will err on the side of moral probity and we recognize that there are particular limitations limits boundaries thresholds that cannot and perhaps should not be crossed in terms of what we can do and if we intend to cross them we only cross them with consent and that consent is highly contingent upon the necessity of a continuity of research and clinical care understanding what happens to the individual once they’ve been enabled and enhanced and what may happen when they’re no longer enabled in enhanced.
In other words more colloquy when Superman goes back to being Clark Kent what happens to Clark become as the burden obligation of our responsibilities however those ethics are not homogeneous on the world stage and the idea of pushing the envelope of what can be done to the combat war fighter and intelligence operator and perhaps more broadly to those individuals who may oppose particular regimes end or maybe military fighters against your own regime it’s very often bounded by and in some cases D constricted by philosophies cultures and ethics of those individuals who may be competitive if not combative to us.
So in other words, this can also be weaponized against others and this is where we get into the idea of novel neural weapons once again this is not necessarily new but the momentum of this dimension of the field has accelerated as a consequence of increased understanding of the brain increased capability to develop tools and techniques to access and affect the brain so what are we seeing.
Here we’ll take a look we see in close neuro pharmaceuticals and organic toxins.
What’s new about this is the enclosed nature of this increasingly we’re not seeing these things as weapons of mass destruction against growth aspects of the population although certainly many neural weapons such as sarin gas and VX and other forms of neurotoxic agents can be leveraged against large groups of people but that’s messy more specifically perhaps might be targeting individuals on a level that allows either direct attribution or covert engagement with non attribution.
Let me give an example of what I mean: so this gentleman is the leader of some group a political group a social group a combative group and under the available white flag he and I announced to have some kind of meeting, and during that meeting what I do is: I lace the rim of his drink, or his pen, or his seat, or something in his medium environment, with a very, very low-dose drug or toxins that are going to affect his stability.
They may affect the way his brain works and as a consequence of that they can affect the functions of his brain his thought patterns his relative emotionality and the behaviours that go along with that. One of two things might happen: he might be completely incapacitated as a consequence of this or he may change his level of capacity and engagement so that:
He went into the meeting thinking “I hate this guy; this guy’s my enemy“.
He walks out of the meeting “I love this guy; this guy’s great“.
Now, what could happen if in fact this is a gentleman who has charismatic financial elected or dictatorial power?
It may be that his followers will then follow him blindly.
He came into the meeting as a leader of those followers who were bellicose, were volatile, were violent and aggressive. He comes out of the meeting and tells them to change their behaviours, and they do.