Monday, June 8, 2015

VALIDATED: The Brain Difference Between TARGETED VICTIMS Reactions and PERPETRATOR'S Reactions

08 June 2015

I've been waiting for the below publication because I have spoken about it on several occasions on my show, and have documented in terms of at my time and analysis of the illegal neurological experiments transpiring that there were two protocols taking place.


1. the Targeted Individuals Aggression/Anger in the "heat of the moment" i.e. screaming/yelling, acting out During or After some type of Organized Provocation takes place i.e. vandalism, petty theft, break/enter, constant electronic harassment, electronic warfare disruption, DDoS, interference, hacking, directed energy weapons blasting be they heat, acoustics, shocks, pulses, etc - to the extensive transcranial magnetic stimulations or magnetic pulses fired through the human skull to activate or deactivate various brain regions - These wold be considered IMMEDIATE or DURING SOMETHING that was committed, done, inflicted by an EXTERNAL SOURCE - generally to DELIBERATELY PROVOKE a Negative Response -

2. the recruited Civilian Perpetrator Communities for their deliberate/cognizant active involvement, and or direct participation in committing acts of Instrumental Aggression upon and against the Targeted Individual who resides within that Community i.e. community harassment, stalking, mobbing, vehicle stalking & crowding, job mobbing/harassment, group harassment, torturing via criminal access to directed energy Anti-Personnel Less Lethals, Biological-Technological Weapons in the form of Wireless Neurotechs, etc.


A Target may scream out in pain, frustration, and hate DURING THE MOMENTS they are being victimized by some event that is deliberately inflicted by the Recruited Perps, and their negative responses to such organized violence, mob mentality and extra judicial targeting.

Whereas the recruited Perp Communities, will gather, plot, plan, and with premeditated, malicious intent, seek ways in which to STRIKE OUT, INFLICT and COMMIT various Crimes upon and against the Targeted Victim.

Two types of Aggressive behavior - ONE BIOMETRIC SYSTEM to DETECT MALICIOUS INTENT via Next, Next Generation Biometrics i.e Optical, Facial, Emotion and Vocal to BRAIN Recognition - and to Prove in a Court that the Behavioral Software has the Capacity to DISTINGUISH and DIFFERENTIATE the difference between a Victim/Provoked Aggression and a Potential Perpetrator of some Crime /Premeditated Malicious Intent Aggression.

I term this the "SMEAR, FEAR, HATE, RETALIATION, REVENGE Campaign and Once the Perps have been Sufficiently Radicalized will in fact strike out at the Target: WITHOUT QUESTION, WITHOUT RESERVATION, WITHOUT REMORSE and MOST OF ALL WITHOUT REGARD to the HUMAN LIFE and or HUMANITY of the TARGETED INDIVIDUAL -" 

I have used this example: A woman gets a call from work that something has happened to one of her parents - She leaves work, and must get to the airport to catch a flight to say her last good-byes to an ill parent in another state.  She comes home from work unannounced and finds her husband in bed with another woman.  (She is feeling all sorts of NEGATIVE EMOTIONS - hate, wanting to castrate her husband, wanting to harm the female in their bed with her husband, etc...  violence/aggression) but does not have time to deal with this because she HAS to Catch a flight - on her way to the airport, there is traffic, which is making her late with the possibility of missing the flight (agitated, anxious, etc emotions) At this stage her BRAIN is firing in all sorts of different NEGATIVE WAYS - 

This particular Airport has Biometric Malicious Intent Sensors and Tracks people walking through the airport who may have Malicious Intent - HOW CAN THESE BIOMETRIC SYSTEMS DETECT MALICIOUS INTENT and KNOW the ABOVE EMOTIONS of the Victim of witnessing her husbands infidelity, her anxiety she may not make her flight to say her last good-byes to her parent, her agitation at possibly being late, her anger at the entire situation, are not just CIRCUMSTANCE of something immediate as opposed to someone with true malicious intent to harm others is walking through that same airport?

If, these Biometric Malicious Intent Sensors Systems CANNOT Distinguish the two, then the system is FLAWED.  And, even more importantly having NEGATIVE THOUGHTS not based on Premeditated Malicious Intent, but due to a variety of negative circumstance in the immediate aftermath and those negative thoughts based upon those circumstances.  

Thus, these MALIANT DETECTION SYSTEMS must also be able to distinguish True PROVOCATION / Reaction and SUBJECTIVE PROVOCATION /Infliction of Violence - 

Target may have negative thoughts due to being the victims of aggressive, organized criminal behavior being inflicted (THOUGHTS)

The Perp Communities negative thoughts about any given Target causes them to CROSS that line from Negative THOUGHTS to Negative ACTS and ACTIONS against the Targeted Victim (NEGATIVE ACTIONS)

The following published study now goes into some detail about using Neuroscience and Neurotechnologies to better distinguish between how these Two Different types of Aggression and can be distinguished through brain mapping which they are terming : "REACTIVE" aggression (Targeted Individual's) and  "INSTRUMENTAL" that of the Entire Recruited Perpetrator Communities..

A key distinction for research on aggression is between “reactive” and “instrumental” subtypes (Berkowitz, 1989). Reactive aggression is an impulsive, anger-laden response, immediately following some type of provocation (e.g., a bar fight triggered by an insult). By contrast, instrumental aggression is pre-meditated and goal-oriented (e.g., battering a potential witness to intimidate them into withholding testimony)

Different mental disorders are associated with increased risk for each type of aggression. Post- traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia, for example, are associated with increased risk for reactive aggression (Vitiello et al., 1990, Sullivan and Elbogen, 2013). Notably, psychopathy is the only disorder known to confer increased risk for both reactive and instrumental aggression (Cornell et al., 1996). Given that reactive and instrumental aggression can be differentially affected in mental health disorders, it makes sense that somewhat separable neural systems subserve these behaviors (see White, Meffert & Blair, Science in the Courtroom Vol. 1, No. 1). 

Though this report "CLAIMS" to only have conducted Experiments on Rodents', Target's like myself KNOW that they are using American Soil as a Huge Laboratory and Social Experiment - but more importantly the Recruited Perpetrator Communities are the COMPUTATIONAL DATA that will BUILD NATIONWIDE MALICIOUS INTENT BEHAVIORAL DETECTION SENSORS - as their NEUROLOGICAL OUTPUT is far more in line with DETECTING ACTS and ACTIONS with Malicious Intent because THEY ... not the Targeted Victim/s have literally crossed the line from their Negative Thoughts about a Target, right into Active Negative Acts and Actions upon and against that Targeted Victim.

In addition, Target's DO NOT suffer from Schizophrenia or Paranoid Delusions, they SUFFER from Deliberate and Repeated infliction of Premeditated Aggressive Violence, and Traumatic Experiences to cause the greatest levels of continued Traumatic Stress.

 I have proven the neuro-scientists theories are FLAWED by way of providing a salient example about the "WOMAN TAKING A FLIGHT" - she is neither Schizophrenic, Paranoid or suffering from Post Traumatic Stress - She has been Traumatized, yes... by the immediate experiences, but is not the WHO reacts more to various Aggressive Thoughts and Behaviors.

As such the Targeted Individual/Victim may suffer from Traumatic Stress and Post Traumatic Stress from constant Blitzing sustained on a daily basis as a myriad of premeditated protocols, tactics, techniques, weaponized technologies, anti-personnel directed energy weapons, weaponized technologies, bio-technologies and neurotechnologies are indiscriminately inflicted upon and against the Target with premeditated, malicious intent for the purpose of PROVOKING a Target into negatively reacting to such Violence.


From the Snowden Leaks - JTRIG Ops 1. Blitz a Target 2. Take PARANOIA to a Whole New Leavel

HERE IS THE REALITY, which I have REPEATED on Numerous Occassion's:

IF, you want to study TERRORISM, ORGANIZED TERRORISM, TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES, and ACTIVITIES, not to mention RADICALIZED EXTREMISM, HUBRIS, WITHOUT REMORSE, ABILITY TO DISTINGUISH RIGHT from WRONG - a Targeted Individual cannot provide the computational data necessary because they are the VICTIMS of Terrorism - 

WHERE the researchers will find the MOST computational data will be via THEMSELVES, along with the recruited Perp communities because THEY alone exhibit the most data in terms of Malicious Intent, Malicious Acts, Dark Triad Pathologies, etc.  And, I would include MOST ALL those CONDUCTING the EXPERIMENTS because their belief that AMERICAN SOIL is their LABORATORY to conduct such Human Experiments - PROVES above and beyond the Recruited Perpetrator Communities, they as the Experts, Professionals, etc suffer the most in terms of negative pathologies and beliefs.  

Narrative Networks

Added: Oct 07, 2011 1:11 pm
DARPA is soliciting innovative research proposals in the areas of (1) quantitative analysis of narratives, (2) understanding the effects narratives have on human psychology and its affiliated neurobiology, and (3) modeling, simulating, and sensing-especially in stand-off modalities-these narrative influences. Proposers to this effort will be expected to revolutionize the study of narratives and narrative influence by advancing narrative analysis and neuroscience so as to create new narrative influence sensors, doubling status quo capacity to forecast narrative influence.

  1. TA 1 Sub-goal One: Develop new, and extend existing narrative theories. Identify the nature of stories, including, but not limited to, a list of necessary and sufficient conditions that help distinguish narrative stimuli from other stimuli. Identify and explore the kinematics and dynamics of story ontology. Identify and explore the structure and function of narratives, including identifying and discussing aspects of narratives that are universal versus aspects that vary considerably across cultural or social contexts.
  2. TA 1 Sub-goal Two: Identify and understand the role of narrative in security contexts. Determine the role and extent stories play in influencing political violence. Identify and explore the function narratives serve in the process of political radicalization and how they can influence a person or group’s choice of means (such as indiscriminant violence) to achieve political ends. Identify and explore how narratives influence bystanders-to-conflict in terms of shaping their attitudes and perceptions. Identify and explore how narratives shape the process of negotiation, especially between key stakeholders. Identify and explore the relationship between narratives and the mechanisms that generate and reinforce psychiatric or clinical conditions. Develop methodologies that enable assessment of the impact of narratives on attitudes and perceptions. 
    3. TA 1 Sub-goal Three: Survey and extend the state of the art in narrative analysis and decomposition tools. Take narratives and make them quantitatively analyzable in a rigorous, transparent and repeatable fashion. Identify and develop narrative analysis tools that best establish a framework for the scientific study of the psychological and neurobiological impact of stories on people. Identify and develop analytic approaches or tools that explore how stories propagate in a system so as to influence behavior. Identify temporal and spatial dimensions of narratives in different media and how these dimensions complicate the analysis of narratives, and develop a framework or method for addressing these complications to enable advancements in Technical Areas Two and Three. 

    Technical Area Two: Narrative Neurobiology. Since the brain is the proximate cause of our actions, stories have a direct impact on the neurobiological processes of both the senders and receivers of narratives. Understanding how stories inform neurobiological processes is critical if we are to ascertain what effect stories have on the psychology and neurobiology of human choices and behaviors. The primary goal of Technical Area Two is to revolutionize our understanding of how narratives and stories influence our underlying neurobiology at multiple levels of analysis, ranging from basic neurochemistry, to the systems level, to big-picture system-of-systems analysis. Technical Area Two serves as the neurobiological and neurochemical backbone of the narratives identified and analyzed as being relevant in Technical Area One, and proposals that link TA 2 goals to explanations of salient narrative psychological phenomena such as engagement, transportation, immersion, and synchronization are highly encouraged.

    1. TA 2 Sub-goal One: Assay narrative effects on our basic neurochemistry. Determine if narratives uniquely modulate human hormone or neurotransmitter production. Determine if the production and uptake of behaviorally important neurotransmitters such as oxytocin or serotonin is influenced by narratives, and in what way. Identify novel neurotransmitters or other biologically active molecules modulated by narrative influence. Determine the impact of narratives on volume transmission systems in the brain in general. Determine the manner in which narrative effects change during ontogeny and/or due to socio-economic and other environmental conditions.
    2. TA 2 Sub-goal Two: Understand narrative impact on the neurobiology of memory, learning and identity. Identify the mechanisms that explain why stories modulate recall. Determine how brain regions important for memory are influenced by narratives. Identify what role reward processing mechanisms associated with learning play in the processing of narratives. Explore the differential influence of stories on neurotransmitter systems as compared to other environmental stimuli. Determine how stories impact the neurobiology of important identity-related judgments, such as whom you consider to be a member of your in-group and whom you count as an out-group member.
    3. TA 2 Sub-goal Three: Assess narrative influence on the neurobiology of emotions. Identify the neurobiological emotions that are impacted by salient narratives. Determine why, in neural terms, stories are especially effective at generating emotional reactions. Identify and explore any unique influences narratives have on the neural mechanisms of empathy and sympathy. Determine in neurobiological terms how and why narratives stir emotions such as disgust or outrage.
    4. TA 2 Sub-goal Four: Examine how narratives influence the neurobiology of moral judgment. Explore the influence of stories on the neurobiology of moral judgment and development. Determine what aspects of narratives are most likely to cause changes in moral judgments and via what mechanism. Identify the neural mechanism or mechanisms by which narratives affect judgments about moral guilt and innocence, or the moral permissibility and/or impermissibility of certain actions.
    5. TA 2 Sub-goal Five: Determine how narratives modulate other brain mechanisms related to social cognition. Determine how narratives differentially affect the neurobiological basis of theory of mind and judgments of the mental states of others. Identify and explore how stories influence neural mechanisms responsible for the generation and sustainment of collective action or group behavior. Determine if and by what mechanisms stories uniquely synchronize or sustain the neural mechanisms of shared attention, collaboration, joint problem- solving and trust. 

      Proposals are considered responsive to Technical Area Two if they address more than one of the sub-goals described above. Proposals that include additional sub-goals are also welcome and will be considered for funding. DARPA anticipates funding a set of teams that considered collectively address all of Technical Area Two’s stated sub- goals.

      Technical Area Three: Narrative Models, Simulations and Sensors. In order to understand exactly how narratives influence human behavior, models must be developed that can simulate these influences and directly measure their impact. This technical area will focus on the development of tools to understand others, detect narrative influence, and predict responses. The ultimate goal of Technical Area Three is to enable prevention of negative behavioral outcomes, such as use of indiscriminant violence, and generation of positive behavioral outcomes, such as building trust. This will involve modeling and simulating the influence of narratives on individuals and/or groups to help us predict and quantify how and why our behavior changes as a result of narrative interaction. Proposals to this technical area will address these goals by building sensor systems that detect the appropriate variables contained in these models. Technical Area Three captures the deliverables and technologies that potential users will be most likely to interact with at the conclusion of the program. These models, simulations and sensors should be designed in a manner that allows for modification and refinement due to the successful incorporation of methodologies and findings developed and confirmed in Technical Areas One and Two. 

    Once again, Bittersweet - Validated in terms of the Experiments being conducted on the Non Consensual Target's - but also knowing and being validated that the PERP Communities are the bigger Guinea Pigs - does put a smile on my face - and KNOWING that these BIOMETRICS and NEUROTECH will one day be USED to PUT THESE PERPS IN PRISON WHERE THEY BELONG - makes it that much SWEETER - it is just SAD to be ACCURATE in knowing just how LITTLE those in Positions of Authority and or Expertise really think about the AMERICAN PEOPLE....  

    Here is more information about Instrumental Aggression (PERP'S) tied into Psychopathy - I stand behind the claim that ALL RECRUITED PERPS are Profiled, just like Target's have been, and they are TESTED/EVALUATED to determine if "THEY" fit the type of psychopathologies necessary to become recruited - be they penchant for, borderline, and or full blown within the Dark Triad (MachiavellianNarcissism, and Anti-Social i.e. Sociopath and or Psychopath) personality types be they borderline to full blown pathologies.  

    This makes them Prime Candidates for recruitment, because it takes a CERTAIN type of Personality type who would without question, without reservation, without remorse, and or without regard to the human life and or humanity of the Targeted Victim - Indiscriminately utilize Tactics, Techniques and or Weaponized Technologies to HARM a Targeted Individual.  

    NOT ONLY HAVE THEY MAPPED THE NEUROLOGICAL SYNAPTIC PATHWAYS BETWEEN "REACTIONARY" heat of the moment anger/aggression to "INSTRUMENTAL" Premeditated Intent of Aggression - Here is a little more about the actual Link between Psychopathy and Instrumental Aggressors (PERP Community) 


2. Psychopathy and instrumental aggression
A unique feature of psychopathy is that it is associated with an increased risk for instrumental aggression (Blair, 2007b ).lnstrumental aggression, also referred to as proactive or predatory aggression, is controlled, purposeful, and used to achieve a desired external goal

(e.g., to obtain money or drugs). Injury to others is typically secondary to the acquisition of some other goal. Instrumental aggression tends to be premeditated and is not preceded by a strong emotional reaction. In other disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, increases in aggression tend to be relatively more reactive in nature. Reactive aggression is impulsive and emotion-driven acts in response to threat or provocation (e.g.. in the context of a heated argument) (Meloy, 1988, 1997). The classification of individuals or acts as reactively and instrumentally aggressive is not mutually exclusive - individuals may engage in both types of aggression, and singular acts may contain elements of both types of aggression. Psychopathic individuals demonstrate reactive aggression in addition to instrumental aggres- sion (Flight & Forth, 2007; Hare, 2003; Reidy, Zeichner, Miller, & Martinez, 2007); however, it is their proneness to instrumental aggression that may distinguish them from other antisocial indivi- duals, and may have the most serious implications.

Several studies have demonstrated that psychopathic criminals are more likely to engage in predatory violence, while non-psychopathic violent criminals are more likely to engage in reactive violence (Meloy, 1988, 1995; Serin, 1991; Williamson, Hare, & Wong, 1987). This is especially true for what are typically considered more serious types of offenses, such as serious sexual assault or homicide. Less serious offenses, such as theft or burglary, are likely to be committed at similar rates by non-psychopathic individuals. Williamson et al. (1987) examined characteristics of violent offenses and found that psychopathic offenders were much.more motivated by material gain or revenge (45.2% of violent acts) than non-psychopathic offenders 

(14.6% of violent acts). Furthermore, psychopaths were less likely to have experienced emotional arousal during their crimes than non- psychopaths (2.4% compared to 31.7%of violent acts). Woodworth & Porter (2002) found that psychopathic individuals were about twice as likely to have committed primarily instrumental homicides as non-psychopathic offenders. In fact, 93.3%of homicides committed by psychopathic offenders were instrumental in nature, compared with 48%of those by non-psychopathic offenders; again, psychopaths were found to rarely commit violent crimes under intense emotional arousal. Cornell et al. (1996) found that offenders who had committed at least one act of instrumental violence were more psychopathic, specifically with respect to pathological lying, manipulativeness, superficiality, lack of empathy, exhibiting a parasitic lifestyle, irresponsibility, and criminal versatility. In addition, instrumental offenders demonstrated more violent criminal behavior. A higher proportion of spousal abusers who were classified as instrumentally aggressive were found to be psychopathic compared to spousal abusers classified as being reactively aggressive (Chase. O'Leary,& Keyman, 2001). Based on these studies. it appears that violent aggression committed by psychopathic individuals is more likely to be instrumental in nature. 

No comments:

Post a Comment