As usual, I’m talking about ideas, not the people who present them.
Let me allow you in for further considerations.
Ana Maria Mihalcea published the following article on October 22, 2023:
Although I usually don’t watch videos, I couldn’t resist this time, while perusing the article. The embedded video presentations sometimes seem to describe the situation 15-20 years ago and expressing their hope that the “helpful” technologies will be available soon, although they must have been in use at least for a decade, but not necessarily for a humanitarian purpose, unless you consider Bill Gates, George Soros, or Klaus Schwab humanitarians.
The fact that the human brain can be programmed has been demonstrated before on various occasions1, but doing it with nanotech is new, at least on the media. Not so long ago, “researchers” used to think that only 2-3 percent of the brain is used, but it turned out that that much is usually used at a single moment, but only because no more is needed. It is possible to train the brain to use more complex thinking by giving it more complex and different kinds of problems. Assuming that everyone’s neurons are “firing” in the same way is idiotic at best2. For an AI to learn how to gain full control of a subject, the person’s brain must be wiped clean and re-trained to act according to its operators’ commands. The translator link between the neural interface and the external world is likely to remain vulnerable and new experiences must be instantly processed and absorbed. Simple objectives like making the subject commit suicide are easy to attain, but reaction to implanted thoughts and memories must be conditioned ad nauseam until the subject has no control over his or her mind. Kind of like US public education or television, but with more rigorous requirements and expectations.
The videos popularize ideas about progress in the present and in the future come directly from the enemy. They have been obviously made by AI that was able to compile spectacular graphics and fabulous animation in no time, and spoon-feed their audience a story that supports the official narrative of “viruses” and “benevolent” technologies. The narrators’ articulate at a slow and steady pace, in a gentle tone that would make preschool teachers jealous, as if they were talking to little children who need to be taken care of by a compassionate Big Brother who forgives their incessant ignorance. “Taking care” of them has already been happening for years, but that’s tactfully omitted from the presentations. When I hear the words “we,” “society,” “scientists,” “researchers,” and “experts” in public, I know that I’m more than likely listening to a moron or a manipulator (one doesn’t exclude the other). Once “benevolent” is taken out and “eugenicist technocrat” is inserted before the portentous words, the picture is complete.
I have noticed that the contents for some “authors” on Substack are AI-generated. Is Ana’s article one of them? If it is, to what end? You can also ask if my articles are computer-generated, too. Probably not; they would be more popular, if they were.
As for the remote-controllability of human behavior, thoughts, and memory, Mihalcea and I share common ground, primarily because her research proved my previous conjecturing correct3.
The same day, that is yesterday, she published another article, which I, strangely, found related to the first one:
She is letting you know she is going to be an “expert witness.” In the article, she says,
I just got off a conference call with the attorneys of Interest of Justice4 and I am putting all of my assistance behind them. We all have been focusing and praying to find a judge and a court that will hear us.
So, there is no court date. What is there, is fundraising for a court case that will need prayers. A lot of prayers. Until then, only the request exists:
I am asking for your help to donate to the Pro Bono Legal Team now.
“Pro bono” means charity work, and every attorney in the US is obliged to take one out of about every ten cases for free because of the constant shortage of the few overworked and underpaid public defenders5. The case, after the fundraising, is going to be anything but “pro bono.” One thing such donations tend to have in common: the spending of the funds is never transparent. No harm done; you’ll be able to take a look, if the case is an exception, if ever makes it to court. At the moment, there is still no court to take the case to support, only people who kindly accept your donations and hopefully will benefit from your prayers. Even if you are poor, prayer is free, and you’ll be an even-more-adamant supporter of the efforts after you invest some of your resources. Please, keep in mind that I discussed the meaningfulness of such cases in my previous article today:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/cutting-off-a-head-of-the-hydra-the
What with “Nuremberg”? Nuremberg was a kangaroo court. Is this another one, in order to please the public or at least occupy its attention, taking it away from more essential matters? Can the very word “Nuremberg” be a code for the credulous? Anything is possible.
Still, if I want to think a step ahead of myself, I must ask myself the question: If the world is currently manipulated towards Agenda 2030 according to the instructions of a central AI that is running a global simulation with live data, the AI must be aware of whatever I am talking about and it must implement my thoughts and their impact on my readers in its plans for the future. If I am already controlled by the AI, what I think I know is either wrong or it’s only a tiny part of the grand picture, which is exactly the way the human mind perceives and processes everyday experience, but the AI knows that, too. Being conscious of my limitations, I know that am easier to manipulate, if I believe that I am in control of my thoughts, and the only way I can believe that is that I must think that I know what’s happening. And I know I don’t, at least, not quite.
The problem is that no two situations are totally the same and two persons are certainly never the same, so the “scientific method” is no more than a hoax to delude members of the public who are craving for cognitive security:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/freaks-of-science
I wish she responded to my concerns about her research:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-most-chilling-conclusion-about
At their website, https://interestofjustice.org/, they have a countdown clock until a “public hearing,” which is a media event and has nothing to do with court procedures. Sorry, no court date and no court yet. Needless to say, these admirable heroes have just gotten together, probably for this single event.
The judge can grab an attorney in the cafeteria of the courthouse and order them to appear in court in half an hour. Even a full-time public defendent has only an average of half an hour to prepare for a case, so it usually ends in a plea bargain.
Hi, Ray. Today Dr. Milhacea posted that the government of Wakaminenga Maori in New Zealand has already convicted some guys for the Covid's scam and the "vaccine" crimes...
The Nuremberg trials were a farce. It makes me cringe every time I hear one of the MFM call for Nuremberg 2.0! Sure some Nazis were sacrificed to please the sheeple, and we were given a nice Nuremberg Code (which the US disregards anyways), but the original trials did nothing but push a skewed version of WWII.