A Self Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand
by Bob Grubb

The notion of mind manipulation is evil. The methods for doing so are cruel. The "research" performed to discover these methods is both cruel and evil.

The experiment we are familiar with known as "Pavlov's Dog" was cruel. The dog had half of its face removed so that apparatus to measure salivation could be attached. Each time the dog was fed a bell was rung. This setup was run consistently and persistently. After a period of conditioning the bell would be rung and the dog would begin salivating even when no food was present. The dog had "learned" to associate the sound of the bell to eating. We are told that the measurement of saliva confirmed this. However, what the experiment really proved was that psychological conditioning is capable of producing physical changes.

In other words, external stimuli can trigger physical reactions - even those tied to instinctive behaviour - through repetitive conditioning.

From this "classic" experiment we know that repeatedly associating sound with pleasure will yield sound activated action. It follows that associating any stimuli with pleasure will create physical action - even in the absence of real pleasure. This means that long-term behaviors can be induced by short-term investing in rewards. Afterward, behavior can be "guided" by the cheap associated stimuli without reward.

Another experiment demonstrated the efficacy of pain. A monkey was placed into a cage. The floor of the cage was painted red on one side and green on the other. An electrical charge, sufficient to cause pain was applied to the red side of the cage. Pain was used to quickly condition the monkey to stay off the red side, even after the charge was removed. Here behavior was induced as a response to pain. This means that long-term behaviors can be induced by short-term punishment. Unfortunately for the monkey, the cruel research did not stop with this experiment.

Next, the charge was applied to the green side of the floor and the red side was insulated. The monkey had difficulty "un-learning" the rules, and got shocked many times before altering its behavior. This phase validated the strength of the original experiment, and proved that even very ingrained behaviors can be modified by punishment. Still the cruelty continued, as researchers sought methods for behavioral control.

Just after the monkey "adapted" to the uncharged red side of its cage, the experimenters began to charge the red side and then the green at random. The monkey could never depend on one side being safe or one side being painful. The monkey now had no framework for decision making. Logic was removed from the environment. The monkey became psychotic. It would merely sit in one spot until it was shocked and then move to another. The color of the floor did not influence the monkey's decision of where to move. Its motivation for movement did not come from itself , or from its experience, it was directed solely by outside influence. Eventually it began to eat its own tail, attempting to self-destruct. This behavior did not change when the charge was totally removed.

As you may see, pleasure can come simply from consistency, making reward totally unnecessary. Pain can induce compliance, that compliance continuing even after the pain stimulators are removed. Application of conflicting pain and pleasure stimulators induces anxiety leading to psychosis, removing the subject's ability to make decisions and creating a reliance on outside direction.

The only question being: WHY WAS THE EXPERIMENT CONDUCTED?

The answer is perhaps obvious, but let's find out who the monkeys are. To do so we will use a few terms generally understood but defined here for clarity.

These terms certainly relate to the experiments discussed above (these cruel and evil examples are but two of the thousands that have occurred and continue to be conducted). Below are definitions for the terms that are the red and green sides of the floors of our cages.

Finally, we need a definition for the painful charge that replaces electricity as the motivator.

Guilt is actually a healthy mechanism. It can help a person realize behaviors that are truly wrong. However, when taboo is used to create foundless, forced, and contrived guilt for changing behaviors that are inherent in our makeup (instinct), the only result can be psychosis.

What is contrived guilt? This is the guilt that comes from violations of taboo that restrict us from acting on instinct, or from having thoughts that have their root in instinct. Reproducing, eating, drinking, seeking shelter, protecting self and family are instinctive items that preserve our species. Nature helps assure survival by equipping our brains to produce substances that are stimulated by these activities and reward us with pleasurable feelings.

As we will see, taboos have been created for each of these instincts. This means that actions we must take for survival require us to violate taboo. The outcome of this artificially created conflict is guilt. Guilt is painful. Thus, required activities are both painful and pleasurable simultaneously. Red and green you see...

These conflicts are not designed to directly change our behaviors, they are designed to induce psychosis. This psychosis leaves us indecisive and highly susceptible to external direction.

The most formidable weapon used to manage thought is the control and manipulation of the basic drive of sexual reproduction. The beginning and end point of our instinct to reproduce is survival of the species. How can this basic need be used to manipulate behaviours?

First we are taught the definition of "normal" and "abnormal" sexual activity.

The normal definition is supported by its true clause; that its purpose is to produce children (which can only be done heterosexually). It is contrived by its restriction that reproduction occurs only in a monogamous marriage. This instantly labels the customs of other lands abnormal, and denies the existence and/or significance of children born outside of marriage.

With "normal" defined, the controllers make "abnormal" taboo, and create law to both enforce and reinforce their definitions.

The floor is now painted red (normal) and green (abnormal). We must stand on the floor - and we learn quickly which side to stand on.

Now the floor is charged at random so that it is not possible to decide for one's self where to stand. The charge applied is guilt, and the wire that connects the charge to the floor is media.

Thinking that we know what side of the floor to stand on (the normal) we get jolted by images of taboo activity. Hollywood produces movies that regularly violate taboo, often making the violations seem whimsical or just plain fun. Examples include the endless stream of "romantic" comedies in which marriage is just a nutty phase, spouses are adulterers, and divorce is a happy-go-lucky annual affair. In fact, "normal" behaviors are confined to characters labeled as nerds, party-poopers, and stupids. And so the "normal" side of our floor receives a charge and we move to the other side.

Just as you decide that this other side of the floor is safe you learn that sexually transmitted diseases can kill you, and that the only safe way to survive is to be monogamous. So off to the other side of the floor you go.

Mr. and Mrs. America are told to be "normal" (or else), then are regularly bombarded with enactments of taboo violations. Witnessing these acts after being taught they are violations profoundly effects the viewer.

Nudity is basic taboo. "Good" folks take great care to learn the rituals of modesty. However, the same folks are repeatedly exposed to scenes of nudity in media they can scarcely avoid. On one hand the viewer becomes quite naturally - given their biological reality, aroused. At the same time they realize that nudity is "wrong", so they must be "wrong" for being aroused by it. Guilt is the result. But it is an inescapable and contrived guilt. Biologically they are mandated to have feelings of pleasure centered on their reproductive drive. Mentally they "know" it is "wrong". Spiritually they "know" it is "evil".

The viewer is allowed to witness taboo in media, indeed finds it difficult to escape it, but is forbidden to engage in it personally. The media encourages taboo behaviors and these behaviors are adopted by the viewer. The viewer engages in said behaviors. Though physically satisfied from taboo sex the practitioner is left with subconscious turmoil.

This sexual turmoil has been taken to stratospheric levels with the situation regarding the AIDS virus. We are regularly told in no certain terms that AIDS will kill us. We get AIDS from having sex. And so sex, which is the reason each of us is alive, is presented as death. This dilemma induced psychosis is then compounded by an endless barrage of movies and TV shows presenting an endless stream of sex between an endless number of stars having an endless amount of adventure in so doing. The irony (or perhaps designed shock) sets in when the TV show breaks for commercials, where a "YOU GET AIDS FROM SEX AND IT WILL KILL YOU" spot is presented.

Again, the prime motive for randomly charging the sides of your floor is not to coerce you to one side or the other. The prime motive is to induce psychosis so that behaviors more relevant than what side of the floor you prefer can be manipulated.

THE OBJECTIVE IS TO DIMINISH YOUR ABILITY TO MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS ABOUT ANYTHING.

The same guilt-induced dilemma has been contrived to deal with another basic instinct - eating.

We must eat. We feel natural pleasure when we eat. Perhaps the single-most reason we submit to paid slavery is to fulfill our need to buy food so that we can eat.

Many foods are reportedly unhealthy. They just happen to be the ones that give you the most pleasure, which must be the ones your brain's pleasure inducing substances are programmed to tell your body to consume. Eating too much makes you overweight (defined by the media). The list of foods that contain harmful substances grows everyday to the point that shopping for food becomes painful, and you feel guilty about giving it to your loved ones. There are eating related disorders for eating too much, and for eating too little.

It's a wonder we manage to eat at all. But eat we must. However, we have been conditioned to feel guilty each time we eat or think about eating.

We are told that long ago it was the men who were the food gatherers, but today women perform this role. Advertisers pitch their food ads at the ladies. The message - feed your family this brand and they will know that you love them. The same item is labeled as life threatening by consumer advocates and scientists. Dilemma - this food item will kill your family and they'll love you for it.

As they approach the checkout counter they find the ever present "How To Be A Woman" magazine prominently displayed. It bears titles like "LOSE 50 POUNDS IN 30 DAYS WITHOUT EXERCISE", "15 HEALTHFUL RECIPES YOUR FAMILY WILL LOVE", "ELIMINATING KILLER CHOLESTEROL FROM YOUR DIET", "SUGAR - DOES IT CAUSE HYPERACTIVITY IN CHILDREN?".

These tiny articles are buried inside hundreds of pages of advertisements. Most of these ads are for foods that directly conflict with the articles titled on the cover (mostly rich desserts). Dilemma.

Researchers find that guilt about eating increases hunger (perpetual guilt). Likewise, guilt-inducing titles on magazines sell guilt-inducing products that sell magazines. The widespread beliefs that all the food we like best is harmful, and that skinny is beautiful, means that the quantity and quality of food are generally reserved to those who do the manipulating.

But again, THE AIM IS TO INDUCE PSYCHOSIS WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF DECREASING THE SUBJECT'S ABILITY TO DIRECT THEIR OWN COURSE OF EVENTS.

A woman's "right" to give up their child-rearing instincts to become a paid slave is a strong guilt-inducer, whether they choose to have their children raised in daycare while they work outside the home, or raise their children traditionally as housewives. The media is sure to make working mothers feel guilty by showing images of children abused in daycare centers. Mothers who remain in the home are made to feel worthless, or unfulfilled. It matters not whether Mom chooses the red or the green side of the floor.

Advertisements that encourage a woman to buy cosmetic products, and clothing to make her more attractive, perfume to make her more seductive, are effective (or advertisers wouldn't use them), and play to the woman's reproductivity-linked instinct to want men to find her more attractive. At the same time media "informs" her that men are insensitive, overbearing, and interested only in sex. The dilemma - be attractive for men and not be treated as attractive by men.

Throughout history older people have been generally regarded as wiser people. Younger people instinctively realize that those managing to survive a long time possess survival sharps that may be applicable to their own longevity. Today older people are made invisible, often discarded, and presented as senile. Products that make a person look or feel younger are in great demand. The dilemma - we all are getting older.

These are but a few examples. Note that these examples all create dilemma to induce anxiety and psychosis. Each fabricates guilt by using media to present images that conflict with instincts. None of these conflicts existed 50 years ago. Each of these examples describes activities done to people that are as cruel and evil as the experiments done on the monkey and the dog. It makes no difference that some people might not realize they are being mistreated. Most caged laboratory animals have no idea of what life outside the cage is like.

Given the dilemmas we all face and the associated guilt we all suffer, we are a very easy culture to manipulate from outside forces. In fact, a lot of us actually seek out this outside direction. Religion, self-help books, television programming, and psychic phone lines are but a few examples.