Within the Machine - Illuminati Handling

Jul 21, 2016 5:00:55 GMT Caylus Ark said:

Jos, you mentioned that your main client generally doesn't see you unless there is a reason to - I remember one particular comment, that you could cause her to breakdown because you made a face at nasty coffee lol. You are results orientated, you mention. You also described that the initial shattering process can take place with ample one on one time at a facility dedicated for such endeavors. During this time, did you mention that immersive roleplaying occurred? What other kinds of routines would somebody confined to one of these facilities - in the entertainment ministry's jurisdiction - would a budding celeb expect to encounter? Is trauma mixed with love bombardment? Are there sort of 'propaganda' pep talks undergone, a conditioning that leads the celeb to understand why they have been chosen above others and how they should feel special and blessed? Can you sort of describe what this process is like, and the emotional transformation that is expected to take place and which you as a programmer are responsible for guiding and directing?

Other than relying less upon drugs and some of the more 'brute force' approaches of older iterations of MK Ultra, what are some of the primary differences between you and your colleagues in the "cerebral" aspects of your approach? I know that you mentioned you have a greater focus on 'long-term' results and outcome - and that is one of the reasons you do not rely upon drug use. But you mention you certainly use betrayal and violation of trust as a predominant method of changing the client's emotional 'base'. Can you describe, potentially, some of the programming goals you have for those initial stages and how you use your knowledge of the mind to engender sought-after outcomes? Personality testing, stuff of that nature - how could you use traits like that in order to better understand how a particular client is best dealt with? I am assuming you are familiar with stuff like the "myers briggs" typology (the jungian one) personality test....

E.G, say you have an ESFP - could you use information like that in order to refine your approach and if so, how? Or is there a better personality test of some kind you might use? Maybe a special handler personality test you guys have to use on people that gives you special info or something related to manipulation?

Another question I have for you which is sort of an interesting one. Is there anything - and you don't have to specify what - that you would refrain from telling us here - and I'm not talking about personal details that you would obviously refrain from sharing in order to keep the anonymity of yourself and others protected....but is there anything on the theoretical conceptual or methodological level that you would feel hesitant to share with us, for any other reason? Or are you frankly comfortable sharing any details that don't endanger the identities of yourselves and your associates? I suppose I am wondering - I know that you enjoy our discussions here, and I have always felt that you have been incredibly forthcoming in your disclosures. That's why I am curious if there would ever been a line of subject matter that you would intentionally avoid divulging, for reasons other than professional or necessary - ie, for ideological reasons.

An odd question, but one that does interest me.

Jung's work is actually quite useful as is the Myers Briggs testing method but ultimately a 'programmer' needs to have really good instincts. in fact, there are cookie cutter modalities that apply to almost any client and these 'tried and true' methods are employed to varying degrees of success. You can formulate a successful, customized program for virtually any subject based on 'surface' observations found in initial work-ups. Language is also telling in that anything a subject often implies or imparts, especially over multiple interviews, can reveal an emotional state, fear, or desire. Pets are also telling as are lifestyles.

In the celebrity world everyone has a mask. It's true also of the 'regular' world, the concept of nature and demeanor but understand that the two are rarely in complete opposition. One displays the other most of the time. In knowing this, you communicate and appeal to each separately, forcing a client into demeanor, when nature is preferred or vice versa. For example: let's say the subject projects as a calm, cool sort but in reality they are a caregiver. You could set up a scenario where they must maintain their preferred projection while appealing to their nature OR force them to break the mask to answer the call of that nature.

Regarding showing care: Always, but not from the programmer. We will establish fear then a form of trust (a last resort sort of trust). We will arrange however, for a number of shows of care and affection on various levels. Some will appeal in that "Hollywood Preconditioning" way, that, "I care about you, so long as you don't interfere with my life". These are expected by the subject, so they have little value outside of a sense of normalcy. Then we will add apparent 'true care' from an unexpected source (that sweet old nurse, the quiet man reading a book at the lunch counter, a janitor, etc.) These are usually utilized in Betrayal Events later on but not immediately (and sometimes not ever). They are also used in other ways which, I'll describe below.

There is a typical experience that can be expected within the confines of a facility but they aren't really different than you'd expect for a typical, wealthy patient. Outside of a rare occasion, you could film the celeb 24/7 and never see anything out of the ordinary (for a psyche patient, which, is quite extraordinary itself). But it's what you don't see (or hear) that is ultimately setting the stage. False relationships, associations, guided thought control, improper medication, lots of 'counseling sessions', inconveniences (pudding but no spoon. An hour's wait to get one). The Programming is in the details and even if these facilities are equipped for the utilization of pain techniques, they must be used carefully because they are dangerously close to the public eye. I can't imagine how programmers get comfortable within them.

Reinforcing how 'good' what is happening to the client begins with the programmer and is reinforced by others beneath our regulation. It is necessary as you could guess, to deliver reinforcing messages with those participants who have established a semblance of true trust and care.

Now, what I withhold from you: As I described many conversations ago, I have a sense of appropriateness that keeps me from posting the grizzlier details of some aspects of my work. my own sensibilities aside, I am sometimes concerned about the legality of such discussion, not for myself but for those involved. As you probably have noticed, I'm not terribly detailed as to my modalities. First, because some are quite proprietary but second, because I know that discussing them at length may wind up in a search engine and act as a beacon to wherever we're holding our conversation. There are thousands (more?) of posts with people claiming to be an Illuminati Insider, etc. (probably ten on GLP as we speak), but none of them are worth being 'monitored'. The moment we start talking about deep modality is probably the moment we start getting watched. Then again, the concepts we're discussing have probably already crossed that line long ago.

Another thing that I often pass on discussing is the level of 'spirituality' found in my work. As you know, my personal philosophies and ideologies would be considered 'vaguely agnostic' at best. But I can't say the same for most of my peers and very few of the people that I have met within the organization. I know that Andrea is likely doing a happy dance right now, but there really are spiritual associations that my peers and colleagues might insist upon should you be speaking with one of them. But unfortunately you got Jos and Jos has the ability to tune out what he considers 'noise'. It isn't that noise doesn't exist. It's more that I believe we're not ready to try to discern it. And there are so many who've listened to this 'noise' and determined that they have arrived at the one and only way to interpret it.

One day (If I'm lucky), I will delve into the noise, but not a moment before I know that I am fully equipped physically and intellectually to do so. For now I will remain happily seeking the expansion of these two things which, I know to be my own.

Jul 21, 2016 9:12:22 GMT Caylus Ark said:

And, here was another question, that I asked - I guess in retrospect it is a little vague:
What is the process of conditioning like for a celebrity ? How do you handle things like rewards and punishments? What kind of associations do you seek to create?
To expand on that, I certainly assume that part of the process of programming is creating associations between stimuli and behavior and emotional experiences. What are the stimuli that you often seek to anchor to certain associations, and how are those symbols or stimuli used? What are the most effective rewards for somebody who 'has it all' in many senses? When you first started posting on the Illuminati Handler thread on GLP you mentioned that your clients were 'empty shells' and that your job in a certain sense was to create these empty shells. How do you create an empty shell? How do you make a person hollow? Does that have anything to do with the loop of obsession - fixation - or does it have something more to do with this process of association, and reward - in short gratuitous oversaturation of material assets - where you condition the mind to value things with no substance, gratification that is not sustaining but in constant need of being stroked and fueled ?

This relates to my earlier post about not 'revealing everything', but I can answer it.

You must first get a client to accept that they get nothing. Then everything is a reward.

Achieving this today is faster and simpler than you'd think. People are already fairly 'hollow'.

Think about that for a moment. If more clarity is needed, just ask.

Jul 21, 2016 5:00:55 GMT Caylus Ark said:

Jung's work is actually quite useful as is the Myers Briggs testing method but ultimately a 'programmer' needs to have really good instincts. in fact, there are cookie cutter modalities that apply to almost any client and these 'tried and true' methods are employed to varying degrees of success. You can formulate a successful, customized program for virtually any subject based on 'surface' observations found in initial work-ups. Language is also telling in that anything a subject often implies or imparts, especially over multiple interviews, can reveal an emotional state, fear, or desire. Pets are also telling as are lifestyles.

In the celebrity world everyone has a mask. It's true also of the 'regular' world, the concept of nature and demeanor but understand that the two are rarely in complete opposition. One displays the other most of the time. In knowing this, you communicate and appeal to each separately, forcing a client into demeanor, when nature is preferred or vice versa. For example: let's say the subject projects as a calm, cool sort but in reality they are a caregiver. You could set up a scenario where they must maintain their preferred projection while appealing to their nature OR force them to break the mask to answer the call of that nature.

Regarding showing care: Always, but not from the programmer. We will establish fear then a form of trust (a last resort sort of trust). We will arrange however, for a number of shows of care and affection on various levels. Some will appeal in that "Hollywood Preconditioning" way, that, "I care about you, so long as you don't interfere with my life". These are expected by the subject, so they have little value outside of a sense of normalcy. Then we will add apparent 'true care' from an unexpected source (that sweet old nurse, the quiet man reading a book at the lunch counter, a janitor, etc.) These are usually utilized in Betrayal Events later on but not immediately (and sometimes not ever). They are also used in other ways which, I'll describe below.

There is a typical experience that can be expected within the confines of a facility but they aren't really different than you'd expect for a typical, wealthy patient. Outside of a rare occasion, you could film the celeb 24/7 and never see anything out of the ordinary (for a psyche patient, which, is quite extraordinary itself). But it's what you don't see (or hear) that is ultimately setting the stage. False relationships, associations, guided thought control, improper medication, lots of 'counseling sessions', inconveniences (pudding but no spoon. An hour's wait to get one). The Programming is in the details and even if these facilities are equipped for the utilization of pain techniques, they must be used carefully because they are dangerously close to the public eye. I can't imagine how programmers get comfortable within them.

Reinforcing how 'good' what is happening to the client begins with the programmer and is reinforced by others beneath our regulation. It is necessary as you could guess, to deliver reinforcing messages with those participants who have established a semblance of true trust and care.

Now, what I withhold from you: As I described many conversations ago, I have a sense of appropriateness that keeps me from posting the grizzlier details of some aspects of my work. my own sensibilities aside, I am sometimes concerned about the legality of such discussion, not for myself but for those involved. As you probably have noticed, I'm not terribly detailed as to my modalities. First, because some are quite proprietary but second, because I know that discussing them at length may wind up in a search engine and act as a beacon to wherever we're holding our conversation. There are thousands (more?) of posts with people claiming to be an Illuminati Insider, etc. (probably ten on GLP as we speak), but none of them are worth being 'monitored'. The moment we start talking about deep modality is probably the moment we start getting watched. Then again, the concepts we're discussing have probably already crossed that line long ago.

Another thing that I often pass on discussing is the level of 'spirituality' found in my work. As you know, my personal philosophies and ideologies would be considered 'vaguely agnostic' at best. But I can't say the same for most of my peers and very few of the people that I have met within the organization. I know that Andrea is likely doing a happy dance right now, but there really are spiritual associations that my peers and colleagues might insist upon should you be speaking with one of them. But unfortunately you got Jos and Jos has the ability to tune out what he considers 'noise'. It isn't that noise doesn't exist. It's more that I believe we're not ready to try to discern it. And there are so many who've listened to this 'noise' and determined that they have arrived at the one and only way to interpret it.

One day (If I'm lucky), I will delve into the noise, but not a moment before I know that I am fully equipped physically and intellectually to do so. For now I will remain happily seeking the expansion of these two things which, I know to be my own.