Yesterday I blogged about DARPA's (The Defense Advance Research Project Agency's) latest mind control neuro-linguistic programming project.  Now it may seem that DARPA is one thing, and what I am going to talk about here is quite another, but we need to know something about DARPA first, before the article that I am going to link here makes sense. First, you need to know that DARPA is kind of the American version of the Kammlerstab of SS General Hans Kammler. In short, it's a think tank and "coordinating" body, that is to say, it seeks out and recruits top scientists in various fields, for the express purpose of researching the necessary technology trees to get to a certain point of development of whatever it is that it wants to develop.

Secondly, DARPA views it's role, in part, to create a climate of research, i.e., to create enough interest in the wider society to research a particular area, like neuro-linguistic programming,, studying the feedback loops of the human brain as it receives messages and stimuli, and once knowing how it organizes its neural pathways, being able to program a certin type of response. In this role of creating a climate of research, a critical mass of interest in a certain area, DARPA both monitors the research being done in the private field, and often covertly sponsors it.

Now we are in a position to look at this article:

Neuroscientists unlock shared brain codes

Just in case it didn't sink in, read those last two paragraphs again:

"When someone looks at the world, visual images are encoded into patterns of brain activity that capture all of the subtleties that make it possible to recognize an unlimited variety of objects, animals, and actions.

"'Although the goal of this work was to find the common code, these methods can now be used to see how brain codes vary across individuals because of differences in visual experience due to training, such as that for air traffic controllers or radiologists, to cultural background, or to factors such as genetics and clinical disorders,' he said. "

Now, you'll recall, this is almost exactly what what I reported DARPA to be working on yesterday. Of course, there is no evidence of a DARPA hand in the Dartmouth research at all(not that we would expect it). But it is nonetheless true that the Dartmouth study would be of interest to DARPA, so rest assured, they have noticed the study too, and that, to my mind, raises the prospect that they have a hidden hand in some of this "private" and "university" research.

And let's be perfectly clear: this is alchemy in the classic sense: the transformation of mankind, and his consciousness, no matter how much the scientists choose to dress up what they're doing in technical jargon, it was, is, and remains, alchemy.

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. James nd on October 27, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    It sounds like the future hive mind to me.

  2. Denise Kelly on October 26, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    “I am talking about BOTH,
    as I’ve made clear in
    numerous interviews, books.”

    When Farrell turns to fiction for his ‘alchemical’ novel, I wonder what kind of ‘narrative style’ it will be? Realistic like Grapes of Wrath, heroic like Tale of Two Cities or perhaps & most probably rather dystopian like Orwell’s 1984: “It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.” 🙂

  3. Jay on October 26, 2011 at 6:10 am

    Citizen Quasar

    I see you’re still propounding your very limited version of consciousness; you won’t get anywhere that way. (Except to polish the surface of your ego.)

    Yes, “The Primacy of Consciousness” is a very good place to start, but that consciousness is in no way exclusively you or your faculties–or mine for that matter.

  4. Antoine on October 26, 2011 at 5:03 am

    So this means that if they catch a spy they can prove he’s a spy by flashing a gun or something similar that will inevitably be processed a certain way due to the spy’s training.

    More useful for parents, they could prove someone is a pedophile or any type or insanity.

    This is not bad. Its like the Lie Detector 2.0.

    • HAL838 on October 26, 2011 at 6:15 am

      Not what THEY use it for, Antoine.
      THEY want to change YOUR mind 🙂

      • HAL838 on October 26, 2011 at 6:23 am

        Don’t let the smile fool you—
        I don’t like it that way [either]

  5. marina pratt on October 25, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    This is a very scary thing you are talking about..I have been taking another look at subliminal propoganda in the media in recent days and find myself grateful that I do not have a TV set. This, on the other hand reminds me very much of HAARP–We cannot see it–we can only suspect it is there–but with maipulation of the brain through this development, we will not even suspect it is there because–as the saying goes, “You only know what you know”. Our ego system will not have the ability to assertaine that we are being programmed because we will “feel” as if we know something that we are convinced is TRUE-That we will KNOW something that is RIGHT. This is tantamount to possesion by another entity. Oh, boy! scary stuff—thanks for the heads up–not that it makes any difference–cause, when they pull this out of the lab to use it on larger and larger numbers of population, the deffinition of what is real and not real will blurr and we won’t need head meds any more because we will all be crazy and won’t know the difference–It is October–may I suggest zombies –HAPPY HALLOWEEN! Oh Boy!-

    • HAL838 on October 26, 2011 at 6:17 am

      Marina got it right except for the NOW
      [not later]

  6. Citizen Quasar on October 25, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    Thank you, Dr, Farrell. It looks like you mean:

    “..the transformation of mankind, and his consciousness…”

    I will take this as your definition.

    Also, I am fairly new to your work, only a few months. I have only heard a couple of interviews that you have done and those were audio in the background as I was doing other things. I have only read four of your books so far. Some of your published information is rather complex, understandable by me but often requiring more concentration and focus that I am interested in investing on the first read.

    Often my first read of books containing such complex conceptualizations as yours is primarily to give me an overview, the general idea…and for entertainment of course. (Following the details of the underlying physics of something like ohhh…a phase conjugate howitzer while reading myself to sleep is different from me studying for a doctoral thesis or preparing a lawsuit.) Then I lay the book aside and I come back to it after some time has elapsed and I study the details more closely.

    So please bear with me if I ask for clarification here and there.


    I recently finished “The Giza death Star” and I have both “The Giza Death Star Deployed” and “The Giza Death Star Deployed” on order.

    • Citizen Quasar on October 25, 2011 at 5:36 pm


      I recently finished “The Giza death Star” and I have both “The Giza Death Star Deployed” and “The Giza Death Star Destroyed” on order.

      Please don’t feed me to the gargoyles.

    • HAL838 on October 26, 2011 at 6:19 am

      I think I’ll let the Universe ‘transform’ its own.
      Better that way, yes?

  7. Robert Barricklow on October 25, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    For an ‘amusing’ take on ‘alchemy’ check http://www.maxkeiser.com and scroll down to
    Keiser Report: Fecal Alchemy (E201)

  8. Robert Barricklow on October 25, 2011 at 8:34 am

    There is a world of difference between what your brain knows and what your mind is capable of accessing.
    The Brain runs it show incognito.

    But for how long?

  9. Citizen Quasar on October 25, 2011 at 8:24 am


    Your conclusion that this is “alchemy” puzzles me, both as to the actual definition of alchemy and why such a conclusion is important to you. When I look up alchemy both in an online dictionary and in Wikipedia it is, basically, magic, i.e. non-causal action, the Primacy of Consciousness as a premise. In other words you appear to be saying that consciousness, that faculty which perceives that which exists, is the CREATOR of existence. Will you please post a definition of alchemy so that I am clear on your meaning and usage of the term?

    In the meantime, when the article says, “The parameters are a set of numbers that act like a combination that unlocks that individual’s brain’s code…(etc.),” I take this to mean that the placement of various objects in a picture or video and their geometrical relationship to each of as well as the interrelationship of their motions and times of their appearance effect the emotions of the observer in a predictable way.

    A good example of this is the videos of the killing of Gaddafi. (FWIW I have still NOT seen his alleged execution though I am told this is what I am watching in the various clips; same for Saddam Hussein.) Whether Gaddafi’s death was real or staged, it appears to me that the videos of the event are manufactured in such a way as to convey not only shock but also to convey…belief that they are genuine.

    In his farewell address, President Eisenhower said:

    “Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

    To me, it matters NOT whether the centralized financial control comes from DARPA, London, or somewhere else as the monies are all manipulated by the same goons.

    Again, will you post a definition of “alchemy,” please?

    • James on October 25, 2011 at 10:32 am

      The base definition of alchemy comes from the process of trying to turn base metals in to gold. Extrapolated, and in the context of this blog post and the article it pertains to, I think he means that they are recording how the very foundations of what makes us, us, works (when you talk about possibly changing an individual’s outlook on their very culture you start talking about completely controlling that individual).

    • Hermes on October 25, 2011 at 11:19 am

      Transmutation of [anything]…

      Consciusness is the core of existance…existance can not be without a form of consciousness (rocks are, so are trees as are animals, it is a first/second order consciousness ergo limited).

      So while one alchemist professes they REALLY only talked about consciousness and others say they REALLY were talking about physical existance (turning base metals into higher order ones) the manifestation “out there” can only happen to the degree you’ve advanced “in here.”

      Which brings us back to the original premise…concsciousness is simply all there is…innner/outer is merely the poles of experience.

      Look up the BOOK OF AQUARIUS and let me know if you still don’t understand alchemy…I don’t think Dr Farrell would object to that book 🙂

    • Citizen Quasar on October 25, 2011 at 3:56 pm

      Thank you for your comments concerning alchemy, Hermes and James.
      By definition I mean the conjunction of a genus concept (an integrative concept) and a specie (differentiating) concept, a concept being the mental integration of two or more referents with their distinguishing characteristics included and their specific measurements omitted.

      While I am, again, thankful for your input, you have only provided nebulous descriptions and NOT definitions. Actually, I was hoping that Dr. Farrell would step forward and provide a definition to clarify what he is talking about here and that is what I was asking for.

      In my youth I was taught, like some many other things that I was “taught,” that alchemy is the medieval attempt to turn lead into gold. There my understanding of alchemy stood for decades.

      I heard William Cooper expand on this that alchemy was based on the belief that light was the source of understanding and that alchemy was based on this premise. Further, Cooper said that efforts to turn lead into gold were merely a derivative of this and were camouflage for what alchemy really was. This made sense to me.

      Related link: http://www.mt.net/~watcher/astrlflm.html

      I read part of “Forbidden Science” by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince and this book discussed alchemy quite a bit but I laid the book aside without finishing it. (I will finish reading it in the future.)

      As for consciousness existing without existence existing first, this is impossible as consciousness is that faculty which perceives that which exists. As such, rocks, and everything up through insects, have no faculty to perceive anything. (Insects have sensational awareness which, technically speaking, is NOT consciousness.)

      So I ask YOU, Dr, Farrell, to PLEASE provide a definition of alchemy so that I will know what you are talking about here.

      • Joseph P. Farrell on October 25, 2011 at 4:25 pm

        I am talking about BOTH, as I’ve made clear in numerous interviews, books.

        • MattB on October 25, 2011 at 7:57 pm

          Hack the visual code……get different genetics types to see or perceive different things.

          False fulfilment anyone?

          All apocalyptic religions seeing their version of messiah at the same time.

          Reminds of an episode of B5 Dr Farrell…….kosh……different aliens having genetic programming in order to see their specific divinity

          Food for thought

      • Hermes on October 26, 2011 at 10:56 am

        You will never find one without the other…in this limited human brain it appears as contradiction/paradox but its not when viewed from your higher perspective.

        “reality” is unified…seperation is not real (even science has come around), thus there is simply a WHOLE (infinity) with INFINITE DIVISIONS…ponder that…

        Want to meet infinity? Sit and meditate between two mirrors 🙂

        Take it easy!

    • HAL838 on October 26, 2011 at 6:21 am

      “CREATOR” is Existence,no?
      Yes !!!

      A painter can’t become the painting.
      Creator IS Creation.

      Oh yeah !!!!!
      Not better; BEST

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events