RAND Releases Excerpts from Notebook of Missing Psyops Expert Jay Seitz – ready to go needs photo

police looking for things in california

“The idea being to respond to the message sent as if it were a different one, this to frustrate and upset the sender– …

“Even when not thrown off their rhythm, a viewer of the practitioner can see that on their face their statements are self-degrading. Their efforts to create a false impression require sufficient exertion that this focus obscures the actual meaning of their statements and acts, leading to results that are often ludicrous—for example a practitioner might suggest that he or she, him or herself has a failing that he or she believes his or her victim to have or be sensitive too, in an effort to trigger paranoia in the victim, and fail to notice that what he or she actually has done is state outright that he or she is actually lacking this way…

“In this condition, it is particularly difficult for the practitioner to learn; their goal being to create powerful false impressions, these impressions must necessarily be more on their minds than the reality of the situation…

“Practitioners also create ‘pits’ for the victim to fill, by intentionally making counterfactual statements about the victim’s state of mind, in an effort to force the victim to correct them. ‘Pits’ such as these serve at least four purposes. 1) They allow the practitioner to predict what the victim will next say, which strangely is a goal of the practice– perhaps because it is believed this gives the practitioner more control over the subject. This belief is known as “thinking one is making a mouse eat cheese”and is one sign of early desperation as an interaction slips out of the practitioner’s control. Later signs of greater desperation are listed below. 2) They are emotionally agitating, putting the victim on the defensive; although one has done nothing that one needs to defend, a false impression put forward by the practitioner (“I’m sorry this has made you so hysterical”) requires defense (or appears to), as to let it stand would be tacitly admitting some kind of egregious defect. 3) They force the victim to question their own behavior with quite a bit of scrutiny, i.e. to stimulate them to question their judgement, particularly their judgment of the self, and those portions of self they use to relate to others. (“Wait, did I seem hysterical? Woah.”) 4) As a side effect of 3, the victim is to become confused, to experience difficulty evaluating their own behavior and the internal mechanisms they use to make decisions. In all, the practitioner strives to make the victim’s usual systems of decision-making appear to the victim as flawed, distorting reality. This facilitates the presentation of counterfactual information, and, conveniently, slows the victim’s thought process …  

“Breaking Concentration Technique: pointing out a stimulus or starting a story while the victim is in the middle of a thought…. Prevents the victim from saying what it wants (keep in mind that having taken on the interaction as a psychological battle, the practitioner must defend also his or her own psyche) and gives the practitioner yet another modicum of control over the situation. Also serves to steer the conversation away from things like follow-up questions or pointing out logical flaws that would help the victim establish a more solid mental footing in the conversation…. With repeat application this technique makes the victim more likely to “let go” of its own idea…. What begins as politely lapsing into silence when interrupted by the practitioner becomes a habit of relying on the practitioner to decide when it is ok for anyone to speak….

“If  it is not possible to get a practitioner near enough to the victim to break its concentration conversationally, this may be achieved by swerving towards it in a car in traffic, or walking by it while wearing unusual clothing or carrying a large or unusual item….

“Reverse psychology of course is a classic technique whereby the practitioner, when he senses the victim has a negative opinion of him or her, encourages a behavior that he or she actually wishes to discourage….

“Threats/Attacks:

“Withdrawal of approval or affection: behavior the practitioner wants to eliminate is negatively reinforced by withholding communication or physical presence …. ‘Well, now I don’t like you anymore’ ….

“The Falldown: e.g. ‘I am hurt by this, what you have done’….

“Timing of stimuli to align with victim’s behavior, such as spoon rattling in a glass, simulating the sound of applause, to encourage a behavior, or coughing, to discourage one — (and we thought this went out in the 60s…)

“The ‘Performance Illusion’: a psychological version of the “double agent” story, in which the practitioner admits that he or she is knowingly behaving bizarrely and/or cruelly, but for a good reason, and suggests that the victim should play along… insinuates that the practitioner does not mean any or the things said or done, but has executed such things only to create a false impression in a third, imaginary party, or as a ‘test’ or ‘lesson for’ the victim, the practitioner, or something else of value…. an important larger issue is at stake, such as the victim’s safety, consideration for some esteemed or privileged role, or a secret method for imparting important information….

“His attempts to confuse with language for example, to frustrate by refusing to provide requested information, or to by speaking in a tangle of words … these has has been alternatively able to present as humor—all of these are considerably without spirit at this point….

“Congrats You Won: a later stage sign of desperation, but does not indicates that the practitioner has finished…. Rather the effort is to soften the psychology of the victim, (to the upside of the classic yo-yo swing), and to restore him or her in the victim’s opinion. Enables the practitioner to proceed with further techniques which are precluded by the victim’s current negative opinion of the practicer, from ‘below’ as it were. False rewards may also be promised or hinted at.

“I need not point out that the twisted goal of the practitioner will always lead him or her to “hang himself,” i.e. run aground in the conversation, say things that are obviously nonsensical, etc. … Not just because of the judgement-obscuring (and psychosis inducing) focus the practitioner must maintain on the false impressions he or she wants to create, but because the practitioner very soul cries out in pain to see such things done to another. The victim, in this sense, has an ‘insider’ ally …

“This ‘running aground’ is inescapable IF a) the practitioner is given sufficient space to act and b) the victim consistently remains calm and kind at all times. This is easier to do than it sounds if one decides firmly enough in advance….”

“When in danger, it feels as though the very air were full of bad ideas … one should minimize one’s actions. Nothing is hard to regret. Stubbornly refuse to do anything at all if necessary to avoiding acting on suggestions from the practitioner….”

HOT NEW COUNTERINTEL TECHNIQUE, PASS IT ON: BE KIND.

Shoutout to the cooler couple.

Photo from the Institute of World Politics. Everything about the title of this blog is fake.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *