In JANUARY 2019 I was made aware of this illegal surveillance and black market PORNOGRAPHY network because of intense FEEDBACK from illegal devices inside my apartment and outside of my building with NOSY NEIGHBORS creating FEEDBACK letting me know I was being SURVEILLED and made PORN. This is when what I call PSYCHO-SEXUAL TORTURE started and the MODEL of ABU GHRAIB----STOCKHOLM SYNDROME was for me OBVIOUS because I study those academic papers on subjects like TOTAL PRISONS---by STANFORD. While I knew TOTAL PRISONS model was being installed in CA PRIVATE PRISON SYSTEM and knew ABU GHRAIB was an example of that model----I did not know these illegal surveillance and pornography structures had already been implemented in our US cities/counties.
WHAT MAKE ME DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I KNOW IS A MASSIVE NUMBER OF US 99% WE THE PEOPLE AND IMMIGRANTS EXPOSED TO THESE PSYCHO-SEXUAL NOSY NEIGHBOR AND THE GANG PORNOGRAPHY STRUCTURES?
Below I share what often happens to people -----generally GOOD PEOPLE who are exposed and made to think they are RUINED/SHAMED/HUMILIATED.
So, this has been the central tenet of FEEDBACK for these last few weeks.
'After only 36 hours, one prisoner began to act "crazy", Philip Zimbardo says; #8612 then began to act "crazy," to scream, to curse, to go into a rage that seemed out of control. It took quite a while before we became convinced that he was really suffering and that we had to release him'.
The current goal of NOSY NEIGHBOR AND THE GANG is to paint ME as 'CRAZY'-----as getting 'MAD/ANGRY'.......wanting me to go into a 'RAGE'.
'From this point on the prisoners and guards were no longer the equivalent volunteers they were in the beginning of the study. The rights and self-respect of the prisoners were slowly stripping away as the power and control was manifesting on the guards’ behalf'.
Above I show why today's NOSY NEIGHBORS acting as PRISON GUARDS-----seem to think their behavior will be done with IMPUNITY------now, I think these NOSY NEIGHBORS may be former private military staff----now being used as black market MULES but trained by what I call HOSTING SERVER level people using this TOTAL PRISON MODEL. The reaction from most people captured in this illegal PORNOGRAPHY structure is to FLEE----setting the stage for NEXT PORN VICTIM.
'I would imagine some of the participants suffered from PTSD after the experiment was through in addition to trouble readjusting to ‘real’ life. A transitioning period back into society would have been helpful. Workshops on how to deal with their experiences even though they were ‘fake’ would be important. The prisoners would need to feel validated because even though it was a simulation, they were living it and experiencing the emotions in full force'.
And of course here I show the idea of these studies creating FAKE prison structures able to bring GOOD PEOPLE to being EVIL PEOPLE-----while other GOOD PEOPLE are psychologically BROKEN.
Stanford prison experiment article)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by Psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. Twenty-four undergraduates were selected out of 70 to play the roles of both guards and prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Roles were assigned at random. They adapted to their roles well beyond that expected, leading the guards to display to authoritarian and even draconian measures. Two of the prisoners were upset enough by the process to quit the experiment early, and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days. The experimental process and the results remain controversial. The entire experiment was filmed, with excerpts soon made publicly available, leaving some disturbed by the resulting film. Over 30 years later, Zimbardo found renewed interest in the experiment when the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal occurred.
The experiment quickly grew out of hand. Prisoners suffered — and accepted — sadistic and humiliating treatment from the guards. The high level of stress progressively led them from rebellion to inhibition. By the experiment's end, many showed severe emotional disturbances.
After a relatively uneventful first day, a riot broke out on the second day. The guards volunteered to work extra hours and worked together to break the prisoner revolt, attacking the prisoners with fire extinguishers without supervision from the research staff.
After only 36 hours, one prisoner began to act "crazy", Philip Zimbardo says; #8612 then began to act "crazy," to scream, to curse, to go into a rage that seemed out of control. It took quite a while before we became convinced that he was really suffering and that we had to release him.
A false rumor spread that #8612, who was now out of the experiment, would lead companions to free the rest of the prisoners. The guards dismantled the prison and moved the inmates to another secure location. When no breakout attempt occurred, the guards were angry about having to rebuild the prison, so they took it out on the prisoners.
Guards forced the prisoners to count off repeatedly as a way to learn their prison numbers, and to reinforce the idea that this was their new identity. Guards soon used these prisoner counts as another method to harass the prisoners, using physical punishment such as protracted exercise for errors in the prisoner count. Sanitary conditions declined rapidly, made worse by the guards refusing to allow some prisoners to urinate or defecate. As punishment, the guards would not let the prisoners empty the sanitation bucket. Mattresses were a valued item in the spartan prison, so the guards would punish prisoners by removing their mattresses, leaving them to sleep on concrete. Some prisoners were forced to go nude as a method of degradation, and some were subjected to sexual humiliation, including simulated sodomy.
Zimbardo cited his own absorption in the experiment he guided, and in which he actively participated as Prison Superintendent. On the fourth day, some prisoners were talking about trying to escape. Zimbardo and the guards attempted to move the prisoners to the more secure local police station, but officials there said they could no longer participate in Zimbardo's experiment.
Several guards became increasingly cruel as the experiment continued. Experimenters said that approximately one-third of the guards exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies. Most of the guards were upset when the experiment concluded early.
Zimbardo argued that the prisoner participants had internalized their roles, based on the fact that some had stated that they would accept parole even with the attached condition of forfeiting all of their experiment-participation pay. Yet, when their parole applications were all denied, none of the prisoner participants quit the experiment. Zimbardo argued they had no reason for continued participation in the experiment after having lost all monetary compensation, yet they did, because they had internalized the prisoner identity, they thought themselves prisoners, hence, they stayed.
Prisoner No. 416, a newly admitted stand-by prisoner, expressed concern over the treatment of the other prisoners. The guards responded with more abuse. When he refused to eat his sausages, saying he was on a hunger strike, guards confined him in a closet and called it solitary confinement. The guards used this incident to turn the other prisoners against No. 416, saying the only way he would be released from solitary confinement was if they gave up their blankets and slept on their bare mattresses, which all but one refused to do.
Zimbardo concluded the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student he was then dating (and later married), objected to the appalling conditions of the prison after she was introduced to the experiment to conduct interviews. Zimbardo noted that of more than fifty outside persons who had seen the prison, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality. After only six days of a planned two weeks' duration, the Stanford Prison experiment was shut down.
ConclusionsThe Stanford experiment ended on August 20, 1971, only six days after it began instead of the fourteen it was supposed to have lasted. The experiment's result has been argued to demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support. It is also used to illustrate cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority.
The results of the experiment are said to support situational attribution of behaviour rather than dispositional attribution. In other words, it seemed the situation caused the participants' behaviour, rather than anything inherent in their individual personalities. In this way, it is compatible with the results of the also-famous Milgram experiment, in which ordinary people fulfilled orders to administer what appeared to be damaging electric shocks to a confederate of the experimenter.
Shortly after the study had been completed, there were bloody revolts at both the San Quentin and Attica prison facilities, and Zimbardo reported his findings on the experiment to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary.
Criticism of the experiment
The guards and prisoners adapted to their roles further than expected, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of the guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine" sadistic tendencies, while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized (two of whom had to be removed from the experiment early). After being confronted by Christina Maslach, a graduate student in psychology whom he was dating, and realizing that he had been passively allowing unethical acts to be performed under his direct supervision, Zimbardo concluded that both prisoners and guards had become too grossly absorbed in their roles and terminated the experiment after six days. Ethical concerns surrounding the famous experiment often draw comparisons to the Milgram experiment, which was conducted in 1961 at Yale University by Stanley Milgram, Zimbardo's former college friend. Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman Jr wrote in 1981 that the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment were frightening in their implications about the danger which lurks in the darker side of human nature.
The experiment was widely criticized as being unethical and unscientific. Current ethical standards of psychology would not permit such a study to be conducted today. The study would violate the Ethics Code of the American Psychological Association, the Canadian Code of Conduct for Research Involving Humans, and the Belmont Report. Critics including Erich Fromm challenged how readily the results of the experiment could be generalized. Fromm specifically writes about how the personality of an individual does in fact affect behavior when imprisoned (using historical examples from the Nazi concentration camps). This runs counter to the study's conclusion that the prison situation itself controls the individual's behavior. Fromm also argues that the amount of sadism in the "normal" subjects could not be determined with the methods employed to screen them.
Because it was a field experiment, it was impossible to keep traditional scientific controls. Dr. Zimbardo was not merely a neutral observer, but influenced the direction of the experiment as its "superintendent". Conclusions and observations drawn by the experimenters were largely subjective and anecdotal, and the experiment would be difficult for other researchers to reproduce.
Some of the experiment's critics argued that participants based their behavior on how they were expected to behave, or modelled it after stereotypes they already had about the behavior of prisoners and guards. In other words, the participants were merely engaging in role-playing. In response, Zimbardo claimed that even if there was role-playing initially, participants internalized these roles as the experiment continued.
More directly, though, it has been pointed out that, in contrast to Zimbardo's claim that participants were given no instructions about how to behave, his briefing of the guards gave them a clear sense that they should oppress the prisoners. In this sense the study was an exploration of the effects of tyrannical leadership. In line with this, certain guards, such as "John Wayne", changed their behavior because of wanting to conform to the behavior that Zimbardo was trying to elicit.
Additionally, the study has been criticized on the basis of ecological validity. Many of the conditions imposed in the experiment were arbitrary and may not have correlated with actual prison conditions, including blindfolding incoming "prisoners", not allowing them to wear underwear, not allowing them to look out of windows and not allowing them to use their names. Zimbardo argued that prison is a confusing and dehumanizing experience and that it was necessary to enact these procedures to put the "prisoners" in the proper frame of mind; however, it is difficult to know how similar the effects were to an actual prison, and the experiment's methods would be difficult to reproduce exactly so that others could test them.
Some said that the study was too deterministic:
reports described significant differences in the cruelty of the guards, the worst of whom came to be nicknamed "John Wayne." (This guard alleges he started the escalation of events between "guards" and "prisoners" after he began to emulate a character from the Paul Newman film Cool Hand Luke. He further intensified his actions because he was nicknamed "John Wayne" though he was trying to mimic actor Strother Martin who played the role of the sadistic "Captain" in the movie.) Most of the other guards were kinder and often did favors for prisoners. Zimbardo made no attempt to explain or account for these differences.
Also, it has been argued that selection bias may have played a role in the results. Researchers from Western Kentucky University recruited students for a study using an advertisement similar to the one used in the Stanford Prison Experiment, with and without the words "prison life." It was found that students volunteering for a prison life study possessed dispositions toward abusive behavior.
Comparisons to Abu Ghraib
When the Abu Ghraib military prisoner torture and abuse scandal was published in March 2004, many observers immediately were struck by its similarities to the Stanford Prison experiment — among them, Philip Zimbardo, who paid close attention to the details of the story. He was dismayed by official military and government efforts shifting the blame for the torture and abuses in the Abu Ghraib American military prison on to "a few bad apples" rather than acknowledging it as possibly systemic problems of a formally established military incarceration system.
Eventually, Zimbardo became involved with the defense team of lawyers representing Abu Ghraib prison guard Staff Sergeant Ivan "Chip" Frederick. He had full access to all investigation and background reports, testifying as an expert witness in SSG Frederick's court martial, which resulted in an eight-year prison sentence for Frederick in October 2004.
Zimbardo drew on the knowledge he gained from participating in the Frederick case to write The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil (Random House, 2007), dealing with the striking similarities between the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Abu Ghraib abuses.
BBC Prison Study
Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher, psychologists from the University of Exeter and University of St Andrews, conducted the BBC Prison Study in 2002. This was a partial replication of the SPE conducted with the assistance of the BBC, who broadcast events in the study in a documentary series called The Experiment. Their results and conclusions differed from Zimbardo's and led to a number of publications on tyranny, stress and leadership. Moreover, unlike results from the SPE, these were published in leading academic journals such as British Journal of Social Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology, Social Psychology Quarterly. The BBC Prison Study is now taught as a core study on the UK A-level Psychology syllabus.
While Haslam and Reicher's procedure was not a direct replication of Zimbardo's, their study does cast further doubt on the generality of his conclusions. Specifically, it questions the notion that people slip mindlessly into role and the idea that the dynamics of evil are in any way banal. Their research also points to the importance of leadership in the emergence of tyranny (of the form displayed by Zimbardo when briefing guards in the Stanford experiment).
Experiments in the USThe Third Wave was a 1967 recreation of Nazi Germany by high school teacher Ron Jones in Palo Alto, California.
In April 2007, it was reported that high school students in Waxahachie, Texas, who were participating in a role-playing exercise fell into a similar abusive pattern of behavior as exhibited in the original experiment.
- In 1992, Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment, a documentary about the experiment, was made available via the Stanford Prison Experiment website. The documentary was written by Zimbardo and directed and produced by Ken Musen.
- In 1977, Italian director Carlo Tuzii adapted the story of the experiment to an Italian environment, and Italian students and made a film out of his adaptation, called La Gabbia (The Cage). In the film, "prisoners" and "guards" were all together in a huge room, parted in two halves by a row of iron bars in the middle, and with a small window in each half.
- The novel Black Box by Mario Giordano, inspired by the experiment, was adapted to cinema in 2001 by German director Oliver Hirschbiegel into the movie Das Experiment, which starred Moritz Bleibtreu and Christian Berkel.
- A 30 minute 2002 BBC documentary produced and directed by Kim Duke.
- Breathing Room, a 2008 horror film
- "Not for Nothing", Episode 4 of Season 2 of the fictional US television series Life, was loosely based on the Stanford prison experiment.
- A film about the experiment, entitled The Stanford Prison Experiment, is in production by Maverick Films. It was written by Christopher McQuarrie and Tim Talbott. It is said to feature actors Channing Tatum, Cam Gigandet, Paul Dano, Ryan Phillippe, Giovanni Ribisi, Benjamin McKenzie, Charlie Hunnam, Kieran Culkin, Jesse Eisenberg, and Dylan Purcell, and is slotted for release in 2011.
- In the episode "My Big Fat Greek Rush Week" of the TV series Veronica Mars, Wallace and Logan take part in an experiment that is similar to the Stanford Prison Experiment.
I refer to NOSY NEIGHBOR AND THE GANG as global black market PORN CARTEL---MULES in a structure mirroring the global black market DRUG CARTEL because the goals of all this MOVING FORWARD DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE will have those involved in these black market criminal activities labelled as MENTAL HEALTH DISEASE----ie, GAMBLING, ALCOHOLISM/DRUG/PORN ADDICTION------all of which when identified by 'STATE SOCIAL WORKERS/POLICE as such will end in what I call----
BEING SENT TO THE BIG HOUSE-----NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG are those who will be sent to FORCED LABOR REHAB CAMPS.
Currently, my case has FEEDBACK telling me I am on my way to being FRAMED as CRAZY------needing to be taken to local PSYCH WARD----same as FIRST POLICE OFFICER ----same as SECOND police encounter----
are simply tools killing all of our Western thousands of years societal norms of individualism/free will and choice----creating a MARXISM GROUP SPEAK ----where the global corporation is the WE-------as our 99% of US citizens are made the 'THEY'.
The "prison" itself was in the basement of Stanford's Jordan Hall, which had been converted into a mock jail. An undergraduate research assistant was the "warden" and Zimbardo the "superintendent". Zimbardo set up a number of specific conditions on the participants which he hoped would promote disorientation, depersonalisation and deindividualisation.
In pre-Weimer HITLER Germany as Stalinist USSR as MAOIST China-----the only people able to remain employed were those able to make the transition from being GOOD----to being EVIL.
China Turns Drug Rehab Into a Punishing Ordeal
By ANDREW JACOBSJAN. 7, 2010
BEIJING — Fu Lixin, emotionally exhausted from caring for her sick mother, needed a little pick-me-up. A friend offered her a “special cigarette” — one laced with methamphetamine — and Ms. Fu happily inhaled.
The next day, three policemen showed up at her door.
“They asked me to urinate in a cup,” she said. “My friend had been arrested and turned me in. It was a drug test. I failed on the spot.”
Although she said it was her first time smoking meth, Ms. Fu, 41, was promptly sent to one of China’s compulsory drug rehabilitation centers. The minimum stay is two years, and life is an unremitting gantlet of physical abuse and forced labor without any drug treatment, according to former inmates and substance abuse professionals.
“It was a hell I’m still trying to recover from,” she said.
According to the United Nations, as many as a half million Chinese citizens are held at these centers at any given time. Detentions are meted out by the police without trials, judges or appeals. Created in 2008 as part of a reform effort to grapple with the country’s growing narcotics problem, the centers, lawyers and drug experts say, have become de facto penal colonies where inmates are sent to factories and farms, fed substandard food and denied basic medical care.
“They call them detoxification centers, but everyone knows that detox takes a few days, not two years,” said Joseph Amon, an epidemiologist with Human Rights Watch in New York. “The basic concept is inhumane and flawed.”
On Thursday, Human Rights Watch issued a report on the drug rehabilitation system that replaced the Communist Party’s previous approach of sending addicts to labor camps, where they would toil alongside thieves, prostitutes and political dissidents.
The report, titled “Where Darkness Knows No Limits,” calls on the government to immediately shut down the detention centers.
Under the Anti-Drug Law of 2008, drug offenders were to be sent to professionally staffed detox facilities and then released to community-based rehabilitation centers for up to four years of therapeutic follow-up.
But substance abuse experts say the legislation, part of a stated “people centered” approach to dealing with addiction, has simply given the old system a new name. What is worse, they say, is that it expands the six-month compulsory detentions of old into two-year periods that the authorities can extend by five years.
The “community-based rehabilitation” centers, treatment experts add, have yet to be established.
Wang Xiaoguang, the vice director of Daytop, an American-affiliated drug-treatment residence in Yunnan Province, said the government detox centers were little more than business ventures run by the police. Detainees, he said, spend their days working at chicken farms or shoe factories that have contracts with the local police; drug treatment, counseling and vocational training are almost nonexistent.
“I don’t think this is the ideal situation for people trying to recover from addiction,” Mr. Wang said in a phone interview.
In its report, Human Rights Watch, which largely focused on Yunnan, says the abuses at some of the province’s 114 detention centers are even more troubling. Those with serious illnesses, including tuberculosis and AIDS, are often denied medical treatment. Many inmates reported beatings, some of them fatal.
The Office of National Narcotics Control Commission, which administers China’s drug policy, did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday.
Han Wei, 38, a recovering heroin addict who was released from a Beijing detention center in October, said the guards would use electric prods on the recalcitrant. “At least they’d give us helmets so we wouldn’t injure our heads during convulsions,” he said.
Meals consisted of steamed buns and, occasionally, cabbage-based swill. Showers were allowed once a month. And the remedy for heroin withdrawal symptoms was a pail of cold water in the face. “They didn’t give me a single pill or a bit of counseling,” Mr. Han said.
Despite the deprivations, Mr. Han, a former nightclub owner, said his two-year sentence achieved the desired goal: it persuaded him to kick a habit he began in 1998. “I’m never going back,” he said.
Zhang Wenjun, who runs Guiding Star, an organization that helps recovering addicts, said such determination was most often fleeting. At least 98 percent of those who leave the drug detention system relapse within a few years, he said.
Mr. Zhang knows something about falling off the wagon. His own addiction to heroin has landed him in detox centers and labor camps six times since the mid-1990s.
“What the government doesn’t realize is that this is a disease that needs to be treated, not punished,” said Mr. Zhang, 42, a tattooed man who speaks in a growl.
In some ways, he said, the stigma of addiction is as crippling as the lure of the next fix. Those arrested for drug offenses are branded addicts on their national identification cards, which makes applying for jobs and welfare benefits acts of futility. And because the local police are automatically notified when former offenders check into hotels, traveling often involves impromptu urine tests and the possibility of humiliation in front of colleagues.
“In China, to be a drug addict is to be an enemy of the government,” Mr. Zhang said.
Still, he and other drug treatment workers are quick to acknowledge the progress that China has made in recent years. There are now eight methadone clinics in Beijing, serving 2,000 people, and more than 1,000 needle-exchange programs have opened across the country since 2004.
Yu Jingtao, whose organization, Beijing Harm Reduction Group, distributes 30,000 clean needles a month, said the government was slowly moving toward the drug treatment model common in much of the developed world. “We’re just caught in a transition period,” said Mr. Yu, himself a recovering addict. “Transition periods are never very pretty.”
NOSY NEIGHBOR AND THE GANG and all that FEEDBACK on THE NETWORK are creating MEGA-DATA on just how to be that TOTAL PRISON infrastructure which is being FED INTO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE with the goal of eliminating the need for actual HUMANS willing to be EVIL------and will be replaced by SMART PRISONS----TOTAL PRISONS-----same as MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL CORPORATE 'COMMUNITY' CAMPUSES.
Here in Baltimore our global banking 5% freemason/Greek player/pols CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA now TRUMP are working hard to install these HONG KONG CAGE HOUSES-----all while calling it AFFORDABLE HOUSING----FIXING BALTIMORE------SOCIAL BENEFIT TECHNOLOGY-----and of course all these terms fall under UNITED NATIONS definition of CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY------AKA------
This is what I call SMART CITIES/SMART HOMES------and I am simply surrounded by NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG who will be replaced by that artificial intelligence as SMART GULAG.
Hong Kong’s vision for a smart prison is a full-blown Orwellian nightmare
The world’s smartest prison — boasting tracking wristbands and drug-detecting robots — sounds like the pitch for a sci-fi movie along the lines of John Carpenter’s Escape from New York. In fact, it’s a real thing currently being tested at three correctional facilities in Hong Kong. Should all go well, it could be rolled out under a plan to make all such correctional institutes into “smart prisons.”
A variety of smart gadgets are being explored as part of the scheme. One is a wristband that will make it easy to monitor the location of prisoners at all times. It will also keep tabs on heart rates and alert staff if one becomes irregular. In the event that prisoners try to remove the wristband, it will trigger an alarm.
Another surveillance tool being put through its paces is an A.I.-augmented video surveillance system, designed to detect certain behavior behind bars. For instance, it can supposedly recognize self-harming behaviors, fighting, and whether a person has collapsed. Twelve of these security cameras are currently being tested in male dormitories at Pik Uk Prison in Hong Kong.
Perhaps the most attention-grabbing piece of technology being explored (and one that takes away a job that few humans would want) is a robot whose purpose is to look for drugs in poop. It turns out that many prisoners try to smuggle drugs into prison by swallowing them and then pooping them out later. At present, human prison officers get the glamorous job of examining inmates feces using wooden sticks to break it up in their search for contraband. Instead, the robot arm will use jets of water to break down the poop, looking for illicit drugs.
Speaking to the South China Morning Post, Commissioner of Correctional Services Danny Woo Ying-ming said that: “The Correctional Services Department strives to enhance efficiency of custodial operations and security of correctional institutions through the application of innovation and technology, while protecting the safety of officers and persons in custody.”
This isn’t the only smart prison technology we’ve covered. In the U.S., some prisons have invested in a smart drone detection system, designed to crack down on contraband by monitoring suspicious drone traffic in the area. As far as we know, however, U.S. prisons have yet to dive into the world of poop-testing robots or smart wearables for its prison population.