All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 1, 2015 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:07:18
Edition 188 - Neil Sanders

First show of 2015 - featuring Neil Sanders - British expert on Mind Control...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Across the UK, across continental North America and around the world, on the internet, by webcast and by podcast, my name is Howard Hughes and this is The Unexplained in 2015.
Can't believe that.
Seems like only yesterday I was sitting here and saying, welcome to 2010.
Five more years.
Boy, how fab is that.
Thank you very much to Adam Cornwell for another great year of work.
He's at Creative Hotspot and he's the guy who gets this show out to you and also devised and maintains the website, www.theunexplained.tv.
That's the place to go if you'd like to make a donation to this show.
Absolutely vital your donations are.
And if you've made one recently, I know some of you have, thank you very much indeed for those.theunexplained.tv, that's the place to go if you want to send me a donation or send me your comments about the show, your thoughts and suggestions.
And if you want to just shoot the breeze with me about stuff, that's okay.
I'm going to do some shout-outs on this edition.
Sorry if I don't mention your name.
If I mentioned everybody who's emailed in the last month or so, or the last two weeks, say, we would be here for the next half hour.
So I'm going to get through as many now.
Rob in Australia, thank you for your nice comments.
Cassine in Hobart, Tasmania, thank you for your email.
Aaron in Pittsburgh, good to hear from you.
Moira, nice email, Maury.
Your comments about donations made me smile, Moira, and how you made yours.
Thank you.
Sandy in Australia says it's hot and sweaty down there.
Sends me a story about Tommy Steele, who's a kind of British Dick Van Dyke character.
He's a singer, actor, performer, man never ages.
I don't know how old he is now, but he had pop records out in the 60s and has been a mainstay of theatre for many years.
But Sandy tells me that she read some kind of paranormal story, some kind of experience that Tommy Steele allegedly had.
I'll check that out.
And if you know anything about that, maybe you are him.
Perhaps you'd like to get in touch.
Not sure about that, so we'll find out.
Rick in Itasca, Illinois, good to hear from you.
Don in Santa Barbara, California, thank you for your email.
One of my favorite places in the world.
And I'm missing it terribly.
I must come back sometime.
Philip in Des Plains, Illinois says, I've enjoyed the episodes very much, including the guests that I found offensive and hard to listen to.
But I've got to chime in about Dr. Judy Wood.
And Philip makes a lot of points about Dr. Judy Wood and ends up by saying, if you have Dr. Wood on again, please advise her to stop being so defensive about her claims.
A lot of you said that.
Let us, the audience, make our own judgments about what she has to say.
Good point, Philip.
Thank you.
David Jones, thank you for your email.
Michael in Baltimore, Maryland, home of WCBM, I seem to remember.
Good suggestions.
Richard in Trenton, New Jersey, where some of my ancestors actually came from.
Nice to hear from you.
Anonymous emailer doesn't like me mentioning the UK weather in this show.
Well, I don't on every show, and actually some of you do like that and have emailed to tell me, but let me know what you think.
Sherry in Portland, Oregon.
Nice comments and comparing me with Art Bell.
Well, Art Bell's the master and my hero.
I am not worthy, but thank you very much, Sherry.
Mike Regal, good to hear from you.
Dee, nice to hear from you again, Dee.
Andrew Duffles, it might be DuFells.
He says, can I get a shout out to my lovely wife, Maria?
Hello, Maria, who introduced me to your show with episode 161, Linda Moulton Howe, talking about alien-human hybrids.
Since then, says Andrew, I've been hooked ever since.
Andrew and Maria, I'm very pleased that you're there, and thank you for the email.
Jeff in Nashville, Tennessee, home of country music.
Nice to hear from you.
Barry in Battle Creek, Michigan, loved Ernesto Ortiz.
Claire, nice comments about the show.
Says the only parts of the Ernesto Ortiz show she liked were my questions to him.
Not everybody loved Ernesto Ortiz, and some of you did.
Jill, good comments.
Thank you.
Ian, ex-BBC man from Reading, United Kingdom, worked in the same building that I'm now working in.
Crystal in New Hampshire, nice to give me Crystal.
And a story from Mike in Cleethorpes says that on December the 14th this year, I was at work as a security officer for a big engineering company, and I just set off to patrol the area that takes about 35 minutes to walk around and inspect the multiple places who share the same area.
Other companies and some abandoned buildings around there, very spooky in the dead of night.
It was about 5.25 p.m.
The place was empty.
The Sunday staff had gone home.
The lights were off.
Everything was dark and locked.
So I started to head back to the gatehouse.
And when I go on patrol, I always look at the stars.
It was a clear night, very beautiful.
I noticed three white strobing lights in the sky, pretty low, about a thousand feet up or so, maybe a little bit higher, but I could see them clearly in a line strobing from left to right.
I found it strange.
There was no sound.
This is often, that's often reported with UFOs, isn't it?
No sound at all.
It suddenly stopped, and I mean stopped dead.
The lights went out, and after three seconds or so, the lights came back on.
But they strobed from right to left.
Then one big red flash, and the object completely disappeared.
You've heard that before, too.
I was, to quote, quote Mike and Cleethorpes, gobsmacked.
What a story.
Thank you for that.
If you were around Cleethorpes on the 14th of December and you saw lights in the sky, let me know, because Mike certainly did.
Kate, thank you.
Nathaniel, thank you for your email.
Jay, Nikki, and Julian, thank you for your emails.
And Zodai, it might be Zodi, as in Zodiac, I'm not sure, but Zodai, sent me some artwork to go with my hypothetical product, Debunkin' Donuts, which I'd like to make and market, I think, for this show.
And thank you very much for the artwork.
If you have emailed and I haven't mentioned you, please accept my apologies for that and my good wishes for 2015.
The guest this time is going to talk about the subject of mind control in this modern world of ours.
Very clever guy.
His name is Neil Saunders, and he's in the UK.
We'll get to him in just a second.
Thank you very much for your communications.
Please keep your donations coming.
And wherever you are, I hope you're safe, and I hope you're well, and I hope you're happy.
Right, let's get to the guest, Neil Sanders in the United Kingdom.
Thank you very much for coming on The Unexplained.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for inviting me on.
Now, Neil, you've got An awful lot of stuff online that I've seen, and you do put a very good, cogent narrative across about mind control.
And I'm sure you're going to get more attention as this year goes on.
Tell me a little bit about yourself first.
Okay, well, first off, thank you very much.
That's very kind of you.
Well, I mean, I was trained at university in psychology and media, and so because of that, I had an understanding of, say, Freudian analysis and Jungian archetypes and that sort of thing.
But also, by happy circumstance, I was actually trained in a bit of media production, but it was more applying psychology to the understanding of the media, to the understanding of roles in genre, and also to the decoding of advertising and use of colour and font and various other seemingly unimportant elements that actually can affect the mind and can affect decision-making, for example.
After that, I went on and did an MA in film studies, which was sort of more to do with deconstructing the media and understanding how, again, things like genre, things like character are developed and understood by the audience.
And then from there on, I actually trained in hypnotherapy.
And I got into the mind control thing by a friend recommending me the Manchurian Candidate film.
And this was at the time that I was actually studying psychology.
And I had to be persuaded to actually watch this because it was old and it was black and white.
And, you know, it had Frank Sinatra in it, who wasn't, to be honest, one of my great heroes at the time.
And also Angela Lansbury.
So I was thinking, oh no, what am I letting myself in for?
But it's a brilliant film.
And what struck me was that it's not science fiction.
It seemed plausible to me.
It seemed that there was an actual scientific way that you could actually approach this and control people's actions and emotions and such like that.
So I started to actually research it myself and started to devour all the books and all the available material and look at the declassified documents and things like that and just basically anything that pertains to mind control.
And I found that it's one of these subjects where the more you know, the less you know because it's an incredibly, incredibly broad subject that can range from truth serums to wiping people's memories to implanting memories to sending people mad, making people think that they're schizophrenic, synthetic telepathy or even just something as mundane as advertising or parliamentary campaigns, that sort of thing.
Anything that can be used to affect the way that you think about something or manage your perceptions, basically.
You used a phrase there that I just want to explain because all the other things you talked about I've heard about and I think most of our listeners here will have heard about, but synthetic telepathy.
What's that?
Well, synthetic telepathy is a form of mind control that has actually exists.
It sounds very much like science fiction, but it's been tested and actually used in real scenarios.
What it is in its most basic form is putting a thought or a voice inside somebody's head, and it works in such a way that the voice appears to have originated from inside your skull.
So this could be used in all manner of nefarious methods, also in espionage circles or in wartime.
And there are various ways that this can actually be done.
It can be done simply by putting an implant in or a receiving microphone or something like that.
And then you could literally speak directly into the brain of the person.
You're kidding.
And is this kind of stuff done?
Or has this kind of stuff been done?
Well, absolutely.
I mean, that's incredibly sort of basic.
I mean, one of the most impressive forms of synthetic telepathy was a chap called Igor Smirnov.
And he actually created something that was called the Smirnoff pattern.
And this worked by carrying sound waves that weren't actually audible to the physical presence, but they could be directed so that they could be picked up by the audio nerve.
And what he would do is he'd say record a series, a monologue or whatever, and this could be sent to a person and actually used to try and make them think that there was a voice inside their head.
So perhaps they would think they were schizophrenic.
Or, in an example that was actually going to be used but was decided against, during the Waco siege, they actually employed or they were going to employ the Smirnov patent and directed at David Koresh's head.
They had actually got the actor Charlton Heston to record a monologue proclaiming himself to be God and then telling David Koresh to let everybody go and to come peacefully out of the actual compound.
But they decided that they didn't want to actually go with this particular type of technology and that they tried other methods, shall we say.
Well, one of the other methods they tried was to play the same song at them.
Was it a Sonny and Cher song or something?
What was it?
Hell, you know, I think they played a whole series of things.
One of the things that I know they played was the sound of rabbits being slaughtered.
And this is a disorientation tactic because this is actually taken from the Kubark document, which is to, well, I shan't butter it up.
It's basically a manual that was written by the CIA that informs people how to torture and interrogate more successfully in order to make the prisoner of war more malleable.
And one of the things that it principally argues for is isolation and over-stimulation.
So that's why they keep the room with a constant barrage of noise.
Or, for example, sometimes if you're in a solitary confinement cell, you'll have no lights on.
Sorry, you'll have lights on 24 hours a day so that you get no respite from it.
Or they'll play, for example in Guantanamo Bay, they play loops of skinny puppy songs and Metallica songs and actually Barney the dinosaur on like a seven second loop so it's incredibly irritating and off time and they keep this going all the time.
The other thing that they actually do in Guantanamo Bay is they put masks and goggles and thick shoes and oven gloves on.
So you may have seen the pictures of prisoners trying to prey to Mecca, I believe, is in some of the photos, but they've got all these oven gloves on and such like that.
That's because sensory deprivation was originally used as a form of torture.
What happens is if the brain is deprived Of input or interesting input, it starts to basically make its own.
And so you have a trip.
And this is why, basically, in isolation tanks, you start to see these visuals.
But if you continue that for a long time, it causes a breakdown in the brain akin to psychosis and uncontrollable, terrifying hallucinations that you just want to stop.
And John Lilly, who's the person that actually made the isolation tank, originally, their purpose was for torture.
But this is the point, it's isolation and overstimulation, so that's why you would barrage them with sound.
In the case of Waco, I don't want to lose this point.
It's just come to me what the tune was they played continuously, and it was These Boots Are Made for Walking by Nancy Sinatra.
So you mentioned Frank Sinatra, who was Nancy Sinatra.
But all of that, as we know, because of the awful ending of that siege, it all backfired badly, didn't it?
It depends.
I suppose that depends on what you believe regarding that particular siege.
Certainly, again, that would be a perception management thing.
It very much depends on what your belief is.
I get the impression, but from looking into it, that there were numerous times that they could have ended that siege more peacefully.
And I also record of the footage that Bill Higgs put out that appears to show a Bradley tank setting fire to the compound.
Ryan.
So somebody wanted this to end in the way that it ended.
They didn't want it to end in a peaceful and ordered way.
Again, it very much depends on what you believe.
Another argument that could be made is that repeated trauma of any description on a population, repeated horrors, repeated difficult things for you to deal with, what it causes is it causes a fight-or-flight reaction in the brain.
And so institutes like the Tavistock Institute, which is actually a British psychological foundation, in the 30s it was taken over by a gentleman called Kurt Lewin.
And he basically proposed that the most effective way that governments could control citizens would be to reduce them to a childlike state that he called fluidity.
Now the easiest way he found to reduce people to a childlike state is to induce traumatic experiences on them from all angles so that basically they reduce to this fight or flight mechanism.
They feel helpless and then they ultimately resort to an authority figure, that would be the government, to guide them in the way because they feel that they can't actually make that decision for themselves.
So rather like a traumatized child, you turn to your mum or dad?
Exactly, that is exactly what it would be.
And basically, it works on the principle of a third-party advocate, which is the thing that basically human beings are hardwired to believe that people in positions of authority are there because they deserve to be there, because they're the best person for the job, because they have your best interests at heart.
And depending on how cynical you want to be, that could be taken advantage of and manipulated in order to, as I said before, make citizens more malleable for whatever reason.
If governments in countries like the United States and this country, the UK, were using those sorts of techniques on people, though, how come we certainly here in the UK seem to be entering an era where people are questioning their politicians more and the 2015 general election, a lot of people are saying, is going to be an absolute mold breaker because people are not going to go along with the accepted traditional ways of thinking, behaving, and ultimately voting.
Well, I mean, let's wait and see.
I mean, hopefully there will be some degree of change and a more fair distribution of wealth, perhaps.
let it let it see I mean I'm also the Of course, empires rise and fall, but these are tried and tested methods that are used.
And beware of sort of Pied Pipers and false prophets and people that would proclaim to be, again, to have your best interests at heart and perhaps controlled opposition for want of a better phrase.
So, you know, hopefully, that's great.
I mean, hopefully more and more people are getting to the point where they want to question things about society and about how fairly they're treated.
And that's great.
And I really hope that that is the case.
Do you think that there's a very fine line to be drawn between news management, which happens increasingly and all the time?
I'm talking in politics now, and mind control.
Are the two things very closely related, do you think?
Yes, absolutely, because it's about, as I say, perception management.
This boils down to principles of two people, Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays, and it's the engineering or the manufacture of consent.
And to use a Walter, I mean, those are the phrases by Lippmann and Bernays.
And what it really means, it means the establishment of norms, what is down, what is right, what is an appropriate way to believe.
And to sort of take that further, Walter Lippmann stated in his book Public Opinion that the way people understand the world is through the pictures that they see in their heads.
And I'll give you an example.
A flamingo.
Now, not everybody will have actually seen a flamingo, but you've all got a picture of a flamingo in your head now.
Now, where did you get that from?
Perhaps you got it from a postcard or a picture.
Perhaps you got it from a film or some other sort of news media.
Perhaps some of you have actually seen a flamingo.
But the point is that through that learnt experience, you get your understanding of these things.
Walter Littman said that basically if somebody finds a piece of metal that's gold, for a time he will act as if he's found gold until somebody points out that, no, that's actually fool's gold or whatever.
And so by these pictures, by our understanding and our decoding of the facts that we come to know, that's how we act according to the stimuli response.
Now, if you can make those pictures and you can put those pictures into people's heads before they even have a chance to examine those, and so they unquestioningly go with that, then that again could be manipulated.
Now, terrorist.
Everyone's now got an image of a terrorist.
Now, a lot of you will have a picture of somebody who might just happen to be of Middle Eastern descent, have a beard, and perhaps be wearing a turban.
Now, is that necessarily the case?
Well, the news media and certain political groups and certain groups with vested interests would certainly have you believe that that was the fact, but more and more it's looking at the case that if that is the case, then they're perhaps financed from other elements.
And again, this is a stereotype that has been seized upon and manufactured and then, again, manipulated into the public conscious to direct people's responses.
Well, it's interesting you just said that.
I mean, if you, and I don't go along with everything the man says by any manner of means or even very much of it, but if you listen to the likes of Alex Jones on the radio in the US and on the television, the conspiracy theory broadcaster they call him, he will tell you that Osama bin Laden actually died a long time before we were told he was killed.
Well, I certainly don't believe the official story.
And Osama bin Laden, as far as my understanding goes, had a CIO code name of Tim Osman and was basically financed in order to fight against the Russians for a time.
And there's some very, very shady deals going on with that whole sort of thing.
But again, it's about perception management.
History is not written about face.
History is written by the winners.
The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.
Again, if you can present people with the way that they are supposed to understand the world, then they can act accordingly.
Now, this does not mean that every single conspiracy theory is true.
But what it does mean is that don't dismiss them out of hand.
A lot of people would dismiss mind control out of hand as nonsense.
It's something for the films, isn't it?
Well, no, it isn't.
And perhaps one of the most impressive mind control programs is the fact that most people would believe that mind control is in the realm of science fiction, when in actual fact it's been used operationally since at least World War II.
How?
In numerous ways.
I mean, one of the ways is, as I say, the search for truth serums, interrogation scenarios, the use of scopalamine, LSD, mescaline, barbituates, opiates, the use of amphetamines, and all the cavalcade of drugs in order to try and elicit a confession in a prisoner of wartime interrogation scenario.
And then this was jacked up to include experiments regarding hypnosis and the application of electroshock therapy in order to wipe people's memories in order that if they were in a similar circumstance, then they could not possibly spill the beans, for example.
One of the most impressive things that was done during World War II was by a gentleman called George Esterbrooks, who was in the business of hypnosis.
And he, excuse me, he actually hypnoprogrammed soldiers.
Now, what do I mean by hypnoprogramming?
Well, what he was doing was hypnotizing people to such a deep degree that he was able to access like a vault inside their mind and download information to them, give them a speech or something like that, which they would absorb and then lock inside their deep subconscious.
Basically, this person would then go to Japan or wherever and they'd meet another person of high within military intelligence.
This other person would give them a code word and they would automatically go into trance and verbatim recant the information that they were supposed to give to this person.
Then he would basically click his fingers or give whatever signal that was necessary and the soldier would come out of trance.
He would have no memory of the information.
He would have no memory of why he was there and he would no memory of actually being hypnotized.
And so by this methodology, they were actually able to transmit very, very secret messages in a fundamentally foolproof plan because even if you had the code word, if you weren't the two people that were involved in the programming, you could not access that soldier's memory bank.
Really, no matter how much torture you used?
well, it wasn't available to him.
The point was that what Estabrooks had discovered was that you could split that it, And this can be done in a number of ways.
I mean, the application of trauma is necessary.
I must point out that this could not be done by your Commonwealth Garden hypnotherapist.
There's a lot that he's left out of the declassified documents, so I assume, so that people can't actually do this sort of thing.
But what he was doing was splitting people into two personalities.
And in one of the papers that he published, he was talking about Joker A and Joker B. And this was an American Marine, as far as I can tell.
And he was split into two personalities.
One was a rabid communist, and one was the original apple pie all-American patriot.
Now, what they did was they put him into the minds of this rabid communist and dropped him with the enemy.
And he basically became part of this communist group.
When they wanted to, they'd then capture him, do their hypnosis, get him back to the original personality who had a line into all the memories of Joker B, as he was called.
And so basically, they had an effective and undetectable spy within the communist camp during this particular experiment.
Is this kind of stuff still being done?
Well, you can only assume that it must be, or I would assume that it's actually been advanced to far greater levels.
I mean, hypnosis is only one part of it.
I mean, we were given a hint of the sort of trauma that must be involved in it in 1995.
There was two ladies, one was called Claudia Mullen, and the other one was called Christina Di Nicola.
And they actually received payments and an apology from President Clinton.
This was a president's advisory board, or I forget the exact name.
It's one of these like a court thing, but it's through the American government.
And basically, they received apologies for the American government's involvement of them in mind control experiments when they were children.
Just to give you an example of the sorts of things, I mean, it is a bit Grim, essentially, Claudia Mullin, when she was nine years old, she was taken to a place in Maryland and trained to be a prostitute.
And she was used sexually by all the members of the staff that were actually involved in her programming and trained to be a law for dignitaries or heads of state.
What the idea would be was that this girl would go to places that unbeknownst to the dignitary in question or whatever, were wired for sound.
There would be hidden cameras, that sort of thing.
They would get into an encounter with this possibly still child, a sexual encounter, and this would produce all the necessary blackmail documents that they could use.
It's utterly, utterly appalling that that could be done in the name of a free people.
Sirhan Sirhan, the supposed assassin of Robert Kennedy, seems to be one of the most obvious candidates for hypnoprogramming, shall we say.
You know, creating of a mind-controlled assassin that would do something that he would not normally do.
I mean, the evidence against that is growing, basically.
I mean, he was examined by several very, very eminent hypnotists.
One of them was a gentleman called John Heiss, and they concluded that he was actually in a hypnotic trance during the time of the supposed attack on Robert Kennedy.
Well, just to give you an idea of he fired eight bullets, and apparently there were 14 bullet holes found at the scene.
And the autopsy of Robert Kennedy disputed the fact that Sir Han Sohan could have fired the fatal shot, because apparently the fatal shot was fired from just behind his ear.
Now, other people noted how robotic his actions were and how strangely stiff he was and how he was smiling, even though he was being beaten up by a series of people.
And that annoyed them, so they wrestled him harder, basically.
Also, when he was taken to the police station, people discovered that Sirhan Sirhan could actually tell the time accurate to the minute without the need for looking at a watch or looking at a clock on the wall.
That's certainly strange, but that's reminiscent of the type of action that might be done during, say, a stage hypnosis action.
And if he'd been programmed to do a particular thing, i.e.
kill Robert Kennedy, at a particular time, then that would tie into that, wouldn't it?
Well, I mean, the suggestion was in the Sir Hans Sohan case was that he was actually programmed to do something mundane.
He believed that he was shooting at a shooting range.
And again, depending on you believe, my personal thought on that is that he was firing blanks, which gave the distraction for the real assassin to sneak up behind Robert Kennedy.
But obviously, basically, everybody saw that Sir Hans Sohan pulled a gun, and so they make the assumption that he was the killer.
I mean, the thing is, George Esther Brooks, when he was discussing hypnosis, he said that basically, look, the common principle is that you can't make anybody do anything under hypnosis that they would not normally do.
And he says, Poppycock, my research has shown that this is not true.
I could induce a man to commit treason, murder, or suicide, and he would have no knowledge of what he had done or why he had done it.
Now, again, I would reiterate that trauma would have to be involved, and there are levels to this that you could not do this if you were a hypnotherapist.
But there's several ways that you could actually manipulate somebody via hypnosis in order to make them more malleable.
For example, with the Sirhan-Sirhan, you could hypnotise them and make them believe that they were shooting at a target range.
And therefore, anyone that actually gets in the way of those real bullets is still going to get hit.
So that would be framing it as a mundane action.
The second thing that you could do is that you could give the action context.
For example, in wartime, murder is justifiable.
If this person is going to kill your family, or if this is the only way to save the world, then that murder could be seen as justifiable.
So you could frame it in that person's head in such a way that they would commit that action.
J.G. Watkins, who was a hypnotist, actually hypnotized soldiers and made them believe that their superior officer was a spy.
And they attacked him on site.
One of them actually had a knife hidden in his boot, and he actually tried to kill his superior officer.
The third way is the most despicable.
This way would be basically you would get up such a level of trust and rapport with the subject that they would believe that whatever you told them to do, despite how strange and how hazardous on the face value it would appear, you as their loving therapist would have their best interests at heart.
So it might look like you were throwing a beaker of acid in someone's face, but you know that your therapist would never put you in a situation where you'd do something horrible like that.
It might look like you're driving a car straight off a cliff, but you know that your therapist would never put you in a situation that would cause you harm.
And so you go along with their actions.
And so there are numerous ways that even just by something as simple as simple, but in this sort of field, it is the least sort of technological method in the field of hypnosis.
That's how you could manipulate a person.
I didn't expect us to get into the Robert Kennedy assassination when I booked you for this conversation.
I'm very, very interested that we did.
I will always TV the footage of Jack Ruby, the guy who pulled the trigger on Lee Harvey Oswald, who killed JFK.
No.
You know, Jack Ruby is no longer here to be able to tell the tale, and neither is Lee Harvey Oswald.
But Lee Harvey Oswald said he was a Patsy, and we've all heard that story, and a lot of us have seen the movie.
But it was very convenient that he was killed by a man who seemed to be acting robotically.
Okay, he had a great backstory to Jack Ruby.
He was, you know, the right man to be in that position because there he was.
He was a patriot, and he'd been involved with the security services, hadn't he?
So if anybody was going to do that, then this man would do it.
But if he'd been programmed equally, he would have carried out that act in the way that we see.
Yes, that's certainly true.
I mean, with Jack Ruby, obviously he also had the connections to organized crime that suspiciously the Warren Commission didn't find.
And then later, there was lots that people found.
So that again, that's very, very multifaceted.
But the thing about that, that's the thing that first sort of interested me tying these things.
Obviously, I was a fan of the JFK fund, but sometimes Lee Harvey Oswald was seen as very, very pro-Cuba.
Sometimes he was seen as very, very anti-Cuba.
There's been instances or reported instances of him displaying both types of behavior.
Also, obviously, he went to Russia and then somehow defected and then somehow came back.
And to me, that reminded me of both those Joker A, Joker B experiments, you know, where basically you would split somebody and turn them into a communist and have the two disparate, seemingly, you know, completely opposite elements of their personality, but both complete and full personalities regardless.
I've heard you talk very interestingly on some of your video presentations about the way that we use social media today.
You had some very interesting things to say about social media.
And although we're not talking about programming people to do terrible, horrible acts, social media, you believe, is also programming the population.
Yeah, I think it can.
I mean, again, everything's a tool.
Like, it depends on how you can use it.
You know, a scalpel can be used to save somebody's life.
It can also be used to end somebody's life.
But social media, I mean, I think the thing about it is, just to jump you right at the deep end, isolation and overstimulation, which is defined by the CIA in the QBART document as being one of the most effective ways of reducing people to a vegetative state.
What are you doing when you're on Facebook?
Well, you're certainly isolated because you're on your own.
And you're overstimulated because you're finding all these threads, you're finding all the adverts and everything's going on like that.
Have you ever noticed that perhaps you feel a bit irritable when you're dragged away from Facebook?
Like, these are the things.
Facebook is terrible.
I'm not a big fan of it because it tends to encourage narcissism and self-loathing at the same time, which sounds very, very strange, but it does.
Everyone lies on Facebook, right?
This is the thing that nobody admits to.
Everybody lies.
Well, should we say that even if they don't lie, they're economical with the truth.
They portray an image of themselves that is perhaps not quite exactly as it is.
Most people that I know are telling me all the time that they're having a pretty great life.
Exactly.
Exactly my point, right?
Okay, you couldn't possibly, I'm not suggesting that you're doing this in a sort of like a corrupt way.
You're far too multifaceted and interesting, and your day is far bigger than can be put into a Facebook status.
And you're not going to put about the time when you were actually in the wrong or horrible or you did something that was a bit embarrassing to the point where it's not funny, it's just embarrassing.
You just don't tend to tell people about those things and you couldn't.
How could you fit your entire life into it?
But absolutely, the point is everyone else seems to be having such a wonderful time.
And so you get jealous of that.
The other thing is that basically it works kind of like gambling.
It works exactly like gambling because social information is important to people.
If you can learn by looking at successful people, the top echelons of our society, say the alpha males, even just people that you admire, you can start to copy their behavior.
You can perhaps see how they've achieved something and learn from their behavior and learn from their appearance and learn from stuff like that and apply it to your existence on a very, very sort of, you know, fundamental basis.
If you watch the alpha male and learn how he gets, you know, kills the food and gets to mate with the popular females and stuff like that, if you can do what he's doing, then you might be able to live a bit like him and you might survive.
And so in experimentations, chimpanzees will actually forego food just to have a look at a photograph of the alpha male because they can absorb that important social information and make themselves more successful in their own world.
And so this is the same thing with social media.
You start to absorb all these things and start to take it in and everything like that.
Occasionally what you'll do is you'll go, I'm going to put a status on.
Now, that's kind of like gambling, but gambling with social information because basically what you're doing is you're hoping that somebody will respond.
You're hoping to get a connection.
You're hoping to get likes.
You're hoping that people will go, hey, I agree with you.
Oh, we'll get more friends from this, more followers on Twitter, more sort of things to bolster this ego, this constructed ego.
Now you might notice that if you put out certain things that certain people don't like that and you might lose friends or get an angry response.
Well it seems to work on different levels, doesn't it?
I mean if I post about something that I've done then there will be people who I know who will like that and they'll be kind of happy for me.
And there will be other people who think who does he think he is?
And they won't be happy and you can get unfriended that way.
But what you might do, for example, is start to cater your outlook to make it to make it so that you don't get so many negative responses, so that you do get the positive response.
Well, that's what I, you know, innocently I've posted in the past about some things that I've done that have been kind of nice.
I now limit that kind of post.
I actually, and when I do post in that way, I'm very careful about how I do it for exactly the reasons that you've just said.
But that means that I've modified my behaviour.
Yeah, and you know what, Howard?
What you might start to notice is that your Facebook personality is a bit more popular than you.
It's got more friends, Howard.
If you're not a Christian with you, this applies to everybody.
And so what might you take from that?
You might logically extrapolate that perhaps I should start to act like my Facebook profile all the time.
Now this is just what we extrapolate from the deployment, the use of this technology.
That's what we've worked out happens when people use Facebook.
Now it's another step to say actually it's a tool that's being used to make people malleable and pliable for reasons that we don't quite know.
Well, I mean, it certainly has tricked everybody into willfully giving up all sorts of information and in such a fashion that nobody seems to think this is strange.
And yet if somebody walked up to you in the street and asked for all the Information that is freely available to anybody to look at on Facebook, you would think that that was slightly strange.
Utterly fascinating.
So, we've all, if you follow this line of thinking, we have all been suckered into using Facebook and playing the Facebook game and doing the little game of chess that I've just talked about, how you tailor your posts and how you, without even knowing it, you create almost an alter ego.
You create a person that's almost you, but not really.
And while you're busy playing that game, they're busily extracting information from you.
Yeah, I mean, the other thing, I mean, again, there is an argument that suggests that, yes, that is true.
And the other thing is that basically it ties you into this thing.
It takes up more and more of your time.
It depends how cynical you want to be.
But basically, Facebook, to some people, is like a drug.
They retreat into that little hunched question mark, staring at their smartphones, which, by the way, there's something very strange that's going on with smartphones.
People are starting to fall in love with their smartphones.
The chemical reaction in their brain, when they hear an iPhone ringtone, they react as if they're seeing a spouse or a lover or one of their children.
It's ridiculous.
Now, we have to work out, don't we, whether that's just the kind of reaction that people used to have to a popular television program, say in the 1970s or 1980s.
Or whether this is something that has been deliberately programmed in to the whole network of having these devices available to the population alarm.
Particularly because it seems to be focused on iPhone, is because the marketing strategy of iPhone is so strong and the celerity endorsement of iPhones, for example, is so strong that it is, it's become a representation of making it.
It is a desired product.
And again, this is ludicrous perception management.
People queue, queue for days to get an iPhone.
I've never understood why there is such a clamor every time a new version of these phones is released.
People queue outside stores.
They open the stores at midnight so they can get their hands on them first.
What's with that?
Well, I mean, the marketing campaign basically implies that this is your step to a better life.
This is a thing that you can show other people they'll know that you're doing well.
It is a little reward to yourself.
And also, you know, you're part of this Apple community.
There's two principles of advertising.
Well, there's more, but the two main ones are.
One, evoke a memory that hearkens back to something that you enjoy, which is how I say all these Coca-Cola adverts work.
Okay, Coca-Cola is very interesting.
I'll come back to Coca-Cola in a minute, but say all the Santa Claus ones and stuff like that.
It evokes memories of childhood.
It's as simple as that.
It's there to just make you go, I remember when I was a kid and I saw the lights and Santa Claus and stuff like that.
Oh, that's amazing.
And then you've got that positive connection to the product in your head.
And the second way is to induce fear, basically, fear of being an outsider, fear of not having the latest product.
And the sort of flip side of that is the inclusion, the cult-like inclusion that being part of a brand, however vicariously, gives you.
Basically, devotion to a brand is the same as devotion to a cult.
It provides meaning, it provides meaning of an understanding of the world and it positions you in a place.
You know what's up, you know what's down.
But again, what is all these things?
These are perception management or the manufacture of consent, the engineering of consent, the engineering of our social psyche to say that, yes, this is a perfectly acceptable way to behave.
This is reasonable response.
It's perfectly understandable that people run through the stores and trample people to death just to get a tiny, tiny discount on Black Friday because that's what you want to achieve.
You've won if you do that.
It's ludicrous.
So do you believe that this stuff, the way that you talk about it, it sounds like you do, is harmful?
And if it is harmful, where are we headed with it all?
It can be harmful.
Now, again, this is a debate as to whether there is some insidious corporate idea that they're trying to sort of, you know, turn everyone into vegetables.
Or alternatively, you know, it could be that there's just a lot of companies that are using these, you know, well-tried and tested psychological methods in order to...
I'll give you an example of effective marketing, right?
The Coca-Cola Wars.
Now, do you remember that they used to have these kiosks where you do the Pepsi challenge taste and stuff like that?
Yes, I did it.
Yeah.
Okay.
Now, in blindfold tests, they basically wanted to find out which was the nicest product.
And so they did a series of double-blind tests, like a whole series of experiments to find out which was the better tasting product.
Now, they found that in double-blind, blindfold tests, nobody could tell the difference.
There was no discernible favorite.
Even people that had previously extolled a complete devotion to one or the other brands in double-blind tests found that the difference in taste was negligible and they couldn't actually say which they preferred.
Now, this is where it gets really interesting.
When they gave people the same liquid, it didn't matter whether it was Coke or Pepsi, but showed them, but put it in a Coca-Cola cup or a Coca-Cola can, they swore blind that the one in the Coca-Cola can tasted nicer, regardless of what the actual liquid was.
And so they tried this again, and basically they were just constantly feeding them this liquid.
And they discovered that when they flashed imagery pertaining to Coca-Cola's marketing on the screen, their brain response heightened up.
So what does this mean?
It means that people were responding to the perceived notion of quality that has been put into people's heads and absorbed into the cultural lexicon by Coca-Cola's marketing.
And that Coca-Cola's marketing actually caused a perceived change in the taste response of test subjects.
Well, they would regard that as being a fantastic thing.
That's job done.
That's the nth degree of marketing.
The best time for marketing, Howard, is for someone to go, I want that.
Why do you want that?
Don't know.
But I do worry, and I don't want to sound like an old fogey, going back to the iPhone generation and all the rest of it, people seem to almost worship these things.
Yeah.
Yeah, they do.
And I think there is an incredible disconnect.
The thing that I find annoying about social media is that basically it makes you less social.
And again, I'm not preaching.
I'm not saying that everyone should not use it.
You know, again, it's not for me to dictate.
But you're getting to the point now.
It's like, where are you kids going today?
Oh, that'd be great.
You can go down.
Go to the B chase.
Oh, so you can all be on your iPhones.
Like, you see people in restaurants not communicating with one another.
There was an old joke on a program called Drop the Dead Donkey where this guy had met a woman on the internet and he'd gone to make, you know, to have a date with her.
And they discovered that when face to face, they couldn't actually connect.
They had no way of interacting with one another.
And so they both plugged their laptops in and started emailing one another.
This is a big, hilarious joke, right?
That's what happens nowadays.
And what's worse is they're not even talking to one another.
They go out for dinner with one another and then spend their entire time talking at dinner.
Oh, it's dead romantic.
And I think it started with email.
And look, I was a very early adopter of all of this.
I worked for Capitol Radio in London and we had email very, very early on in the game.
So I learned it all very, very quickly.
But these days, and I have to say, I catch myself out doing it quite a lot.
Sometimes I will email somebody who's sitting next to me or just the other side of the office.
I do that a lot.
It removes a certain degree of responsibility and a certain degree of uncomfortable interaction.
This is why it's very easy to flirt.
But it's also the reason that people, broadcast journalists, I'm sure they will tell you that basically they find that they become accustomed to looking at horrific scenes through the viewfinder because it's a separation.
It's almost like not being there.
There's something that provides a safety net, a barrier between you and horrible, grubby, sticky, nasty, horrible people that- I used to do live TV voiceovers.
Some of those were for shows that were live and had millions and millions of people watching.
But I'm basically very shy.
This might make a lot of people laugh, but I am.
And as soon as I got this tool of email, some of the difficult questions that I might, you know, I sometimes think to myself, well, I want to talk to the boss about this.
Now, how am I going to come across when I do this?
Because if I get it wrong, he's going to take it exactly the wrong way.
So I'll tell you what I'll do.
He's only over there, but I'll email him.
And I do that because I worry about how I will present myself.
I'm a little shy of doing it on some occasions.
But that's not a good thing for me.
It can be a good thing, obviously.
But this is the point.
It's a tool.
Social media for people that can't get out of the house or whatever, your relatives abroad and stuff like that, wonderful.
And if it empowers some people, that's absolutely great.
However, like we're saying, adopting a persona and such like this.
There's the thing, Twitter beef and getting into an argument on Facebook and stuff like that.
What's bizarre is you've got an audience and yet you're on your own.
Because there's everyone else following it going, oh, he said this, did you?
Well, you're not going to stand for that, are you?
You're not going to let him punk you on Facebook, are you?
So you have to respond, and this is all well and good because you're in the safety of your own home.
And so you bump into this person in the street.
And then all of a sudden, something that seemed very, very safe and very, very clinical, then all of a sudden it gets all too real.
And there's been innumerable cases, particularly in celebrity circles, where an argument that you just wouldn't have face-to-face, but you feel comfortable to do this because, as I say, you've got this safety net of the separation of the screen.
It's not really real.
It's perfectly okay.
I think that's true.
I mean, occasionally I'll get an email from somebody from doing this show that won't be very nice to me.
And I'm a nice guy and I'm hopefully quite tough because I've been doing broadcasting for years.
So I can take it on the chin.
But sometimes, you know, it gets you a bit.
And if you reply, and sometimes, occasionally I do reply, sometimes they'll realize, actually, I've had my say, and maybe I've been a little unfair to this person because I actually didn't quite connect the fact that the voice that I hear on a podcast is a real person.
And suddenly, when they get a reply, it explains to them that this person is real.
And then they change their stance.
The problem with communicating to humans via technology is that to an extent it dehumanizes and decontextualizes the encounter.
So like as I say, something that was an argument is now this extrapolated, weird, surreal thing where basically you're waiting for audience responses.
And so you change your behavior to act accordingly to the social situation.
And that could end very, very badly because there's a fundamental schism between, as I say, social media actually encourages less and less social habits.
And ultimately, the fear that I've got, but look, maybe I'm just an old fogey and I've said that before, the fear that we're going to be left as a population who cannot communicate, have difficulty feeling genuine, true emotions, and cannot make a decision to save its life.
Yeah, and I think that to an extent happens.
I'm not a massive fan of like what they called satellite, you know, what they called sat-navs.
I try not to use them.
Really?
I can't exist without my sat-nav.
You know, I've got a hopeless sense of direction, so it was the greatest gift to me to be able to get a sat-nav.
you know what sometimes it's fine but there's an Use it, and that's great.
But an over-reliance of it leads people to drive their lorries into lakes and such, which does happen.
You know what I mean?
And the other thing is, again, it depends on your argument, but people can't cope with maps and stuff now.
You can't cope with planning a journey without having somebody else to do it for you.
True enough, I remember the days when you had to try and remember the route and be alert and look out for the signs along the way, and eventually I'd get there.
But, you know, the sat-map I do use.
And again, it very much depends on how you use it.
It's more an over-reliance of this sort of thing.
But the awful fear of it all is that all of this technology and the way that we deploy it is creating, as we said, a malleable, pliable population that can act and react in a virtual way, but put them in a real situation, they can't do that.
And the fear of all of this is somebody somewhere might want it that way.
Yeah, very certainly.
I mean, again, if you go back to the sort of the writings of institutes like the Tavistock Organization, they basically said this.
They said that they wanted to create social turbulence.
Social turbulence, basically, to make it so that people can't make their own decisions and so that they don't realize that actually they're in a bit of a mess.
And Eric Trist, who was the, I forget his actual, he was running the Institute in 1965 and to a group of journalists in Italy, I believe it was, he proudly said that thanks to the efforts of Tavistock, the entire Western world was now in a complete and total irreversible state of social turbulence.
And what do we make of that?
Well, I mean, whether he was just boasting or not, I don't know.
But certainly the other thing is celebrity and this sort of unreality that is sort of pushed upon us, where people have got these aspirational characters that it's impossible to achieve.
You can't be Kim Kardashian.
Even Kim Kardashian isn't Kim Kardashian.
Kim Kardashian does not look like Kim Kardashian looks like on the television screen.
I think that'll be a big shock to a lot of people.
Who follow them for whatever reason they follow them.
Well, I'll give you, here's another one, like Kim Kardashian's app, okay, where you have to buy stuff with real money just to stay in the game.
Like, they work on the principle of a skinner box, basically.
You know, a rat in a maze.
A lot of these application games and Farmville and all these other games work on the same principle.
They're not about, they're not designed to be fun for the user.
They're designed to manipulate you psychologically in order to keep you in the game and in the case of things like the Kardashian app, to keep spending money.
It works as like the principle of a rat in a maze.
He presses the lever, he gets a bit of food.
He presses the lever, he gets a bit of food, he presses the lever, and he gets an electric shock.
Now, logic would dictate that at that point you stop pressing the lever, but you don't.
You panic and you start pressing it madly on the hope that you don't get the electric shock again, that you somehow get the treat.
Now, this is really strange because people will basically psychologically affix themselves to a situation that while not being terribly good, isn't terribly bad.
If you know what I mean.
So they'll buy basically the introduction of easy pleasures every so often and the assurance that no matter how much nonsense you put up with, you'll get a little bit of a reward, a little bit of a reward, a little bit of a reward is enough to keep people in there.
And that's how gambling works.
Again, it's the same principle, really, how Facebook keeps people there.
But certainly these applications, they are designed with that specifically in mind.
They're designed based on the behavior doctrines of V.S. Skinner to keep players in the game.
At no point does the player's enjoyment enter into the design of these particular games.
And the fear that I have, and I hate myself for having this fear, but I do have it, is that we are becoming a controlled and homogeneous population.
I cannot see on any level how that is a good thing, and I cannot see on any level where that's going.
No, it's a terrible, terrible thing.
I mean, because basically, you know, I mean, you're starting to get to the point where it doesn't matter where you are in the country or in the world, but you know exactly what it's going to look like because you've got the same shops.
You've got no local industry.
You've got no differentiation between any two locations.
And again, you've been sold a pig and a poke.
You've been told that, oh, you know what you want.
You want a McDonald's.
You want this.
This is the way that you're going to be happy.
Again, this is how products are sold.
Feeling a bit blue.
Stuff.
Stuff would help.
Lovely, shiny, shiny stuff.
And also, you're told that basically these trinkets, these associations, the big car, the jewelry, the plastic surgery, who can afford those?
Successful people.
That's just twisted.
Well, if I had those things, I would be successful.
I would be as happy as those people.
Like, you're told again and again and again, these are the best people in society.
These are the people that you should want to be like.
These are the people that you should aspire to be like in any tiny, tiny instance.
And so what do we learn from that?
I can be a bit like Kanye West by buying a car similar to him, by wearing clothes similar to him.
And so you buy all these things.
And what's strange is that you find that it doesn't make you happy.
It doesn't make you happy at all.
So it's not working.
So what you do is you've got to go press the lever again.
Exactly, that's exactly right, man.
Because, you know, somewhere at the end of this, at the end of this, there's a pot of gold.
And again, a lot of it works very manipulatively on the principle of the understanding that people are unhappy, or again, that they're looking for some sort of meaning in their life, or that they're looking to understand their position in the world, or just to sort of bolster their ego.
Because as I say, what's strange about all of these things is that all these aspirational products, they're telling you at the same time that this is something you haven't got.
The word, like, deodorant.
Deodorant doesn't tell you that basically you wear this deodorant, you'll get the girl.
It tells you if you don't Wear this deodorant, you will continue to not get the girl.
Yeah, true.
This is the point.
Products are sold on magic.
They're sold on magic.
Like, that's look in the next iPhone stuff that goes, it does this, it's magic.
Whoa, it's brilliant.
They don't really talk about this specific.
I want to get you to this in the final minutes of this conversation, Neil, because this is a very interesting thing.
When you arrive at the state where you have a mannable, pliable population, the worry is, and I see more and more evidence of this, that people will then want to turn to a mummy and daddy figure.
And that possibly in some cases might mean that we have, and we're seeing this, the rise and rise of cults and groups and gurus out there, people searching for some kind of spiritual uplift because the stuff that they've consumed is not doing it for them.
So they're looking at something else.
And we are seeing more and more people set them up as gurus of one kind or another.
And more and more people who you would see as being rational people, professional people, actually following these gurus because they are so bereft of meaning in their lives, they have to look to somebody else for that meaning.
Yeah, absolutely.
And because, again, it does two things.
A lot of time, these particular gurus, political parties, whatever, they're saying, you know what's wrong with your life?
You know what's wrong with your life?
Other people.
It's other people, perhaps, minority groups that are doing this to you.
And again, what this does is it does two things.
It removes the responsibility from yourself.
And it also gives you a reasonable narrative to understand and explain your position in the world.
And why you are not doing so well is because of these other people.
And again, you're absolutely right.
There's more and more of this sort of devotion to people because people are looking for meaning.
What is horrible is that in a lot of these cases, you get what's called, it's kind of like a Stockholm syndrome, right?
You can batter somebody and batter somebody and batter somebody, like until the point where they start to assume that everything that's going wrong in their life must be their fault.
And so they'll look to an authority figure, maybe even the person that's actually caused this to them.
And they'll see that anything that comes from this person is a sign of mercy.
You could take this further and basically say you get to a point where you understand that this person could, psychologically at least, you understand that this person could pass kill you.
They could at least dominate you.
And so when they choose to not kill you, despite how despicable they are to you, then all of a sudden you reinterpret that as mercy and furthermore than that, the love.
And so you start to fall in love with your abuser because as I say, again, they fundamentally crush your ego and then they give you all sorts of different excuses to stay in that position because you're not strong enough to move out of it.
And also they'll sort everything out for you.
And this is why people stay with battering spouses or prostitutes stay with pimps.
But yeah, there is, I mean, the other thing is that people, the sort of devotion to courts and such like that, once people have come to one understanding of something, anything, it's immigrants that's causing you to lose your job, it's this, it's this, it's whatever.
Sometimes people tend to, again, that fact that they've got that knowledge that someone else might not know, again, it makes them feel a little bit superior.
And then they start to stake a position and they become part of a genre or part of a clique or part of a movement or whatever.
And then again, like with the Facebook, it's somehow to show your allegiance and to show that you're definitely in with this particular crowd, you might start to alter your view and change it.
And to a point where now all of a sudden all you're doing is you're defending a position.
You're not looking at information.
You're not seeing whether this is actually right.
Again, you're using this position as a crutch so that essentially you don't have to engage really with the real world.
So the answer to some of this and the way to head off, you know, if I'm right and I might be completely wrong, to head off what I fear is coming down the track to us all is to go back to basics and somehow try to teach children in schools, because you take the child and you create the man or the woman, eventually in their thought processes, you have to teach people to ask questions again.
Yeah, absolutely.
You can question your own position as well.
And don't be afraid to be wrong and say, you know what, I was mistaken about that.
That's how people grow.
Again, particularly with this sort of internet culture, there is a sort of expression that you must know about stuff.
You've got access to all this information, if you can be bothered to look for it, is the position that people sometimes feel that they're in.
And so if you don't get it right, or if you don't get it right immediately, then somehow you're lacking.
And again, unfortunately, what this tends to do is leave people into a position where they go for the first thing or whatever, or again, they come up with a position that they don't want to move, and they're never going to sort of shift their perspective.
And so I would just say that, you know, yes, question, question, question of motives, question, if you've got a, like, you don't like somebody or something, try and think why that is and where all this information came from and who might have a vested interest in manipulating your psyche to hate a particular group or something.
Because in a way, once you are aware of it, and we're discussing it now, that's the way to beat it.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, it's like a magic trick.
Once you know how a magic trick works, it doesn't work anymore.
I mean, you know, it's still very impressive and stuff like that.
Be like, oh, I can't see him, but I know he's on wires.
And then all of a sudden his effectiveness is lost.
I mean, you know, again, I'm not claiming to be some sort of like guru, like, you know, floating above all this, completely like, you know, it affects everybody.
I'm not immune to any of this.
And the same goes for me.
Look, I've got a smartphone, but let me tell you, since I've had my smartphone and I was a pretty late adopter, I have it turned off a lot of the time.
Yeah.
Because when I use it, it is pretty addictive and I'm on it for a long time.
So I now have it off for an awful lot of the day.
The thing is, at the moment, as we're talking, It's off.
It will be off until later tonight when I check any messages there might be, and then it's going off again.
And that's the way that I cope with all of this.
What a fascinating conversation, Neil.
We can talk again about all of this, I'm very, very sure.
If people want to know more about you and what you do, where do they go?
Where do they look?
NeilSandersMindControl.com.
And I have a couple of books on there, Your Thoughts, Not Your Own, volumes one and two, and a DVD about sales and advertising called Welcome to Sell.
Despite my loathing of the thing, I am actually on Facebook as well.
That'll be two of us.
I don't think any of it is bad.
I just think an over-reliance on it, and if somebody has determined that we're going to become over-reliant on it, that's a problem.
But an over-reliance on it, that's where the difficulty arises.
And that is the thing as we go into 2015 that worries me most.
And yeah, and don't use these things as like they're not interchangeable.
Like, talking to someone on Facebook is not the same as speaking to them.
Don't use it, I won't go and see my friends because I can talk to them on Facebook.
You know, don't forget the things that we used to do before mobile phones and Facebook, like turning up to places on time and such like that.
And you know, the interesting thing is, you're a young guy and you are saying this.
Well, yes, but I am a quite jaded, cynical young guy.
Neil Sanders, great to talk to you.
Thank you very much for coming on.
Thank you very much for having me.
The thoughts, yes, controversial of Neil Sanders, a man who's investigating mind control.
I think as we move towards an election year in the United Kingdom, we'll certainly see a lot of thought control going on.
I don't know if it's mind control, but I do think these techniques are more and more widely deployed.
And yes, of course, they've been used for years.
Tell me what you think about Neil Sanders or about any of the guests.
Drop me an email.
Go to the website www.theunexplained.tv.
Follow the link from there and you can get me a message straight away and I will see it.
If you can make a donation, please make a donation and thank you very much if you have recently and thank you for your kind comments.
I couldn't do any of this without you.
I hope the new year has been kind to you so far.
And until next we meet here on The Unexplained, my name is Howard Hughes.
I am in London and please stay safe, stay calm and stay in touch.
Take care.
Thank you.
▲
Export Selection