’s Leo Angesleva (Sweden) about Mind Control and the Transhumanist Agenda and Alfred Webre

Alfred Lambremont Webre,’s Leo Angesleva (Sweden) about Mind Control and the  Transhumanist Agenda

Interview with Alfred Lambremont Webre,’s Leo Angesleva details how the “Obama” [read “U.S.”] Brain Project and the U.S. Army, along with other agencies covertly committed to the Transhumanist Agenda, are facilitating AI Artificial Intelligence reading and controlling all human brains and minds worldwide, and constructing Cyborg armies.

ibm brain computer

World CACH

Magnus Olsson implanted with Transhumanist remote neural monitoring implants

Magnus Olsson implanted with Transhumanist remote neural monitoring implants

Very few people are aware of the actual link between neuroscience, cybernetics, artificial intelligence, neuro-chips, transhumanism, the science cyborg, robotics, somatic surveillance, behavior control, the thought police and human enhancement.

They all go hand in hand, and never in our history before, has this issue been as important as it is now.

One reason is that this technology, that begun to develop in the early 1950s is by now very advanced but the public is unaware of it and it goes completely unregulated. There is also a complete amnesia about its early development. The CIA funded experiments on people without consent through leading universities and by hiring prominent neuroscientists of that time. These experiments have since the 50s been brutal, destroying every aspect of a person’s life, while hiding behind curtains of National Security and secrecy but also behind psychiatry diagnosis.

future of humanity

The second is that its backside –mind reading, thought police, surveillance, pre-crime, behavior modification, control of citizen’s behavior; tastes, dreams, feelings and wishes; identities; personalities and not to mention the ability to torture and kill anyone from a distance — is completely ignored. All the important ethical issues dealing with the most special aspects of being a free human being living a full human life are completely dismissed. The praise of the machine in these discourses dealing with not only transhumanism ideals but also neuroscience today has a cost and that is complete disrespect, despise and underestimation of human beings, at least when it comes to their bodies, abilities and biological functions.


The brain is though seen as the only valuable thing; not just because of its complexity and mysteries, but also because it can create consciousness and awareness. We’re prone to diseases, we die, we make irrational decisions, we’re inconsistent, and we need someone to look up to. In a radio interview on Swedish “Filosofiska rummet” entitled “Me and my new brain” (Jag och min nya hjärna), neuroscientist Martin Ingvar referred to the human body as a “bad frame for the brain”. Questions about individual free will and personal identity were discussed and the point of view of Martin Ingvar was very much in line with José Delgado’s some 60 years ago, and its buried history of mind control: we don’t really have any choice, we’re not really having a free will or for that matter any consistent personality. This would be enough reason to change humans to whatever someone else wishes. For example, an elite.

When brain implants arrive, will we still be “us”?

When brain implants arrive, will we still be “us”?


By | November 19, 2012, 11:38 AM PST

 Brain Storm

What happens when non-biological implants in our bodies — along the lines of cochlear implants to improve hearing in the deaf — include brain-related devices that might enhance our memories? Will we still be “us”? Will we be more of a cyborg than we were if, say, we had another type of implant? And for those who believe we would not be, at what point do we lose our selves to a more machine-like incarnation? When do we stop being human?

This is all pretty heavy, mind-bending stuff. But while such thoughts might seem like the domain of science fiction, when considering the trends toward smaller and more powerful computer chips and wearable computing, such theoretical musings might be relevant in innovation theory. And Ray Kurzweil, the often controversial author and futurist, has some opinions on this scenario in his new book How to Create a Human Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed. (Andrew Nusca, SmartPlanet’s editor, recently reported on his talk at the Techonomy conference). Kurzweil argues that even without any non-biological implants, our physical selves are always changing.

In a very short excerpt on Slate, he draws a simple and compelling (if not exactly parallel) comparison:

We naturally undergo a gradual replacement process. Most of our cells in our body are continually being replaced. (You just replaced 100 million of them in the course of reading the last sentence.) Cells in the inner lining of the small intestine turn over in about a week. The life span of white blood cells range from a few days to a few months, depending on the type. Neurons persist, but their organelles and their constituent molecules turn over within a month.  So you are completely replaced in a matter of months. Are you the same person you were a few months ago?

He argues that as our gadgets become smaller, they could eventually become part of our physical selves just as widely accepted health equipment, inserted into our bodies surgically, is today. Plus, he adds, we are increasingly “outsourcing” more of our information and even our memories — in terms of our precious photos, videos, recordings, and even thoughts, in terms of our writings and other materials — to the cloud, versus storing them in our brains.

It’s possible to clearly imagine such disparate trends emerge and converge in some way. But critics suggest that businesses might be wise to also consider the possible pitfalls of future internal, brain-enhancing machinery as they research and develop it. As Publishers Weekly wrote, in How to Create a Mind, Kurzweil can be “uncritically optimistic about the possibilities of our technologies.” Yet perhaps that’s the strength of his ideas: they can be seen as scene-building narratives that focus on a positive prediction of tomorrow. As Kirkus Reviews pointed out, Kurzweil’s new book can be understood as (italics mine) ”a fascinating exercise in futurology.” And, it seems clear, a conversation starter.