Hypnosis should be outlawed

Yesterday afternoon as we set off for Birmingham I noticed that drugs had got into us, presumably from our lunch-time sandwiches. With the sandwiches I had coffee (but Dawn I think had a cup of tea, but made with the same water of course).
It strikes me (furthermore) that discontinuing my website - certainly my main website, leaving perhaps my Blogger blog to expose my complaints - might be very positive towards ending the drugging. I don't feel entirely happy with this idea, though, and I can see no reason why I should feel unhappy about it unless I have been urged through hypnotising words to continue it. The only benefit I get from it lies in the pleasure I get at the idea people are interested in what I have to say, and the people who matter in this regard are not the people who override my objections to being drugged. How many genuine readers I have I cannot tell.
Reflecting on this, it seems not at all unlikely that I suffered hypnotising words in the nighttime while away from home at the weekend (in a hotel, in fact) and those words are having a continuing effect now, days later. I have in hand portable means of detecting voicing at night for such occasions. Furthering that project seems the best way I can spend time now, therefore.
Pursuing the hypothesis of hypnotising voices last weekend: it explains very well my predisposition to go to Birmingham (twice so far this week), and explains how the almost certain preparedness for us at the main post office there on Tuesday was arranged. Dawn bought a lottery ticket in there on that occasion, and I shall be interested to see the outcome of that (the draw was last night but we do not know the result yet for her ticket).
It explains my persuading myself since the weekend of the merits of my website and that I should take trouble to continue its maintenance (eg with my present hosts 123-reg despite the fact they seem to accept payment only by plastic). It casts doubt on the coffee granules I bought at Whittards (the ones I have just chucked).
To speak hypnotising words to me in the nighttime is, as I have said before, an unusual way of communicating. I understand that it has grown out of my preceding history, but I ask myself what the basis is on which The Experiment wishes to continue it. If I were left entirely free I should no doubt continue much as I was in 1978 and 1979, and more likely than not given the availability now of personal websites put up my diary as a blog. I have been hoping to put up my diaries from past years including the 1970s, in fact. The reason for wanting to continue the hypnotising words presumably now (whatever was formerly the case) is not merely so that the perpetrators can continue in employment. It is slightly uncertain whether I would do as I say, that is publish my diaries as a weblog, and my guess has to be that the present-day Experimenters wish to guide me in certain directions (including publishing what I have to say in a form accessible to them). Unfortunately hypnotising voicing also enables them to guide me to take drugs I do not want to take, and given what has happened in the past this possibility makes me very much less trustful. The weekend bash has cost me a jar of coffee thus far, and also consternation in processing on what to do about the Water Rate demand ....
As I say, it is the unusual nature of the 'communication' offered which causes me concern. People who freely agree with each other to do things enter into a form of contract, and the law on contract - tried and tested over centuries - is very helpful in understanding the nature of free agreements between people. To try to persuade others using persuasion techniques which psychological theorists have dreamt up in the past century is not the same thing at all, and formerly, evidence that persuasion techniques were of interest to The Experiment has caused me to prefer the hypothesis that we were being made use of for military purposes. (To be honest, most psychological theory as it is now is worthless, just as the associated 'work' which psychiatrists do is worthless and should be left to rich movie stars and the like to pay out for as they may pay out for personal astrologers, instead of State funds being wasted. Of course I know from experience that what is perpetrated by State-employed psychiatrists is worse than worthless: it is a danger to their patients.)
The first thing I did this morning on getting up was type up a handwritten note as I said yesterday I intended. I translated this to HTML and have just inserted it into the basic file [for my [then] website barrass-brough.org.uk] for May (this month). As soon as I returned - in doing that - to the work of preparing the website update I became 'yawnative' for which now read bored. The reason, now I see clearly, is that doing this website update is not something I myself have planned out to do, but rather has been suggested (perhaps foisted is too strong) to me by the nighttime voicers. Drugged as I have been in the past I have followed their suggestions - for one thing life was empty without having at least that to do - but now I understand clearly I have more of a choice in the matter. Having this choice, and thinking out the best choice to make, itself lays down the scheme or plan following which should give rise to pleasure apart from what actually gets done as a result of the activity planned out.
The Experimenters have whatever interests they have - in recent months, politics and economics. I have my interests: that is, what I would freely choose to spend time on: that is, most significantly, computer modelling of perceptual processes. Who is to say what is the best use of my time? One man I worked with at Dudley Council - a PhD in history, actually - disagreed with my suggestion the activities of Isaac Newton were of greater significance than say the perpetrations of Prime Ministers. He disagreed presumably because of his educational background and the things that in turn depended on. What I would say here is that I ought to be free to pursue my own lines of enquiry, to the extent the economics of the time allow (in other words at other times in history I might have needed to work in the counting-house for twelve hours each day, but not so in the present context).
I see now, also, the origin of the things going on in my mind as I have written my notes - or typed them on my handheld device - in going about since the weekend. Basically the comments I have made (my own comments at one remove from the commentary 'requested' by the Experimenters) have centred on the distraction from being explicit at too low a level, that is too close to physical reality, or certainly explicit thus too early. Keeping one's ideas in mind instead of on paper allows them to have a persistence which gives rise to better higher-level abstractions from them. That is, it gives rise (ultimately) to better summarisations and theories. This is why science has a brevity and power almost unknown in the arts and certainly unknown to ‘social science’.
Thus I see that a lot of the wasteful distraction from what I should have been doing, since the weekend, has derived not so much from drugs as from the nighttime voicing. The conclusion for politicians who may take an interest is that hypnosis without the preceding consent of the one hypnotised, in a clear undrugged condition of mind, should be outlawed.