Think about It
Michael Nehls’ The Indoctrinated Brain,
Part 2

Dr. Michael Nehls

3,279 words

Part 2 of 3 (Part 1 here)

Das Indokrinierte Gehirn focuses on aspects of neurobiology to explain a widely-documented global spike in neurological diseases — particularly, but by no means uniquely, Alzheimer’s Disease, along with an increase in rates of suicide and depression. Nehls points to a decline in human intellectual capacity, especially the power of memory and a corresponding failure to promote the health and growth of the hippocampus. Nehls notes that both parallel trends (the increase in neurological disease and decrease in mental capacity) are caused by a number of factors characteristic of modern ways of living, as in for example the modern Western diet, with its large and increasing proportion of processed foods. Such foods first came onto the market about a hundred years ago, and the increase in their consumption appears to be reflected in the rise of a number of different ailments (diabetes, for example). According to Nehls, these and other trends working negatively on the hippocampus tend to reduce individual intelligence and the capacity to recall lessons acquired through experience.

The plan to indoctrinate the brain by promoting the advance of amnesia in human individuals, so Nehls, was given strong impetus through the various measures taken ostensibly to combat the COVID-19 virus, including the breakthrough invention of a genetically-modified inoculation or “vaccine” containing a synthetically-created messenger ribonucleic acid, mRNA for short, aimed at penetrating the human cell itself. Nehls believes that all the measures taken worldwide to “fight COVID,” the global campaign to cajole people into being injected (infected?) with mRNA, the curfews, the restrictions on freedom of association and social contact, and the mandatory masking, all of which was held to be justified as necessary to protect people and especially “the vulnerable” from a new and deadly virus, were in reality different facets of a global campaign to weaken and restrict the human hippocampus.

Nehls does not believe, as the official narrative now claims, that the indisputable damage to the human psyche caused by the anti-COVID measures were some kind of more or less justifiable “collateral damage,” nor does he even see them as primarily driven by the quest for profit (“it’s all about money”), although that undoubtedly played a part. Nehls holds to the radical view that the insults inflicted on the human hippocampus during the anti-COVID measures were deliberate, it being the ambition of small groups of “experts” to increase their power and the power of their global vision by reducing the ability of the great majority of human beings to stand up against their narrative, or — and here lies the originality of Nehls’ thesis — even to wish to do so. Succinctly put: fear freezes the capacity to think.

Like many other observers of the COVID measures, Nehls was struck by the energy with which experts and authorities sought to exclude alternative treatments and prophylactics other than those proposed and sponsored in their own exclusive narrative:

That the measures may have been intended to protect the health of the population can be excluded, given that the medicinal evidence demonstrates that a strengthening of the immune system through micro-nutrients, above all a rigorous vitamin D prophylaxis which would simply consist of ending the common lack of vitamin D, could have solved the COVID challenge from the start, yet every possible means were used to prevent the adoption of that very solution. (p. 203)

What he describes as the fourth stage (he lists five) in the “preparation of a crime against humanity” is the mRNA “spiking.” Nehls considers this spiking worse than COVID itself in terms of its deleterious effect on the hippocampus, which is ironical considering that many government spokesmen, the German Health Minister being one, had warned that COVID infection increased the chances of contracting Alzheimer’s, and therefore being injected with mRNA offered the additional benefit of protecting oneself against premature senility!

You can buy Jonathan Bowden’s Reactionary Modernism here.

Nehls insists that on the contrary — and this is his field of expertise — the mRNA itself presents a risk of contracting or hastening the onset of Alzheimer’s Disease, a risk greater than the risk posed by the virus itself. In either case, damage is caused by neuroinflammation, a potential result of virus and vaccine alike, both being characterized by a neuroinflammatory protein “spike.”

The cause of neuroinflammation after COVID infection is the viral spike recombinant protein (S1 subunit) which, after its division on the furin cleavage — the name given to the molecular structure in the spike protein of certain viruses, including SARS and influenza — stimulates the release of pro-inflammatory messengers. The COVID virus requires the sequential cleavage of the spike glycoprotein (protein linked with carbohydrate) to mediate membrane fusion and thus cross into the brain.

Nehls argues that an even greater danger to the brain exists within the spike protein injected to combat the virus than the virus itself. (This in turn raises the question of to what extent so-called “post-COVID” damage is in reality vaccine damage.) How so? Firstly because it is enveloped in a lipid nanoparticle “envelop” which is in itself neuroinflammatory (p. 189). Secondly, given that the spike protein is protected by its lipid “envelope,” it can be directly transported into the brain. Thirdly, once the blood-brain barrier has been crossed, cells which have been accessed by the nanoparticle envelope of RNA will be attacked by the immune system, leading to more neuroinflammation in the brain:

The neuroinflammatory response to the spiking not only blocks the capacity of our autobiographical memory, but beyond that has a toxic effect by making the nerve cells the target of killer cells. The fact that the lipid nanoparticle was the vehicle of choice for the genetic messenger supports my theory that the prime target was the memory center of the brain, since the nanoparticle is able to cross the blood-brain barrier. For a vaccination against a virus which principally affects the respiratory tract, that makes as little sense as does the administration of mRNA to children, for whom the virus presented no significant risk at all. . . . The supposedly necessary repetition of shots, including boosters, ensures a near-continual production of spike protein and the consequent brain damage, as I have been able to demonstrate. (p. 308)

Nehls also mentions aspiration. Aspiration is the drawing back of the needle plunger to see if blood is drawn up, which would mean that the needle had entered a blood vessel. mRNA was supposed to be injected not into a blood vessel, but into the muscle of the arm. It was after all the public health authorities around the world who insisted that mRNA would remain in situ and not be carried around the body. While is some countries, such as Denmark, the shots’ administrators were obligated to aspirate, in many countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States, they were not. The lack of guidelines on aspiration in many countries is hard to explain by anyone who believes the assurance that the mRNA could not possibly leave the site of injection.

Nehls writes that his belief that the decline in individuality and human mental capacity was deliberately promoted arose as “a terrifying answer to a disagreeable question” (p. 95). It was in 2022, he recalls, while he was considering the way in which the COVD measures were further worsening the “neurological correlates of the chronic exhaustion of society,” that he came to ask himself

whether the measures were not solely random in the manner in which they negatively affected the function of the brain — secondary collateral damage, as it were — but were rather primary goals whose perfidious intention was to rob human beings of the capacity for critical thought. (p. 96)

The integrity of the individual human brain depends on the hippocampus. Alzheimer’s Disease is characterized by its degeneration. Nehls argues in his book that what is taking place is a kind of global “social Alzheimer’s” whereby members of society, their hippocampi under assault, become ever more passive, more withdrawn, more reluctant to express non-majority opinions, and more obedient — all this coupled with their ongoing cognitive impairment. Consequently, people find it increasingly difficult to recall or conceive of alternatives to a “reset” social environment which is presented as “normal” and “inevitable,” and which it is claimed is there to protect them from the many hazards of life. (This is a good portrayal of the mindset in every totalitarian society). The biological capacity to think outside the box of enforced conformity is being erased, in the same way as the contents of a hard disk drive are erased. In brief, Nehls believes that we are witnessing a conscious and planned assault on human intelligence and human memory.

His is not an altogether pessimistic vision, however. He does not believe that the accomplishing of the Great Reset is “inevitable,” and the English version of his book is subtitled How to Successfully Fend Off the Global Attack on Your Mental Freedom.

Nehls points out that the much-used term “conspiracy theory” is singularly misplaced in cases in which the intention to change the world is made public by those who want to do the changing. A theory is by definition something unproven, and a conspiracy is by definition something concealed. There is nothing “unproven” or “concealed” about declarations of intent from the horse’s mouth. There is not a “theory” about a “Great Reset” when “Great Reset” is the very expression announced to the world by those who promote it. That people pay no heed to such declarations of intent and deny the existence of such intent gives credence to Nehls’ belief that people are losing the ability to use Level 2 cognition.

What was novel about the “war against COVID” was its global uniformity. Similar measures were taken using similar propaganda techniques the world over to combat the same ubiquitous menace. The measures were described everywhere in terms of an “emergency” and a “war against COVID,” with all that war entails in terms of the abandonment of personal freedoms, suppression of dissent, and sacrifice to an alleged common good. “Nothing has a conceivable effect comparable to that of war in terms of enforced conformity upon the communities destined to be engaged,” writes Nehls (p. 54) very rightly, using an ominous and hard-to-translate German word, Gleichschaltung: enforced conformity.

From China to the United States, from Russia to Canada, and to Peru, all states were united in their efforts to enforce conformity upon their populations to compel them to acquiesce to oppressive policies in “their own best interests” so as to protect them from a terrifying virus and fight the war against it. Public measures had replaced hidden design, and what remained of conspiracy was the message to the public that draconian restrictions on movement and choice were the lesser of two evils to ensure “the public good.” The majority of people did not consider the possibility of intent behind the pandemic and the measures against it. Like John Lennon’s “Working Class Hero,” “You can’t really function, you’re so full of fear.” It was as though System 2 of their hippocampus was not functioning properly. But that, after all, is exactly what Nehls states was happening.

The measures to fight the war against the virus out of China are still referred to as singular, strange, remarkable, exceptional emergency health measures which were taken to confront an unforeseen exceptional global health challenge. It is very much Nehls’ argument that they were no more random than any other aspect of the global design; he believes that they were an integral part of a plan of conquest, and the success of the measures constitutes ominous evidence for Nehls of the decline of the individual’s System 2 decision-making capabilities and a corresponding passivity in the face of the claims of “legitimate” spokesmen and “legitimate” experts, “legitimacy” being here synonymous with operating from positions of acknowledged authority and power. They and they alone had the right to make decisions on behalf of millions. Millions unthinkingly complied.

The “protagonists of the Great Reset,” as Nehls calls them, are no philanthropists. Although they claim to promote causes and ideas which will supposedly improve human prosperity and health, in reality their actions make people poorer, less healthy, and more dependent, and that is their cruel intention. The system which the protagonists of the Great Reset are putting in place will “enable each individual, and therefore the entire world community, to be subject to digital observation and steering” (p. 77). Replacing individual cultures constantly rejuvenated by creative and innovative individuals, the “reset” world population will consist of a uniform sort of zombie-like being: narcissistic and inward-looking, without curiosity, and unquestioning.

The course of evolution once the human brain is “properly” indoctrinated will rest in the hands of technocrats and experts who will decide over the fate of submissive populations. The majority of human beings will live in “smart cities,” huge conurbations interconnected at every conceivable technical level. Nehls cites Roope Mokka, founder of the Finnish think tank Demos Helsinki (there are many others who write and speak in a similar vein as well), who lists the six priorities of the future:

1. super resource efficiency;
2. the post-choice society;
3. the post-ownership society;
4. the post-market society;
5. the post-energy society; and
6. the post-voting society.

You can buy J. A. Nicholl’s short story collection Venus and Her Thugs here.

Such projections, Nehls notes, “reflect the projections made by the World Economic Forum for 2030” (p. 81). Nehls also quotes, as many before and after him have done, Ida Auken of the World Economic Forum, who said that the world citizens of the near future “will own nothing and be happy.” Auken even predicts that going shopping will very soon be a memory; everyone will order all they need online. The removal of cash from circulation likewise looks like a real possibility. If people can only pay for goods and services by card, they put themselves at the mercy of the state.

Much of what Nehls says about a coming world dictatorship is not new. Michael Walsh, to take one example, who like Nehls sees the COVID measures as just a “warning shot” of things to come, published a collection of essays by opponents of technocratic globalism entitled Against the Great Reset: Eighteen Theses against the New World Order. But there are two aspects of Nehls work which set it apart from similar literature. One is that he approaches the subject from the perspective not of a journalist, a political commentator, or even virologist, but from the perspective of a neurologist. Nehls is primarily concerned with what the events around COVID and other developments mean for human intelligence and human identity. It is as a rational, pragmatic neurologist that he focuses on the increasing tendency toward compliance, passivity, and avoidance of discourse and a decline in cognitive awareness around the world.

The second unusual quality of Nehls’ thesis is his underlying optimistic faith in human beings. He strongly believes that given the chance, human beings can organize their lives efficiently in freedom and harmony, and that the hold a minority holds over populations is a tenuous one. Nehls regards himself as a humanist and argues that contempt for human beings should be left to the protagonists of the Great Reset. He regards those with faith in authority today not as naturally foolish, but as neurologically damaged. Nehls revises the much-used expression “brainwashed,” which is often used as a lazy term for “stupid,” and endows it with a more specific meaning, one grounded in science and not in politics. Thus, for Nehls “brainwashed” is no longer a trope to be used by “political soldiers” or members of a “movement” to dismissively sum up the “ignorant masses”; rather, he sees it as a precise description of a scientific insult to the hippocampus — not a metaphor, but a very real biological phenomenon, one which can be identified with the aid of specific analysis to uncover specific biological markers. Nehls cites an Indian study which reveals that “a considerable number of COVID-19 patients showed clear clinical indications of stress, depression, anxiety, hormonal injury, and neurodegenerative ailments, which are responsible for a wide range of cognitive deficits ranging from mild congestive impingement to irreversible dementia” (p. 186).

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has candidly announced (as though it has so planned the narrative) that mankind is entering an era of what it calls “perma pandemics,” and that the COVID pandemic provided a golden opportunity to reset the global economy. The “Great Reset,” the Forum projects, will be in place by the year 2030. The WEF had already spoken in 2009 about “reshaping the post-crisis world,” and in 2012 of the “great transformation.” Then Prince, and now King Charles likewise regarded the COVID epidemic as a golden opportunity to initiate the Great Reset. Parag Khanna, the author of many books and who worked for both the Council of Foreign Relations and the World Economic Forum, argues that destiny itself under the new world order will cease to be dictated by physical and political geography. In an unstoppable development which has already begun, Khanna says, destiny will be forged instead by the imperatives of connectivity. By 2030, two-thirds of the world population will be living in cities. Massive conurbations will replace nations as the centers of power and decision-making. Populist pushback, which Khanna dismisses as “a historical blip,” is doomed to failure in the face of demographic and economic realities. National sovereignty will cave in to the pressures of global demand and supply chains. One of the strongest arguments made by globalists such Khanna is that transformation is “inevitable.”

How, asks Nehls, is it possible for the protagonists of the Great Reset to steer the great majority of human beings in the direction they want them to go? After all, that direction includes the abandonment of much individual freedom and independence. And how can they be led to believe that what happens is “inevitable”? The COVID emergency convinced most people that they should abandon freedom quite willingly, and some even did so eagerly. Most consented to, and many clamored for, an experimental medical procedure of no proven value and for which the manufacturers and administrators were explicitly exempt from liability in the event of injury or death. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of those vaccinated — or “spiked,” as Nehls calls it — showed and show extraordinarily little curiosity about the origins of what is said to be a devastating pandemic, not caring who or what was responsible for it, and crucially, how similar outbreaks might be prevented in the future. Interest has been focused instead on optimal ways of coping with likely pandemics “coming to your neighborhood soon.” Pandemics are here to stay. Just follow what you are told to do each time a new one arrives. Ask no questions. This is hardly an exaggeration of the attitude of most people around the world. That people widely accept something so preposterous as a “the new normal” gives worrying credence to Nehls’ arguments.

How could we have arrived here? Nehls sees part of the answer in Nattias Desmet’s The Psychology of Totalitarianism. People are propelled – as much or more than compelled — and yet are propelled largely without their knowing it into a social world of physical (today this means technocratic) dependence in which there is no viable alternative. “Inevitable” again is a key word. In modern society, control is less a matter of political doctrine and more a matter of technocratic dependence. The individual’s health, food, and travel, once limited by nature, is now being controlled by a very small group of the very powerful who seek to ever further extend their hold globally over the mechanisms, production, and supply chains which govern human lives. But all this can only be made possible when a substantial majority of the population is unable to conceive of an alternative, when they are drawing to a very large extent on “fight or flight” response to the world around them.