Think about It
Michael Nehls’ The Indoctrinated Brain,
Part 3

3,150 words

Part 3 of 3 (Part 1 here, Part 2 here)

It is a thesis of Das indokrinierte Gehirn that one purpose of the Great Reset is to reduce the individual to a condition in which he no longer believes the evidence of his senses. Owing to his mental exhaustion, he will accept whatever truth is imparted to him provided it is presented by what is seen as legitimate, protective authority. It is the old Orwellian truth that “two and two make five.”

The belief that two and two make five is not induced by fear or the word of authority alone, but also and perhaps even more importantly, by the persuasive force of social conformity. Nehls quotes the famous Solomon Ash experiment which showed that students could be persuaded to disbelieve the evidence of their own eyes, agreeing that two pieces of string were of different length when they were the same length. Necessary for them to disbelieve their own eyes was that the great majority of people around them confidently insisted that they were wrong about the string.

Nehls quotes the French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard that “the main purpose of a Great Narrative is first and foremost the legitimization of power, authority, and social conformity [which is] precisely what Tim Hinchcliffe, speaking in the name of the World Economic Forum, says is the purpose of the Great Reset” (p. 246).

Nehls writes:

The neural correlation constitutes the uniqueness of our brain. Let us go into detail here, for it is worth understanding the crucial concept of individuality a little better. When we understand that, we are better able to grasp the massive assault which we are facing, and then we can hope to protect ourselves. The brain consists of hundreds of billions of nerve cells, which in their turn are interconnected in a unique pattern with each other. Divergences in the interconnectivity in most cases are traceable to very small variations in the genome of every individual and create the first stage of individuation. . . .

The process of individuation takes place in the course of an entire human life, for our brain is ever-changing and remains malleable and flexible. This malleability is the basis of life-long learning, and ultimately, for our individuality and creativity. So it is that our individual personality is essentially a product of our specific personal life experiences, unique to each of us. Such uniqueness creates social variety, and it is that social variety which is the prime driver of our socio-cultural evolution. (pp. 90-91)

Social interaction is reinforced early in life by children’s games, and Nehls cites the psychology researcher Peter Otis Gray in The Decline of Play and the Rise of Psychopathology in Children and Adolescents to the effect that there is an easily-traceable parallel between the documented and observable sharp decline in children’s outdoor games in the last 60 years and the rise in helplessness and narcissism among young people (p. 93).

Nehls repeatedly draws parallels between the direction of society, sped up by the COVID measures, and the restriction or even decline of the hippocampus. Oxytocin, to give one of his examples, is more than just the hormone for releasing birth pangs:

every relationship which we develop with other human beings in the course of our lives is caused by the release and effects of oxytocin, meaning that isolation and social distancing has deleterious effects on the maintenance of hippocampal potential and capability. (p. 128)

A subchapter of the book is entitled “The Unnatural Normalcy of the Hippocampus’ Chronic Destruction.” Here, Nehls draws on a study by Josephine Barnes and others entitled A Meta-Analysis of Hippocampal Atrophy Rates in Alzheimer’s Disease. He writes:

A lifelong production of index neurons is necessary to ensure the maintenance of autobiographical memory and thus the integrity of our personality and also the strength of our resilience. (p. 130)

According to the cited study, whereas the volume of the human hippocampus can be expected to reach its peak at about the age of 30 and thereafter continues to rise gradually, normality today indicates a decline setting in at that age, with a consistent decline in the size of the hippocampus of 1.4% a year (!) such that if the graph is to be believed, were everybody at current levels of neural loss to live to 99, the median mental capacity of the 95-year-old would be that of a very small child. This is what the current data indicates, but not what nature intends. Nehls is at pains to stress (p. 132) that the figure of an average annual decline in hippocampal volume of 1.4% a year after the age of 30 is now normal, but neither inevitable nor in any way natural. It is at the core of his argument that what is currently normal so far as human health is concerned compares very unfavorably with what is natural.

You can buy Tito Perdue’s novel Opportunities in Alabama Agriculture here.

Nehls stresses the importance of the creation of an atmosphere of anxiety to reduce hippocampal health. We live in anxious times. The news contains far more bad news and especially news to create anxiety than reports of encouraging developments. Of course there is the simple fact that “bad news sells well,” although even that begs the question: Why does it do so?

Nehls thinks there are other reasons than commercial ones for the stress on fear and negativism in mass media. In the first place, he sees it as characteristic of controllers whose view of humanity is necessarily negative, since the more negative the view of humanity, the more negative events confirm the argument, and from that it follows that human beings need to be protected and controlled. From Plato to Hobbes to Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor, the notion of man as fundamentally flawed makes it necessary that he should be controlled by guardians. So far, so well known. But Nehls sees yet a third reason for the disproportionate broadcasting of bad news in public media. Anxiety “freezes” that part of the brain which is creative and sets the human being back to “flight or fight” mode, the purely routine or instinctual. So it is, according to Nehls, that anxiety and stress were deliberately fostered and maintained at the time of the COVID epidemic to reduce the ability of individuals to respond rapidly to the situation they were facing.

It certainly seems likely that most of those who belonged to the minority (estimates vary between 20% and 30% of the populations of Western nations) who refused to be injected were low consumers of public media narratives. One point worth considering — which Nehls rather surprisingly does not — is that those with personal biographies which include traumatic injury caused by persons or institutions in positions of power over them may well be more skeptical of “legitimate authority” than those who have always felt from their earliest years that authority has been primarily protective and benevolent towards them. A study of the psychology of the minority who declined to undergo the medical intervention in order to ascertain whether there were common factors at play in terms of their intellect, ethnicity, instinctual behavior, or personal biography — and possibly trauma — has yet to be made. This probably goes some way to explaining a singular omission in Das indokrinierte Gehirn of a subject which would be very relevant to this subject, namely a comparison of the respective biographies of those who accepted with those who rejected the mRNA injections to see if any common biographical patterns could be identified as dominating in one group or another.

In 2023, Das Indokrinierte Gehirn reached the Spiegel’s Bestseller List, a prestigious achievement. To reach the list, a book must sell at least 100,000 copies — which raises the question: To what kind of reader does Nehls’ work appeal? It must have been a challenge to the author to strike a balance between scientific detail and readability. Veering too far in one direction would limit the work’s appeal considerably, while being too simple and sensational would make it seem lightweight and unserious. That this book sold very well in Germany suggests that Nehls has struck the right balance. Not many of its many readers will describe this book as lightweight! Das indokrinierte Gehirn would nevertheless have lost nothing of its gravitas but have been easier to read if the author had provided an index.

The book is certainly open to criticism. For a writer who lays such stress on the importance of memory, it seems ironical that there is very little history in this book, medical, scientific, or social. What role do earlier pandemics and measures to combat them play? Is the mRNA vaccine not a vaccine at all (hence Nehls’ term “spiking”), and does Nehls believe that ordinary vaccinations are beneficial, or does he consider, as some do, that there is a hidden agenda behind all vaccines? Nehls has nothing to say about this. He does not discuss the health of human beings in centuries past, nor the heavy toll taken by natural diseases and epidemics in history. What role did they play in shortening lifespans and in a restriction of the hippocampus?

Only very recently, Dr. Piers Mitchell analyzed data taken from mummies from ancient Egypt and Nubia using state-of-the art technology to reveal that 65% of those analyzed had parasitic worms and 10% had leishmaniasis. This discovery is relevant to Nehls’ study in several respects. Firstly, it acts as an example of the fact that many factors may contribute to a shortening of Nehls’ “natural,” Methuselahian longevity of 120 years (and how did Nehls reach that figure, anyway?). Secondly, the discovery of leishmaniasis in the corpses reminds us that some diseases such as leishmaniasis and dengue fever are apparently advancing northwards. The standard “narrative” is that this is owing to global warming. Is that all panic-mongering? Nehls stresses the importance of instilling a climate of fear among populations, but he does not differentiate: Which fears are justified, to what extent, and how do we know if and when we can trust any expert? Nehls presumably does not dismiss warnings about dengue fever in Mexico, tick-borne encephalitis in Bavaria, or hookworm in Thailand as fearmongering with the intention of instilling groundless fear and thus shrinking the hippocampus. Are we overanxious about some diseases? When is fear justified, when not, what is good sense, and what exaggerated anxiety? Nehls does not discuss any of this.

Nehls’ notion of “cultural amnesia” is presented as scientific, but can it be analyzed with the same scrupulous regard for scientific data as individual amnesia or cognitive decline, and if so, how? Is cultural amnesia simply measured in terms of the accrued data of individual cases of cognitive decline, or is it something altogether different?

Nehls has very little to say about the accepted narrative of earlier hierarchies, neither scientific or even anti-scientific. What of the narratives of a religion such as Islam, which demands submission to a narrative of fear from its adherents — moreover, a narrative which is not open to discussion and not discussed but “revealed” by a hierarchy of elders or priests, owners of truths who “protect” the people both from themselves and alternative narratives? Nehls writes approvingly of cultural identity, but does not cultural identity require a similar suspension of disbelief on the part of its adherents somewhat similar to that demanded by health care organizations from citizens who are supposedly being threatened with early death from the COVID virus?

Nehls regrets the decline of discourse, but cannot be described as discursive himself. Alternative arguments are not given a mention in his book. To take one example: arguments have been offered as to why aspiration was not practiced during the COVID epidemic, such as that “time was of the essence” or because aspiration may cause pain. These arguments may be poor ones, but they are not mentioned by Nehls at all. Nehls is quite dogmatic for someone who appeals for dialogue. He also avoids any examination of dissent within the ranks of those who will broadly share his views, but may take issue with one or other part of his argument. Most importantly, how serious and dangerous was the COVID virus in the first place? The more the proponents of the measures to fight the virus insist on the danger of it, the more they should explain why they seem so little concerned in finding the exact story of its rise and spread. Nehls is certainly right at least in that so far as COVID is concerned, the lack of dialogue is a poor reflection on the state of human intellect today.

To be fair, these topics are arguably too controversial and complex to find place in this work, but it seems strange that they were not given so much as a passing mention.

The subtitle of his book in English implies that this book may serve as a handbook for developing a strategy against the “protagonists of the Great Reset,” but the optimism and reassurances in this book occupy far less space than the grim analysis. What Nehls does do — and it is a clear position, and one worth listening to — is state that human beings are quite capable of coming to their senses, making their own sensible decisions, and finding their own solutions and cures to medical challenges without being forced to accept critical “no liability” experimental interventions with “no questions asked.”

Nehls’ optimism lies in the fact that in terms of true malevolence, the numbers of those who can be called “protagonists” is remarkably small. The great majority of people are able to live their lives better than those in positions of supreme power can provide, and everywhere there is growing skepticism as to the validity and beneficence of the powers-that-be. He points out that 23% of the German population withstood all the vaccine propaganda, and despite great pressure refused to allow themselves to be injected. A large number of people did not allow themselves to be spiked, and a significant proportion (there are no official figures as to how many, to this reviewer’s knowledge) who did so now regret it. Nehls also makes the very valid point (p. 348) that only 62.5% of the vaccinated took a booster shot in Germany and only 15.2% the second booster (both of which were recommended by health authorities), suggesting that the number of those who truly believe that the health measures taken by the authorities prioritized human health is in freefall.

You can buy Jonathan Bowden’s collection The Cultured Thug here.

A point which remains for this reviewer unclear after reading this book is to what extent the “zombie mode” of behavior — acting automatically or even without thinking, and the “fight or flight freeze” as well as the actions of instinct — are all the same aspects of the same Level 1 behavior of the hippocampus. Nehls says little about human instinct. What of the instinctual reaction against the COVID narrative which many felt instinctively when they could not articulate their reaction? “It just felt wrong”? Was it not the better educated who tended towards blind trust in health experts, and many simple folk who were suspicious — as a dog or child may be suspicious, without a rational explanation. The proportion of medical practitioners of every kind who accepted the official narrative, even including those who later became very skeptical about it subsequently, is astonishingly high. The exercise of rational thought and a presumably well-functioning hippocampus did not help them.

Skepticism was arguably higher among those acting not with professional consideration of data presented to them, nor a fount of acquired knowledge, but among the less educated, who reacted with an instinctive distrust of authority, a gut reaction to the blandishments of soft soap salesmen. But according to Nehls, is not instinct part of the early System 1 fight-or-flight mode induced by fear, which he claims weakens our ability to challenge predetermined narratives? The establishment appealed to reason, even if with spurious, erroneous, and downright mendacious accounts. The rejection of those accounts was often by those who spontaneously and instinctively reacted against them. Is there such a thing as a healthy human instinct, and if so, where does it fit into the dual system of the hippocampus described by Nehls? This issue is not discussed.

A further aspect of health not considered here – and which is cause for optimism, and therefore all the more remarkable that it is not discussed — is the increasing distrust of health professionals and the growing interest in looking after oneself rather than blindly trusting doctors, dentists, and the organizations which speak in their name. Following the opioid epidemic in the United States, a large and probably growing number of people are coming to believe that medical professionals and organizations are corrupt, because they are financed and bribed by those they are supposed to examine and control. Pushback against the quick-fix solutions, pill popping, expensive surgical interventions, and painful yet profitable surgery is growing, and there is a growing belief as well that prevention is better than cure. This is of itself inherently a challenge to the COVID narrative, a show case if there ever was, of medical authorities peddling lucrative miracle cures manufactured by those who had a financial hold over them while showing no interest whatsoever in alternative cures. More and more people are aware of this.

Nehls writes that great narratives are about elites securing their own economic interests (shades of Marxism here?) and that each person should reach out to a few people in his private life. Nehls believes that skepticism can thus grow exponentially. But if the hippocampus of many is as damaged as he suggests, how will it understand an alternative narrative? Will improved cognitive health not necessarily have to precede the consideration of the alternatives facing humanity, according to Nehls’ own arguments?

This and much more remains to be thought about and discussed. This, after all, takes me back to the beginning of my review. If we have a still-active and curious hippocampus (and anyone who has read this review thus far will), we should exercise it and keep it healthy and growing. However we look at it, and however we may criticize points of detail or regret omissions, surely Nehls is right in the broad outline he draws: of a society in which mean intelligence is falling alarmingly and in which people are becoming increasingly fearful, in need of protection, and unwilling to discuss any subject as adults in a quest for the truth rather than scoring points in a puerile game; and where real decisions that affect their lives are made by “new unhappy lords,” quietly and without the fanfare, in responses to dramatic “crises” and using “experts” to provide them with the prestige of “legitimacy.”

Michael Nehls’ ultimate message is for human beings to learn to become adults and think for themselves again. The indoctrinated brain is a child’s brain. Nehls is a passionate advocate for our right and need to think and discuss, using the cognitive skills of independent adults equipped with inquiring minds and unindoctrinated brains. He is right: Declining human intelligence and shrinking freedom are developments which anyone who cherishes either must resist.