|
Home > Archive > Hepatitis disease > February 2006 > Mind Control in the 21st Century
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Mind Control in the 21st Century
|
|
|
| http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/reada...um=18651&Disp=0
Compiled by Ralph W. Omholt
"Mind Control" is to be catalogued with space travel, wrist radios and
ray-guns; yesterday’s fantasy becoming today’s reality. Certainly, it goes
without saying, that "Mind Control" is more accurately addressed as "Behavior
Control;" one leads to the other. Accommodating simplicity and common
understanding, the term "Mind Control" will be used as a synonym for "Behavior
Control."
The topic of "Mind Control" has been the subject of university
laboratories, Madison Avenue marketing firms, intelligence services, warfare
planning (psyops), pharmaceutical developments, electronic experimentation,
psychiatry and medical advances. In brief, "Mind Control" is as factual as the
TV set; alive, functional and ever- evolving.
The topic of "Mind Control" is understandably complex. Few doubt the
effect of simple propaganda, as evidenced in various wars. Unfortunately, one of
the success elements of "Mind Control" is the disdain of those who resist
thinking about the topic. Yet, with such horrors as the Nazi applications during
W.W. II, the topic of "Mind Control" is highly pertinent to the general public.
Specifically, the general public repeatedly asks how a civilized people could
possibly commit such well-documented atrocities.
Current (2006) American politics and warfare confront the "Mind
Control" issue, head-on. Ignorance, apathy and denial are a deadly combination.
"Mind Control" is a function of a variety of descriptors and applications. Most
commonly, the term "Psyops" (Psychological Operations) is used.
However repugnant, the history of the W.W. II Nazis is the most common
association of the horrors against the human race. The Nazi horrors were not
unique in history, simply the most advertised. As an example of Mind Control,"
Israel, depends on that particular advertisement, for U.S. foreign aid. Yet, the
"Nazi" issue remains the best example, by virtue of it’s popularly known
history.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF AUTHORITY AND PERCEPTION,
VERSUS RESPONSE
In order to understand the mystery of seemingly blind compliance to
authority, there is perhaps no better sample of human nature than the 1961
experiments on "Obedience to Authority," conducted by Dr. Stanley Milgram, a
psychologist at Yale University. His studies were spawned by the recent trial
and execution of Adolph Eichmann. The results were posted in Milgram's
"Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View" (1974).
Milgram focused on the propensity for obedience to authority, versus
the role of personal conscience. His work was in consequence of the
rationalizations and justifications for the Nazi acts of genocide – as offered
by the accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Crime trials. The
perpetrators’ defense was typically based on "obedience" - claiming that they
were "… just obeying orders" under the authority of their superiors. However
weak the claim may have appeared, it was firmly believed, by the accused. In
particular, the Nazi perpetrators were well educated and members of the German
aristocracy.
The Eichmann trial stirred the question as to how easy it would be for
‘good’ and educated (American) people (college degree) to be conditioned to
commit even murder – in exchange for simple "acceptance and approval." What if
Eichmann, and his accomplices were, in fact, "….just following orders."
More directly, the Milgram study demonstrated the propensity for people
to submit to even ‘mild,’ even "presumed" authority – let alone threat or even
internal fears. (Not even notable amounts of money were required.) The
psychiatrists of the day forecast that 2% of any population would be compliant –
the ‘sickos;’ the Milgram Study demonstrated 65%!
The setup of the experiment called for so-called "teachers" (unknowing
subjects of the experiment) to be recruited by a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for
one hour's work. The ‘price’ is worth noting. The recruits all had college
degrees. It is also worth noting that the setup time was remarkably brief; there
was no extensive ‘conditioning’ required. Both of these factors attest to an
apparent pre-disposition for submission to "perceived" authority. The
experiments would remind most of the TV series, "The Twilight Zone."
The volunteer ‘teachers’ thought that they were recruited to take part
in a psychology experiment investigating memory and learning. The recruits were
introduced to a stern looking "experimenter," dressed in a white lab coat; as
well as an ordinary and pleasant co-subject (actor, in fact) who was presumably
recruited via the same newspaper ad. The true subject ("teacher") was assigned
to direct the ‘learning’ of the other ‘volunteer; using electric shocks as a
learning motivator.
The teacher-recruit was led to believe that he/she had been chosen
randomly, to be a scientific ‘teacher.’
Both the actor and the ‘teacher’ were given a ‘sample’ 45-volt electric
shock, to set the realism of the ‘stage.’ The "teachers" were told that the
experiment was designed to explore the effect of punishment, to prompt correct
responses for manufacturing learning behavior.
The ‘teachers’ were advised that the electric shocks were to be of
increased by 15 volts, for each mistake that the ‘student’ made during the
experiment.
The ‘teachers’ control panel had 30 switches, clearly labeled in 15
volt increments; ranging from 15 volts, up to the maximum of 450 volts. Each
switch also had a rating label, incrementing from "slight shock" to "danger:
severe shock". The final two switches were additionally labeled "XXX". Thus, the
subject could not be the least bit ignorant of the potential consequences of
his/her deeds.
The experiment environment had the ‘student’ in another room; with the
‘teacher’ made aware of the "actor-student's" discomfort by poundings on the
wall.
The actors ("students") pretended to be stupid, seemingly requiring
(deserving) increasing shocks – feigning pain, misery and unconsciousness. The
"teachers" abided by the background ‘authority’ until they were doing the deeds
of sadists & murderers – a convincing simulation, of course.
In reality, no further shocks were actually delivered. Again, the
‘teacher’ was unaware that the ‘student’ in the study was actually an actor who
would use his talents to fake increasing levels of discomfort; as the ‘teacher’
administered what he/she assumed were increasingly severe electric shocks, for
the supposed mistakes made by the "student".
The ‘experimenter,’ with the white lab coat, was in the same room as
the ‘teacher.’ Whenever the ‘teachers’ asked whether the increased shocks should
be delivered, he or she was verbally encouraged by the experimenter to continue.
Amazingly, the test subjects didn’t question as to why the
‘experimenter’ needed a surrogate, in the first place.
Using actors as the student-victims, the actual test subjects
("teachers") were directed to ask questions of a presumed "student," sitting in
a sealed booth, with the "teacher" delivering increasing electrical shocks, if
the ‘student’ got the wrong answer. A presumed torturous-fatal electric shock
was incrementally delivered, by 65% of the unwitting "teachers," punishing the
student to the very end of the 450-volt scale! No ‘teacher’ stopped before
reaching 300 volts!
Worried ‘teachers’ did question the ‘experimenter,’ asking who was
responsible for any harmful effects. It is worth noting that the primary concern
was personal accountability, versus the welfare of the perceived victim. The
‘experimenter’ assumed full responsibility, with the ‘teachers’ accepting the
response as adequate; then continued shocking their ‘student,’ even though some
of the ‘teachers’ were obviously extremely uncomfortable with their deeds.
Return to another fact of life – cultures hide the fact that
in times of crisis, people have a third choice, beyond ‘fight-or-flight;
specifically, "Submission." (Consider the rape victim!)
In the Milgram study, the test subjects were unwittingly
submitting to rather mild coercion of their ‘handlers.’ They assumed that they
were factually torturing – even killing – the ‘students,’ preferring the
acceptance-approval of their handlers, to their basic personal values and even
morality, itself. They questioned, but with mild coercion, they complied with
‘authority.’
From Milgram’s "The Perils of Obedience" (1974), it is learned that
Milgram solicited predictions on the outcome, from various ranges of people;
including psychiatrists, faculty in the behavioral sciences, graduate students,
college sophomores and even middle-class adults. Those polled reliably predicted
that virtually all of the chosen subjects (‘teachers’) would refuse to obey the
experimenter. The psychiatrists, predicted that most subjects would not go
beyond 150 volt level, when the actor-victim made the first explicit demand to
go free. The psychiatrists expected only 4 percent of the ‘teachers’ to continue
to the simulated 300 volt level, estimating that only a pathological personality
(one in a thousand) would administer the highest voltage.
The Milgram Experiment was continued in a number of variable scenarios;
such as the ‘student’ indicating discomfort by way of voice feedback (versus
pounding on the walls of his ‘chamber’) – starting at the "150 volt" level. At
that point, the ‘actor-victim’ requested that the experiment be ended. The
‘teacher’ was consistently told by the experimenter that - "The experiment
requires that you continue. Please go on." or verbiage, to that effect. In that
scenario, the percentage of ‘teachers’ who were prepared to administer the
maximum of 450 volts, dropped slightly - to only 62.5%. Desperate verbiage,
versus pounding on the walls, made little difference.
The environment of the experiment was considered, as well. The
surroundings of the experiments seemed to cast an "aura of authority," as well.
When the environment of the experiment was conducted in a nondescript office
building – versus within the walls of a prestigious and ornate hall on Yale's
campus - the percentage of ‘teachers’ who were prepared to administer the
maximum voltage dropped to 47.5%.
Immediate environment also played a key role, demonstrating the
‘personal’ role of authority "proximity," In one environment, the "experimenter"
was at end of a phone line; versus being present in the same room as the
‘teacher. In this scenario, the percentage of ‘teachers’ who were prepared to
administer the 450 volt shock dropped to 20.5%. In another scenario, the
‘teacher’ could independently elect the magnitude of the shock level; in that
scenario, the percentage of ‘teachers’ who were prepared to continue to the
extreme of the scale dropped to 2.5%.
That scenario, in particular, clearly demonstrated the role of
"authority," as the major influence over the behavior of the subjects, given
that the test subjects’ performance otherwise fell into the predicted range of
the psychiatrists.
Return to another idea – that the radical majority of any
population lives in response to their "Sacred Illusions." The spouse would NEVER
cheat, one’s child could NEVER grossly misbehave. We all have such illusions.
Thus in the Milgram Experiment, the "Sacred Illusion" was
that once agreeing to take on the task, the subject was committed/compelled to
submit to authority – and not much of it – even to the extreme of presumed
sadism/murder.
What is not addressed, to any adequate degree, is the role of
"accountability" – factual or ‘assumed.’ By any account of history, the
subservience contained the assumption that ‘authority’ served as a firewall,
between the deeds of the performer, versus such accountability as criminal
prosecution. The seeming ‘chain-of-command,’ obviously pre-supposes a
‘chain-of-accountability.’
In particular, in the Milgram experiments, the presumed "authority" to
commit sadism and even murder, was a simple verbal assertion, "I am responsible;
you are not." To the ordinary person, it staggers the imagination that college
educated people could be that naïve/compliant. Clearly most are.
Milgram’s experiments tested how much pain an ordinary, well educated,
citizen would inflict on another person; upon being ordered to so, by an
experimental scientist. In those experiments, "apparent authority" was tested
against the strongest moral imperatives forbidding hurting another.
Even with the ‘teachers' hearing screams of the ‘victims,’ authority
won more often than not – 65% of the time, in optimum conditions. The
experiments demonstrated the willingness of ordinary and educated adults to
comply with the command of "perceived authority."
Next one must ask what the uneducated person might do, as well as those
with a known history of social deviance.
Ironically, the Milgram "obedience to authority" experiments preceded
the Viet Nam War, with its bizarre rationalizations, and millions of American
soldiers "…just following orders." Tragically, the American soldiers suffered
the fate of lepers, when returning home. More tragically, no lessons were
learned by the American public, versus the nefarious minds of the American
military and related corporate players.
Milgram had plenty of company. The "Milgram Experiment" has been
repeated around the world with similar results.
It must be particularly noted that there is an implied risk-reward
factor in such cases. 65% of Milgram’s subjects essentially murdered for $4.50!
The significance of that figure indicates implies that money is
GENERALLY a minor concern. However, money can be made to be a factor. As
starving graduate student may ‘hurry-up’ if $100 was offered, if the experiment
was concluded in ½ hour; with verbal taunting by his ‘experimenter.’ What is the
reasonable estimate of an ‘experimenter’ asking, "Do you want to ask questions,
or do you want to get paid – and how much? The clock is ticking."
Thus, it must be observed that if the ‘65% percentile can be
rather easily stirred into sadism & murder, what does it take to get 95% of a
given population to submit to the acceptance of propaganda – and a mandate for
just ‘silence?’
Where do such experiments lead?
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/reada...um=18651&Disp=0
Alan
"Can't you see we're still here,
Can't you see we're still here,
Singing loud; Singing clear,
We shall not go under,
We're still here."
Nemesis Peace Centre
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.../protector.html
Abuse of Women and Children
http://theoriginalfirebird.blogspot.com/
Nemesis News
http://lordcerneabbas.blogspot.com/
Absolute Anarchy
http://lordcerneabbastoo.blogspot.com/
| |
|
| In article <memo.20060204153509.984j@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk>,
alan@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk (Alan) wrote:
> Where do such experiments lead?
http://tinyurl.com/blwkj
THE STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
Stanford psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo, said to be a high school
classmate of Milgram, took the issue of simple "authority" to the level of
"power over others," in his 1971 "Experimental Prison" study.
The essence of that experiment demonstrated the propensity for ‘normal’
people to succumb to primal deviant behavior. Of particular note is that the
director of that experiment, Professor Philip Zimbardo, fell prey, as well. It
took his soon-to-be wife, to shock him back to a civilized mindset.
While the ‘experiment’ was intended to be a simple role-playing
observation platform; the players - and the researchers - ‘psycho-morphed’ into
a deviant mindset, as though passing through a time-warp; into another solar
system. Again, the primary mechanism was "Perception Control."
In the "Stanford Prison Experiment," the distinction must be made
between ‘externally incited’ perception, versus spontaneous self-perception. As
with the Milgram experiments, environment played a dominant role.
Zimbardo's stated reason for conducting the experiment was to examine
the ‘power’ of such variables as roles, regulations, group identities, symbols
and "…situational validation of behavior," which would probably repulse and
disgust the ordinary individual.
In the background of the "prison" experiment, Zimbardo previously
conducted research on what he described as "…de-individuation, vandalism and
dehumanization;" in an attempt to illustrate how easily that ordinary people
could be incited to engage in anti-social acts. The associated environment of
the earlier experiments embraced situations where the participating individual
felt anonymous, or wherein they could perceive others to be less than ‘human,’
as ‘enemies’ or even ‘objects.’
In the subsequent/consequent "prison" experiment, 70 young men were
"arrested." Most were college students, paid $15 a day for two weeks.
The brief duration of the experiment is highly significant, relative to
the noted transformation of character.
The participants volunteered as subjects for an experiment on prison
life; advertised by a local paper. They were put through the expected interviews
and a battery of psychological tests. Twenty-four of those ‘arrested,’ deemed to
be the most normal, average and healthy, were selected. They were assigned
randomly, as either ‘guards’ or ‘prisoners.‘ The "prisoners" were booked at a
real jail, blindfolded and driven to the college campus makeshift prison.
Bear in mind, that the players (test subjects) ALL were consciously
aware that the mission was role-playing; not reality. Yet, in the fashion of
"Lord of the Flies," they devised their own social value system.
The ‘guards’ were issued uniforms; instructed not to use violence. They
were told that their job was to maintain control over the prison.
On the second day of the experiment, the ‘prisoners’ staged a revolt.
Once the ‘guards’ had crushed the rebellion, the ‘guards’ spontaneously
increased coercive aggression tactics, against the ‘prisoners.’ Their tactics
included the humiliation and dehumanization of the ‘prisoners.’ In consequence,
the college staff had to frequently admonish the ‘guards’ against such tactics.
In particular, the worst noted instances of abuse took place in the
middle of the night, when the guards believed that the college staff was not
watching over the experiment. The treatment of the prisoners went to such
tactics as forcing the ‘prisoners’ to clean out toilet bowls with their bare
hands; acting out degrading scenarios. The ‘guards’ also urged the ‘prisoners’
to become snitches. The loss of control caused the college staff to note the
extreme stress reactions, forcing the release of five prisoners, one per day,
prematurely.
PERSONALITY DIVERGENCE
During the experiment, Zimbardo’s fiancé, Dr. Christina Maslach, began
her observation of the experiment, starting the evening of the fifth day. Her
role was to conduct subject interviews. In her words, she initially found it
"dull and boring."
During her assignment, she encountered what was described as a pleasant
conversation with a "charming, funny, smart" young man awaiting the start his
guard work shift. Independently, other researchers had previously advised her
that they were watching a particularly sadistic ‘guard,’ nicknamed by both
prisoners and the other guards as "John Wayne." Dr. Maslach later discovered
that "John Wayne" was the same young man that she had previously talked with.
The "compartmentalization" was extreme. In his "John Wayne" role, the
person radically transformed; even speaking with a Southern accent. Even his
body motions were different, as was his interaction with the ‘prisoners.’ She
said, "It was like [seeing] Jekyll and Hyde. . . . It really took my breath
away."
It was clear that this ‘guard’ had gone to the adaptive extreme of
inventing his own mythology, even in a known ‘make-believe’ world. His
dissociative adaptation served as a firewall, between his actions and his
conscience; even in a known time-limited environment. That, in turn, empowered
his actions. Again, he was consciously aware that he was in a role-playing
experiment – only.
Christina described that several prisoners engaged "John Wayne" in a
debate; accusing him of enjoying his job. He claimed that he wasn't really like
that; that he was just playing his assigned role. One ‘prisoner’ challenged
"John Wayne" on the matter, citing the history that he had tripped him earlier,
as he was taking the prisoner down the hall to the bathroom. The ‘prisoner’
addressed the fact that no researchers were around to witness the treatment,
indicating that the act came out of "John Wayne’s" true character and
disposition. "John Wayne" defended himself, insisting (rationalizing) that that
if he let up, his role wouldn't remain powerful.
Maslach described that she became sick to her stomach, while observing
the ‘guards’ marching ‘prisoners,’ with paper bags over their heads, to the
bathroom. She reported that her fellow researchers teased her about her
reaction. Given the nature of the experiment and the credentials of the
researchers, the divergence in ‘professional’ attitude is no small indicator.
After a later emotional encounter with her fiancé, Zimbardo was forced
back to reality, becoming aware of the transformation of the researchers,
‘guards’ and ‘prisoners,’ alike. Thus, the experiment was terminated, given
Maslach’s illumination of the matter of "professional accountability."
Maslach married Zimbardo in 1972.
Automatically, one’s mind goes to the Iraq Abu Grhaib scandal;
questioning how such events could happen, against such well-known studies as
Milgram and Zimbardo; let alone the known Nazi horrors of W.W. II. There is a
reasonable presumption that such would be far beneath the dignity of American
troops.
However, it should not be lost that the deeds were not only admitted by
the Pentagon and White House (with extreme reluctance), but were defended, with
an insistence that the U.S. forces had a unique "right" to conduct torture,
certainly levels of coercion, which clearly violated the Geneva Conventions. The
world ignored the Geneva Conventions’ prohibition on the military use of
penitentiaries; the prison use continued.
It should be noted, also, that Abu Grhaib was not the first, nor the
exclusive location of such atrocities. Among other matters, the U.S. forces had
bombed an Afghan POW facility, during the Johnny Spann / John Walker Lindh
debacle, at Mazir I Sharif. Such was a grievous violation of the Geneva
Conventions.
Yet, what does the global public believe?
http://tinyurl.com/blwkj
Alan
"Can't you see we're still here,
Can't you see we're still here,
Singing loud; Singing clear,
We shall not go under,
We're still here."
Nemesis Peace Centre
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.../protector.html
Abuse of Women and Children
http://theoriginalfirebird.blogspot.com/
Nemesis News
http://lordcerneabbas.blogspot.com/
Absolute Anarchy
http://lordcerneabbastoo.blogspot.com/
| |
|
| In article <memo.20060204154225.984k@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk>,
alan@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk (Alan) wrote:
> Yet, what does the global public believe?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/blwkj
EXTREME CONDITIONING
Next, go to the study of W.W. I "shell shock" and the
near-zombies which that effect produced – as studied by the Tavistock Institute.
Next, visit the LSD and amphetamine studies of the CIA’s "MKULTRA" project. Move
onward, to the sciences of Propaganda, Psychological Operations and "Coercive
Persuasion" (Jonestown tactics).
One quickly arrives at the ease of manufacturing a
"Manchurian Candidate!" Oswald, Ruby, Sirhan, James Earl Ray, McVeigh; there are
plenty of examples in the USA, alone. However, these will be more astutely
observed as "Manchurian Patsies."
The suggestion is that a reliable transformation process is available,
which begins with the "shock" of hallucinogens; followed by a regimen of
amphetamines, hypnosis and reinforcement methods; possibly to the extreme of
drug addiction to amphetamines, in particular.
THE ROLE OF "PERCEPTION CONTROL"
"Perception Control = Emotional Control = Mind Control"
"Control" is the operative term. Is information presented with frequent
repetition and passion? Or; is information kept totally secret - or
prejudicially enshrouded with shame ("A ‘good’ person wouldn’t go there")?
Is the "controlled" information factual, or has an illusion been
created? The American media re-packaged the Muslims in the Balkan region as
"Ethnic Albanians," ignoring the Islamic role and their association with both
bin Laden and the CIA. No one of prominence questioned the descriptor. Overnight
a previously unheard of organization, "The Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe" (OSCE) "recognized" new Balkan countries – instantly
admitted into NATO. Thereafter, Yugoslavia’s put-down of an internal rebellion
was re-packaged as an attack against a NATO member & the Balkan War was on. The
"Serbs" were attempting to return to their traditional Balkan homes, in the
fashion of Jews returning to modern Israel. The media re-packaged their attempts
as some form of invasion & the war progressed against Yugoslavia.
In the end, the ‘new’ nations borrowed billions from the International
Funds & all sins were forgiven. The illusions worked! It was all a matter of
"Controlled Perception." The ‘new’ nations were now ‘controlled’ through the
banking system.
America was content to believe (perceive) that they had rescued the
deserving and victimized "Ethnic Albanians," who made a good living smuggling
heroin out of Afghanistan. America didn’t figure out the last part. By any
rational logic, when the Taliban shut down the associated opium production; 9-11
was "on."
"Perception" implies "impressionability;" does factually presented
information penetrate the psyche of the intended audience? If American War
Crimes are broadcast in Swahili; will the message ‘reach’ the exposed American
audience? Extremely unlikely – even when translated into English.
Perception is also a function of "registration," or "depth of
consciousness." Senator Warner reported on "Larry King" that the Afghan
high-altitude food drops were practiced for nearly a year, before taking place
over Afghanistan. How many spotted the time-line, asking why the drops were
practiced for nearly a year PRIOR to 9-11? The presented information didn’t
"register."
"Perception" is also a function of resistance to ‘registration,’ -
"denial." All the clues in the world point to 9-11 being an inside-job; yet, few
on the planet will tolerate the information to penetrate their belief system.
Just the suspicion alone, results in global "shell shock" being effected.
The sum of trustworthy post 9-11 information points to American War
Crimes, in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The thought is too horrible
for most to tolerate – "denial" takes the day; "registration" will be minimal.
The elements of ‘time,’ ‘distance’ and ‘shielding’ protect against the exposure
to horrible facts.
"Perception Control" also relies on the element of "identification." A
tribal leader in Africa commits genocide on a rival tribe – to the tune of
millions of deaths. "America" can’t ‘identify’ with the problem; little is said
or done. With racial apartheid being reversed in Africa; war, civil war,
starvation and the AIDS epidemic deny Caucasian ‘identification;" Africa has
been cleared to die, save some profitable enterprises, benefiting American
corporations - whether drug companies, diamond & mineral companies or arms
dealers.
Conversely, with the coverage of 9-11, and the associated propaganda,
America "identified" with the supposed threat of Saddam Hussein – per the media
presentations. The factual non-connection of Saddam to 9-11 made little
difference; fear ruled. "Perception Control" and "authority" took command of the
American psyche. The UN reported that no viable evidence of Saddam’s alleged
WMDs could be found. That information came from ‘boots-on-the-ground’
inspectors. The media didn’t report that finding to any appreciable degrtee; the
war was on.
In Hermann Goerings famous description:- "All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
country." It was all in the "perception" and "authority."
"Perception Control" additionally implies the element of "pertinence"
and "regard." If the media reports a tree falling in a forest; does anyone care?
If an expose’ cites the media for NOT reporting that tree falling, does anyone
care?
In the fashion of "..the dog that didn’t bark," when something
representing a major concern is methodically unreported, what pertinence and
regard goes with that non-reporting carry – if any? Silence can be
constructively ‘deafening.’ In the aftermath of 9-11, it was reported that the
NSA furnished the FBI with only useless information. With second thought, it is
worth asking whether that data, instead, represented the fact that the purported
‘terrorists’ simply didn’t exist, in the first place. Certainly, the last
premise is more easily supported, than the ‘official’ version of 9-11.
As of the end of 2005, globally, somewhere around 160 people were
killed over three years by the "Bird Flu." The common cold and ‘regular’ flue
kill radically more, with associated pneumonia. Yet, the American media keeps
reporting the "Bird Flu" information, as though it was an airborne variant of
HIV. To date, the American public is trying to discover the importance of such a
minor killer, oblivious to the fact that the American tax coffers are being
drained, as though there was a viable "Bird Flu" threat to America. The media
won’t track the "research" money, nor report on the low element of "pertinence"
to the safety of Americans.
The media does NOT report the associated methodical draining of the
U.S. tax coffers by war or other "government" expenses. The Pentagon, alone,
hasn’t accounted for trillions of dollars – but the media won’t report
information which is ‘pertinent’ to the American worker, or allow for adverse
‘regard’ for that information.
Similarly, the media evades the "pertinence" and "regard" behind the
fact that $40 billion American tax dollars haven’t rebuilt a single "Katrina"
home in New Orleans. Those who got rich on the "Katrina" money come under the
‘authority’ banner of "Don’t ask; don’t tell."
"Perception Control" allows "distortion." The media doesn’t report the
incremental shutdown of the Medicaid and Social Security System – ignoring the
fact that the affected Americans PRE-PAID their own benefits. The recipients
are, instead, treated as parasites. Imagine being labeled a ‘parasite’ for
collecting on an automobile insurance policy, following a bad car crash.
"Perception" is a function of specific focus (control). In the current
time frame, the NSA domestic spying scandal is the "American uproar" – ignoring
the fact that the Pentagon had a comparable domestic spying program – both being
illegal as hell. With the media being ‘focused’ on the NSA domestic spying
scandal, America is distracted from the most important of the two issues,
inadvertently ignoring the Pentagon domestic spying scandal – and the related
"Posse Comitatus" law.
Applying "Perception Control," the media authenticated "authority," by
relaying the ‘opinions’ of White House Lawyers – one of whom was conveniently
made head of the Bush Justice Department. The "perception" is that attorney
opinions somehow cancel laws and judicial rulings. America overlooks the fact
that attorneys render only ‘opinions;’ courts render interpretations.
Psyops tactics aside, lying with passion in your voice doesn't
manufacture truth.
Anything approaching "Gestapo" is as Anti-American as it can get. So,
how does one sort out the domestic "spy" business?
1. Attorneys render legal OPINIONS: Courts render legal
INTERPRETATIONS. Yet, a team of White House Lawyers is cited as the spying
‘authority’ to bypass the FISA law. Attorneys are constructively enacting laws.
2. The Iraq campaign didn't involve a "Declaration of War." The
authority was the "Authorization for Use of Military Force." (AUMF) There is a
radical difference between the two. [Note the term "military"]
3. If the AUMF is cited as the "spy" authority, then note the AUMF
provision - "....- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the
War Powers Resolution." (15 days, max on warrantless wiretapping.)
4. If the NSA isn't considered to be 'military;' then FISA mandates
warrants.
5. If the NSA is considered to be 'military,' then the "Possee
Comitatus" statute and the associated military guidance additionally prohibit
the "search and seizure" MILITARY authority, that Bush claims.
6. Remember that the Pentagon had an independent and illegal domestic
spying program. While the military can leagally receive domestic intelligence,
as an act of opening its own mail, Title 18 mandates the relay of the
information to the appropriate law enforcement agency (FBI). Failure to do so is
"Misprision of a Felony," under Title 18.
7. With the White House keeping the Mexican border as wide-open, as
possible, how much factual "terror" can there possibly be?
http://tinyurl.com/blwkj
Alan
"Can't you see we're still here,
Can't you see we're still here,
Singing loud; Singing clear,
We shall not go under,
We're still here."
Nemesis Peace Centre
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.../protector.html
Abuse of Women and Children
http://theoriginalfirebird.blogspot.com/
Nemesis News
http://lordcerneabbas.blogspot.com/
Absolute Anarchy
http://lordcerneabbastoo.blogspot.com/
| |
|
| In article <memo.20060204154534.984m@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk>,
alan@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk (Alan) wrote:
> 7. With the White House keeping the Mexican border as wide-open, as
> possible, how much factual "terror" can there possibly be?
>
http://tinyurl.com/blwkj
PERCEPTION OF AUTHORITY
In a broader ‘perception’ horizon, examine Stanley Milgram’s 1960s
experiments on authority vs. obedience. The key factor being the associated
"perceptions," relative to that "authority." Milgram studied the
rationalizations and justifications for the Nazi acts of genocide – as offered
by the accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Crime trials. The
perpetrators’ defense was typically based on "obedience" - claiming that they
were "… just obeying orders" under the authority of their superiors. However
weak the claim may have appeared, it was firmly believed, by the accused. Such
was their "perception."
Certainly, the "Stanford Prison Experiment" elaborated on the matter.
Perception is essentially a trinity – the self perception "…how I think
of the matter," the espoused perception, "…how I would like everyone else to
view the matter;" and the public perception, "…how the preponderance of the
public views the matter."
The idea essentially goes back to the old adage, "There are three sides
to every story, yours, mine and the facts."
The difference in the three is a matter of ‘filters;’ is the matter
clear to all? If not; why not? Does anyone even know what actually happened? If
not; why not? How is the "perception" filtered and/or directed?
How many times has an airplane disappeared – with no discoverable clue
as to what happened? Was it hijacked? Was it stolen, did the pilot get lost,
crash into a high mountain glacier, or at sea?
Is the factual information "controlled?" Ron Brown’s B-737 was reported
to have crashed in the "…storm of the decade." History records that the factual
weather wasn’t particularly bad. Yet, what did/does the preponderance of America
believe? The "Controlled Perception" ruled the matter.
Most importantly, the FIRST presented perception controlled the matter.
Disregarding intense propaganda, there is no viable evidence that a 757
crashed at the 9-11 Pentagon or in Pennsylvania. What does the preponderance of
the entire world believe? Thereafter, it’s a matter of "Plausible Assertion" or
"Plausible Denial."
If one reads the Vince Foster documents, he killed himself with three
different weapons, with his ghost later driving his car to the nearby parking
lot.
In such cases, one is forced to formulate an estimate of probable
history, based on available information, or reasonable assumptions.
"Perception" is obviously sometimes a unique function of "authority."
The Christian Crusaders went off to commit atrocities, under the "Church"
message, "God wills it!" Nazi Storm Troopers did the same, being advised, "Gott
mit uns!" ("God is with us!") The role of "authority" was to serve as a
perceived reliable barrier against possible accountability and punishment; even
unto God.
However, the "perception" and "authority" have to be credible. George
Bush Jr. is more selfish. According to him, God told him, personally, to invade
Afghanistan and Iraq. He later stated that God acted through him. Given the
media "dropping" the matter (Perception Control), no one cares to talk about
those claims. Bush’s claims exceeded the assertions of Hitler!
Hitler’s Nazis serve as a classic example of the extremes of human
behavior – and how it comes about; how "perception" blended with "authority."
A typically unmentioned part of nefarious deeds is the matter of
"accountability." When ‘institutionalized’ authority takes a wrong turn, where
does the issue of accountability fall, relative to time. Had Hitler won, for
example, his leaders and soldiers would have had no accounting. Yet, in the
immediate time of a nefarious decision-making, the issue of accountability takes
on the aura of context, relative to time.
History often frames "context;" convicted criminals are routinely put
to death as ‘historic’ villains – by the "authority" of the State. The Nuremberg
trials executed ‘deserving’ criminals. Many cases of raw street revenge are
overlooked, given the ‘context’ (perception) of history – versus personally
estimated probability of accountability.
It is no secret that the Nazi "obedience" was commonly motivated by
fear of execution, prison internment; or at least a transfer to the dreaded
Russian Front. Few verified the potential consequence of questioning or
refusing, versus "…just following orders." The extended concern is the fate of
the affected individual’s family, for better or worse. One can only ponder what
they might do, under similar fear levels. Openly or subtly, "authority"
controlled "perception."
The S.S. executioner had to evaluate the effect of time, as a factor in
his accountability. If he was certain that his side would win, he proceeded with
minimal interference of human conscience. Or, he may have been uncertain of
victory, but he may have been quite certain of his own fate on the Russian
front, if he disobeyed – or questioned - an order to kill. Add the fate of his
family. "Authority" assured him that he was on the winning side.
The ‘conscience test’ of all time seems to be in the personal
estimation of "…what people will say." (AND – the estimate as to whether or not
"they" may never find out; or figure it out?)
Another factor which is rarely addressed, is the matter of "stakes;"
personal risk or actual expenditure. In current times, the religious zealots are
betting their life and their fate in all of eternity, to perform suicide
bombings – even against innocent women and children. The implication is that the
bombers perversely view themselves as ‘holy’ martyrs, favored by God; no
sacrifice being too great for God.
There also exists a "personal identification gap" between those who
monstrously committed the Nazi atrocities, of their own accord, and those who
did the same, under extreme duress. The Nazi monsters had their share of
conscience-driven suicides.
However unpopular (and little-known) the issue may be, it is also
necessary to objectively observe the history of Jews participating in such
organizations as the "Jewish Committees," who selected other Jews for the Nazi
death camps; add the "Jewish Police" of the Nazi ghettos. Those participants
continued to live amongst their own; their ‘authority’ was remote, however
reliable. Certainly, they had to think it terms of their fate; and that of their
family.
In modern times, a little-known driver behind the modern corporation is
the fact that a high percentage of employees are as positively responsive to a
letter of commendation from ‘authority’ in their personnel file, as they would
be to a sizeable check.
Taking that idea further, the ‘value’ in such letters is often reduced
by ‘authority’ employing impotent descriptors as "acknowledge," versus
"recognize," "applaud" or "congratulate."
Obviously, pay levels, benefits and retirements are a huge determining
factor. ‘Authority’ determines whether a military General abides by White House
insistence, with an associated promotion, or retires two pay grades early.
Thus, it is also necessary to observe the dynamic of authority, versus
propensity for subservience.
One of the major lessons of Hitler’s Nazism was that the true ‘force’
behind that monster was the "perception" of the populace – asking, "What does
the Fuhrer want?" The key was in controlling the associated "perception."
Thinking to the electric battery, what happens when a "political
battery" (potential energy – with positive and negative terminals) of Nazi
methodologies is ‘hooked-up’ to a given populace?
The world should never forget that Hitler nearly won. Currently, the
world is compelled to think to the forces behind this re-designed version of
Nazism, referred to as the "New World Order."
"Those who refuse to think outside the proverbial ‘box’ are imprisoned
in it; and destined to be buried in it."
PSYOPS AND 9-11
Except for two aircraft hitting the WTC towers, try to think of an
‘official’ position on 9-11 which has turned up as fact.
1. The FBI’s Robert Mueller cited the fact that no documentation linked al Qaeda
to 9-11. Later phony al Qaeda "assertions" didn’t hold up under scrutiny.
2. There is no documented record of the purported 9-11 terrorists making a plane
reservation; there is no “record locator,” complete with details.
3. There is no documented record of the purported 9-11 terrorists buying or
using a ticket. (IDs required)
4. There is no hard-copy of a printed ticket ‘copy.’
5. There is no record of the purported 9-11 terrorists on any of the passenger
manifests, with all legitimate passengers being accounted for.
6. There is no record of the purported 9-11 terrorists in the autopsies.
7. There is not as much as a suggestion that the purported 9-11 terrorists had
the needed pilot skills - but rather the contrary.
8. At least seven of the purported 9-11 terrorists are known to be still alive -
with no questions being asked.
9. No rational person can believe that the supposed lead hijacker’s passport
could survive the WTC strikes, let alone be ‘immediately discovered’ in the 9-11
rubble.
10. The presented ‘security’ pictures of the 9-11 hijackers don't match the
purported terrorists.
11. Despite the origins of the alleged hijackers, there was no in-country (Saudi
Arabia & Pakistan) follow-up on the alleged hijackers’ links to terrorists. In
some fashion, the alleged hijackers either disappeared, or were alleged to have
used the names of seven living persons (with no identity ‘discovery’ follow-up.)
12. Bush’s frantic escape via Barksdale Air Force Base went un-explained, as it
emerged that the ""…real, specific and credible" threats turned up as imaginary
– and methodical.
13. The convenient ‘bureaucratic fog" – alleged to have allowed 9-11 to happen -
went unexplained and un-investigated, as the American segment of the bin Laden
family was immediately whisked away on private aircraft – amidst "instant"
bureaucratic efficiency. Certainly, the 'convenient' failures went unpunished -
if not rewarded.
14. For the first time in history, not one, but THREE steel-framed buildings
were taken down by fire; magically falling onto their own footprint. The events
involved two different architectural design styles, two different causes, but
owned/controlled by a single entity. NO QUESTIONS ASKED & NO ASSOCIATED
INVESTIGATION!
15. A stopwatch says that THREE buildings at the WTC came down as controlled
demolition. Add the video captures of the sequenced controlled-demolition
blasts.
16. There is no way to account for the purported WTC ‘collapse’ temperatures
alleged by the 'official' line.
17. There is no viable evidence of a plane crash at the 9-11 Pentagon or in
Pennsylvania - versus salted wreckage pieces. In the case of the Pentagon, they
were even the wrong color! NO QUESTIONS ASKED & NO ASSOCIATED INVESTIGATION!
18. Despite the alleged failures of Airport Security, the situation methodically
deteriorated to a Gestapo joke, as huge amounts of tax dollars were insanely
spent on the TSA.
19. For all the failures, no official has been punished for 9-11. (with trivia
such as a general who had an affair being sacked, in the background.)
20. The "official" 9-11 investigation was grossly under-funded, producing
approximately 800 pages of documents after the White House censorship and
interference.
21. In the end, the 9-11 Commission also failed to identify foreign terrorists
as the perpetrators of 9-11. The so-called "investigation" was so much political
rhetoric - hardly anything more.
22. That left the Afghan and Iraq invasions as blatant War Crimes. America fell
into an identical "denial" mind-set of 1939 Nazi Germany. That was no
coincidence of history!
23. There were no WMDs. Prior to the invasion, the 'boots-on-the-ground' UN
teams reported no significant findings. Saddam has been long deposed. Iraq had
no possible connection to 9-11. For all the horrors of the USA-made Saddam, his
crimes are dwarfed by the tribal genocide of Africa. How did Saddam become the
‘humanitarian’ priority?
24. Given the above, Bush's invasions continue as War Crimes!
25. For all the "terror" threat levels posted, the Mexican border has been
forced wide open from the White House; a "terrorist’s" dream-come-true. How much
“terror threat” can possibly be factual?
Yet, repeatedly, the world is SUCCESSFULLY inundated with the
assertions of "terrorism."
One is left to question, with so many inescapable indicators of 9-11
being a "Reichstag Fire," why nothing was said, for all intents & purposes?
Because the nefarious science of PSYOPS was cleverly and effectively foisted
upon America – and the world – by the mass media!
The harsh truth behind the obvious "mission" is hiding in plain sight!
It's to be discovered in such books as Brezinski's "The Grand Chess Board,"
Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map," and the documentation of the so-called
"Project for a New American Century." (PNAC) In essence, "Amerika Uber Alles!"
No denial is possible!
America's legacy is destined to be found in the mental- emotional
wilderness between "Don’t ask; don’t tell" and "We didn't WANT to know!"
http://tinyurl.com/blwkj
Alan
"Can't you see we're still here,
Can't you see we're still here,
Singing loud; Singing clear,
We shall not go under,
We're still here."
Nemesis Peace Centre
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.../protector.html
Abuse of Women and Children
http://theoriginalfirebird.blogspot.com/
Nemesis News
http://lordcerneabbas.blogspot.com/
Absolute Anarchy
http://lordcerneabbastoo.blogspot.com/
| |
|
| In article <memo.20060204155037.984o@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk>,
alan@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk (Alan) wrote:
> § Independent of the ‘official’ account, what are the independent merits of
> the associated event(s)?
>
http://tinyurl.com/blwkj
TESTIMONIAL DEVICE -
Babe Ruth is on the cereal box, promoting a breakfast cereal as part of
a balanced breakfast. Britney is presented in a commercial endorsing a specific
line of clothes. A church member attests to a ‘miracle.’
Such is the classic use of the "Testimonial Device" which readily comes
to the minds of most, when the term ‘testimonial’ is used.
When we hear/read that "The New York Times said," "John L. Lewis
said...," "Herbert Hoover said...," "The President said...," "My doctor
said...," "Our minister said..."
The "Testimonials" may simply emphasize a legitimate, valid and
accurate idea - a ‘fair use’ of the device. In other cases, however, the
"Testimonial(s)" may represent the sugar-coating of a clever distortion, a
blatant lie, a misunderstood notion; or any anti-social suggestion. Such
"Testimonials" may have the element of "association creep." For example, when
speaking to priests convicted of pedophilia, the overt expression may be,
"…these God-hated priests…" when directly referring to the pedophilia issue.
However, there is the risk/intent that the subconscious GENERAL association will
uniquely be "…these God-hated priests." Thus, the discounting of priests, in
general, can occur, whether by accident or design.
There is nothing inherently wrong with citing a qualified source; the
testimonial technique can be used to construct a fair and well-balanced position
or debate. However, it is often used in ways that are unfair and blatantly
misleading.
With respect to a "Testimonial, the "Transfer" device can also be used
as a "Trojan Horse," in the case of a prominent personality duped into making a
false statement. Or, conversely, such a prominent personality forced to issue a
denial or distortion of an otherwise obvious fact.
Another PSYOPS application of a "Testimonial" - as a "Transfer Device"
– is essentially a bank-shot. An alternate source is quoted (Testimonial) in
such a fashion as to lead someone to believe that they are a uniquely qualified
– or unqualified - source. The reader/viewer is misled into believing a given
slant. Often, the intent of the quotation (Testimonial) is lost in an unwitting
presumption of an honest debate.
For example, the American segment of the bin Laden family was factually
evacuated by private aircraft, immediately following 9-11! One person may cite
the fact in a debate, while the clever disinformationist "bonds" the discussion
to the same ‘revelation’ by America’s ‘favorite,’ Michael Moore. The ‘first-up’
effect tends to seal the fate of such discussions, despite the fact that the
debate originator was actually quoting from the Tampa Tribune, but failed to
cite the source, in the beginning.
A "Testimonial" can be centered on a seemingly authoritative document.
For example, in the 9-11 affair, a Tom Kenney was quoted from a conversation
with Dan Rather as implying – at least – that a FEMA rescue team arrived in New
York the night before 9-11 – in preparation. In the ensuing debate, an
individual polled FEMA – via the "Freedom of Information Act" (FOIA) - using an
incorrect name, "Tom Kennedy." The FOIA response (authoritative Testimonial)
came back in the essence of "No information was responsive to your request." The
mis-spelling might have been deliberate. However, the real name was "Kenney,"
not Kennedy." The illusion (Testimonial) was that the assertion that FEMA rescue
arrived the night before 9-11 was FALSE. The requested information was NOT
forthcoming. The illusion of a straight-forward FOIA response served as a
Testimonial, whatever the actual facts may – or may not - be.
In congressional testimony, Rudi Guiliani admitted that FEMA was
already set up on Pier 92, under a conveniently timed "Operation Tripod."
The most common misuse of the testimonial involves citing individuals –
such as celebrities - who are not qualified to make judgments about a particular
issue or person. In 1992, Barbara Streisand supported Bill Clinton; Arnold
Schwarzenegger threw his weight behind George Bush. While both are popular
performers, in their own right, there is no viable reason to think that they
know what is best for America. The "Testimonial" takes advantage of the
psychological device, known as "identification."
The false testimonial is not bound by any restraints. In the Oklahoma
City bombing, the FBI "expert" was caught both unqualified and in a lie, as to
the explosive substance in the truck. His fate was a promotion!
Unfair testimonials are usually obvious; most people have seen through
the obviously rhetorical trick at some time or another. In the experience of
human nature, however, this probably happened when the testimonial was provided
by a celebrity whom we did not respect. Conversely, if the testimony is provided
by an admired celebrity, we are much less likely to be critical.
When encountering the obvious "Testimonial," it is appropriate to ask:
§ What is the apparent – or not so apparent - intent/goal of the speaker?
§ ‘Who’ or ‘what’ is actually being quoted in the testimonial?
§ Why should anyone regard this person/organization/publication as containing
expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question?
§ Independent of the "Testimonial," what does the message/idea amount to?
INJECTED ASSOCIATION -
Honest people are vulnerable to the disinformationist; the honest
person thinks in honest terms. Honest people simply don’t expect to be given
blatantly dishonest treatment, as a victim or an observer. Thus, there is the
risk/probability that an honest statement can be methodically and forcibly
associated with a bad source.
To cite the imagery of the burning Pentagon in the early AP picture,
citing the lack of evidence of an aircraft impact can result in the claim, "Oh,
you’re obviously referring to the picture on the cover of that socialist
Frenchman Theirry Meyssan – the conspiracy nut!" The reality may be that the
speaker had ONLY seen the AP photo. Still, the ‘first-up’ effect and the
injected association will have a dramatic effect on the casual observer.
RHETORIC PASSION AND TONE OF VOICE -
Even in text presentations, ‘passion’ and ‘tone of voice’ can be
conveyed – and quite effectively. With that in mind, it’s academic that a
passionately told lie creates the illusion of truth. Thereafter, the tactical
use of language is important to observe. An honest person rarely needs to resort
to the tools used by the disinformationist. However, when passionate rhetoric is
used in an obviously styled manner, suspicion – at a minimum – is in order. This
is particularly true when associated with unreasonable discounting of an issue,
source or personality. Dynamic communication skills are to be admired – but not
when they are utilized for a nefarious purpose. Again, the key is in
distinguishing the intent of the message.
REPACKAGING AND "SCOPE" -
Long after the fact, the White House abruptly announced that they were
dealing with faulty information, when deciding to invade Iraq. The presentation
was in the spirit of "See, it wasn’t our fault; the information came from
dishonest people, whom we were duped into believing!"
If one’s attention is fixed to that latest position (scope), the
position sounds good, until one remembers (expanded scope) that – prior to the
Iraq invasion - countries were lined up telling the White House that the
information was false. France and Germany – in particular - trashed their
diplomatic relationship with the USA, in an effort to prevent a senseless
bloodbath.
Just prior to the invasion announcement, the U.N. inspection team was
reporting increasing evidence that Saddam had – in fact – destroyed his
prescribed weaponry; or at least transported it out of the country. "Selective
trust" (limited scope) is no excuse in that picture; too many were attesting to
Saddam’s actual compliance and the lack of any viable evidence of WMDs. Yet, the
White House statement would have the reader believe that there is only one side
to the issue - "See, we were lied to; it’s not our fault. It was an innocent
mistake, see?" The attempt was to "Repackage" the truth with the device of
"Plausible Assertion."
When encountering the obvious "Repackaging," it is necessary to ask:
§ What is the intent of the statement/position? Clarification? Deceit? Excuse
making?
§ How does the statement/position compare with other previous information?
§ Is this a radical perception/position change worth inquiring more deeply?
§ Is there a reliable opposing position worth comparing the statement/position
to?
§ Does alternate information condemn the "Repackaging?"
IMAGING
ORDINARY FOLKS -
The "Ordinary-Folks" technique, attempts to convince the target
audience that the celebrity and their ideas, are "…those of the common people."
The device is used by advertisers and politicians alike.
Obviously, America's recent presidents have all been millionaires, who
have gone to great lengths to present themselves as ordinary citizens. George
Bush Jr. was reading to school children on 9-11. Bill Clinton partied with the
rest of his peers, but "…didn’t inhale." George Bush Sr. hated cooked broccoli,
and loved to go fishing. Ronald Reagan was often photographed as the
outdoorsman, chopping wood. Jimmy Carter presented himself in the fashion of an
humble Georgia peanut farmer.
The political candidates reliably deliver the phony promise to "clean
out the barn" and set things straight in Washington. The political scene is
filled with politicians who ignore any corruption issues, while appearing to
challenge the economic and privilege disparity of the mythical "cultural elite,"
trying very hard to identify with the needs and desires of "ordinary American
people." The baby-boomers of the fifties no longer find significance in whether
the candidate inhaled or not. George Bush Jr. never bothered to answer the drug
questions; America didn’t care.
Again, the pertinent questions:
§ What is the intent, relative to the "hidden" person?
§ Disregarding the sales pitch, what are the presented messages/images worth
when divorced from the presented personality?
§ Is there a trait or history methodically being left out?
§ What could he or she be trying to cover up with the ordinary-folks approach?
What are the facts, relative to the presentation?
BANDWAGON DEVICE -
The campaigning politician IS a propagandist; the world accepts that.
The candidate always needs "numbers;" real or otherwise. The political candidate
rents a hall, attracts radio and TV stations, fills a super-stadium, marches
thousands of people in a parade. He/she employs prejudicial colors, symbols,
music, movements and Hollywood special effects. He/she induces great numbers to
write letters, send E-mails, and contribute money or time to his/her cause.
He/she appeals to the desire - common to most of us - to identify with and to
"follow the crowd."
In modern politics, the propagandist (and disinformationist) needs to
similarly affect the masses. He/she directs the "appeal" to ‘bonded’ groups with
the common ties, ties of nationality, religion, race, gender, vocation or social
status [unemployed, for example]. In a similar fashion, the disinformationist
campaigning for or against a given program, position or perception will appeal
to their target audience as Catholics, Protestants, Muslims or Jews...as farmers
or as school teachers; as housewives or as miners. Truth is almost the last
priority, versus "results."
Using all other propaganda devices, all the means of positive imagery
are used to inspire the respective hopes, fears and hatreds, the desired
prejudices, convictions and ideals common to a target group. Thus emotions are
employed to push and pull the members of a targeted group onto a prescribed Band
Wagon – or to create a fear of "charging" that band wagon with an attack, given
the apparent numbers or sheer power behind the particular bandwagon. Following
9-11, there was no hope of winning against ANY position, taken by the Bush
administration. 9-11 manufactured the biggest bandwagon, since Pearl Harbor.
The basic message of the Band Wagon appeal is "everyone else is on
board; therefore, so should you be." In the primordial quest for ‘safety in
numbers,’ few want to be left behind, thus the technique is quite successful in
all arenas. The gimmick is in taking a close look at the particular bandwagon,
versus an emotional reflex to immediately climb onto the presented Band Wagon.
The disinformationist’s mission is obviously to make the targeted audience think
there is such a priority; "Opportunity only knocks once!"
The element of "consensus" often rules the bandwagon effect. In regard
to the First Amendment, most reflexively agree that "...you can't shout 'fire'
in a crowded theater." No one bothers to ask, "What if it's on fire?"
A recent example is in the Afghan and Iraq campaigns. While the
"Victory Bandwagon" approach worked, the illustration of the lies, in advance of
- and after - the invasions left America in the lurch of "War Crimes." – NOBODY
seemed to notice! The Band Wagon approach was that successful.
"American" War Crimes? What person could possibly think the
unthinkable? Who could conscience the thought, let alone explore the possibility
that such could EVER possibly be factual? Why, not even Hollywood could so dare!
Fear and uncertainty are powerful forces to nudge or push people onto a
pandered bandwagon as a "solution" to their anxieties. During the Vietnam War
years, the frequent citation of the "Red Menace" created acceptance and approval
of the war, inducing many into enlisting. The war was factually about oil and
Texas profiteering; few noticed. The PSYOPS worked.
When the "Bandwagon" approach is noted, it would be prudent to ask the
following questions:
§ What is the actual agenda/program?
§ What is the evidence, both for and against the program?
§ Is there a hidden agenda?
§ Regardless of who and how many are supporting the program, is it appropriate
or prudent to also support it?
§ Does the "Bandwagon" program serve - or undermine - the individual and
collective interests of the typical person?
http://tinyurl.com/blwkj
Alan
"Can't you see we're still here,
Can't you see we're still here,
Singing loud; Singing clear,
We shall not go under,
We're still here."
Nemesis Peace Centre
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.../protector.html
Abuse of Women and Children
http://theoriginalfirebird.blogspot.com/
Nemesis News
http://lordcerneabbas.blogspot.com/
Absolute Anarchy
http://lordcerneabbastoo.blogspot.com/
| |
|
| In article <memo.20060204154724.984n@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk>,
alan@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk (Alan) wrote:
> America's legacy is destined to be found in the mental- emotional
> wilderness between "Don’t ask; don’t tell" and "We didn't WANT to know!"
http://tinyurl.com/blwkj
PSYOPS TECHNIQUES
"Perception Control = Emotional Control = Behavior Control."
WHY?
Lord Acton probably answered that question in the most simple terms -
"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts – absolutely!" The experienced attest
that in "power" environments, there is a mysterious and overwhelming aura which
seemingly 'posseses' the individual.
As with the physical weapons of war, psychological operations have
legitimate uses. But, when those means are used on a domestic population, what
then? To give a wartime pistol to a policeman, telling him to keep the domestic
peace is effective. When that same pistol is then used to coerce, intimidate or
threaten the domestic populace, something has to be done. It starts with knowing
how that pistol operates.
ABOUT PSYOPS –
It may seem strange to suggest that the study of propaganda has
relevance to contemporary domestic politics and issues. When most people think
about propaganda, they think of the enormous campaigns waged by Hitler and
Stalin in the 1930s – or McCarthy in the 1950s. Since nothing comparable is
being disseminated in our society today, many believe that propaganda is no
longer a pertinent issue. WRONG!
Propaganda can be as blatant as a ‘peace symbol’ or as subtle as a song
or poem. Propaganda’s persuasive techniques are regularly applied by
politicians, advertisers, journalists, radio personalities, and others who are
interested in influencing human behavior. Propaganda messages can be used to
accomplish positive social ends, as in campaigns to reduce drunk driving, but
they are also used to win elections and to sell beer. Propaganda isn’t
inherently nefarious or suspect. Often, as in typical advertising or political
campaigns, propaganda is totally expected!
"Propaganda" is an advantageous presentation of information – factual
or otherwise.
"Psyops" takes unfair advantage of human psychology. Therein lays the
difference – "INTENT."
The propagandist is a clever researcher and writer. The
disinformationist has the added background of a psychologist – to some extent –
as well as being a ‘resourceful’ and ‘surgical’ communications specialist. He
operates from a time-constrained mission.
Whether we want to admit it or not, PSYOPS is in our daily life – it is
a serious threat. Thus, we are in a comparable position of a banker. He knows
that there will always be robbers and swindlers. The gimmick is in being smarter
and more resourceful than the robber-swindler. The chief effort is to let the
would-be robber-swindler know that the defense mechanisms are too strong; add
the risks and probability of getting caught.
PSYOPS is generally about the control of human emotions; the resulting
‘processed emotions’ translating into desired intellectual (logical) decisions
and subsequent actions. Think to the statement "Nobody can MAKE you feel a
certain way; each person has to DECIDE how they feel about something – decide
for themselves."
Great logic! Now, go to the major sales corporations & ask them why
they spend millions per year on advertising!
OR; call an "ethnic" type by their least-favorite name and see what
decision is made – over the span of a split second!
The reality is that we all have the ability to inspire or persuade
thoughts or emotions in others. The trick is to inspire advantageous decisions.
Ask the husband/boyfriend who brought home the flowers to his lady. Were some
‘results’ forthcoming? Of course they were, whether romance – or forgiveness.
Emotions = action.
The technical advance of communication tools such as the Internet,
accelerate the flow of persuasive messages - dramatically. For the first time
ever, citizens around the world are participating in uncensored conversations
about their collective future. This seems like a wonderful development; but
there is a risk.
"Information overload" is often the result of people being regularly
confronted with hundreds of intense messages, each day. Common sense and
personal experience dictates that many people respond to the induced pressure by
processing messages as quickly as possible and, when possible, by taking mental
short-cuts.
That kind of response leaves the modern propagandist or
disinformationist with a mandate to devise accommodating short-cuts, so as to be
effective in dealing with typical thought or emotional processing. The
disinformationist reacts with an effort to effectively control/agitate emotions,
exploit insecurities, capitalizing on language ambiguity – inherent or induced -
and by bending or re-manufacturing the rules of logic. History demonstrates that
the disinformationist can be quite successful. Gaining attention and controlling
perception is the disinformationist’s first priority, in the modern mind-control
equation –
"Perception Control = Emotional Control = Behavior Control."
That leaves specialists and even common people with the task of
detecting and analyzing the disinformation and/or propaganda, so as to create
the needed awareness of the tricks which disinformationists employ. The
secondary obligation is to devise ways of readily recognizing and resisting the
subsequent short-cuts that the disinformationists promote. In brief,
disinformation/propaganda analysis is the best immediate antidote to the
nefarious excesses of the Information Age. Just as the military deals with
"Information Warfare" as a major munition in their arsenal, the civilian world
is comparably involved in the topic – like it or not.
As an example of the seriousness associated with the modern application
of domestic propaganda, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) published a
series of books, including:
§ The Fine Art of Propaganda
§ Propaganda Analysis
§ Group Leader's Guide to Propaganda Analysis
§ Propaganda: How To Recognize and Deal With It
The IPA centers its illustrations on seven basic propaganda devices:
Name-Calling, Sparkling Generality, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Card
Stacking, and Band Wagon.
In "The Fine Art of Propaganda," the IPA makes the point that "It is
essential in a democratic society that young people and adults learn how to
think, learn how to make up their minds. They must learn how to think
independently, and they must learn how to think together. They must come to
conclusions, but at the same time they must recognize the right of other men to
come to opposite conclusions. So far as individuals are concerned, the art of
democracy is the art of thinking and discussing independently - together."
Another interesting book was written by Richard Brodie, "The Virus of
the Mind." The book carefully describes the creation and conditioning of certain
social and political values, logic processes and seeming behavioral mandates in
the mind of the American culture. The essence of the book cites the automatic
mental and emotional reflexes which have been methodically conditioned into the
‘norms’ of the American society. How many times in American society has the
statement "You can’t say that" successfully stopped a conversation? It’s quite
common. Imagine that statement being controlling in the proverbial ‘land of the
free.’ Certainly the constraining descriptor, "Politically Correct" has been
dramatically effective, amidst often mandated "diversity training."
The book describes the "reflexive" intellectual, emotional and social
reactions in terms of "memes." While the term seems to distract, the content of
the book is otherwise quite good.
SALAMI EFFECT -
Imagine the traditional American society being taken away, one slice at
a time. Those old enough can testify that America has seen just that. In one
secretly planned operation, "Operation Northwoods," the comparable description
is "time-phased changes." Rather like the alcoholic asking, "Oh, what is one
more drink going to hurt?" Take enough pennies away from a dollar, and the
dollar is totally gone!
Conversely, the effect can be equally dramatic. Compare the tax rate of
the Korean War era to today’s world! Then note the tax-dollar rip-off programs –
if you can spot them!
The incremental increase of tax rates leaves America working for the
‘government,’ not themselves. Yet, Americans are worse off, by far, than the
early 1950s.
Common techniques
TIMING -
In real estate, the three guiding rules are "Location, location,
location!" In the world of PSYOPS, the comparable rules are "Timing, timing,
timing!" In the world of PSYOPS, the weakest tool can be effective, given the
element of TIMING.
One of the most important applications of ‘timing’ is the dynamic of
‘first-up;’ the proverbial ‘early bird.’ Given the dynamics behind the events of
9-11, they become a classic for all time. 9-11 was an inside-job; get used to
that.
With no documentation linking al Qaeda to 9-11, per the FBI’s Robert
Mueller, al Qaeda became the instant villain. Osama bin Laden issued a formal
denial in an audio tape; but the ‘first-up’ effect was already in place. With
that background, an obviously phony video tape was played before America,
attempting to implicate bin Laden. We know it worked – that’s PSYOPS. AND, look
at what that PSYOPS accomplished!
(Don’t get enthralled by the effect, the 9-11 PSYOPS story is very
ugly. It may mean the death of America, as we knew it. If in doubt, read the
"Patriot Act.")
"Timing" can also be a major clue to the astute observer. To be
‘first-up’ may also indicate who the villain actually is. Those who support the
‘first-up’ may be peripheral villains. In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, the
‘official line was, "There were no warnings. When that was illustrated as a lie,
the claim was changed to "….specific warnings." As though any perpetrator is
going to advertise his intentions in the Sunday Times! As time went on, more and
more ‘warnings’ were illustrated; along with the history of the warnings being
silenced with prejudice – from within. Out of the Hollywood version of
"Godfather," comes the same dynamic – "…the first person…" Timing is important
for many reasons.
NAME CALLING AND LABELING –
"Bad names" have always played a tremendously powerful role in the
entire history of the world; as well as in our own personal development. Names
have ruined and killed people; but, they have also stirred men and women to
outstanding deeds and accomplishments. Names and labels have ruined the lives of
people and have sent many to prison. Names and labels have made men angry enough
to enter battle and slaughter their fellow men – or to die for the declared
named or labeled cause. Names and labels have been applied to people, groups,
associations, churches, tribes, gangs, colleges, political parties,
neighborhoods, states, regions of the country, nations, and races. Many
tremendous results have been effected – just with a name or label. In American
history, the "McCarthyism" ruined lives of truly great people, just with the
simple implication of "Communist;" no proof required! Even today, descriptors
such as "Commie," "Pinko" and "Leftist" bring a programmed emotional reaction.
In Current politics, "politically undesirable" has been labeled as
"evil" or "terror." Laws have been passed on these elements, as though one could
comparably outlaw the darkness of night. Yet, the strategy worked, the draconian
laws were passed!
The name-calling technique of the disinformationist usually links a
person, or idea, to a negative symbol, of some type. Beyond pure propaganda, the
disinformationist crafts the name-calling into a form which has an emotional
effect on the targeted audience. The usual style is to inject ‘distrust,’ into
any association with the targeted individual/issue. The disinformationist who
uses this technique hopes that the targeted audience will mentally AND
emotionally reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol,
instead of objectively looking at the available evidence.
Again, the element of "INTENT" is key. To cite some of Bush’s cabinet
members as ‘felons,’ warns the listener, however negative the image is.
The most obvious type of name calling involves generally accepted
‘negative’ names. For example, consider the following:
§ Commie
§ Nazi
§ Fascist
§ Pig
§ Yuppie
§ Queer
§ Terrorist
§ Leftist
§ Neocon
However, the relative position of the name-calling ‘assailant’ or the
‘victim’ is a factor. "Expensive" is bad to a buyer, but wonderful to a seller.
A more subtle form of name-calling involves words or phrases that are selected
because they possess or create a negative emotional charge.
A responsible Pentagon official may propose specific military budget
cuts. Instead of being labeled as "wise" or "fiscally conservative," the
official gets labeled as "stingy." Either description can refer to the same
behavior – with an extreme of different connotation. Other examples of
negatively charged words include:
§ politically correct
§ social engineering
§ connected
§ radical
§ corrupt
§ cowardly
§ counter-culture
The name-calling technique leaves the casual observer with the logical
mandate to ask intelligent questions when spotting "name-calling." Not all "name
calling" is inappropriate or counter-productive. If a female politician cites a
colleague or opponent as a ‘sweetheart,’ the connotation isn’t particularly
inappropriate or negative. To cite Saddam Hussein as a ‘monster’ is dynamic;
although a highly negative imagery. However, subjectivity is important in such
matters. Referring to a man as a ‘sweetheart’ may ruin the day of a feminist.
Referring to Saddam as a ‘monster’ may stir a Muslim supporter to violence. The
appropriate questions:
§ Is the name calling appropriate?
§ Would a reasonable person find the name-calling personally tempting?
§ What is the intention behind the name calling?
§ What does the name imply?
§ Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the typical
association behind the name?
§ Is an idea or thought process which serves a given person’s or group’s best
interests being discounted/dismissed through such name calling?
§ Omitting the name calling, what are the merits in the remainder of the
message?
SPARKLING GENERALITIES –
Almost any culture claims to believe in, fight for and live by
"virtuous words." These "words" are normally associated with deeply set
attitudes and ideas. In the USA, such words include: civilization, civic,
morality, justice, equality, Americanism, God, Christianity, good, proper,
right, democracy, patriotism, family, motherhood, fatherhood, science, medicine,
health, natural and love.
For the purposes of propaganda/disinformation analysis, call these
virtue words "Sparkling Generalities" focusing attention upon the dangerous
characteristic that they have: They mean different things to different people;
thus they can be used in different ways. The trick being in the controlling of
context or association of the generalities.
Disinformationists prey upon the selected words, as we typically
understand them or relate to them. Through scientifically styled
means/methods/techniques, disinformationists prostitute the cherished words and
beliefs and attitudes of unsuspecting people.
When Americans hear the word ‘democracy,’ they typically think of their
own definite ideas about democracy, the ideas learned at home and school. "Mom,
apple pie and the girl next door" come to mind. The typical reflex is to assume
that the term is being used in that particular sense. The ‘virtue word’ lowers
the 'caution threshold,' deferring any suspicion or mistrust; particularly when
listening about the things 'the United States must do to preserve democracy.'
However, when one hears of ‘democracy’ in 2003 Iraq, the proverbial
‘red flags’ pop into view. The term is the same, the ‘association’ is different;
very different. The image of a burning Humvee comes to mind, along with the
image of dead or wounded GIs.
In essence, the employment of the "Sparkling Generality" is the
reversal of "Name Calling." Name Calling seeks to make us fear and/or reject the
cited entity. The intention is for the targeted audience to formulate a judgment
to reject and condemn the victim of the name-calling, without bothering to
examine the evidence. The Sparkling Generality device, conversely, seeks to make
us identify with, approve and accept the generality without examining the
evidence.
Exporting American Democracy to Iraq sounds noble to the typical
American. However, given the "Patriot Act," what is actually being exported? In
examining the "Sparkling Generality Device," all that is said regarding Name
Calling / Labeling must also be kept in mind.
The observer should ask:
§ What image is the ‘virtue’ word intended to convey?
§ Does the presented idea in question have a legitimate connection with the
general/typical meaning of the word?
§ Is this an attempt to prostitute an idea which does not serve the observer’s
best interests?
§ Is it being "sold" or "spun" through its being given an association or name
that the typical and reasonable observer isn’t likely to buy into?
§ Omitting the "virtue word," what is contained in the remainder of the
‘message?’
ATTITUDE -
An attitude is an imbedded personal style of dealing with information
or events. Think to the common expressions -
"Why should I?" "What’s in it for me?" "I could care less!" "Live and
let live." "No shame in my game!"
In that context, Americans are routinely conditioned to respond to
information and events with a conditioned ATTITUDE. In the ‘first up’ style of
the 9-11 presentation, America predictably responded in patriotic fashion. With
the conditioning of such horrors as the 1993 bombing of the WTC and the Oklahoma
City bombing, the mass media presentations stirred a revenge reflex; America
seemingly had suffered enough "terrorism." The ATTITUDE was highly predictable -
"I’ve had enough! Nobody is going to get away with this!"
EXPECTATIONS -
A popular belief system asserts that it is wrong to ‘lay’ your
expectations on another, demanding a specific accommodation. However, a clear
mind quickly remembers that there is an animal known as the ‘reasonable
expectation.’ For example, fidelity in a relationship or marriage. Reasonable
expectations are all around us – but they are quickly being deleted from the
American culture.
America regularly witnesses the exporting of the USA critical economic
infrastructure. America’s sovereignty is being dissolved faster than Americans
can detect the unmistakable pattern. Whatever ‘forces’ may be in operation,
Americans are facing lower-paying jobs – if any. Political discussions of job
‘numbers’ evade any discussion of job ‘quality.’ The ‘normal’ job benefits are
more routinely being subsidized by the employee – if any benefits are even
provided.
The sovereignty of America is discounted, versus a strange and
methodical imposition of an American "global responsibility," which routinely
excludes the welfare of Americans!
Thus, one of the apparent rules of the ‘system’ is, "…destroy all
expectations; reasonable or otherwise."
One of the deadliest of these efforts was the overturn of the American
"Equal Protection" clause in the U.S. Constitution. In the Michigan college
reverse discrimination case, the ruling hinged on a "compelling interest" in
removing the equal-protection provision as the issue pertains to reverse
discrimination in school admissions.
What America didn’t notice was the ‘style’ of the language; and what
that language is destined to mean. Specifically, that phrase "compelling
interest," is destined to be applied to the selective enforcement of all
American laws. That "selective enforcement" has been a relative norm for quite a
while in American society. Now, however, there is essentially a Supreme Court
precedent to anchor the debate for the "compelling interest" in enforcing the
law only as "Politically Convenient."
In essence, "social obligation" will be openly transferred to political
"obligation," in the controlled style of "political creep."
MISLEADING EUPHAMISMS -
When disinformationists use sparkling generalities and name-calling
symbols, they are attempting to impress their targeted audience with vivid,
emotionally stimulating words. In certain situations, however, the
disinformationist attempts to pacify the audience in order to make an unpleasant
reality more palatable. This is accomplished by using words that are bland and
euphemistic. The brutal is converted into the ‘kinder and gentler.’
For example, America changed the name of the War Department to the
Department of Defense. "Queer" became "gay." During war-time, civilian
casualties are referred to as "collateral damage," and the word "liquidation" is
used as a synonym for "murder." "Suspect" became "person of interest." The U.S.
Constitution was almost destroyed by the "Patriot Act." From the Vietnam War,
"combat fatigue," or "shell shock" became "post-traumatic stress disorder;" the
descriptor being completely disconnected from the reality of war. The "suicide
bomber" became the "homicide bomber." The "Muslims" (connected to Osama bin
Laden) of the American/NATO Balkan campaign became "Ethnic Albanians."
FALSE CONNECTIONS
TRANSFER DEVICE -
The psychological mechanism of "Transfer" is used by the
disinformationist to boost an authority, sanction, and prestige of something we
respect and revere to something he would have us accept. For example, most
people respect and revere their church and the nation. If the disinformationist
succeeds in getting ‘church’ or ‘nation’ to approve a campaign in behalf of some
program, he thereby transfers its authority, sanction, and prestige to that
program. Thus, we may unwittingly accept something which otherwise we might
reject.
The transfer device typically uses symbols for its best effect. The
cross represents the Christian Church. The flag alludes to the nation. Cartoons
depicting "Uncle Sam" allude to U.S. nationalism and an implied consensus of
public opinion. Those symbols reliably stimulate emotions. (Don’t forget that
concept.) The visual contact/association with such symbols will INSTANTLY arouse
an entire menu of feelings we have with respect to community, church or nation.
A cartoon showing "Uncle Sam" as approving or disapproving something is
powerful. Thus, the ‘Transfer’ device can be readily used both for and against
the target causes and ideas. The key for the casual observer is in
distinguishing the intent.
"Transfer" can be effected with deeds. When a political activist closes
a speech with a public prayer, the attempt is to transfer religious prestige to
the ideas being advocated – and the person/entity. As with all propaganda
devices, the use of this technique is not limited to one side of the political
spectrum. Pacifists can pray for peace, as quickly as a chaplain can pray for
victory.
Authority can be "transferred" (or taken away). The disinformationist
may attempt to transfer the reputation of "Science" or "Medicine" to a
particular project or set of beliefs. A slogan for a popular cold medication
serves to encourage the target audiences to "Applaud the miracles of medicine."
Most have seen many TV commercials, with an actor dressed in a white lab coat
tell us that "Brand-X is the most powerful pain reliever which can be bought
without a prescription." In both of these examples, the transfer technique is
being employed.
In the negative arena, the association of a Washington Post writer
being a recipient of a Pulitzer Prize might be attacked by citing the faked
story about the drug addicted child.
Transfer techniques can also take a nefarious/evil turn. A major
engineering group prepared the Oklahoma City bombing report; using blatantly
flawed data – yet, it sold! In history, the propaganda of 1939 Nazi Germany
rationalized racist policies by appealing to anthropology, history, sociology
and religion.
With a controlled ‘spin,’ even religion and science can be prostituted
in almost any issue. The observer should be aware that any idea or program
should not be accepted or rejected simply because it has been linked to a symbol
such as Justice, Medicine, Science, Democracy, or Christianity. When the
observer is confronted with the "transfer device," it is appropriate to ask the
following questions:
§ What is the apparent – or not so apparent - intent/goal of the speaker?
§ What is the intended message which the disinformationist is seeking to
‘transfer’ the authority, sanction, and prestige?
§ Is there any legitimate association between the message of the
disinformationist and the revered thing, person or institution?
§ Independent of the "transfer mechanism," what are the merits of the message,
when viewed alone?
DISSOCIATION DEVICE -
Dissociation is the reverse of "Transfer," usually serving to produce a
"Plausible Innocence." This technique is closely associated with Name
Calling/Labeling. Quoting someone who is reasonably assumed to be honest serves
to effect the excuse – or a ‘safe’ distance, "Hell, I didn’t know he was lying;
why would ANYBODY suspect that?"
Displacing an arena allows the illusion of truth, via a shift in focus.
To say that U.S. forces didn’t do something, serves to distance the Pentagon
from condemnation. The close association of U.S. forces to those who did the
actual act (a guerilla group, for example) operates as a ‘breakout’ device.
"Nobody would have suspected that rebel bunch would do such a thing?" The
guerilla unit is referred to as a "cutout." Often the "breakout" [action] effort
is cleverly programmed; the Delta Force, for example. No matter what they do,
their involvement is always protected under the flag of "National Secrecy."
Their involvement also serves as a peripheral insulation. To hold a secondary
group responsible might "compromise" Delta Force – a "national security
interest."
Another tactic is to use disassociation to discredit a group or person,
"He/they are not qualified to say…" "He/they have a reputation for being
dishonest." "He/they are liars" "He/they are ridiculous/absurd."
DEALING OFF THE BOTTOM OF THE DECK -
It is often enough seen that events, information or statements are
methodically taken out of context. Often, context is presented with strategic
information missing.
Early in the accident investigation of the Egypt Air 990 crash, a set
of translators insisted that the copilot began his religious chant with the
statement, "I’ve made my decision!" Yet, the ‘official’ account leaves that
statement out. In the end, the report ‘diplomatically’ reads that mechanical
failure could not be cited as the cause of the crash. The copilot was not cited
as having committed suicide-murder. While all indications pointed to a
suicide-murder, the FBI insisted that there was no criminal ‘element’ warranting
their taking over the investigation. The ‘official’ omission misled the public –
to say the least.
Often, information or statements are methodically taken out of context.
When citing regulations, for example, supporting information can often be quoted
as though the particular statement is totally governing. In the FAA regulations,
for example, there is a regulation prohibiting a pilot from leaving the flight
deck for arbitrary reasons. Such events as a bathroom break or attending to an
emergency are excepted. However, by leaving out the stated exceptions, a captain
couldn’t legally leave the cockpit – for any reason. Absurd? It’s happened! The
FAA took the supporting language out of context, and successfully processed a
violation – committing a felony, in the process!
MANUFACTURED REALITY
The alleged assassin of Bobby Kennedy plead guilty - now serving a life
sentence. The world bought off on the idea that Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy.
However, the autopsy demonstrated that Sirhan didn’t hit Bobby with a single
round! The fatal bullets came from an alternate direction and range. The media
recordings identified five more shots than Sirhan’s weapon was capable of
firing. Yet, what does the world believe???
PANIC AND CHAOS -
Panic, confusion & chaos are opportunity environments for those who
have the capacity to know – or estimate - the limits of the presented ‘threat.’
Survival and security become the first-up priorities, versus ‘facts.’ These
scenarios also allow those in power to manufacture a reality, as the populace
will normally grant leaders total ‘trust;’ even blind trust, hoping to receive
survival and safety in return.
The world has rarely seen such panic and chaos as the events following
9-11. The damage was factual – but the deaths were distorted out of proportion.
Despite early and relatively accurate data, the actual number of deaths at the
World Trade Center was kept hidden for months. The original figures being kept
incredibly high – until after the Afghan invasion was well under way. During the
‘assumed fatalities’ period, several national charities received huge sums of
money. Amidst that ‘chaos,’ it took an investigative reporter to reveal that the
greater percentage of the charity money was being kept by the charities, versus
being distributed to the intended victims.
In the shadows of the 9-11, the pre-written "Patriot Act" was scammed
into law. Americans never dreamed that the ‘law’ would usurp the U.S.
Constitution. Amazingly, most Americans related 9-11 to Pearl Harbor, without
questioning the possibility of a similar internal government facilitation –
which was factual. More amazingly, the early ‘official’ claims of "no warnings"
were quickly debunked. Even then, most America didn’t ask the obvious questions.
ASSUMPTION –
"Assumption" is a major element in the world of PSYOPS. The application
of ‘Assumption’ is reliably operated from the "conditioning" of the targeted
audience. One assumes that the President would never do anything wrong. It is
assumed that the justice system works; after all, didn’t Clinton nearly get
impeached? Yet, the post 9-11 events are filled with Bush’s violations of his
Federal Oath of Office, "…to uphold and support the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Yet, he quickly signed the
infamous "Patriot Act," which removed America’s entitlement to the key elements
in the Bill of Rights. With his knowledge and consent, at least two "suspects"
rotted in a military prison, because there was no ‘evidence’ to charge them in a
federal court. They were denied legal council, despite court orders. They were
interrogated relentlessly, under the guise of ‘national security.’
In the Iraq invasion, the assumption was that the USA would NEVER do
something terribly immoral; let alone commit a war crime. Wrong, wrong, wrong!
The invasion was a war crime, by itself. After the ‘formal’ combat was finished
and Iraq had no army, the Hussein brothers were killed in a combat operation.
There was no arrest attempt, they were just killed. Possibly, they deserved to
die at the hands of a court; they didn’t deserve to be murdered in a U.S.
military attack. WHY? Because of the international agreements which the U.S. is
a signatory to; however unpopular the idea ma be.
Yet, ‘Assumption’ worked for the ‘system’ – beautifully!
Too much of America’s history is fraught with false information. Thus,
except for natural disasters, one should quickly ask:
§ Is there something which just doesn’t look right?
§ Is there a conflict between what’s seen and heard, versus the ‘official’
account?
§ Is there room for legitimate confusion in the information presented?
§ What might be missing in the presented ‘picture?’
§ What is the intent/goal of the ‘official’ account?
§ Do the observed actions support the ‘official’ account?
§ Could the reverse be more factual?
§ What is the intended message?
§ Who is delivering the ‘official’ account?
§ Is there any ‘salesmanship’ being witnessed, versus honest information?
§ Is there any more information obviously needed?
§ Independent of the ‘official’ account, what are the merits of the event(s),
when viewed without the ‘official’ narrative?
§ Are the opposing viewpoints more reliable?
IGNORANCE AND APATHY -
It’s unusual for the U.S. to uniquely conduct a military invasion,
versus being part of a U.N. effort. Given the horror of 9-11 (as presented)
America was ready to take on the world – single-handedly. In hindsight, we
discover many fallacies associated with 9-11, leading to the question, "Was 9-11
an inside-job?"
The issues don’t end with the consideration of a simple possible
mistake, made in the proverbial heat of battle. Given the facts – as they were
known at the time – there was no legitimate provocation for war. Although it
appeared that there was a ‘time’ pressure, few looked past the end of their
noses at such documents as the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Accords and the
Nuremberg Charter. If they had, it would have been discovered that the Afghan
and Iraq invasions constituted war crimes. In the assumption that America was
totally above committing a war crime, few Americans ever looked at the pertinent
documents – not even the military!
In the ‘convenient’ void of ignorance, Americans didn’t relate to the
meaning of the opium fields of Afghanistan being re-planted (following the
Taliban destruction of those fields). The replanting of those fields meant
cheaper heroin being supplied to European and American drug dealers!
Assuming integrity in the White House, Americans couldn’t grasp the
significance of the U.S. interests militarily seizing control of Iraq’s oil
production. Few Americans have even heard of Zbigniew Brezenski’s book, "The
Grand Chessboard." The book essentially lays out the American control/takeover
of the Middle-East, in the spirit of "America’s Manifest Destiny." Fewer
Americans connect the "Corporate America," versus the "American Government."
Imagine the U.S. Military doing the dirty work for Unocal, Chevron, et al! They
did it!
Few Americans know of Bush’s Presidential Executive Order No. 13303.
That Order laid claim to Iraq’s oil production. Iraq could not even decide who
could buy their oil! For all intents & purposes, Iraq became an American
corporate colony.
Yet Americans believed that ‘democracy’ was the intent of the continued
American military presence in Iraq!
While post 9-11 "Homeland Security" seemed to take on a mandatory
mission, few Americans caught the political sleight-of-hand which substituted
the content of the "Homeland Security Act," at the last minute. The result was
billions of dollars in "pork." Amidst the ‘reliable ignorance,’ the tax-dollar
rip off missions successfully flew. Given the routine and convenient omissions
in the American mass media, it’s clearly wise to ask:
§ Is the public up-to-speed with the pertinent issues?
§ Is there a credible outraged claim of ulterior motives? If so, what are the
details?
§ Does any one group have a monetary motive for lying?
§ Is there a sense that something is seriously wrong in the presented ‘picture?’
§ What is the stated intent/goal in the ‘official’ account?
§ Could there be a pre-existing secret agenda?
§ What is the intended message?
§ Who is conveying the ‘official’ account?
§ Independent of the ‘official’ account, what are the merits of the event(s),
when viewed without the ‘official’ narrative (spin)?
SHADOWS -
The well-documented history of political events in America display a
clear nefarious intent from the nation’s leaders; dating to at least Bill
Clinton’s election. During the Clinton terms in office, a host of anti-terror
laws were written; tailored to 9-11, including the "Patriot Act." Likewise, the
military "Project for a New American Century" was developed. BUT, not by a
military group! Among other matters, the PNAC – as it’s called – cites America’s
global military "Constabulary Duties." Holding North Korea at bay is one thing,
but playing "Globo-Cop" is another! Post 9-11 was pre-planned in the shadows of
the Clinton years!
Amazingly, America seems to be oblivious to another effort; the
implementation of the Gestapo-style "Model Emerengcy Health Powers Acts;"
alternately called the "Model State Emergency Powers Acts." (MSEHPA) The "model"
is a generic statute, intended to be enacted by the individual states. As
"suggested," the individual state health personnel could ultimately wind up
under the control of the federal government; expected to act as an extended
police force. Their ‘emergency powers’ would be Gestapo in nature, including the
power to arrest people who refuse to take prescribed "immunizations," or carting
them off to "Quarantine Camps." The associated civil rights would not be worth
talking about.
Doubts? Look to -
>http://www.mercola.com/2001/dec/26/mehpa.htm
For a copy of the proposed law, look to –
>http://www.publichealthlaw.net/MSEHPA/MSEPHA2.pdf
By June 30, 2005, the MSEHPA had been introduced in whole, or in part,
by 44 states; 37 states had passed laws which include provisions from - or
similar to - those in the MSEHPA. In fairness, the compliance varies, as to the
extent of the MSEHPA provisions.
Any state which adopts such a ‘conforming’ law gets an immediate
five-million dollar "signing bonus." The federal subsidies increase
dramatically, from there.
The questions:
§ Is this something which was methodically ‘low key,’ or possibly supposed to be
nearly secret?
§ Does the presented account seem to come out of thin air?
§ Does the ‘logic’ hold up as being consistent? Did something ‘magically’
change?
§ Is there an important piece of information in-hiding?
§ Did something happen with a fortuitous timing – defying claims of
‘coincidence?’
§ Does the presented account smack of nefarious propaganda?
§ Is there any viable outraged claim of ulterior motives – including
profiteering?
§ Is there ANY reasonably compelling suspicion amidst the information presented?
§ Is there a sense that something is seriously wrong in the presented ‘picture?’
§ Does the ‘official’ account meet a reasonable test of ‘integrity?’
§ Could there be a secret agenda?
§ What is the intended message – express or implied?
§ Who is ‘fronting’ the ‘official’ account?
§ Are there any people or groups protesting; and what do they have to say?
§ Independent of the ‘official’ account, what are the independent merits of the
associated event(s)?
http://tinyurl.com/blwkj
Alan
"Can't you see we're still here,
Can't you see we're still here,
Singing loud; Singing clear,
We shall not go under,
We're still here."
Nemesis Peace Centre
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.../protector.html
Abuse of Women and Children
http://theoriginalfirebird.blogspot.com/
Nemesis News
http://lordcerneabbas.blogspot.com/
Absolute Anarchy
http://lordcerneabbastoo.blogspot.com/
| |
|
| In article <memo.20060204155608.984r@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk>,
alan@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk (Alan) wrote:
> Similarly, ‘good’ messengers don’t always deliver ‘good’ messages.
> For all the alleged Saudi funding of al Qaeda by Saudi Arabia, the U.S.
> President refuses to allow the public to know the facts. Nor does that
> President take any action against the Saudi interests. For all the legal and
> political power in the USA, the ‘protection’ goes without investigation or
> punishment.
http://tinyurl.com/blwkj
PERCEPTION CONTROL
"PLAUSIBLE ASSERTION / PLAUSIBLE DENIAL "
The world was told that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9-11. Yet, the
security tape video has a time-date stamp of almost a day and a half later.
Nothing which resembles a B-757 is in the tape. While the security videotape
fireball is nothing less than impressive, the photographs of the scene make an
astute observer’s hair stand on end.
The multiple aircraft pieces, on the Pentagon lawn, were from the front
end of the aircraft, yet they show no impact, smoke or fire damage. What should
be polished aluminum is painted bluish gray. Early photos show the smoke stained
wall of the Pentagon, but a tree next to the building still has green leaves on
it. The grass immediately in front of the Pentagon is still green. The pictures
show fire trucks being present, early on. But later photographs show all the
fire in the world, with no fire trucks, or firemen, until the fire reaches a
dramatic peak. SOME of the close-in pictures of the scene leave the question,
‘Why do we have photographers, but no firemen?’ Many of the pictures don’t lend
themselves to the possibility of a good telephoto lens, with a ‘lucky’
photographer in the area. While ‘Plausible Assertion’ passionately indicates
that a B-757 hit the Pentagon, the remaining forensics simply don’t support the
assertions. Flight 93 in Pennsylvania is very similar. In particular, the only
‘fire’ associated with the Flight 93 Crash in Pennsylvania shows an obvious
ordnance explosion. It too is missing the ‘fingerprint’ of the black column of
smoke. Add the missing "normal" components of the engines, tail section, outer
wing sections, etc.
The ‘Perception Control (Plausible Assertion) essentially says, ‘Oh,
but if you look at the scene the way we want you to.’
The key aspect of such efforts is contained in the fact that such
efforts are oriented around facilitating the psychological mechanism of
‘denial.’ Americans, in particular are spoiled; we don’t like insecurity and we
don’t like to think for ourselves. The ‘average’ of our lives is adequate for
having trusted so far; why start thinking and questioning, now??
The emotional cowards of society appeal to each other and the
‘causists,’ ‘It’s not THAT badly broken; DON’T fix it!’ From 1963 onward,
America hasn’t noticed that their lives are NOT getting better. The degrading of
American life is methodically slow; the vast majority of Americans don’t notice
‘ they care still less.
Americans didn’t notice that under Reagan, the federal income tax was
diminished, but the federal burden was transferred to the states. A tax was
relieved at the federal level, but replaced at the state and local level. The
net difference was a tax ‘increase‘ not a decrease. As programmed, America
didn’t pay attention!
One small slice at a time, American Democracy and the traditional
American way of life is being taken away.
Those who perpetrate deeds such as 9-11 are very keenly aware that the
radical majority of Americans hate thinking and reasoning for themselves ‘ they
were conditioned not to. America was conditioned to depend on the mass media,
television, in particular ‘ for ‘truth.’
American society is not saintly; the greatest corruption on the planet
thrives in Washington D.C. ‘ but it’s a ‘clever’ corruption. American history
has left too many ‘clues’ as to what can be gotten away with. The fallacy of the
John Kennedy murder was clearly illustrated, just by the ‘pristine bullet;’
Oswald was quite obviously a patsy. Yet there were no marches on Washington. As
predicted, the ‘first-up’ technique ruled the nation’s perceptions. A few years
later, Bobby Kennedy was murdered. It was known soon enough that Bobby was not
killed by Sirhan, yet there still were no marches on Washington. The
assassination of Martin Luther King was no different. "The system" knows the
limits of human nature, particularly in the American society. Two years after
the fact, few are protesting the obvious inside-job of 9-11;
The ‘system’ works!
The ‘system’ is keenly aware that ‘shock’ is followed by catatonia ‘ a
‘shutting down’ process; not just a ‘freeze-in-place’ process. The ‘system’
facilitates that process by making it easy, greasing the skids of ‘Perception
Control!’
COMPLEXITY -
Money rules the world. It’s no secret that private corporations compete
for government contracts ‘ with huge associated profits. Yet, the world has
increasingly seen private companies replacing government offices and functions.
Interestingly, the ‘government’ answers to an increasing number of ‘private’
groups, as though they are an official ‘government’ office. These groups are
euphemistically called ‘Non Government Organizations, or ‘NGOs.’ Few indicators
are as powerful as the infamous ‘money trail’ Lacking media coverage, few
Americans realize the huge sums of tax-dollars being pumped into Texas pockets;
in the very same style of the Vietnam War.
In the brief life of the proposed ‘Office of Strategic Information’
(OSI) [‘Ministry of Propaganda,’], the office hired a private consulting firm to
do its work. What the Federal Government is prohibited from doing, the
individual states and ‘private’ firms can do, right? If the OSI had survived,
America would probably have eventually heard, ‘The ‘government’ didn’t lie, the
contracting company mis-spoke.’ The ‘consulting firm’ would have operated as a
‘cut-out.’
Legalities aside, ‘private’ firms regularly do an end-run on government
functions. In theory, the CIA can’t legally spy on U.S. citizens. No problem;
private companies, ‘snitches’ or foreign intelligence services take care of
that. The so-called ‘Patriot Act’ mandated intelligence sharing with allied
countries.
‘No problem,’ you say? With rare exception, America’s phone bills are
‘processed’ in Israel! Anyone with a smattering of computer education knows what
can be done with that data, beyond financial billing. Such manipulations don’t
make naiveté affordable. Israel is quite expert at the application of the
infamous PROMIS software.
One of the least known of the end-run ‘private’ companies is the
‘Military Professional Resources, Inc’ or, MPRI. This is a company which hires
former/retired military professionals to serve as mercenary forces, without a
uniform or weapons (supposedly.) It is unusual to NOT see this group in action,
wherever U.S. military actions take place. The MPRI is owned by the
scandal-ridden L-3 Communications; Linda Daschle being their lobbyist (another
long story).
The Iraq war illuminated full-fledged mercenaries on U.S. payrolls
being used in Iraq. "Security Contractor" became a euphemism for "unlawful
combatant." Yes, our "unlawful combatants" were pandered as ‘legitimate;’ the
Taliban "unlawful combatants" were illegally imprisoned in the ‘Gitmo’ prison
camp.
All in plain sight!
Similarly, the ‘support’ company, Dyncorp, shows up. All these groups
and companies are not only a surrogate for U.S. interests (legitimate or
otherwise), but they are paid extremely well, when the final analysis is in.
Normally, ‘layering’ is involved. For example, ‘Brown & Root’ (Now ‘Kellog,
Brown & Root’) may have a cost-plus contract ‘ a mere 3% ‘plus-factor.’ However
that 12-dollar piece of plywood just got bounced to 50-dollars, when a
‘specific’ contractor did the supplying. The money was | | |