Does RI recognize history/science vs pro Mind Bending?

[compared2what?]

[
.....
Dan in Real Life? We're all scratching our heads now.
.....

To summarize my thread on 'Dan in Real Life' as a learning example of psyops agendas and techniques-

'Dan in Real Life' was promoted and released to be concurrent with Dan Rather's announced lawsuit against CBS for firing him over that 'W-went-AWOL' kerfuffle.

Dan Rather dangerously announced on the air during 9/11 - as a rerun of WTC7 disappearing into its footprint was shown - that 'this was the third time today that it looked like a building was demolished using dynamite.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o

So an effort was made through CIA-Hollywood to associate 'Dan in Real Life' ...during Dan Rather's brief re-visibility in the online news cycle...with the 9/11 cover story's keywords, "pancake collapse" and "burns," using
> the pictogram movie poster of "Dan collapsed into pancakes" that millions of Americans saw and still see in their video rental stores
> plus the last name of the protagonist character as "Burns."

In fact, this movie has 11 family members named "Burns" to reinforce the cover story of why the three World Trade Center buildings were allegedly destroyed.

Plus the movie's "Dan" is a journo and has three daughters in Jersey, "Jersey Girls." Remember them? Right.

Get it now? And this is a super easy obvious example of psyops linguistic priming.
The spooks also use more obscure more subliminal methods because they are supposed to stay covert and subliminal by utilizing associational linguistics and fuzzy logic.

Why do I bother to point at this crap?
Because psyops is a fascist language to learn, like a Nazi Esperanto.

And when you learn it, you can see the spook agenda of what values and beliefs they want us to have and, by reverse-engineering, what values and beliefs we SHOULD promote to counter the scam of scientific fascism.

And you can see who is using this technique and where...which tells you how much of American culture is controlled by fascist psyoperators.

But you can see that just by seeing it, too. By which I mean: It's possible to observe that it is what it is just by observing it operating in context, which has the advantage of also allowing you to observe it in proportion to other forces and powers. Not excluding your own autonomous self. And by extension the numerous other autonomous individuals all around you who are -- likewise and/or comparably -- observing that permanent powers are lying to or fucking them over, with whom you have therefore a common interest on which to base a common cause.

And since that's not only much more efficient but also has much greater potential from a realpolitik perspective, why waste your time and that of others getting all bogged down in details that have virtually no functional utility, even as a means to a generally consciousness-raising end?

Because I'd say that when staying on-message with your own communications strategy requires you continually to be reminding people that the enemy is an amorphous, omnipresent, many-tentacled beast that not only can but does covertly deprive large numbers of them of their ability to think and act for themselves on a daily basis, it's either time (a) to get a new communications strategist; or (b) just to fold up your tent and indulge in one final lost weekend (or whatever) before sending your resume and portfolio in to the Secret Team's publicity department, just in case they're interested in paying you to promote their supremacy intentionally rather than on accident.

My .02.

[Telexx]

The problem with HMW's theory is that it is arrived at from case study research, a notoriously rubbish research methodology for making falsifiable generalisations (see Robert Stake, "Case Study Research").

So these limitations (of case study as a research methodology), plus the constructivism inherent to HMW's theories, mean that, although these theories are detailed and intricate, they are essentially of hermeneutic value only. I don't see any hard scientific value.

My .2p (that will go ignored... probably)

Cheers,

Telexx

[compared2what?]

The problem with HMW's theory is that it is arrived at from case study research, a notoriously rubbish research methodology for making falsifiable generalisations (see Robert Stake, "Case Study Research").

So these limitations (of case study as a research methodology), plus the constructivism inherent to HMW's theories, mean that, although these theories are detailed and intricate, they are essentially of hermeneutic value only. I don't see any hard scientific value.

My .2p (that will go ignored... probably)

Cheers,

Telexx

That's not ignoring, it's silent agreement.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

The methods of Erickson that are pre-trance are as significant as trance characteristics.

And he declared that trance-like conditions were extremely common in every day life.

Consider children and media. The dangerous influence has been recognized since the early 1930s and reinforced by every decade's research and studies.
Do have a look at professors Singer & Singer's 'Handbook of Children and the Media.'

http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Children ... 0761919554

Now who is using this information? Top secret national security units, that's who.
This was open source during WWII and, after it went covert during the Cold War, was exposed by Ramparts Magazine in the 1960s and insider whistleblowers like Victor Marchetti in the 1970s.

US Army education materials have declared in print since atleast 1942 that propaganda, for "long run effects" should "aim at children."
I'm sure that America's parents would be shocked to know who is trying to program their children's brains and why.

Then there's 'metaphor therapy.'
I find this description of metaphor therapy to be a pretty good summary of the more recent examples of the hundreds of CIA-Hollywood scripts I've examined-

http://www.hypknowsis.com/M70-embedded- ... herapy.php

The metaphor therapy starts with the first metaphoric story, gets to a crisis, and then leaves that crisis unresolved. Then the second metaphor story is started, gets to a crisis and is also left hanging. The third metaphor story is started, taken to a crisis point, but this time the crisis is resolved, by suggesting some resource that removes the crisis. The resource is usually a lesson in how to solve that type of problem. This allows the third metaphor to be wrapped up and tidied away.
Then the second metaphor is taken up again, and it is also resolved. Finally, the first metaphor is taken up again, and it too is resolved. Metaphor therapy is based on identifying situations metaphorically similar to the client's situation, and then showing that they can be fixed.
Embedding metaphors like this gives more power to the metaphors than just telling them as three separate metaphor stories. Leaving each metaphor unresolved means that the unconscious mind is busy seeking closure, trying to make sense of the unfinished metaphors and therefore constantly re-examining all its assumptions about the problem and how to solve those problems. By the time the crisis point in the third metaphor is reached, the mind has three unresolved crises to deal with. When the resource is found for the third crisis, the mind automatically tests that resource against the first two crises. Resolving embedded metaphors two and one reinforces the mind's belief that the first two can be solved. After the metaphor therapy the client's subconscious mind will make the metaphoric connection between the events in the story and the problems in their own life, and the fact that they can be fixed.

[smiths]

a hero coming up against three problems and triumphing on the last of the three has been standard fair in literature and parable for three or four thousand years, if not more

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

a hero coming up against three problems and triumphing on the last of the three has been standard fair in literature and parable for three or four thousand years, if not more

And your sig quote is worth examining.

How about 30 times?
How about 300 times?
How about 3000 times?
How about 30,000 times?

etc.

[compared2what?]

I've been meaning to mention that it's a shame you're subject to all those ad hominem attacks by people who just don't have a better way of engaging with the substance of your posts, Hugh. Those hypocrites have got some nerve.

[Searcher08]

As ever... no comment when a call for evidence is invoked.

You refer to Erickson and Ericksonian techniques and then keep schtum when the flaw in your thinking is pointed out.

It's been the same story since 2006 Hugh, when this became your idée fixe.

Cheers,

Telexx

Milton Erickson is a personal hero of mine and my inner Milton told me to tell Hugh to stop distorting his work. Erickson did not make assumptions about the people who came to him for treatment. His approach was very individualistic and the complete absolute utter total antithesis of a 'one approach/methodology fits all' - which, btw, was one of his biggest concerns with Bandler and Grinder's attempted systematisation of his approach.

Personal disclosure - I have used Erickson's techniques for many years in coaching and consulting (was trained in NLP by Grinder). There is a lot of Erickson's work that involves metaphor and story telling, but these are individually constructed and delivered in such a way that there is a deep alignment between the neurologies of both therapist and client - and the therapist is able to calibrate in real time her story to the ongoing responses of the client. None of these conditions for efficacy are met in the context you propose, of mass influence.

Hugh, you cannot use Ericksonian hypnosis to get people to do things they really dont want to. If someone is happy being a smoker, doing lots of Ericksonian hypnosis to stop them (as in the famous "Hypnotise my husband and make him quit smoking now!!" story) will only have a brief passing effect for a couple of weeks.

The dynamics of influence between individual and the group are very different - and there is no necessarily meaningful mapping between techniques for individual influence and techniques for group influence.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I'm not sure I agree with the Canadian Bob Dobbs comparison... I think there may actually be some content there... possibly... though I could be wrong.

It's just dishonest to claim there's no content to what Hugh is presenting. And, as an eager young dipshit who got really into Bob Dean's material from "Android Meme's Xenochrony" onwards, I've gotta say they're both roughly on par. I learned McLuhan through Dean -- obviously, the real gem there was McLuhan himself, not the bizarre spin Dean gave it.

Hugh presents a wealth of information and the conversation that's happening in this thread is really important, because it's about the real-world application of theoretical work that, even when Hugh isn't involved, often gets invoked as an "explanation" for media brainwashing. Working out the precise Nature of the Beast does matter. I just wish we could proceed in a less acrimonious way than banging our collective foreheads against the brick wall of Hugh's religious self-certainty.

But fuck it, any catalyst is still a catalyst.

Side note: I know who the martian is, Hugh. I have a folder on him.

[Nordic]

Hugh presents a wealth of information and the conversation that's happening in this thread is really important, because it's about the real-world application of theoretical work that, even when Hugh isn't involved, often gets invoked as an "explanation" for media brainwashing. Working out the precise Nature of the Beast does matter. .

That's why his "conclusions" are so infuriating.

The brainwashing is certainly happening, but he's seeing faces in the clouds.

You can see far more of this stuff at work by watching a couple of hours of CNN than you can EVER by looking at movie posters. Ya know?

I mean, TV is where the real propaganda is. Especially in the so-called "news".

[Sounder]

Wombaticus Rex

But fuck it, any catalyst is still a catalyst.

I so agree and a catalyst is not something to be believed in anyway, it simply gets things going.

There is some fairly snappy and well constructed dialogue in this thread. Yet the impression remains that this catalytic reaction process needs other catalysts before it will really get going.

Go ahead lurkers, take a shot.

[tazmic]

A cost benefit consideration of psyop movies leads me to question: Where are the fake adverts?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

[
But you can see that just by seeing it, too. By which I mean: It's possible to observe that it is what it is just by observing it operating in context, which has the advantage of also allowing you to observe it in proportion to other forces and powers. Not excluding your own autonomous self. And by extension the numerous other autonomous individuals all around you who are -- likewise and/or comparably -- observing that permanent powers are lying to or fucking them over, with whom you have therefore a common interest on which to base a common cause.

And since that's not only much more efficient but also has much greater potential from a realpolitik perspective, why waste your time and that of others getting all bogged down in details that have virtually no functional utility, even as a means to a generally consciousness-raising end?

Because I'd say that when staying on-message with your own communications strategy requires you continually to be reminding people that the enemy is an amorphous, omnipresent, many-tentacled beast that not only can but does covertly deprive large numbers of them of their ability to think and act for themselves on a daily basis, it's either time (a) to get a new communications strategist; or (b) just to fold up your tent and indulge in one final lost weekend (or whatever) before sending your resume and portfolio in to the Secret Team's publicity department, just in case they're interested in paying you to promote their supremacy intentionally rather than on accident.

My .02.

Amazingly brazen bullshit, compared2what. I knew you'd written this and I'd find it again.

'Exposing CIA psyops is to make them stronger,' you say. Reminds me of a 1967 CIA memo about JFK truth....

[barracuda]

You seriously bumped your own thread from a year and a half ago just to insult a forum member, dude? That's what it's come down to for you now? Because that's pitiful, frankly.

[Jeff]

Don't know what triggered that microburst, Hugh, but it was uncalled for and unwelcome.