Does RI recognize history/science vs pro Mind Bending?

[barracuda]

I can't help but think back to the coincidences that both Roald Dahl and St-Exupery were active in intel, that they both wrote seminal texts about a pilot stranded in the desert, and that their work was picked up by major media concerns. It isn't that hard to imagine a plan at work here.

Yes, but imagining a plan and showing that it exists in actuality are two very different things, with two very different set of consequences. As of yet, in the case of Dahl, there has been no evidence that he ever wrote psyop propaganda for children after the war, and to intimate that this is proven, as Hugh does regularly, is another example of how his writing cannot be taken seriously. He consistently despoils his own argument.

[brainpanhandler]

I was really hoping the Ihop menu would have a pancake item that included the term tower in it's description. Alas. But they do have an item marked "new", called New York Cheesecake Pancakes. "four fluffy buttermilk pancakes loaded with creamy, rich cheescake pieces and crowned with cool strawberry topping, powdered sugar and whipped cream".

http://www.ihop.com/index.php?option=co ... view&id=31

Now as it turns out the phrase "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." is apparently a significant phrase from a fema report of an analysis of steel from the twin towers.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... index.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... rt=90&sa=N

Also, the white dust (powdered sugar) at the wtc site is considered key evidence of a thermitic reaction.

Wait, these idiots have got it all wrong. They're directing people to the truth.

Sorry doc. I agree that psyops is a serious subject and I usually manage to steer clear of most of the serious subjects on the board, but I also obviously agree that the specific instances Hugh proposes are just about universally highly dubious and not worthy of any certainty at all. You've been reading here long enough to know all the standards by now that elicit endless derision. On this board it does not really turn people away from more obvious and demonstrable examples of state engineered agitprop, but it has the potential to. I can't really say my attempts at levity are motivated by anything more noble than my own amusement, which is not very noble at all, but there is also the desire to give my old pal Hugh a friendly elbow in the ribs. I like Hugh.

[Nordic]

Of course propaganda's a very serious topic. It's an extremely serious topic. That's why Hugh pisses me off so much.

Because he takes a serious topic and turns it into ludicrous nonsense.

He does a disservice to the study of propaganda.

100% disservice.

And, BTW why is everybody acting surprised about obvious propaganda on The History Channel. That's one of that channel's main reasons for existing. But it's kind of crude. It's not nearly as sophisticated as, say, CNN.

[compared2what?]

In other words, "could you lie to uninformed individuals and by doing so lead them to false understandings?" The answer would be yes, but the pathway there is a highly complex one which follows extremely overt layers of misinformation rather than subliminal suggestions in order to get there.

Actually, when it comes to exceptionally consequential subjects -- such as wars, assassinations, terrorist attacks, and so forth -- you can usually lie to informed individuals and by doing so lead then to false understandings. Meaning "you, an operative with some communication skillz," not "you, whoever the hell you are."

Just tell them what they want to hear. And if you can't make them feel good about themselves, make them feel bad about other people.

It is, in fact, that simple. In terms of the "psy" part of it, anyway. I assume that the part that involves composing and distributing the messages is at least as complicated as any other large-scale creative endeavor in a communications medium that has to meet a clearly defined demand within very narrow stylistic and lenght parameters -- eg, advertising. That shit's very hard to do. You can tell by the money they make.

But people-influencing in itself only needs to use elaborate and arcane cognitive techniques when you're in the business of influencing them to make enormous immediate personal sacrfices of some kind. Recruiting for the military, for example. Other than that, there's not much reason to go beyond the plain old straight-up non-high-tech-dependent behavioral psych basics: Push this lever, get food pellet. Push that lever, get electric shock.

It works. If you don't mind making the people whose opinions and attitudes you're influencing so miserable that you'll probably have to come back and influence their opinions again periodically forever or until people stop fucking with other people's minds. Which I guess is probably at some point after the rapture, though I don't really know. I've never spent enough time living with that tradition to be on a truly intimate basis with all its little details.

[smiths]

if roald dhal was writing propaganda i think you'd find it was for anarchists

as a person with an eight year old son who has spent the last four years reading roald dhal thoroughly and repeatedly i can certify that when there is a message it is for kids (people) to think for themselves and to fuck the rich and powerful however they can,

the fox does it, the bfg does it, danny champion of the world does it

propaganda my arse

[barracuda]

Actually, when it comes to exceptionally consequential subjects -- such as wars, assassinations, terrorist attacks, and so forth -- you can usually lie to informed individuals and by doing so lead then to false understandings. Meaning "you, an operative with some communication skillz," not "you, whoever the hell you are."

Just tell them what they want to hear. And if you can't make them feel good about themselves, make them feel bad about other people.

Yes, but there's certainly a percentage of that equation that shakes down realistically to "willful misunderstanding" - I hope - the concept of which seems rather germane to the OP. For example, it takes supreme suspension of disbelief at this point in time for a well informed person with a critical thinking apparatus attached and intact to view untruths regarding the moral superiority of the U.S. of A. as anything but the flimsiest of parlour illusions, hidden rebuses in movie posters notwithstanding.

Not to say we aren't all capable of deluding ourselves, or allowing others to nudge us along that road. But when someone offers you candy to climb into their car, you need to seriously think about how much you like "taking the chocolate", to use Hannibal Lecter's memorable phrasing.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Besides that list of keywords regarding mnemonics and neurolinguistics...

You must also study the work of Milton Erickson regarding INDIRECT SUGGESTION...

Recommended reading:
'Hypnotic Realities: The Induction of Clinical Hypnosis and Forms of Indirect Suggestion'
by Milton H. Erickson, Ernest l. Rossi & Sheila I. Rossi (1976)

This book plus 'The Control of Candy Jones' (1976) ended up in Steve CIA Spielberg's 1977 movie, 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind.'

Spielberg and his CIA advisors worked hard to hide how MKULTRA has ended up in the psynema.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

if roald dhal was writing propaganda...
.....
propaganda my arse

When barracuda balked at the idea of MI6 Roald Dahl writing propaganda in my Gremlins thread, I re-examined Dahl's kiddie books.

More psyops than I'm willing to sit here and type out. Yes, he did.

Examples:

When a former British Member of Parliament published an accusation that CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of the Nazi escape network called 'Der Spinnae' or 'The Spider'...we got 'Spiderman' from CIA-Marvel Comics
AND
Dahl published a story about a spider enabling escape overseas...called 'James and the Giant Peach.'

In 1966 the JFK assassination cover-up was really coming apart.
So Dahl gave the kidz reinforcement of the keyword/memes they might overhear from the adult's table with
'The Amazing Mister Fox':
> underground red fox ('Oswald was a commie')
> three farmers with guns ('three shots only')

That's how subliminal psyops works - reinforcement of cover stories using keywords and memes in the form of Milton Erickson's indirect suggestions and intercontextual cues.

[Nordic]

if roald dhal was writing propaganda...
.....
propaganda my arse

When barracuda balked at the idea of MI6 Roald Dahl writing propaganda in my Gremlins thread, I re-examined Dahl's kiddie books.

More psyops than I'm willing to sit here and type out. Yes, he did.

Examples:

When a former British Member of Parliament published an accusation that CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of the Nazi escape network called 'Der Spinnae' or 'The Spider'...we got 'Spiderman' from CIA-Marvel Comics
AND
Dahl published a story about a spider enabling escape overseas...called 'James and the Giant Peach.'

In 1966 the JFK assassination cover-up was really coming apart.
So Dahl gave the kidz reinforcement of the keyword/memes they might overhear from the adult's table with
'The Amazing Mister Fox':
> underground red fox ('Oswald was a commie')
> three farmers with guns ('three shots only')

That's how subliminal psyops works - reinforcement of cover stories using keywords and memes in the form of Milton Erickson's indirect suggestions and intercontextual cues.

[orz]

Hugh you are evil stop harming us with your vile posts

[compared2what?]

Words cannot express how sorry I am that I ever started down this path. But I can't just stand by and let Milton Erickson's work be so grossly misrepresented that it's barely even a representation to begin with at this stage of the game. And I've never been Milton Erickson's biggest fan, even. Life is very unjust.

But fwiw: Erickson did no work whatsoever that has any potential for mass-media KWH psy-ops. None. He does have a legacy in deep politics of a kind, because he pretty much invented modern hypnotherapy, which do include techniques that an unethical person could use to induce trance states in others without their being aware of it. If they were in close enough physical proximity to the unethical person to be under his or her influence. Scientology uses an Ericksonian-derived technique in their introductory-level audting, for example.

That doesn't make Hugh's comments about his contributions to the field any less inaccurate and misleading, though, I regret to say.
____________

Also, nothing but love, however: Language, orz, that's not necessary, come on.

[Telexx]

I second C2W's comments about Erickson. Having read many of his books (plus those of Hans Eysenck, Clark L Hull, and Bandler & Grinder) HMW's comments here are no more credible than that "EXPOSING OBAMA'S DECEPTION MAY BE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY" PDF that was flying around last year...

Kthx,

Telexx

[barracuda]

I'd like to take this opportunity to heartily recommend that everyone with children ought take the time to introduce the experience of reading Roald Dahl's books into the lives and minds of their young-uns while they are still malleable enough to be somewhat permanently influenced. Though you may have to actually buy the books, as Dahl is indeed on the American Library Association's list of the most frequently challenged authors of the 21st century, but not, startlingly, for any of the insipid reason's Hugh has boringly outlined in his many endlessly pointless tirades.



The 1961 edition of James and the Giant Peach with illustrations by Nancy Ekholm Burkert is my personal favorite version, but you may choose to enable fascism through the enjoyment of good books in your own preferred manner.

[monster]

The 1961 edition of James and the Giant Peach with illustrations by Nancy Ekholm Burkert is my personal favorite version, but you may choose to enable fascism through the enjoyment of good books in your own preferred manner.

I remember reading that book in third grade, I absolutely loved it.

[compared2what?]

The 1961 edition of James and the Giant Peach with illustrations by Nancy Ekholm Burkert is my personal favorite version, but you may choose to enable fascism through the enjoyment of good books in your own preferred manner.

I remember reading that book in third grade, I absolutely loved it.

I did too. Read it over and over.

I like to take this opportunity to heartily recommend that everyone with children ought take the time to introduce the experience of reading Roald Dahl's books into the lives and minds of their young-uns while they are still malleable enough to be somewhat permanently influenced. Though you may have to actually buy the books, as Dahl is indeed on the American Libray Association's list of the most frequently challenged authors of the 21st century, but not, startlingly, for any of the insipid reason's Hugh has boringly outlined in his many endlessly pointless tirades.



The 1961 edition of James and the Giant Peach with illustrations by Nancy Ekholm Burkert is my personal favorite version, but you may choose to enable fascism through the enjoyment of good books in your own preferred manner.

Honey, did you mean to link to this list, showing Dahl with two books in the top fifty of the ALA's most-frequently-banned/challenged-books-by-decade list?

I second everything you wrote and am not quibbling. I just can't figure out what I'm supposed to see at the link. Because I'm not too bright.