Brainwashing America, Pentagon Style, Narrative Networks

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Brainwashing America, Pentagon Style, Narrative Networks

Postby eyeno » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:56 pm

Brainwashing America, Pentagon-style!
http://rt.com/usa/news/darpa-fast-penta ... ative-151/
Published: 18 October, 2011, 23:57

Image


The Pentagon is about to crank the propaganda machine up to 11. According to a new report, the Department of Defense is attempting to find out what makes a person easily influenced in hopes of swaying them towards supporting their own causes.

In a report published this week by Wired.com’s Danger Room, they reveal that Pentagon researchers working in its DARPA division has begun work on a program called Narrative Networks. Under this initiative, scientists in the high-techh Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency are scanning brain patterns and other body functions to see how stories shape the minds of audiences, and who is most vulnerable to be swayed by persuasion. From there, the DoD can counter brainwashed terrorists with an agenda of their own.

Or, perhaps, brainwash anyone they chose.

“The government is already trying to control the message, so why not have the science to do it in a systematic way?”a researcher close to the project told the Danger Room.

A neuroscience researcher involved in the project adds that scientists are specifically looking into how story-telling shapes the minds of listeners so that they can identify who is most vulnerable to the recruiting tactics of terrorists. In its first stages, the Narrative Networks projects aims to “explore the function narratives serve in the process of political radicalization and how they can influence a person or group’s choice of means (such as indiscriminant violence) to achieve political ends.” And to figure this out, they will be investigating the role that social media has on peoples’ thinking process.

Do you “like” your friend’s Facebook post? DARPA wants to know why. Soon after, they hope, you’ll be giving them the thumbs up yourself.

In the second face, Danger Room reports, researchers will be constructing hardware and software to analyze how people perceive stories, going as far as to use non-detectable sensors to monitor internal and external reactions.

Sound space age? It’s coming sooner than you think.

Last week RT reported that the Department of Homeland Security has already begun work on an operation called the FAST project, in which they’ve monitored the psychophysiological measurements of test subjects’ breathing, blink patterns and speech rhythms in order to pin-point security threats based solely on biological functions.

Did reading this make you uneasy? The government wants to know (and they already might).
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Brainwashing America, Pentagon Style, Narrative Networks

Postby Saurian Tail » Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:00 pm

People have been trained to be empty vessels. DARPA wants to fill them up. See the bin Laden killing.
"Taking it in its deepest sense, the shadow is the invisible saurian tail that man still drags behind him." -Carl Jung
User avatar
Saurian Tail
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Brainwashing America, Pentagon Style, Narrative Networks

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:22 am

B.S. 'Wired' magazine is 100% psyops for techno-nerds, a potentially dangerous demographic...in case they find out what up. Must recruit them to NSA and DIA etc. I've analyzed their shelf hard copy layout and it's classic subliminal pysops as outlined by Fred Landis for the Church (Senate investigative) Committtee back in 1975.

This article is misdirection, pretending that this tactic is a New Thang.

It goes back to before WWII. See 'Office of War Information' and 'Bureau of Motion Pictures' and 'Office of Special Operations.'
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Brainwashing America, Pentagon Style, Narrative Networks

Postby eyeno » Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:58 am

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:B.S. 'Wired' magazine is 100% psyops for techno-nerds, a potentially dangerous demographic...in case they find out what up. Must recruit them to NSA and DIA etc. I've analyzed their shelf hard copy layout and it's classic subliminal pysops as outlined by Fred Landis for the Church (Senate investigative) Committtee back in 1975.

This article is misdirection, pretending that this tactic is a New Thang.

It goes back to before WWII. See 'Office of War Information' and 'Bureau of Motion Pictures' and 'Office of Special Operations.'



This is not the first time that I have heard that Wired is psyop bullshit. So I am open to hearing what anyone has to say about wired.

Matter of fact I think some other people in this forum have expressed doubt about Wired.

Is Wired a psyop plant in our community?

I honestly don't know but i'm open to the prospect...i'm always open...
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Brainwashing America, Pentagon Style, Narrative Networks

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:22 am

Does corporate money bias reporting? Of course it does. The funny part is, Spencer Ackerman, their actual Pentagon reporter, is dope and breaks tons of stories, while their news editor, the "cool" rebel hacker, is Kevin Poulson, who is buddies with Llamo and helped fuck Manning's life permanently.

My problem with Hugh's theological conception of media is that it leaves no room for humanity -- it's just Lasswell's equations, iterating infinitely in a vast empty set. Memes, all the way down. Fuck that noise -- every bit as hollow and depressing and soul-destroying as the messages Hugh is claiming to fight.

Wired is just a magazine. It's full of people, though.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10313
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Brainwashing America, Pentagon Style, Narrative Networks

Postby eyeno » Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:29 am

Wombaticus Rex wrote:Does corporate money bias reporting? Of course it does. The funny part is, Spencer Ackerman, their actual Pentagon reporter, is dope and breaks tons of stories, while their news editor, the "cool" rebel hacker, is Kevin Poulson, who is buddies with Llamo and helped fuck Manning's life permanently.

My problem with Hugh's theological conception of media is that it leaves no room for humanity -- it's just Lasswell's equations, iterating infinitely in a vast empty set. Memes, all the way down. Fuck that noise -- every bit as hollow and depressing and soul-destroying as the messages Hugh is claiming to fight.

Wired is just a magazine. It's full of people, though.




Ok....mmm...errrr...i'm down with that...but...mmmmm..... But I don't understand what all that means because I have no idea who all these people you speak of are. Can you break that down into more yes or no fashion?
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Brainwashing America, Pentagon Style, Narrative Networks

Postby norton ash » Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:47 am

All things in time, narc.
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 3840
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Brainwashing America, Pentagon Style, Narrative Networks

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:48 pm

eyeno wrote:Can you break that down into more yes or no fashion?



Yes, definitely: No, I don't do that.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10313
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Brainwashing America, Pentagon Style, Narrative Networks

Postby Simulist » Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:13 pm

Do you “like” your friend’s Facebook post? DARPA wants to know why. Soon after, they hope, you’ll be giving them the thumbs up yourself.

They'll be disappointed. I have another digit in mind.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Brainwashing America, Pentagon Style, Narrative Networks

Postby MinM » Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:27 am

Wired’s Weird Propaganda and the Most Dangerous Man in the World

By Nima Shirazi | Wide Asleep in America | December 22, 2012
Image
Iranian Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani, Wired writer Robert Beckhusen

The wizards of Wired‘s Danger Room blog have posted a year-end click-bait listicle identifying who they – Spencer Ackerman, David Axe, Nathan Shachtman, and Robert Beckhusen – believe to be “The 15 Most Dangerous People in the World.”

While Paul Broadwell starts the list for some strange reason, Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan clocks in at number four (with entry author Ackerman studiously avoiding any mention of Brennan’s rampant lies over the murderous drone program he oversees, or the staggering civilian death toll for which Brennan and his boss are personally responsible) and Bashar al-Assad at number two, the Danger Roomers peg Iranian Brigadier General Ghasem Soleimani (they write it as Qassem Suleimani) – head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Qods Force – as the single most dangerous man on Earth.

Beckhuser, who wrote the final entry for Wired, begins with a truly bizarre formulation. ”As the country most likely to spark a world war,” he writes, “Iran has to be considered the most dangerous country on the planet.”

Let’s read that again and then unpack it. Iran – in Beckhuser’s estimation (one that he seems to think is a pretty uncontroversial assumption) – is “the country most likely to spark a world war.” (emphasis added) In fact, United States intelligence has long held that Iran maintains defensive capabilities and has a military doctrine of self-defense and retaliation, but will not begin a conflict.

In April 2010, Defense Intelligence Agency director Lieutenant General Ronald L. Burgess told the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, “Iran’s military strategy is designed to defend against external threats, particularly from the United States and Israel. Its principles of military strategy include deterrence, asymmetrical retaliation, and attrition warfare.”

Burgess’ intelligence report, delivered in conjunction with his testimony, also included the assessment that Iran maintains a “defensive military doctrine, which is designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities,” and that “Iranian military training and public statements echo this defensive doctrine of delay and attrition.” The identical position was reaffirmed by Burgess’ testimony in March 2011, during which he explained that, if attacked, “Iran could attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz temporarily with its navy, threaten the United States and its allies in the region with missiles, and employ terrorist [sic] surrogates worldwide. However, we assess Iran is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict or launch a preemptive attack.”

This year, Burgess repeated these conclusions (which have been the consensus view of U.S. intelligence for years), reiterating that the Defense Intelligence Agency “assesses Iran is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict.”

So what does Beckhuser mean when he claims that Iran is ”the country most likely to spark a world war”? While an unprovoked attack on Iran is widely seen as a terrible, “stupid” idea (and a war crime of obvious and unequivocal illegality) by those not of the neoconservative persuasion, and one that could potentially lead to a global conflagration, the idea that Iran would start such a war is not actually a consideration. Even former Israeli Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy warned, “An attack on Iran could affect not only Israel, but the entire region for 100 years.” Note how the potential attack suggested by Levy is on Iran by an unmentioned aggressor, and not by Iran on any other country.

Maybe that’s why Beckhuser wrote “spark” rather than “start.”

In so doing, however, the Wired writer is effectively – in this warped thought experiment – blaming Iran for getting itself attacked by Israel or the United States. He appears to be saying that if Iran responds to a foreign military assault, it would somehow be culpable for “sparking” a global conflict, the instigator of a new world war. The twisted logic of such an assertion reveals a very specific perception of Iran as a perennial provocateur of violence visited upon itself...

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2012/12 ... the-world/

eyeno wrote:
Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:B.S. 'Wired' magazine is 100% psyops for techno-nerds, a potentially dangerous demographic...in case they find out what up. Must recruit them to NSA and DIA etc. I've analyzed their shelf hard copy layout and it's classic subliminal pysops as outlined by Fred Landis for the Church (Senate investigative) Committtee back in 1975.

This article is misdirection, pretending that this tactic is a New Thang.

It goes back to before WWII. See 'Office of War Information' and 'Bureau of Motion Pictures' and 'Office of Special Operations.'



This is not the first time that I have heard that Wired is psyop bullshit. So I am open to hearing what anyone has to say about wired.

Matter of fact I think some other people in this forum have expressed doubt about Wired.

Is Wired a psyop plant in our community?

I honestly don't know but i'm open to the prospect...i'm always open...
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Brainwashing America, Pentagon Style, Narrative Networks

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:53 am

Anyone reporting on NatSec is being played, targeted, and used. James Bamford's career is the best exemplar of this, the balancing game of 1) relaying and enabling limited hangout narratives in exchange for information related to other stories, 2) curating multiple sources for "objectivity" yet never knowing if they're working in concert to manipulate your work, 3) toeing the line that keeps you more interesting than a fawning servant like James Fallows, yet also manages to keep you from resembling the last acts of Danny Casolaro and Steve Kangas.

Anyone reporting on Leviathan gets played far more often than they get scoops. Danger Room was inevitably a target, and on balance I think they've done way more good than bad. All of your information sources are compromised. Publishing pro-Iran puffery from hired poodles does not detract from Ackerman's accomplishments in my eyes. He goes to work. We all do.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10313
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Brainwashing America, Pentagon Style, Narrative Networks

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:17 pm

As a thinker you hold more extreme contradictions than you may realize.

Like, this is just brilliant, as far as summaries go:

Wombaticus Rex wrote:Anyone reporting on NatSec is being played, targeted, and used. James Bamford's career is the best exemplar of this, the balancing game of 1) relaying and enabling limited hangout narratives in exchange for information related to other stories, 2) curating multiple sources for "objectivity" yet never knowing if they're working in concert to manipulate your work, 3) toeing the line that keeps you more interesting than a fawning servant like James Fallows, yet also manages to keep you from resembling the last acts of Danny Casolaro and Steve Kangas.


Where this ends I cannot accept:

Anyone reporting on Leviathan gets played far more often than they get scoops. Danger Room was inevitably a target, and on balance I think they've done way more good than bad. All of your information sources are compromised. Publishing pro-Iran puffery from hired poodles does not detract from Ackerman's accomplishments in my eyes. He goes to work. We all do.


Of course, you mean pro-war-on-Iran puffery. And yes it does detract. Especially when it's intended to be the most read and quoted article by far. Also, how does the fourth sentence even follow from the third?
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 14345
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Brainwashing America, Pentagon Style, Narrative Networks

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:30 pm

Aye: Nothing but contradictions, all the way down.

And you're quite right to correct me, interesting that I view the word "Iran" itself as shorthand for the Israel-financed campaign to get the United States to attack that country.

Someone's messaging is working nicely.

However -- do you really think Beckheusen/Beckheuser's pick on a year-end list is going to have more impact than Ackerman's revelations last year about Islamophobic FBI Training? I don't even think you could compare the two in terms of traffic / readership.

Ackerman was also one of the only sane voices in the immediate aftermath of Benghazi. (Please bear in mind that this is defense of Ackerman as a good source of information, not as a moral free agent. I think there is a great deal of baby in the Danger Room bathwater and it's mostly Ackerman and David Axe.)
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10313
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Brainwashing America, Pentagon Style, Narrative Networks

Postby MinM » Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:42 pm

@jeremyscahill: I see 60 Minutes is promoting the falsehood that Awlaki was "the head of al Qaeda in Yemen" http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/1 ... Numbers%29

https://twitter.com/jeremyscahill/statu ... 2576164864
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests