HMW, what's your take on this?

by **NavnDansk** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:44 am

There was an interesting book called MIMETIC DESIRE about several of Shakespeare's plays and "advertising" influencing others behavior focus. The theme covered in OTHELLO was of just how IAGO plant ideas in Othello's mind and that of his loyal captain without their realizing it. Laurence Olivier wrote in his second autobiography a long section on his preparations to play Othello and focused on the theme that Othello was an outsider and so played the noble savage military man to the point that he was so focused on his performance and CONVINCING HIMSELF that the image he was trying maintain that he did not have the energy to see Iago's manipulations of his weakness which Othello was trying to deny to himself that he had. Olivier's father was so focused on being a good religious man and was fired up by an evangelical tent meeting and quit his steady job as a curate to make tours but was not successful and Olivier blamed the death of his mother on the hardships and starvation that his father's being in denial that he was trying to serve Christ by quitting his job and becoming for a time a traveling preacher. Olivier's father when he went back to the established church and had a steady job had many friends in the acting establishment and it was his father's dream and help that turned Olivier into an actor. Olivier was pleased by this choice for his own career and the help he received but the fact that his father, himself, wanted to be a performer caused him to lie to himself about his motivation for quitting a steady job to be an unsuccessful traveling evangelist and the effect on his family was a deep and bitter thing which Olivier never could forget or forgive. Olivier used this personal knowledge on how people fool themselves into to understanding Othello's lack of protection against Iago's powerful and subtle brainwashing, slipping doubts and "proof" of his wife's infidelity and his friend's betrayal into his mind. There are sections in MIMETIC DESIRE about this theme in Julius Ceaser and the longest and most brilliant analysis of influencing people to gain advantage is in the play Triolius and Cresida. At the end everyone is madly trying to influence each other but although the manpulations worked well in the beginning when everyone got in on the act it created a spectacular mess. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=navndansk>NavnDansk</A> at: 6/21/06 5:39 am

by **professorpan** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:36 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Huxley’s legal experimentations with LSD, which is a horribly destructive drug, I think, and his book THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION which just preceded and influenced the 60’s “Drug Culture” I think was an example of Huxley being manipulated and in turn manipulating public opinion for something Huxley thought was the greater good since he was very interested in spiritual experiences esp. to put against the pain and suffering and injustice of this world and that was misused the PTBs in their think tanks and other ways of “influencing” and social engineering.<hr></blockquote> Huxley, and countless others, would disagree about LSD and other entheogens being "horribly destructive." Huxley's wife, Laura, honored his wishes by giving him LSD as he was dying. I can't see how Huxley was "manipulated." He formed his own opinions after taking LSD and mescaline, and found the substances to be very useful in his spiritual and intellectual development.

by **professorpan** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:06 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think you just disagree with me for your stated reasons and I will continue the discussion of what is possible because that certainly counts in determining what is therefore probable. As long as we can stay amicable and try not to be insulting we can have a grand ole chew on things. But be warned, I'm right and you're wrong. lol.<hr></blockquote> Hugh, I have always found you to be respectful of criticisms. I'm always up for a grand ole chew, particularly with your creative brain -- in spite of my disagreement with your wilder speculation. Someday, perhaps, we'll share some nachos? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D">

by **johnny nemo** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:25 pm

I've looked at Huxley from both sides; that of a visionary who prophetically warns of the coming dystopia in Brave New World and that of the grandson of an occultist who helped create a drug culture in America. Check this out and decide for yourself. I must warn you that the info is from Lydon LaRouche's camp, so it must be taken with a grain of salt. Bear in mind, however, that the first mention of the Bush family's financial dealings with the Nazis was exposed by LaRouche's people. <a href="http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/aquarian.htm">www.biblebelievers.org.au/aquarian.htm</a> In an effort to provide some unbiased thoughts on Huxley, here is from Timothy Leary and Eric Gullicson's unpublished book The Cybernetic Society, written in 1987. In the fall of 1960, Huxley was Carnegie Visiting Professor at MIT. His assignment: to give a series of seven lectures on the subject "What a Piece of Work is Man." About 2,000 people attended each lecture. Aldous spent most of his off-duty hours hanging around the Harvard Psychedelic Drug Project coaching us innocent novice Americans in the history of mysticism and the ceremonial care-and-handling of what he called "gratuitous grace." In the late '30s Huxley, having worked out his vein of irony, followed Hesse into the Third Stage of Hegelian Transcendence. This, naturally enough, involved a migration to Southern California where Aldous joined the legendary Golden Age of Far-Western Philosophy personified by Thomas Mann, Christopher Isherwood, Alan Watts, Swami Yogananda, Gerald Heard, Cary Grant, et al. There, amid the palm trees, Aldous devoted the rest of his life to psyberdelic philosophy and test-tub mysticism, both theoretical and experimental.

by **professorpan** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:29 pm

Johnny, I don't see anything sinister in those excerpts. Mysticism does not equal occultism, and none of those listed (Mann, Watts, etc.) have been linked to anything dark and/or criminal, as far as I am aware.

by jc » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:03 pm

just read this and found it relevant to rhe gen theme, here it is: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>John Sutherland meets a man who knows what you are thinking John Sutherland Tuesday June 20, 2006 Guardian Cognitive philosophy - "brain science", as its practitioners call it - is a rarefied academic field. But that hasn't prevented Hollywood from optioning Steve Quartz. Not, alas, for a movie (The Wittgenstein Code?) but for the cutthroat business of marketing them. Quartz, it's thought, can forecast what the notoriously unpredictable audience for film "really" wants better than the audience themselves. In his laboratory, Quartz uses functional brain imaging, or fMRI, to measure humans' responses to such classics as Casablanca. "Essentially, people are placed inside an enormous magnet," he says. "And then we look to see small changes in blood flow. It's a way of tapping, in a totally non-invasive way, into brain activity." The moneymen in LA were quick to lease his technique. More money was in prospect - and safer money. As Quartz points out, the margin of profit for the industry is "somewhere in the area of 4%". They need all the help they can get. It's not just celluloid. Neuromarketing will be the coming across the entire field of retailing. Reading the customer's brain will, Quartz believes, replace the clipboard and stop-you-in-the-street market survey and other primitive research techniques that commerce relies on to get its act right. The standard view is that you can't foretell what people will want. Has Quartz, with his philosophical know-how and futuristic machinery, solved that problem? "I think brain science is really beginning to explore the relationship between objective measures and subjective measures of things like taste and preferences," he replies. "When we make a decision there are, of course, conscious components in play. But it turns out that our brain is also tracking a lot of things that we may not be consciously aware of." So are Quartz and his fellow brain scientists trying to programme us, to turn us into robots? "No, I don't think so. My brain science approach is complementary to the kinds of behavioural things that people have been doing for a long time. It's a way of trying to gauge and measure in areas where, hitherto, we have had very little introspective access. It's a way of getting a new window into those places. And it's more a means of measuring preferences rather than a technique for manipulating choice." Quartz's ideas cross traditional boundaries. He's both a philosopher and an experimental neurobiologist. And he's also creating a nexus (a very profitable one) between the university lab and the marketplace. Is he happy about that? "I'm very drawn to that nexus. I think from the philosophical perspective it's a very interesting new development. We are now with brain science where we were 20 years ago with biotechnology - that point in time, for example, when genetics was about to have significant real-world applications. With brain imaging we're at the point where we can look scientifically at decision-making. And from there we too will move on to applications in the political realm, or the economic realm, or the legal realm." Does he see significant patterns when he puts all the test results together? That women, for instance, prefer different things from men, young people from old people and so on? "It does work that way. One of the widespread public concerns about brain imaging technology is that it's a way of prying into individuals' minds. The fact is, we're really much more interested in aggregate data with which we can begin to form conclusions about different groups - whether defined by gender, age or demography." Do his results largely agree with the methods that Hollywood has traditionally used (showing previews to trial audiences), or traditional market survey methods? "There's some agreement. But we find that with many of the measures we come up with, using brain science, there is no corresponding measure that can be turned up using the traditional methodologies. Those methodologies find some things very difficult, or impossible, to measure. 'Memorability' is a good example of this. If you ask people, 'How memorable is something?' with a view to finding out how long will it stick in their mind, they find it very hard to answer. That information, incidentally, is very important with movies where you may see a trailer months before the film is released. "We know that there are regions of the brain that are involved in the encoding of long-term memories. And if we look there for activity, we can predict how likely it is that someone will remember in the future having seen this or that item. That's valuable for all sorts of communication strategies in marketing. The modern consumer is inundated with marketing messages - most of which don't make it into our memory at all. "Another measure that you can't extract with traditional methods is 'salience' - in other words, how interesting a stimulus is for our brain. About 80% of processes in the brain are unconscious and most of those processes are automatically filtering, at their unconscious level, the world around us to decide whether something is worthy of sending upstairs for attention. Only the things that the brain decides are salient, or interesting, get sent up into our conscious mind. You can't interrogate people about things that. So finding out things like that, with brain science, is important. Take something as mundane as picking out a box of cereal, or a magazine cover, from a host of competing similar products. The producer dearly wants to know what will stand out, or capture the consumer's attention. "The maybe not-so-dirty secret of marketing is that there's not a whole lot of evidence that traditional research works. Typically marketing budgets follow the successful product, rather than the other way around. And even in design, 95% of new products fail. What brain imaging does is to figure a way to find better and more effective ways of offering service to the customer." So, as they used to say of the customer, the brain is always right? "Yes, I think that's correct". · Steven Quartz is director of the Social Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology. A list of his publications can be found at steve/quartz<hr></blockquote>

by jc » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:09 pm

<a href="http://film.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329509043-101730,00.html">film.guardian.co.uk/print....html</a><a href="http://film.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329509043-101730,00.html">brain imaging hollywood</a>

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:36 am

What is the deal with the psychedelic movement? What do you think would have happened if Wassons knowledge had never made it public. Via the calipsychedelic movement.

by **johnny nemo** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:37 pm

No offense, prof, but you never seem to anything sinister in anything. I'm not talking about mysticism, I'm talking about Illuminatism. You obviously didn't even read the Aquarian Conspiracy link I sent, which is a shame. If nothing else, the name Christopher Isherwood should alarm everyone, especially his involvement with the notorious Dr. Hirschfeld, and the psychopathic eugenicist Alfred C. Kinsey who sexually abused 317 infants and young boys. You can read the whole disgusting truth here. <a href="http://www.rsvpamerica.org/chapter%202.pdf">www.rsvpamerica.org/chapter%202.pdf</a> Dr. Hirschfeld established the world’s first Institute for Sexology, in Berlin in 1919, organizing it into four departments: Sexual Biology, Sexual Medicine, Sexual Sociology and Sexual Ethnology. Englishman Christopher Isherwood wrote three novels aboutlife in Berlin at this time from which the stage production and movie Caberet was drawn.Isherwood, a pederast, summarized his German experience as saying “Berlin is for boys.” In his autobiography, Christopher and His Kind, 1929-, Isherwood describes the general activities and events at Hirschfeld’s Institute and the incongruity of respectable elegance in the dining hall while in another chamber “live exhibits …. whips, chains and other sexual torture instruments” were used routinely by Hirschfeld’s “patients,” Nazis and others, as part of their “therapy.” Isherwood notes that, in Germany, Hirschfeld was a very public advocate for sex between consenting individuals which included children and adults.The German sex researcher advocated tolerance and called Americans sexual “hypocrites”– terms to be popularized by Kinsey in later years. An early leader in the Wandervogel [organized German youth], Hans Blueher, gives an important record of his visit to Hirshfeld and to his Institute in Berlin:[/i] I was led into the study of the “Wise Man of Berlin” (as he was called). . . Sitting on a silk covered fauteuil, legs under him like a Turk, was an individual with bloated lips and cunning, dimly coveting eyes who offered me a fleshy hand and introduced himself as Dr.Hirshfeld. . . [Later in a meeting of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee, the most influential homosexual organization in the German “gay rights” movement] the first to greet me was a corporal with a deep bass voice; he was however, wearing women’s clothes.. .“A so-called transvestite!” commented Dr. Hirschfeld, whose nickname was “Aunt Magnesia,” and introduced us. . . Then a most beautiful youth appeared. . . “A hermaph-rodite!” said Hirshfeld. “Why don’t you come to me during my office hours tomorrow, you can see him naked then”. . . An older gentleman in his sixties. . .recited a poem. . .to a sixteen year old youth, full of yearning. . .I [suddenly realized] I was in the middle of a brothel.

by **professorpan** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:27 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>No offense, prof, but you never seem to anything sinister in anything. I'm not talking about mysticism, I'm talking about Illuminatism.<hr></blockquote> I find plenty of things sinister, Johnny. But you're smearing Huxley because he was associated with a pederast (Isherwood). And that's not fair. I've read quite a bit about Huxley's life, and he was never implicated in pedophilia. That's the problem with a lot of knee-jerk speculation on this board -- making serious accusations against people with no evidence. For all you know, one of your acquaintances could be a pedophile -- would you want to be linked to his or her behavior just because you know him/her? And if you're gonna call Huxley an "Illuminist" (whatever that actually means), then you should supply evidence when asked. So, I'm asking: What exactly is illuminatism/Illuminism, and where is evidence that Huxley was aligned with it?

by **johnny nemo** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:35 pm

I made another thread about the Sexual Revolution and it presents the same evidence which was in that Aquarian Conspiracy link I provided, which you never read. You should really stop putting your head in the sand and saying "There's nothing to see here, move along". You're missing out on some really fascinating and informative info by being a "serial rationalist".

by **Attack Ships on Fire** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I made another thread about the Sexual Revolution and it presents the same evidence which was in that Aquarian Conspiracy link I provided, which you never read.<hr></blockquote> Johnny, there are at least three separate conspiracy subject fields being banded about in this thread: 1) the discussion of Scientology; 2) the accusation that Hollywood films are filled with subversive mind control memes; 3) pedophelia and the discussion that noted thinkers of the 20th century may or may not have been linked to this subject. Now you're introducing your thoughts on the sexual revolution and the Aquarian conspiracy theory into this thread. That's a lot of conspiracy theory to digest and sift through. Each topic deserves its own thread to keep the conversation on track. My own personal check and balance system does not allow me to accept that multiple, widespread conspiracy exists everywhere and in nearly every field. The problem with all of this subject matter is that some of the evidence for certain conspiracies (say, JFK's assassination) is stronger than others, and if you follow the rabbit you can see how a belief in a conspiracy may be justified. However, even if I do believe that some conspiracies are indeed real, that doesn't mean everything that has the whiff of a conspiracy is the real deal. I don't know enough on the Aquarian and sexual revolution conspiracies that you mention but I do know a bit about the North American filmmaking process and I don't see a widespread sinister agenda to imbed thought control memes in these products. Many times I do see subtle forms of commercial branding, a Xeroxed and generic use of the reluctant hero motif made mainstream by the writings of Joseph Campbell and the use of similar story structure many times, but mostly this comes as a result of how a mainstream American movie is made behind the scenes by the studio, producers and business machinery. I don't see "Annapolis" being used as a means to insert "obey and command" structure into the minds of today's youth, but I also know that the US military has input into the storyline and presentation of that film. For more on this you should watch "Operation Hollywood", based on the book by David Robb. Of course the military wants to be presented in the best light possible, and Hollywood has more than enough instances of altering the official story to fit the Pentagon's wishes or to play up the importance of America in wars. Didn't see any Canadian or French troops storming the beach in "Saving Private Ryan", did you? The point that I'm trying to make is that you can let conspiracy thinking run away from you and pretty soon all that you see are dragons lurking behind every door.

by **johnny nemo** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:15 pm

I know you're correct about this thread becoming clogged, which is why I started another thread called "Sexual Revolution started by pedophiles". Check it out.

by **Attack Ships on Fire** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:29 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Check it out.<hr></blockquote> I'm trying to work my way through the RI forum today while also ghosting on some real world work. The problem I find is that there's so much interesting stuff, and most of it requires you to do research on it, that a 15 minute break can swiftly turn into 2, 3 or 4 hours of your time -- and I'm used to working and reading quickly. I only wish that all message forums that I hit presented this kind of interesting dilemma.

by **chillin** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:17 pm

I'm almost always at work when I check out what's up at RI as well, and therefore have a limited amount of time to sift through the various links posted. Asking people to check biblebelievers.org to learn the 'truth' about whatever is akin to suggesting people check annecoulter.com to learn the truth about the liberal agenda. Sure there may be a genuine fact or two embedded in a giant screed, but I really don't have the time to try and determine what bits of truth are hidden in that giant pile of horseshit.

HMW, what's your take on this?

Re: Serious Discussion of Topic

Re: SERIOUS discussion of the topic

Re: ProfPan: "John Hughes a tool of the illuminati.&

Huxley and The Aquarian Conspiracy

Re: Huxley and The Aquarian Conspiracy

upping the ante: weaponizing brain imaging?

link to org art here:

Re: link to org art here:

Red Queen and The Grand Scheme

Re: Red Queen and The Grand Scheme

Re: Red Queen and The Grand Scheme

Re: Red Queen and The Grand Scheme

Re: Red Queen and The Grand Scheme

Re: Red Queen and The Grand Scheme

re: Check it out

Who is online