The KWH Game MOVED

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Postby IanEye » Mon May 26, 2008 8:22 am

justdrew wrote:
brainpanhandler wrote:How come I understood that the social order is manufactured and enforced rather than natural by the time I was old enough to begin thinking for myself in these terms?


well, one experience that not everyone has or responds to the same...
childhood. school days. the other kids all say YOU broke the thing. you didn't, but teacher believes them, primarily because they spoke first and there's more of them than of you. Once she's decided you did it, nothing will convince her otherwise. ever.

another moment... when you notice that there are people who do not seem to give a rat's ass about following the religion they're happy to profess and preach but not even attempt to practice beyond going through the motions.

also, remember, there's a lot of damn good people working their asses off to get GOOD messages in the info stream as well, so you may have picked up some immunization that enables one to think about thinking early. or you could even blame the Paraclete.

some people seem to believe that 'thinking' is a painful difficult process that they simply DO NOT want to engage in. Others learn to enjoy that 'eureka' endorphin rush and never stop learning and thinking.

I have a saying... "I was raised by a pack of wild televisions"

(Speaking of which, I just got season one of Wonder Woman, watch the two part ep titled, "judgment from space" )


Great post, justdrew.

Image

Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman.
All the world's waiting for you,
and the power you possess.

In your satin tights,
Fighting for your rights
And the old Red, White and Blue.

Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman.
Now the world is ready for you,
and the wonders you can do.

Make a hawk a dove,
Stop a war with love,
Make a liar tell the truth.

Wonder Woman,
Get us out from under, Wonder Woman.
All our hopes are pinned on you.
And the magic that you do.

Stop a bullet cold,
Make the Axis fall,
Change their minds, and change the world.

Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman.
You're a wonder, Wonder Woman!


Image
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Postby stefano » Mon May 26, 2008 8:28 am

brainpanhandler wrote:Generally speaking I am appalled by the idiocy of the human species. Americans are ignorant, spoiled and childish. They've been made to be that way with astonishing effectiveness. And yet, somehow, there are plenty of folks who have been heavily exposed to psyops all their lives and are not drooling zombies with a hidden desire to join the army or hate women or dismiss whistleblowers out of hand. If I am committed to being a compassionate human being is there any psyop that can overcome this exercise of my will?


No there isn't, the thing is that within a population that has purposefully been undereducated and exposed to a constant stream of sex, violence and religion, the number of people who will be so committed is proportionally small. That's why people like Berlusconi in Italy and the French admirers of the neocons are making an effort to dumb down TV in those countries. Italian TV is already shocking. On French TV not long ago after the news you got to see extremely complicated policy debates... now it's people talking about their sex lives etc. etc. Atomising people, breaking down the coherent (socialist-leaning) communities they've had since the war.

But the psyops can only go so far. The human body physically reacts badly to this atomisation, in the form of psychological troubles, and pills don't really work.
User avatar
stefano
 
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brainpanhandler » Mon May 26, 2008 9:01 am

You may be misunderstanding what I'm saying.


Given what I quoted it can't be hard to understand why.

I'm not criticizing the phenomenon itself for being non-logical or illogical (although, if it exists, it may be), I'm questioning whether the phenomenon actually does exist—at least with the prevalence it is alleged to here.


If this was your intent then we are partially in a similar frame of mind. Ask Hugh how intently I have pressed him on this. Where perhaps you and I (and Hugh for that matter) differ is that I feel that switching back and forth between the assumption that psyops exist and the assumption that they do not exist helps me broaden my understanding.

Honestly, I think Pan's position that all of Hugh's theories are delusional and Hugh's insistence that he is 100% right and certain of his conclusions are both untenable.

I would prefer to establish that "keyword hijacking" does, in fact, exist—before entering into too much of a debate about its alleged effects.


I can understand that, but this attitude goes to illustrate my point above. Temporarily adopting the hypothesis that psyops exist creates the opportunity to test that very hypothesis. Without that tenative hypothesis you make it much harder to honestly know how to look or where to look. Armed with the tenative operating hypothesis that psyops exist you will perhaps be more inclined to see what was invisible before. The skeptic didn't die. He's still there, available at a moments notice. He's not going anywhere.


In other words, as I've been observing the overall "keyword hijacking" discussion on this board, many of the instances cited as evidence for it seem to have a correlation which arises not from the uses of the "keywords" themselves, but from the observer—which is then overlaid onto the alleged example by the observer.


Yes, but the tree did fall and some of that kinetic energy was converted into shock waves that traveled through the ground and the air. Unless you are questioning reality at it's most fundamental level we have to assume some things to have a meaningful discussion. "from the observer—which is then overlaid onto the alleged example by the observer." This simply describes one of the basic processes of learning. It's like trying to fit the peices of a puzzle together. If it doesn't fit, don't force it.

The point to which the discussion sometimes devolves—"You can't perceive this because it works so well"—is a very poor argument. (It is reminiscent of a woman I talked to once who was convinced that burning citronella candles "keeps the aliens away." She cited, as evidence for this, that she hadn't seen "the aliens" in "a long, long time.")


It's an unfair comparison, as you must seemingly know. As I explained in one of these threads, Hugh has staked out an almost impossible to defend position and one which is easily attacked and ridiculed (as I have done myself on a number of occasions).

Is keyword hijacking ever real? Or is it merely a form of apophenia, combined with a capacity for self-reinforcing delusion?


Yah, that's what everyone with an ability to keep an open mind wants to know. Switching back and forth between assuming the hypothesis that psyops exists and being the rational debunking skeptic has it's distinct advantages, but one huge disadvantage that is becoming apparent to me now is that not only do I have to argue with Hugh but I have to argue with his detractors as well! Which is intolerable. You'll have to forgive me if I forego some arguments.

I'm not really sure yet. But too many of the instances cited on this board appear to lean more towards the latter conclusion, so far as I'm concerned.


As I have hopefully made clear, there is no danger of becoming incurably delusional. It's not contagious.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brainpanhandler » Mon May 26, 2008 9:08 am

Image[/quote]


This is the most wonderful image. I want this on a poster. It is so over the top that it seems like a parody. The youngin' in her arms has the right idea.

I wish I could make out more of the book titles.

Do you know the original context?
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby IanEye » Mon May 26, 2008 9:10 am

Honestly, I think Pan's position that all of Hugh's theories are delusional and Hugh's insistence that he is 100% right and certain of his conclusions are both untenable.


Image

The Hegelian Dynamo

to be fair bph, I am not entirely sure that Pan is saying Hugh is completely delusional and I don't think Hugh wants to declare himself 100% right at all times, although he frequently comes across as doing so.

Perhaps thats what the dots in the yin-yang are for....

I had some dreams
They were clouds in my coffee, clouds in my coffee...
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Postby orz » Mon May 26, 2008 9:14 am

Switching back and forth between assuming the hypothesis that psyops exists and being the rational debunking skeptic has it's distinct

But there's no need to switch between these two imagined opposites. It's perfectly possible to know that of course psyops and real propaganda exist in the media while also understanding that Hugh's specific ideas of how this is achieved are incorrect and illogical.
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brainpanhandler » Mon May 26, 2008 9:26 am

orz wrote:
Switching back and forth between assuming the hypothesis that psyops exists and being the rational debunking skeptic has it's distinct

But there's no need to switch between these two imagined opposites. It's perfectly possible to know that of course psyops and real propaganda exist in the media while also understanding that Hugh's specific ideas of how this is achieved are incorrect and illogical.


For me I am still at the point where switching back and forth is advantageous if not needful. It's a thought experiment.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby IanEye » Mon May 26, 2008 9:39 am

i love that image too - i love it because Lynda Carter is a pretty right wing persona, but i like her and wish there were more like her in the right wing, as opposed to Ms. Cheney.

If that image were reality there would be very little need for a DC Madam. because if you were a man who went behind the back of the Woman in that image, you'd get your balls cut off. meanwhile, if you stayed devoted and true to her, she'd fuck your brains out. that's what it says to me anyway.

and yes, the books on the shelf are a big part of the picture as it is.....


then again, i find Sabina Forbes fascinating too, she's like something out of a Vonnegut novel, perhaps this one:
Image

Some underworld spy
or the Wife of a close friend, Wife of a close friend, and...
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Postby justdrew » Mon May 26, 2008 7:11 pm

When an alien called Andros wants to preserve Earth, to prove to the Council of Planets that Earth is not as violent as it seems, he is sent to Earth to prove it to them... if he fails, Earth will be destroyed and Wonder Woman must help him out.


-- this plot is from 1975. ultimately Andros comes to know that the violence is needed to stop the nazi's who really are bad. but earth only get's a 50 year extension, and by then things are expected to be all nicey-nicey on earth by 1992! oh boy, are we in for it. The story also makes reference to the aliens having their own satellite in orbit (valis?). Rich stew here, maybe could use it's own thread?

I'd always heard that the character was invented to promote lie-detectors, but here's a more in depth 'secret origin' (from the wiki) that opens some other cans of worms:


In an October 25, 1940 interview conducted by former student Olive Byrne (under the pseudonym "Olive Richard") and published in Family Circle, titled "Don't Laugh at the Comics", William Moulton Marston described what he saw as the great educational potential of comic books (a follow up article was published two years later in 1942).[4] This article caught the attention of comics publisher Max Gaines, who hired Marston as an educational consultant for National Periodicals and All-American Publications, two of the companies that would merge to form the future DC Comics. At that time, Marston decided to develop a new superhero.

In the early 1940s the DC line was dominated by superpowered male characters such as the Green Lantern, Batman, and its flagship character, Superman. According to the Fall 2001 issue of the Boston University alumni magazine, it was his wife Elizabeth's idea to create a female superhero:
“ William Moulton Marston, a psychologist already famous for inventing the polygraph (forerunner to the magic lasso), struck upon an idea for a new kind of superhero, one who would triumph not with fists or firepower, but with love. 'Fine,' said Elizabeth. 'But make her a woman.'[5] ”

Marston introduced the idea to Max Gaines, cofounder (along with Jack Liebowitz) of All-American Publications. Given the go-ahead, Marston developed Wonder Woman with Elizabeth (whom Marston believed to be a model of that era's unconventional, liberated woman).[6] In creating Wonder Woman, Marston was also inspired by Olive Byrne, who lived with the couple in a polygamous/polyamorous relationship.[7] Marston's pseudonym, Charles Moulton, combined his own and Gaines' middle names.

Marston was the creator of a systolic blood-pressure measuring apparatus, which was crucial to the development of the polygraph (lie detector). Marston's experience with polygraphs convinced him that women were more honest and reliable than men, and could work more efficiently.

"Wonder Woman is psychological propaganda for the new type of woman who should, I believe, rule the world," Marston wrote.[8] Although Gloria Steinem placed Wonder Woman on the first standalone cover of Ms. in 1972, Marston, writing in an earlier time, designed Wonder Woman to represent a particular form of female empowerment. Feminism argues that women are equal to men and should be treated as such; Marston's representative of femininity is a 6-foot-tall Amazon wielding a golden lasso that forces adversaries to tell the truth. In Marston's mind, women not only held the potential to be as good as men: they could be superior to men.

In a 1943 issue of The American Scholar, Marston wrote:
“Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don't want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women's strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman. ”
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Postby justdrew » Mon May 26, 2008 9:07 pm

one possible way to test this theory:

they would also want to avoid accidental unintended masking... so, for someone they want everyone to like, say for instance, ronald ray-gun... wouldn't it be important that they hang positive masks on his referents (name, image , etc) and AVOID any negative masks?

perhaps like this odd incident:

The main character's name was originally Ralph Hinkley, but after the assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley, Jr. on March 30, 1981 (only 12 days after the pilot episode aired), the character's last name was amended to "Hanley" for the Season 1 episode "Reseda Rose". For the rest of the 1st season, he was either "Ralph" or "Mister H". During the episode aired the night of the assassination attempt, the sound of a jet airplane was used to dub over the last name being spoken, and in subsequent episodes there was overdubbing of his students calling him "Mr. H" instead of "Mr. Hinkley." In the episode where Ralph is given a promotion and his own (tiny) office space, we see the name "Ralph Hanley" on the door plaque. At the start of the 2nd season the name had changed back to Hinkley.
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Aiwaz rockin' his black moonball....

Postby IanEye » Tue May 27, 2008 7:44 am

justdrew wrote:The main character's name was originally Ralph Hinkley, but after the assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley, Jr. on March 30, 1981 (only 12 days after the pilot episode aired), the character's last name was amended to "Hanley" for the Season 1 episode "Reseda Rose"


I call your "Greatest American Hero" and I raise you a Phoenix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phoenix_%281982_TV_series%29

The Phoenix is a 1982 television series starring Judson Scott which was on ABC for about one month in 1982.[1] The plot revolved around an ancient extraterrestrial named Bennu of the Golden Light, who is discovered in a sarcophagus in Peru and awakened in the 20th Century. Bennu displays superhuman abilities and behaves in a manner meant to represent an enlightened culture (kind, nonviolent, environmentally responsible, etc.).

* Bennu of the Golden Light (played by Judson Scott) is the hero, a good-looking blond man from outer space. His special abilities include physical levitation, telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, astral projection and telekinesis. Some of his abilities are made possible or amplified by his Phoenix Amulet, which draws power from the Sun. Bennu was originally from the planet Aurica, though this was changed to Eldebran for broadcast.

* Yago is another super-powered being from the planet Eldebran. He is evil and Bennu's primary opponent. Yago is connected to the Moon as Bennu is to the Sun. The series bible explicitly compares Yago to Lucifer and Dracula. He wears a bracelet called "The Bells of Thon" around his right wrist, which has the power to deafen. He also carries a musical instrument called "The Black Moonball," which can alter his appearance or teleport him to another location. In the series bible Yago was named Aiwaz, presumably after the alleged being who dictacted The Book of the Law to Aleister Crowley.

* Mira is another being from the planet Eldebran. 40,000 years ago she was placed on Earth as Bennu's companion, and when the series begins he is searching for her.

* Justin Preminger is the human villain of the story. He is generally only one step behind Bennu.

* Dr. Ward Frazier is a scientist sympathetic to Bennu and his goals.
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Postby professorpan » Tue May 27, 2008 3:26 pm

What orz said.

Stop making this about Pan vs. Hugh. How about logic, evidence, and reason vs. softheaded, paranoid, delusional word games?

Research and investigation vs. armchair Google schizophrenia?

Talking to people and asking questions vs. slandering them anonymously from the safety of a message board?

Listening to others who have actual knowledge about a subject vs. dismissing them because of unrelenting confirmation bias?

But really, it all can be summarized by three bullet points on the wikipedia (Mockingbird controlled, of course) entry on "delusion":

• certainty (held with absolute conviction)
• incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
• impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

Sound like anyone we know?
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby justdrew » Tue May 27, 2008 5:12 pm

professorpan wrote:• certainty (held with absolute conviction)
• incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
• impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)
Sound like anyone we know?


sounds like your average right-wing america-love-it-or-leave-it "Christian" too. You take any of them on lately?

===

I would like to hear Hugh's views on my point about avoidance of unintentional 'hijackings' from happening... There must be many examples that happen perhaps randomly, of something matching up and reflecting positively on something they want to paint negative. Wouldn't they have to examine every script, every piece of marketing to make sure undesirable hijackings don't occur 'by accident' ?
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Postby brainpanhandler » Tue May 27, 2008 10:16 pm

professor pan wrote:• certainty (held with absolute conviction)
• incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
• impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

Sound like anyone we know?


• yes, way too often


• yes, way too often


• Impossibe, false, patently untrue? No. Implausible, bizarre? Yes.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brainpanhandler » Tue May 27, 2008 10:45 pm

justdrew wrote:I would like to hear Hugh's views on my point about avoidance of unintentional 'hijackings' from happening...


As do I. You may have missed it, but Hugh said he is going to spend less time here for now so you might not get an answer.

There must be many examples that happen perhaps randomly, of something matching up and reflecting positively on something they want to paint negative. Wouldn't they have to examine every script, every piece of marketing to make sure undesirable hijackings don't occur 'by accident' ?


My guess is that Hugh will say no, although guessing what Hugh might say is a bit more of a crapshoot than with most. For myself I would say no as well. Just as you do not need to rig every polling place in the country to steal an election, so too do you only need to influence a certain percentage of the population. Personally I think psyops are real. I think the people and agencies involved in them take language and it's effects very seriously. I think it stands to reason that subliminal techniques are being used on us all time. I think some of those subliminal techniques are related to language. I think the science of NLP demonstrates how powerfully we can be influenced subliminally by language. I think the people and agencies invlolved in psyops know this. Call me crazy, but that just stands to reason.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Psyops and Meme Management

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest