Does RI recognize history/science vs pro Mind Bending?

[barracuda]

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.

You are bright as the sun, my friend. If you'll just shine your light down the page at my link, Dahl made the top ten in 2002.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Some of you seriously posted that 'Dahl is on a top list' and 'my kid likes.'
What does that mean? "Psyops isn't likable or mass marketed?" Of course it is. yikes.

Why is it is so hard for seemingly intelligent RIers to grasp the social control value of marketing competing associations with keywords and memes? Basic game theory justifies this strategy even before going into the mnemonic dynamics.

Milton Erickson told us about using non-trance leading and suggestion with narrative strategies and devices.
Sound...familiar?

From the 1976 Erickson book I cited previously, page 229.
Note especially #3+#4 and what I've been pointing at for a few years-
-------------------

Table 1
The Microdynamics of Trance Induction and Suggestion

1) Fixation of Attention
2) Depotentiating Conscious Sets
3) Unconscious Search
4) Unconscious Processes
5) Hypnotic Response

1. Fixation of Attention

1. Stories that motivate, interest, fascination, etc.
2. Standard eye fixation
3. Pantomime approaches
4. Imagination and visualization approaches
5. Hand levitation
6. Relaxation and all forms of inner sensory, perceptual or emotional experience, etc.

2. Depotentiating Conscious Sets

1. Shock, surprise, the unrealistic and unusual
2. Shifting frames of reference, displacing doubt, resistance, and failure
3. Distraction
4. Dissociation and disequilibrium
5. Cognitive overloading
6. Confusion, non sequiturs
7. Paradox
8. Binds and double binds
9. Conditioning via voice dynamics, etc.
10. Structured amnesia
11. Not doing, not knowing
12. Losing abilities, the negative, doubt, etc.

3. Unconscious Search

1. Allusions, puns, jokes
2. Metaphor, analogy, folk language
3. Implication
4. Implied directive
5. Ideomotor signaling
6. Words initiating exploratory sets
7. Questions and tasks requiring unconscious search
8. Pauyse with therapist attitude of expectancy
9. Open-ended suggestions
10. Covering of all possibilities of response
11. Compound statements
12. Intercontextual cues and suggestions, etc.

4. Unconscious Processes

1. Summation of:
a. Interspersed suggestions
b. Literal associations
c. Individual associations
d. Multiple meanings of words
2. Autonomous, sensory, and perceptual processes
3. Freudian primary processes
4. Personality mechanisms of defense
5. Ziegarnik Effect, etc.

5. Hypnotic Response

"New datum or behavioral response experienced as hypnotic or happening all by itself."

[Nordic]

Where's the emoticon for "make it stop!"

Hugh. You're talking about Roald Dahl. You're seeing the face of Jesus in your toast. Wake up.

[barracuda]

Some of you seriously posted that 'Dahl is on a top list' and 'my kid likes.'
What does that mean? "Psyops isn't likable or mass marketed?" Of course it is. yikes.

What a dweebus. You either didn't even look at the link I posted at all (first guess), or didn't bother to understand what you were looking at (also highly likely).

I recommend Dahl as quality anti-corporate, anti-fascist, anti-television literature written by a great craftsman. My link was to demonstrate that you aren't the only person who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about when it comes to Dahl's work. You're in excellent company.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

You are also fooled if you think that 'Avatar' is about environmentalism.

Thom CIA Hartmann was pimping this psyops movie and, to reinforce his sell, brought on a Bibelist movie reviewer named Dr. Ted Baehr as a foil. Baehr declared both the movie and Hartmann "Marxist."

http://www.movieguide.org/about-movieguide

The CIA psyoperators are already busy heading off exposure of what too many RIers don't even admit is The System.
Their counterpropaganda meme:
"Only kooky over-sensitive anti-fun rightwingers think children are being targeted for social control purposes."

Well, I tried.
Don't take things at face value. Look at the structural components in a psyops context.

[compared2what?]

I don't know why you prevent yourself from knowing the pleasure you might take if your understanding and appreciation of the writings of Milton Erickson was qualitatively different from your understanding and appreciation of the writings of Roald Dahl. That will never do anything but make me sad, Hugh.

[Telexx]

Some of you seriously posted that 'Dahl is on a top list' and 'my kid likes.'
What does that mean? "Psyops isn't likable or mass marketed?" Of course it is. yikes.

Why is it is so hard for seemingly intelligent RIers to grasp the social control value of marketing competing associations with keywords and memes? Basic game theory justifies this strategy even before going into the mnemonic dynamics.

Milton Erickson told us about using non-trance leading and suggestion with narrative strategies and devices.
Sound...familiar?

From the 1976 Erickson book I cited previously, page 229.
Note especially #3+#4 and what I've been pointing at for a few years-

Yes, but Ericksonian hypnotic techniques (plus Bandler / Grinder's stuff, Dilts' Sleight of Mouth techniques, etc, etc) are known to be effective where rapport exsists between humans.

You are not offering evidence which demonstrates that Ericksonian hypnotic techniques are effective when used in stories / films or whatever.

So, provide evidence for this assertion instead of just assuming that, because it exists and fits your model, it must be "true". (Similarly, evidence re: the Dahl stuff - so far it's just hearsay).

[Wombaticus Rex]

Their counterpropaganda meme:
"Only kooky over-sensitive anti-fun rightwingers think children are being targeted for social control purposes."

Actually, I think absolutely everyone here knows and agrees that children are targeted for social control purposes. We just happen to think that the CIA-media structure use techniques that actually work, as opposed to the very tenuous case you're making.

Transformers? Kick-ass military propaganda with obvious funding. Dan in Real Life? We're all scratching our heads now.

Hugh, you invoke the science endlessly, but yet you don't know it well enough to explain it. When we ask for specifics, things get absurd very quickly. More often than not, rather than explain yourself in more detail, you instead turn to another (equally absurd) example, which tends to derail the tread. Or, you just copy/paste from your sources and then act exasperated. I've been here for like three years now and your MO hasn't changed at all.

I like you, Hugh, I just don't take you very seriously.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I am reminded of Bob Dean, aka the Canadian Bob Dobbs, who is an endless fountain of colorful bullshit with the most amazingly interesting footnotes. The actual content is rubbish, but the data points he uses to make his garbage sculptures is excellent reading. I think Hugh is very similar -- his sources are all important but his conclusions are a running joke.

[FreeLancer]

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.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

[
.....
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.

[Nordic]

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.

.

But Hugh. By your own logic, what you are describing here could JUST AS EASILY be taken as something that promotes the dangerous view that Dan Rather had a point, that Dan Rather's head was "all over" the pancake collapse theory, and with a reference to the "Jersey Girls" that they were right on the money, too.

You see these things, and make these connections where you ASSERT, unequivocally, that "this means they're trying to discredit Dan Rather" which anyone looking at your examples would more than likely come to the exact OPPOSITE conclusion.

Then it's just silly, and you lose all credibility. I wish you saw that, because you really are a fount of a lot of very interesting information, but the examples you use are, frankly, ludicrous. You shoot yourself in the foot every time.

[barracuda]

Nazi Esperanto.

I love that.

[Telexx]

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

[Wombaticus Rex]

Hugh, you invoke the science endlessly, but yet you don't know it well enough to explain it. When we ask for specifics, things get absurd very quickly. More often than not, rather than explain yourself in more detail, you instead turn to another (equally absurd) example, which tends to derail the tread. Or, you just copy/paste from your sources and then act exasperated. I've been here for like three years now and your MO hasn't changed at all.

I like you, Hugh, I just don't take you very seriously.