Research Thread- Cultic Conditioning in politics and society

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Research Thread- Cultic Conditioning in politics and society

Postby Heaven Swan » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:12 am

Happy New Year to all. :sun:

I'm interested in looking into the effects of cultic conditioning and brainwashing in politics and the formation of society.

PLEASE NOTE:

I would like to ask that postings to this thread be limited to discussing and researching the topic. I have nothing against socializing and joking around, but would like for the thread to remain on topic so a casual reader can inform themselves without losing the plot in side meanderings and interpersonal conflicts.

Also I'd like to say that this is a discussion, not a data dump and would prefer that those who post articles please preface the article with a paragraph or two about how the article pertains to the research and running discussion.


The role of Cultic Conditioning in the formation of society

It appears that humans are quite susceptible to manipulation and even control by individuals and systems that utilize certain methodologies of action and forms of information delivery that have come to be known as cultic.

And yes I'm aware that the word 'culture' includes the root word cult. Well I'd like to break that down, i.e. look at what exactly is the cultic conditioning interwoven in culture and society.

My idea is that if we could clearly identify these manipulative forms of conditioning and control and write something up to inform the public about them, this could go a long way in helping people to extricate themselves from the inculcated delusions that allow them to be caught up in destructive and self-defeating traps for decades or in many cases their whole lives.

This applies to both right and left, cult type obfuscation and manipulation is embraced by both sides therefore this thread can bypass left-right bickering by focusing on the cultic methods and tactics.

I'm hoping that from this research we could compile some lists or guides to popular cultic circular thinking traps and praxis that could help readers avoid getting caught in said traps. (This may require spin-off threads on specific sub-topics)

Some examples and manifestations of cultic thinking and culture (these are partial, quickly written lists to give you the idea):

Example 1)
Conspiracy Theory trap: instead of investigating, discussing and examining evidence of conspiracy and the society from which conspiracy springs (something this site has been known to champion), following a set of conspiracy beliefs which can become a closed system of thought e.g.
*Everything is already decided by a small hidden group at the top
*Mainsream media is controlled by them so disregard it
*All violent incidents are false flags. We determine this by telltale signs, not by investigation into the incident and the larger picture.

2)
Women's inferiority trap:
*girls bombarded since childhood with movies, songs, TV etc that portray women's purpose and role in life to be to look pretty, fall in love, raise children and serve men in the family.
* sexual and verbal/emotional abuse in families causes practically across-the board PTSD in females which makes them easier to hoodwink and control. Near-constant street harassment makes them feel unsafe and in need of male protection.
*percieved need to be thin and attractive causes obsessions with food intake that weakens them physically

3)
Men's 'become the oppressor' trap:
*to be a real man you must shut down feelings, don't cry, become tough and aggressive or extremely analytical and 'in your head' (become emotionally crippled and out of touch with feelings and intuition).
*the wonderful benefits of having a woman are dangled like a carrot
*Tow the line or you may be ostracized and banished by other men (men affirm and support each other in creating a league against women (i.e. a league to take advantage of women)

These cultic societal dictates are inculcated and generally operate below the level of conscious awareness.
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Research Thread- Cultic Conditioning in politics and soc

Postby Heaven Swan » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:26 am

This article touches on many cultic methods and how to avoid them. There are a lot of good articles on this site Orange Papers, which are written by A.Orange (RI's Agent Orange? If so, kudos on an amazing site :thumbsup ) and is mainly about the cultic tendencies of AA and 12 Step programs.

He also has a list of Propaganda and Debating techniques that is very comprehensive.
https://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html


How To Deprogram Your Own Mind
by A. Orange

https://www.orange-papers.org/orange-deprogram.html

Recognize that programming is everywhere, and it isn't all bad. Your programming started with your parents teaching you things, and both consciously and unconsciously programming you with all of their beliefs and attitudes. That is not necessarily bad — it is usually good. You are better off for having had parents who cared about you and wanted to teach you. But unfortunately, you also inherited all of their misinformation, superstitions, mistakes, and irrational and untrue beliefs.
And you also inherited your "culture", which includes all of the false, irrational, and wrong beliefs of your entire society. And you are left with the job of figuring out which of those beliefs are good and true, and which are stupid and crazy.

And you are always vulnerable to pressure from your peer group, which will always try to make you conform to their beliefs, standards, and behavior, even if your friends are not even really aware of the fact that they are doing it.

Recognize that programming and deprogramming are constant, on-going processes. Even while you are trying to deprogram and clear your mind, television commercials will be trying to program you into believing that you really should buy their product; you will be so happy if you do, and you'll be beautiful and get laid too. And the politicians will always be trying to make you believe that they are wise and right about everything, and if you are patriotic you will never criticize them.

Want to know the truth. This is essential. This is the whole ball game. If you don't want to learn the truth, then you probably won't.
Love the truth, even if it is sometimes inconvenient or unpleasant. Respect the truth, cherish the truth, seek the truth above all.

People stay trapped in cults, or trapped in illusions, because they don't really want to know the truth:

Sometimes, they are afraid to know the truth --
They fear that their world will fall apart if they stop believing certain things, or admit the truth of other things. That is one of the beliefs with which they got programmed — the idea that if they don't believe the right things, they will go to Hell, or they will lose their ticket to Heaven, or something else really bad will happen to them. One of the things that cults do is implant phobias about leaving the cult, or learning the truth about the cult.
They are afraid of losing their status or membership in the group — they are afraid that they will be shunned and ostracized if they don't believe the same things as the other people around them. And they are just plain afraid of being alone.

They fear that they will have to leave the cult if they stop believing in it, and they will stop believing in it if they learn a bunch of negative things about it. ("Then what will I do with my life?!") So they plug their ears and close their eyes, and play "Hear no evil, see no evil..."
Some people just don't want to see that they were fooled.
"I refuse to believe that I spent twelve years of my life in a cult. It isn't a cult. It can't be a cult. It's a wonderful movement."
As they say in A.A., "Denial isn't just a river in Egypt."

Some people just don't want to give it up.
"If I leave the group, I will be lonely because I won't have any friends. So shut up and quit telling me disturbing things about it."

"I have lots of time invested here. I'm a respected elder. If I quit the organization, I'll be a nobody."
Similarly, people who choose to stay trapped in addictions do not wish to know the truth about their addictions. Few people wish to hear that they are wasting all of their money on something that is poison to them, and wrecking their lives, and that continuing to consume that stuff is stupid? So they try out the minimization and denial tap-dance: "Well, yeh, it might be messing up my health a little bit, but frankly, I'm not ready to quit right now."

Don't condemn yourself. Self condemnation and self-criticism are part of the brain-washing and indoctrination process, and they are counter-productive when it comes to deprogramming. If you find that you have been programmed to believe some goofy idea, then just recognize that it is an irrational, illogical, goofy idea, and reject it, but do not condemn yourself for having believed it for a while.
It's just like, if, while exploring the Wild West, you find that you have an arrow stuck in your back, pull it out.

Don't wallow in self-contempt and guilt, condemning yourself for having stupidly gotten an arrow stuck in your back.
Don't imagine that you are somehow all fucked up for having gotten stuck with an arrow.
Don't imagine that finding an arrow stuck in your back proves that you are somehow inferior.
Just pull the arrow out and then get on with your life.

Now that doesn't mean that you shouldn't examine your behavior, and change it if you are doing something wrong. But be wary of excessive fault-finding and self-criticism. Cults will teach you to do that, and will even try to convince you that you will make yourself more holy by constantly condemning yourself and putting yourself down and feeling guilty about everything. All that really accomplishes is messing up your mind, destroying your self-confidence and self-respect, and making you unable to think clearly or act decisively.


Watch out for other people condemning you.
People who want to control you will try to make you feel stupid, inferior, flawed, and mentally incompetent for disagreeing with them.
As mentioned above, self condemnation and self-criticism are a big part of the brain-washing and indoctrination process, so those who would like to control you would also like to get you criticizing yourself and being down on yourself. And Prof. Margaret Thaler Singer added that inducing feelings of powerlessness, covert fear, guilt, and dependency in the victims was also a part of the brainwashing process.

So don't let them make you believe that you are flawed and inferior. When someone is reading your beads and listing your faults, it almost always means that they want to control you — to change your behavior to something that they want.

Also watch out for other people trying to clip your wings, and keep you from being your whole self.
For example, one of the commonest crippling stunts that cults or churches pull on people is demanding that they not feel their feelings. "You must only feel Eternal Bliss" or "You must only feel Serenity and Gratitude", or "You must not feel sexual urges. That isn't spiritual."

Anger, especially anger at the evils of the cult and its leaders, is supposedly very bad.

Bill Wilson wrote:

It is a spiritual axiom that every time we are disturbed, no matter what the cause, there is something wrong with us. If somebody hurts us and we are sore, we are in the wrong also. But are there no exceptions to this rule? What about "justifiable" anger? If somebody cheats us, aren't we entitled to be mad? Can't we be properly angry with self-righteous folk? For us in A.A. these are dangerous exceptions. We have found that justified anger ought to be left to those better qualified to handle it.
Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, page 90.

What rot. You are wrong to get mad when somebody hurts you or commits crimes against you? Such anger should be "left to those better qualified to handle it"? And just who is that?
Nobody.
All it means is, you can't feel your anger. You have to "stuff your feelings."
Pseudo-religious garbage like that will do a good job of crippling you, and keeping you from making trouble for your oppressors.

Likewise, some churches or cults will tell you that you shouldn't feel horny, or find the opposite sex attractive, or think about sex with them. Nonsense. Your brain is hard-wired to think about it and want it — That's what keeps the human race going. We would be extinct if we could be logical and rational about sex and having children. "Too much bother; a big hassle; too expensive..." But logic has nothing to do with it, and that's why we are still here.

Another common crippling stunt that cults pull on their members is demanding that members stop thinking critically — stop what they call "having doubts":
"If you are really holy, then you won't have any doubts."
Nonsense. Normal, sane, healthy people have lots of doubts when con-men and phony holy men try to foist a stupid illogical hoax on them. Those doubts are your remaining sanity warning you that something sounds fishy.

Similarly, cults and other mind-manipulators will tell you that you cannot trust your own mind and your own thinking (so you should let them do your thinking for you). If you buy into that idea, it will really cripple you. You won't be able to think anything without also thinking that it must be wrong, because you thought it. (But then the thought that your thinking is wrong should also be wrong... So your thinking must be right... But if your thinking is right, then it must be wrong... Now you are trapped in one of the classic Greek paradoxes.)


Beware of wanting to believe.
On the TV show "The X-Files", Mulder had a poster on the wall of his office that said, "I Want To Believe". That's okay for the X-Files and stories about flying saucers, but it leads to disaster in real life.

Instead of wanting to believe, want to know the truth.

Wanting to believe is perhaps the most powerful dynamic initiating and sustaining cult-like behavior.
The Wrong Way Home: Uncovering the Patterns of Cult Behavior in American Society, Arthur J. Deikman, M.D., page 137.
Billy Graham says that everyone really wants to believe in a dogmatic, fascist religion:

"The world longs for authority, finality, and conclusiveness. It is weary of theological floundering and uncertainty. Belief exhilarates the human spirit; doubt depresses."
Billy Graham
quoted in Holy Terror: The Fundamentalist War on America's Freedoms in Religion, Politics, and Our Private Lives, Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman, page 144.

Also see: The Wrong Way Home: Uncovering the Patterns of Cult Behavior in American Society, Arthur J. Deikman, M.D., page 143.
Certainty (as Billy Graham testified) is one of the great benefits of [dogmatic] religious belief.
The Wrong Way Home: Uncovering the Patterns of Cult Behavior in American Society, Arthur J. Deikman, M.D., page 144.

Watch out for self-deceptive ego games.
For example, in some cults or religions, they will flatter you and tell you that you are very important, and involved in very important work, doing the Will of the Lord, ushering in the Millennium, saving the world, if you believe what they say and do what they say. But if you buy into their game, it is you who is allowing yourself to be deceived, and it's you who is enjoying the big ego game.

Part of the attraction of believing the leader's views and actions to be of paramount importance is that the follower's own sense of importance is heightened.

The Wrong Way Home: Uncovering the Patterns of Cult Behavior in American Society, Arthur J. Deikman, M.D., page 67.
"If the leader and his religion are saving the world, and I follow the leader, then I am saving the world, which makes me very good and very important."

Conversely, if someone criticizes the cult, its leader, or its teachings, then that reflects badly on the member. If the cult member believes the criticisms to be true, then he will go from being a noble savior of the world to being just a foolish follower of an evil charlatan. So the member has a vested interest in rejecting any criticism of the group or its leader — all based on his own egotism. Thus he will resist learning the truth, out of purely selfish interests.


Beware of comparing apples and oranges.
Beware of equating things that are not equal.
For example, many people say that they really like the A.A. program because it is such a wonderful social club with such brotherhood and fellowship. Excuse me, but it is supposed to be an alcoholism treatment program — something that would make more people quit drinking. They seem to forget that it doesn't actually work to cure alcoholism, and just proclaim that it's great because they like the social life, the brotherhood and the "spirituality". That's mixing apples and oranges. When I go to the doctor to get some medical care, I don't expect a big party in the waiting room. I just go get the pills, and then go home. If I want a party, I go someplace else.


Watch your own mind.
Watch your thoughts, attitudes, and slogans.
Also watch your desires and fears.
This is the heart of the deprogramming program. This is a constant, never-ending task. Watch your mind all day long, or as much as you can remember to.

You have to not only watch what people are telling you, but watch how you react to it, and what it makes happen inside your head. Watch what you are thinking, and if you can, understand why you are thinking that.

Notice your desires, and how certain statements can arouse them. I'm not knocking desires, or asking you to. Just look at them and make a note of what it is you actually want: love, approval, status, importance, power, security, sex, youth, beauty, wealth, possessions, knowledge, wisdom, intelligence, compassion, virtue, goodness, spirituality, whatever. Then notice how certain ideas or statements can arouse certain desires. And then notice how some people (especially politicians) are skilled in tossing out buzz-words, phrases, and slogans that will arouse certain desires in you. They are messing with your mind by manipulating your feelings.

Likewise, watch your fears, and see how politicians and preachers are good at arousing them to manipulate your thinking.
"If you don't suspend the Bill of Rights and let the Homeland Security Force violate everybody's privacy and spy on everybody, then the nasty Arabs will get you."
"If you don't give the oil billionaires a big tax cut, and let them drill for oil in every wilderness and wildlife preserve in the world, then they will go broke and run out of oil and you will freeze in the dark."
"If you don't believe all this stuff, and give your money to the preacher man, then God will get mad at you and you will go to Hell."

Watch out for commonly accepted fallacies — the things that "everybody knows" are true, but which aren't, like "Everybody knows that the world is flat".
For example, it is commonly accepted that alcoholics can't or won't quit drinking until they "bottom out" or "hit bottom". That is completely untrue. People quit at all stages of alcoholism; some even quit before they could even be called alcoholics, because they see a nasty problem starting to develop.

So how did the idea that alcoholics must hit bottom come to be such a universally accepted piece of folklore? Well, what happened is Bill Wilson found that ordinary, relatively-sane people wouldn't join his cult religion or believe in his grandiose, bombastic sermons, or accept his brain-damaged superstitious nonsense. Only the really sick, frightened, dying people who were desperately grabbing at anything that might save their lives would swallow Bill's bullshit. So Wilson made up a story about how alcoholics can't really quit drinking and start to recover until they "hit bottom" and "the lash of alcoholism drives them to A.A." (see: Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, page 24.) A.A. members have been spreading that particular piece of misinformation for the last 60 years, and now, everybody who thinks he knows something about alcoholism repeats it. But it is still untrue.

You can find plenty of similar examples, everywhere. "The common wisdom" often isn't wise or knowledgeable.


Watch out for irrational beliefs. Our society is loaded with them, and you hear them often, and often, they are not clearly stated. Beware of people trying to shove hidden, unspoken, value systems on you. Beware of The Should Trick — the assumption of unstated and unexamined values and moral standards. Some big red warning flags of merely assumed values are key words like:
Should
Ought to
Supposed to
Must
Have To
Deserve
Entitled
Statements that contain those words often contain assumed, unstated, beliefs about values, like

"Look at those teenage girls, dressing so sexy. They shouldn't dress like that."
"It's Friday night, and I should be able to drink with my buddies. I deserve a drink. I worked hard all week, and now I deserve to be able to relax and enjoy myself now."
"The poor ought to go get a job, instead of complaining and wanting help."
"I deserve the best of everything, because I was born a member of the better class — I come from a very old-money family. We really are royalty, you know."
"The policians ought to tell us the truth. It's awful, the way that they habitually lie to us."
"I must pass this test or my life will be ruined and I'll go crazy."
(Beliefs about values may be true or untrue. They are not necessarily always wrong. The six examples above were selected because they all contain erroneous assumptions — even the one about politicians.)

Also notice the exaggeration of negativity — which Dr. Albert Ellis called "awfulizing":

"It's so awful, I can't stand it."
"It's absolutely terrible, and nobody should have to put up with it."
A good way to handle irrational beliefs is to dispute them with challenges like:

"Who says?"
"Since when?"
"Is that really true?"
"Where is it written in stone?"
"Where is the evidence for that?"
"Why do you believe that?"
"Where did you hear that?"
"Who told you that, and why did they say that?"
And there is the technique of "I would prefer", as in:

"I would prefer it if the politicians would tell the truth, instead of being a bunch of lying sleaze-bags, but if they persist in their practices of deceit and deception, I can stand it. I don't have to get all bent out of shape, and start drinking and doping, just because of them."
"I would prefer it if the American people were intelligent and wise enough that all politicians could tell them the whole truth all of the time, and still win elections, but if the American people persist in their stupidity, I can stand it. It won't kill me."


Notice mental habits like rating others. For example, a girl judges everyone she meets, rating the boys on whether they are good enough for her, and rating the girls on whether they are good enough to be her friend. Where did such behavior come from? Obviously, she learned it from her parents. The problem with such a mental habit is that it warps one's thinking and colors all relationships, and then the girl's own self-image will be judged the same way. Like it says in the Bible, "Judge not, lest ye be so judged." Well, it's applicable here.
The kicker question is, what are the standards by which everyone is being judged? Where did those scales and rules come from? Again, almost certainly from the girl's parents. But are those standards valid, or realistic, or even sane? Is she judging people on the basis of superficial things like style or expense of clothes, or available money? Or taste in music, or willingness to conform to the group (clique), or willingness to follow the leader? Or physical attractiveness, or athletic skills? Or "popularity"?

Likewise, an abused and bullied child will often rate everyone on a scale of whether they want to hurt him. That is understandable, but it often leads to some appallingly bad choices of friends — the child will find someone acceptable just because the new friend isn't a bully who wants to hurt him.


Read Kasl and Sagan:
Charlotte Kasl "Many Roads, One Journey: Moving Beyond the 12 Steps",
and
Carl Sagan "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark".
What those two books have in common is that they both push common sense and logic, and leave me with a sort of positive, upbeat feeling. They will help to clear things up and put some good ideas in your head.

Understand the games that the mind-programmers and brainwashers play on people's heads, and the techniques that they use for mind-control.
For instance, there is the phenomenon called "cognitive dissonance". What it means is: People want to keep all of their beliefs, actions, thoughts, and feelings in harmony with each other. People want to do what they believe is right and good, and if they do otherwise, they feel bad — they feel "dissonance". The "dissonance" is just like musical dissonance — it feels jarring and discordant and wrong.

Brainwashers have discovered that they can use cognitive dissonance to change people's behavior, beliefs, feelings, and thoughts — force a change in one, and the others will follow. If you force people to perform certain actions, they will eventually come to believe that it's okay — it must be okay, because they wouldn't want to be doing bad things all of the time.

If you force people to say something out loud to a group over and over again, the speakers will eventually come to believe that it is true, because they don't want to feel like they are habitual liars. The subconscious mind's solution to the problem is: believe that it is all true, so now there is no conflict. (That's why A.A. instructs newcomers to "Fake It Until You Make It.")

Since we normally only reveal our innermost, most embarrassing and damaging secrets to our closest and most trusted friends, if we confess everything to a room full of strangers, then cognitive dissonance kicks in, and our subconscious minds will start to assume that those people must really be our closest, most-trusted, friends. That eliminates the conflict over having told embarrassing personal secrets to a bunch of complete strangers. Our feelings will actually change so that we feel much closer to those people. Organizations like Werner Erhard's "est" scam, Alcoholics Anonymous, and various cult churches use this technique to create feelings of instant intimacy, closeness, "brotherhood", and "fellowship" among the members of a group.

Likewise, if you force people to perform horrible acts, like kill Jews in a concentration camp, then the killers will change their beliefs about the victims to make their actions okay, and will eventually come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong after all. "It isn't really murder because they aren't really people. They are enemies of the state, and need to be eliminated. They have it coming for what the Jews did to us. They are a threat to us, and must be eliminated." That stunt usually (but not always) works even if the killers had originally thought that Jews were okay people. (A small, seldom-mentioned detail of history is that not all German soldiers could stomach killing the Jews. Some soldiers had to be transferred out of the concentration camps because they were going nuts just from seeing all of the Jews killed.)

A recent movie showed how the Nazis would pick out some Jews to act as workers in the concentration camps, forcing them to manage the other Jews who were being herded into the gas chambers. Those worker Jews would of course experience horrible conflicts over their job of helping to kill their fellow Jews, but cognitive dissonance would kick in, and they would end up seeing everything in terms of proper order, proper behavior, and proper functioning: "A Jew who makes a fuss and disrupts the efficient workings of the gas chambers is a trouble-maker and a bad Jew. Good Jews should just go along with the procedure in an orderly manner and not make any trouble."


Break the exclusivity of information input.
Avoid getting all of your information from just one group or one source. (Any one source. Don't trust anybody that much.) Examine both (or all) sides of an issue. Don't let anyone dictate what you may read, see, or hear. One of the most powerful tools that cults or Communists or fascists use to brainwash people is information control — preventing the victims from getting any information contrary to the brainwashing.

Recognize that three different people who all say the same thing is not necessarily three different sources of information. For example, the evening news programs of NBC, ABC, and CBS may all tell you exactly the same story, just parroting the information that was just released by the White House. Also, the corporate owners of the networks often keep Jennings, Brokaw, and Rather from telling the ugly truths or asking the hard questions. Powerful stock-holders similarly muzzled the New York Times, and kept it from reporting how Gov. Jeb Bush rigged the Presidential election in Florida in 2000, so such problems are everywhere. (Jeb did it by removing about 60,000 honest black people from the voter registration lists, claiming that they were "felons".)

Sometimes, National Public Radio or Public Television will tell you something else, but sometimes you may have to go on the Internet and check out BBC or the London Times to get the other side of the story. And also check out Canada and Sydney, Australia, and New Delhi, India while you are at it. They speak English, too. And so do the people of New Zealand. (Remember "Lord of the Rings"?)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk == The Telegraph
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ == The Guardian
http://www.smh.com.au/ == The Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ == The Globe and Mail
http://www.vancouversun.com/ == The Vancouver Sun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers
Similarly, don't just listen to 12-Steppers to get information about alcoholism and drug addiction.

Like they said on The X-Files: "Trust Nobody. The Truth Is Out There."


Break self-programming.
People often get programmed to program themselves:

Think about the guy who is always playing "motivational" tapes that will supposedly teach you how to get rich quick or build up your self-esteem or something... Now lots of cults are into it too, and they have a set of tapes for you.
And then there are the people who are always reading the same book or small set of books over and over again, as if those books held all of the wisdom in the world.

Then there are people who just constantly repeat slogans, which effectively stops them from actually thinking.
And there are some people who practice meditation or chanting constantly, reprogramming themselves and stopping rational thought, all day, every day. (Note that meditation and chanting can be good things, but phony gurus teach people to use them excessively, as mind-control tools.)

And then there are meetings, services, and get-togethers. Churches and cults have church services and "Bible study" and socials, and A.A. and Amway have a meeting for every occasion. Note that this is a matter of frequency, and of how much time they take out of your life, and what they are really trying to sell you. One church service a week is normal for all churches, but when someone tells you to do "90 meetings in 90 days", or to come to motivational meetings or chanting or meditation or prayer or Bible study sessions every single day, then the warning bells should be going off in your head. And you should be hearing klaxon horns and air raid sirens when people brag about doing three meetings per day.

And then there is denial and rationalization. Some people will endlessly deny or rationalize every negative thing they hear about their leader or their church or cult (or their corporation or their political party, or whatever). They will never actually let a contrary idea get into their heads.
— Which leads to self-censorship. Some people censor their own minds, and will not even allow themselves to think one forbidden thought. So of course they stay programmed.

TV Commercials sell you images, and they are very powerful. Watch out. They tell you that you will be beautiful and sexually attractive if you look like their images.

"You want to buy these clothes, and style your hair like this, and wear these glasses, and lose weight, and make your waist narrower and your boobs bigger, if you are a female. And if you are a male, you will want to flash the cash and drive this kind of a car, and buy this kind of a house so that you can move in a trophy wife..."

They are selling you images of "the beautiful people". After a while, you will start to feel like there must be something wrong with you if you don't look and act like the people on TV. And you will start to think you must be a weirdo if you don't believe and say what the people on TV believe and say. But the beautiful people on TV are paid to only say non-disturbing things, to not rock the boat. They won't tell you about their sponsors — corporate polluters — poisoning your children, not a word. They won't tell you that the sponsor's car is a deathtrap, likely to roll over or explode in flames. They won't tell you that their sponsor cheats its own employees out of their retirement funds and health insurance. They won't say anything about their sponsors feeding your children pesticide- or herbicide-contaminated or genetically-altered food, not a word. That would be making trouble.
So just how beautiful are those beautiful people, really? Are you sure you want to be like them?
Nevertheless, those images are still extremely attractive, aren't they?

Years ago, there was a rather iconoclastic Commissioner of the FCC named Nicholas Johnson who said that there was a lot more on TV than meets the eye. He observed that furniture polish commercials actually sell expensive hardwood furniture as well as the polish. They imply that your life will somehow be happier, more elegant, genteel, and cultured, if you have a beautiful house full of the kind of furniture that requires furniture polish.

So, as you watch TV, watch how they are trying to program your mind. Watch what they are really selling. Notice what they are selling, besides what they seem to be selling.

As a defense, don't watch so much TV. And even if you are an addicted media junkie, you can still watch video tapes and DVDs instead of channels with commercials. That way you, not they, control your information input. Oh, and Public Television isn't so bad, either. And then there is the Internet. It has banner ads, but it just isn't nearly as hypnotic, and your information stream is not controlled by just a few giant corporations.


Read the web page on Propaganda Techniques several times. It helps to understand and recognize the stunts they pull on you and the mind games they play on your head to get you to accept certain ideas and beliefs.
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Research Thread- Cultic Conditioning in politics and soc

Postby liminalOyster » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:42 am

I love the Orange Papers. He can be a bit over the top at times (and I do believe there are some people who can use parts of AA successfully to remain abstinent - though I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole myself, despite having remained abstinent a very long time) but it is simply critical that we have a counterbalance to the extremely pervasive and normalized cultic programming that is AA. I also suspect he has done more for making the public aware of AA's roots in the Oxford Group than anyone else alive.
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Research Thread- Cultic Conditioning in politics and soc

Postby Heaven Swan » Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:23 am

liminalOyster » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:42 am wrote:I love the Orange Papers. He can be a bit over the top at times (and I do believe there are some people who can use parts of AA successfully to remain abstinent - though I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole myself, despite having remained abstinent a very long time) but it is simply critical that we have a counterbalance to the extremely pervasive and normalized cultic programming that is AA. I also suspect he has done more for making the public aware of AA's roots in the Oxford Group than anyone else alive.


Thanks LO.
I just discovered the site and am mostly Interested in his research and writing on cults in general, like the article I posted. I agree with what you're saying though. A public critique of AA is long overdue. There is also a new documentary out called "The 13th Step" about how sexual and financial predators use AA as their hunting ground.

I think the support group aspect of AA and the 12 step programs can and has been very helpful to many people. There's been such a dearth of opportunities to build community in the past couple of decades and the 12 Step world brought community into the lives of so many.

I'm hoping that things are shifting and the Trump silver lining effect will re-energize political activism and movements. I am seeing some of that as feminist meetings in NY that used to draw 15-20 women are now getting 150-200.
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Research Thread- Cultic Conditioning in politics and soc

Postby Searcher08 » Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:06 am

Recommend the writing and YouTube channel lectures of Anne Wilson Schaef.
http://www.livinginprocess.com/anne-wilson-schaef.php

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyOHB0uLJ5ByzXAmH45kJnQ

The work of Gabor Mate is brilliant.


Hope that is useful :hug1:
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Research Thread- Cultic Conditioning in politics and soc

Postby brekin » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:24 pm

Must read is Ernest Becker's chapters on transference in Denial of Death. I think Ch. 7

Imagine a scientific theory that could explain human slavishness by getting at its nexus; imagine that after ages of laments about human folly men would at last understand exactly why they were so fatally fascinated; imagine being able to detail the precise causes of personal thralldom as coldly and as objectively as a chemist separates elements. When you imagine all these things you will realize better than ever the world-historical importance of psychoanalysis, which alone revealed this mystery. Freud saw that a patient in analysis developed a peculiarly intense attachment to the person of the analyst. The analyst became literally the center of his world and his life; he devoured him with his eyes, his heart swelled with joy at the sight of him; the analyst filled his thoughts even in his dreams. The whole fascination has the elements of an intense love affair, but it is not limited to women. Men show the "same attachment to the physician, the same overestimation of his qualities, the same adoption of his interest, the same jealousy against all those connected with him."- Freud saw that this was an uncanny phenomenon, and in order to explain it he called it "transference." The patient transfers the feelings he had towards his parents as a child to the person of the physician. He blows the physician up larger than life just as the child sees the parents. He becomes as dependent on him, draws protection and power from him just as the child merges his destiny with the parents, and so on.

Full text at: https://archive.org/stream/DenialOfDeat ... h_djvu.txt

Also, of course, Eric Hoffer's The True Believer is the perennial go to for good reason as well as Reich's The Mass Psychology of Fascism.
I have a few cult books at home. I think one of the better insider ones is the smart Escape from Utopia: My Ten Years in Synanon.
A good crusader one is Escape: My Life Long War Against Cults by Paul Morantz who litigated against many of them.
Another insider account and offbeat favorite is: Amway: The Cult of Free Enterprise which actually seems quaint now and basically your basic corporate culture.
A favorite fiction one is Imaginary Friends by Alison Laurie.
A shocking, true crime one is Monkey on a Stick: Murder, Madness, and the Hare Krishnas which shows how basically any good message with well meaning people can devolve at the highest level.
Love, Sex, Fear, Death: The Inside Story of The Process Church of the Final Judgment is another insider one, the author seemingly not fully on the outside yet.

Early ex-Scientologist (he would say he's still a Scientologist but not a member of The Church of Scientology) Phil Strickland (Mimi Rogers Dad) has been interviewed about the early days of L Ron and Scientology and it has some interesting insights about the early formation have been posted in the last few years:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZVTA1lqP0c

My takeaway is that most groups are cults, or rather attempts at attaining cult-hood. It's probably some type of small band hunter gathering tribal primal horde template. For some people it can happen in their home with family, at a church, at the workplace, social club, political group, sports team, etc. A lot of frustration in life could actually be groups never reaching cult-hood and the individual having to parse out their energy on multiple groups, none that are completely fulfilling or demanding enough to be worth their investment. This could be a modern dilemma of certain socio-economic brackets as even the most poor and criminal areas have gangs as their cults. As far as the dark side of cults, I think its latent in every group that becomes isolated and falls back on some standard narratives at the expense of others. The lure is of course being taken care of and fulfilled within a small collective of passionate and committed individuals who care about you ruled over by a strong, but kind, but wise, authority figure. As we all have a hungry heart that ain't going to change.



If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Research Thread- Cultic Conditioning in politics and soc

Postby Heaven Swan » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:17 am

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46173.htm

"Mind Manipulations” to Influence Election Results

By Peter Koenig

January 06, 2017 "Information Clearing House"

"Hacking” to influence election results? Ridiculous! That may have been a thing of the past.

Or not even. It’s an evil invention of the evil losers of the evil Hillary camp, supported by a criminal departing President Obama, who will be leaving office, of course, not with a bang, not even with a whimper, but with a disgrace for his nation and for the truth loving people all around the world.

What a legacy the first African-american US President leaves behind – the architect of thousands of indiscriminate and illegal drone killings, by starting five new wars, being currently involved in seven unjustified and illegal armed conflicts around the globe, killing millions of people and, finally, as a miserable liar.

Already back in August 2016, NSA whistleblower William Binney stated on Aaron Klein Investigative Radio that

“the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) server was not hacked by Russia, but by a disgruntled US intelligence worker.” Binney went on to proclaim that “the NSA has all of Clinton’s deleted emails, and the FBI could gain access to them if they so wished.”

He concluded that there was no need for Trump to ask the Russians for the emails, he could just ask the FBI or NSA to hand them over.

So, one of President Obama’s last deeds in this illustrious office of the Presidency of the United States, is lying to the American people and lying to the world. – Bravo!

The truth behind Donald Trump’s ‘surprise’ election may lay somewhere else. It’s called Psychometrics, a method based on massive behavioral data collection of people to be targeted by propaganda, or more accurately expressed by mind manipulation. This PR technology has been marketed and applied by a small London-based data analysis firm, called ‘Cambridge Analytica’.

The research firm first worked for Republican Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator from Texas, who was little known by most Americans. Cambridge Analytica increased his popularity to 40%, but not enough to win the Republican nomination. The data analysis firm was then hired by Trump’s campaign team – successfully as it appears. In this 11-minute YouTube, Alexander Nix, CEO of Cambridge Analytica, explains the method on the case of Ted Cruz.




https://youtu.be/n8Dd5aVXLCc

As reported by the Swiss newspaper, ‘Tagesanzeiger’ (TA), Psychometrics, or Psychographics, as such is not new. It was developed in the 1980s, as a scientific tool to help determine people’s personalities.

Psychologists concluded that every trait of a person’s character can be categorized into five personality dimensions. The system is called OCEAN, for Openness, Consciousness, level of Extraversion, Amicability (compatibility) and Neuroticism.

In this regard, Cambridge Analytica’s CEO claims that based on about 70 Facebook-Likes, they can determine with 95% accuracy whether a person is black or white, with 88% accuracy whether he/she is homosexual and with 85% accuracy whether he /she is a Democrat or Republican.

With 150 ‘Likes’ he knows a person better than his / her parents, and with 300, better than his / her partner. These are impressive claims. But Are they correct? Many critics dispute them, mainly arguing there is no proof that targeted people (i) actually do vote, and (ii) that they vote according to their profile. In any case, it would be difficult to verify to what extent Cambridge Analytica helped Donald Trump to win the elections. Cambridge Analytica also claims credit for the BREXIT vote.


Facebook entries are not the only input to “Big Data”. In addition to tens of thousands of ‘likes’ collected, data on peoples’ google browsing, eating and consumer habits, what cosmetics and rock bands they like, whether they are drug, cigarettes and / or alcohol addicts, or just users, what type of alcohol, brand or type of car they prefer, their banking customs, even the speed with which they remove their cell phone from their pockets when it rings – and-so-on – are also entered into “Big Data”. We are indeed living in the age of no holds barred as far as disrespect for privacy and universal data collection is concerned. As long as we let it happen, it will only get worse.

Hundreds of thousands of people are literally being ‘profiled’ for targeted and personalized propaganda messages to convince segments of people and individuals of think-alikes to vote for or against a candidate. The TA concludes, that’s why Trump’s campaign messages were often contradictory and confusing, difficult to establish a clear picture of where he really stands. This is still the case today.

According to Cambridge Analytica, in the ‘olden days’, social research firms had to get people filling-in cumbersome questionnaires, based on demographics. Today this approach is outdated. We have internet and Facebook. Not all women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, straights – vote alike. This false assumption was still used by Hillary’s campaign and demonstrated to be deceptive. Even though Hillary had about 2.7 million more popular votes, she lost the election by electorates. Cambridge Analytica worked on swing states. Within these States, they targeted specifically the ‘vulnerable’ or undecided, or motivated those with no intention to vote to get off their butts and cast their vote for Trump, or against Hillary, depending on their profile.

For example, Haitians in Florida, who had no intention to vote, but would have leaned Democratic, i.e. for Hillary, were targeted with propaganda describing the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and how the Clintons ruined Haiti’s economy. So – they went to vote for Trump as an anti-Clinton vote. At least this was the plan and apparently, it worked in sufficient cases to be effective.

Although we will never know for sure to what extent Cambridge Analytica has contributed to Trump’s election win, we can be certain that the method, inexpensive as compared to demographic profiling, will be used masively in the future, most certainly in the upcoming elections in France and the Netherlands (Spring 2017) and Germany (Fall 2017).

Thanks goodness for President Putin (I must have said this many times before) to give Mr. Obama and all the people around him, a lesson on how to behave like a statesman and not like a losing looney what he is.

President Putin did not retaliate Obama’s flagrant lie-based expelling of 35 Russian diplomats with families just before New Year’s Eve, in full preparation of year-end festivities. Instead he invited US diplomats in Moscow and their kids to celebrate the year-end festivities with their Russian colleagues. Obama’s act of cowardice was framed as ‘sanction’ for ‘Russian interference in US elections’ – a blatant lie. Mr. Obama, the master puppet of the deep state that pulls the strings on his lips and mind – he, (nominally) President Obama, knows it’s a sham.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Information Clearing House editorial policy.
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Research Thread- Cultic Conditioning in politics and soc

Postby Heaven Swan » Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:33 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... gel-farage

Robert Mercer: the big data billionaire waging war on mainstream media

With links to Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Nigel Farage, the rightwing US computer scientist is at the heart of a multimillion-dollar propaganda network


Image
Robert Mercer in New York in 2014. Photograph: DDP USA/Rex Shutterstock


Carole Cadwalladr
Sun. 26 Feb, 2017
@carolecadwalla

Sunday 26 February 2017 04.00 EST


Just over a week ago, Donald Trump gathered members of the world’s press before him and told them they were liars. “The press, honestly, is out of control,” he said. “The public doesn’t believe you any more.” CNN was described as “very fake news… story after story is bad”. The BBC was “another beauty”.

That night I did two things. First, I typed “Trump” in the search box of Twitter. My feed was reporting that he was crazy, a lunatic, a raving madman. But that wasn’t how it was playing out elsewhere. The results produced a stream of “Go Donald!!!!”, and “You show ’em!!!” There were star-spangled banner emojis and thumbs-up emojis and clips of Trump laying into the “FAKE news MSM liars!”

Trump had spoken, and his audience had heard him. Then I did what I’ve been doing for two and a half months now. I Googled “mainstream media is…” And there it was. Google’s autocomplete suggestions: “mainstream media is… dead, dying, fake news, fake, finished”. Is it dead, I wonder? Has FAKE news won? Are we now the FAKE news? Is the mainstream media – we, us, I – dying?

I click Google’s first suggested link. It leads to a website called CNSnews.com and an article: “The Mainstream media are dead.” They’re dead, I learn, because they – we, I – “cannot be trusted”. How had it, an obscure site I’d never heard of, dominated Google’s search algorithm on the topic? In the “About us” tab, I learn CNSnews is owned by the Media Research Center, which a click later I learn is “America’s media watchdog”, an organisation that claims an “unwavering commitment to neutralising leftwing bias in the news, media and popular culture”.

Another couple of clicks and I discover that it receives a large bulk of its funding – more than $10m in the past decade – from a single source, the hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer. If you follow US politics you may recognise the name. Robert Mercer is the money behind Donald Trump. But then, I will come to learn, Robert Mercer is the money behind an awful lot of things. He was Trump’s single biggest donor. Mercer started backing Ted Cruz, but when he fell out of the presidential race he threw his money – $13.5m of it – behind the Trump campaign.

It’s money he’s made as a result of his career as a brilliant but reclusive computer scientist. He started his career at IBM, where he made what the Association for Computational Linguistics called “revolutionary” breakthroughs in language processing – a science that went on to be key in developing today’s AI – and later became joint CEO of Renaissance Technologies, a hedge fund that makes its money by using algorithms to model and trade on the financial markets.

One of its funds, Medallion, which manages only its employees’ money, is the most successful in the world – generating $55bn so far. And since 2010, Mercer has donated $45m to different political campaigns – all Republican – and another $50m to non-profits – all rightwing, ultra-conservative. This is a billionaire who is, as billionaires are wont, trying to reshape the world according to his personal beliefs.

Image
Donald Trump’s presidential campaigned received $13.5m from Robert Mercer. Photograph: Timothy A Clary/AFP/Getty Images

Robert Mercer very rarely speaks in public and never to journalists, so to gauge his beliefs you have to look at where he channels his money: a series of yachts, all called Sea Owl; a $2.9m model train set; climate change denial (he funds a climate change denial thinktank, the Heartland Institute); and what is maybe the ultimate rich man’s plaything – the disruption of the mainstream media. In this he is helped by his close associate Steve Bannon, Trump’s campaign manager and now chief strategist. The money he gives to the Media Research Center, with its mission of correcting “liberal bias” is just one of his media plays. There are other bigger, and even more deliberate strategies, and shining brightly, the star at the centre of the Mercer media galaxy, is Breitbart.

It was $10m of Mercer’s money that enabled Bannon to fund Breitbart – a rightwing news site, set up with the express intention of being a Huffington Post for the right. It has launched the careers of Milo Yiannopoulos and his like, regularly hosts antisemitic and Islamophobic views, and is currently being boycotted by more than 1,000 brands after an activist campaign. It has been phenomenally successful: the 29th most popular site in America with 2bn page views a year. It’s bigger than its inspiration, the Huffington Post, bigger, even, than PornHub. It’s the biggest political site on Facebook. The biggest on Twitter.

Prominent rightwing journalist Andrew Breitbart, who founded the site but died in 2012, told Bannon that they had “to take back the culture”. And, arguably, they have, though American culture is only the start of it. In 2014, Bannon launched Breitbart London, telling the New York Times it was specifically timed ahead of the UK’s forthcoming election. It was, he said, the latest front “in our current cultural and political war”. France and Germany are next.

A determined plutocrat and a brilliant media strategist can, and have, found a way to mould journalism to their own ends

But there was another reason why I recognised Robert Mercer’s name: because of his connection to Cambridge Analytica, a small data analytics company. He is reported to have a $10m stake in the company, which was spun out of a bigger British company called SCL Group. It specialises in “election management strategies” and “messaging and information operations”, refined over 25 years in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. In military circles this is known as “psyops” – psychological operations. (Mass propaganda that works by acting on people’s emotions.)

Cambridge Analytica worked for the Trump campaign and, so I’d read, the Leave campaign. When Mercer supported Cruz, Cambridge Analytica worked with Cruz. When Robert Mercer started supporting Trump, Cambridge Analytica came too. And where Mercer’s money is, Steve Bannon is usually close by: it was reported that until recently he had a seat on the board.

Last December, I wrote about Cambridge Analytica in a piece about how Google’s search results on certain subjects were being dominated by rightwing and extremist sites. Jonathan Albright, a professor of communications at Elon University, North Carolina, who had mapped the news ecosystem and found millions of links between rightwing sites “strangling” the mainstream media, told me that trackers from sites like Breitbart could also be used by companies like Cambridge Analytica to follow people around the web and then, via Facebook, target them with ads.

On its website, Cambridge Analytica makes the astonishing boast that it has psychological profiles based on 5,000 separate pieces of data on 220 million American voters – its USP is to use this data to understand people’s deepest emotions and then target them accordingly. The system, according to Albright, amounted to a “propaganda machine”.

A few weeks later, the Observer received a letter. Cambridge Analytica was not employed by the Leave campaign, it said. Cambridge Analytica “is a US company based in the US. It hasn’t worked in British politics.”

Which is how, earlier this week, I ended up in a Pret a Manger near Westminster with Andy Wigmore, Leave.EU’s affable communications director, looking at snapshots of Donald Trump on his phone. It was Wigmore who orchestrated Nigel Farage’s trip to Trump Tower – the PR coup that saw him become the first foreign politician to meet the president elect.

Wigmore scrolls through the snaps on his phone. “That’s the one I took,” he says pointing at the now globally famous photo of Farage and Trump in front of his golden elevator door giving the thumbs-up sign. Wigmore was one of the “bad boys of Brexit” – a term coined by Arron Banks, the Bristol-based businessman who was Leave.EU’s co-founder.

Cambridge Analytica had worked for them, he said. It had taught them how to build profiles, how to target people and how to scoop up masses of data from people’s Facebook profiles. A video on YouTube shows one of Cambridge Analytica’s and SCL’s employees, Brittany Kaiser, sitting on the panel at Leave.EU’s launch event.

Facebook was the key to the entire campaign, Wigmore explained. A Facebook ‘like’, he said, was their most “potent weapon”. “Because using artificial intelligence, as we did, tells you all sorts of things about that individual and how to convince them with what sort of advert. And you knew there would also be other people in their network who liked what they liked, so you could spread. And then you follow them. The computer never stops learning and it never stops monitoring.”


Image
Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s chief strategist, is an associate of Robert Mercer. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP

It sounds creepy, I say.

“It is creepy! It’s really creepy! It’s why I’m not on Facebook! I tried it on myself to see what information it had on me and I was like, ‘Oh my God!’ What’s scary is that my kids had put things on Instagram and it picked that up. It knew where my kids went to school.”

They hadn’t “employed” Cambridge Analytica, he said. No money changed hands. “They were happy to help.”

Why?

“Because Nigel is a good friend of the Mercers. And Robert Mercer introduced them to us. He said, ‘Here’s this company we think may be useful to you.’ What they were trying to do in the US and what we were trying to do had massive parallels. We shared a lot of information. Why wouldn’t you?” Behind Trump’s campaign and Cambridge Analytica, he said, were “the same people. It’s the same family.”

There were already a lot of questions swirling around Cambridge Analytica, and Andy Wigmore has opened up a whole lot more. Such as: are you supposed to declare services-in-kind as some sort of donation? The Electoral Commission says yes, if it was more than £7,500. And was it declared? The Electoral Commission says no. Does that mean a foreign billionaire had possibly influenced the referendum without that influence being apparent? It’s certainly a question worth asking.

In the last month or so, articles in first the Swiss and the US press have asked exactly what Cambridge Analytica is doing with US voters’ data. In a statement to the Observer, the Information Commissioner’s Office said: “Any business collecting and using personal data in the UK must do so fairly and lawfully. We will be contacting Cambridge Analytica and asking questions to find out how the company is operating in the UK and whether the law is being followed.”


Cambridge Analytica said last Friday they are in touch with the ICO and are completely compliant with UK and EU data laws. It did not answer other questions the Observer put to it this week about how it built its psychometric model, which owes its origins to original research carried out by scientists at Cambridge University’s Psychometric Centre, research based on a personality quiz on Facebook that went viral. More than 6 million people ended up doing it, producing an astonishing treasure trove of data.

These Facebook profiles – especially people’s “likes” – could be correlated across millions of others to produce uncannily accurate results. Michal Kosinski, the centre’s lead scientist, found that with knowledge of 150 likes, their model could predict someone’s personality better than their spouse. With 300, it understood you better than yourself. “Computers see us in a more robust way than we see ourselves,” says Kosinski.

But there are strict ethical regulations regarding what you can do with this data. Did SCL Group have access to the university’s model or data, I ask Professor Jonathan Rust, the centre’s director? “Certainly not from us,” he says. “We have very strict rules around this.”

A scientist, Aleksandr Kogan, from the centre was contracted to build a model for SCL, and says he collected his own data. Professor Rust says he doesn’t know where Kogan’s data came from. “The evidence was contrary. I reported it.” An independent adjudicator was appointed by the university. “But then Kogan said he’d signed a non-disclosure agreement with SCL and he couldn’t continue [answering questions].”

Kogan disputes this and says SCL satisfied the university’s inquiries. But perhaps more than anyone, Professor Rust understands how the kind of information people freely give up to social media sites could be used.

Image

Former Ukip leader Nigel Farage is a friend of the Mercers. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images

“The danger of not having regulation around the sort of data you can get from Facebook and elsewhere is clear. With this, a computer can actually do psychology, it can predict and potentially control human behaviour. It’s what the scientologists try to do but much more powerful. It’s how you brainwash someone. It’s incredibly dangerous.

“It’s no exaggeration to say that minds can be changed. Behaviour can be predicted and controlled. I find it incredibly scary. I really do. Because nobody has really followed through on the possible consequences of all this. People don’t know it’s happening to them. Their attitudes are being changed behind their backs.”


Mercer invested in Cambridge Analytica, the Washington Post reported, “driven in part by an assessment that the right was lacking sophisticated technology capabilities”. But in many ways, it’s what Cambridge Analytica’s parent company does that raises even more questions.

Emma Briant, a propaganda specialist at the University of Sheffield, wrote about SCL Group in her 2015 book, Propaganda and Counter-Terrorism: Strategies for Global Change. Cambridge Analytica has the technological tools to effect behavioural and psychological change, she said, but it’s SCL that strategises it. It has specialised, at the highest level – for Nato, the MoD, the US state department and others – in changing the behaviour of large groups. It models mass populations and then it changes their beliefs.

SCL was founded by someone called Nigel Oakes, who worked for Saatchi & Saatchi on Margaret Thatcher’s image, says Briant, and the company had been “making money out of the propaganda side of the war on terrorism over a long period of time. There are different arms of SCL but it’s all about reach and the ability to shape the discourse. They are trying to amplify particular political narratives. And they are selective in who they go for: they are not doing this for the left.”

In the course of the US election, Cambridge Analytica amassed a database, as it claims on its website, of almost the entire US voting population – 220 million people – and the Washington Post reported last week that SCL was increasing staffing at its Washington office and competing for lucrative new contracts with Trump’s administration. “It seems significant that a company involved in engineering a political outcome profits from what follows. Particularly if it’s the manipulation, and then resolution, of fear,” says Briant.

It’s the database, and what may happen to it, that particularly exercises Paul-Olivier Dehaye, a Swiss mathematician and data activist who has been investigating Cambridge Analytica and SCL for more than a year. “How is it going to be used?” he says. “Is it going to be used to try and manipulate people around domestic policies? Or to ferment conflict between different communities? It is potentially very scary. People just don’t understand the power of this data and how it can be used against them.”

There are two things, potentially, going on simultaneously: the manipulation of information on a mass level, and the manipulation of information at a very individual level. Both based on the latest understandings in science about how people work, and enabled by technological platforms built to bring us together.

Are we living in a new era of propaganda, I ask Emma Briant? One we can’t see, and that is working on us in ways we can’t understand? Where we can only react, emotionally, to its messages? “Definitely. The way that surveillance through technology is so pervasive, the collection and use of our data is so much more sophisticated. It’s totally covert. And people don’t realise what is going on.”

Public mood and politics goes through cycles. You don’t have to subscribe to any conspiracy theory, Briant says, to see that a mass change in public sentiment is happening. Or that some of the tools in action are straight out of the military’s or SCL’s playbook.

But then there’s increasing evidence that our public arenas – the social media sites where we post our holiday snaps or make comments about the news – are a new battlefield where international geopolitics is playing out in real time. It’s a new age of propaganda. But whose? This week, Russia announced the formation of a new branch of the military: “information warfare troops”.

Sam Woolley of the Oxford Internet Institute’s computational propaganda institute tells me that one third of all traffic on Twitter before the EU referendum was automated “bots” – accounts that are programmed to look like people, to act like people, and to change the conversation, to make topics trend. And they were all for Leave. Before the US election, they were five-to-one in favour of Trump – many of them Russian. Last week they have been in action in the Stoke byelection – Russian bots, organised by who? – attacking Paul Nuttall.

You can take a trending topic, such as fake news, and then weaponise it, turn it against the media that uncovered it

“Politics is war,” said Steve Bannon last year in the Wall Street Journal. And increasingly this looks to be true.

There’s nothing accidental about Trump’s behaviour, Andy Wigmore tells me. “That press conference. It was absolutely brilliant. I could see exactly what he was doing. There’s feedback going on constantly. That’s what you can do with artificial intelligence. You can measure ever reaction to every word. He has a word room, where you fix key words. We did it. So with immigration, there are actually key words within that subject matter which people are concerned about. So when you are going to make a speech, it’s all about how can you use these trending words.”

Wigmore met with Trump’s team right at the start of the Leave campaign. “And they said the holy grail was artificial intelligence.”
Advertisement

Who did?

“Jared Kushner and Jason Miller.”

Later, when Trump picked up Mercer and Cambridge Analytica, the game changed again. “It’s all about the emotions. This is the big difference with what we did. They call it bio-psycho-social profiling. It takes your physical, mental and lifestyle attributes and works out how people work, how they react emotionally.”

Bio-psycho-social profiling, I read later, is one offensive in what is called “cognitive warfare”. Though there are many others: “recoding the mass consciousness to turn patriotism into collaborationism,” explains a Nato briefing document on countering Russian disinformation written by an SCL employee. “Time-sensitive professional use of media to propagate narratives,” says one US state department white paper. “Of particular importance to psyop personnel may be publicly and commercially available data from social media platforms.”

Yet another details the power of a “cognitive casualty” – a “moral shock” that “has a disabling effect on empathy and higher processes such as moral reasoning and critical thinking”. Something like immigration, perhaps. Or “fake news”. Or as it has now become: “FAKE news!!!!”

How do you change the way a nation thinks? You could start by creating a mainstream media to replace the existing one with a site such as Breitbart. You could set up other websites that displace mainstream sources of news and information with your own definitions of concepts like “liberal media bias”, like CNSnews.com. And you could give the rump mainstream media, papers like the “failing New York Times!” what it wants: stories. Because the third prong of Mercer and Bannon’s media empire is the Government Accountability Institute.

Bannon co-founded it with $2m of Mercer’s money. Mercer’s daughter, Rebekah, was appointed to the board. Then they invested in expensive, long-term investigative journalism. “The modern economics of the newsroom don’t support big investigative reporting staffs,” Bannon told Forbes magazine. “You wouldn’t get a Watergate, a Pentagon Papers today, because nobody can afford to let a reporter spend seven months on a story. We can. We’re working as a support function.”

Welcome to the future of journalism in the age of platform capitalism. News organisations have to do a better job of creating new financial models. But in the gaps in between, a determined plutocrat and a brilliant media strategist can, and have, found a way to mould journalism to their own ends.


In 2015, Steve Bannon described to Forbes how the GAI operated, employing a data scientist to trawl the dark web (in the article he boasts of having access to $1.3bn worth of supercomputers) to dig up the kind of source material Google can’t find. One result has been a New York Times bestseller, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, written by GAI’s president, Peter Schweizer and later turned into a film produced by Rebekah Mercer and Steve Bannon.

This, Bannon explained, is how you “weaponise” the narrative you want. With hard researched facts. With those, you can launch it straight on to the front page of the New York Times, as the story of Hillary Clinton’s cash did. Like Hillary’s emails it turned the news agenda, and, most crucially, it diverted the attention of the news cycle. Another classic psyops approach. “Strategic drowning” of other messages.

This is a strategic, long-term and really quite brilliant play. In the 1990s, Bannon explained, conservative media couldn’t take Bill Clinton down because “they wound up talking to themselves in an echo chamber”.

As, it turns out, the liberal media is now. We are scattered, separate, squabbling among ourselves and being picked off like targets in a shooting gallery. Increasingly, there’s a sense that we are talking to ourselves. And whether it’s Mercer’s millions or other factors, Jonathan Albright’s map of the news and information ecosystem shows how rightwing sites are dominating sites like YouTube and Google, bound tightly together by millions of links.

Is there a central intelligence to that, I ask Albright? “There has to be. There has to be some type of coordination. You can see from looking at the map, from the architecture of the system, that this is not accidental. It’s clearly being led by money and politics.”

There’s been a lot of talk in the echo chamber about Bannon in the last few months, but it’s Mercer who provided the money to remake parts of the media landscape. And while Bannon understands the media, Mercer understands big data. He understands the structure of the internet. He knows how algorithms work.

Robert Mercer did not respond to a request for comment for this piece. Nick Patterson, a British cryptographer, who worked at Renaissance Technologies in the 80s and is now a computational geneticist at MIT, described to me how he was the one who talent-spotted Mercer. “There was an elite group working at IBM in the 1980s doing speech research, speech recognition, and when I joined Renaissance I judged that the mathematics we were trying to apply to financial markets were very similar.”

He describes Mercer as “very, very conservative. He truly did not like the Clintons. He thought Bill Clinton was a criminal. And his basic politics, I think, was that he’s a rightwing libertarian, he wants the government out of things.”

He suspects that Mercer is bringing the brilliant computational skills he brought to finance to bear on another very different sphere. “We make mathematical models of the financial markets which are probability models, and from those we try and make predictions. What I suspect Cambridge Analytica do is that they build probability models of how people vote. And then they look at what they can do to influence that.”

Finding the edge is what quants do. They build quantitative models that automate the process of buying and selling shares and then they chase tiny gaps in knowledge to create huge wins. Renaissance Technologies was one of the first hedge funds to invest in AI. But what it does with it, how it’s been programmed to do it, is completely unknown. It is, Bloomberg reports, the “blackest box in finance”.

Johan Bollen, associate professor at Indiana University School of Informatics and Computing, tells me how he discovered one possible edge: he’s done research that shows you can predict stock market moves from Twitter. You can measure public sentiment and then model it. “Society is driven by emotions, which it’s always been difficult to measure, collectively. But there are now programmes that can read text and measure it and give us a window into those collective emotions.”

The research caused a huge ripple among two different constituencies. “We had a lot attention from hedge funds. They are looking for signals everywhere and this is a hugely interesting signal. My impression is hedge funds do have these algorithms that are scanning social feeds. The flash crashes we’ve had – sudden huge drops in stock prices – indicates these algorithms are being used at large scale. And they are engaged in something of an arms race.”

The other people interested in Bollen’s work are those who want not only to measure public sentiment, but to change it. Bollen’s research shows how it’s possible. Could you reverse engineer the national, or even the global, mood? Model it, and then change it?

“It does seem possible. And it does worry me. There are quite a few pieces of research that show if you repeat something often enough, people start involuntarily to believe it. And that could be leveraged, or weaponised for propaganda. We know there are thousands of automated bots out there that are trying to do just that.”

THE war of the bots is one of the wilder and weirder aspects of the elections of 2016. At the Oxford Internet Institute’s Unit for Computational Propaganda, its director, Phil Howard, and director of research, Sam Woolley, show me all the ways public opinion can be massaged and manipulated. But is there a smoking gun, I ask them, evidence of who is doing this? “There’s not a smoking gun,” says Howard. “There are smoking machine guns. There are multiple pieces of evidence.”

“Look at this,” he says and shows me how, before the US election, hundreds upon hundreds of websites were set up to blast out just a few links, articles that were all pro-Trump. “This is being done by people who understand information structure, who are bulk buying domain names and then using automation to blast out a certain message. To make Trump look like he’s a consensus.”

And that requires money?

“That requires organisation and money. And if you use enough of them, of bots and people, and cleverly link them together, you are what’s legitimate. You are creating truth.”

You can take an existing trending topic, such as fake news, and then weaponise it. You can turn it against the very media that uncovered it. Viewed in a certain light, fake news is a suicide bomb at the heart of our information system. Strapped to the live body of us – the mainstream media.

One of the things that concerns Howard most is the hundreds of thousands of “sleeper” bots they’ve found. Twitter accounts that have tweeted only once or twice and are now sitting quietly waiting for a trigger: some sort of crisis where they will rise up and come together to drown out all other sources of information.

Like zombies?

“Like zombies.”

Many of the techniques were refined in Russia, he says, and then exported everywhere else. “You have these incredible propaganda tools developed in an authoritarian regime moving into a free market economy with a complete regulatory vacuum. What you get is a firestorm.”

This is the world we enter every day, on our laptops and our smartphones. It has become a battleground where the ambitions of nation states and ideologues are being fought – using us. We are the bounty: our social media feeds; our conversations; our hearts and minds. Our votes. Bots influence trending topics and trending topics have a powerful effect on algorithms, Woolley, explains, on Twitter, on Google, on Facebook. Know how to manipulate information structure and you can manipulate reality.

We’re not quite in the alternative reality where the actual news has become “FAKE news!!!” But we’re almost there. Out on Twitter, the new transnational battleground for the future, someone I follow tweets a quote by Marshall McLuhan, the great information theorist of the 60s. “World War III will be a guerrilla information war,” it says. “With no divisions between military and civilian participation.”

By that definition we’re already there.

Additional reporting by Paul-Olivier Dehaye

• Carole Cadwalladr will be hosting a discussion on technology’s disruption of democracy at the bluedot festival, Jodrell Bank, Cheshire, 7-9 July
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests