- 28 Apr 2007 02:46
#1190357
First, a foreword.
I'm not going to present a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies require two or more people to communicate with each other. As there is no evidence of communications between diverse parties presented, this is not a conspiracy. Nor do I intend to get all paranoid about what is presented. This is just simple straight line information presented for one's viewing and subsequent consideration.
I will present this material here not in an attempt to sway an opinion. The material I present in this thread is for informational purposes only and secondarily to provoke thought. I'm not trying to present a certain viewpoint or ideology. Do your own thinking, and make up you own damned mind.
All the videos that I present are the DVD version. Free torrents are available, but to keep this thread from becoming a warez thread, I've decided not to supply those links. Google is your friend, but be warned - it's illegal to download copyrighted material without paying for it.
Mind Control
The phrase invokes torture chambers, drugs, and swinging watches. But the reality of it is that it's so ubiquitous that we hardly pay any attention to it. It's really only notable when it fails spectacularly. Advertising, marketing, public relations, all three industries have an interest in mind control techniques. They know what works and what does not. Most Baccalaureates will hardly ever hear the term used. But one does not gain a masters degree in any of those fields without some study of psychology and how to influence the mind - and thus the masses. There is not magic bullet that puts you under some 'spell' and make you bawk like a chicken. There is no single image that will make you rush out to buy a hot dog. If there were, it would have been used on you decades ago. But that does not prevent millions of dollars, some taxpayer dollars, to research this field. Even so, it's very difficult to find hard information on this subject, partly because it's couched in the everyday. Psychologists study it regularly. Perhaps later, I shall present to you the banality of mind control. But first, some resources for the interested.
This Film is Not Yet Rated
This documentary was produced in 2006 and won an award at the sundance festival. It's a must see if one is to look at the hollywood ratings system. It has something of a left leaning bias, but the information uncovered is an exemplary cronicle on how media in the US is manipulated by individuals. And it touches upon how that manipulation affects the media input of millions. That's one of the major ways to control the mind, by controlling the input it receives. Garbage in, garbage out. Control what goes in and you can influence what comes out.
Spin
This documentary was released in 95. It uses satellite back channel feeds (mostly no longer availble because of this documentary) to show how news networks and talk shows control what you see - and thereby influence what you think. They picked on Pat Robertson more than anyone else so I guess there's some partisanship there. But otherwise it's a must see.
I'll add to this thread over the course of the next few days or week.
Continued:
Forums
I've decided to write this one in early. It's more out of line, but in the interest of getting some information posted in the limited time I have this morning, I decided to allow this post to become a bit scrambled.
As is the nature of the internet, sources move and disappear regularly. One of my sources for this thread disappeared and I had to search for an alternative source. (Don't you hate when that happens?)
Mind Control on Internet forums is largely limited to information control and the dissemination of disinformation. A few articles have appeared that suggest some electromagnetic or subliminal attempts at mind control, but none have ever been proven. Given the ease by which such things could be, but have not been, proven, it is my opinion that EM or ubliminals are not being being used via forums or blogs.
25 ways to supress the truth
This article also has a link at the bottom on identifying disinformation artists or wannabes. It's a very good abstraction and worth a read. Here, you learn a few techniques and how to identify them. Please don't use this information to become your own personal disinfo artist. Others here are reading the same thing and will see right through you.
Professional disinformation artists have appeared infrequently as they are usually rather annoying people who will appear for a short period of time and then suddenly disappear as their contract expires. They almost never stick around after their contract expires. Who hires them? People with money and an agenda to promote or protect. Political parties, big corporate interests, credit companies or banks, foreign governments - rarely will anyone hire a disinfo artist directly. They are usually hired by a PR or marketing firm who is contracted by the big agency. Periodically, you find an amateur or partially trained volunteer during election years.
In the past few years, a new player has arrived in the form of the blogs. Disinformation has been disseminated through the use of these blogs. Today, we are facing blogs that are being surreptitiously sponsored by various organizations to present information and disinformation that promotes the sponsors viewpoint. Disinformation published on these blogs are then being reported as fact. People have even noticed multiple blogs publishing in unison. Entries on the same subject with similar viewpoints all appear on multiple blogs within days. Not just big item news events either, but small events too. The best way to identify them is to search out the supposed author of the blog. Some of these bloggers will lend their name to these blogs but otherwise may have little else to do with them. Other times, there is no such person at all. Bloggers are not required to register or identify financial backers so the only way to tell is by contacting the authors themselves and ask questions that only they would know if they wrote their own blogs.
Once again, this is all just a means of controlling the input to your mind. Control what goes in, influence what comes out. This may seem rather banal to you, but as I indicated before, this seems to be the extent of it via forums and blogs. It seems the more radical techniques reserved for other forms of media.
Televison
There are a few other things that can be done with Television besides controlling what messages you receive. But first, a final word on information control. There need not be any conspiracy for this to happen. People with a strong ideological, religious, or social bias will naturally seek out others of the same biases. It's not strange at all that these people would also seek to hire others of the same biases. When you first see a glimpse of the relationship between reporters and the politicians on whom they report, you may think it's collusion. But in reality, they are attempts to teach new politicians 'the ropes', and thereby garner special favor over competetive reporters. Larry King, in the movie "Spin", was merely playing politics in an effort to secure himself as the moderator of a major political debate. The others were merely giving advice to politicians in an effort to garner favor and possibly secure a subsequent willingness to appear on their show. No conspiracy required.
Television also brings visual information into play. With visual information comes new methods of mind control. Most popularly known is subliminal messaging. Since it was brought into the popular consciousness in the 1950s, it has been used infrequently and almost universally condemned. This, however, does not mean it was never used since. For instance, a television ad for a childrens memory game used a subliminal message to "get it" flashed on the TV screen. Candad banned such messaging in reaction to the advertisement. The United States, however, did not ban it until 1974. Even so, today we see commercials which display a series of images in rapid form and with a high rate of motion. Psychologists and neurologists now understand that the eye focuses on movement for an average of about 1.5 seconds. This, they claim, is a carryover survival instinct. It would have been advantageous to instinctively stare at the onrushing tiger for about 1.5 seconds to gather all the information neccessary to make fight or flight decisons. However, Television is the perfect medium to take advantage of this instinctual reaction to coerce the casual gazer into staring at it.
Another mind control device is repetition. Hear something ofen enough and you begin to believe it - or so the theory goes. For nearly as long as television programming has been around, there has been people complaining about all the sex and violence it displays. In the early 1980s, a television consortium - I forget which one - came out with the statement that 'repeated violence on television has negligible effect upon peoples behavior'. Which, at the time, I thought was very ironic since the same people represented by this consortium had, to date, received billions of dollars specifically to display advertisements repetitiously. Either they were defrauding companies of billions of dollars, or they were lying about the effect that such repetition had.
Sex and violence sells product by capturing our interest. Why we are so interested in violence is a matter for psychologists to explain. But the fact of the matter is we are interested in violence and anything associated with it. It sells product - and the product is advertising. No conspiracy theory here - just plain old common sense. But look at the result - even the promotional spots designed to get you to watch a show displays violence as it's primary hook. There are logical reasons why so many promotions feature scenes of violence. Promos have only a very short time to show something interesting enough to attract the viewer. Most promos contain several scenes thus complicating efforts to explain the plot in 10 or 20 seconds. With so little time, the easiest things to feature are those that require little explanation: violence and sex. Viewers may need context to know why the violence is occurring, but they need little or no context to know that a show will contain action, guns or fist fights. Even promotions for situation comedies feature what little "action" may actually be in the show. Many jokes need a longer set up or explanation than is possible in a promo, contributing to the tendency for promos to feature a scene of comedic violence (or a sexual reference).
Some promotions do not even make a pretense of context. Walker, Texas Ranger knows that its fans are not watching because of a particular story that week, but because of the certainty that Chuck Norris, the show’s star, will get into a fight. This point was made clear in a promo for Walker that aired during Hearts Afire on 9/24/94. The promo features Chuck Norris from the waist up doing nothing more than throwing punches. Nothing in the ad mentions anything about the show and the promo is not episode specific. We see no one but Norris and there is absolutely no context. In many ways it was an honest promotion because it highlights exactly what the show is about: fighting.
Researchers followed 329 subjects over 15 years. They found that those who as children were exposed to violent TV shows were much more likely to later be convicted of crime. Researchers said that, "Media violence can affect any child from any family," regardless of social class or parenting. Girls who watched more than an average amount of violence tended to throw things at their husbands. Boys who grew up watching violent TV shows were more likely to be violent with their wives. Researchers concluded in Developmental Psychology that, "Every violent TV show increases a little-bit the likelihood of a child growing up to behave more aggressively."
Television networks, in an effort to market their adverstising time to maximize their profits, is only giving us more of what we want. We demand more violence on TV despite the negative consequences because that is what we find interesting. But this catering to a dark part of our nature has negative consequences that few networks want to aknowlege or accept responsibility.
I'm not going to present a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies require two or more people to communicate with each other. As there is no evidence of communications between diverse parties presented, this is not a conspiracy. Nor do I intend to get all paranoid about what is presented. This is just simple straight line information presented for one's viewing and subsequent consideration.
I will present this material here not in an attempt to sway an opinion. The material I present in this thread is for informational purposes only and secondarily to provoke thought. I'm not trying to present a certain viewpoint or ideology. Do your own thinking, and make up you own damned mind.
All the videos that I present are the DVD version. Free torrents are available, but to keep this thread from becoming a warez thread, I've decided not to supply those links. Google is your friend, but be warned - it's illegal to download copyrighted material without paying for it.
Mind Control
The phrase invokes torture chambers, drugs, and swinging watches. But the reality of it is that it's so ubiquitous that we hardly pay any attention to it. It's really only notable when it fails spectacularly. Advertising, marketing, public relations, all three industries have an interest in mind control techniques. They know what works and what does not. Most Baccalaureates will hardly ever hear the term used. But one does not gain a masters degree in any of those fields without some study of psychology and how to influence the mind - and thus the masses. There is not magic bullet that puts you under some 'spell' and make you bawk like a chicken. There is no single image that will make you rush out to buy a hot dog. If there were, it would have been used on you decades ago. But that does not prevent millions of dollars, some taxpayer dollars, to research this field. Even so, it's very difficult to find hard information on this subject, partly because it's couched in the everyday. Psychologists study it regularly. Perhaps later, I shall present to you the banality of mind control. But first, some resources for the interested.
This Film is Not Yet Rated
This documentary was produced in 2006 and won an award at the sundance festival. It's a must see if one is to look at the hollywood ratings system. It has something of a left leaning bias, but the information uncovered is an exemplary cronicle on how media in the US is manipulated by individuals. And it touches upon how that manipulation affects the media input of millions. That's one of the major ways to control the mind, by controlling the input it receives. Garbage in, garbage out. Control what goes in and you can influence what comes out.
Spin
This documentary was released in 95. It uses satellite back channel feeds (mostly no longer availble because of this documentary) to show how news networks and talk shows control what you see - and thereby influence what you think. They picked on Pat Robertson more than anyone else so I guess there's some partisanship there. But otherwise it's a must see.
I'll add to this thread over the course of the next few days or week.
Continued:
Forums
I've decided to write this one in early. It's more out of line, but in the interest of getting some information posted in the limited time I have this morning, I decided to allow this post to become a bit scrambled.
As is the nature of the internet, sources move and disappear regularly. One of my sources for this thread disappeared and I had to search for an alternative source. (Don't you hate when that happens?)
Mind Control on Internet forums is largely limited to information control and the dissemination of disinformation. A few articles have appeared that suggest some electromagnetic or subliminal attempts at mind control, but none have ever been proven. Given the ease by which such things could be, but have not been, proven, it is my opinion that EM or ubliminals are not being being used via forums or blogs.
25 ways to supress the truth
This article also has a link at the bottom on identifying disinformation artists or wannabes. It's a very good abstraction and worth a read. Here, you learn a few techniques and how to identify them. Please don't use this information to become your own personal disinfo artist. Others here are reading the same thing and will see right through you.
Professional disinformation artists have appeared infrequently as they are usually rather annoying people who will appear for a short period of time and then suddenly disappear as their contract expires. They almost never stick around after their contract expires. Who hires them? People with money and an agenda to promote or protect. Political parties, big corporate interests, credit companies or banks, foreign governments - rarely will anyone hire a disinfo artist directly. They are usually hired by a PR or marketing firm who is contracted by the big agency. Periodically, you find an amateur or partially trained volunteer during election years.
In the past few years, a new player has arrived in the form of the blogs. Disinformation has been disseminated through the use of these blogs. Today, we are facing blogs that are being surreptitiously sponsored by various organizations to present information and disinformation that promotes the sponsors viewpoint. Disinformation published on these blogs are then being reported as fact. People have even noticed multiple blogs publishing in unison. Entries on the same subject with similar viewpoints all appear on multiple blogs within days. Not just big item news events either, but small events too. The best way to identify them is to search out the supposed author of the blog. Some of these bloggers will lend their name to these blogs but otherwise may have little else to do with them. Other times, there is no such person at all. Bloggers are not required to register or identify financial backers so the only way to tell is by contacting the authors themselves and ask questions that only they would know if they wrote their own blogs.
Once again, this is all just a means of controlling the input to your mind. Control what goes in, influence what comes out. This may seem rather banal to you, but as I indicated before, this seems to be the extent of it via forums and blogs. It seems the more radical techniques reserved for other forms of media.
Televison
There are a few other things that can be done with Television besides controlling what messages you receive. But first, a final word on information control. There need not be any conspiracy for this to happen. People with a strong ideological, religious, or social bias will naturally seek out others of the same biases. It's not strange at all that these people would also seek to hire others of the same biases. When you first see a glimpse of the relationship between reporters and the politicians on whom they report, you may think it's collusion. But in reality, they are attempts to teach new politicians 'the ropes', and thereby garner special favor over competetive reporters. Larry King, in the movie "Spin", was merely playing politics in an effort to secure himself as the moderator of a major political debate. The others were merely giving advice to politicians in an effort to garner favor and possibly secure a subsequent willingness to appear on their show. No conspiracy required.
Television also brings visual information into play. With visual information comes new methods of mind control. Most popularly known is subliminal messaging. Since it was brought into the popular consciousness in the 1950s, it has been used infrequently and almost universally condemned. This, however, does not mean it was never used since. For instance, a television ad for a childrens memory game used a subliminal message to "get it" flashed on the TV screen. Candad banned such messaging in reaction to the advertisement. The United States, however, did not ban it until 1974. Even so, today we see commercials which display a series of images in rapid form and with a high rate of motion. Psychologists and neurologists now understand that the eye focuses on movement for an average of about 1.5 seconds. This, they claim, is a carryover survival instinct. It would have been advantageous to instinctively stare at the onrushing tiger for about 1.5 seconds to gather all the information neccessary to make fight or flight decisons. However, Television is the perfect medium to take advantage of this instinctual reaction to coerce the casual gazer into staring at it.
Another mind control device is repetition. Hear something ofen enough and you begin to believe it - or so the theory goes. For nearly as long as television programming has been around, there has been people complaining about all the sex and violence it displays. In the early 1980s, a television consortium - I forget which one - came out with the statement that 'repeated violence on television has negligible effect upon peoples behavior'. Which, at the time, I thought was very ironic since the same people represented by this consortium had, to date, received billions of dollars specifically to display advertisements repetitiously. Either they were defrauding companies of billions of dollars, or they were lying about the effect that such repetition had.
Sex and violence sells product by capturing our interest. Why we are so interested in violence is a matter for psychologists to explain. But the fact of the matter is we are interested in violence and anything associated with it. It sells product - and the product is advertising. No conspiracy theory here - just plain old common sense. But look at the result - even the promotional spots designed to get you to watch a show displays violence as it's primary hook. There are logical reasons why so many promotions feature scenes of violence. Promos have only a very short time to show something interesting enough to attract the viewer. Most promos contain several scenes thus complicating efforts to explain the plot in 10 or 20 seconds. With so little time, the easiest things to feature are those that require little explanation: violence and sex. Viewers may need context to know why the violence is occurring, but they need little or no context to know that a show will contain action, guns or fist fights. Even promotions for situation comedies feature what little "action" may actually be in the show. Many jokes need a longer set up or explanation than is possible in a promo, contributing to the tendency for promos to feature a scene of comedic violence (or a sexual reference).
Some promotions do not even make a pretense of context. Walker, Texas Ranger knows that its fans are not watching because of a particular story that week, but because of the certainty that Chuck Norris, the show’s star, will get into a fight. This point was made clear in a promo for Walker that aired during Hearts Afire on 9/24/94. The promo features Chuck Norris from the waist up doing nothing more than throwing punches. Nothing in the ad mentions anything about the show and the promo is not episode specific. We see no one but Norris and there is absolutely no context. In many ways it was an honest promotion because it highlights exactly what the show is about: fighting.
Researchers followed 329 subjects over 15 years. They found that those who as children were exposed to violent TV shows were much more likely to later be convicted of crime. Researchers said that, "Media violence can affect any child from any family," regardless of social class or parenting. Girls who watched more than an average amount of violence tended to throw things at their husbands. Boys who grew up watching violent TV shows were more likely to be violent with their wives. Researchers concluded in Developmental Psychology that, "Every violent TV show increases a little-bit the likelihood of a child growing up to behave more aggressively."
Television networks, in an effort to market their adverstising time to maximize their profits, is only giving us more of what we want. We demand more violence on TV despite the negative consequences because that is what we find interesting. But this catering to a dark part of our nature has negative consequences that few networks want to aknowlege or accept responsibility.
Last edited by Citizen J on 29 Apr 2007 16:48, edited 1 time in total.
All Governments, regardless of ideology, consistently do two things: The systematic plundering of their captive population, and the arbitrary enrichment of a few.
- By Pants-of-dog
- By litwin