Controlled Opposition - A must read for everyone in the liberty movement

ummm.... he's got the JBS url in his signature block.... you call that open minded? I'd call it vectored.

(Umm,..vectored? Could you explain? I think I get the general gist but I like to keep my definitions clear.)

Re: the URL, I guess she's got that in the signature block because she believes in the JBS, which doesn't necessarily mean she's not open to new information.

I see now though that a veritable barrage of negative posts have been posted, so will wait to see if this thread is still "alive" after you return.

Regards.
 
(Umm,..vectored? Could you explain? I think I get the general gist but I like to keep my definitions clear.)

Re: the URL, I guess she's got that in the signature block because she believes in the JBS, which doesn't necessarily mean she's not open to new information.

I see now though that a veritable barrage of negative posts have been posted, so will wait to see if this thread is still "alive" after you return.

Regards.

There have been no significant rules violations in this thread. Nobody has been threatened. Nobody has been told they can't post here anymore. Nobody has used vulgar language.

"Negative posts" are no reason to curtail free speech. And the "negative posts" are the result of a certain individual making serious, unfounded charges and smears against the JBS.

There's no reason for this thread to be shut down. At most, it should be moved to "hot topics".
 
Why are you attempting to making this thread about me? This seems to be a continual pattern on your part. I am not a membership organization with thousands of members and a magazine. I don't think anyone here could care less about me. The point of this thread is Controlled Opposition and how to identify them,
Exactly. And I am merely pointing out that you are using some of the very techniques that you accuse the 'controlled opposition' of using.

and the focus is on one particular group... a case study if you will
.
You are the one who has made the JBS "the focus" of this thread; not the thread-starter. And if you are going to do so and do not backup your assertions, you can expect on this board that you will receive some flak.

But if you must redirect everyone's attention to one forum member, the please spell it out for the audience. Yet, before you do, I want to to repeat that I have continually called for people to do their own research, to do their own homework, to come to their own individual opinions and to resist the pressures of groups. I don't hear anyone delivering that message, especially groups who's survival is based upon their membership.

Are you wanting me to repeat what I already posted?

Here's what I'm seeing. Your main focus seems to be to attack the John Birch Society and in doing so, are falling for some of the very techniques that you yourself are trying to steer us away from. Some of your assertions have been shown to be wrong and when they are, instead of admitting you were incorrect, you attempt to just slide over them and continue the attack. I find it quite peculiar.

I don't pledge allegiance to the JBS or any other organization and I agree with you that it's not wise to do so. I believe that assertions and proposed facts should be verified before one just accepts them. I'm thinking that you might want to do so too.

I even have referred people to the methods that groups use, and posted information on how the group dynamic works (Tavistock Method is one example). Groups or member based organizations can't and won't do this, for it is in their own disinterest.

Individuality is the antithesis of these groups, no matter what position these groups are espousing. This is very different message than the message that any group is distributing.
So basically, you're saying not to put your trust in any group and to think for yourself? Yup. I've said the same thing several times in this thread. I also suggest that people do not just accept what you or any individual says either, without doing the research. In the case of the JBS, there is all kinds of disinformation out there and it has existed for years. One has to do more than to just cut-and-paste from a website to determine whether the claims have merit.

In fact, I've been ridiculed in this thread repeatedly, even called a lier because I refuse to spoon-feed people all of the details and refute every small point.
Name-calling is never the best way to win an argument. But, from reviewing the posts it appears to me that the reason you were called that is because some of your assertions were shown to be false.

I want people to search for answers on their own. I want people to tough-it through the maze of information and engage in independent critical thinking in an effort to come to their own opinion, one they've developed outside of group influences.
That's good. I think the part that some people had trouble with is that you went far beyond that and made a number of claims against the JBS that you didn't seem to want to back up and when shown that you were incorrect in some of your assertions, you did not step forward and admit it.

So, yes, independent critical thinking is a good thing. Doing research is too. Don't you think both of these things that you suggest others to do, you should hold yourself accountable for also?

So, with that frame of reference on the table, please tell the audience what it is that I am doing. Something that you must disrespect so much that you call into question my age and attack me as merely amusing.
It wasn't an attack; it was a question. And I asked it because of the condescending manner in which you were approaching everyone else. Not all of us just fell off a turnip truck yesterday, you know. :)

Again folks, looks at one must endure. Burn this into your brain and determine for yourself if you are adult enough to handle the pressure of assimilation when it hits you.

Don't you think this is a bit dramatic? You came into someone else's thread and started flinging insults about an organization that you seem to hate. You didn't back up much of anything you said for the longest time and when you tried to, you linked to someone else's web page who made all kinds of unsubstantiated claims. When some asked you to backup your mudslinging, you either refused or got offended and attempted to divert by telling people they couldn't understand unless they researched the techniques of controlled opposition, or just claimed you were being unfairly treated. Neither of those answered the question. I've read some about the techniques that are used by the controlled opposition. I believe this one is called 'diversion'.

ummm.... he's got the JBS url in his signature block.... you call that open minded? I'd call it vectored.
What do you mean by your comment?

I have a number of sites in my sig line. I read all kinds of things to get information. The JBS is just one of many. I do not pledge allegiance to them, or any organization. I thought such independent thought was what you were suggesting throughout this entire thread and some of your others? Or, is it just the fact that you have a bee in your bonnet over the JBS? Even then, I'm still open to what you have to say, but you're going to have to do a better job than you have done so far in backing up your claims. Otherwise, it is just so much gossip.

Note: And BTW, I'm not a "he". :)
 
Last edited:
So, yes, independent critical thinking is a good thing. Doing research is too. Don't you think both of these things that you suggest others to do, you should hold yourself accountable for also?

BINGO!

Basically what InterestedParticipant (IP) is saying here is "Anybody who disagrees with me is an uncritical thinker".

But of course, genuine critical thinking involves looking at things from ALL possible angles.

True critical thinking means questioning EVERYTHING----INCLUDING InterestedParticipant's point of view and unfounded assertions.

I'm ROTFLMAO over the fact that IP whines about us allegedly being "uncritical thinkers", when it's painfully obvious he wants us to UNCRITICALLY accept his unfounded assertions and smears against the JBS.

And there's nothing wrong with calling a liar a liar. I've proven that IP has lied numerous times in this thread.

If IP doesn't like being called a liar, then I suggest he stop lying.

Anybody who claims that calling a liar a liar is "un-Christian", obviously isn't too familiar with the Holy Bible. Christ Jesus himself refers to multiple individuals in the New Testament as "liars", "hypocrites", "vipers", "fools", "children of Satan" etc.
 
Ooooo, I'm so intimidated. /Not
I did not attack you.I asked a simple question based on your posting history.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=3748727

BTW, I try very hard not to be rude. But I can be. ;)
Don't push my buttons, and just answer the question.
What you are attempting to do is intimidate people from joining the discussion who refuse to join the mob. It's either someone enters the thread and participates in the mob or they are intimidated and victimized as well.

This is what has happened in this thread, and the moderators have facilitated it. There's no logical discussion going on in here anymore, its accusations, namecalling and branding people with Scarlett letters. This is not an environment for objective discussion and learning.

This is about Assimilation or Castration. There are no other options being allowed here.

Ugh, what happened to all the smart people who used to post at RPF... why did they leave and where did they all go. :(
 
What you are attempting to do is intimidate people from joining the discussion who refuse to join the mob. It's either someone enters the thread and participates in the mob or they are intimidated and victimized as well.

This is what has happened in this thread, and the moderators have facilitated it. There's no logical discussion going on in here anymore, its accusations, namecalling and branding people with Scarlett letters. This is not an environment for objective discussion and learning.

This is about Assimilation or Castration. There are no other options being allowed here.

Ugh, what happened to all the smart people who used to post at RPF... why did they leave and where did they all go. :(

Kiss and make up. Let go of the petty squabbles.
 
What you are attempting to do is intimidate people from joining the discussion who refuse to join the mob. It's either someone enters the thread and participates in the mob or they are intimidated and victimized as well.

This is what has happened in this thread, and the moderators have facilitated it. There's no logical discussion going on in here anymore, its accusations, namecalling and branding people with Scarlett letters. This is not an environment for objective discussion and learning.

This is about Assimilation or Castration. There are no other options being allowed here.

Ugh, what happened to all the smart people who used to post at RPF... why did they leave and where did they all go.

NO, pcosmar is NOT trying to intimidate ANYBODY from joining the discussion, and NOBODY is being victimized.

You sound an AWFUL lot like InterestedParticipant, so pcosmar's question as to whether you're a "sockpuppet" is completely legitimate.

NOBODY in this thread is preventing you or your alter-ego InterestedParticipant (IP) from posting, ESPECIALLY the moderators.

Now you and your alter-ego IP need to quit wallowing and whining in self-pity, and start giving us REAL DOCUMENTATION for your dubious and disproven claims.

What's REALLY happening here is YOU are trying to DEFLECT people's attention away from the intellectual ass-whipping IP has been taking in this thread, because of his virtual complete inability to document and provide solid evidence for his unfounded and scurrilous charges.

Sorry, but your DEFLECTION technique = MONUMENTAL FAIL.

It has become painfully obvious that you are trying to get this thread shut down by the moderators, because your alter-ego IP is making a bigger fool of himself every time he posts, as you are. :D
 
Last edited:
Ugh, what happened to all the smart people who used to post at RPF... why did they leave and where did they all go. :(

SO typical of RonneJJones and his alter-ego InterestedParticipant.

Anybody who disagrees with InterestedParticipant and Ronne, and doesn't uncritically and blindly accept everything they say, is just "dumb".

ROTFLMAO! :D
 
This is about Assimilation or Castration. There are no other options being allowed here.

Sure there are. You can post anything you bloody want. No member or moderator is stopping you.

Now stop engaging in Deflection, and start presenting SOLID EVIDENCE and DOCUMENTATION for yours and InterestedParticipant's scurrilous and disproven claims.
 
Just logged in remotely to see how the thread is going and I can't say I expected to see anything too different. I've added Conservative Christian to my ignore list because the posts are downright destructive and are obviously meant only to be inflammatory. It really would have been nice to use this thread as a growth and educational process, but that opportunity is obviously being thwarted.

When I'm back tomorrow I'll post some summary thoughts for those that are still trying to be objective.
 
Here is some of what groups do to the individual, irrespective of the group of discussion....

  • Disappear everything in the nature of critical and personal judgment
  • Limit the propagandee's field of thought to the extent that it provides him with ready made (and moreover, unreal) thoughts and stereotypes.
  • Orients the subject towards very limited ends and prevents him from using his mind or experimenting on his own.
  • It determines the core from which all his thoughts must derive and draws from the beginning a sort of guideline that permits neither criticism nor imagination.
  • Any imagination exercised will lead only to small digressions from the fixed line and to only slightly deviant, preliminary responses within the authorized framework. Acceptance of this line, of such ends and limitations, presupposes the suppression of all critical judgment, which in turn is a result of the crystallization of thoughts and attitudes and the creations of taboos.



Alienation Through Propaganda
(page 169)

To be alienated means to be someone other (alienus) than oneself; it also can mean to belong to someone else, it means to be deprived of one's self, to be subjected to, or even identified with, someone else. That is definitely the effect of propaganda. Propaganda strips the individual robs him of himself, and makes him live an alien and artificial life, to such an extent that he becomes another person and obeys impulses foreign to him. He obeys someone else.

Once again, to produce this effect, propaganda restricts itself to utilizing, increasing, and reinforcing the individual's inclination to lose himself in something bigger than he is, to dissipate his individuality, to free his ego of all doubt, conflict, and suffering - through fusion with others; to devote himself to a great leader and a great cause. In large groups, man feels united with others and he therefore tries to free himself by blending with a large group. Indeed, propaganda offers him that possibility in an exceptionally easy and satisfying fashion. But it pushes the individual into the mass until he disappears entirely.

To begin with, what is it that propaganda makes disappear? Everything in the nature of critical and personal judgment. Obviously, propaganda limits the application of thought. It limits the propagandee's field of thought to the extent that it provides him with ready made (and moreover, unreal) thoughts and stereotypes. It orients him towards very limited ends and prevents him from using his mind or experimenting on his own. It determines the core from which all his thoughts must derive and draws from the beginning a sort of guideline that permits neither criticism nor imagination. More precisely, his imagination will lead only to a small digressions from the fixed line and to only slightly deviant, preliminary responses within the framework. In this fashion we see the progressives make some "variations" around the basic propaganda tenets of the Communist party. But the field of such variations is strictly limited.

The acceptance of this line, of such ends and limitations, presupposes the suppression of all critical judgment, which in turn is a result of the crystallization of thoughts and attitudes and the creations of taboos. As Jules Monnerot ha accurately said: All individual passion leads to the suppression of all critical judgment with regard to the object of that passion. Beyond that, in the collective passion created by propaganda, critical judgment disappears altogether, for in no way can there ever be critical collective judgment. Man becomes incapable of "separation," of discernment (the word critical is derived from the Greek krino, separate). The individual can no longer judge for himself because he inescapably relates his thoughts to the entire complex of values and prejudices established by propaganda. With regard to political situations, he is given ready made value judgements invested with the power of truth by the number of supporters and the word of experts. The individual has no chance exercise his judgment either on principal questions or on their implication; this leads to the atrophy of a faculty not comfortably exercised under any conditions.

What the individual loses is never easy to revive. Once personal judgment and critical faculties have disappeared or have been atrophied, they will not simply reappear when propaganda has been suppressed. In fact, we are dealing here with one of propaganda's most durable effects: years of intellectual and spiritual education would be needed to restore such faculties. The propagandee, if deprived of one propaganda, will immediately adopt another; this will spare him the agony of finding himself vis-a-vis some event without ready made opinion, and obliged to judge it for himself. At the same time, propaganda presents facts, judgments and values in such confusion and with so many methods that it is literally impossible for the average man to proceed with discernment. He has neither the intellectual capacity nor the sources of information. He is therefore forced either to accept, or reject, everything in toto.

We thus reach the same point via different route: on the one hand, propaganda destroys the critical faculty; on the other, it presents objectives on which that faculty could not be exercised, and thus renders it useless.

All this obviously leads to the elimination of personal judgment, which takes place as soon as the individual accepts public opinion as his own. When he expresses public opinion in his words and gestures, he no longer expresses himself, but his society, his group. To be sure, the individual always will express the group, more or less. But in this case he will express it totally and in response to a systematic operation.

Moreover, this impersonal public opinion, when produced by propaganda, is artificial. It corresponds to nothing authentic; yet is precisely this artificial opinion that the individual absorbs. He is filled with it; he no longer expresses his ideas, but those of his group, and with great fervor at that - it is a propaganda prerequisite that he should assert them with firmness and conviction. He absorbs the collective judgments, the creatures of propaganda; he absorbs them like the nourishment which they have, in fact become. he expounds them as his own. He takes a vigorous stand, begins to oppose others. He asserts himself at the very moment that he denies his own self without realizing it. When he recites his propaganda lesson and says that he is thinking for himself, when his eyes see nothing and his mouth only produces sounds previously stenciled into his brain, when he says that he is indeed expressing his own judgement - then he really demonstrates that he no longer thinks at all, ever, and that he does not exist as a person. When the propagandee tries to assert himself as a living reality, he demonstrates his total alienation most clearly; for he shows he can no longer even distinguish between himself and society. He is then perfectly integrated, he is the social group, there is nothing in him not of the group's opinion. He is nothing except what has propaganda has taught him. He is merely a channel that ingests the truths of propaganda and dispenses them with the conviction that is the result of his absence as a person. He cannot take a single step back to look at events under such conditions; there can be no distance of any kind between him and propaganda.

The mechanism of alienation generally corresponds either to projection into, and identification with, a hero and a leader, or to a fusion with the mss. These two mechanisms are not mutually exclusive: When a Hitler Youth projected himself into his Fuhrer, he entered by that very act into the mass integrated by propaganda. When the young Kosomol surrendered himself to the cult of Stalin's personality, he became, at that very moment, altogether part of the mass. It is important to note that when the propagandee believes to be expressing the highest ideal of personality, he is at the lowest point of alienation. Did you not hear often enough Fascism's claim that is restored Personality to its place of honor? But through one channel or another, the same alienation is produced by any propaganda, for the creation of a hero is just as much the result of propaganda as is the integration of an individual in an activated mass. When propaganda makes the indiviual participate in a collective movement, it not only makes him share in an artificial activity, but also evokes in him a psychology of participation, "a crowd psychology". This psychic modification, which automatically takes place in the presence of other participants, is systematically produced by propaganda. It is the creation of mass psychology, with man's individual psychology integrated into the crowd.

In this process of alienation, the individual loses control and submits to external impulses; his personal inclinations and tastes give way to participation in the collective. But that collective will always be best idealized, patterned, and represented by the hero. The cult of the hero is the absolutely necessary complement of the massification of society. We see the automatic creation of this cult in connection with champion athletes, movie stars, and even such abstractions as Davy Crockett in the United States and Canada in 1955. The exaltation of the hero proves that one lives in a mass society. The individual who is prevented by circumstances from becoming a real person, who can no longer express himself through personal thought or action, who finds his aspirations frustrated, projects onto the hero all he would wish to be. He lives vicariously and experiences the athletic or amorous or military exploits of the god with whom he lives in spiritual symbiosis. The well known mechanism of identifying with movie stars is almost impossible to avoid for the member of modern society who comes to admire himself in the person of the hero. There he reveals the powers of which he unconsciously dreams, projects his desires, identifies with the success and the adventure. The hero becomes model and father, power and mythical realization of all that individual cannot be.

Propaganda uses all these mechanisms, but actually does even more to reinforce, stabilize, and spread them. The propagandee is alienated and transposed into the person promoted by propaganda (publicity campaigns for movie stars and propaganda campaigns are almost identical). For this, incidentally, no totalitarian organization is needed - such alienation does not take place merely in the event of a Hitler or a Stalin, but also in that of Khrushchev, a Clemenceau, a Coolidge, or a Churchill (the myth surrounding is very remarkable in this respect).

The propagandee finds himself in a psychological situation composed of the following elements: he lives vicariously through an intermediary. He feels, thinks and acts through the hero. he is under the guardianship and protection of his living god; he accepts being a child; he ceases to defend his own interests, for he knows his hero loves him and everything his hero decides is for the propagandee's own good; he thus compensates for the rigor of the sacrifices imposed on him. For this reason every regime that demands a certain amount of heroism must develop this propaganda of projection onto the hero (leader).

In this connection one can really speak of alienation, and of regression to an infantile state caused by propaganda. Young is of the opinion that the propagandee no longer develops intellectuality, but becomes arrested in an infantile neurotic regression sets in when the individual is submerged in mass psychology. This is confirmed by Stoetzel, who says that propaganda destroys all individuality, is capable of creating only a collective personality, and that it is an obstacle to the free development of the personality.

Such extensive alienation is by no means exceptional. The reader may think we have described an extreme, almost pathological case. Unfortunately, he is common type, even in his acute state. Everywhere we find men who pronounce as highly personal truths what they have read in the papers only an hour before, and whose beliefs are merely the result of a powerful propaganda. Everywhere we find people who have blind confidence in a political party, a general, a movie star, a country, or a cause, and who will not tolerate the slightest challenge to that god. Everywhere we meet people who, because they are filled with the consciousness of Higher Interests they must serve unto death, are no longer capable of making the simplest moral or intellectual distinctions or of engaging in the most elemenatry reasoning. yet all this acquired without effort, experience, reflection, or criticism - by the destructive effect of well made propaganda. We meet this alienated man at every turn, and are possibly already one ourselves.

Aside from the alienation that takes place when the rational individual retreats into thr irrational collective, there are other forms of alienation - for example, through the artificial satisfaction of real needs, or the real satisfaction of artificial needs (publicity and advertising).

The first case is the one we have discussed, in which propaganda develops from the contemporary sociological situation in order to give man artificial for real needs. Because man is restless and frustrated , because he understands nothing of the world in which he lives and acts, because he still is asked to make great sacrifices and efforts - because of all that, propaganda develops. It satisfies man, but with false and illusory satisfaction. It gives him explanations of the World in which he lives, but explanations that are mendacious and irrational. It reassures him or excites him, but always at the wrong moment. It makes him tremble with der of some biological warfare that never did exist, and makes him believe in the peaceful intentions of countries that have no desire for peace. It gives him reasons for the sacrifices demanded of him, but not the real reasons. Thus, in 1914, it called on him to lay down his life for his country, but remained silent on the war's economic causes, for which he certainly would not have fought.
Propaganda satisfies man's need for release and certainty, it eases his tensions and compensates for his frustrations, but with artificial means. If, for example, the worker has reasons- given his actual economic situation- to feel frustrated, alienated, or exploited, propaganda, which can really "solve" the worker's problems, as it has already done in the U.S.S.R., alienates him even more by making him oblivious of his frustrations and alienation, and by claiming and satisfying him. When man is subjected to the abnormal conditions of a big city or a battlefield and has good reason to feel tense, fearful, an out of step, propaganda that adjusts him to such conditions and resolves his conflicts artificially, without changing his situation in the least, is particularly pernicious. Of course, it seems like a cure. But it is like the cure that would heal the liver of an alcoholic in such a way that he continue to get drunk without feeling pain in his liver. Propaganda's artificial and unreal answers for modern man's psychological suffering are precisly of that kind: they allow him to continue living abnormally under the conditions in which society places him. Propaganda suppresses the warning signals that his anxieties, maladjustment, rebellions, and demands once supplied.
All this is also at work when propaganda liberates our deepest impulses and tendencies, such as our erotic drives, guilt feelings, and desire for power. But such liberation does not provide true and genuine satisfactions for such drives, any more than it justifies our demands and aggressions by permitting us to feel righteous in spite of them. Man can no more pick the object of his aggression than he can give free reign to his erotic drive. The satisfactions and liberations offered by propaganda are ersatz. Their aim is to provide a certain decompression or to use the shock effect of these tremendous forces somewhere else, to use them in support of actions that would otherwise lack impetus. This shows how the propaganda deprives the individual of his true personality.
Modern man deeply craves friendship, confidence, close personal relationships. But he is plunged into a world of competition, hostility, and anonymity, he needs to meet someone whom he can trust completely, for whom he can feel pure friendship, and to whom he can mean something in return. That is hard to find in his daily life, but apparently confidence in a leader, a hero, a movie star, or a TV personality is much more satisfying. TV, for example, creates feelings of friendship, a new intimacy, and thus fully satisfies those needs. But such satisfactions are purely illusory and fallacious because there is no true friendship of any kind between the TV personality and the viewer who feels that personality to be his friend. Here is a typical mendacious satisfaction of a genuine need. And what TV spontaneously produces is systematically exploited by propaganda: the "Little father" is always present.

Another example: In 1958 Khrushchev promised the transition to integrated Communism in the U.S.S.R.; later he declared that it would be realized very soon. Based on this them was an entire irrational propaganda campaign whose principal argument was that Communism would soon be fully attained because by 1975 the U.S.S.R. would have reached the production level of the United States - which would mean that the United States would then be ready to achieve Communism. Incidentally, the year given by Khrushchev in 1058 for the occurrence of this phenomenon was 1975, but in April 1960, the year he gave was 1980. This campaign was designed to satisfy the needs of the Soviet masses, to regain their confidence and appease their demands. What we see here is a purely theoretical answer, but it satisfies because it is believed by the masses and thus made true and real by the mechanism of propaganda.

Let us now look at the other side of the coin. Propaganda creates artificial needs. just as propaganda creates political problems that would never arise by themselves, but for which public opinion will demand a solution, it arouses in us an increase of certain desires, prejudices, and needs which were by no means imperative to begin with. They became so only as a result of propaganda, which here plays the same role as advertising. Besides, propaganda is helped by advertising, which gives certain twists and orientations to individual drives, while propaganda extends the effects of advertising by promising psychological relief of tensions in general. Under the impact of propaganda, certain prejudices (racial or economic), certain needs (for equality or success), become all-devouring, destructive passions, occupying the entire range of a person's consciousness, superseding all other aspects of life, and demanding answers.

As a result of propaganda, these superficial tendencies end up by becoming identified with our deepest needs and become confused with what is most personal and profound within us. Precisely in this fashion the genuine need for freedom has been diluted and adulterated into an abominable mixture of liberalism under the impact of various forms of propaganda of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In this psychic confusion, created by propaganda, propaganda alone then imposes order. Just as it is a fact that mass communication media create new media (for example, the existence of TV creates the need to buy a set and to turn it on), it is even more the case when these means are used by propaganda.

And just as propaganda acts to create new needs, it also creates the demands for their solutions. We have shown how propaganda can relieve and resolve tensions. These tensions are purposely provoked by the propagandist, who holds out their remedy at the same time. He is master of both excitation and satisfaction. One may even say that he has provoked a particular tension, it was in order to lead the individual to accept a particular remedy, to demand some suitable action (suitable from the propagandist's viewpoint ), and to submit to a system that will alleviate tension. He thus places the individual in a universe of artificially created political needs, needs that are artificial even if their roots were completely genuine.

For example, by creating class consciousness in the proletariat, propaganda adds corresponding tension to the worker's misery. Similarly, by creating an equality complex, it adds another tension to the all the natural demands of the "have-nots."But propaganda simultaneously offers the means to reduce these tensions. It opens a door to the individual, and we have seen that is one of the most effective propaganda devices. the only trouble is that it really offers is a profound alienation: when an individual reacts to these artificially created stimuli, or when he submits to the manipulations that make him repress certain personal impulses to make room for abstract drives and reduction of these tensions, he is no more himself than he is when he reacts biologically to a tranquilizer. This will appear to be a true remedy, which in fact it is - but for a sickness deliberately provoked to fit the remedy.

As we have frequently noted, these artificial needs assume considerable importance because of their universal nature and the means (the mass media) by which they are propagated. They become more demanding and imperative for the individual than his own private needs and lead him to sacrifice his private satisfactions. In politics as in economics, the development of artificial needs progressively eliminates personal needs and inclinations. Thus, what takes place is truly an expulsion of the individual outside of himself, designed to deliver him to the abstract forces of technically oriented mechanisms.

On this level, too, the more the individual is convinced that he thinks, feels, and acts on his own , the greater the alienation will be. The psychologist Biddle has demonstrated in detail that an individual subjected to propaganda behaves as though his reactions depended on his own decisions. He obeys, he trembles with fear and expands or contracts on command, but nothing in this obedience is passive or automatic; even when yielding to suggestion, he decides "for himself" and thinks himself free - in fact the more he is subjected to propaganda, the freer he thinks he is. He is energetic and chooses his own action. In fact, propaganda to reduce the tension it has created in the first place, offers him one, two, even three possible courses of action, and the propagandee considers himself a well-organized, fully aware individual when chooses one of them. Of course, this takes little effort on his part. The propagandee does not much energy to make his decision, for that decisions corresponds with his group, with suggestion, and with the sociological forces. Under the influence of propaganda he always takes the easy, the path of least resistance, even if it cost him his life. But even while coasting downhill, he claims he is climbing uphill and performing a personal, heroic act. For propaganda has aroused his energy, personality, an sense of responsibility - or rather their verbal images, because the forces themselves were long ago destroyed by propaganda. This duplicity is propaganda's most destructive act. And it leads us to consider next propaganda's effect of psychic dissociation.

Taken from Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes by Jacques Ellul
 
Thanks very much for posting again in this thread and taking it in a much needed and very positive direction. This should be read and understood by everyone here.... it seems to me it is irrelevant who the group is or what their stated goals are, the individual subsumes to the group as soon as they acquiesce to the need for feeling part of something, of putting the need for acceptance and placation over their own individuality. Great stuff!

We thus reach the same point via different route: on the one hand, propaganda destroys the critical faculty; on the other, it presents objectives on which that faculty could not be exercised, and thus renders it useless.

All this obviously leads to the elimination of personal judgment, which takes place as soon as the individual accepts public opinion as his own. When he expresses public opinion in his words and gestures, he no longer expresses himself, but his society, his group. To be sure, the individual always will express the group, more or less. But in this case he will express it totally and in response to a systematic operation.

Moreover, this impersonal public opinion, when produced by propaganda, is artificial. It corresponds to nothing authentic; yet is precisely this artificial opinion that the individual absorbs. He is filled with it; he no longer expresses his ideas, but those of his group, and with great fervor at that - it is a propaganda prerequisite that he should assert them with firmness and conviction. He absorbs the collective judgments, the creatures of propaganda; he absorbs them like the nourishment which they have, in fact become. he expounds them as his own. He takes a vigorous stand, begins to oppose others. He asserts himself at the very moment that he denies his own self without realizing it.
 
Thanks very much for posting again in this thread and taking it in a much needed and very positive direction. This should be read and understood by everyone here.... it seems to me it is irrelevant who the group is or what their stated goals are, the individual subsumes to the group as soon as they acquiesce to the need for feeling part of something, of putting the need for acceptance and placation over their own individuality. Great stuff!

Believe or not, a person can actually participate in an organization without - as you state - "putting the need for acceptance and placation over their own individuality".

I reject the notion that participation with, and/or acknowledgement of people (with leadership skills) and various organizations, somehow denotes a loss of individualism. That presumes that all participation in such, is cultish. Only in cults is there a loss of individuality.

If one is going to presume that involvement and agreement with all such organizations and people results in a loss of individuality, then that would also include anyone who is in agreement with IP. And that would be just dumb, now wouldn't it?
 
Last edited:
Believe or not, a person can actually participate in an organization without - as you state - "putting the need for acceptance and placation over their own individuality".

I reject the notion that participation with, and/or acknowledgement of people (with leadership skills) and various organizations, somehow denotes a loss of individualism. That presumes that all participation in such, is cultish. Only in cults is there a loss of individuality.

If one is going to presume that involvement and agreement with all such organizations and people results in a loss of individuality, then that would also include anyone who is in agreement with IP. And that would be just dumb, now wouldn't it?
I don't necessarily disagree with you, as long as the person is able to recognize the techniques of manipulation. But my concern here is that these techniques are not taught, and are largely unknown in the general population. For example, would a group member recognize sophisticated Delphi Techniques or NLP if perpetrated during a group setting? Further, if one does not go outside the group for affirmation, how does one test the hypotheses and information being promulgated by the group? Is it simply accepted?
 
I see what you're saying. This is has been an issue since Edward L. Bernays turned propaganda into public relations:

In Propaganda (1928), his most important book, Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
 
I see what you're saying. This is has been an issue since Edward L. Bernays turned propaganda into public relations:

In Propaganda (1928), his most important book, Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
Yup, Bernays certainly advanced some of the craft, but other critical techniques have been around since before Plato, who significantly advanced the concept of the dialectic.

But yes, my point is, if you are unaware of the techniques, and are unable to recognize them and how they are designed to impact you, then how can you be certain you are not a subject of these techniques, especially when you are talking about well funded sophisticated nationally or internationally run "groups."
 
The New World Order disinformation agent and his sock-puppet have returned.

There is ALWAYS greater strength in organized group opposition to tyranny.

It is a primary goal of the New World Order to create paranoia and isolation, so they can divide and conquer.

Paranoid, isolated individuals such as Theodore Kaczynski are useless to the cause of freedom, and often resort to unnecessary violence to achieve their goals.

..
 
(Umm,..vectored? Could you explain? I think I get the general gist but I like to keep my definitions clear.)

Re: the URL, I guess she's got that in the signature block because she believes in the JBS, which doesn't necessarily mean she's not open to new information.

I see now though that a veritable barrage of negative posts have been posted, so will wait to see if this thread is still "alive" after you return.

Regards.

ummm.... he's got the JBS url in his signature block.... you call that open minded? I'd call it vectored.

What do you mean by your comment?
Now we are getting somewhere. Thanks for the questions. Let me continue to try to refocus this thread on the tools and definitions that the public must incorporate into their inventory of understanding. Let's see if that can be a more productive direction.

So I will start this off with the following post, which will be followed by other posts in this thread along the same line.... all designed and intended to provide insight into how the system works and to answer the questions posed about vectors, explaining what they are and how they fit into the framework of control that I am attempting to expose.

Joint Vision 2020

Let me start this part of the discussion by introducing the reader to the Joint Vision 2020 document released on May 30, 2000, by the United States Department of Defense, proclaiming the need for "full-spectrum dominance" on the battlefield. The Joint Vision 2020 concepts have subsequently formed the basis of United States military doctrine.

Document available at
http://www.dtic.mil/futurejointwarfare/[/QUOTE]

Full Spectrum Dominance (FSD)

Military speak

Full-spectrum dominance is a military doctrine whereby a joint military structure achieves control over all elements of the battlespace using land, air, maritime and space based assets.

Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is wholly constrained.

Interpretation:
  • The "information space" (ie. all information communicated to potential adversaries) and the entire "electromagnetic spectrum" (ie. television, radio, citizens band radio, Ham radio, Internet, electricity grids, cellular telephone networks, etc.) must be controlled under this doctrine. Hence, all mediums of communication are controlled as well as all information passed through these mediums.
  • This definition of control means any potential adversaries are wholly constrained. Hence, anything or anyone that is considered a potential adversary is attacked using the various techniques at their disposal. I will begin to discuss techniques later in this thread.
  • Lastly, before anyone says, hey wait, this doctrine only applies to military activities in the battle space. Well, what is critical to understand is that with the introduction of global terrorism (ie "Global War on Terrorism"), the US Military now considers the entire planet a War Theater. Hence, these techniques apply everywhere and to anyone (ie all potential adversaries).

These are the primary goals of FSD, and they apply globally.

Information Operations: Total Information Dominance (TID)

Now, let's move on to one of the key tenants under FSD, and that is Information Operations: Total Information Dominance, which is discussed in the following quote. Please note that the US military has amalgamated the Center for Information Dominance (CID) at a single location, Corry Station, integrating all key disciplines of information dominance.

Information Dominance: The Philosophy Of Total Propaganda Control?
David Miller, 29 December 2003

The concept of ‘information dominance’ is the key to understanding US and UK propaganda strategy and a
central component of the US aim of ‘total spectrum dominance’. It redefines our notions of spin and propaganda
and the role of the media in capitalist society. To say that it is about total propaganda control is to force the
English language into contortions that the term propaganda simply cannot handle
. Information dominance is not
about the success of propaganda in the conventional sense with which we are all familiar. It is not about all those
phrases ‘winning hearts and minds’, about truth being ‘the first casualty’ about ‘media manipulation’ about
‘opinion control’ or about ‘information war’. Or, to be more exact - it is about these things but none of them can
quite stretch to accommodate the integrated conception of media and communication encapsulated in the
phrase information dominance.

Information dominance is a concept of elegant simplicity and at the same time complex interconnectedness. It
plays a key role in US military strategy and foreign policy. The now quite well known statement of this is
contained in the Pentagon’s Joint Vision 2020, where the key term is ‘full spectrum dominance’ which ‘implies
that US forces are able to conduct prompt, sustained and synchronized operations with combinations of forces
tailored to specific situations and with access to and freedom to operate in all domains – space, sea, land, air
and information
.

The inclusion of information on the list is not surprising, but it has not attracted much attention in public debate
even in the anti war movement.
The question is how central is information? The US Army regards it as important
enough to issue a 314 page manual on it in November 2003. Titled Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics,
Techniques, and Procedures
, the first sentence states unambiguously: ‘information is an element of combat
power’. [2] The Army defines Information Operations as: ‘the employment of the core capabilities of electronic
warfare
, computer network operations, psychological operations, military deception
, and operations security, in
concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to affect or defend information and information
systems, and to influence decision making’.

This already suggests a range of activities wider than those traditionally associated with propaganda. A
suggestion reinforced by the aim of information operations, which is to secure ‘information dominance’. The US
military are not terribly open about this agenda and tend not to speak about it in public. It doesn’t feature in the
‘approved for public release’ manual on Information Operations. But internally there has been a tong term
debate about information dominance. To the outsider discussions about how ‘information dominance’ differs
from ‘information superiority’ might seem arcane, but they are revealing. For example, in a paper written back in
1997 Jim Winters and John Giffin of the US Space and Information Operations Directorate argued that
information superiority was insufficient: ‘at some base point “superiority” means an advantage of 51-49, on
some arbitrary metric scale. That is not enough of an advantage to give us the freedom of action required to
establish “Full Spectrum dominance”’. Dominance implies ‘a mastery of the situation’ Superiority ‘only an edge’.
According to Winters and Giffin ‘We think of dominance in terms of "having our way" - "Overmatch" over all
operational possibilities. This connotation is “qualitative” rather than “quantitative”. When dominance occurs,
nothing done, makes any difference. We have sufficient knowledge to stop anything we don't want to occur, or
do anything we want to do.’ (my emphasis) [3] This could hardly be any clearer about the agenda of the US
military. There are two new elements to information dominance compared to traditional conceptions of
propaganda. The first is the integration of propaganda and psychological operations into a much wider
conception of information war. The second is the integration of information war into the core of military
strategy.

Traditional conceptions of propaganda involve crafting the message and distributing it via government media or
independent news media. Current conceptions of information war go much further and incorporate the
gathering, processing and deployment of information including via computers, intelligence and military
information (command and control) systems. The key preoccupation for the military is ‘interoperability’ where
information systems talk to and work with each other. Interoperability is a result of the computer revolution
which has led to the ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’. Now propaganda and psychological operations are simply
part of a larger information armoury. As Col Kenneth Allard has written, the 2003 attack on Iraq ‘will be
remembered as a conflict in which information fully took its place as a weapon of war’ Allard tells a familiar story
in military writings on such matters: ‘in the 1990s, the Joint Chiefs of Staff began to promote a vision of future
warfare in which C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance) systems would be forged into a new style of American warfare in which interoperability was the
key to information dominance—and information dominance the key to victory.’

It is evident that the US and its UK ally are intent on ruling the world and that information control has become central to that effort. The key to understanding information dominance is to be clear that it is not dissent in itself that the US planners object to. Rather it is dissent that hampers their ability to do whatever they want that matters. As the military themselves put it: ‘When dominance occurs, nothing done, makes any difference

To be continued (feel free to ask questions before I post again, and I will try to answer or clarify)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top