Hilldog's Supporters Are Revolting

[Leimeng]

~ The Hillary supporters who are against Barry O' and supporting McCain can be divided into a few generalized groups.
* Middle Aged and Elderly Femi-nazis... That is, those who feel that Hillary is the last shot to get a female into the Whitehouse while they are alive. She is the best known female in politics who has made it her life's goal to get into the oval office.
* Diehard racists... These individuals are the sort who would shoot their own daughter if she was dating a non-klansman. Even though the Klan and the Demo-party are kissing cousins in terms of most policies, on race, this group will not bend. This is most likely the group behind the "Obama is a radical muslim" campaign.
* South Florida and Long Island Jews... The reactionary fear they feel about Obama (with an arabic middle name and being black) is enough to make them reject Barry O'.
* People who owe the Clintoons a political debt of some sort.
~ There are other groups, but these are the major ones. In terms of policy they agree with Barry O' on just about everything he has stated. With the exception of the Jewish vote, for the most part these groups have the same sewer like moral values and utter lack of regard for there fellow human beings that the left and their Democrat minions have always had.
~ Kucinich, Nader, Paul et al are considered to be on the kook fringe of American politics and have very little chance of going anywhere.
~ If one looks hard enough one can find something decent about ANY politician that they could support. Due to the lack of principle and humanity, coupled with elitist longings, self loathing, and simple mindedness, the moonbats of the facist left are unable to recognize this fact and project their own personal desires in a freudian manner upon those they disagree with. Thus the far left/wrong wing of American politics calls anyone they disagree with Hitler or facist, not realizing that their stances are much more in line with the Third Reich or Stalin or Benito M' than they care to admit.
~ While I do not relish the idea of a McCain presidency, at least he is not a socialist or coward. Barry O would be Jimmy Carter on crystal meth on the other hand and that idea should scare the piss out of any thinking individual.
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

MAL = STC

(*** Insert Personal One Liner Here***)

[CaliG]

Dmitri,

I can't explain it in detail, but I can see the effects of the social programming, the literal mind control mental programming that has been successful in this country. Somehow, a large number of Americans have been literally programmed like computers to respond to certain keywords or triggers, and they often respond with irrational negativity or irrational adulation for the slicksters like Clinton or Obama.

Remember when we were talking about Ron Paul and presenting facts about his platform and how people here reacted with out and out ignorant negativity, like they just didn't want to be bothered by something or someone who challenged their programmed thought processes, and they just endlessly repeated a couple of lame criticisms?

It's mind control. Watching the documentary about Ralph Nader is a good chance to see it in action because it's got lots of closeups of people reacting to his running for Pres. in 2000 and 2004 and blaming him for Gore losing. Totally irrational. Part of it seems to be conditioning for people to expect to be told what they need then spoon fed everything they think they have coming. Anything that upsets this expectation elicits some kind of pre-programmed response.

No offense, but for someone writing about mind control...you sound like a malfunctioning NLP robot.

GET OVER YOURSELF! Before I call on my Nigerians in GZ.

[Michael]

CaliG: Takes one to know one, right?

[Michael]

Steve, I never mentioned 9-11, Ron Paul losing, blaming the Democrats, conspiracies against RP, or some other stuff you've said in this thread. I wasn't trying to make this about RP, just using it as an example about irrational negative reactions.

[Steve James]

My point was about people judging what was "irrational" and "negative." People don't believe in the things you mentioned; and yes, I'm including Ron Paul --but, you brought him up. In fact, it was your specific comment to Dmitri in reference to RP that I responded to. And, I'm not saying anything negative about RP or you or Dmitri. I'm saying that the more you try to convince people (meaning me) that they're being manipulated by the media, the more it seems to some people that it is you who have drank the kool aid. They will see "you" as being irrational. Moreover, "you" can't convince people to change their minds if you argue that their minds are being controlled.

[Michael]

I wish I could articulate a lot more clearly about the "mind control" of the mainstream media. Maybe next time.

One of Ron Paul's greatest successes, besides getting people involved in the political process, was just letting tens of millions of Americans know the Federal Reserve bank is a private corporation that controls inflation, as a tax, which Bernanke finally admitted in the past couple of days in a Congressional hearing.

[Steve James]

There's a difference between "mind control" and "controlling the means of communication." Anyway, Paul's been around for quite a while, and been saying the same thing. What's different is that you happened to be listening, this time.

However, so people (the American public in general) doesn't know how the Federal Reserve works or what it does. That is true for 90% of most things regards government, banking and economics. Ask the average American how many amendments there are to the Constitution. Anyway, as I said, it wasn't about R. Paul, it was about your contention that the reactions to his supporters were irrational.

[Michael]

Are you actually arguing that the media doesn't manipulate people in a very real and repeatable way based on decades of research in the field of psychology and various technologies, like television? I sort of doubt that, so are you just reminding me about the difference between mind control and controlling the means of communication? There is little to no substantial difference between them when looking at the 20 years when mass media went from being controlled by 120 corporations to six. Mind control is a means to an end that is made more effective by controlling the means of communication, whatever the motive may be whether political or just profit, if there is a difference between them, which is usually not the case.

And why don't people in the USA know more about how things work? Why don't we know how many amendments there are? Is it stupidity? Poor education? Mental conditioning to reject various kinds of information because Tom Cruise' nanny is more important? I may or may not have part of the answer, but I do believe it is an answerable question.

[Steve James]

I'm saying that if the media has so much power that it must have control over you too, right? just as controlled as everybody else, and just as subject to misinformation and disinformation. That's all. And, just because others who watch tv, listen to radio, read the news and internet disagree, sometimes strongly, with a particular candidate does not mean they are under media control and irrational.

[TaoJoannes]

Are you actually arguing that the media doesn't manipulate people in a very real and repeatable way based on decades of research in the field of psychology and various technologies, like television? I sort of doubt that, so are you just reminding me about the difference between mind control and controlling the means of communication? There is little to no substantial difference between them when looking at the 20 years when mass media went from being controlled by 120 corporations to six. Mind control is a means to an end that is made more effective by controlling the means of communication, whatever the motive may be whether political or just profit, if there is a difference between them, which is usually not the case.

It's the 80/20 rearing it's ugly head again.

80% of the people don't care, they just want to eat, sleep, shit and be happy and not even bothering thinking for themselves at all. They gleefully surrender their power to the other 20%, they're happy with it, and they don't really care.

The other 20% is an assortment of various types and varying levels of awareness and consciousness of life and living and the flow of humanity and power dynamics, and yes, the cutoff is extremely arbitrary and represents more of a tipping point on a spectrum from one tendency to another rather than a hard population, but I think the model is clear and accurate enough. Read: That's the way it always has been and always will be, regardless of what anyone may think about things. Freedom is available to all who wish to do what it takes for it, but most are content to trade power for comfort.

And why don't people in the USA know more about how things work? Why don't we know how many amendments there are? Is it stupidity? Poor education? Mental conditioning to reject various kinds of information because Tom Cruise' nanny is more important? I may or may not have part of the answer, but I do believe it is an answerable question.

See above. People don't care. There's no conspiracy behind it, there doesn't need to be, they just don't care enough to bother with it. This shit isn't new. Even a passing familiarity with classical greek and roman government, philosophy and history should be enough to spell HTFU in letters fifty feet tall a hundred times around the coliseum. Hell, a single chapter of the Odyssey has enough information in it for anyone previously ignorant of human nature to understand this situation we're in.

Hell, if anything, we're at the highpoint of human civilization, information, energy, food, medicine, and safety is so readily available to most people that they don't even give those concerns a second thought.

It's the same one we've always been in. Most people are just mobilized sacks of useful meat, and they're perfectly happy that way. They're still precious and we love them and need them and all that, just don't expect them to do much more than what they're told, and don't expect them to trade the collar ,three hots and a cot for the open road, an empty belly and a sore back from sleeping on stones.

Nobody can control your mind without your consent and cooperation, not even Derren Brown.

[Michael]

I'm saying that if the media has so much power that it must have control over you too, right? just as controlled as everybody else, and just as subject to misinformation and disinformation. That's all.

Yes, I absolutely agree, which is what I meant in my reply to CaliG:

CaliG: Takes one to know one, right?

Fortunately, I don't have much access to American mainstream media since moving to China. Seeing the mind control here made it much easier to recognize it back in my own culture. For example, the Prime Minister of Japan visits a shrine for WW2 vets and the next day, 80% of my students "Hate the Japanese," but can not discuss why in a rational manner. Pretty much just regurgitation of Xinhua news service talking points combined with spewing anger and hatred.

[Michael]

Here's a 3:43 video about mind control via TV. The part about how the brain goes into alpha mode, or hypnosis, and is unable to consciously screen and evaluate information from the TV is insightful. Literally mind control.



Let's all go to the lobby...

[Steve James]

Actually, I did research on David Sarnoff (ex-OSS) in the 1970s; and "advertising" (or merchandizing through programing) is probably the best example of controlling peoples' buying habits.

Clearly, there are many networks today that specialize primarily in giving "opposing" points of view, or claim to interpret "news" from a different perspective. They are inevitably predictable. Anyway, when you talk about media mind control, all I'm saying is that you're being controlled too. If you're complaining about peoples' "knee jerk" reactions, then the mirror is always the first place to look. I'm saying, step back for a moment. Maybe it wasn't the media's mind control over the public that has prevented Ron Paul from winning. And, you are using media to demonstrate the uses of media. Maybe ....

Besides, I never said that people haven't tried to use the media to influence people in many ways, including the dissemination of mis and disinformation. For example, the perceptions offered about why a Hillary supporter (Dem) would not vote for Obama (Dem). I'll bet that Fox news would play it up; other networks would ignore it. Otoh, how many times has Fox highlighted the Republicans who would rather vote for Obama than McCain? (Leaving R. Paul out of the picture )

[Dmitri]

Here's a 3:43 video about mind control via TV.

It's funny how they created a video about how video is bad... I feel manipulated!

So all that of course goes for youtube, movie theaters and all other "moving pictures" media.
It also goes for all the "nature" programs on Discovery Channel and the like.

What about seeing violence in reality? What about attending a boxing match fought on stage, or overlooking the fight on the street instead of on youtube?
There's very little, or no difference at all IMO. The only difference is in the amount of it, but that goes for everything else in life -- moderation is the key.
If I watch Fox news all the time, I get "programmed" one way, if I watch Bill Maher all the time, I get "programmed" another way... But there's nothing wrong with watching them occasionally and with good measure of sci-fi mixed in.
The keys IMHO are to moderate and diversify.

I also try to always turn the sound off during commercials and not look at the screen.

[I-mon]

there's a bit in that video near the end that i liked:

"people immersed in the surrogate reality of television life, deal on a daily basis with a reality totally unlike any that has preceded it. the image stream is a steady mixed-up stream of real, unreal, and semi-real events. all of these events end up merging with each other, and becoming just another set of stored imagery that all have similar reality values."

now maybe i'll watch some sci-fi or something.