We ARE in fact brainwashed - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Language, bias, ownership, influence; all media related topics.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14725571
QatzelOk wrote:Jacques Ellul


I remember wincing a bit reading Ellul. "The individual who burns with desire for action but does not know what to do is a common type in our society. He wants to act for the sake of justice, peace, progress, but does not know how. If propaganda can show him this 'how' then it has won the game; action will surely follow." This seemed somehow a personal indictment - it described me a little too well. But how can society ever change for the better unless people are willing to act, even on the basis of imperfect knowledge and understanding?
#14725683
Besoeker wrote:I'm of that generation. I like the music. I don't drink coke.


That's a good point. Propaganda can't work in isolation - it must be accompanied by action that directs/limits the available choices of its subjects.

For instance, school cafeterias will have vending machines selling cokes and "healthy" alternative fruit juices. But the fruit juices are actually water, high fructose corn syrup, and a bit of flavoring - made by the same company that bottles the coke.
#14725732
I quoted Marshall McLuhan on page 4 of this thread, using one passage from Ellul, In his Propaganda, Jacques Ellul explains that the basic conditioning or shaping of populations is done, not by programs for various media, but by the media themselves, and by the very language we take for granted: 'Direct propaganda, aimed at modifying opinions and attitudes, must be preceded by propaganda that is sociological in character, slow, general, seeking to create a climate, an atmosphere of favorable preliminary attitudes' I used this to explain Pokemon Go. Anyway, did anyone read through my data heavy posts on the last page? If so, thoughts?

That's a good point. Propaganda can't work in isolation - it must be accompanied by action that directs/limits the available choices of its subjects.
That's not true. The original definition of propaganda had been formulated by Jesuit priests/Catholic Church. In-fact, the Jesuits formed the first modern intelligence community (during the reformation), by utilizing the confession booth. The Catholic Church operated under the lack of choice, using direct propaganda to persuade and control human populations.

The term propaganda
The term “propaganda” apparently first came into common use in Europe as a result of the missionary activities of the Catholic church. In 1622 Pope Gregory XV created in Rome the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith.
#14726194
anarchist23 wrote:To escape from the hypnotic state the television should be binned..
Most of the population are hypnotised, sleep-walking and cannot see outside their conditioned reality-tunnel. When we awaken from this hypnotic state we perceive nothing but myths and superstition.

And you are more astute than the rest of the population??
#14726334
Besoeker wrote:And you are more astute than the rest of the population??

I have not watched network television in over 20 years, and did not even have a TV in the house for decades (now I sometimes watch DVDs). So, yeah, I am more astute than the rest of the population.
ralfy wrote:"These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America"

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6- ... ica-2012-6

The media are owned by the rich and privileged, and their core function is to maintain the wealth and privilege of their owners. That is why you will see plenty of sycophancy for rich, greedy takers like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Donald Trump, etc. in the media, but will never see a genuine challenge to their privilege. A journalist who tries will never work in the media again, and they know it.
#14727484
Besoeker wrote:And you are more astute than the rest of the population??


I really hope so by now..
With seven grandchildren and five children, loss of two brothers and both my parents, ingestion of "mind expanding" substances, living in many countries and not accepting normality, imprisonment.
"Thinking outside the box" comes to mind.
Most people are straight (not in sexual way).
#14727659
Besoeker wrote:And you are more astute than the rest of the population??

Interesting choice of words.

By suggesting that anarchist23 has a different opinion than "the rest of the population," you are also saying that this group (the rest of the population) has one single opnion, or shades of one single opinion.

This can only be possible if this group (the rest of the population) have been brainwashed. Otherwise, they would have a wide spectrum of opinions that includes the drugs and life experience-augmented opinions of anarchist23.

So I guess this means that you agree with the thrust of this thread. And if so, what are you going to do about your and the rest of the population's disasterous mental conditioning?
#14750780
The generation gap isn't social, the generation gap is neurological. How can you subscribe to the Darwinian theory of nature/evolution without recognizing human technology as environmental stimuli? In order for Darwinian theory to unify the field of experience and properly explain evolution, it must address the social-biological environment human technologies must create through our native interface. From our solid genetic hardware, to the newly discovered epi-genetic software, we're nurtured by the nature of technology.

Quantum field theory and critical phenomena illustrates the perpetual flow of information as vibratory process (wave/particle), and from this perspective we may understand that evolution must be motivated by all units of information which pass through time/space. Darwin failed to see the environment as one programmable system of interaction, thus he failed to include human artifacts as biological information loops.

Alas, We are in fact brainwashed and gene-washed by our own artifacts.
#14750892
Yes. I was generalising. The majority of the population are brainwashed, without a doubt.

Some much more than others.

QatzelOk wrote:what are you going to do about.....the rest of the population's disasterous mental conditioning?


Supplied lots of psychoactive/mind expanding drugs. lol

Drugs work. lol

Turn On, Tune In and Drop Out. lol


Edit.
Also I have tried my best to enlighten my children in regards the hypnotic conditions we are born into. Kids don't listen but in time they understand that they are born into a corrupt system. My two older kids have both quit their careers and told me that I should be proud of them, which I am.
#15201273
RhetoricThug wrote:Darwin failed to see the environment as one programmable system of interaction, thus he failed to include human artifacts as biological information loops.

He "failed" to envision the biosphere as a programmable gadget?

This was a failure on his part?

I would counter your point by saying that his theory actually declares that most *programming* that humans engage in via technology... can only do harm and reduce the long-term survival odds of our species (and many others).

His theories would suggest that any attempt to *program* our organic world will fail to increase our odds of survival as a species.

In fact, his ideas are what lead me to believe that all technologies are toxic for long-term survival.

Wellsy wrote:It is easy to feel suspicion of even our own psyches when it comes to ideology.
https://redsails.org/brainwashing/

Reading that the Guardian used Radio Free Asia as a source to smear North Korea with... explains how funding of media contaminates journalism. Radio Free Asia is a US-funded Asian propaganda network - yet the Guardian (a serious news source) uses this as their only source for a blatantly racist anti-Korea story.

Nice find.
#15204075
Robert Urbanek wrote:So how many her complaining about brainwashing have given up using a smart phone, which seems the most sophisticated technology ever for collective mind control?

And every great mind-control technology - from MK Ultra to simple lobotomies - erases the natural things that make human life worth living, like community, friendships, and natural conversation.

This actually helps boost the effectiveness of the brainwashing by erasing all other life knowledge and emotional responses. The brainwashed know only their brainwashed reality, and the emotional responses that have been programmed into their ruined minds.
#15204082
Wellsy wrote:It is easy to feel suspicion of even our own psyches when it comes to ideology.
https://redsails.org/brainwashing/


The article assumes that people saying the sentence "this is ridiculous! We are free!" are being emotional and giving a knee-jerk response, but the very fact that this kind of article can be published without any repurcussions proves such claims to be factual. In some sense, the article's very existence is its own best rebuttal.

Are you sure you are not posting some implicit China apologist propaganda?
#15204099
Patrickov wrote:The article assumes that people saying the sentence "this is ridiculous! We are free!" are being emotional and giving a knee-jerk response, but the very fact that this kind of article can be published without any repurcussions proves such claims to be factual. In some sense, the article's very existence is its own best rebuttal.

Are you sure you are not posting some implicit China apologist propaganda?

Indeed it can be considered propaganda although I don’t take this to mean untrue as much that people write things with agendas which can be explicit or inplicat.
And it largely is a criticism of the idea of a free press which is captured by a capistlist class and its interests and is in fact not some plurality with a marketplace of ideas.
I don’t think single article in criticism of such isn’t as damning as you think it is when it is quite rasy to tolerate such things while they are largely weak in influence. But that readily goes out the window if deemed a significant threat.

https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/uchistory/archives_exhibits/loyaltyoath/symposium/schrecker.html

This only contradicts what is the appearence of a marketplace of ideas but is wuite sensible that liberals seek to defend a liberal order even in contradiction to its principles. Just as other regimes may seek to defend their hegemony. As such a state isn’t a matter of consensus, but the dictates of a ruling class, just as thr article rightly emphasizesthe class character of the press.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/macintyre2.pdf
Maintenance of the illusion of “objectivity” is essential, and MacIntyre sees the universities as playing a crucial role in the maintenance of this illusion. Since academics rely for their livelihood on disproving each other’s theories, the resulting interminable and esoteric debate continuously re-establishes the impossibility of consensus.
“In the course of history liberalism, which began as an appeal to alleged principles of shared rationality against what was felt to be the tyranny of tradition, has itself been transformed into a tradition whose continuities are partly defined by the interminability of the debate over such principles. An interminability which was from the standpoint of an earlier liberalism a grave defect to be remedied as soon as possible has become, in the eyes of some liberals at least, a kind of virtue”. (p. 335)
Far from this failure to find any firm ground undermining liberalism, MacIntyre believes that it reinforces it, because one of the fundamental bases for liberalism is the conviction that no comprehensive idea (to use Rawls’ term) can enjoy majority, let alone unanimous, support. This then justifies the ban on governments pursuing the general good.
“Any conception of the human good according to which, for example, it is the duty of government to educate the members of the community morally, ... will be proscribed. ... liberal individualism does indeed have its own broad conception of the good, which it is engaged in imposing politically, legally, socially, and culturally wherever it has the power to do so, but also that in doing so its toleration of rival conceptions of the good in the public arena is severely limited.” (p. 336)
Such a ban on governments pursuing the social good of course serves a very definite social interest.
“The weight given to an individual preference in the market is a matter of the cost which the individual is able and willing to pay; only so far as an individual has the means to bargain with those who can supply what he or she needs does the individual have an effective voice. So also in the political and social realm it is the ability to bargain that is crucial. The preferences of some are accorded weight by others only insofar as the satisfaction of those preferences will lead to the satisfaction of their own preferences. Only those who have something to give get. The disadvantaged in a

liberal society are those without the means to bargain.” (p. 336) and consequently,
“The overriding good of liberalism is no more and no less than the continued sustenance of the liberal social and political order”. (p. 345)
In each of the historical settings that MacIntyre investigates, he is able to show that the type of justice and the type of rationality which appears to the philosophical spokespeople of the community to be necessary and universal, turns out to be a description of the type of citizens of the community in question. Accordingly, the justice of liberalism and the rationality of liberalism is simply that justice and that rationality of the “citizens of nowhere” (p. 388), the “outsiders,” people lacking in any social obligation or any reason for acting other than to satisfy their desires and to defend the conditions under which they are able to continue satisfying their desires. Their rationality is therefore that of the objects of their desire.


And this need not be some apologetics for China in any specific case, but emphasizes the hegemony in western ress that coalesces around core talking points and frames issues in a particuar way across the board while somehow characterized as independent entities meant to represent a plurality of ideas. The point being on the qualities of the western press than the specific content of articles on China. That you take the article specifically in that way suggests only your fixation on China as opposed to the points in the article which you suggest vaguely are performativrly contradicted by the article existing.
#15204982
Wellsy, I find it interesting that many people "believe" that:

1. foreigners are exposed to propaganda,

2. their own culture is free to navigate the world of ideas unconstrained by the authorities.

***

Having had the pleasure of knowing people from all over the world and from many backgrounds, I think it's more accurate to say that:

many of the lies that hold your society together will be revealed if you interact with the different lies from other cultures and backgrounds.
#15204989
QatzelOk wrote:Wellsy, I find it interesting that many people "believe" that:

1. foreigners are exposed to propaganda,

2. their own culture is free to navigate the world of ideas unconstrained by the authorities.

***

Having had the pleasure of knowing people from all over the world and from many backgrounds, I think it's more accurate to say that:

many of the lies that hold your society together will be revealed if you interact with the different lies from other cultures and backgrounds.

We all should be humbled every now and then so as not to let our heads get to big :D

"There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, "Morning, boys, how's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, "What the hell is water?" "

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zhuangzi/#PonP
Notice, the argument about the fish implies we have a perspective on the perspectives of others. So skepticism grounded in dependence or relativity of perspective need not be predominantly negative. Zhuangzi, here, uses it to justify a way of claiming to knowing. In many other parables, he addresses the kind of knowing that comes with a gestalt shift, especially when we see our own and others’ points of view as similar—see ourselves as others see us. This is the more comprehensive perspective Zhuangzi urges on us. We experience such gestalt shifts especially when we come appreciate we had been wrong before and now view things differently. We are confident from our own “now” that we have made epistemic progress—our new awareness seems “relatively” improved to us now. We reach a state where we judge our former perspective to be inferior to our present one. It includes insight into our relative situations. Evidently, this awareness of one’s own perspective as one of many, equally natural points of view motivates us to wonder if we have made the final correction. This enhanced awareness of ourselves as one of many perspectives is an intelligible candidate reading of Zhuangzi’s 明 míngclarity. It is harder to construct a coherent narrative for mystical and/or dogmatic readings—those that jump from an improved perspective to a perfect one.
...
The search for this kind of perspective on ourselves and others seems to motivate Zhuangzi’s willingness to engage and interact with others, seeking to understand their perspective as having a natural status and role for them as ours does for us. This is partly illustrated by common sense examples of our judging from our own current perspective that theirs “adds something” enriching our own perspective by our own lights....

Aside from its frequent usefulness from our point of view, the main benefit from the self-recognition as a natural creature embedded as are others at a perspective-point within a natural network structure is to encourage being open-minded. Part of the value is the humbling of our epistemic pride, mildly disrupting our judgment equilibrium. Without such an occasional perspective on ourselves, we too easily fall into exaggerating our epistemic exceptionalism. The reminder that we are intermingled with others in a web of natural perspectives gives us an appropriate, realistic correction.
#15205131
Wellsy quoted someone who wrote:...we are intermingled with others in a web of natural perspectives gives us an appropriate, realistic correction.

The perceptives might be "natural" but the sources of information in the modern age are not.

In fact, "perception management" is all about feeding other humans a menu of contrived stimuli. This creates a situation where the receiver's "perception" has been created out of manipulative simulations and narratives which have been pre-conceived by an organization that has studied stim-response and how to use it to get people to "feel" a certain, pre-ordained way.

Propaganda is NOT a natural environment from which to understand the world. Propaganda is a type of intentionally polluted water that makes the fish swim a certain, desired way that enriches a few self-appointed **fishermen.**
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Key Rasmussen Polls

@late , let me know when you actually want to[…]

Election 2024 Thread

Honest question (not trying to be snarky): Why do[…]

Remember when Trump was a "Russian puppet&quo[…]

Prepare for fascism

Yes, and I'm sure the police could also produce[…]