Mind Control Theories And Techniques Used By The Mass Media

Created on Saturday, 05 June 2010 16:18

Programming Through Mass Media

Mass media are media forms designed to reach the largest audience possible. They include television, movies, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, records, video games and the internet.

Many studies have been conducted in the past century to measure the effects of mass media on the population, in order to discover the best techniques to influence it. From those studies emerged the science of Communications, which is used in marketing, public relations and politics. Mass communication is a necessary tool to ensure the functionality of a large democracy; it is also a necessary tool for a dictatorship.

There used to be a variety of viewpoints, ideas and opinions in popular culture. The consolidation of media corporations has, however, produced a standardization of the cultural industry. Ever wondered why all recent music sounds the same and all recent movies look the same? The following is part of the answer:

Media Ownership

The number of corporations owning the majority of U.S. media outlets went from 50 to 6 in less than 20 years. Here are the top corporations evolving around the world and the assets they own:

 

The Standardization of Human Thought

The merger of media companies in the last decades generated a small oligarchy of media conglomerates. The TV shows you follow, the music you listen to, the movies you watch and the newspapers you read are basically all produced by SIX corporations. 

The owners of those conglomerates have close ties with the so-called "world’s elite" and, in many ways, they are "the elite". By owning all of the possible outlets having the potential to reach the masses, these conglomerates have the power to create in the minds of the people a single and cohesive world view, engendering a “standardization of human thought”.

Even movements or styles that are considered marginal are, in fact, extensions of mainstream thinking. Mass media produce their own rebels who definitely look the part but are still part of the establishment and do not question any of it. Artists, creations and ideas that do not fit the mainstream way of thinking are mercilessly rejected and forgotten by the conglomerates, which in turn makes them virtually disappear from society itself. However, ideas that are deemed to be valid and desirable to be accepted by society are skillfully marketed to the masses, in order to make them become the self-evident norm.

In 1928, Edward Bernays already saw the immense potential of motion pictures to standardize thought:

“The American motion picture is the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda in the world today. It is a great distributor for ideas and opinions. The motion picture can standardize the ideas and habits of a nation. Because pictures are made to meet market demands, they reflect, emphasize, and even exaggerate broad popular tendencies, rather than stimulate new ideas and opinions. The motion picture avails itself only of ideas and facts which are in vogue. As the newspaper seeks to purvey news, it seeks to purvey entertainment.”
– Edward Bernays, Propaganda

These facts were flagged as dangers to human freedom in the 1930s by thinkers of the school of Frankfurt such as Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse. They identified three main problems with the cultural industry. The industry can:

  1. reduce human beings to the state of mass by hindering the development of emancipated individuals, who are capable of making rational decisions;
  2. replace the legitimate drive for autonomy and self-awareness by the safe laziness of conformism and passivity; and
  3. validate the idea that men actually seek to escape the absurd and cruel world in which they live, by losing themselves in a hypnotic state of self-satisfaction.

The notion of escapism is even more relevant today with the advent of online video games, 3D movies and home theaters. The masses, constantly seeking state-of-the-art entertainment, will resort to high-budget products that can only be produced by the biggest media corporations of the world. These products contain carefully calculated messages and symbols which are nothing more and nothing less than entertaining propaganda. The public has been trained to LOVE its propaganda to the extent that it spends its hard-earned money to be exposed to it. Propaganda (used in a political, cultural, and commercial sense) is no longer the coercive or authoritative communication form found in dictatorships: it has become the synonym of entertainment and pleasure.

A single piece of media often does not have a lasting effect on the human psyche. Mass media, however, by its omnipresent nature, creates a living environment we evolve in on a daily basis. It defines the norm and excludes the undesirable. The same way carriage horses wear blinders so they can only see what is right in front of them, the masses can only see where they are supposed to go.

Manipulation Techniques

The drive to sell products and ideas to the masses has lead to an unprecedented amount of research on human behavior and on the human psyche. Cognitive sciences, psychology, sociology, semiotics, linguistics, and other related fields were and still are extensively researched through well-funded studies.

The results of those studies are applied to advertisements, movies, music videos and other media in order to make them as influential as possible. The art of marketing is highly calculated and scientific because it must reach both the individual and the collective consciousness. In high-budget cultural products, a video is never "just a video".

Images, symbols and meanings are strategically placed in order to generate the desired effect.

Desensitization

In the past, when changes were imposed on populations, they would take to the streets, protest and even riot. The main reason for this clash was due to the fact that the change was clearly announced by the rulers and understood by the population. It was sudden and its effects could clearly be analyzed and evaluated. Today, when the elite needs a part of the agenda to be accepted by the public, it is done through desensitization. The agenda, which might go against the public best interests, is slowly, gradually, and repetitively introduced to the world through movies (by involving it within the plot), music videos (which make it cool and sexy) and the news (which presents it as "a solution" to today’s problems). After several years of exposing the masses to a particular agenda, the elite openly presents the concept to the world and, due to mental programming, it is greeted with general indifference and is passively accepted.

Predictive programming is often found in the science fiction genre. It presents a specific image of the future – the one that is desired by the elite – and ultimately becomes in the minds of men an inevitability. A decade ago, the public was being desensitized to war against the Arab world.

Today, the population is gradually being exposed to the existence of mind control, transhumanism, and an Illuminati elite. Emerging from the shadows, those concepts are now everywhere in popular culture.

Edited from: The Vigilant Citizen

Related

Starsuckers

Psywar

Weapons Of Mass Deception

Edward Bernays – Propaganda

Created on Saturday, 04 September 2010 16:31

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses (i.e. Propaganda) is an important element in a democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”— Edward Bernays in his book titled, Propaganda

A seminal and controversial figure in the history of political thought and public relations, Edward Bernays (1891–1995), pioneered the scientific technique of shaping and manipulating public opinion, which he famously dubbed “engineering of consent.” During World War I, he was an integral part of the U.S. Committee on Public Information (CPI), a powerful propaganda apparatus that was mobilized to package, advertise and sell the war to the American people as one that would “Make the World Safe for Democracy.” The CPI became the blueprint that marketing strategies for future wars were based on.

Bernays applied the techniques he had learned in the CPI and, incorporating some of the ideas of Walter Lipmann, became an outspoken proponent of propaganda as a tool for democratic and corporate manipulation of the population. His 1928 bombshell Propaganda lays out his eerily prescient vision for using propaganda to regiment the collective mind in a variety of areas, including government, politics, art, science, and education.

To read this book today is to comprehend what our contemporary institutions of government and business have become with regard to organized manipulation of the masses.

This is the first reprint of Propaganda in over 30 years.

 

The BP Oil Spill – Qui Bono?

Created on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 22:38

[…] Deepwater Horizon was essentially the world’s most technologically advanced, most expensive deepwater drilling rig in existence.  This rig has multiple…multiple safety measures, including advanced “dead man” switches and safeties.  How did this explosion occur in the first place?

Not to mention the political conspiracies that abound. Who stands to make money on this? Who stands to earn favors and treats?  And why can no one on Earth figure out how to stop this arterial bleeding from deep within the planet?  Is this just another footnote in the lead up to 2012? Some might think so. 

Also, think about who stands to gain from the ban on deepwater drilling.  While you might not think that would be profitable, look into the Chicago Climate Exchange and who has ties to that.

Obama can maintain his stance to Republicans and oilmen that he was in favor of expanding off-shore drilling, but we will never truly know because it is now banned. 

Also, imagine those on the other end of the oil industry. OPEC can now charge you even more for gasoline and blame it on BP’s disaster.   All of this, no matter the ‘why?’, ties directly into preparedness. Can you afford gasoline that costs $5.60 a gallon next year?  What if Iran were to be struck by Israel?  Imagine $7.25 a gallon, then.  And if you think that is simply absurd, UK residents already pay close to $7.00 USD/gallon sometimes and have for years!

Regardless, the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf Coastline and soon to be the Eastern Seaboard are in dire trouble.  Seafood, whole industries and millions of lives now hang in the balance.  Anyway, on to the article:

– Sales of shares and stocks in days and weeks beforehand changed hands in large amounts, including chief executive Tony Hayward who sold 1/3 of his interest in BP to “pay his mortgage.”  Hayward’s yearly salary is 4x his total mortgage.

– Halliburton link, acquisition of cleanup company days before the explosion

– BP report cites undocumented tampering with well-sealing equipment

– Government uses disaster to push for Carbon Tax, Nationalization talk

Troubling evidence surrounding the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20th suggests that the incident could have been manufactured.

On April 12th, just over one week before the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, Halliburton, the world’s second-largest oilfield services corporation, surprised some by acquiring Boots & Coots, a relatively small but vastly experienced oil well control companies.

The company deals with fires and blowouts on oil rigs and oil wells. It was responsible for putting out roughly one-third of the more than 700 oil well fires set in Kuwait by retreating Iraqi soldiers during the Gulf War.

The deal itself is still under scrutiny with Boots and Coots facing an ongoing investigation into “possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law”

Where this information gets really interesting is with the fact that Halliburton is named in the majority of some two dozen lawsuits filed since the explosion by Gulf Coast people and businesses who claim that the company is to blame for the disaster. Halliburton was forced to admit in testimony at a congressional hearing last month that it carried out a cementing operation 20 hours before the Gulf of Mexico rig went up in flames. The lawsuits claim that four Halliburton workers stationed on the rig improperly capped the well.

As the New York Times noted on May 26th, "BP officials chose, partly for financial reasons, to use a type of casing for the well that the company knew was the riskier of two options."

Workers from the rig and company officials have said that hours before the explosion, gases were leaking through the cement, which had been set in place by the oil services contractor, Halliburton. Investigators have said these leaks were the likely cause of the explosion.” According to a 2007 study by Minerals Management Service, cementing was a factor in 18 of 39 rig blowouts in the gulf between 1992 and 2006. Another intriguing connection Boots and Coots has to the Deepwater Horizon explosion comes via Pat Campbell, the man BP has employed to cap the well beneath the ruined rig. Campbell worked for Boots and Coots as general manager for many years.

BP has admitted to buying Yahoo and Google keywords in an attempt to control publicly available information in the wake of the catastrophe. It seems that the company is taking all the flack for the spill while the Halliburton link is being roundly ignored.

BP’s prepared testimony briefingwhich has since leaked online, also intriguingly notes that the Hydraulic Control System on equipment designed to automatically seal the well in an emergency was modified without their knowledge sometime before the explosion.

“the extent of these modifications is unknown at this time” states the report on page 37.

Possible prior knowledge of the explosion is also evident via huge dumping of stocks and shares in the weeks and days prior to the incident.

Goldman Sachs dumped 44% of its shares in BP Oil during the first quarter – shares that subsequently lost 36 percent of their value, equating to $96 million.

Other asset management firms also sold huge blocks of BP stock in the first quarterThough the amounts pale in comparison to Goldman’s holdings, Wachovia, owned by Wells Fargo, sold 98% of its shares in BP and Swiss bank UBS sold 97% of its BP shares.

Furthermore, as reported by the London Telegraph on June 5th, Tony Hayward, the chief executive of BP, sold £1.4 million of his shares in the fuel giant weeks before the spill.

In the days before the Deepwater explosion, Obama had announced a new effort to explore and lease new drilling locations in the deep Gulf and in Alaska. In the wake of the disaster, these plans have been canceled and BP is taking a PR bashing. All of which has been capitalized on by the Obama administration to reinvigorate talk of a carbon tax and has created the opportunity to reintroduce the idea of nationalizing oil, which theDemocratic leadership has long sought.

The full story of what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico is yet to emerge, there are rumors of more spills and an ongoing coverup.

The site represents a $2.2 trillion source of wealth and power, a motive along with a plethora of suspicious activity that needs to be investigated further.

Source: Truthistreason.net

 

Left-Wing Icon Daniel Ellsberg: ‘Obama Deceives the Public’

Created on Thursday, 17 June 2010 08:07

About Daniel Ellsberg

Daniel Ellsberg, 79, a former United States Marine and military analyst, triggered a national crisis in 1971 when he released the 'Pentagon Papers' to the New York Times and other newspapers. The classified Pentagon documents -7,000 pages commissioned by then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara – revealed that the US government knew the Vietnam War was ultimately unwinnable.

The White House fought the publication all the way up to the Supreme Court and, when that proved unsuccessful, proceeded to smear and persecute Ellsberg. Today, Ellsberg continues to tour the world as a lecturer, writer and activist.

Daniels Ellsberg's Website

—————————————————-

Daniel Ellsberg, the legendary leaker of the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971, still has a bone to pick with the White House. In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, the 79-year-old peace activist accuses President Obama of betraying his election promises — in Iraq, in Afghanistan and on civil liberties.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Ellsberg, you're a hero and an icon of the left. But we hear you're not too happy with President Obama anymore.

Daniel Ellsberg: I voted for him and I will probably vote for him again, as opposed to the Republicans. But I believe his administration in some key aspects is nothing other than the third term of the Bush administration. 

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How so?

Ellsberg: I think Obama is continuing the worst of the Bush administration in terms of civil liberties, violations of the constitution and the wars in the Middle East.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: For example?

Ellsberg: Take Obama's explicit pledge in his State of the Union speech to remove "all" United States troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. That's a total lie. I believe that's totally false. I believe he knows that's totally false. It won't be done. I expect that the US will have, indefinitely, a residual force of at least 30,000 US troops in Iraq.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about Afghanistan? Isn't that a justifiable war?

Ellsberg: I think that there's an inexcusable escalation in both countries. Thousands of US officials know that bases and large numbers of troops will remain in Iraq and that troop levels and bases in Afghanistan will rise far above what Obama is now projecting. But Obama counts on them to keep their silence as he deceives the public on these devastating, costly, reckless ventures.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You doubt not only Obama's missions abroad but also his politics back home in the US. Why exactly are you accusing the president of violating civil liberties?

Ellsberg: For instance, the Obama administration is criminalizing and prosecuting whistleblowers to punish them for uncovering scandals within the federal government …

SPIEGEL ONLINE: … Such as the arrest, confirmed this week, of an Army intelligence analyst for leaking the "Collateral Murder" video of a deadly US helicopter attack in Iraq, which was later posted online at WikiLeaks.

Ellsberg: Also, the recent US indictment of Thomas Drake.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Drake was a former senior official with the National Security Agency (NSA) who provided reporters with information about failures at the NSA.

Ellsberg: For Obama to indict and prosecute Drake now, for acts undertaken and investigated during the Bush administration, is to do precisely what Obama said he did not mean to do — "look backward." Of all the blatantly criminal acts committed under Bush, warrantless wiretapping by the NSA, aggression, torture, Obama now prosecutes only the revelation of massive waste by the NSA, a socially useful act which the Bush administration itself investigated but did not choose to indict or prosecute!

Bush brought no indictments against whistleblowers, though he suspended Drake's clearance. Obama, in this and other matters relating to secrecy and whistleblowing, is doing worse than Bush. His violation of civil liberties and the White House's excessive use of the executive secrecy privilege is inexcusable.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why would Obama reverse himself?

Ellsberg: He's a good politician. He said what he needed to say to get elected, and now he's just taking advantage of the office. Like any administration before, his administration caters to the profits of big corporations like BP and Goldman Sachs — even though I think BP won't get off that easily this time. His early campaign contributions, the big corporate contributions, came from Wall Street. They got their money's worth.

In fact, during the campaign of 2008, three candidates were backed by Wall Street: Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If you look at the rhetoric, the most promising was John Edwards. Too bad he turned out to be a jerk.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But Obama has been very verbal about his criticism of Wall Street.

Ellsberg: His actions are totally uncoupled from his public statements. I don't even listen anymore. He has turned 180 degrees. Another example: His promise to filibuster a law giving the phone companies legal immunity for any role they played in Bush's domestic eavesdropping program. Then he not only voted not to filibuster it, but he also voted for the law — against the wishes of his backers.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you think that will backfire for the Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections?

Ellsberg: I don't think what Obama is doing is the best way to get votes. But it's the best way to get campaign contributions.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You were the ultimate whistleblower. In 1971, you leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, revealing that the government was well aware the Vietnam War couldn't be won. You changed history but were vilified and prosecuted for it. Would you still do it today?

Ellsberg: I wouldn't wait that long. I would get a scanner and put them on the Internet.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Would that still have the same impact?

Ellsberg: If the Pentagon Papers came online today all at once, the government wouldn't be tempted to enjoin it. Back then, we got this long duel going between newspapers and the government. In the end, 19 newspapers ended up putting up parts of the documents, day after day after day. It created this ongoing scandal. I don't think it would have the same impact online as having it in the Times.

SourceDer Spiegel Online, 06/09/2010, Interview conducted by Marc Pitzke

Related:

The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers