Category Archives: Cognition

The Extremists Who Founded America….

Posted on by

Right Wing Extremists: Saving America Since 1776

With the 233rd Independence Day celebration on it’s way in America, we thought it would be a good idea to honor the radical extremists that founded this country.
Now, it might be true that calling Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin “right wing” is a bit historically questionable within the original context of the old Left-Right paradigm laid out in the French Assembly in the late 18th Century. We understand that technically the founders had more in common with what would historically be deemed the “left” than anything. ……”

Edward Bernays On Self Interest And Propaganda

Posted on by

It’s a mistake to think propaganda is solely something “they” (the power elites) do to us (passive viewers). It’s just not so.

While propaganda can often be so subtle that the viewer cannot recognize he’s being manipulated, it isn’t true that the viewer is completely helpless to resist it.

The reason for this is that contemporary propaganda is rarely a direct command. Instead, it’s couched in language that appeals to viewers’ self-interests. So, anything that flatters our self-perception or claims to fulfill our desires should alert us to the fact that manipulation might be going on.

The father of modern propaganda, Edward Bernays, described this process at length:

“The leaders who lend their authority to any propaganda campaign will do so only if it can be made to touch their own interests. There must be a disinterested aspect of the propagandist’s activities. In other words, it is one of the functions of the public relations counsel to discover at what points his client’s interests coincide with those of other individuals or groups.
In the case of the soap sculpture competition, the distinguished artists and educators who sponsored the idea were glad to lend their services and their names because the competitions really promoted an interest which they had at heart—the cultivation of the esthetic impulse among the younger generation.
Such coincidence and overlapping of interests is as infinite as the interlacing of group formations themselves. For example, a railway wishes to develop its business. The counsel on public relations makes a survey to discover at what points its interests coincide with those of its prospective customers. The company then establishes relations with chambers of commerce along its right of way and assists them in developing their communities. It helps them to secure new plants and industries for the town. It facilitates business through the dissemination of technical information. It is not merely a case of bestowing favors in the hope of receiving favors; these activities of the railroad, besides creating good will, actually promote growth on its right of way. The interests of the railroad and the communities through which it passes mutually interact and feed one another.
In the same way, a bank institutes an investment service for the benefit of its customers in order that the latter may have more money to deposit with the bank. Or a jewelry concern develops an insurance department to insure the jewels it sells, in order to make the purchaser feel greater security in buying jewels. Or a baking company establishes an information service suggesting recipes for bread to encourage new uses for bread in the home. The ideas of the new propaganda are predicated on sound psychology based on enlightened selfinterest.”

—    Edward Bernays in Propaganda (1928)

13 Strategies Of Mass Psychic Control

Posted on by

Bill Ross at NaziSociopaths.org:

“I do not share the stated opinion (lie) of the Powers That Be (PTB´s), that mankind is inherently irrational and incapable of rational behavior. The past accomplishments of mankind, in the areas of law, international agreements and limits on organized power (which are currently being destroyed) argue otherwise. There are simple, provable causes of why people do not make rational choices and stand up for what is right, or even their own personal survival:

1. People are overly taxed, directly and indirectly by the time and energy it takes to survive and deal with pervasive government and law to achieve anything, resulting in little time or energy to consider the larger picture of their own lives or where trends are leading.

2. People have been wrongly convinced that their personal opinion is irrelevant and critical issues pertaining to survival and their own lives are therefore best left to self-proclaimed “experts”, who claim, but are unable to prove that they know best as evidenced by the results of their enforced opinions being social/economic failure and war.

3. People have been wrongly convinced that they have no control in their own lives, let alone the direction of their societies.

4. People have been wrongly convinced (manipulated and mis-educated) that “something from nothing” and therefore “causeless effects” are possible and that “shit happens” or “Gods will – predestination” is a valid explanation for what is not understood. It is believed that some things in the real world have no factual, rational explanation and it is pointless to try to understand. This was the whole point of the Renaissance (birth of western civilization), the rejection of mysticism and those who used it as a pretext for slavery. The Renaissance was social and legal acceptance of the fact that proven fact, knowledge and thus objective reality are supreme and will prevail, independent of contrary opinions. The truth is that everything that happens in the real world, including human actions, can be rationally explained in terms of causes and provable relationships to observed effects.

5. People have been mis-educated to believe that large events such as war are a indivisible thing rather than the large sum of many small, easily addressed causes. As a consequence, solving such problems is assumed to require blunt force as opposed to intelligently addressing the causes.

6. To accept and live according to fact and reason is a difficult path, resulting in conflict with those who believe you are judging them, when, in reality, you are defending yourself from others imposing their opinions on you or trying to bully, use and manipulate you.

7. Because we cannot read each others minds and life appears so complex, confusing and overwhelming, people are not sure what is right or wrong. Taking a position on issues leads to disagreement which has the potential of conflict requiring time and energy to deal with, detracting from life. To be left alone in peace (basic human need) is believed to require following the herd and conformance, since the alternative is taking a position and engaging in conflict with all who claim to disagree, including those who claim the right to exercise force in support of their position and do not acknowledge fact, reason or law.

8. If you choose to live according to fact and reason, you will inevitably be proven wrong on some points. You must possess enough humility to admit this and the ability to adapt your entire reality and belief system to accommodate the newly proven facts. In other words, you must be adaptable enough to handle life´s changes and not seek boring comfort and security, since it is an illusionary trap, leading to stagnation.

9. People are trapped in the perceptual paradigm of their functionand social class (environment) and are unable to see or acknowledge the possibility of other realities or the validity of other opinions from other environments.

10. People have been subverted into believing that the problems of the human condition are intractable and are caused by inherent flaws in humanity, requiring coercive force to be exerted by those who claim moral superiority or control the apparatus of state.

11. People have been mis-educated to believe that mankind and civilization is not a part of the natural order of things and therefore, we are special, not subject to the immutable laws of action and consequence, as enforced by the laws of nature. Neglecting the role of those who have subverted education, this requires people to be stupid enough to not question their education and the opinion of the “experts”. It also requires people to be stupid enough to continue trusting these expert opinions, despite overwhelming contrary evidence. We therefore believe we are immune to facing the consequences of our actions or that government or the law will protect us. They cannot and thus will not, for the simple reason that they are also subject to the laws of nature. Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans has shown the folly of this. Government was actually an impediment to those who tried to help.

12. As a consequence of the arbitrary exercise of force, unchecked by objective law or democratic will by states and other organized powers, the best personal survival strategy is assumed to be to keep a low profile and hope you are not noticed or targeted. This strategy may be able to delay when you are targeted, but will not change the fact you are on the target list. The more you have to take or the more you interfere with power´s whims and methodology, the higher you are on the list. Those who insist that the equality provisions of the “rule of law” be honored and manage to have an effect on social awareness, such as Martin Luther King Jr. are at the top of the list

13. Knowledge regarding mankind appears to have been destroyed (not really, just made to appear ineffective) by those who exercise power enforcing different relationships between action and consequence than natural forces and un-coerced people would choose. This results in people being unwilling to choose, since to act according to the knowledge of objective reality is invariably in conflict with what those in power demand (your servitude). If people make a firm choice, on the one hand the laws of nature will dictate consequences and on the other organized force will dictate different consequences. The obvious rational choice under these contradictory conditions is to not or appear not to make any choice, or to make choices which are consistent with both the laws of nature and the will of our self proclaimed masters. The laws of nature say you should make pro-survival choices, the will of our masters says you should make choices consistent with their short term survival agenda under penalty of non-survival should you fail to comply. The result is that people are in contradictory environments, constantly trying to balance between the contradictory demands of power and personal survival.

It is psychological warfare against the people, placing them in artificially created environments where correct choices are dangerous to immediate survival at the hands of arbitrary power. In other words, people are terrified of the fact that acknowledging and acting according to fact and reason puts them on a direct collision course with very dangerous powers who do not acknowledge any fact, knowledge or reason, only the circular logic of their claimed right to keep people in servitude and to possess and use the wealth and power of nature and civilization for purposes of their own.”

    Which “Bastards”? More Discrepancies In Wikileaks “Revelations”

    Posted on by

    Maximilien Forte at Zero Anthropology:

    “Which Bastards?

    When asked by Larry King on Monday, 26 July, who he meant to call “bastards” when he told Der Spiegel “I enjoy crushing bastards,” Assange specified he meant U.S. forces. Assange must also believe that those studying these documents will not focus as much on the atrocities committed by the Taleban, such as the devastating carnage caused by their IEDs and suicide bombers, and their apparent disregard for the scores of civilians that are killed as a result of going after one target with a massive bomb–The Guardian, with what is arguably the best coverage of the three newspapers to have obtained the documents a month in advance of their public release, has already covered this aspect quite quickly. In these same reports, the Taleban appear to be using hammers to kill mosquitoes. Left at that level of discussion, we have data, but not much understanding–for example, of why the Taleban have nonetheless gained strength and support, or why we may view their deadly attacks as something for which the U.S. and NATO share partial responsibility, for having overthrown and persecuted the Taleban after invading and occupying their country, thereby provoking a hostile and asymmetric reaction. It would be a silly or wicked person who would argue that Afghans have no right to fight back.

    While I generally agree with Assange’s sentiments, to the extent that they are knowable, I do not share his optimism about the impact of these documents. Information is not power, and it is not meaning. To make sense of these documents requires interpretation and argumentation that goes beyond and outside the limits of what are, after all, reports reflective of an American optic, produced by combatants. Source criticism and cross checking will be paramount, and to the extent that is not done, Wikileaks may witness members of the public using the same documents to not only bolster the arguments to support continuation of this war, but even an escalation to direct hostilities with Iran (see The Guardian, and see the justified alarm expressed by Marc Lynch at Foreign Policy). There is also debate between The Guardian and The New York Times over the extent to which the reports can be trusted when it comes to Pakistan’s supposed role in aiding the Taleban and conducting covert operations against the government of Afghanistan and western forces–that dispute happened within the first day of reporting on the documents, and disagreement over their credibility did not stop the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan from verbally thrashing each other in public, again within 24 hours of the documents’ release. These reports overall contain enough to hurt those who are critics of U.S. foreign policy, as much as they will hurt those who support it. They contain as much potential for escalating and expanding conflict, as they contain for mobilizing popular support to stop it. I also understand that my commentary here may well be premature, but then so are all the current commentaries.
    What Should Matter to Social Scientists?

    To bring this discussion closer to the concerns of anthropologists and social scientists generally, there are a few points that I feel need to be made. One concerns the extent to which these records are only a partial selection of all records produced by the U.S. military. That is a significant problem, because we cannot know if the items excluded would in some way modify any conclusions we reach about the records we have. Wikileaks received a total of about 110,000 records, and released about 92,000. It is hard to believe that a period covering six years of war could have produced only this amount. To my knowledge, Julian Assange has not been asked any questions about this issue. We therefore also do not know why these records were included and others excluded. This issue will come up again when I speak about what the records reveal about the workings of the Human Terrain System.

    A second problem, and it is a major one, concerns Assange’s assertions that the items were redacted to minimize the risk of harm to the sources indicated in the records. From what we have seen already, just with reference to Human Terrain Teams alone and their sources, that is completely untrue. There is no evidence whatsoever of any kind of redaction. Moreover, when one deletes information for a record, one is supposed to mark the text in some way to say either “name deleted” or “sentence deleted,” etc., and I see no evidence of that. In addition, who comprises Wikileaks’ team of redactors, and on the basis of what knowledge and expertise, as either war fighters, or people with experience and knowledge of Afghanistan, could they make calls about what was “harmless” versus “harmful” information? Which specialists did they consult, and for how long did they have the records to study? Not a word about this, merely bland and general assurances.

    Indeed, Assange’s statements about Wikileaks’ “harm minimization process” seem to only focus on the safety of his “bastards,” noting that the documents “do not generally cover top-secret operations” and that they “delayed the release of some 15,000 reports” as “demanded by our source” (source). This is an exchange Assange had with Der Spiegel on this issue:

    SPIEGEL: The material contains military secrets and names of sources. By publishing it, aren’t you endangering the lives of international troops and their informants in Afghanistan?

    Assange: The Kabul files contain no information related to current troop movements. The source went through their own harm-minimization process and instructed us to conduct our usual review to make sure there was not a significant chance of innocents being negatively affected. We understand the importance of protecting confidential sources, and we understand why it is important to protect certain US and ISAF sources [emphasis added].

    SPIEGEL: So what, specifically, did you do to minimize any possible harm?

    Assange: We identified cases where there may be a reasonable chance of harm occurring to the innocent. Those records were identified and edited accordingly.

    A third problem has to do with source criticism, source confirmation, and Assange’s call for crowdsourcing. Anthropologists should relate to this issue personally. Imagine that someone gets hold of your fieldnotes, and releases a part of them. No analysis, no contextualization, no doubts about the veracity of what an informant told you is in those notes. They are released, and then members of a broad public take hold of their interpretation, and take what is reported as the truth of a situation. Wouldn’t this make you freak out? Are any of our books and journal articles a mere transcription of our fieldnotes? So who is this “crowd” that will make solid arguments from these notes? How will they check their veracity? Do they know who wrote these reports, under what conditions, under what limitations, and with what motivations? Will they travel to Afghanistan and cover the ground covered by these military units? What other documents will they use to confirm these reports, or will they trust them blindly? These are already some of the issues being raised about the alleged Iran-Al Qaeda connection, and Pakistan’s role in supporting the Taleban.”

    UK Mind-Reading Surveillance System Monitors Anti-Social Behavior

    Posted on by

    Along the lines of Google Suggest, which replaces your own thoughts with intrusive suggestions, the cheery little police state in Britain is exploring some anticipatory thought control of its own:

    “The technology, called Sigard, monitors movements and speech to detect signs of threatening behaviour.

    Its designers claim the system can anticipate anti-social behaviour and violence by analysing the information picked up its sensors. Continue reading →

    Echelon: The Global Spy System

    Posted on by

    An article by Nicky Hager at Cryptome.org from Covert Action Quarterly (1998) about Echelon. Hager’s book on the subject, “Secret Power: New Zealand’s Role In the International Spy Network,” is dated 1996, so I’m a little confused by the dating of the article. Echelon is/was a global espionage and interception system coordinated by the US/UK with the aid of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. In NZ, writes Hager, it was implemented without the assent of the public and most public officials.

    Here’s a timeline for the development of the system. Per Cryptome, the earliest public report on Echelon is in 1972.

    The first reporter to write on it is British intelligence reporter, Duncan Campbell: “They’ve Got It Taped,” New Statesman, August 12, 1988 (republished at Cryptome.org). Campbell testified before Congress on the subject in 1999 and prepared a report for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) that was refused by EPIC’s director Marc Rotenberg, on the grounds that much of the information hadn’t been substantiated (see this correspondence between Rotenberg and Young). After that, there was debate between Campbell and Bamford over what the main focus of the espionage was. I will expand on that and link it later…

    “IN THE LATE 1980’S, IN A DECISION IT PROBABLY REGRETS, THE U.S. PROMPTED NEW ZEALAND TO JOIN A NEW AND HIGHLY SECRET GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM. HAGER’S INVESTIGATION INTO IT AND HIS DISCOVERY OF THE ECHELON DICTIONARY HAS REVEALED ONE OF THE WORLD’S BIGGEST, MOST CLOSELY HELD INTELLIGENCE PROJECTS. THE SYSTEM ALLOWS SPY AGENCIES TO MONITOR MOST OF THE WORLD’S TELEPHONE, E-MAIL, AND TELEX COMMUNICATIONS. Continue reading →