44 replies to this topic

[GhastLyght1]

Etu Malku, on 13 December 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

LMAO . . . none of those dimwits would even know the difference between an invocation and an evocation . . . yeah steeped heavily in the occult!

Lolol, Ok I'm going to give you 2 choices, Which of these is the dimwit and Which one is the true occultist? A. Someone who can impose their will upon others with ease, someone who can earn millions or billions of dollars and has the power to
kill thousands of people and oppress manipulate and dominate millions of others through illusions without repercussions or B. Someone who dressess up like gandalf and impresses his friends by reciting fancy words they learned in a fantasy book or online website to seemingly evoke and invoke the mighty power of some dude called satan?

Edited by GhastLyght1, 13 December 2012 - 07:04 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

Corp, on 12 December 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

Using that definition every single people throughout history has been subject to mind-control. After all raising children can be seen as mind control. So I think it's a bit too broad for this situation.

Yes BUT, people today are almost chained to their televisions and "mobile devices", whereas even just 100 years ago or less, we did not even have radio to influence our thought processes.

Radio and TV are huge factors in the manipulation of the public perception.

[Rafterman]

Insaniac, on 11 December 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Money makes the world go 'round, as they say. Do the math.

I did the math and what I found was a significant declining balance in most conspira-sheeple's bank accounts.

Edited by Rafterman, 13 December 2012 - 03:22 PM.

[Rafterman]

jugoso, on 12 December 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

As far as advertising goes, we have been studied to such an extent that they know exactly what note to hit to get the desired response they want. And what they want is for you to be a constant good little consumer. Again, I will suggest watching this clip if you have the time

I always find these anti-consumer positions somewhat funny because, frankly, what's the alternative?

Starve?
Sleep in a hollowed out tree?
Walk around naked?
Be miserable your entire life?
Wipe your ass with your hand?

You're either a consumer or you die.  There's no grey area.

Edited by Rafterman, 13 December 2012 - 03:22 PM.

[Rafterman]

Babe Ruth, on 13 December 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Yes BUT, people today are almost chained to their televisions and "mobile devices", whereas even just 100 years ago or less, we did not even have radio to influence our thought processes.

Radio and TV are huge factors in the manipulation of the public perception.

Yeah, you definitely don't want too many people having information and thinking about stuff.

[jugoso]

Rafterman, on 13 December 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

I always find these anti-consumer positions somewhat funny because, frankly, what's the alternative?

Starve?
Sleep in a hollowed out tree?
Walk around naked?
Be miserable your entire life?
Wipe your ass with your hand?

You're either a consumer or you die.  There's no grey area.

I was referring  more to the amount of consumption. I mean, how many pairs of shoes do you really need?? There´s this "thneed" mentality that seems to be running rampant and I think that it is perpetuated and exploited by a lot of media and advertising.

[jugoso]

Liquid Gardens, on 13 December 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:

I really think the more accurate and precise word for this is 'influence', not 'control'.

I had already said in a previous post that control was to strong. Can we agree on using the term manipulation which happens at both a coscious and unconscious level?

Here´s an example of "mind-control" IMO but I´m giving you fair warning!

[Corp]

Babe Ruth, on 13 December 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Yes BUT, people today are almost chained to their televisions and "mobile devices", whereas even just 100 years ago or less, we did not even have radio to influence our thought processes.

Radio and TV are huge factors in the manipulation of the public perception.

They still had newspapers influencing opinions. Religious figures had far more influence on people's values. Rumour mills were still around. Plus you had poor education and a serious lack of sources. Fact checking is a hell of a lot more easier now than it was then and thanks to the free flowing of ideas and a better education system our thought process is likely much better now than it was a hundred years ago.

[Paracelse]

libstaK, on 11 December 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

There are 'perhaps twelve of them' at the very top, he knows their entire agenda and yet .... no names .  Honestly, when are we going to grow out of fears of the bogeyman/men?

Actually some boogey men have names Bush the father is a 33 rd degree mason and a member of the "bohemian club"

jugoso, on 11 December 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

From Article:

In the United States, the primary evidence for the success of their mind control operation is the fact that the thinking, belief systems, morality, behavior and religious beliefs of the average American have radically changed in just a few short decades. The elites have perfected social engineering to such an extent that they have now indoctrinated several generations of Americans into being anti-Christian, anti-American and Marxist in their belief systems.

Can´t really argue with that.

A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude."
Aldous Huxley

Mission pretty much accomplished.
In 1530  or something the 20 years old Etienne de la Boetie wrote an excellent book on the subject "Etude la servitude volontaire" Study on Vonlatary Servitude.  Of course Rabelais a noveliste of Renaissance was already writing his Pantagruel ( a good study on the manipulation of sheeples) and then I couldn't leave Henry David Thoreau and his "Discourse over Civil disobediance".

jugoso, on 12 December 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

Yes, I agree although not to the same extent that we are subjected to them over the last few decades.
I can´t think of any greater influence on the development of a young mind than their parents. Children are little sponges who lack the ability to think critically. Therefore they inevitably  internalize their parents belief system.  Jehovah Witness parents will raise kids with the same values and belief system. They may reject them later on in life but they still carry them around. If that´s not control, then I don´t know what is.
The education system is another way that children internalize the values and beliefs of their society and much of this happens before they have the ability to think critically. I agree with Noam on this one that the education system is one of indoctrination of the young.



With respect to the media, there is no question in my mind that it is controlled and the parameters for discussion and new ideas are fairly well defined. Mainstream media doesn´t provide much air time for those who think in radically different ways. Neither does our political system for that matter. If you are trying to convince me that the US is a democracy because they have a choice between two candidates, I would reply that the similarities between the two far outweigh the differences and they both serve the same master.

As far as advertising goes, we have been studied to such an extent that they know exactly what note to hit to get the desired response they want. And what they want is for you to be a constant good little consumer. Again, I will suggest watching this clip if you have the time



The programme explores how those in power in post-war America used Freud's ideas about the unconscious mind to try and control the masses

You shouldn't leave one of the masters... I would name Goebbels.. he was good.

[Simbi Laveau]

Ppsssttt,Bill gates = anti Christ . Oh yes ....

[Corp]

Half the human population is the anti-Christ. When the poor guy does actually show up he's just going to be told to stand in the corner with the rest of them.

[Liquid Gardens]

jugoso, on 13 December 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

I had already said in a previous post that control was to strong. Can we agree on using the term manipulation which happens at both a coscious and unconscious level?

Here´s an example of "mind-control" IMO but I´m giving you fair warning!

Ha!  Seriously thanks for the link that was definitely groovy, great tune especially the guitar solo, cool.  That's an example of body control actually I think.

Anyway, I guess manipulation is fine, although it sounds more devious than what goes on in reality I think.  What you may call 'manipulation' parents just call 'raising their children'.  Off the top of my head, I would say that any 'manipulation' of the conscious mind is not mind control.  Perhaps unconscious or subconscious manipulations may be closer to what you're referring to.  Maybe the problem I have with the word 'manipulation' is that I expect then there to be a manipulator.  If I'm walking in a forest in a wind storm and a branch breaks and falls on me, that is going to affect me on all consciousness levels also and 'manipulate' me also, even though it's accidental.  I guess I don't necessarily see what then distinguishes manipulation under your definition from manipulator-less natural occurences also being the cause of manipulations like in the example the above.

[Etu Malku]

GhastLyght1, on 13 December 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Lolol, Ok I'm going to give you 2 choices, Which of these is the dimwit and Which one is the true occultist? A. Someone who can impose their will upon others with ease, someone who can earn millions or billions of dollars and has the power to
kill thousands of people and oppress manipulate and dominate millions of others through illusions without repercussions or B. Someone who dressess up like gandalf and impresses his friends by reciting fancy words they learned in a fantasy book or online website to seemingly evoke and invoke the mighty power of some dude called satan?

LOL . . . what's your point?
Is being a tyrant an occultist to you? I think you have the wrong idea what an occultist is.
Why only those two choices? Do you believe they are the only choices? A tyrant or a role player?

Edited by Etu Malku, 13 December 2012 - 11:35 PM.

[Insaniac]

Etu Malku, on 13 December 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

LOL . . . what's your point?
Is being a tyrant an occultist to you? I think you have the wrong idea what an occultist is.
Why only those two choices? Do you believe they are the only choices? A tyrant or a role player?

Edited: I misunderstood Etu's comment. Disregard this post, my bad.

Edited by Insaniac, 14 December 2012 - 12:53 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

Rafterman, on 13 December 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

Yeah, you definitely don't want too many people having information and thinking about stuff.

You are partly right, but the more important dynamic is that you want them to have only SELECT information, and to be thinking only along certain lines, following certain paths, and buying into specific sophistries.  THAT is the goal of a serious propagandist.

They want you to buy their product, whether it is tobacco, cars, or ideas.