Snap Out of It - Obama is using Clinical Hypnosis on You!

reply to post by intrepid

See Picture above.

The pose is reminicsent of a "messiah" giving a benediction, spot on!

Originally posted by MAINTAL

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by MAINTAL

 

Then you are mind reader . . . Because NO WHERE in his posts or the examples does the poster state this or offer evidence to support that point. A few talking points, from an article, about the duality and polarized support for/against Obama does not make that point or support it. Beside that, the topic is hypnosis and if it is a factor in Obama's support . . . which the poster's entry doesn't support/refute . . . However, you seem to think it's a post about qualifications and the propaganda that goes along with any campaign (McCain's black child, Swift Boat Vets, etc) . . . if that is the case, then his post is off topic . . . and yours is supporting propaganda unrelated to the topic and biased.

SO . . . since we've concluded this is off topic . . . I expect your post to be deleted, as it doesn't serve the current conversation. I won't stoop to partisan media hype for either candidate, as I don't support either.

This one I have seen a thousand times, and if you or anyone else responding to my first post which IS regarding the OP doesn't like what I say when you or anyone else asks additional questions that I am willing to furnish my best answers for when I can, then I suggest you advise THEM not to ask questions that in effect end up derailing the thread.

That includes THIS attempt to use your disagreement with my posting answers which you apparently can only argue with behind the guise for your "genuine" caring concern the OP thread doesn't get derailed going as far as leading the MODs hinting they should remove them.

No body likes a thread derailed and I apologize for answering opinions contrary or requests that insist I elaborate.

Another thing I will suggest NOBODY likes, is tantamount to something most of us have seen or done when we were 6 years old but learned rather quickly by the disdain people have for it, even those compelled to enforce it or in this case the mods albeit their duty to obey such a person asking the violator be prosecuted or rule be enforced.

I think I can safely say even they would agree that Nobody, but nobody,,

likes a Tattle tale.





[edit on 21-10-2008 by MAINTAL]

Well . . . Since you can't argue with the ignorant, as they just reduce you to their level . . . I'll just cover your ASSUMPTIONS and their validity.

First, you assume that balast was posting to cover Obama's qualifications or lack there of . . . subsequent posts by balast have clarified his point . . . and YOU were wrong. What "questions" didn't I answer . . . I don't care why people are voting for Obama. That is their personal choice and isn't the topic of this conversation. Moreover, I was not posing the initial question to you . . . so, answering a question not meant for you, off topic at that, doesn't garner any sympathy from me . . . Start another thread, if you can't stick to this one and are afraid of the support Obama has.

Second, you assume I was "tattle-tale"-ing on you. ahhhh . . . again you are wrong. Find me anywhere where I ask a moderator to "delete" your post. My response was to you! By saying "I expect the post to be deleted" to YOU, I was ASSUMING that you would be a stand-up man/woman and delete an off topic post, which only served partisian propagandist purposes. I WAS WRONG. You are not that man/woman. Instead of abiding by the rules of the forum, you chose to attack. Good for you . . . BTW, this might not be on topic . . . but, I'm responding to your address of me. Not sure or care how you (or your collective NOBODY) feel about that . . . but, I'm betting "they" don't like that either.

Cheers

[edit on 10/21/08 by solomons path]

Some thoughts....

I find it very interesting that such dramatic defense is in order whenever any question in regards to Obama is asked.

Capital letters, representing shouting are very common, especially when invoked during a Obama/praise Obama/fear declaration is present.

This subjects Obama/praise Obama/fear declaration often sounds as if a subject is talking to and warning himself.

Please refer to prior example post, Here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is an example I came accross on another thread, I have ommitted the name:

e.g."I like Obama if he is the president he says he will be but I got to admit it seems strange how he came on the scene like out of no where and how his name is so close to Osama and Sadam Hussein two people the U.S invaded countries over.

I suppose you can find a conspiracy in anything if you look hard enough."

reply to post by ballast


Fair enough . . . I just wanted to see your point and where you were coming from. However, the search terms for McCain and Messiah and McCain and Fear show the same trend. . . only the McCain trends don't go as far back. McCain's rallies have a mob mentality . . . yet, I don't see the author of this document applying this study to him, as well. Now that it seems, by your clarification, that you buy into this ridiculous document (which I will once again remind everyone has NO SIGNED AUTHOR or group accepting responsiblity . . . was generated by a ultra right wing Christian dime rag . . . and the OP has yet to answer my question of how he came to "find" this piece . . . subverts and bends actual scientific principals to generate fear) . . . I will ask you again . . .

How does anything you've brought forward bring validity to the document. I don't want Obama, anymore than I want McCain, but the fact that intelligent people can't see that this document is absolute propaganda, looking to polarize, generate fear, feed off of ignorance and bias has me a little worried for this country. Obama isn't brainwashing anyone . . . just because someone can't see why someone would vote for him doesn't give validity to science fiction. If the Obama haters want to claim the government and media are "brainwashing" us through the policies and stories that are fed to them by the controlling elite . . . I'm all ears. However, falling for documents like this and using as a justification for the support one (or the other) candidate receives only perpetuates ignorance and further divides this country on our way to civil unrest. If that's what you (or anyone else) is all about . . . then "grab your gun and pass the ammo".

Originally posted by ballast
Some thoughts....

I find it very interesting that such dramatic defense is in order whenever any question in regards to Obama is asked.

Capital letters, representing shouting are very common, especially when invoked during a Obama/praise Obama/fear declaration is present.

This subjects Obama/praise Obama/fear declaration often sounds as if a subject is talking to and warning himself.

Please refer to prior example post, Here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is an example I came accross on another thread, I have ommitted the name:

e.g."I like Obama if he is the president he says he will be but I got to admit it seems strange how he came on the scene like out of no where and how his name is so close to Osama and Sadam Hussein two people the U.S invaded countries over.

I suppose you can find a conspiracy in anything if you look hard enough."

For the record, since I do it . . . I type in all caps for EMPHASIS, not shouting . . . that's clear in my posts.

As for the defense . . . no one against this document, from which I can tell, is defending Obama. If you can find anything supporting his rise to the presidency in mine, weedwhachers, etc, posts against this document . . . please show me where those are. You seem to be doing the old "passive-agressive" form of Rove's doctrine . . . When someone disagrees with you or your policies, link them to the oppostition.

You also quoted me in your "Praise" section of your first post . . . I'm not praising Obama. I'm denounce this farce of a document that takes real scientific research (which I am in favor of) and uses it to substanciate propagandist agendas, in much the same way that I.D.'ers use what science can't prove as proof of their beliefs. I'm arguing against this document and what it claims. Can you support this argument (with evidence) or can those that "believe" only see through partisan glasses?

Originally posted by ballast
reply to post by solomons path

 

How does the extreme polarization of your first post support or refute the claim that Obama is some sort of Manchurian-Svengali?

Please take note of your own phrasing of "Obama is some sort of Manchurian-Svengali?"

Articulate to be sure, but there are other less dramatic terms that would do. A statement that brings to mind, mystique, a powerful perhaps omnipotent, but evil person.

A messiah is omnipotent. The subject of messiah appears very frequently in relation to Obama. The google trend indicates the popularity of these search parameters, Obama messiah. The graph also indicates particular spikes of such searches in relation to Obama. Hence, it is very relevant.

WOW . . . nice misrepresentation of my quote . . . just a snippet out of context, eh?

More quotes and links? I agree it's interesting info, but how does it relate to this topic. Could you please take a stand and tie it in to the current discussion. How does the extreme polarization of your first post support or refute the claim that Obama is some sort of Manchurian-Svengali? How does your programming and brainwashing info support or refute one side of this debate? Are you posting this as general info? Do you have knowledge of how these phenomena work or did you simply google psych terms based on things being discussed here?

Regardless of word choice by me . . . the document (the reason for this discussion in the first place?) makes that assertion, as to why Obama is even in the race . . . The OP, through his (still) devisive title and concern, makes that assertion. Nice media twist to all of your posts though . . . I kinda like it . . . keeps me on my toes.

reply to post by solomons path


Look, let me make this REAL simple for you.

One, I don't seek your approval and two what you think of me, is NONE of my business as i couldn't care less.

If you wanted to make your statement to JUST ME then send a u2u or your message is just what it looks like YOU being tattle tale using your public rebuke of those you want to split hairs with on things having NOTHING to do with the OP and everything to do with arguing about crap I have no interest in talking to YOU about in the first place.

Here again you respond to me being critical of everyone elses post where the central message you keep drumming is they didn't post it the way YOU think they should have or someone answered a statement made and the rebuttal of course gets slightly off topic and there YOU ARE to point it out!

I get it that you think you are smarter then the rest of us and certainly more than I am. You are welcome to think such ideas if it makes you feel superior but know, how it looks is what I think you should be concerened about as it looks like you are whining again. I think if you have such a problem with posters going off topic. ALERT THE MODS but please stop derailing the topic by continuing to argue something when I don't even read your entires posts anyway they have become that mundane.

Ill be putting you on my ignore list I hate wasting time reading through boy scouts reprisals essentially saying GaH! You are saying something off topic! I'M TELLING ON YOU!!

Now Can we get back on topic please

Thanks

reply to post by MAINTAL

Now Can we get back on topic please

Fantastic . . . please show me some evidence that makes this document valid or produce something that doesn't reek of ignorant partisan propaganda.

The document and the theories it purports are the issue here. Do you have anything valid to add to it . . . why you agree or disagree beyond what you have been fed, as qualificational issues. Hmmm . . . I've been posting studies, articles, etc showing how this document is a load of *! What do say . . . and can you actually support it?

Originally posted by ballast
Some thoughts....

I find it very interesting that such dramatic defense is in order whenever any question in regards to Obama is asked.

Oh yeah, just look at what happened since my first post, I get one person going Ballistic I would even THINK of posting miss spelled word or using the wrong version of the word that took up a sizable amount of space, then someone saying I shouldn't use certain catch phrases suggesting I am racist, an Obamatron's old standby then I get this guy i just put on ignore who thinks I didn't have a point calling someone a mindreader for suggesting the same phraze was by someone who knows me better than I do. His answers to you look like the same Obama Propaganda we discover is so rife with lies and deceptions.

I don't believe for a second Obama is using any hypnosis but rather taking full advantage of an audience so weary of Bush and so desperate for change, they will elect the first guy that says it. I think Obama is a sneaky clever guy, who has friends with deep pockets most of whom are from the middle east and I fear they are purchasing the next leader of the united states by installing obama. He has been well groomed by Saul Alinsky, is a smooth talker when he uses a teleprompter but he will want most to get the votes for him in early before they come out of the ether shaking their heads saying "what was i thinking!" "Who IS this guy?"

Upon close examination, Obama is no one special and certainly no one with the "stuff" we require to run this Country.

People that appear to be effected, when frantically defending Obama, are often very disjointed in their replys. One will see incomplete sentences, filled with an abundance of ........... spaces. As if they cannot get their thoughts in order or don't actually have an answer that is adequate in their own eyes.

Another common trait besides name calling, seems to be a demand that someone "take a stand", "draw the line" apparently in an effort to find something, anything that they can refute and disagree with. It appears they intend to disagree with anything and everything.

On this thread, I noticed that anyone who may be effected that has professed taking a psychology course or has some experience with psychology or hypnosis is particulary angry. As if they are the ones most afraid.

Accusing people of lying, ethics violations and stupidity s also a common denominator.

The defenders accuse their protagonist of being subjects of some kind of propaganda, spells or other means of "brainwashing" is common. It seems that they readily accuse others of being victims of some kind of power hypnosis that they deny is effective.

Hitler frequently comes up in their defense of Obama.

This even makes it worse:

Votive Early, Votive Often

A reader took this picture today at a street fair at Hayes and Octavia in San Francisco, of all places:

reply to post by ballast


Addendum: Another common adamant statement of those who appear affected and are the most ardent defenders of Obama is to deny they are Obama supporters. In many cases it looks like do not realize they ardently committed to defending Obama. Apparently, they can't accept it.

There will be no more personal attacks or posting only to other members.

The topic is clear, "Snap Out of It - Obama is using Clinical Hypnosis on You!"

Remain on topic as further violations will result in action.

On a side note, politicians use NLP tactics all the time. The conversation is better geared towards analysis of those techniques then anything else...

Thank you.

Politicians everyday use of NLP tactics and the powerful hypnosis Obama appears to use do not seem to have the same effect. People don't commonly swoon in a politician's presence.

That is generally seen in Religous mania. It would be interesting to find historical records of people swooning or fainting for other candidates. Has it happened, historically, in the past?

Here is a reference The Reality of the Resurrection
The evidence and significance
by Dr. David R. Reagan

This is interesting because the doctor is writing for an entirely different subject and premise, yet this applies when looking at the probability of mass hypnosis.

lamblion.com...

"4) Hypnosis — Another modern theory is that the disciples experienced mass hypnosis. The advocates of this idea argue that the disciples so desperately wanted Jesus to rise from the dead that they created an aura of auto-suggestion (or mental hypnosis) and thus, whenever the name of Jesus was mentioned, His disciples believed they could see Him.

Now, mass hypnosis is a probability, with even as many as 500 people, given precisely the right type of controlled environment and the proper mass medium like radio, television, or film. But mass hypnosis without some form of mass media, and without a professional hypnotist, and without ideal conditions, is utterly outside the realm of sound reasoning. So, I ask you, how could 500 people in the open air of a country side, before the invention of mass media, and before the discovery of hypnosis, be subject to mass hypnosis? And how does this explain the fact of the empty tomb? I think it's obvious that the skeptics are grasping at straws.

5) Fainting — This leaves us with a centuries old theory that has recently been popularized by an apostate Christian named Hugh Sconfield. It's called the "swoon theory.""



[edit on 21-10-2008 by ballast]

reply to post by MatrixProphet




I don't know how to link the image, here is the link to the post page, probably just above. A picture of the public display of a large Obama votive surrounded by votives of saints.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Could we ask for a more perfect example? This was taken today, mind you.

Religion wise, setting up, idolizing or whorshipping a person as a diety or as God, is strictly forbidden.

It's like people are "volunteering" to elect and submit Obama as a dictator, replete with "adoration images". What is scarier than that?




[edit on 21-10-2008 by ballast]

[edit on 21-10-2008 by ballast]

If the audience is convinced by the speaker does that imply that the speaker has hypnotized the audience? If so, we can claim hypnosis in many cases. Political events, scientific meetings, discussions in the lunch room, and even family gatherings. One has only to look for one or more of the techniques described to determine hypnosis.
If hypnosis is confirmed, what should be done? A hypnosis alarm? Will we prescribe only short, passionless sentences and train everyone to reject any argument not delivered in a monotone?

If the minds of the audience are so readily captured, the best bet is to let political candidates engage in public debate so each can have a chance at convincing them to vote for the one that is the better hypnotist. In fact, a hypnotist in our highest office would be immensely valuable when dealing with world leaders.

Hitler frequently comes up in their defense of Obama.

I have another debate in this thread I need to attend to, but I just had to comment. You've heard of Godwin's law, right? Hardly unique to debates on the subject of Barack Obama.

this topic is ridiculous. as if obama is privy to mind control techniques which mccain isn't. you need to wake up and realize that they are both birds of the same feather. they are nothing but figureheads with no direct control on government. we don't work that way. we have checks, balances, and puppeteers. the truth is no matter who you vote for your life will not change.

Sorry, I did miss that. And point 1, it is not anchoring phrases being referred to it is pacing and leading being referred to in the examples of "the time is now" and "I stand before you tonight"

I should have been more careful. I meant "anchor" in a literary context, not in a technical one. Those are anchor phrases.

While McCain's use of "My Friends" could also be a pacing and leading, "Who is Barack Obama?" could not. The method of pacing is to constantly give the subject "truth" statements. Asking "Who is Barack Obama?" reverts the mind back to critical thinking. Pacing and leading is designed to turn off or bypass critical thinking.

Could he not be pacing and leading the audience into a state of suggestibility and using that suggestibility to imply that these questions haven't already been answered when indeed they have been?

Yes effective public speakers use many of the same techniques that are used in Ericksonian Hypnosis/NLP. The difference is, they also present you with information or questions that brings your mind back to critical thinking.

I don't know if that's true. Could you please give some examples to show that effective public speakers generally take care to "bring the audience back to critical thinking"?

Barack Obama's speeches (at least the ones footnoted in the article) do not. They just apply layer upon layer of NLP techniques with nothing to trigger the listener back to critical thinking.

Again, the article itself in the examples I cited didn't do nearly enough to show that these were "layers upon layers of NLP techniques". They simply quoted Obama and then stated that the source supported their interpretation with no further explanation. Not sound scholarship.

I don't deny for one moment that it is effective, in fact I completely agree, it is amazingly effective.

By effective I mean persuasive and compelling, not hypnotic.

But if you continue on, the author, after discussing the different techniques, and citing source in footnote, presents a video clip that you can view, with the information previously presented. The reader is then left to make up their own mind.

Sure. But I've seen those speeches too, and they appeal to me as solid oratory work. Political speeches are inherently and intentionally vague regardless of the candidate. Obama just happens to do them better.

No one ever said we all have to agree

Agreed.

Yes these techniques are used for communication and persuasion, salesmen have training course, as do many other professionals, I don't dispute that. Again, the difference lies in this: Does the person using the techniques ever present a statement or question that reverts the listener back to critical thinking, or do they simply layer the different techniques on top of one another and never bring the listener back to critical thinking. By not returning the listener back to critical thinking, it can be argued that the intended purpose is, in fact, hypnosis of the subject.

Well, this is all very subjective. I understand what you're saying, but I find myself critically considering many aspects of Obama's speech work: wishing he would be more specific, less willing to jump on the "No more Bush" button, more comfortable with direct rebuttals to some of the absurd attacks that have been leveled him. I'm plenty critical of Obama and what he's saying, but I still think he's relaying better ideas in a more effective way than, say, McCain.

Not for nothing,
but are the various posters aware that this is a no brainer.
Political candidates use EVERY trick in the book. It comes rather naturally. Advertising uses hypnosis inducers (and every trick in the book)as well. Wake up people. Read between the lines of every candidate, every word in the media, and every public figure.
Karl Rove is the master of such techniques.
when you point a finger, beware, three are still pointing at you.

If you are discussing one sides or the others use of "unethical methods" then you have already fallen for one sides or the others use of unethical methods.
dont be a tool, no one likes to be a tool