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

reply to post by SkipShipman


As much as I like the Homer and Humor I would also like it if you take the challenge I proposed above.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Good lord the thread about Palin and her IQ was closed. It was closed because it was absurd. It was unfounded. It was clearly made with the intent to discredit her unfairly.

That's what this thread is!! Actually it's worse. This thread needs to be closed in accordance to the new strict policy on politics here. It needs to be closed for the same reasons the Palin one was.

Unless someone can prove this theory? Someone? Obama was trained in mind control powers, and he is using it on us.... Anyone? Proof??

This is ridiculous.

This Election has turned ATS into 6th graders fighting over who should be the captain of the kickball team.

Let's splash some cold water on our faces, grab some coffee, slap ourselves a few times, and lets try this again.

Some things appear to be self evident, with a close reading of the article. There are some things that form a circle of evidence so strong, even though circumstantial, that it forms a proof that could stand up in case law. Whether that day in court would even proceed to prove anything is a matter of conjecture.

Political theory and practice are part of my own college training, because political science was my major field, and that was part of what I studied deeply.

I do not take this article lightly, and if it is disturbing to read it, the premises of it indicate a defining process. For those who defend Obama without reading it have been so convinced by style, that they miss the substance of things. On the other hand it would be enlightening to analyze other politicians in this light, where the specifics of NLP and other procedures are evident.

The tone of this is that Obama is utilizing techniques that are clinical, and part of an ethos of medical practice. It is designed for patients in therapy, not for public speaking. If all of this is true, just how could anyone prove it other than by circumstantial review of the identified facts of what constitutes hypnosis?

I have repeatedly posted that I do not favor the negative tone of the article, and its attacking style, but rather that people read it through, separate the wheat from the chaff if you will, and if that is your choice, vote for Obama in an informed manner. Vote for him by getting right to the heart of policy, rather than on an emotional basis in which you agree with anything said, just because you agree with his other statements that are obviously true.

Why close a thread, when its basis is sound, its reasoning is logical, and when you can analyze everything yourself with eyes wide open? This is not an immature article, nor is it necessarily polemical and ad hominym as a criticism of a person out of the blue sky. It is a view in depth of style contrasting substantive policy. In my thoughts, after readings of his speeches, and record, the substantive merits of his policy statements are in no manner anywhere near his adept public speaking techniques. Whether all of this is hypnosis or not, history has witnessed too many times over the past century the consequences of a leader in which people operate on the basis of transference, and yield too much of their informed electorate judgment. No one is as great as those public mythologies, we are all human.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by SkipShipman
I have repeatedly posted that I do not favor the negative tone of the article, and its attacking style, but rather that people read it through, separate the wheat from the chaff if you will,

Well now that is a great approach and is quite fair

However, the innuendo was pretty obvious from you in your opening.

Here is a snippet from the OP article:

Obama’s techniques are the height of deception and psychological manipulation,

And your words in response to the articles assertion:

Please read the article, it is very specific on the techniques. ..... The point is where speech writers and Obama work together and know what they are doing.

And what are 'they' doing? "Deceit and psychological manipulation".

That is clearly a negative tone and attacking style! You said we should read and separate the wheat from the chaff right?

This was the challenge I was actually refering to a minute ago:

The parts that best represent your assertion that Obama is using 'conversation hypnosis', and not just effective speaking skills, and then post it in this thread for all of us to see.

This way we can all make some real progress here. How bout it?

I realize that was something I posted to another member. So I will reword it in accordance to your position. Which is:

It is designed for patients in therapy, not for public speaking.

Please outline if you will (taking the parts from the PDF that best represent your argument)...

1. The techniques
2. How these techniques are not for public speaking
3. Specific examples of Obama using these techniques

I understand that is asking for quite a bit. I am just asking for the evidence to be laid out in this thread, for all of us on ATS to analyze in this thread. As it stands it just seems like negative slander.

Please also understand the importance of showing this evidence within this thread. That's the heart of ATS.


[edit on 19-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

"The tone of this is that Obama is utilizing techniques that are clinical, and part of an ethos of medical practice. It is designed for patients in therapy, not for public speaking. If all of this is true, just how could anyone prove it other than by circumstantial review of the identified facts of what constitutes hypnosis"

Thank you.

This is primarily what inspired the Doctor who wrote this paper to further research the techniques Obama was using AND the effects on the audience - be they Live or televised.

The fact that so many of Obama's fans refute and attack this Paper without even reading it further substantiates the Paper's Hypothesis.

The majority of the Claims in it cannot be denied. It is a well documented paper.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by TruthTellist]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


When you ask me to repeat what you can find in the table of contents what can I do?

Maybe viewing page 17 would be a start?

1. That's why I stand here tonight. Because for two hundred and thirty two years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women - students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.
2. The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great - a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.
3. But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the naysayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you. In the same speech, Obama says “now is the time” six times throughout. While he phrase is apparent, it sounds to everyone like just his power-phrase or theme for the speech.
1. Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.
2. Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy.
3. Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American.
4. Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.
5. Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.
6. And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons. It is no coincidence that he happens to use these phrases that are subconscious pacing statements because they are immediately and verifiably true by their most simplistic terms, and cause the subconscious to accept the hypnotist as a source for such absolute truth. Obama also says essentially “this moment” five times, serving the same pacing purpose.

1. We meet at one of those defining moments - a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.
2. This moment - this election - is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive.
3. You have shown what history teaches us - that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington.
4. America, this is one of those moments.
5. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future Notice how for each instance without exception, he has words before or after “moment” to make it absolutely immediately and verifiably true, such as “we meet at”, or “this election”, moments “like this one”, or “this is one of those moments.” The notion that this is all also a coincidence is absurd. This is carefully crafted hidden hypnotic pacing. And, this is only the beginning. Obama put these 14 pacing hypnotic language patterns into his speech knowing them to be part of a hypnotic trance induction. It is not “just the way he talks” nor “coincidence.” A more detailed play by play analysis of Obama’s hypnosis techniques in this and other speeches is below.

As I stated before, just read the paper, look for examples in his speeches yourself, and compare with the essentials. For example page one:

- Trance Inductions
- Hypnotic Anchoring
- Pacing and Leading
- Pacing, Distraction and Utilization
- Critical Factor Bypass
- Stacking Language Patterns
- Preprogrammed Response Adaptation
- Linking Statements/ Causality Bridges
- Secondary Hidden Meanings/Imbedded
Suggestions
- Emotion Transfer
- Non-Dominant Hemisphere Programming

I would not posit to tell you everything, since your own readings of the article, and a good view of Dr. Milton Erickson, M.D. would be how you make your own judgments to answer your own questions. I cannot tell you why these techniques are not for public speaking, you have to enter into the shoes of the medical field to understand it more fully.

In short I only ask people here to read, I am not the original source, nor have I even made up my mind about this years election. I only know that this reading presents a challenge, and opens an ability for people to make a distinction in their thoughts. The evidence if you will, is in those readings, while asking for me to prove anything would require demands upon a secondary source to substitute for a primary source. I ask you to form your own proofs, and to make your own opinion.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by SkipShipman]

reply to post by SkipShipman


Yeah. I figured

I am sorry. I expected more from you, especially after the self-promoting of your college level experience.

I very much feel the moderators should add a tag to the thread title such as ; *unverified* or *unfounded* or *speculative* or something! ATS increased it's political policy for a reason. For threads like this.

SkipShipman your thread title is what?

Snap out of it - Obama is using Clinical Hypnosis on You!

Deception and psychological manipulation

Give me a friggin break man. Who do you think you're kidding?

You are using negative slander and personal attack. It's in your thread title. It's in your OP. It's in your unwillingness to:

1. Explain the techniques
2. Show why these techniques are for therapy only and not for public speaking
3. specific examples of Obama using them

This is absurd. Walk the talk. Back it up. Deny Ignorance

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by TruthTellist
The fact that so many of Obama's fans refute and attack this Paper without even reading it further substantiates the Paper's Hypothesis.

Actually I am half way through thanks. Just about page 40. I will have probably finished it by the time you log back in to not respond to my questions

Also I am not an "Obama fan". Whatever that means. I am not subject to hypnosis or witchcraft (as it was even called earlier in this thread ). I think Obama would be a much better President then McCain. I hope McCain loses, but I also hope Ron Paul wins

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by SkipShipman

 

Yeah. I figured

I am sorry. I expected more from you, especially after the self-promoting of your college level experience.

I very much feel the moderators should add a tag to the thread title such as ; *unverified* or *unfounded* or *speculative* or something! ATS increased it's political policy for a reason. For threads like this.

SkipShipman your thread title is what?

Snap out of it - Obama is using Clinical Hypnosis on You!

Deception and psychological manipulation

Give me a friggin break man. Who do you think you're kidding?

You are using negative slander and personal attack. It's in your thread title. It's in your OP. It's in your unwillingness to:

1. Explain the techniques
2. Show why these techniques are for therapy only and not for public speaking
3. specific examples of Obama using them

This is absurd. Walk the talk. Back it up. Deny Ignorance

1. First of all when you are quoting an external source, and comment upon it, you are not required by any policy to explain what was written. If I see a public repudiation with proof what was stated is unsound, without factual basis, then I will agree with you. So far none of this has been substantially refuted anywhere.

2. The author of the article suggest these techniques are for therapy only. I agree. If you disagree tell me why?

3. What can I do I cited page 17, will you read it and compare it with other portions of the article rather than ask me to prove it?

"Snap out of it - Is Obama using Clinical Hypnosis on You?" may be a better title as a question.

And your statement "I am sorry. I expected more from you, especially after the self-promoting of your college level experience," is trivializing, is it a "personal attack?" I do not think so, but others might.

When you get down to the core of the article, yes the author is warning us, but is he really slandering Obama? When is an analysis of public speaking slander? When is intelligent criticism slander? It is when the basis of that criticism is a lie. So far the author identifies very specifically what is happening. If anyone has a better explanation, then go for it.

The deception is in the psychology and exaggerated promotion, the swooning, the fainting audiences. The deception is making yourself far more than what your really are when the public feeds back its adulation of your obvious statements back to you. The dangers after an extended period of time are senseless self aggrandizement, overestimating yourself, and historically, endangering others.

The proof is in the reading, and if you are unwilling to read the article, I cannot help you.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by SkipShipman
I cannot tell you why these techniques are not for public speaking, you have to enter into the shoes of the medical field to understand it more fully.

Which of course is the entire heart of your argument.

You understand that without being able to explain how these techniques are, or are not for public speaking, then it is just as justified as the assertion: these techniques reflect the skills of an effective public speaker.

You are a political science major.

Why do you agree with the OP then? You said it requires experience in the related medical fields.

You said you don't know why. You just said you can't explain it.

So why do you agree with it?

You should by implication be neutral here. Yet you are not. Which means...

...your thread title, and OP, and the fact that you can't verify it, shows your choice of wording is negative slander and personal attack on Obama.

When you get down to the core of the article, yes the author is warning us, but is he really slandering Obama?

Not the point. You are. As evidenced by your thread title and your original posts.


[edit on 19-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by SkipShipman


As per a previous post of mine, can you guess what page I am on?

I am sorry that seemed like a personal attack. I am sorry that seemed trivial. It was not my intent. I meant it quite literally. You are an educated man, and so I expected more. I expected you to attempt to make an effort.

"Snap out of it - Is Obama using Clinical Hypnosis on You?" may be a better title as a question

"Obama is using Clinical Hypnosis on You!"

Or...

"Is Obama using Clinical Hypnosis on you?"

One is an absolute statement, and one is not. I am confident you know which one is denying more ignorance.

Don't forget your "Snap out of it" though heh.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I am the OP or "original poster." The article is quoted from an external source.

I did study the psychology of politics, however while I am not a medical professional, I simply agree with those professionals when they say such techniques are for therapy. As I said before the task of fully understanding these things requires skill on the part of the practitioner, but that does not mean you cannot agree with his assessment.

I agree with it because it makes sense to safeguard a powerful medical technique from use on the public. For that matter consider the hypnosis placed upon someone in police custody with interrogation techniques, and the Supreme Court decision negating that practice. That is a strong reason why this kind of powerful hypnosis should not be for public speaking to mass audiences.

The skills of an effective public speaker may well contain some forms of hypnosis, however the field has advanced, and the more powerful techniques may reveal dangers when people swoon, faint, and consent far too readily to whatever else is being said. The fanatic devotion of followers, the exaggerated self importance of the politician, all these things are dangerous historically. For that matter the gist of all this is a warning for Obama, not to get too carried away with himself, so it is anything but slander in that context.

What you consider the OP is the external article, and I already stated I do not agree with that negative tone. What I say is a warning, a call to good sense not slander. The article, while appearing in your assessment to be slander, calls up many good points, and does not adjudicate Obama as good a guy as the public may think. Yes it makes polemic points such as "Obama is committing perhaps the biggest fraud and deception in American history." Of course the word "perhaps," tells us even after all the explanations the author gives us some wiggle room to simply think.

so then wet pavement does cause rainstorms then?

Sorry, speculation, and wild straw grasping at best!

No star, no flag here.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by redhatty

 

Why? Do you want me to finish reading it so we can discuss it together?

I have another idea. I think it might be better for this thread

Why don't you take the best parts from it.

The parts that best represent your assertion that Obama is using 'conversation hypnosis', and not just effective speaking skills, and then post it in this thread for all of us to see.

This way we can all make some real progress here. How bout it?

You want me to excerpt 67 pages of proofs into this thread to discuss?

Here's a better idea, since I see you are now reading the article, why don't YOU show me (page number and footnote references is fine, don't want to infringe on copyrights) where the author is wrong and why you think he's wrong?

reply to post by SkipShipman


Sounds like when I talk to my boss.

So is he the ANtiChrist in the bible code? Or is he an EBE sent to assimilate our species?
I also heard that he was half black! I was like WTF? I thought it was a rule that only white guy's like in the white house.....

I think he hypnotized me cause I can't even picture his face... What's this guy look like?
DOE IT MATTER WHEN THE ELECTION IS RIGGED AGAIN?

reply to post by seejanerun


seejanerun, I think I may know why you get your blood in a boil when Obama is speaking; he lies insessantly and he may unleash a Socialistic government, if given the opportunity. Who is Barack Obama? Many of US still do not know. I am reading as much on him as possible to try and determine who he really is. So far, I do not like him or his politics. Read David Freddoso's book, 'The Case Against Barack Obama' and you *will* learn much about his dirty political past. His mentor's are notoriously corrupt people. And, do not ignore or down-play his association with Bill Ayers, an American hater.

Ok so what the OP is saying is if you vote for Obama its because you've all been hypnotised. It's not because you think he makes a better president, or you agree with his policies, or you think Mcain is a snake in the grass and want a change from republican leadership.

LOL


I remember in Britain before labour all the scaremongering from the conservatives saying the country will crash into crisis if labour got elected, we'd lose jobs etc etc, when in fact living conditions got better and we went forward from that era. Although now labour is probably more conservative than the other party but thats another matter.



From what I can see if Obama got elected all his proposals would not happen over night, he seems an intelligent man and would realise some of them may have to be changed. Unlike Mcain who says he will fix everything without an explanation.

The way I see it is, Mcain if your happy with the way things are and want more of the same despite him saying his views differ from that of his parties or Obama if you want to implement change and head in a new direction.



[edit on 19-10-2008 by Horus12]

reply to post by SkipShipman


this is ridicilous , i really hope that noone who reads this false information will believe it and therefore vote for mccain.


in my opinion obama is the right man for the united states, but for that discussion visit my thread obama/mccain


www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by SkipShipman


It's fine that you think that.

I for one believe he is just expressing effective public speaking skills.

You thread title is still an absolute statement. Why does anyone need to read the PDF (which I finished) if it's already absolutely true? You worded that thread title for shock and awe. You were trying to illicit negative emotions against Obama. It's obvious. One could even say you are trying to hypnotize us!!!!

OP also means 'Original Post' by the way. I know you are the original posterI know the PDF is from an external source, as I said I was reading it. Clearly.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Why do you keep attacking the messenger instead of the message?

Like I said earlier. Now that you have read the article, point out parts you believe are false and bring them to the table for discussion