DARPA's In Ur Brainz, Hacking Ur Storiez.

Originally posted by mistermonculous
reply to post by LiveToSpendIt

 

Okay, Frank, I confess I am at a disadvantage here. I am not only narrative immune to HP, I might be narrative allergic. Crushed the first six in a seven-hour period once when I had the flu over @ my ex's place. It was the mental equivalent of the fois-gras process, my febrile brain having warm mush shoveled down its gullet...

...I think VD's maybe right, in a way, to regard HP as being today's General Text. But he seems to think that the Text is a molding force. I'd say the text is just a by-product of the culture, not a formative trope. The books are an expression of the environment, and perhaps serve a regulative function.

I am going to speak for Victor Dix since I know him well, and we have often discussed the Harry Potter phenomena, I have offered dozens on dozens of my own opinion papers to him.

The term "shared text" is one that is like a common road or path, It is not necessarily molding as you say as much as it is bonding, a similar experience, something that people can easily discuss because of familiarity. That allows for different viewpoints and interpretations.

I am speculating that this is why HP is being looked into: not because it shapes culture, but because it neutralizes it.

I agree, this has to be one of their agendas. Who knows what is on their minds completely?

edit to add:

I realize I neglected to address the other, probably secondary cause of military interest: I think VD's on the money here. "How do we most effectively induce a quasi-permanent state of suspended disbelief in our population? Oh, I know. Let's go hassle Rowling. If we can find out how she manages to make people believe in magic without resorting to Religion, we can really start cooking with gas."

Dix claims that this was known, i.e. the psyoperational, mind control qualities inherent in the Potter series and I can guarantee you that Jo Rowling had no idea whatsoever how to pull that off. It wasn't remotely on her plate.

She wrote a book for children, stole half the material and storyline from other authors, added her own touches. Books 1 and 2 were sheer luck, heavenly timing to market. The films took years to follow.

But more is going on than that. IMO, Warner received significant advanced funding (elite banker loans) as the cost of the movies rose. The history of black ops funding movies goes back to the early 50s as you may know.

Books 3-7 allowed the IAs et al to test out their own theories. One in particular, the lack of clear division between what is Dark and Light Magic, iow, what is right and wrong. Ethics and morality are completely blurred and, in the end, when hundreds have died on both sides of the Wizarding War, the entire Wizarding World is no better off for it.

This is key. They desperately wanted to upsell the concept that people can be manipulated not only into believing who is "good" and who is "evil" but when the outcome of the inevitable (false flag ??) battle ensues, that although things are in a world of sh**, "good" won.

Which may or may not have much to do with UFO stuff, there are all sorts of potential cons you can run on a person shuffling around in fugue state

I can only add that WvBraun's death bed statements regarding false flag operations.

"First,the Russians," next, it would be from "the Terrorists," then, from the so-called "Rogue Nations." Eventually, "asteroids" would be to blame. The final card to be played would be "the Extraterrestrials"...

With NASA's recently unveiled plans to land on an asteroid for the purposes of military defense, then...

Originally posted by Frater210

Let's start a list of reasons why Women kind should be kept distracted with poisonous narrative:

1. They will start talking about other stuff like what is in this thread.

The terror of knowing that the woman you are with might actually be reading your mind?

I am not totally joking here. I've done some demonstrations for some women, and men (including an ex bf) how body language works in crowds and impacts male and female behaviour with only one person doing it. A crowded theater, a coffee shop, a mass cafeteria.

The basic story of boy-meets-girl is literally seen as an act of terror in our cultures right now, but we are so disconnected that if people aren't gaming the system I can't see how they ever intend on getting together and staying together. To steal a Dr.Phil phrase (I'm sorry), you have to throw yourself on people's windshields to meet each other.

People get all weirded out about it when they see it. The bf with the 180 IQ you'd think would have been understanding, but no he was horrified to find out that I might be manipulating him by reading his body language, applying science, and using it.

Collaboration of how the story of us happens done in a way that might be directed is literally seen as horrifying to people on a personal level, and used as a weapon by governments and media. If women (and men) just started doing it on their own in a collaborative fashion instead of buttheads over the pretend limited resources of other people's bodies and lover interests, well who knows what we might become.

I bet something pretty cool.

Originally posted by mistermonculous
I am speculating that this is why HP is being looked into: not because it shapes culture, but because it neutralizes it.

edit to add:

I realize I neglected to address the other, probably secondary cause of military interest: I think VD's on the money here. "How do we most effectively induce a quasi-permanent state of suspended disbelief in our population? Oh, I know. Let's go hassle Rowling. If we can find out how she manages to make people believe in magic without resorting to Religion, we can really start cooking with gas."

Which may or may not have much to do with UFO stuff, there are all sorts of potential cons you can run on a person shuffling around in fugue state.

edit on 16-12-2011 by mistermonculous because: add-add.

Not to put too fine a point on this here, but the media doesn't seem to have any problem with keeping people in a permanent state of suspended disbelief. Fugue is the new normal.

They just tell you what you want to hear. Alternately, if they can't control the subject, they change the parameters of the field around it. Reality is optional, and frankly significantly less important than controlling the message.

What is the apparent advantage of an entire World of people with no direction except shoehorned shared narrative? Worse, what about when the enjoyment of the narrative makes them start seeking out expanded narrative. Well then they wander off course. Clearly the only way to control this is to then apply a Mao / Druid solution, and destroy the past so that it can't pollute your new applications.



Now I'm going to address the "good-evil" schema for military applications. You don't need to FIND enemies. They find themselves. So I reject this concept. Controlling the message when you want to make your populace think an enemy is a friend....now THAT is much more likely.

reply to post by Aeons

...but no he was horrified to find out that I might be manipulating him by reading his body language, applying science, and using it.

I want to say several things all at once and I will just try to get them in order somehow. I have often thought that we are already very, very 'telepathic'. It seems to be common knowledge these days...here I'll Google it for a fresh number on this (Jeopardy Song...) ah, WikiPedia*, at the moment, tells us that it is going to be two thirds of all communication between two people or a person and a group of people is non-verbal. I have heard it is up to 90%. So I have often thought that we are already totally telepathic and all the rest of the pathics, and voyants even, but we are so caught up in dishonesty and shame and fear that we don't want to stop. Admitting it all would be a really big shift, I think, in human relating.

Collaboration of how the story of us happens done in a way that might be directed is literally seen as horrifying to people on a personal level, and used as a weapon by governments and media. If women (and men) just started doing it on their own in a collaborative fashion instead of buttheads over the pretend limited resources of other people's bodies and lover interests, well who knows what we might become. I bet something pretty cool.

I really liked the way that you put that.Yes, it really is used against us while we struggle with each other over it. It is because of a lot of petty stuff, I suppose, that has been inculcated in to us culturally. I don't mean to sound glib, but relationships just seem challenged more than ever these days. Always a voice reassuring us that we are at each others throats, and so we are.

"'If people have nothing to hide or be ashamed of (read: not doing anything 'wrong') than they don't have anything to worry about". I use that as a mantra sometimes to remind myself that I do not live in a prison. That quote is how prisoners come to, and are expected to think. yet, we don't want to hide anything from one another, right? I mean, if it has to be hidden then maybe it should be questioned, or the environment in which it must be kept hidden in must be re-evaluated. Either way there is a fundamental compatibility issue.

And so as we are dependably struggling along and failing to get anywhere with that (I guess) organized groups are using the same crap against us in weaponized fashion. Geez, with friends like these and all that.

Well, I still contend that if we can (antecedent to pulling our gender-mutual heads out of our asses ((guys are the worse, I know))) become aware of this deal with stories that we can (anyone could) turn it right back around. Actually it would have nothing to do with circles at all, we eat narrative, so I just think we would develop the appropriate enzymes to deal with the invaders, We is built like that if fed the right stories.

What do you think?



*en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by mistermonculous I realize I neglected to address the other, probably secondary cause of military interest: I think VD's on the money here. "How do we most effectively induce a quasi-permanent state of suspended disbelief in our population? Oh, I know. Let's go hassle Rowling. If we can find out how she manages to make people believe in magic without resorting to Religion, we can really start cooking with gas."

After re-reading this paragraph, I looked back at notes of a discussion I had with Victor Dix that addressed what you have called a "secondary" interest (it's not)...

The American Psychology Association in a $100,000,000 cooperation with the US Army produced a lengthy manu-op entitled Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF). CSF is being promoted as a holistic, hardiness preparation to diminish - if not avoid - undesirable psychological costs to soldiers who suffer through combat.

The CSF calculates soldiers’ resilience in five or six nuclear areas: emotional-mental, physical-corporeal, family, social, occupational and spiritual. It is the the spiritual module of the evaluation - which contains questions written predominately for soldiers who believe in a god, the God or another deity - and is of interest in relation to your quote.

Enter Harry Potter.

Warfighter-unbelievers will obviously score badly and be required, in order to toughen up, to use religious imagery drills, ones that oppose their individual values.

The tie in between Potter and this conditioning exercise is not necessarily direct, i.e. they don't force warfighters to watch The Deathly Hallows. According to Dix, though, the underlying concept, as you put it "How do we most effectively induce a quasi-permanent state of suspended disbelief in our population?" is key to enhancing toughness in the nonbelieving, warfighter population.

Jeez, this is a long way from MkUltra/MkUltra II in the 70s.

reply to post by LiveToSpendIt


Oooooo, you know what I think? I think they dropped 100 mil. because there is a segment of the general population that seems to double every few years, and they are showing what might be termed a religious immunity.

And that is effing with the Operator's action in very a big way.

Related Reading:

Atheism and Autism Intersect

The Autist/ADHD crowd are an exploding demographic. Maybe just as with pathogens, we can develop a heritable resistance to opportunistic control junkies and their neural leash yanking.

An Autist, a Sociopath, and an ADHD'er Walk Into a Bar...

reply to post by LiveToSpendIt


Dear God, what Woo.

Harry Potter as a military application. Do these unbeliever soldiers have IQs of 100, or maturity of ten year olds??

The answer is so damn obvious....but I'm not going to tell you. They need to fix the stupid soldiers for corporations model first.

Originally posted by mistermonculous
An Autist, a Sociopath, and an ADHD'er Walk Into a Bar...

edit on 17-12-2011 by mistermonculous because: beep.

My ears are burning.

Hollywood knows this, their filmmakers appreciate that the plot is nothing but the delivery for emotional connection. If the audience cannot be persuaded to defer its disbelief then the amusement is for nothing.

With the constant and rightful debunking of all kinds of military, Elitist and OWO protagonists via the Internet, new strategies have had to be examined and applied. The study of Harry Potter is much more important than the implementation of HP in any military-induced propagandist flick.

But that was easily seen from my posts, I digress.

www.sheldrake.org...&Papers/papers/morphic/morphic_intro.html
www.co-intelligence.org...

And, I'm reasonably understanding the concept of the morphogenetic fields. Also feeling slightly more weirded out about living so deep in the story mind that its showing up in my environment - maybe I've tapped a vein of the force and I'm living like the Jedi.

Thank you oh Master Jedis for prodding me into new directions of thoughts.

Now this sure adds a whole new level to the break down of the stories of humans now doesn't it? That the what of what we are is not fully housed in ourselves, but in the collective memory of groups.

The field of the battle of culture and mind takes on a whole new meaning here. Something I see takes on a layer of social-racial-ethnic-cultural warfare about literally destroying things that people are in order to make them into something else.

Do these fields become more tangible and incarnate with more people? Or is this similar to the article I posted in another thread today about democracy?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.livescience.com...

Where the experiment shows that the apathetic have a moderating influence. Or the opposite, the more extremely usefully opinionated a group is the greater their field of influence of the untrained fish is even if the untrained fish are reluctant?

Perhaps of Guru of Pablum for the Alphabet Soup - perhaps your problems aren't that unbelievers are unbelievers, perhaps your problem is that your pablum is too bland for it to have even a modest effect on them.

reply to post by Aeons

Where the experiment shows that the apathetic have a moderating influence. Or the opposite, the more extremely usefully opinionated a group is the greater their field of influence of the untrained fish is even if the untrained fish are reluctant?

Just off the cuff I would say yes, for sure. You just put some really complicated stuff in to a nice neat nutshell. I noticed that you used once the term 'field'. I was wondering if you are familiar with Pierre Bourdieu*? I am a big fan of his and I was wondering if you would like to look at his simple lexicon for Sociology? It is run down rather nicely on WikiPedia and I don't think it needs to get any more complicated than that at the moment. I was just thinking that if you haven't seen it already that you might be inspired by the simplicity of his map. Pick it up and get a feel for it if you wish; I'd love to see what you do with it.

Loving your posts.



*

Field:

Bourdieu shared Weber's view that society cannot be analyzed simply in terms of economic classes and ideologies. Much of his work concerns the role of educational and cultural factors. Instead of analyzing societies solely in terms of classes, Bourdieu uses the concept of field: a structured social space with its own rules, schemes of domination, legitimate opinions and so on. Fields are relatively autonomous from the wider social structure (or space, in his terminology), in which people relate and struggle through a complex of connected social relations (both direct and indirect).

en.wikipedia.org...

Do these fields become more tangible and incarnate with more people?

Well, that's the Fiddy Dollar Question, isn't it? When do these fields attain not simply autonomic function, but -gasp- self-awareness? When the population density and sophistication of communication infrastructure offers a sufficient number of interconnected nodes?

But maybe this is nothing new.

We are always convinced that the modern world is a reasonable world, basing our opinion on economic, political, and psychological factors. But if we may forget for a moment that we are living in the year of Our Lord 1936, and, laying aside our well-meaning, all-too-human reasonableness, may burden God or the gods with the responsibility for contemporary events instead of man, we would find Wotan quite suitable as a casual hypothesis. In fact, I venture the heretical suggestion that the unfathomable depths of Wotan's character explain more of National Socialism than all three reasonable factors put together. There is no doubt that each of these factors explains an important aspect of what is going on in Germany, but Wotan explains yet more. He is particularly enlightening in regard to a general phenomenon which is so strange to anybody not a German that it remains incomprehensible, even after the deepest reflection.

Perhaps we may sum up this general phenomenon as Ergriffenheit -- a state of being seized or possessed. The term postulates not only an Ergriffener (one who is seized) but, also, an Ergreifer (one who seizes). Wotan is an Ergreifer of men, and, unless one wishes to deify Hitler -- which has indeed actually happened -- he is really the only explanation. It is true that Wotan shares this quality with his cousin Dionysus, but Dionysus seems to have exercised his influence mainly on women. The maenads were a species of female storm-troopers, and, according to mythical reports, were dangerous enough. Wotan confined himself to the berserkers, who found their vocation as the Blackshirts of mythical kings.

Formally, when fields became self-aware, we called them Gods.

reply to post by mistermonculous



Hey, I just had a thought. Do you suppose a quality could be developed in to a field (that is supported by narrative and its prevailing doxa) that could make a person physically uncomfortable if they don't jibe with the story?

Narrative based crowd control? Like when certain types of habitus and doxa collide within certain fields of retail shopping.

Originally posted by Frater210
reply to post by mistermonculous

 

Hey, I just had a thought. Do you suppose a quality could be developed in to a field (that is supported by narrative and its prevailing doxa) that could make a person physically uncomfortable if they don't jibe with the story?

I don't think it would have staying power, and you'd have to forage very far afield for that sort of stimulus, given the general threshold these-a-days.

However, I think you could manage to make the Unbeliever emotionally uncomfortable with little trouble. I'm sure it happens all the time.

reply to post by Aeons


Uh, sorry about this, guys. I couldn't resist.

That's the way, child. But I'm going on a little. I want you to consider how nicely this explains the psychology of crowds, for example. We may suppose an Idea to be a real four-dimensional thing. I, when I know myself more fully, shall probably turn out to be a pretty simple kind of a thing, manifesting in perhaps one person only. But we can imagine abstract 'Individuals' who come to the surface in hundreds or thousands of minds at the same time. Liberty, for example. It begins to push through. It is noticed by one or two men only at first; that is like the point of the cone. Then it spreads gradually -- or it breaks out suddenly, just as the circle would, if, instead of a cone, you dropped a spiked shield upon the water. And that is all the lesson for this afternoon, child. Think it over, and see if you have it all clear, and if you can find any other little problems to straighten out. The next lesson will be of a more desperate sort -- the kind that leads directly to action.

reply to post by Frater210


I think you just described Junior High School.

reply to post by Frater210


Read up the Wiki article, which is surprisingly well done for such a large subject.

I don't think I grok everything, so I'm going to have to dig more. I like it, though I still find I have some issues with the views presented.

First up, I dislike Marx. That's just a personal thing, so my initial reaction is to the political bias that is clearly present by the people who influenced this. I'll have to read up on this more and try and set it aside.

I'm not a fan of duality or mutual exclusivity as a the only options. Most things are on a sliding scale, not a two opposing forces or mutually exclusive forces. When there are two opposing or mutually exclusive forces, they are simply the easiest to recognize.

While championing the middle ground, the model requires the implementation of dualistic thinking which must by its nature insist that the players quit to their sides and deny the middle ground. Then enforce this model to prove the model.

The use of this itself as a dominance position seems unacknowledged. That he later went into politics to prove this use of dominance proves out that he himself was aware of this. These ideas have rather obviously been weaponized, by intent and dominance and arrogance.

I don't think its all dross by any means. The problems seem apparent.

So if we have weaponized narratives being supported by professional support, does anyone here really think that the intent of these is to make you a better human being or your society a better society?

I see no indication that this is the case myself.

Let me use my current obsession (again) as the basis of a theory.

There is man who creates an individual narrative, with some backup from others with similar narratives, and launches it into the population with an act of symbolic violence using real violence.

Many individuals have tried to attach many types of conspiracies, other than the truth of the narrative itself, onto it. Political groups. Security groups. Individuals. The media. The usual mix of reptilians-freemasons-jews etc.. Even an international company has tried.

But they've all failed to launch. Either this narrative itself, the act to launch it into the populace, or specific actors are not allowing it to be taken over this way .... OR....

We have a perfect example (not the only one) of an extensive try by non-professionals to add ridiculous 5GW type conspiratorial narrative and fail. Suggesting that many of the examples of 5GW conspiratorial narrative are being influenced or directed by professionals who know how to do it, or know how to provoke people into perpetuating ideas that keep them busy with stupid things.

Any and all of these possibilities are worth exploring.

How to repress or repel professional attempts at narrative direction.
How to identify actors working on behalf or against the reproduction of a narrative.
How to effectively reduce professional attempts at owning the populace's (or subsets thereof) brains.

Then there is, how to use this knowledge to start giving people a narrative in the populace that gives them a structure to own their own neuro-chemistry without having to pick their nose out of their fashion magazines. Make them resistant to attempts directing the populace.

Alternately, there is the possibility of finding ways to direct those who are uses this against people to get them onside with ... not being pricks. I have such dreams.

How to repress or repel professional attempts at narrative direction.

Exposure is the opening gambit, whenever access to proof allows for it. Short of that, I think non-engagement is a very effective strategy.

How to identify actors working on behalf or against the reproduction of a narrative.

Possible identifying factors (There's more, I know. Maybe we should knock a list together.) :

- Monomania

- Consistent failure to respond where there is a substantial challenge presented to any aspect of the Pro's credentials/true identity/agenda/veracity

- Linguistic mirroring, shifting syntax, consistency in message but not style

How to effectively reduce professional attempts at owning the populace's (or subsets thereof) brains.

Crack their patterns, broadcast the info far and wide.

Then there is, how to use this knowledge to start giving people a narrative in the populace that gives them a structure to own their own neuro-chemistry without having to pick their nose out of their fashion magazines. Make them resistant to attempts directing the populace.

I think many are already displaying a formidable resistance which is kept in check only through pharmaceutical restraints and see-through carrots. Might not be too difficult to bust that pinata open.

Alternately, there is the possibility of finding ways to direct those who are uses this against people to get them onside with ... not being pricks.

Hey, it's all about redemption. Just look at Abramoff.

Originally posted by mistermonculous

How to repress or repel professional attempts at narrative direction.

Exposure is the opening gambit, whenever access to proof allows for it. Short of that, I think non-engagement is a very effective strategy.

Non-engagement isn't an option for all people to my eyes.

People already have an incompatible one, their story-of-themselves-in-society is already established and being reinforced by mental scotomas and bias, or some are just plain resistant for various reasons.

Atheists, scientists and academics might believe they are resistant but this isn't the case.

Some are resistant by nature, with internal wiring that doesn't code for cultural imprinting as usefully. Though long exposure, or extreme duress might effect this state.

Ritualization is something I think that may overcome the resistance of a goodly number of the resistant. In extreme cases, the behaviour to ritualize is inherent to these people; they engage in ritualized behaviour to control their World already.

Some, like me, probably don't have the option to not engage with some story that embeds or resonates with me. Once its got me, its got me. I have to do something with it to master it, challenge it, reduce it, own it, change it. Doesn't happen often, but often enough. Non-engagement appears to be not optional for all, and few of those seem to be able to separate themselves from it once it gets in their head.

bernhard-hommel.eu...

Abstract
Human creativity has been claimed to rely on the neurotransmitter dopamine, but evidence
is still sparse. We studied whether individual performance (N = 117) in divergent
thinking (alternative uses task) and convergent thinking (remote association task) can be
predicted by the individual spontaneous eye blink rate (EBR), a clinical marker of dopaminergic
functioning. EBR predicted flexibility in divergent thinking and convergent thinking,
but in different ways. The relationship with flexibility was independent of intelligence and
followed an inverted U-shape function with medium EBR being associated with greatest
flexibility. Convergent thinking was positively correlated with intelligence but negatively
correlated with EBR, suggesting that higher dopamine levels impair convergent thinking.
These findings support the claim that creativity and dopamine are related, but they also
call for more conceptual differentiation with respect to the processes involved in creative
performance.

(Less Jargon: www.psychologytoday.com...)

People who are engaged online tend to have decreased eyeblinking. This isn't discussed in this study.

If people engaged online, online gaming have lessened eyeblink rates, does this suggest that they are experiencing a state of convergent thinking and less divergent thinking while doing so?

Or does the use of the monitor make people who are engaged in these activities unnaturally reduce their eyeblink rate to accomodate extra information influx?

The medium's impact on dopaminergic systems might tend to increase convergent thinking, while decreasing divergent thinking and fluid intelligence. Which I am sure is far more useful for controlling people or directing their thoughts to single problems, and less useful for provoking insight and critical thinking on a variety of unrelated subjects.

In other words, the box you use to game and post might be decreasing your out-of-the-box thinking skills.

www.thefreedictionary.com...
www.thefreedictionary.com...
psychology.about.com...
psychology.about.com... (not discussed in these)

en.wikibooks.org...

So if the box is making you more prone to structured thinking, it may be less for iniatiating a controlled change in a complex narrative. Suggesting to me that any changes one hopes make in people's internal narrative might need to be packaged into smaller structured schemes.