THE PSYCHOLOGY OF AUTHORITY AND PERCEPTION, VERSUS RESPONSE

In order to understand the mystery of seemingly blind compliance to authority, there is perhaps no better sample of human nature than the 1961 experiments on "Obedience to Authority," conducted by Dr. Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University. His studies were spawned by the recent trial and execution of Adolph Eichmann.

 

The results were posted in Milgram's "Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View" (1974).

Milgram focused on the propensity for obedience to authority, versus the role of personal conscience. His work was in consequence of the rationalizations and justifications for the Nazi acts of genocide – as offered by the accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Crime trials. The perpetrators’ defense was typically based on "obedience" - claiming that they were "… just obeying orders" under the authority of their superiors.

 

However weak the claim may have appeared, it was firmly believed, by the accused. In particular, the Nazi perpetrators were well educated and members of the German aristocracy.

The Eichmann trial stirred the question as to how easy it would be for ‘good’ and educated (American) people (college degree) to be conditioned to commit even murder – in exchange for simple "acceptance and approval."

 

What if Eichmann, and his accomplices were, in fact, "….just following orders."

More directly, the Milgram study demonstrated the propensity for people to submit to even ‘mild,’ even "presumed" authority – let alone threat or even internal fears. (Not even notable amounts of money were required.) The psychiatrists of the day forecast that 2% of any population would be compliant – the ‘sickos;’ the Milgram Study demonstrated 65%!

The setup of the experiment called for so-called "teachers" (unknowing subjects of the experiment) to be recruited by a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work. The ‘price’ is worth noting. The recruits all had college degrees. It is also worth noting that the setup time was remarkably brief; there was no extensive ‘conditioning’ required. Both of these factors attest to an apparent pre-disposition for submission to "perceived" authority.

 

The experiments would remind most of the TV series, "The Twilight Zone."

The volunteer ‘teachers’ thought that they were recruited to take part in a psychology experiment investigating memory and learning. The recruits were introduced to a stern looking "experimenter," dressed in a white lab coat; as well as an ordinary and pleasant co-subject (actor, in fact) who was presumably recruited via the same newspaper ad. The true subject ("teacher") was assigned to direct the ‘learning’ of the other ‘volunteer; using electric shocks as a learning motivator.

The teacher-recruit was led to believe that he/she had been chosen randomly, to be a scientific ‘teacher.’

Both the actor and the ‘teacher’ were given a ‘sample’ 45-volt electric shock, to set the realism of the ‘stage.’ The "teachers" were told that the experiment was designed to explore the effect of punishment, to prompt correct responses for manufacturing learning behavior.

The ‘teachers’ were advised that the electric shocks were to be of increased by 15 volts, for each mistake that the ‘student’ made during the experiment.

The ‘teachers’ control panel had 30 switches, clearly labeled in 15 volt increments; ranging from 15 volts, up to the maximum of 450 volts. Each switch also had a rating label, incrementing from "slight shock" to "danger: severe shock". The final two switches were additionally labeled "XXX". Thus, the subject could not be the least bit ignorant of the potential consequences of his/her deeds.

The experiment environment had the ‘student’ in another room; with the ‘teacher’ made aware of the "actor-student's" discomfort by poundings on the wall.

The actors ("students") pretended to be stupid, seemingly requiring (deserving) increasing shocks – feigning pain, misery and unconsciousness. The "teachers" abided by the background ‘authority’ until they were doing the deeds of sadists & murderers – a convincing simulation, of course.

In reality, no further shocks were actually delivered. Again, the ‘teacher’ was unaware that the ‘student’ in the study was actually an actor who would use his talents to fake increasing levels of discomfort; as the ‘teacher’ administered what he/she assumed were increasingly severe electric shocks, for the supposed mistakes made by the "student".

The ‘experimenter,’ with the white lab coat, was in the same room as the ‘teacher.’ Whenever the ‘teachers’ asked whether the increased shocks should be delivered, he or she was verbally encouraged by the experimenter to continue.

Amazingly, the test subjects didn’t question as to why the ‘experimenter’ needed a surrogate, in the first place.

Using actors as the student-victims, the actual test subjects ("teachers") were directed to ask questions of a presumed "student," sitting in a sealed booth, with the "teacher" delivering increasing electrical shocks, if the ‘student’ got the wrong answer. A presumed torturous-fatal electric shock was incrementally delivered, by 65% of the unwitting "teachers," punishing the student to the very end of the 450-volt scale! No ‘teacher’ stopped before reaching 300 volts!

Worried ‘teachers’ did question the ‘experimenter,’ asking who was responsible for any harmful effects. It is worth noting that the primary concern was personal accountability, versus the welfare of the perceived victim. The ‘experimenter’ assumed full responsibility, with the ‘teachers’ accepting the response as adequate; then continued shocking their ‘student,’ even though some of the ‘teachers’ were obviously extremely uncomfortable with their deeds.

Return to another fact of life – cultures hide the fact that in times of crisis, people have a third choice, beyond ‘fight-or-flight; specifically, "Submission." (Consider the rape victim!)

In the Milgram study, the test subjects were unwittingly submitting to rather mild coercion of their ‘handlers.’ They assumed that they were factually torturing – even killing – the ‘students,’ preferring the acceptance-approval of their handlers, to their basic personal values and even morality, itself. They questioned, but with mild coercion, they complied with ‘authority.’

From Milgram’s "The Perils of Obedience" (1974), it is learned that Milgram solicited predictions on the outcome, from various ranges of people; including psychiatrists, faculty in the behavioral sciences, graduate students, college sophomores and even middle-class adults. Those polled reliably predicted that virtually all of the chosen subjects (‘teachers’) would refuse to obey the experimenter.

 

The psychiatrists, predicted that most subjects would not go beyond 150 volt level, when the actor-victim made the first explicit demand to go free. The psychiatrists expected only 4 percent of the ‘teachers’ to continue to the simulated 300 volt level, estimating that only a pathological personality (one in a thousand) would administer the highest voltage.

The Milgram Experiment was continued in a number of variable scenarios; such as the ‘student’ indicating discomfort by way of voice feedback (versus pounding on the walls of his ‘chamber’) – starting at the "150 volt" level. At that point, the ‘actor-victim’ requested that the experiment be ended.

 

The ‘teacher’ was consistently told by the experimenter that - "The experiment requires that you continue. Please go on." or verbiage, to that effect. In that scenario, the percentage of ‘teachers’ who were prepared to administer the maximum of 450 volts, dropped slightly - to only 62.5%. Desperate verbiage, versus pounding on the walls, made little difference.

The environment of the experiment was considered, as well. The surroundings of the experiments seemed to cast an "aura of authority," as well. When the environment of the experiment was conducted in a nondescript office building – versus within the walls of a prestigious and ornate hall on Yale's campus - the percentage of ‘teachers’ who were prepared to administer the maximum voltage dropped to 47.5%.

Immediate environment also played a key role, demonstrating the ‘personal’ role of authority "proximity," In one environment, the "experimenter" was at end of a phone line; versus being present in the same room as the ‘teacher. In this scenario, the percentage of ‘teachers’ who were prepared to administer the 450 volt shock dropped to 20.5%. In another scenario, the ‘teacher’ could independently elect the magnitude of the shock level; in that scenario, the percentage of ‘teachers’ who were prepared to continue to the extreme of the scale dropped to 2.5%.

That scenario, in particular, clearly demonstrated the role of "authority," as the major influence over the behavior of the subjects, given that the test subjects’ performance otherwise fell into the predicted range of the psychiatrists.

Return to another idea – that the radical majority of any population lives in response to their "Sacred Illusions." The spouse would NEVER cheat, one’s child could NEVER grossly misbehave. We all have such illusions.

Thus in the Milgram Experiment, the "Sacred Illusion" was that once agreeing to take on the task, the subject was committed/compelled to submit to authority – and not much of it – even to the extreme of presumed sadism/murder.

What is not addressed, to any adequate degree, is the role of "accountability" – factual or ‘assumed.’ By any account of history, the subservience contained the assumption that ‘authority’ served as a firewall, between the deeds of the performer, versus such accountability as criminal prosecution. The seeming ‘chain-of-command,’ obviously pre-supposes a ‘chain-of-accountability.’

In particular, in the Milgram experiments, the presumed "authority" to commit sadism and even murder, was a simple verbal assertion, "I am responsible; you are not." To the ordinary person, it staggers the imagination that college educated people could be that naïve/compliant. Clearly most are.

Milgram’s experiments tested how much pain an ordinary, well educated, citizen would inflict on another person; upon being ordered to so, by an experimental scientist. In those experiments, "apparent authority" was tested against the strongest moral imperatives forbidding hurting another.

Even with the ‘teachers' hearing screams of the ‘victims,’ authority won more often than not – 65% of the time, in optimum conditions. The experiments demonstrated the willingness of ordinary and educated adults to comply with the command of "perceived authority."

Next one must ask what the uneducated person might do, as well as those with a known history of social deviance.

Ironically, the Milgram "obedience to authority" experiments preceded the Viet Nam War, with its bizarre rationalizations, and millions of American soldiers "…just following orders." Tragically, the American soldiers suffered the fate of lepers, when returning home. More tragically, no lessons were learned by the American public, versus the nefarious minds of the American military and related corporate players.

Milgram had plenty of company. The "Milgram Experiment" has been repeated around the world with similar results.

It must be particularly noted that there is an implied risk-reward factor in such cases. 65% of Milgram’s subjects essentially murdered for $4.50!

The significance of that figure indicates implies that money is GENERALLY a minor concern. However, money can be made to be a factor. As starving graduate student may ‘hurry-up’ if $100 was offered, if the experiment was concluded in ½ hour; with verbal taunting by his ‘experimenter.’ What is the reasonable estimate of an ‘experimenter’ asking, "Do you want to ask questions, or do you want to get paid – and how much? The clock is ticking."

Thus, it must be observed that if the ‘65% percentile can be rather easily stirred into sadism & murder, what does it take to get 95% of a given population to submit to the acceptance of propaganda – and a mandate for just ‘silence?’

Where do such experiments lead?

 

Back to Contents

 

THE STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT

Stanford psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo, said to be a high school classmate of Milgram, took the issue of simple "authority" to the level of "power over others," in his 1971 "Experimental Prison" study.

The essence of that experiment demonstrated the propensity for ‘normal’ people to succumb to primal deviant behavior. Of particular note is that the director of that experiment, Professor Philip Zimbardo, fell prey, as well. It took his soon-to-be wife, to shock him back to a civilized mindset.

While the ‘experiment’ was intended to be a simple role-playing observation platform; the players - and the researchers - ‘psycho-morphed’ into a deviant mindset, as though passing through a time-warp; into another solar system. Again, the primary mechanism was "Perception Control."

In the "Stanford Prison Experiment," the distinction must be made between ‘externally incited’ perception, versus spontaneous self-perception. As with the Milgram experiments, environment played a dominant role.

Zimbardo's stated reason for conducting the experiment was to examine the ‘power’ of such variables as roles, regulations, group identities, symbols and "…situational validation of behavior," which would probably repulse and disgust the ordinary individual.

In the background of the "prison" experiment, Zimbardo previously conducted research on what he described as "…de-individuation, vandalism and dehumanization;" in an attempt to illustrate how easily that ordinary people could be incited to engage in anti-social acts. The associated environment of the earlier experiments embraced situations where the participating individual felt anonymous, or wherein they could perceive others to be less than ‘human,’ as ‘enemies’ or even ‘objects.’

In the subsequent/consequent "prison" experiment, 70 young men were "arrested." Most were college students, paid $15 a day for two weeks.

The brief duration of the experiment is highly significant, relative to the noted transformation of character.

The participants volunteered as subjects for an experiment on prison life; advertised by a local paper. They were put through the expected interviews and a battery of psychological tests. Twenty-four of those ‘arrested,’ deemed to be the most normal, average and healthy, were selected. They were assigned randomly, as either ‘guards’ or ‘prisoners.‘ The "prisoners" were booked at a real jail, blindfolded and driven to the college campus makeshift prison.

Bear in mind, that the players (test subjects) ALL were consciously aware that the mission was role-playing; not reality. Yet, in the fashion of "Lord of the Flies," they devised their own social value system.

The ‘guards’ were issued uniforms; instructed not to use violence. They were told that their job was to maintain control over the prison.

On the second day of the experiment, the ‘prisoners’ staged a revolt. Once the ‘guards’ had crushed the rebellion, the ‘guards’ spontaneously increased coercive aggression tactics, against the ‘prisoners.’ Their tactics included the humiliation and dehumanization of the ‘prisoners.’ In consequence, the college staff had to frequently admonish the ‘guards’ against such tactics.

In particular, the worst noted instances of abuse took place in the middle of the night, when the guards believed that the college staff was not watching over the experiment. The treatment of the prisoners went to such tactics as forcing the ‘prisoners’ to clean out toilet bowls with their bare hands; acting out degrading scenarios. The ‘guards’ also urged the ‘prisoners’ to become snitches.

 

The loss of control caused the college staff to note the extreme stress reactions, forcing the release of five prisoners, one per day, prematurely.

 

See video:

 

 Stanford Prison Experiment
Stanford prison experiment psychology of imprisonment 1970

 

 

 

Back to Contents

 

PERSONALITY DIVERGENCE

During the experiment, Zimbardo’s fiancé, Dr. Christina Maslach, began her observation of the experiment, starting the evening of the fifth day. Her role was to conduct subject interviews. In her words, she initially found it "dull and boring."

During her assignment, she encountered what was described as a pleasant conversation with a "charming, funny, smart" young man awaiting the start his guard work shift. Independently, other researchers had previously advised her that they were watching a particularly sadistic ‘guard,’ nicknamed by both prisoners and the other guards as "John Wayne." Dr. Maslach later discovered that "John Wayne" was the same young man that she had previously talked with.

The "compartmentalization" was extreme. In his "John Wayne" role, the person radically transformed; even speaking with a Southern accent. Even his body motions were different, as was his interaction with the ‘prisoners.’

 

She said, "It was like [seeing] Jekyll and Hyde.... It really took my breath away."

It was clear that this ‘guard’ had gone to the adaptive extreme of inventing his own mythology, even in a known ‘make-believe’ world. His dissociative adaptation served as a firewall, between his actions and his conscience; even in a known time-limited environment. That, in turn, empowered his actions. Again, he was consciously aware that he was in a role-playing experiment – only.

Christina described that several prisoners engaged "John Wayne" in a debate; accusing him of enjoying his job.

 

He claimed that he wasn't really like that; that he was just playing his assigned role. One ‘prisoner’ challenged "John Wayne" on the matter, citing the history that he had tripped him earlier, as he was taking the prisoner down the hall to the bathroom. The ‘prisoner’ addressed the fact that no researchers were around to witness the treatment, indicating that the act came out of "John Wayne’s" true character and disposition. "John Wayne" defended himself, insisting (rationalizing) that that if he let up, his role wouldn't remain powerful.

Maslach described that she became sick to her stomach, while observing the ‘guards’ marching ‘prisoners,’ with paper bags over their heads, to the bathroom. She reported that her fellow researchers teased her about her reaction. Given the nature of the experiment and the credentials of the researchers, the divergence in ‘professional’ attitude is no small indicator.

After a later emotional encounter with her fiancé, Zimbardo was forced back to reality, becoming aware of the transformation of the researchers, ‘guards’ and ‘prisoners,’ alike. Thus, the experiment was terminated, given Maslach’s illumination of the matter of "professional accountability."

Maslach married Zimbardo in 1972.

Automatically, one’s mind goes to the Iraq Abu Grhaib scandal; questioning how such events could happen, against such well-known studies as Milgram and Zimbardo; let alone the known Nazi horrors of W.W. II. There is a reasonable presumption that such would be far beneath the dignity of American troops.

However, it should not be lost that the deeds were not only admitted by the Pentagon and White House (with extreme reluctance), but were defended, with an insistence that the U.S. forces had a unique "right" to conduct torture, certainly levels of coercion, which clearly violated the Geneva Conventions. The world ignored the Geneva Conventions’ prohibition on the military use of penitentiaries; the prison use continued.

It should be noted, also, that Abu Grhaib was not the first, nor the exclusive location of such atrocities. Among other matters, the U.S. forces had bombed an Afghan POW facility, during the Johnny Spann/John Walker Lindh debacle, at Mazir I Sharif. Such was a grievous violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Yet, what does the global public believe?

 

Back to Contents

 

EXTREME CONDITIONING

Next, go to the study of W.W. I "shell shock" and the near-zombies which that effect produced – as studied by the Tavistock Institute. Next, visit the LSD and amphetamine studies of the CIA’s "MKULTRA" project. Move onward, to the sciences of Propaganda, Psychological Operations and "Coercive Persuasion" (Jonestown tactics).

One quickly arrives at the ease of manufacturing a "Manchurian Candidate!" Oswald, Ruby, Sirhan, James Earl Ray, McVeigh; there are plenty of examples in the USA, alone. However, these will be more astutely observed as "Manchurian Patsies."

The suggestion is that a reliable transformation process is available, which begins with the "shock" of hallucinogens; followed by a regimen of amphetamines, hypnosis and reinforcement methods; possibly to the extreme of drug addiction to amphetamines, in particular.

 

THE ROLE OF "PERCEPTION CONTROL"

"Perception Control = Emotional Control = Mind Control"

"Control" is the operative term. Is information presented with frequent repetition and passion? Or; is information kept totally secret - or prejudicially enshrouded with shame ("A ‘good’ person wouldn’t go there")?

Is the "controlled" information factual, or has an illusion been created? The American media re-packaged the Muslims in the Balkan region as "Ethnic Albanians," ignoring the Islamic role and their association with both bin Laden and the CIA. No one of prominence questioned the descriptor. Overnight a previously unheard of organization, "The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe" (OSCE) "recognized" new Balkan countries – instantly admitted into NATO.

 

Thereafter, Yugoslavia’s put-down of an internal rebellion was re-packaged as an attack against a NATO member & the Balkan War was on. The "Serbs" were attempting to return to their traditional Balkan homes, in the fashion of Jews returning to modern Israel. The media re-packaged their attempts as some form of invasion & the war progressed against Yugoslavia.

In the end, the ‘new’ nations borrowed billions from the International Funds & all sins were forgiven. The illusions worked! It was all a matter of "Controlled Perception." The ‘new’ nations were now ‘controlled’ through the banking system.

America was content to believe (perceive) that they had rescued the deserving and victimized "Ethnic Albanians," who made a good living smuggling heroin out of Afghanistan. America didn’t figure out the last part. By any rational logic, when the Taliban shut down the associated opium production; 9-11 was "on."

"Perception" implies "impressionability;" does factually presented information penetrate the psyche of the intended audience? If American War Crimes are broadcast in Swahili; will the message ‘reach’ the exposed American audience? Extremely unlikely – even when translated into English.

Perception is also a function of "registration," or "depth of consciousness." Senator Warner reported on "Larry King" that the Afghan high-altitude food drops were practiced for nearly a year, before taking place over Afghanistan. How many spotted the time-line, asking why the drops were practiced for nearly a year PRIOR to 9-11? The presented information didn’t "register."

"Perception" is also a function of resistance to ‘registration,’ - "denial." All the clues in the world point to 9-11 being an inside-job; yet, few on the planet will tolerate the information to penetrate their belief system. Just the suspicion alone, results in global "shell shock" being effected.

The sum of trustworthy post 9-11 information points to American War Crimes, in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The thought is too horrible for most to tolerate – "denial" takes the day; "registration" will be minimal. The elements of ‘time,’ ‘distance’ and ‘shielding’ protect against the exposure to horrible facts.

"Perception Control" also relies on the element of "identification."

 

A tribal leader in Africa commits genocide on a rival tribe – to the tune of millions of deaths. "America" can’t ‘identify’ with the problem; little is said or done. With racial apartheid being reversed in Africa; war, civil war, starvation and the AIDS epidemic deny Caucasian ‘identification;" Africa has been cleared to die, save some profitable enterprises, benefiting American corporations - whether drug companies, diamond & mineral companies or arms dealers.

Conversely, with the coverage of 9-11, and the associated propaganda, America "identified" with the supposed threat of Saddam Hussein – per the media presentations. The factual non-connection of Saddam to 9-11 made little difference; fear ruled. "Perception Control" and "authority" took command of the American psyche. The UN reported that no viable evidence of Saddam’s alleged WMDs could be found. That information came from ‘boots-on-the-ground’ inspectors. The media didn’t report that finding to any appreciable degree; the war was on.

In Hermann Goerings famous description:

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

It was all in the "perception" and "authority."

"Perception Control" additionally implies the element of "pertinence" and "regard." If the media reports a tree falling in a forest; does anyone care? If an expose’ cites the media for NOT reporting that tree falling, does anyone care?

In the fashion of "..the dog that didn’t bark," when something representing a major concern is methodically unreported, what pertinence and regard goes with that non-reporting carry – if any? Silence can be constructively ‘deafening.’ In the aftermath of 9-11, it was reported that the NSA furnished the FBI with only useless information. With second thought, it is worth asking whether that data, instead, represented the fact that the purported ‘terrorists’ simply didn’t exist, in the first place. Certainly, the last premise is more easily supported, than the ‘official’ version of 9-11.

As of the end of 2005, globally, somewhere around 160 people were killed over three years by the "Bird Flu." The common cold and ‘regular’ flue kill radically more, with associated pneumonia. Yet, the American media keeps reporting the "Bird Flu" information, as though it was an airborne variant of HIV. To date, the American public is trying to discover the importance of such a minor killer, oblivious to the fact that the American tax coffers are being drained, as though there was a viable "Bird Flu" threat to America.

 

The media won’t track the "research" money, nor report on the low element of "pertinence" to the safety of Americans.

The media does NOT report the associated methodical draining of the U.S. tax coffers by war or other "government" expenses. The Pentagon, alone, hasn’t accounted for trillions of dollars – but the media won’t report information which is ‘pertinent’ to the American worker, or allow for adverse ‘regard’ for that information.

Similarly, the media evades the "pertinence" and "regard" behind the fact that $40 billion American tax dollars haven’t rebuilt a single "Katrina" home in New Orleans. Those who got rich on the "Katrina" money come under the ‘authority’ banner of "Don’t ask; don’t tell."

"Perception Control" allows "distortion."

 

The media doesn’t report the incremental shutdown of the Medicaid and Social Security System – ignoring the fact that the affected Americans PRE-PAID their own benefits. The recipients are, instead, treated as parasites. Imagine being labeled a ‘parasite’ for collecting on an automobile insurance policy, following a bad car crash.

"Perception" is a function of specific focus (control). In the current time frame, the NSA domestic spying scandal is the "American uproar" – ignoring the fact that the Pentagon had a comparable domestic spying program – both being illegal as hell. With the media being ‘focused’ on the NSA domestic spying scandal, America is distracted from the most important of the two issues, inadvertently ignoring the Pentagon domestic spying scandal – and the related "Posse Comitatus" law.

Applying "Perception Control," the media authenticated "authority," by relaying the ‘opinions’ of White House Lawyers – one of whom was conveniently made head of the Bush Justice Department. The "perception" is that attorney opinions somehow cancel laws and judicial rulings. America overlooks the fact that attorneys render only ‘opinions;’ courts render interpretations.

Psyops tactics aside, lying with passion in your voice doesn't manufacture truth. Anything approaching "Gestapo" is as Anti-American as it can get.

 

So, how does one sort out the domestic "spy" business?

1. Attorneys render legal OPINIONS: Courts render legal INTERPRETATIONS. Yet, a team of White House Lawyers is cited as the spying ‘authority’ to bypass the FISA law. Attorneys are constructively enacting laws.
    

2. The Iraq campaign didn't involve a "Declaration of War." The authority was the "Authorization for Use of Military Force." (AUMF) There is a radical difference between the two. [Note the term "military"]
    

3. If the AUMF is cited as the "spy" authority, then note the AUMF provision - "....- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution." (15 days, max on warrantless wiretapping.)
    

4. If the NSA isn't considered to be 'military;' then FISA mandates warrants.
    

5. If the NSA is considered to be 'military,' then the "Possee Comitatus" statute and the associated military guidance additionally prohibit the "search and seizure" MILITARY authority, that Bush claims.
    

6. Remember that the Pentagon had an independent and illegal domestic spying program. While the military can legally receive domestic intelligence, as an act of opening its own mail, Title 18 mandates the relay of the information to the appropriate law enforcement agency (FBI). Failure to do so is "Misprision of a Felony," under Title 18.
    

7. With the White House keeping the Mexican border as wide-open, as possible, how much factual "terror" can there possibly be?

Back to Contents

 

 

PERCEPTION OF AUTHORITY

In a broader ‘perception’ horizon, examine Stanley Milgram’s 1960s experiments on authority vs. obedience. The key factor being the associated "perceptions," relative to that "authority."

 

Milgram studied the rationalizations and justifications for the Nazi acts of genocide – as offered by the accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Crime trials. The perpetrators’ defense was typically based on "obedience" - claiming that they were "… just obeying orders" under the authority of their superiors. However weak the claim may have appeared, it was firmly believed, by the accused. Such was their "perception."

Certainly, the "Stanford Prison Experiment" elaborated on the matter.

Perception is essentially a trinity – the self perception "…how I think of the matter," the espoused perception, "…how I would like everyone else to view the matter;" and the public perception, "…how the preponderance of the public views the matter."

The idea essentially goes back to the old adage,

"There are three sides to every story, yours, mine and the facts."

The difference in the three is a matter of ‘filters;’ is the matter clear to all? If not; why not? Does anyone even know what actually happened? If not; why not? How is the "perception" filtered and/or directed?

How many times has an airplane disappeared – with no discoverable clue as to what happened? Was it hijacked? Was it stolen, did the pilot get lost, crash into a high mountain glacier, or at sea?

Is the factual information "controlled?" Ron Brown’s B-737 was reported to have crashed in the "…storm of the decade." History records that the factual weather wasn’t particularly bad. Yet, what did/does the preponderance of America believe? The "Controlled Perception" ruled the matter.

Most importantly, the FIRST presented perception controlled the matter.

Disregarding intense propaganda, there is no viable evidence that a 757 crashed at the 9-11 Pentagon or in Pennsylvania. What does the preponderance of the entire world believe? Thereafter, it’s a matter of "Plausible Assertion" or "Plausible Denial."

If one reads the Vince Foster documents, he killed himself with three different weapons, with his ghost later driving his car to the nearby parking lot.

In such cases, one is forced to formulate an estimate of probable history, based on available information, or reasonable assumptions.

"Perception" is obviously sometimes a unique function of "authority." The Christian Crusaders went off to commit atrocities, under the "Church" message, "God wills it!" Nazi Storm Troopers did the same, being advised, "Gott mit uns!" ("God is with us!") The role of "authority" was to serve as a perceived reliable barrier against possible accountability and punishment; even unto God.

However, the "perception" and "authority" have to be credible. George Bush Jr. is more selfish. According to him, God told him, personally, to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. He later stated that God acted through him. Given the media "dropping" the matter (Perception Control), no one cares to talk about those claims.

 

Bush’s claims exceeded the assertions of Hitler!

Hitler’s Nazis serve as a classic example of the extremes of human behavior – and how it comes about; how "perception" blended with "authority."

A typically unmentioned part of nefarious deeds is the matter of "accountability." When ‘institutionalized’ authority takes a wrong turn, where does the issue of accountability fall, relative to time. Had Hitler won, for example, his leaders and soldiers would have had no accounting. Yet, in the immediate time of a nefarious decision-making, the issue of accountability takes on the aura of context, relative to time.

History often frames "context;" convicted criminals are routinely put to death as ‘historic’ villains – by the "authority" of the State. The Nuremberg trials executed ‘deserving’ criminals. Many cases of raw street revenge are overlooked, given the ‘context’ (perception) of history – versus personally estimated probability of accountability.

It is no secret that the Nazi "obedience" was commonly motivated by fear of execution, prison internment; or at least a transfer to the dreaded Russian Front. Few verified the potential consequence of questioning or refusing, versus "…just following orders." The extended concern is the fate of the affected individual’s family, for better or worse. One can only ponder what they might do, under similar fear levels. Openly or subtly, "authority" controlled "perception."

The S.S. executioner had to evaluate the effect of time, as a factor in his accountability. If he was certain that his side would win, he proceeded with minimal interference of human conscience. Or, he may have been uncertain of victory, but he may have been quite certain of his own fate on the Russian front, if he disobeyed – or questioned - an order to kill. Add the fate of his family. "Authority" assured him that he was on the winning side.

The ‘conscience test’ of all time seems to be in the personal estimation of "…what people will say." (AND – the estimate as to whether or not "they" may never find out; or figure it out?)

Another factor which is rarely addressed, is the matter of "stakes;" personal risk or actual expenditure. In current times, the religious zealots are betting their life and their fate in all of eternity, to perform suicide bombings – even against innocent women and children. The implication is that the bombers perversely view themselves as ‘holy’ martyrs, favored by God; no sacrifice being too great for God.

There also exists a "personal identification gap" between those who monstrously committed the Nazi atrocities, of their own accord, and those who did the same, under extreme duress. The Nazi monsters had their share of conscience-driven suicides.

However unpopular (and little-known) the issue may be, it is also necessary to objectively observe the history of Jews participating in such organizations as the "Jewish Committees," who selected other Jews for the Nazi death camps; add the "Jewish Police" of the Nazi ghettos. Those participants continued to live amongst their own; their ‘authority’ was remote, however reliable. Certainly, they had to think it terms of their fate; and that of their family.

In modern times, a little-known driver behind the modern corporation is the fact that a high percentage of employees are as positively responsive to a letter of commendation from ‘authority’ in their personnel file, as they would be to a sizeable check.

Taking that idea further, the ‘value’ in such letters is often reduced by ‘authority’ employing impotent descriptors as "acknowledge," versus "recognize," "applaud" or "congratulate."

Obviously, pay levels, benefits and retirements are a huge determining factor. ‘Authority’ determines whether a military General abides by White House insistence, with an associated promotion, or retires two pay grades early.

Thus, it is also necessary to observe the dynamic of authority, versus propensity for subservience.

One of the major lessons of Hitler’s Nazism was that the true ‘force’ behind that monster was the "perception" of the populace – asking, "What does the Fuhrer want?" The key was in controlling the associated "perception."

Thinking to the electric battery, what happens when a "political battery" (potential energy – with positive and negative terminals) of Nazi methodologies is ‘hooked-up’ to a given populace?

The world should never forget that Hitler nearly won. Currently, the world is compelled to think to the forces behind this re-designed version of Nazism, referred to as the "New World Order."

"Those who refuse to think outside the proverbial ‘box’ are imprisoned in it; and destined to be buried in it."

Back to Contents

 

PSYOPS AND 9-11

Except for two aircraft hitting the WTC towers, try to think of an ‘official’ position on 9-11 which has turned up as fact.

1. The FBI’s Robert Mueller cited the fact that no documentation linked al Qaeda to 9-11. Later phony al Qaeda "assertions" didn’t hold up under scrutiny.
    

2. There is no documented record of the purported 9-11 terrorists making a plane reservation; there is no “record locator,” complete with details.
    

3. There is no documented record of the purported 9-11 terrorists buying or using a ticket. (IDs required)
    

4. There is no hard-copy of a printed ticket ‘copy.’
    

5. There is no record of the purported 9-11 terrorists on any of the passenger manifests, with all legitimate passengers being accounted for.
    

6. There is no record of the purported 9-11 terrorists in the autopsies.
    

7. There is not as much as a suggestion that the purported 9-11 terrorists had the needed pilot skills - but rather the contrary.
    

8. At least seven of the purported 9-11 terrorists are known to be still alive - with no questions being asked.
    

9. No rational person can believe that the supposed lead hijacker’s passport could survive the WTC strikes, let alone be ‘immediately discovered’ in the 9-11 rubble.
    

10. The presented ‘security’ pictures of the 9-11 hijackers don't match the purported terrorists.
     

11. Despite the origins of the alleged hijackers, there was no in-country (Saudi Arabia & Pakistan) follow-up on the alleged hijackers’ links to terrorists. In some fashion, the alleged hijackers either disappeared, or were alleged to have used the names of seven living persons (with no identity ‘discovery’ follow-up.)
     

12. Bush’s frantic escape via Barksdale Air Force Base went un-explained, as it emerged that the ""…real, specific and credible" threats turned up as imaginary – and methodical.
     

13. The convenient ‘bureaucratic fog" – alleged to have allowed 9-11 to happen - went unexplained and un-investigated, as the American segment of the bin Laden family was immediately whisked away on private aircraft – amidst "instant" bureaucratic efficiency. Certainly, the 'convenient' failures went unpunished - if not rewarded.
     

14. For the first time in history, not one, but THREE steel-framed buildings were taken down by fire; magically falling onto their own footprint. The events involved two different architectural design styles, two different causes, but owned/controlled by a single entity. NO QUESTIONS ASKED & NO ASSOCIATED INVESTIGATION!
     

15. A stopwatch says that THREE buildings at the WTC came down as controlled demolition. Add the video captures of the sequenced controlled-demolition blasts.
     

16. There is no way to account for the purported WTC ‘collapse’ temperatures alleged by the 'official' line.
     

17. There is no viable evidence of a plane crash at the 9-11 Pentagon or in Pennsylvania - versus salted wreckage pieces. In the case of the Pentagon, they were even the wrong color! NO QUESTIONS ASKED & NO ASSOCIATED INVESTIGATION!
     

18. Despite the alleged failures of Airport Security, the situation methodically deteriorated to a Gestapo joke, as huge amounts of tax dollars were insanely spent on the TSA.
     

19. For all the failures, no official has been punished for 9-11. (with trivia such as a general who had an affair being sacked, in the background.)
     

20. The "official" 9-11 investigation was grossly under-funded, producing approximately 800 pages of documents after the White House censorship and interference.
     

21. In the end, the 9-11 Commission also failed to identify foreign terrorists as the perpetrators of 9-11. The so-called "investigation" was so much political rhetoric - hardly anything more.
     

22. That left the Afghan and Iraq invasions as blatant War Crimes. America fell into an identical "denial" mind-set of 1939 Nazi Germany. That was no coincidence of history!
     

23. There were no WMDs. Prior to the invasion, the 'boots-on-the-ground' UN teams reported no significant findings. Saddam has been long deposed. Iraq had no possible connection to 9-11. For all the horrors of the USA-made Saddam, his crimes are dwarfed by the tribal genocide of Africa. How did Saddam become the ‘humanitarian’ priority?
     

24. Given the above, Bush's invasions continue as War Crimes!
     

25. For all the "terror" threat levels posted, the Mexican border has been forced wide open from the White House; a "terrorist’s" dream-come-true. How much “terror threat” can possibly be factual?

Yet, repeatedly, the world is SUCCESSFULLY inundated with the assertions of "terrorism."

One is left to question, with so many inescapable indicators of 9-11 being a "Reichstag Fire," why nothing was said, for all intents & purposes? Because the nefarious science of PSYOPS was cleverly and effectively foisted upon America – and the world – by the mass media!


The harsh truth behind the obvious "mission" is hiding in plain sight! It's to be discovered in such books as Brezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map," and the documentation of the so-called "Project for a New American Century." (PNAC) In essence, "Amerika Uber Alles!" No denial is possible!

America's legacy is destined to be found in the mental- emotional wilderness between "Don’t ask; don’t tell" and "We didn't WANT to know!"

 

Back to Contents




PSYOPS TECHNIQUES

"Perception Control = Emotional Control = Behavior Control."
 

WHY?
Lord Acton probably answered that question in the most simple terms - "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts – absolutely!" The experienced attest that in "power" environments, there is a mysterious and overwhelming aura which seemingly 'posseses' the individual.

As with the physical weapons of war, psychological operations have legitimate uses. But, when those means are used on a domestic population, what then?

 

To give a wartime pistol to a policeman, telling him to keep the domestic peace is effective. When that same pistol is then used to coerce, intimidate or threaten the domestic populace, something has to be done. It starts with knowing how that pistol operates.



ABOUT PSYOPS
It may seem strange to suggest that the study of propaganda has relevance to contemporary domestic politics and issues. When most people think about propaganda, they think of the enormous campaigns waged by Hitler and Stalin in the 1930s – or McCarthy in the 1950s. Since nothing comparable is being disseminated in our society today, many believe that propaganda is no longer a pertinent issue. WRONG!

Propaganda can be as blatant as a ‘peace symbol’ or as subtle as a song or poem. Propaganda’s persuasive techniques are regularly applied by politicians, advertisers, journalists, radio personalities, and others who are interested in influencing human behavior. Propaganda messages can be used to accomplish positive social ends, as in campaigns to reduce drunk driving, but they are also used to win elections and to sell beer.

 

Propaganda isn’t inherently nefarious or suspect. Often, as in typical advertising or political campaigns, propaganda is totally expected!

• "Propaganda" is an advantageous presentation of information – factual or otherwise.

• "Psyops" takes unfair advantage of human psychology. Therein lays the difference – "INTENT."

The propagandist is a clever researcher and writer. The disinformationist has the added background of a psychologist – to some extent – as well as being a ‘resourceful’ and ‘surgical’ communications specialist. He operates from a time-constrained mission.

Whether we want to admit it or not, PSYOPS is in our daily life – it is a serious threat.

 

Thus, we are in a comparable position of a banker. He knows that there will always be robbers and swindlers. The gimmick is in being smarter and more resourceful than the robber-swindler. The chief effort is to let the would-be robber-swindler know that the defense mechanisms are too strong; add the risks and probability of getting caught.

PSYOPS is generally about the control of human emotions; the resulting ‘processed emotions’ translating into desired intellectual (logical) decisions and subsequent actions.

 

Think to the statement,

"Nobody can MAKE you feel a certain way; each person has to DECIDE how they feel about something – decide for themselves."

Great logic!

• Now, go to the major sales corporations & ask them why they spend millions per year on advertising!

• OR; call an "ethnic" type by their least-favorite name and see what decision is made – over the span of a split second!

The reality is that we all have the ability to inspire or persuade thoughts or emotions in others. The trick is to inspire advantageous decisions. Ask the husband/boyfriend who brought home the flowers to his lady. Were some ‘results’ forthcoming? Of course they were, whether romance – or forgiveness. Emotions = action.

The technical advance of communication tools such as the Internet, accelerate the flow of persuasive messages - dramatically. For the first time ever, citizens around the world are participating in uncensored conversations about their collective future. This seems like a wonderful development; but there is a risk.

"Information overload" is often the result of people being regularly confronted with hundreds of intense messages, each day. Common sense and personal experience dictates that many people respond to the induced pressure by processing messages as quickly as possible and, when possible, by taking mental short-cuts.

That kind of response leaves the modern propagandist or disinformationist with a mandate to devise accommodating short-cuts, so as to be effective in dealing with typical thought or emotional processing. The disinformationist reacts with an effort to effectively control/agitate emotions, exploit insecurities, capitalizing on language ambiguity – inherent or induced - and by bending or re-manufacturing the rules of logic.

 

History demonstrates that the disinformationist can be quite successful. Gaining attention and controlling perception is the disinformationist’s first priority, in the modern mind-control equation:

"Perception Control = Emotional Control = Behavior Control."

That leaves specialists and even common people with the task of detecting and analyzing the disinformation and/or propaganda, so as to create the needed awareness of the tricks which disinformationists employ. The secondary obligation is to devise ways of readily recognizing and resisting the subsequent short-cuts that the disinformationists promote.

 

In brief, disinformation/propaganda analysis is the best immediate antidote to the nefarious excesses of the Information Age. Just as the military deals with "Information Warfare" as a major munition in their arsenal, the civilian world is comparably involved in the topic – like it or not.

As an example of the seriousness associated with the modern application of domestic propaganda, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) published a series of books, including:

• The Fine Art of Propaganda

• Propaganda Analysis

• Group Leader's Guide to Propaganda Analysis

• Propaganda: How To Recognize and Deal With It

The IPA centers its illustrations on seven basic propaganda devices: Name-Calling, Sparkling Generality, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon.

In "The Fine Art of Propaganda," the IPA makes the point that,

"It is essential in a democratic society that young people and adults learn how to think, learn how to make up their minds. They must learn how to think independently, and they must learn how to think together. They must come to conclusions, but at the same time they must recognize the right of other men to come to opposite conclusions. So far as individuals are concerned, the art of democracy is the art of thinking and discussing independently - together."

Another interesting book was written by Richard Brodie, "The Virus of the Mind."

 

The book carefully describes the creation and conditioning of certain social and political values, logic processes and seeming behavioral mandates in the mind of the American culture. The essence of the book cites the automatic mental and emotional reflexes which have been methodically conditioned into the ‘norms’ of the American society.

 

How many times in American society has the statement "You can’t say that" successfully stopped a conversation? It’s quite common. Imagine that statement being controlling in the proverbial ‘land of the free.’ Certainly the constraining descriptor, "Politically Correct" has been dramatically effective, amidst often mandated "diversity training."

The book describes the "reflexive" intellectual, emotional and social reactions in terms of "memes."

 

While the term seems to distract, the content of the book is otherwise quite good.
 

SALAMI EFFECT
Imagine the traditional American society being taken away, one slice at a time. Those old enough can testify that America has seen just that. In one secretly planned operation, "Operation Northwoods," the comparable description is "time-phased changes." Rather like the alcoholic asking, "Oh, what is one more drink going to hurt?" Take enough pennies away from a dollar, and the dollar is totally gone!

Conversely, the effect can be equally dramatic. Compare the tax rate of the Korean War era to today’s world! Then note the tax-dollar rip-off programs – if you can spot them!

The incremental increase of tax rates leaves America working for the ‘government,’ not themselves. Yet, Americans are worse off, by far, than the early 1950s.

Common techniques
 

TIMING
In real estate, the three guiding rules are "Location, location, location!" In the world of PSYOPS, the comparable rules are "Timing, timing, timing!" In the world of PSYOPS, the weakest tool can be effective, given the element of TIMING.

One of the most important applications of ‘timing’ is the dynamic of ‘first-up;’ the proverbial ‘early bird.’ Given the dynamics behind the events of 9-11, they become a classic for all time. 9-11 was an inside-job; get used to that.

With no documentation linking al Qaeda to 9-11, per the FBI’s Robert Mueller, al Qaeda became the instant villain. Osama bin Laden issued a formal denial in an audio tape; but the ‘first-up’ effect was already in place. With that background, an obviously phony video tape was played before America, attempting to implicate bin Laden.

 

We know it worked – that’s PSYOPS. AND, look at what that PSYOPS accomplished!

(Don’t get enthralled by the effect, the 9-11 PSYOPS story is very ugly. It may mean the death of America, as we knew it. If in doubt, read the "Patriot Act.")

"Timing" can also be a major clue to the astute observer. To be ‘first-up’ may also indicate who the villain actually is. Those who support the ‘first-up’ may be peripheral villains.

 

In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, the ‘official line' was,

"There were no warnings. When that was illustrated as a lie, the claim was changed to "….specific warnings."

As though any perpetrator is going to advertise his intentions in the Sunday Times!

 

As time went on, more and more ‘warnings’ were illustrated; along with the history of the warnings being silenced with prejudice – from within. Out of the Hollywood version of "Godfather," comes the same dynamic – "…the first person…"

 

Timing is important for many reasons.


NAME CALLING AND LABELING
"Bad names" have always played a tremendously powerful role in the entire history of the world; as well as in our own personal development. Names have ruined and killed people; but, they have also stirred men and women to outstanding deeds and accomplishments. Names and labels have ruined the lives of people and have sent many to prison.

 

Names and labels have made men angry enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellow men – or to die for the declared named or labeled cause. Names and labels have been applied to people, groups, associations, churches, tribes, gangs, colleges, political parties, neighborhoods, states, regions of the country, nations, and races. Many tremendous results have been effected – just with a name or label.

 

In American history, the "McCarthyism" ruined lives of truly great people, just with the simple implication of "Communist;" no proof required! Even today, descriptors such as "Commie," "Pinko" and "Leftist" bring a programmed emotional reaction.

In Current politics, "politically undesirable" has been labeled as "evil" or "terror." Laws have been passed on these elements, as though one could comparably outlaw the darkness of night. Yet, the strategy worked, the draconian laws were passed!

The name-calling technique of the disinformationist usually links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol, of some type. Beyond pure propaganda, the disinformationist crafts the name-calling into a form which has an emotional effect on the targeted audience. The usual style is to inject ‘distrust,’ into any association with the targeted individual/issue.

 

The disinformationist who uses this technique hopes that the targeted audience will mentally AND emotionally reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of objectively looking at the available evidence.

Again, the element of "INTENT" is key. To cite some of Bush’s cabinet members as ‘felons,’ warns the listener, however negative the image is.

The most obvious type of name calling involves generally accepted ‘negative’ names.

 

For example, consider the following:

• Commie

• Nazi

• Fascist

• Pig

• Yuppie

• Queer

• Terrorist

• Leftist

• Neocon

However, the relative position of the name-calling ‘assailant’ or the ‘victim’ is a factor. "Expensive" is bad to a buyer, but wonderful to a seller. A more subtle form of name-calling involves words or phrases that are selected because they possess or create a negative emotional charge.

A responsible Pentagon official may propose specific military budget cuts. Instead of being labeled as "wise" or "fiscally conservative," the official gets labeled as "stingy." Either description can refer to the same behavior – with an extreme of different connotation.

 

Other examples of negatively charged words include:

• politically correct

• social engineering

• connected

• radical

• corrupt

• cowardly

• counter-culture

The name-calling technique leaves the casual observer with the logical mandate to ask intelligent questions when spotting "name-calling." Not all "name calling" is inappropriate or counter-productive. If a female politician cites a colleague or opponent as a ‘sweetheart,’ the connotation isn’t particularly inappropriate or negative.

 

To cite Saddam Hussein as a ‘monster’ is dynamic; although a highly negative imagery. However, subjectivity is important in such matters. Referring to a man as a ‘sweetheart’ may ruin the day of a feminist. Referring to Saddam as a ‘monster’ may stir a Muslim supporter to violence.

 

The appropriate questions:

• Is the name calling appropriate?

• Would a reasonable person find the name-calling personally tempting?

• What is the intention behind the name calling?

• What does the name imply?

• Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the typical association behind the name?

• Is an idea or thought process which serves a given person’s or group’s best interests being discounted/dismissed through such name calling?

• Omitting the name calling, what are the merits in the remainder of the message?

SPARKLING GENERALITIES
Almost any culture claims to believe in, fight for and live by "virtuous words." These "words" are normally associated with deeply set attitudes and ideas. In the USA, such words include: civilization, civic, morality, justice, equality, Americanism, God, Christianity, good, proper, right, democracy, patriotism, family, motherhood, fatherhood, science, medicine, health, natural and love.

For the purposes of propaganda/disinformation analysis, call these virtue words "Sparkling Generalities" focusing attention upon the dangerous characteristic that they have: They mean different things to different people; thus they can be used in different ways. The trick being in the controlling of context or association of the generalities.

Disinformationists prey upon the selected words, as we typically understand them or relate to them. Through scientifically styled means/methods/techniques, disinformationists prostitute the cherished words and beliefs and attitudes of unsuspecting people.

When Americans hear the word ‘democracy,’ they typically think of their own definite ideas about democracy, the ideas learned at home and school. "Mom, apple pie and the girl next door" come to mind. The typical reflex is to assume that the term is being used in that particular sense. The ‘virtue word’ lowers the 'caution threshold,' deferring any suspicion or mistrust; particularly when listening about the things 'the United States must do to preserve democracy.'

However, when one hears of ‘democracy’ in 2003 Iraq, the proverbial ‘red flags’ pop into view. The term is the same, the ‘association’ is different; very different. The image of a burning Humvee comes to mind, along with the image of dead or wounded GIs.

In essence, the employment of the "Sparkling Generality" is the reversal of "Name Calling."

 

Name Calling seeks to make us fear and/or reject the cited entity. The intention is for the targeted audience to formulate a judgment to reject and condemn the victim of the name-calling, without bothering to examine the evidence. The Sparkling Generality device, conversely, seeks to make us identify with, approve and accept the generality without examining the evidence.

Exporting American Democracy to Iraq sounds noble to the typical American. However, given the "Patriot Act," what is actually being exported? In examining the "Sparkling Generality Device," all that is said regarding Name Calling / Labeling must also be kept in mind.

The observer should ask:

• What image is the ‘virtue’ word intended to convey?

• Does the presented idea in question have a legitimate connection with the general/typical meaning of the word?

• Is this an attempt to prostitute an idea which does not serve the observer’s best interests?

• Is it being "sold" or "spun" through its being given an association or name that the typical and reasonable observer isn’t likely to buy into?

• Omitting the "virtue word," what is contained in the remainder of the ‘message?’

ATTITUDE
An attitude is an imbedded personal style of dealing with information or events.

 

Think to the common expressions,

"Why should I?"

"What’s in it for me?"

"I could care less!"

"Live and let live."

"No shame in my game!"

In that context, Americans are routinely conditioned to respond to information and events with a conditioned ATTITUDE. In the ‘first up’ style of the 9-11 presentation, America predictably responded in patriotic fashion. With the conditioning of such horrors as the 1993 bombing of the WTC and the Oklahoma City bombing, the mass media presentations stirred a revenge reflex; America seemingly had suffered enough "terrorism."

 

The ATTITUDE was highly predictable - "I’ve had enough! Nobody is going to get away with this!"

 

EXPECTATIONS
A popular belief system asserts that it is wrong to ‘lay’ your expectations on another, demanding a specific accommodation. However, a clear mind quickly remembers that there is an animal known as the ‘reasonable expectation.’ For example, fidelity in a relationship or marriage. Reasonable expectations are all around us – but they are quickly being deleted from the American culture.

America regularly witnesses the exporting of the USA critical economic infrastructure. America’s sovereignty is being dissolved faster than Americans can detect the unmistakable pattern. Whatever ‘forces’ may be in operation, Americans are facing lower-paying jobs – if any. Political discussions of job ‘numbers’ evade any discussion of job ‘quality.’ The ‘normal’ job benefits are more routinely being subsidized by the employee – if any benefits are even provided.

The sovereignty of America is discounted, versus a strange and methodical imposition of an American "global responsibility," which routinely excludes the welfare of Americans!

Thus, one of the apparent rules of the ‘system’ is, "…destroy all expectations; reasonable or otherwise."

One of the deadliest of these efforts was the overturn of the American "Equal Protection" clause in the U.S. Constitution. In the Michigan college reverse discrimination case, the ruling hinged on a "compelling interest" in removing the equal-protection provision as the issue pertains to reverse discrimination in school admissions.

What America didn’t notice was the ‘style’ of the language; and what that language is destined to mean. Specifically, that phrase "compelling interest," is destined to be applied to the selective enforcement of all American laws. That "selective enforcement" has been a relative norm for quite a while in American society. Now, however, there is essentially a Supreme Court precedent to anchor the debate for the "compelling interest" in enforcing the law only as "Politically Convenient."

In essence, "social obligation" will be openly transferred to political "obligation," in the controlled style of "political creep."


MISLEADING EUPHEMISMS
When disinformationists use sparkling generalities and name-calling symbols, they are attempting to impress their targeted audience with vivid, emotionally stimulating words. In certain situations, however, the disinformationist attempts to pacify the audience in order to make an unpleasant reality more palatable. This is accomplished by using words that are bland and euphemistic. The brutal is converted into the ‘kinder and gentler.’

For example, America changed the name of the War Department to the Department of Defense. "Queer" became "gay." During war-time, civilian casualties are referred to as "collateral damage," and the word "liquidation" is used as a synonym for "murder." "Suspect" became "person of interest." The U.S. Constitution was almost destroyed by the "Patriot Act."

 

From the Vietnam War, "combat fatigue," or "shell shock" became "post-traumatic stress disorder;" the descriptor being completely disconnected from the reality of war. The "suicide bomber" became the "homicide bomber."

 

The "Muslims" (connected to Osama bin Laden) of the American/NATO Balkan campaign became "Ethnic Albanians."

 

Back to Contents
 

 

 

FALSE CONNECTIONS
 

TRANSFER DEVICE
The psychological mechanism of "Transfer" is used by the disinformationist to boost an authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept.

 

For example, most people respect and revere their church and the nation. If the disinformationist succeeds in getting ‘church’ or ‘nation’ to approve a campaign in behalf of some program, he thereby transfers its authority, sanction, and prestige to that program. Thus, we may unwittingly accept something which otherwise we might reject.

The transfer device typically uses symbols for its best effect. The cross represents the Christian Church. The flag alludes to the nation. Cartoons depicting "Uncle Sam" allude to U.S. nationalism and an implied consensus of public opinion. Those symbols reliably stimulate emotions. (Don’t forget that concept.) The visual contact/association with such symbols will INSTANTLY arouse an entire menu of feelings we have with respect to community, church or nation.

A cartoon showing "Uncle Sam" as approving or disapproving something is powerful. Thus, the ‘Transfer’ device can be readily used both for and against the target causes and ideas. The key for the casual observer is in distinguishing the intent.

"Transfer" can be effected with deeds. When a political activist closes a speech with a public prayer, the attempt is to transfer religious prestige to the ideas being advocated – and the person/entity. As with all propaganda devices, the use of this technique is not limited to one side of the political spectrum. Pacifists can pray for peace, as quickly as a chaplain can pray for victory.

Authority can be "transferred" (or taken away). The disinformationist may attempt to transfer the reputation of "Science" or "Medicine" to a particular project or set of beliefs. A slogan for a popular cold medication serves to encourage the target audiences to "Applaud the miracles of medicine." Most have seen many TV commercials, with an actor dressed in a white lab coat tell us that "Brand-X is the most powerful pain reliever which can be bought without a prescription." In both of these examples, the transfer technique is being employed.

In the negative arena, the association of a Washington Post writer being a recipient of a Pulitzer Prize might be attacked by citing the faked story about the drug addicted child.

Transfer techniques can also take a nefarious/evil turn. A major engineering group prepared the Oklahoma City bombing report; using blatantly flawed data – yet, it sold! In history, the propaganda of 1939 Nazi Germany rationalized racist policies by appealing to anthropology, history, sociology and religion.

With a controlled ‘spin,’ even religion and science can be prostituted in almost any issue. The observer should be aware that any idea or program should not be accepted or rejected simply because it has been linked to a symbol such as Justice, Medicine, Science, Democracy, or Christianity.

 

When the observer is confronted with the "transfer device," it is appropriate to ask the following questions:

• What is the apparent – or not so apparent - intent/goal of the speaker?

• What is the intended message which the disinformationist is seeking to ‘transfer’ the authority, sanction, and prestige?

• Is there any legitimate association between the message of the disinformationist and the revered thing, person or institution?

• Independent of the "transfer mechanism," what are the merits of the message, when viewed alone?

DISSOCIATION DEVICE
Dissociation is the reverse of "Transfer," usually serving to produce a "Plausible Innocence." This technique is closely associated with Name Calling/Labeling.

 

Quoting someone who is reasonably assumed to be honest serves to effect the excuse – or a ‘safe’ distance,

"Hell, I didn’t know he was lying; why would ANYBODY suspect that?"

Displacing an arena allows the illusion of truth, via a shift in focus. To say that U.S. forces didn’t do something, serves to distance the Pentagon from condemnation.

 

The close association of U.S. forces to those who did the actual act (a guerilla group, for example) operates as a ‘breakout’ device.

"Nobody would have suspected that rebel bunch would do such a thing?"

The guerilla unit is referred to as a "cutout." Often the "breakout" [action] effort is cleverly programmed; the Delta Force, for example. No matter what they do, their involvement is always protected under the flag of "National Secrecy." Their involvement also serves as a peripheral insulation. To hold a secondary group responsible might "compromise" Delta Force – a "national security interest."

Another tactic is to use disassociation to discredit a group or person,

"He/they are not qualified to say…"

"He/they have a reputation for being dishonest."

"He/they are liars" "He/they are ridiculous/absurd."

DEALING OFF THE BOTTOM OF THE DECK
It is often enough seen that events, information or statements are methodically taken out of context. Often, context is presented with strategic information missing.

Early in the accident investigation of the Egypt Air 990 crash, a set of translators insisted that the copilot began his religious chant with the statement, "I’ve made my decision!" Yet, the ‘official’ account leaves that statement out. In the end, the report ‘diplomatically’ reads that mechanical failure could not be cited as the cause of the crash. The copilot was not cited as having committed suicide-murder. While all indications pointed to a suicide-murder, the FBI insisted that there was no criminal ‘element’ warranting their taking over the investigation.

 

The ‘official’ omission misled the public – to say the least.

Often, information or statements are methodically taken out of context. When citing regulations, for example, supporting information can often be quoted as though the particular statement is totally governing. In the FAA regulations, for example, there is a regulation prohibiting a pilot from leaving the flight deck for arbitrary reasons. Such events as a bathroom break or attending to an emergency are excepted.

 

However, by leaving out the stated exceptions, a captain couldn’t legally leave the cockpit – for any reason.

 

Absurd? It’s happened!

 

The FAA took the supporting language out of context, and successfully processed a violation – committing a felony, in the process!

 

Back to Contents

 

 

MANUFACTURED REALITY

The alleged assassin of Bobby Kennedy plead guilty - now serving a life sentence.

 

The world bought off on the idea that Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy. However, the autopsy demonstrated that Sirhan didn’t hit Bobby with a single round! The fatal bullets came from an alternate direction and range. The media recordings identified five more shots than Sirhan’s weapon was capable of firing.

 

Yet, what does the world believe???


PANIC AND CHAOS
Panic, confusion & chaos are opportunity environments for those who have the capacity to know – or estimate - the limits of the presented ‘threat.’ Survival and security become the first-up priorities, versus ‘facts.’

 

These scenarios also allow those in power to manufacture a reality, as the populace will normally grant leaders total ‘trust;’ even blind trust, hoping to receive survival and safety in return.

The world has rarely seen such panic and chaos as the events following 9-11.

 

The damage was factual – but the deaths were distorted out of proportion. Despite early and relatively accurate data, the actual number of deaths at the World Trade Center was kept hidden for months. The original figures being kept incredibly high – until after the Afghan invasion was well under way. During the ‘assumed fatalities’ period, several national charities received huge sums of money. Amidst that ‘chaos,’ it took an investigative reporter to reveal that the greater percentage of the charity money was being kept by the charities, versus being distributed to the intended victims.

In the shadows of the 9-11, the pre-written "Patriot Act" was scammed into law. Americans never dreamed that the ‘law’ would usurp the U.S. Constitution. Amazingly, most Americans related 9-11 to Pearl Harbor, without questioning the possibility of a similar internal government facilitation – which was factual. More amazingly, the early ‘official’ claims of "no warnings" were quickly debunked.

 

Even then, most America didn’t ask the obvious questions.
 

ASSUMPTION
"Assumption" is a major element in the world of PSYOPS. The application of ‘Assumption’ is reliably operated from the "conditioning" of the targeted audience. One assumes that the President would never do anything wrong. It is assumed that the justice system works; after all, didn’t Clinton nearly get impeached?

 

Yet, the post 9-11 events are filled with Bush’s violations of his Federal Oath of Office,

"…to uphold and support the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Yet, he quickly signed the infamous "Patriot Act," which removed America’s entitlement to the key elements in the Bill of Rights. With his knowledge and consent, at least two "suspects" rotted in a military prison, because there was no ‘evidence’ to charge them in a federal court. They were denied legal council, despite court orders.

 

They were interrogated relentlessly, under the guise of ‘national security.’

In the Iraq invasion, the assumption was that the USA would NEVER do something terribly immoral; let alone commit a war crime. Wrong, wrong, wrong! The invasion was a war crime, by itself. After the ‘formal’ combat was finished and Iraq had no army, the Hussein brothers were killed in a combat operation. There was no arrest attempt, they were just killed. Possibly, they deserved to die at the hands of a court; they didn’t deserve to be murdered in a U.S. military attack.

 

WHY?

 

Because of the international agreements which the U.S. is a signatory to; however unpopular the idea ma be.

Yet, ‘Assumption’ worked for the ‘system’ – beautifully!

Too much of America’s history is fraught with false information. Thus, except for natural disasters, one should quickly ask:

• Is there something which just doesn’t look right?

• Is there a conflict between what’s seen and heard, versus the ‘official’ account?

• Is there room for legitimate confusion in the information presented?

• What might be missing in the presented ‘picture?’

• What is the intent/goal of the ‘official’ account?

• Do the observed actions support the ‘official’ account?

• Could the reverse be more factual?

• What is the intended message?

• Who is delivering the ‘official’ account?

• Is there any ‘salesmanship’ being witnessed, versus honest information?

• Is there any more information obviously needed?

• Independent of the ‘official’ account, what are the merits of the event(s), when viewed without the ‘official’ narrative?

• Are the opposing viewpoints more reliable?

IGNORANCE AND APATHY
It’s unusual for the U.S. to uniquely conduct a military invasion, versus being part of a U.N. effort.

 

Given the horror of 9-11 (as presented) America was ready to take on the world – single-handedly. In hindsight, we discover many fallacies associated with 9-11, leading to the question,

"Was 9-11 an inside-job?"

The issues don’t end with the consideration of a simple possible mistake, made in the proverbial heat of battle. Given the facts – as they were known at the time – there was no legitimate provocation for war.

 

Although it appeared that there was a ‘time’ pressure, few looked past the end of their noses at such documents as the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Accords and the Nuremberg Charter. If they had, it would have been discovered that the Afghan and Iraq invasions constituted war crimes. In the assumption that America was totally above committing a war crime, few Americans ever looked at the pertinent documents – not even the military!

In the ‘convenient’ void of ignorance, Americans didn’t relate to the meaning of the opium fields of Afghanistan being re-planted (following the Taliban destruction of those fields). The replanting of those fields meant cheaper heroin being supplied to European and American drug dealers!

Assuming integrity in the White House, Americans couldn’t grasp the significance of the U.S. interests militarily seizing control of Iraq’s oil production. Few Americans have even heard of Zbigniew Brezenski’s book, "The Grand Chessboard."

 

The book essentially lays out the American control/takeover of the Middle-East, in the spirit of "America’s Manifest Destiny." Fewer Americans connect the "Corporate America," versus the "American Government."

 

Imagine the U.S. Military doing the dirty work for Unocal, Chevron, et al! They did it!

Few Americans know of Bush’s Presidential Executive Order No. 13303. That Order laid claim to Iraq’s oil production. Iraq could not even decide who could buy their oil! For all intents & purposes, Iraq became an American corporate colony.

Yet Americans believed that ‘democracy’ was the intent of the continued American military presence in Iraq!

While post 9-11 "Homeland Security" seemed to take on a mandatory mission, few Americans caught the political sleight-of-hand which substituted the content of the "Homeland Security Act," at the last minute. The result was billions of dollars in "pork." Amidst the ‘reliable ignorance,’ the tax-dollar rip off missions successfully flew.

 

Given the routine and convenient omissions in the American mass media, it’s clearly wise to ask:

• Is the public up-to-speed with the pertinent issues?

• Is there a credible outraged claim of ulterior motives?

• If so, what are the details?

• Does any one group have a monetary motive for lying?

• Is there a sense that something is seriously wrong in the presented ‘picture?’

• What is the stated intent/goal in the ‘official’ account?

• Could there be a pre-existing secret agenda?

• What is the intended message?

• Who is conveying the ‘official’ account?

• Independent of the ‘official’ account, what are the merits of the event(s), when viewed without the ‘official’ narrative (spin)?

SHADOWS
The well-documented history of political events in America display a clear nefarious intent from the nation’s leaders; dating to at least Bill Clinton’s election. During the Clinton terms in office, a host of anti-terror laws were written; tailored to 9-11, including the "Patriot Act."

 

Likewise, the military "Project for a New American Century" was developed. BUT, not by a military group!

 

Among other matters, the PNAC – as it’s called – cites America’s global military "Constabulary Duties." Holding North Korea at bay is one thing, but playing "Globo-Cop" is another! Post 9-11 was pre-planned in the shadows of the Clinton years!

Amazingly, America seems to be oblivious to another effort; the implementation of the Gestapo-style "Model Emergency Health Powers Acts;" alternately called the "Model State Emergency Powers Acts." (MSEHPA) The "model" is a generic statute, intended to be enacted by the individual states. As "suggested," the individual state health personnel could ultimately wind up under the control of the federal government; expected to act as an extended police force.

 

Their ‘emergency powers’ would be Gestapo in nature, including the power to arrest people who refuse to take prescribed "immunizations," or carting them off to "Quarantine Camps." The associated civil rights would not be worth talking about.

Doubts? Look to 'Model Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA) Turns Governors into Dictators' 

For a copy of the proposed law, look to http://www.publichealthlaw.net/MSEHPA/MSEHPA.pdf  

By June 30, 2005, the MSEHPA had been introduced in whole, or in part, by 44 states; 37 states had passed laws which include provisions from - or similar to - those in the MSEHPA. In fairness, the compliance varies, as to the extent of the MSEHPA provisions.

Any state which adopts such a ‘conforming’ law gets an immediate five-million dollar "signing bonus." The federal subsidies increase dramatically, from there.

The questions:

• Is this something which was methodically ‘low key,’ or possibly supposed to be nearly secret?

• Does the presented account seem to come out of thin air?

• Does the ‘logic’ hold up as being consistent? Did something ‘magically’ change?

• Is there an important piece of information in-hiding?

• Did something happen with a fortuitous timing – defying claims of ‘coincidence?’

• Does the presented account smack of nefarious propaganda?

• Is there any viable outraged claim of ulterior motives – including profiteering?

• Is there ANY reasonably compelling suspicion amidst the information presented?

• Is there a sense that something is seriously wrong in the presented ‘picture?’

• Does the ‘official’ account meet a reasonable test of ‘integrity?’

• Could there be a secret agenda?

• What is the intended message – express or implied?

• Who is ‘fronting’ the ‘official’ account?

• Are there any people or groups protesting; and what do they have to say?

• Independent of the ‘official’ account, what are the independent merits of the associated event(s)?

TESTIMONIAL DEVICE
Babe Ruth is on the cereal box, promoting a breakfast cereal as part of a balanced breakfast. Britney is presented in a commercial endorsing a specific line of clothes. A church member attests to a ‘miracle.’

Such is the classic use of the "Testimonial Device" which readily comes to the minds of most, when the term ‘testimonial’ is used.

When we hear/read that,

"The New York Times said,"

"John L. Lewis said...,"

"Herbert Hoover said...,"

"The President said...,"

"My doctor said...,"

"Our minister said..."

The "Testimonials" may simply emphasize a legitimate, valid and accurate idea - a ‘fair use’ of the device. In other cases, however, the "Testimonial(s)" may represent the sugar-coating of a clever distortion, a blatant lie, a misunderstood notion; or any anti-social suggestion.

 

Such "Testimonials" may have the element of "association creep." For example, when speaking to priests convicted of pedophilia, the overt expression may be, "…these God-hated priests…" when directly referring to the pedophilia issue. However, there is the risk/intent that the subconscious GENERAL association will uniquely be "…these God-hated priests."

 

Thus, the discounting of priests, in general, can occur, whether by accident or design.

There is nothing inherently wrong with citing a qualified source; the testimonial technique can be used to construct a fair and well-balanced position or debate. However, it is often used in ways that are unfair and blatantly misleading.

With respect to a "Testimonial, the "Transfer" device can also be used as a "Trojan Horse," in the case of a prominent personality duped into making a false statement. Or, conversely, such a prominent personality forced to issue a denial or distortion of an otherwise obvious fact.

Another PSYOPS application of a "Testimonial" - as a "Transfer Device" – is essentially a bank-shot. An alternate source is quoted (Testimonial) in such a fashion as to lead someone to believe that they are a uniquely qualified – or unqualified - source. The reader/viewer is misled into believing a given slant. Often, the intent of the quotation (Testimonial) is lost in an unwitting presumption of an honest debate.

For example, the American segment of the bin Laden family was factually evacuated by private aircraft, immediately following 9-11!

 

One person may cite the fact in a debate, while the clever disinformationist "bonds" the discussion to the same ‘revelation’ by America’s ‘favorite,’ Michael Moore. The ‘first-up’ effect tends to seal the fate of such discussions, despite the fact that the debate originator was actually quoting from the Tampa Tribune, but failed to cite the source, in the beginning.

A "Testimonial" can be centered on a seemingly authoritative document. For example, in the 9-11 affair, a Tom Kenney was quoted from a conversation with Dan Rather as implying – at least – that a FEMA rescue team arrived in New York the night before 9-11 – in preparation. In the ensuing debate, an individual polled FEMA – via the "Freedom of Information Act" (FOIA) - using an incorrect name, "Tom Kennedy."

 

The FOIA response (authoritative Testimonial) came back in the essence of "No information was responsive to your request."

 

The mis-spelling might have been deliberate. However, the real name was "Kenney," not Kennedy." The illusion (Testimonial) was that the assertion that FEMA rescue arrived the night before 9-11 was FALSE. The requested information was NOT forthcoming. The illusion of a straight-forward FOIA response served as a Testimonial, whatever the actual facts may – or may not - be.

In congressional testimony, Rudi Guiliani admitted that FEMA was already set up on Pier 92, under a conveniently timed "Operation Tripod."

The most common misuse of the testimonial involves citing individuals – such as celebrities - who are not qualified to make judgments about a particular issue or person. In 1992, Barbara Streisand supported Bill Clinton; Arnold Schwarzenegger threw his weight behind George Bush. While both are popular performers, in their own right, there is no viable reason to think that they know what is best for America. The "Testimonial" takes advantage of the psychological device, known as "identification."

The false testimonial is not bound by any restraints. In the Oklahoma City bombing, the FBI "expert" was caught both unqualified and in a lie, as to the explosive substance in the truck. His fate was a promotion!

Unfair testimonials are usually obvious; most people have seen through the obviously rhetorical trick at some time or another. In the experience of human nature, however, this probably happened when the testimonial was provided by a celebrity whom we did not respect. Conversely, if the testimony is provided by an admired celebrity, we are much less likely to be critical.

When encountering the obvious "Testimonial," it is appropriate to ask:

• What is the apparent – or not so apparent - intent/goal of the speaker?

• ‘Who’ or ‘what’ is actually being quoted in the testimonial?

• Why should anyone regard this person/organization/publication as containing expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question?

• Independent of the "Testimonial," what does the message/idea amount to?

INJECTED ASSOCIATION
Honest people are vulnerable to the disinformationist; the honest person thinks in honest terms. Honest people simply don’t expect to be given blatantly dishonest treatment, as a victim or an observer. Thus, there is the risk/probability that an honest statement can be methodically and forcibly associated with a bad source.

To cite the imagery of the burning Pentagon in the early AP picture, citing the lack of evidence of an aircraft impact can result in the claim,

"Oh, you’re obviously referring to the picture on the cover of that socialist Frenchman Theirry Meyssan – the conspiracy nut!"

The reality may be that the speaker had ONLY seen the AP photo. Still, the ‘first-up’ effect and the injected association will have a dramatic effect on the casual observer.
 

RHETORIC PASSION AND TONE OF VOICE
Even in text presentations, ‘passion’ and ‘tone of voice’ can be conveyed – and quite effectively. With that in mind, it’s academic that a passionately told lie creates the illusion of truth. Thereafter, the tactical use of language is important to observe.

 

An honest person rarely needs to resort to the tools used by the disinformationist. However, when passionate rhetoric is used in an obviously styled manner, suspicion – at a minimum – is in order. This is particularly true when associated with unreasonable discounting of an issue, source or personality.

 

Dynamic communication skills are to be admired – but not when they are utilized for a nefarious purpose. Again, the key is in distinguishing the intent of the message.


REPACKAGING AND "SCOPE"
Long after the fact, the White House abruptly announced that they were dealing with faulty information, when deciding to invade Iraq. The presentation was in the spirit of,

"See, it wasn’t our fault; the information came from dishonest people, whom we were duped into believing!"

If one’s attention is fixed to that latest position (scope), the position sounds good, until one remembers (expanded scope) that – prior to the Iraq invasion - countries were lined up telling the White House that the information was false. France and Germany – in particular - trashed their diplomatic relationship with the USA, in an effort to prevent a senseless bloodbath.

Just prior to the invasion announcement, the U.N. inspection team was reporting increasing evidence that Saddam had – in fact – destroyed his prescribed weaponry; or at least transported it out of the country. "Selective trust" (limited scope) is no excuse in that picture; too many were attesting to Saddam’s actual compliance and the lack of any viable evidence of WMDs.

 

Yet, the White House statement would have the reader believe that there is only one side to the issue,

"See, we were lied to; it’s not our fault. It was an innocent mistake, see?"

The attempt was to "Repackage" the truth with the device of "Plausible Assertion."

When encountering the obvious "Repackaging," it is necessary to ask:

• What is the intent of the statement/position? Clarification? Deceit? Excuse making?

• How does the statement/position compare with other previous information?

• Is this a radical perception/position change worth inquiring more deeply?

• Is there a reliable opposing position worth comparing the statement/position to?

• Does alternate information condemn the "Repackaging?"

Back to Contents