One of the topics and web sites that caught my eye when I first conceived this tri-blog was Media Psychology 101. I immediately set up an RSS feed. There are two primary authors: Ken Heller and Lisa Peyton (bios noted below). Check out the “who’s who?” link below as well as the archives.
The blog addresses issues that I feel are important enough to pay attention to in our world because we live in a heavily-media-drenched culture (not just newspapers and magazines and TV anymore, but now Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest et alia, the so-called social media). I’ve found a few others but I’ll dive in with this one.
In two parts, here is
“the first article in a short series examining what types of psychological effects can be expected from the insertion of Western ICT into a collective environment devoid of such equipment; whether changes in cultures might be observed, and if so how might they manifest themselves and how long might that take; and how religious beliefs may impact the insertion of ICT.”
Note the references and links at the end too.
From the paired set linked above:
In August, Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive officer of Facebook, published a white paper entitled Is Connectivity a Human Right and shortly afterwards established a nonprofit organization called Interent.org. This consortium is made up of major corporations that include Nokia, Samsung, and Ericsson (handset makers), Opera (a browser manufacturer), and both Qualcomm and MediaTek which are both infrastructure manufacturers (Levy, 2013; Zuckerberg, 2013). Their collective goal is to connect the remaining 5 billion inhabitants of the planet to the Internet who are not now connected and to establish the foundation of a “global knowledge economy” which “encourages worldwide prosperity” (Zuckerberg, 2013, p. 2). More precisely, Zuckerberg states that “by bringing everyone online, we’ll not only improve billions of lives, but we’ll also improve our own as we benefit from the ideas and productivity they contribute to the world” while also acknowledging that a profitable model will have to be established to facilitate the work (Zuckerberg, 2013, p. 3). He also points out that the Internet is growing by less than 9% a year and that rate is expected to slow even more in the near future (Internet.org, 2013). Here’s a promotional video from Internet.org calling upon a speech by John F. Kennedy which may elicit other psychological connotations:
Portions of the targeted group may be familiar with Western psychology, but others may fall prey to well-designed effects driven by the use of computers as persuasive technology (captology) that could involve an integrated cultural spin to ease the reception of a message—an inoculator of sorts (Fogg, Cuellar, & Danielson, 2002).
Marsella (1998) cautioned about the potential impact of ICT on collective-based cultures as they join a “cybersociety that stretches across the globe transcending national and natural borders” based on the Western senses of consumerism, materialism, individualism, competition and rapid change (p. 1288). This audience will have little knowledge or experience with topics such as privacy, piracy, net neutrality or mass interpersonal persuasion as found and practiced on Facebook (Fogg, 2008).
Last, we should ask if Zuckerberg’s vision of social change, the good life and good society are congruent with that of the five billion people he wishes to hook to the Internet to build a global knowledge economy (Zuckerberg, 2013). …”
Read the article in full and check out the links below.
Some of the questions this article (and prior such commentary) raises in my mind are:
What did the real John F. Kennedy stand for? Everyone is familiar with many of his formal speeches and other policy expressions. Was he a liberal, a progressive, a conservative, an idealist, his own man, his father’s crafted entity, a neo-neo-conservative, an agent for something else? To what extent have John Kennedy’s ideals, imagery, myth and life been hijacked by others to suit their own purposes?
Is the insertion of Western values and technology noted by the blog media psychology 101 really just an extension of the Hegelian dialectic?
Is the intent to create and extend more “machines de guerre” for the extension of the continuation of that American fraternité at Yale known as Skulls and Bones, itself an extension of clubs in 18th century Bavaria?
“Why don’t you look up a book on the history of Skull and Bones which was written in 1933 entitled THE CONTINUATION OF THE HISTORY OF OUR ORDER FOR THE CENTURY CELEBRATION. This was compiled by F.O. Matthieson–and there are others, one of which is simply labeled SKULL AND BONES. (Dr. Antony Sutton). By the way, Mr. Matthieson was a prominent Marxist and a link between the old line communists of the 1930’s and the new progressives of the 1960’s…..”
Citation for the above, aside from the link, include “The Phoenix Letter” of December 1989 (Volume 8, Number 12) by Anthony Sutton, which talks about the Nazi iconography in S&B’s clubhouse and cites the Louisville Courier-Journal magazine of Sunday 10/8/1989, and that text can also be found on pages 140-141 of “Fleshing Out Skull and Bones”, edited by Kris Millegan for his own publishing house Trine-Day. You can call 1-800-556-201 to order this and many other fascinating and related books, and it is possible that Kris himself will answer the phone. Engage him in a conversation; he doesn’t have much time, but if you’re questions are focused, you’ll at least get a good suggestion as to which books to read. On this topic, I’ve read (and strongly recommend) these two:
Google for F. O. Matthiessen, or check the Wikipedia entry.
Here is the broader text:
MODUS OPERANDI OF THE ORDER
I shall quote a portion from a book: AMERICA’S SECRET ESTABLISHMENT, An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones.
The activities of the Order are directed towards changing our society, changing the world to bring about a New World Order. This will be a planned order with heavily restricted individual freedom, without Constitutional protection, without national boundaries or cultural distinction.
We deduce this objective by examining and then summing up the actions of individual members; there has been a consistent pattern of activity over one hundred years. Part of this activity has been in cooperation with the Group, with its parallel and recorded objectives.
Now IF, for example, we found that the dominant interest of members was raising ducks, that they wrote articles about ducks, bred ducks, sold ducks, formed duck-studying councils, developed a philosophy of ducks, then it would be reasonable to conclude that they had an objective concerning ducks, that this is not mere random activity.
Historically, operations of The Order have concentrated on society, how to change society in a specific manner towards a specific goal: a New World Order. If we know the elements in society that will have to be changed in order to bring about this New World Order, we can then examine the Order’s actions in this context.
More or less these elements would have to be:
EDUCATION – how the population will behave,
MONEY – the means of holding wealth and exchanging goods,
LAW – the authority to enforce the will of the state, a world law and a world court is needed for a world state,
POLITICS – the direction of the state,
ECONOMY – the creation of wealth,
HISTORY – what people believe happened in the past,
PSYCHOLOGY – the means of controlling how people think,
PHILANTHROPY – so that people think well of the controllers,
MEDICINE – the power over health, life, and death,
RELIGION- people’s spiritual beliefs, the spur to action for many,
MEDIA – what people know and learn about current events,
CONTINUITY – the power to appoint who follows in your footsteps.
– – – Daniel Coit Gilman, President of Johns Hopkins University, imported Wundt psychological methods from Germany, then welded education and psychology in the U.S., established laboratories, brought these educational laboratories into major Universities and generated hundreds of PhD’s to teach the new educational conditioning system. One of the first of these Johns Hopkins doctorates was John Dewey. The result we well know. The educational morass of the ’80’s where most kids–not all–can’t spell, read or write, yet can be programmed into mass behavior channels.
The Order’s next move was to control the Foundations. They got all the big ones–Carnegie, Ford, Peabody, Slater, Russell Sage and so on. That’s the topic of another volume. As in education, the modus operandi of The Order was to get in FIRST and set the stage for the future. The initial objective was to establish a direction in an organization. Selection of managers, intuitive or amoral enough to catch on to the direction, kept the momentum going. In the case of Foundations, The Order has usually maintained a continuing presence over decades.
When it comes to activities by individual members, at first sight the pattern is confusing and superficially inconsistent. Let’s give some examples:
*Andrew Carnegie profited from war through his vast steel holdings, but under the guidance of member Daniel Coit Gilman, Carnegie was also an enthusiastic president and financial backer of the American Peace Society. This is seemingly inconsistent. Could Carnegie be for war and peace at the same time?
*The League to Enforce the Peace, founded by members William H. Taft and Theodore Marburg, was promoting peace, yet active in urging U.S. participation in World War One. How could the League be for war and peace at the same time?
*In the 1920’s W. Averell Harriman was a prime supporter of the Soviets with finance and diplomatic assistance, at a time when such aid was against State Department regulations. Harriman participated in RUSKOMBANK, the first Soviet commercial bank. Vice-President Max May of Guaranty Trust, dominated by the Harriman-Morgan interest, became the FIRST Vice-President of RUSKOMBANK in charge of its foreign operations. In brief, an American banker under guidance of a member of The Order had a key post in a Soviet bank! But we also find that Averell Harriman, his brother Roland Harriman, and members E.S. James and Knight Woolley, through the Union Bank (in which they held a major interest) were prime financial backers of HITLER.
*Now our textbooks tell us the Nazis and Soviets were bitter enemies and their systems are opposites. How could a rational man support Soviets AND Nazis at the same time? Is Harriman irrational or is the inconsistency explainable?
* The Bundy family gives us another example of seeming inconsistency. William Bundy was with the Central Intelligence Agency for a decade. McGeorge Bundy was National Security Assistant to Presidents Kennedy AND Johnson. So the Bundys presumably support U.S. European policy which is pro-NATO. Yet the Bundys have been linked to activities and organizations which are anti-NATO and, indeed, pro-MARXIST—for example, the Institute for Policy Studies. Are the Bundys inconsistent?
* Among individual members of The Order we find a wide variety of publicly proclaimed beliefs, ideologies and politics. William Buckley periodically chews out the Soviets. On the other hand, member John Burtt has been a member of a dozen communist front groups. Member William S. Coffin, Jr. spent three years with the CIA and then became a leader of anti-Vietnam War activity through the National Conference for a New Politics, and Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. In fact, Coffin was one of the Boston Five charged and indicted for conspiracy to violate Federal laws. And, of course, W. Averell Harriman is elder statesman of the Democratic Party.
Quite a mixture of beliefs and activities. Do they reflect inconsistent philosophies? How can The Order have a consistent objective with this potpourri of individual actions?
The answer is, they are not at all inconsistent: Because the objective of The Order is above and beyond these actions and in fact needs these seeming contradictions.
THE STATE IS ABSOLUTE
How can there exist a common objective when members are apparently’ acting in opposition to one another?
Probably the most difficult task in this work will be to get across to the reader what is really an elementary observation: That the OBJECTIVE of The Order is neither “left” nor “right”. “Left” and “Right” are artificial devices to bring about change, and the extremes of political left and political right are vital elements in the process of controlled change.
The answer to this seeming political puzzle lies in Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems.
The dialectical process did NOT ORIGINATE WITH MARX as Marxists claim, but with Fichte and Hegel in the late 18th and early 19th Century Germany. (Just after the creation of the terms “JEW”, “Zionists” and Israel (not israel). In the dialectical process a clash of opposites brings about a synthesis. For example, a clash of political right and political left brings about another political system, a synthesis of the two, neither left nor right. This conflict of opposites is essential to bring about change. Today this process can be identified in the literature of the Trilateral Commission where “change” is promoted and “conflict management” is termed the means to bring about this change.
In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore, for Hegel and systems based on Hegel, the STATE IS ABSOLUTE. The State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for himself in these so called organic systems but only to perform a role in the operation of the State. There was no freedom in Hitler’s Germany, there was not freedom for the individual under Marxism, neither will there be in the NEW WORLD ORDER. And if it sounds like George Orwell’s 1984–IT IS.
In brief, the State is supreme and conflict is used to bring about the ideal society. Individuals find freedom in obedience to the rulers.
So who or what is the State? OBVIOUSLY IT’S A SELF APPOINTED ELITE. It is interesting that Fichte, who developed these ideas before Hegel, was a Freemason, almost certainly Illuminati, and certainly was promoted by the Illuminati. For example, Johann Wolfgang Goethe pushed Fichte for an appointment at Jena University.
Furthermore, the Illuminati principle that the “end justifies the means”, a principle that Quigley scores as immoral and used by both The Group and The Order, is rooted in verse in Memorandum Three observed this principle at work on the YALE CAMPUS.
This, then, is a vital part of our explanation of The Order. When its cofounder, William Russell, was in Germany in 1831-2, there was no way he could have avoided Hegelian theory and discussion. It was the talk of the campus. It swept intellectual Germany like a Pac Man craze. Most Americans haven’t heard of it. And those who have don’t want to hear any more about it. Why? Because its assumptions are completely at variance with our sense of individual freedom and Constitutional guarantees. Most of us believe THE STATE exists to serve the individual, not vice versa.
The Order believes the opposite to most of us. This is crucial to understanding what they are about. So any discussion between left and right, while essential to promote change, is never allowed to develop into a discussion along the lines of Jeffersonian “Republic” “democracy” i.e., the best government is the least government. The discussion and the funding is always towards more STATE power, use of state power and away from individual rights. So it does not matter from the viewpoint of The Order whether it is termed left, right, Democratic, Republican, secular or religious–so long as the discussion is kept within the framework of the STATE and the POWER OF THE STATE.
This is the common feature between the seemingly dissimilar positions taken by members-they have a higher common objective in which clash of ideas is essential. So long as rights of the individual are not introduced into the discussion the clash of ideas generates the conflict necessary for change.
As the objective is global control, emphasis is placed on global thinking, i.e. internationalism. This is done through world organizations and world law. The great contribution of the Tafts to The Order was on the world court system and world law–to the internationalist aspect of THE NEW WORLD ORDER.
The only other mention of the book title THE CONTINUATION OF THE HISTORY OF OUR ORDER FOR THE CENTURY CELEBRATION when you Google it is here:
Montaigne [whose “Essays” were recommended reading for Weishaupt’s Perfectibilists, his published Bode being one of the Illiuminati *] “used reason as a weapon, a machine de guerre (war machine), in his critique of cultural institutions and human habits. The sharp edge of reason served very well to destroy, deconstruct, or dismantle the world of supposed givens. It unmasked the incoherencies, the contradictions, the rationally unjustified dogmatisms and ingrained habits, the foolishness that characterized human behavior and society. Unfortunately, it did not seem to Montaigne that reason provided a positive basis on which to create a new social, political, and cultural structure. Reason was destructive rather than constructive. It could not create a new world.”
* See pages 183, 262 and 473 of Melanson’s Perfectibilists
“ … Is it our fault if Western humanism is flawed because it is also a war machine? And if Marxist company has been able to survive in changing character?”
That’s the Google translation of the text from Merleau Ponty’s Humanisme et Terreur (Paris, 1947), p. 203 as noted here (footnote #3):
See also page 127 of “Marxism and the interpretation of culture”
[ books.google.com/books?isbn=0252014014 ] ,
edited by Cray Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, published in 1988 by the University of Illinois Press, which identifies Mille Plateux
[ ? A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Thousand_Plateaus ]
“earlier project of defining the abstract machines that govern the functioning of social formations [and which] becomes centered on the specification of two figures, the state and nomadism. Very crudely, the opposition between these is the difference between an agent or force of territorialization and a force or movement of deterritorialization. The nomad is the figure of deterritorialization par excellence, inventor and realizer of a machine de guerre that is implacably hostile to the state.”
The actions, often and well-described by Naomi Klein
in her book “The Shock Doctrine”
extant in older and more modern Operation Gladio’s, as well as in the attacks upon Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, are examples of deterritorialization.
In today’s news:
Posted by Soulskill on Friday November 29, 2013 @06:09PM
from the highest-bidder-gets-your-grandma’s-bank-account dept.
“The incentives are high for many businesses and government agencies to not be too heavy handed in combating the global botnet pandemic. There’s money to be had and, with each passing day, more interesting ways are being uncovered in how to package the data, and how to employ it. It used to be that the worlds of bug hunters and malware analysts were separate and far between. In the last couple of years the ability to analyze malware samples and identify exploitable vulnerabilities in them has become very important. Given that some botnets have a bigger pool of victims than many commercial software vendors have licensed customers, the value of an exploit that grants reliable remote control of a popular malware agent is rising in value. In many ways, botnets have become a golden goose to those charged with gathering intelligence on the populations of foreign entities. The bulk of the victim’s data is useful for mapping populations, communication profiles, and as egress points for counter intelligence exercises. Then, given how many botnet victims there are, the probability that a few ‘interesting’ computers will have succumbed along the way is similarly high — providing direct insight in to a pool of high value targets.”
Posted by Soulskill on Friday November 29, 2013 @01:04PM
from the stop-buying-lottery-tickets dept.
“Infectious disease condemns poor countries to an endless cycle of ill health and poverty. Now a powerful new model of the link between disease and economic growth has revealed why some escape plans work while others just make matters worse. The problem is that when workers suffer from poor health, economic output goes down. And if economic output goes down, there is less to spend on healthcare. And if spending on healthcare drops, workers become less healthy. And so on. So an obvious solution is for a country to spend more on healthcare. But the new model says governments must take care since the cost to a poor country can send the economy spiraling into long term decline. By contrast, an injection of capital from outside the country allows spending on healthcare to increase without any drop in economic output. ‘We find that a large influx of capital is successful in escaping the poverty trap, but increasing health spending alone is not,’ say the authors. And the amount required is relatively little. The model suggests that long-term investment needs only to be more than 15 per cent of the cost of healthcare. But anything less than this cannot prevent the vicious circle of decline.”
Posted by samzenpus on Thursday November 28, 2013 @07:32PM
from the taking-the-words-out-of-my-mouth dept.
“A new patent has been filed by Google that tries to analyze your past communications to then construct responses to the overwhelming amount of posts you receive. From the article: ‘Essentially, the program analyzes the messages a user makes through social networks, email, text messaging, microblogging, and other systems. Then, the program offers suggestions for responses, where the original messages are displayed, with information about others reactions to the same messages, and then the user can send the suggested messages in response to those users. The more the user utilizes the program and uses the responses, the more the bot can narrow down the types of responses you make.'”
Donald Sutherland wants to stir revolt. A real revolt. A youth-led uprising against injustice that will overturn the US as we know it and usher in a kinder, better way. “I hope that they will take action because it’s getting drastic in this country.” Drone strikes. Corporate tax dodging. Racism. The Keystone oil pipeline. Denying food stamps to “starving Americans”. It’s all going to pot. “It’s not right. It’s not right.”
Millennials need awakening from slumber. “You know the young people of this society have not moved in the last 30 years.” With the exception of Occupy, a minority movement, passivity reigns. “They have been consumed with telephones.” The voice hardens. “Tweeting.”
… he is quite serious about the call to arms. “We did it in ’68.”
The Canadian actor has a venerable record of leftwing activism dating back to support for the Black Panthers and opposition to the Vietnam war, but this latest foray into subversion dovetails with promoting The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, the second instalment in a series of four films based on Suzanne Collins’s bestselling novels for young adults. It takes forward the story of Katniss, played by Jennifer Lawrence, who must fight other oppressed proles to the death as part of a tyrannical government’s strategy of rule through fear. The dystopia, called Panem, is built on the ashes of the US, and Sutherland wants young audiences to respond to the allegory. “Hopefully they will see this film and the next film and the next film and then maybe organise. Stand up.”
His own generation’s rebelliousness lapsed into bumper sticker slogans and today’s young are too fretful about finding jobs to change society, he laments. “I just think they’re not organised. It’s not something that’s happening in the universities, which is normally the breeding ground for that kind of activity.” Does he despair of the young? The famous drooping, pale blue eyes widen. “No, no, no. Otherwise there would be no point making this film. I have great hope and faith in them. I know because I talk to my children.”
More at the link below:
“Time brings data,” said The Searcher, a woman of early, fierce middle-age. “Trajectory of information. Got to keep track of what the citizens are consuming. Immense! I preside over a mere twig on the Tree of Knowledge. Or rather, Tree of Information.”
The mass act of buying goods, we are told, is inherently individualistic. Consumerism supposedly atomizes society. It turns us all into beings alienated from each other, only concerned with owning or buying the latest trinkets.
Consumerism as a Social Act: A Left-wing Defense of Consumerism
“…. Writing in Federalist #46, James Madison gave us a blueprint on how to deal with situations like this…..
Here’s what Madison recommended:
Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.
Madison tells us the solution to federal overreach is to push back at the state and local level rather than lobbying despots to reduce their own power…..”
|Interview 776 – Tjeerd Andringa on Geopolitics and CognitionNovember 27th, 2013
Today on The Corbett Report we are joined by Tjeerd Andringa, Associate Professor in Auditory Cognition at the University of Groningen. Today we discuss his work at GeopoliticsAndCognition.com […]
As an aside, I did succeed in finding a copy of that movie “Unknown” starring Liam Neeson [based on the book Hors de Moi by Didier Van Cauwelaert ] and I fully recommend its viewing (two hours of your time) if you are interested in understanding more about acting in the middle of crises, false flag attacks and drills, and how people are able to show up and disappear from them.
More curious may be its relationships — if any — to mind control (dissociative identity disorder) and its purposeful or high-end use by intelligence agencies, and the background of Didier Van Cauwelaert, a French author of Belgian descent born in Nice.
“At times, Unknown stretches plausibility to the near breaking point….”
Does that make it like deniable plausibility?