Saturday, 10 January 2015

Pacing And Leading: How Your Minds Are Being Systematically Controlled

B67Cv2JIMAAXfCNHAVE YOU EVER BEEN HYPNOTISED? Have you ever been entranced? You would have been if you had read either of these Guardian articles yesterday.

Don’t click on either of those links just yet, instead, just for a moment, take the time to think about your first reactions to those first Charlie Hebdo reports as the Press just provided the facts.

Make a note of how you felt, and grade your first emotional response on a scale of zero to ten; where zero indicates no sympathy for those murdered and ten indicates total outrage.

Now read those articles, come back, and note how you feel on that same numerical scale…

Couldn't happen to you right?..

Now ask yourself this: what did each of those lengthy articles actually say?..

Can’t remember, right?..

Congratulations! You’ve just been hypnotised and programmed how to think.

There is a lot of neuroscience being employed here, and if you are not familiar with the subject I urge you all to take the time to do some basic research. I am not going to bore you all with the scientific studies that underlie these techniques; but I am going to explain how they have been used to construct those articles – and why they are so effective.

We are all emotional beings. Whenever we act, we do so from an emotional response that is born of how we interpret the information we are processing from our five senses. If you have ever been fully absorbed by reading a good novel, you will have noticed how the author used words to capture your imagination and draw you into the storyline by having you associate yourself with one of its main characters. All the best novels draw upon the reader’s emotions and conduct them to an emotional peak that the author wishes them to experience. Good authors use their words to entrance their readers and inspire them, and it was the study of those hypnotic language patterns that gave birth to what some term the pseudoscience of Neuro-Linguistic Programming, or NLP.

We each have three different ‘brains.’ At our core is a primitive ‘lizard’ brain that is only concerned with fighting, fleeing, eating or fornicating; and the next is the emotional brain that basically stores all the feelings we have been subjected to in our lives as a result of our primitive drives being accepted by those around us, or not. Lastly, we each have a logical brain, which we mainly inhabit from the age of around five, that seeks to make sense of our actions and emotions, and hence give rise to our beliefs.

The key to all this is to realise that our reptile brain gives rise to our needs; the emotional brain stores the pain or pleasure that resulted from our attempts to satisfy them, and the logical brain adopts beliefs that justify our behaviours. Moreover, that reptile brain has only one objective: to keep us safe so that we might reproduce and continue our gene pool – and to that end its instinct is always to flee from pain and run towards pleasure; irrespective of what our logical brain might determine as the likely outcome from pursuing that course.

We program ourselves to behave in a certain manner as a result of our emotional experiences, and our primitive impulse is always to flee from pain and run to pleasure – regardless of the implications that our chosen action might have.

We program ourselves by associating emotions with our actions, and we repeat those events that allow us to re-experience pleasure, reinforcing that emotion each time we do so, until the action becomes a reflex – just like Pavlov’s dogs.

How many reading this post still give money to those emotional charity appeals, despite the Press revealing just how those contributions are actually spent?

Despite being aware of the facts, it still feels good, doesn’t it?..

That is because you have been systematically programmed to feel that way, by the charities who employ these techniques to empty your pockets of any spare cash.

So, how is it done?..

It is an unfortunate fact that most people associate the term hypnosis with sleep; whereas anyone that has actually been hypnotised will tell you that they were not asleep at all. They were just as awake as you and I are now; but they were not aware of their surroundings, the comfortable armchair that they were seated in, the screen they were viewing, or the floor that their feet were touching – just as you are not aware of your own surroundings as you begin to naturally, easily, and automatically relax in your armchair as you read these words, place your feet firmly on the ground, uncross your arms, and pay attention to what I am about to say next as you become more and more aware of the fact that what I have to say is important and enlightening…

Now, here’s the thing: without re-reading that last paragraph, can you actually recall everything that it contained?..

More to the point: did any of you shift your position as you began to read that last sentence?..

The chances are that not many of you were actually sitting in a comfortable armchair with your feet on the floor and your arms crossed; but, for those that were: that paragraph would have undoubtedly had a powerful hypnotic effect. That is because it has been specifically constructed to bypass the targeted reader’s critical factor – the first stage in producing a hypnotic trance, which is always accompanied by the subject’s spontaneous amnesia.

Paying attention takes willpower, and, depending upon our physical state and the time of day, many of us don’t have the reserves to use it. Those returning home from a hard day’s work are much more easily influenced by the 6 or 7 o’clock news than they are later broadcasts or political programmes after they have eaten, showered, changed, and had sufficient time to recuperate.

We are all inherently lazy (I claim that attribute’s highest award); but laziness can be a good thing if it simply means we engage auto-pilot and react to new events in the same way that we have reacted to others in the past – in ways that are guaranteed to always achieve a desirable outcome. In doing so we conserve precious energy, just like a cat; but the danger lies in engaging auto-pilot and relying on those indoctrinated behaviours that might then be manipulated to harm us.

Few of us actually pay close attention to what we read, or what is being said. Our logical minds engage at the beginning; but, when we find ourselves continually agreeing with what is said, we immediately switch-off and accept what follows as congruent fact.

For those that were seated in a comfortable armchair, with their feet on the floor and their arms crossed: those earlier statements of mine were instantly verifiable as true, and when they were repeated they simply reinforced the impression that anything I wrote afterwards could be equally accepted, and pleasurable, as what I wrote did not seek to disturb their feeling of relaxation and repose. As a result, their critical factor was switched-off, and the instructions that followed were simply a means of detecting that was the case by testing for compliance. If you were at all tempted to change your position after reading that paragraph: you must really learn to pay attention to what you read and listen to.

Have you still got Nabila Ramdani’s article open in another window? Let’s look at how deftly she constructs her article to bypass your critical factor.

First, she establishes herself as a figure of authority and places you in her armchair, bringing your attention to the emotion she wishes to target by choosing her words carefully and pacing her sentences to gently reflect your feelings about the Charlie Hebdo affair.

Those of us trying to make sense of the Charlie Hebdo massacre need to understand the bloody history of my home city, Paris. That four hugely popular cartoonists were considered legitimate targets by murderers said to have been living within a few miles of the Louvre and other global symbols of liberal Gallic civilisation doesn’t seem possible: donnish satirists are not meant to be gunned down in quaint Paris arrondissements any more than municipal policemen used to dealing with traffic and tourists.

That first paragraph establishes rapport and a feeling of intimacy that is designed to illicit your trust.

Now she gives you something you can verify, as a means of reinforcing that trust, and she purposely uses an emotional link to aid the transition by apparently sharing your sympathy.

Sadly, the French capital has been associated with some of the worst barbarism in human history.

The Terror started by the 1789 Revolution led to tens of thousands of deaths, with many of its victims guillotined in front of vengeful crowds. Savage mass murders continued on squares and boulevards throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, through the Commune and two world wars, the second of which saw tens of thousands of Jews persecuted before being sent to their deaths in concentration camps. Postwar, many of the Gestapo-trained gendarmes involved in the those atrocities showed a fresh brutality to Algerians displaced by their own nation’s fight for independence from France.

Has the French Revolution or any of these other facts got anything to do with the Charlie Hebdo massacre? Did the French not execute all those Gestapo trained gendarmes for having been quislings and undermining the resistance? Is any of this news? Has the French capital played any part in actually producing any of those events? No. But she is not saying it has. She is just evoking your imagination as a means of engaging your emotions to bypass your critical factor and establish a metaphor that she can use to manipulate your beliefs. She also fails to mention that the keenest adherent of Hitler’s fascism and the loyal guards used in the WWII internment camps were Gestapo trained Muslims, with their own individual regiments under the Third Reich’s direct command…

The three French-Algerian men believed responsible for the 12 deaths in Paris on Wednesday would have been steeped in a recent history of this conflict which, in the 1960s, was exported from the battlefields of Algeria to Paris itself. During one notorious atrocity in 1961, up to 200 Algerians were slaughtered around national monuments, including the Eiffel Tower and Notre Dame cathedral. Many were tossed into the Seine from some of the most beautiful bridges in the world and left to drown.

Did you notice the plant and the way in which that spontaneous amnesia kicked-in as she began leading you in the direction she wants your mind to go? There are no Muslims now, are there? Just French-Algerians, and she is now establishing a metaphor by referring to the Algerian National Liberation Front (NFL) induced riots of Oct 17, 1961 (in which official records, incidentally, only record two deaths – both French). Those riots had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam or Muslims – just as they had nothing in common with the French Revolution; they were conducted by French citizens protesting about the Algerian war, just weeks after five French policemen had been shot and killed by NFL terrorists; but, because she told you something that was easily verified in the first instance, and your critical factor was bypassed, you are now prepared to accept her building metaphor as fact -- even to the extent that you are prepared to believe her fictional description of carnage and that the three Muslim terrorists (which this article is supposedly about) are just second or third generation French-Algerians, steeped in the events of that conflict. Algeria, Arabs, Muslims – get it? It is not subtle when you know what she is doing. She is distancing you from the Muslim connection and preparing to rearrange your beliefs..

Remember: no one has been able to interview any of the Charlie Hebdo perpetrators, and no other outlet has established an Algerian connection; but your critical factor is away with the fairies as she begins pressing your emotional buttons to rearrange how you think.

You are all hers now. It does not matter what other tripe she comes up with, no matter what other contrived arguments she might express. The more she writes, the more you will be drawn away from the words she has just used, and the suggestions she has implanted will grow stronger as they are accepted by your unconscious mind. You will find yourself agreeing with her sentiments, realigning your own beliefs in the way she has suggested, and having those beliefs reinforced whenever Algeria is mentioned – even though you can’t remember what she actually wrote – or identify why, or how, you have become less outraged by the senseless Charlie Hebdo murders.

The Charlie Hebdo massacre, you have now been conditioned to believe, is just another event in the long history that Paris is renowned for, and has nothing to do with Islam; right?.. It is just a French problem. It is Karma, God’s retribution for Algeria. What do they expect? Nothing to do with us. Best keep out of it. Abdul may have weird ideas; but that’s his culture. Who am I to criticise when I look at things from a French-Algerian perspective?..

Just what has a French-Algerian perspective got to do with any of this?..

Nothing. It is just something being used to hold your imagination while your are reprogrammed, wound-up, and then sent on your way.

Don’t forget to put your spare change in the collection box as you leave!..

There is not a single fact there that would in any way point to Ramdani’s illogical conclusion (reread the article if you must); but you have been hypnotised into believing that recent events exhibit the same pattern as carefully selected historical events, and encouraged to accept that engineered pattern as providing a valid reason (metaphor) for why they occurred. Moreover, she has not overtly lied to you once – and never suggests that she is telling the truth. You made the connections; you drew upon the facts that she gave you; you permitted her to have you imagine other fictional events; and you modified your own opinion as your reptile brain dictated – fleeing from those painful emotions to a place where they can be replaced with a pleasurable experience of denial by accepting everything she wrote as true and choosing not to think.

You are left with the impression that ‘she has a point’, even though there is no logical thread.

Ramdani always writes well, and there are many more like her that have honed these particular skills.

The fact is, it is painful not to accept her reprogramming. If you cling to your original emotions, you will find that in order to do so you experience some real anger and physical distress. It is unpleasant, and the weaker we are: the easier we succumb to these techniques and dutifully submit to them.

This is not magic: it is just applied neuroscience – and there is nothing you can do to combat it if you do not recognise it for what it is.

Fact!

The interesting thing is that the older generation, that were not subject to these techniques being employed by the Press of their day, immediately cotton-on to the fact they are being manipulated. They do not recognise how; but our reptile brains immediately tell us that something is up and, if you watch us reading a newspaper, you will quickly see how we don’t actually read all its articles – we just quickly scan them to see if there is something of interest, read those parts that might offer something new to consider, and then set the rest aside.

Like many of my day, I was forced to read at least four newspapers each day at grammar school to ensure I had all the facts for the day’s discussions, two broadsheets and two tabloids, so scanning was the only way to perform that exercise in the limited time I had available to me on the bus. Moreover, we had also been trained to ignore the spin, and just concentrate on the the facts – as a means of verifying their authenticity, which is what the exercise was all about.

If you start in the middle of an article, and not the beginning, you tend to evade that uncomfortable, modern assault on your critical factor – and, if you read the conclusion of an article first, you can immediately see where the author intends to lead you, making you more aware of the steps he or she takes to achieve that end, should you choose to actually read all of it.

Not so the younger generation, whom have all been subject to these techniques in their schools, and are encouraged to read everything from the beginning. In fact, the younger generation no longer exhibit the same sensitivity to having their critical factor assaulted as we do (I suspect that, as a result of having been exposed to so much commercial advertising from an early age, it has literally worn their critical factor away).

Pay close attention to what you read, and what others say, folks. Be aware of your changing emotions as others conduct them to the beat of their own batons, because, if you don’t, you will surely live to regret it.

Metaphors are not facts; but they are the tools through which all beliefs are engendered. It is just the way our brains work. Someone or something stimulates our emotions and our consciousness, when it re-engages, reassesses our feelings and comes up with a justification for why we feel that way. It compares what it is feeling with ways that it has felt before, and stores what it finds with the others that are similar, so that when we trigger it again, all those like emotions are fired and they all reinforce each other. That is why, when something is proven to give us pleasure, it is so much more difficult to give it up when we are told it is bad for us. And it is also why, if we accept and then believe what we have been told about the apparent dangers, we soon begin to exhibit those symptoms that we have been told to expect – and dutifully submit to their remedy.

You really should read the scientific studies.

Mystery Novelists use metaphor as a means of stimulating our imaginations to have us fully experience their plots and have us forget the clues; but we are all sensible enough to know that what we read was just a carefully crafted novel when we finally close the cover and re-enter the real world that we actually inhabit.

Treat your newspapers and political speakers in exactly the same fashion – lest you become part of their nefarious new-age plots and begin dancing to their own selfish tunes. Unfortunately, you most certainly will if you keep listening, or reading, when your critical factor is out for lunch.

You need to detect the signs, and then tell the speaker where to go, or stop reading. And should a colleague ask you why you have changed your mind, when you were so adamant that the opposite was true beforehand, try to think what it was that you heard, saw, or read in the intervening period that has led to your change of belief.

You probably won’t be able to recall what it was that actually changed your opinion of course; but it will point out that anyone, including you, can be easily hypnotised and reprogrammed – so you might do well, when someone brings your attention to such a change, to revisit the actual facts of the matter.

The fact is that there is no defence to this type of ‘journalism’ if you meekly read everything from the beginning – dutifully watch all the news on live TV, or become enthralled by a trained political speaker delivering a carefully prepared, emotional speech. You must learn to trust that first instinct which your reptile brain sends you, before your conscious brain starts to rationalise what has been said, with the help of others that have also been influenced.

Time to wake-up and take control of your own thoughts, and your own life – if only for your children’s sakes…

Update 10/1 13:32: It is now evident why Ramdani chose to install Algeria as her reinforcement trigger. This just in from Sky News.

No comments:

Post a Comment