THE "CHATBOX"

[hoi.polloi]

What a fantastic and unexpected response to the video. Thank you for posting it.

So, Adolf got in with 44% of the free vote in an 11 party race (the communist party only received 18%) in 1933 and a whopping 98% of the free and independently monitored vote (Goebbels especially invited foreign journalists for exactly this purpose of monitoring the integrity of their free elections) in 1936 after full employment and zero inflation was achieved.

While I am highly skeptical of all voting systems that have ever been implemented in the name of democracy, I do appreciate you backing up your assertion of this historical point with the Anarchist character of Monsieur Ellul. Albeit a Christian, he seems to be of the more tolerable kind that rejects the church and Christians in general out of the principle realization that being a Christian means nothing unless you can espouse specifically what you mean by it. And although I don't agree with his evangelism, I wasn't frightened out of my mind while reading Goethe so whatever.

For the Huxley video, or any of these odd Wallace TV interviews, I find that their discussions of propaganda are very backwards and set up to give watchers at home the feeling that television is sophisticated and is in no way propaganda, since they are discussing it. It feels like 'Charlie Rose' or a 1950's equivalent of a mock debate show, where the party line is still very much hammered into the viewers' skulls, while pretending to be anything but official doublespeak. I think Huxley looks rather cowed, don't you? And when he seems to reply that German television wasn't adequate or existent, it seems to be because the aggressive interviewer has him repeating back what he has just been told, to not create a conflicting discussion. It is "unfortunate" but it is entertainment and cannot be seen as a real, free interview. Rod Serling admits - as Wallace persists - that his role in the world of television is difficult, is based significantly around profits and personal success, and is not (nor can it be) about serious political weighty matters, because of how television is controlled. Huxley is (or behaves as) a quiet, mild-mannered author who is easily steered and overpowered by the interviewer and can hardly look him in the eye.

So what I found funny about these interviews is how much the discussion of propaganda has been allowed in the propaganda itself. Not just now but in the 50's since the advent and rise of television. Rod Serling flat out states in 1959 here that there are certain topics you simply cannot broach because they cause "trouble". He refers to this as "pre-censorship" which he states that all television writers knowledgeably exercise because of some unspoken power that the controllers of television have. For that statement, it is pretty remarkable, today or any day. And I am not sure you would get the same admission from a respected successful TV writer today. That is, unless it was accompanied by an even more elaborate dressing of innocuous "curiosity" than Serling uses here to mask his own sense of being monitored and censored.

I don't know if Huxley can be trusted and his sheer success seems to indicate that he was easily cowed and controlled into stating the overpopulation problem (current favorite of Club of Rome and so many others) so quickly. I give credence to you when you state the possibility that he is himself an impure or full-on paid/threatened propagandist.

[teriyaki taryaki]

hoipolloi wrote:

I give credence to you when you state the possibility that he is himself an impure or full-on paid/threatened propagandist.

I don't know about that. I've always liked Huxley and his wife Laura Huxley and Alan Watts and all these people. There is a lot to learn from all of them in an age as deliberately miseducated as ours. Unless I have incontrovertible proof that someone is deliberately spreading BS when they, in fact, have to know the truth, then I tend to let them off the hook.

Ellul, for example, never became a revisionist or exposer of the holohoax like Faurisson and Gaurady, despite what he wrote about Goebbels. Was he deliberately spreading lies when he knew better or was even this guy, a so-called expert on propaganda, taken in by the forged Sefton Delmer documents introduced into the historical record at Nuremberg ?

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 6&start=30

Most probably the latter. In those days, it took many decades to expose fakery of that level. Nowadays, with all this internet networking, it's all a lot faster, but to what purpose I don't know. Truth is no longer seen as important, it's seen as 'the enemy.' Truth destroys the manufactured 'self-esteem' of the nation and the common people, therefore they will have to ignore it, they will develop a mechanism for automatically ignoring it at all times or filtering most of it out. Only those more pedestrian, every day, nuts-&-bolts truths they need to live their daily lives in zombie bliss will be allowed into their consciousness.

So, unfortunately, to get past these blocks and filters they've put in to save their precious egos, you have to drip the truth in drop by drop and plant it seed by seed into everyone's consciousness, a subliminal invasion they don't feel threatened by but which does its work. And this can be done without much effort and annoyance, just very naturally and in a relaxed and happy-go-lucky, humorous way. The tide will only turn when they perceive that on the side of the truth does not lie 'pain' but there lie the real pleasures. But how do you make the truth 'hip' again rather than frightening, painful and paranoia-inducing, that's the big problem which needs an elegant solution.

Alan Watts Interviews Laura Huxley: This Timeless Moment

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivoeUybj8Hw

[whatsgoingon]

.

[Farcevalue]

"And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."

-Aldous Huxley

Affiliated with the Fabian Society along with H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw and others, I am prone to consider Brave New World as more of a manual than an expose. Allen Dulles was quoted as saying that people don't read. There are a number of primary documents that are readily accessible in which the writers state in their own words the necessity of manipulating and managing the commoners, i.e., those not them.

As the ever eloquent Brian V so memorably opined: "A system's purpose is what it does." Thanks Aldous, for our brave new world.

[lux]

Affiliated with the Fabian Society along with H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw and others, I am prone to consider Brave New World as more of a manual than an expose.

I agree.

IMO Huxley, Orwell, Wells and others were not warning mankind but simply introducing the idea of a future police state to the masses. I believe it is the same principle as false historical fiction done for propaganda purposes but in reverse. That is, creating agreement amongst the masses on a certain type of future direction. Pointing the way for the sheep to follow.

[daozen]

Hah, I was a CERN watcher of a sorts too. A 500 billion underground facility? How convenient. I'm now convinced it's a giant money laundering hoax spanning two countries. I wrote this post tomorrow!

Just thought of this... anyone dwelve any deeper?

[Heiwa]

From http://summly.com/ we learn :

Nick D’Aloisio, 15 years old, created the Summly app at his home in London. It started with an insight -- that we live in a world of constant information and need new ways to simplify how we find the stories that are important to us, at a glance. Mobile devices are shifting our daily routines, and users have changed not only what, but how much information they consume. Yet most articles and web pages were formatted for browsing with mouse clicks. The ability to skim them on a phone or a tablet can be a real challenge -- we want easier ways to identify what’s important to us.

I, stupid me, like that, of course ! Easier ways to identify what's important! Imagine being stupid like me and ... helped by a 15 years old. So Yahoo bought the idea ...

Summly (http://ycorpblog.com/2013/03/25/yahoo-t ... re-summly/) solves this by delivering snapshots of stories, giving you a simple and elegant way to find the news you want, faster than ever before. For publishers, the Summly technology provides a new approach to drive interest in stories and reach a generation of mobile users that want information on the go.

It seems Yahoo liked the idea ... and killed it. Summly is not available any longer.

And what news do stupid me want anyway?

[Mercurial]

Soon after seeing that Mark Kelly clip yesterday - I was watching the 10 o'clock news on BBC and there's a story about a girl being mauled by dogs. Four of which were shot dead at the scene. No breeds were mentioned but it was pretty obvious they weren't psycho labradors.

Wasn't thinking there was anything weird about it till they interviewed her "friend". Either this girl didn't like the dead girl - she's smiling like she reporting the birth of a baby - or she's just another piss poor actor. Her line "She was a fun loving girl - really happy..." started alarm bells ringing. Who says shit like that? An old person might, but not a kid.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 6_03_2013/
There's only 4 or so hours left to view this so I wanted to see what you guys make of it. (Only UK peeps can view iPlayer I think, unless you've got a proxy.) The story starts at 11.25 the dreadful acting at 12.14. In clip available on BBC News today they have replaced non-grieving girl with more convincing mourners.

They are saying now that they were staffordshire bull terriers and bull mastiffs - both legal breeds in this country (unlike pit bull in Arizona post) and we have calls for "an urgent need to tighten dog laws". Quelle surprise!

"This is an extremely distressing reminder that current dangerous dog legislation puts people at risk” says Kim Hamilton Chief executive of Blue Cross

"The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said it was looking to introduce new legislation as quickly as possible." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-21953781

Maybe there is a dead girl but it seems a bit sus to me.

Oh yeah, and her school's head says she was new to the school last summer - so quite new to the area.

Am I seeing BS where there is none?

[lux]

I'd say you're justified in thinking this is a psy-op. I can't watch the video but the news article you linked to has all the usual psy-op rhetoric:

- "urgent reform of ___________ laws is needed ..."

- " ... in the wake of the death of ___________ ..."

- "The _________ said it was looking to introduce new legislation as quickly as possible."

- "There have been too many tragedies with ________ and we've got to take action."

etc.

All these psy-op media articles basically read the same. Just fill in the blanks and add some details.

My favorite is the ever-popular "in the wake of ..."

Whenever you see that phrase in a media report your bullshit meter should be twitching madly.

For example, the phrase "In the wake of 9/11 ..." has to be the longest wake in history. It lasted for years in the media. It may even still be in use today.

[simonshack]

Am I seeing BS where there is none?

Mercurial,

May I ask you the same question regarding a wholly different thing involving yourself?

The other day, I just happened to bump into this post of yours over at Let'sRoll :

I've Skyped with Simon and he doesn't use a camera only audio. I spent an hour tidying my kitchen so he wouldn't be horrified by my clutter and it turned out to be completely unnecessary!

He regularly translates from Italian and Norwegian see Concordia and Olso threads. And he does make the odd mistake, though his English is brilliant it has to be said. But then all the Scandies I know are excellent at English - they have decent schools over there!

Being a copy editor by trade I am quite good at spotting writing styles - I often ask text be submitted without byline so I am not swayed by any prejudice I might have towards certain writers - and I almost always guess who it is that's written a piece. I don't detect that these writers are all Simon at all.

Unless, that is, Shack is suffering from a multi-personality disorder, in which case you'd have to forgive him as usually it's the case with sufferers that they have no idea of the existence their other personalities.

http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php? ... stcount=51

Would you please clarify what exactly you mean to say with this ?

[hoi.polloi]

The Mercurial post seems to be part of a pattern developing over time by a combination of:

1. the posters' ignorances
2. the various shill teams' efforts to widen those ignorances
and
3. our own anonymity (mine more than yours, Simon, since you have just about "bared" all on this site!)


This pattern seems to be a widening, stretching, compressing "test" of the truth in order to try to get something untrue to stick. By making us out to be either more (the quoted post above as an example) or fewer (one of Steven Warran's strange outburts) people than we are, it blurs and obfuscates the fact that you are just you, and I am just me.

So sometimes they will say "it seems Simon is composed of multiple people", or they will say, "no way the Vicsim Report could have been made by one person!" and other backhanded compliments, using our writing strength against us and trying to make cracks appear in any given online text that questions the truth as effectively as our site does.

It's one of the last psychological games they can hope is effective: get people to fear writings that question the media. Depict it collectively as "the ravings of a delusional schizophrenic" or "the amalgamated works of a team of patchwork hacks" or "one man suffering from a multiple-personality disorder". One of my favorites is still Warran's "crack" that Simon and I must be the same person! Makes me laugh every time I think about him. Anyway, are we writing too much to be ourselves or not enough? Perhaps the allegation they are trying to impose over time is that Simon and I are two puppets managed by a team of writers.

In any case, these distractions will fade away since the truth will prevail. And we don't need contributions from people who get so caught up in their paranoia about it. Nothing wrong with a bit of skeptical speculation, as long as it's not distracting from the important body of research. I am glad that Mercurial has relegated their doubt to the appropriate forum: not ours.

[Mercurial]

The last bit of that LR post was meant as a joke. Not a good one, clearly! I was hoping and expecting you'd pick me up on it nearer to the time of posting it! I was saying that in my dealings with you I had found you genuine. People were making some pretty whacked out accusations and was trying to lay them to rest.

[simonshack]

The last bit of that LR post was meant as a joke. Not a good one, clearly! I was hoping and expecting you'd pick me up on it nearer to the time of posting it! I was saying that in my dealings with you I had found you genuine. People were making some pretty whacked out accusations and was trying to lay them to rest.

Well, I've got to wonder what sort of copy editing you perform for your own writings.

Perhaps I'm missing something - but this is how I interpret the gist of your above Let'sRoll post / meant as a joke:

- You are good at spotting writing styles and can usually tell who has written a piece.

- You cannot detect that the stuff that I write is all written by me. Unless, that is, I have a multi-personality disorder. (?)


And you expected that joke to 'lay to rest' anything? Weird.

EDIT : Oh wait! I think I got it now - my bad! What you meant to say was: "I cannot detect that all the different writings on Cluesforum - signed by different Cluesforum members - are all written by Simon." Correct? If so, you should have spelled it out in clearer fashion, imho.

[brianv]

Slithers further into the mire of his own bullshit.

[Mercurial]

"I don't detect that these writers are all Simon at all."

The accusation was that multiple forum members were all Simon - in your defense I think what I wrote was quite clear - that I didn't think so.

The last bit was a tongue in cheek comment. I'd probably been looking into mind control and split personalities at the time. It was a "what if, maybe, possibly" play on an idea. Not to be taken seriously as indicated by use of the smiley.