It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Snap Out of It - Obama is using Clinical Hypnosis on You!

page: 10
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
All politicians use this technique.
Any time they talk I feel myself falling into a deep,deep sleep.




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Pacing and leading is a fundamental tool in conversational or covert hypnosis

“Pacing” can be almost any technique by which a hypnotist gets your critical factor to lower its critical analysis and scrutiny of the information you are receiving.

The “lead” is the new information, suggestion, or command the hypnotist wants to implant.



Specific examples of Obama using 14 separate hypnotic pacing statements in his Denver 2008 Convention speech Elementary pacing examples from Obama include, “now is the time”, and “as I stand here before you.”

These statements are undeniably true in the simplest terms and commonly used parts of his pacing techniques, because of course now is the time, and if he is there speaking, of course he is standing before us. These are things the hypnotist says that are verifiably true, and used to lower our critical factor defenses to allow implantation of subconscious messages.

Looking at “pacing” statements alone, Obama’s 2008 Democratic National Convention Speech in Denver48 uses them throughout. Yet, nobody suspects these language patterns to be anything other than an innocent part of his powerful speech.

Three of Obama’s favorite hypnotic paces are “that’s why I stand here tonight”, “now is the time”, and “this moment.” Just these three pacing statements are used by Obama a total of fourteen (14) times throughout this single speech.

In this speech, Obama essentially said “as I stand before you tonight” three separate times, around the beginning, middle, and end of the speech to continue pacing the audience throughout, as follows:



1. That's why I stand here tonight. Because for two hundred and thirty two years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women - students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.

2. The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great - a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.

3. But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the naysayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you.

In the same speech, Obama says “now is the time” six times throughout. While he phrase is apparent, it sounds to everyone like just his power-phrase or theme for the speech.

1. Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

2. Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy.

3. Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American.

4. Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.

5. Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.

6. And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.

It is no coincidence that he happens to use these phrases that are subconscious pacing statements because they are immediately and verifiably true by their most simplistic terms, and cause the subconscious to
accept the hypnotist as a source for such absolute truth.

Obama also says essentially “this moment” five times, serving the same pacing purpose.

1. We meet at one of those defining moments - a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.

2. This moment - this election - is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive.

3. You have shown what history teaches us - that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington.

4. America, this is one of those moments.

5. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future

Notice how for each instance without exception, he has words before or after “moment” to make it absolutely immediately and verifiably true, such as “we meet at”, or “this election”, moments “like this one”, or “this is one of those moments.”

The notion that this is all also a coincidence is absurd. This is carefully crafted hidden hypnotic pacing. And, this is only the beginning.

Obama put these 14 pacing hypnotic language patterns into his speech knowing them to be part of a hypnotic trance induction. It is not “just the way he talks” nor “coincidence.”



After pacing you repeatedly in multiple ways and on multiple levels as described above, and thus lowering your cognitive critical factor defenses, the hypnotist will implant a “lead” - the command or absolute unquestionable truth he places in your subconscious. Essentially, the pace or truth is connected to the new hypnotic message or “lead” using connecting or linking language. Paces are connected to the lead through the use of the linking words including “and”, “as”, and “because” or “that is why.”59 The latter linking words each being increasingly more powerful than the former, especially the ones containing an element of causation, because causation mirrors the way the subconscious mind accepts information.60 61 62



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


I didn't exactly mean for you to post the entire PDF


I was hoping you would use your own words, and take small parts out of the pdf to illustrate specific examples of Obama using them.i

Hey I am appreciative of your posting though


And when I said "I" six times, that was me hypnotizing you


[edit on 19-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Seriously if you read the first post, I do ask people look if McCain is using the same techniques.


Ah, well then to continue our earlier discussion on a better thread title


How about "Is Obama and McCain using Clinical Hypnosis on You?"


I like something like "Snap out of it? - Are Obama and McCain using Clinical hypnosis on you? - You decide"

Actually you can look, but I only see people swooning and fainting for Obama. McCain might be doing some hypnosis, but it does not seem to go lockstep with all the same characteristics yet. It is a stretch to look at McCain the same way.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by SkipShipman]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I saw the show on body language yesterday, I remember they compared McCain and Obama's speech patterns,

Obama speaks with a beat or rhythm to his sentences, they pointed out Obama speaks with a rhythm to his sentences building slowly to a rapid ending, People find this appealing, They also said it is the method used by preachers, which I already thought he sounded like,

They pointed out many times people will come away not remembering what his points were but the method of his speaking leaves them FEELING GOOD, or inspired.

yup, hope somebody else can explain it better., that may have seen the show.

They all have coaches you know, maybe his was his mentor, Rev. Wright?

Yup, sheeple we be,

Interestingly, Colin Powell said today, that one of the reasons he endorsed Obama was he, Obama, had the ability to inspire,

So this tells me many think and make decisions with their heart/emotions, not their intellect.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SkipShipman
 


I think that thread title is impartial so I think it's good


Well I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

Based on my own experience, from the McCain supporters on ATS, to the ones I have spoken with in person, I think it's equal. They both have "fans" and "blind loyalists". People that believe they are "saviors".

If you don't think the McCain's side shares that with Obama then that is a stretch.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horus12
reply to post by redhatty
 


I dont believe in any shape nor form your being objective and hold the same bias for Mcain as Obama.

That's your belief, that is subjective and I cannot change that. But I respect it.


But one must ask then, why do you go out of your way to discredit Obama? and why would you care if he got elected? you did say you think they are both tools right? so why would it matter to you which tool won?

It smacks of ulterior motive.


I believe that Obama is being very secretive and unscrupulous - above and beyond average politicking - in his campaign.

He has not been forthcoming about many things, including but not limited to, His College record, His Illinois Senate Records, How he paid for Harvard, What his associations with people of "questionable" status have been, his medical records, information on his millions of dollars worth of under $200 campaign contributions, and of course, the ever popular birth controversy.

I have not seen the level of suppression of information that I see from the Obama campaign from the McCain campaign. Not saying that the McCain campaign hasn't also suppressed information, just not to the same extent as the Obama campaign.

If we, as Americans, do not question, do not demand transparency in not only our financial institutions, but also our politicians, especially Presidential candidates, then we are not doing our job as citizens.

I think the research done by the author of the article is spot on. That is my personal belief, and as a subjective thing, is not able to be disproved. At the same time, I do look at other information presented and should I be presented with evidence that this article is wrong in it's accusations and/or conclusions, I reserve the right to change my belief.

If that is an ulterior motive, so be it



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by redhatty
 


I didn't exactly mean for you to post the entire PDF


I was hoping you would use your own words, and take small parts out of the pdf to illustrate specific examples of Obama using them.i

Hey I am appreciative of your posting though


And when I said "I" four times, that was me hypnotizing you


[edit on 19-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]


LOL - hypnotizing


That was why I was asking you before, it seemed pretty clear that you expected excerpts from 67 pages of a .pdf

Unfortunately, you didn't think that using page #s for reference to things you don't think are correct was a good idea, since the "burden of proof" is on me to explain why I believe the article is spot on.

As I had said, I feel the article is in itself the "Proof" of the allegation, since the documentation is already there, I think it's a bit redundant to have to point out the aspects of it that I think are right



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
AS for women politicians apparently the pitch of their voice is a turn off, like Margret Thatcher, when her voice became lower pitched she was more appealing, this comes with age and training,

This is why many may find Sarah Palin less appealing and they don't even realize it, because she still has that more youthful higher female voice.

I notice that when Palin is speaking loudly to the crowd it can become even higher in pitch and grating.

[edit on 043131p://bSunday2008 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


Fine. It was my fault. I didn't convey what I was asking for correctly.

Let's try this, if you want to.

Give one technique, and then give one specific example of Obama using it from a speech or debate. Then we all can discuss it.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Already did. Pacing and leading. The article contains about 40 examples with the videos to support them, again, shall I be redundant?

another, unusual use of hand gestures as hypnotic anchors.

From the Article

A "hypnotic anchor" is any stimulus that triggers a consistent
psychological state.92 An anchor is essentially an internal state that is triggered by an external stimulus.93

An example would be, a hypnotist eliciting a certain response from the subject, whether outward or inward, e.g. emotional, and then the hypnotist doing a certain act (the anchor) which is a touch, or a keyword, or
signal, that the hypnotist associates subconsciously to the response. The hypnotist can then bring about that response just by repeating the anchor. It is similar to how Pavlov would ring a bell whenever he fed his dogs, and then eventually, his dogs would salivate just from the sound of hearing a bell ring. The hypnotist stirs up feelings or emotions. “When that feeling is at its strongest, “anchor” is by making a gesture.94

Anchors do not have to be created or triggered by a physical touch, and could be any symbol or gesture that is a unique association.


pages 25-31 site multiple examples, that's 6 pages of examples that I really would rather not excerpt here, so I kindly ask that you review the information in those pages.

Also starting at page 43 is a "play by play' evaluation of Obama's Democratic Convention speech and the MANY examples of anchoring, pacing, leading, and delivery of subconscious commands.

As I seem to be repeating myself, yet again. The article itself has all the examples, and proofs that support it's premise.

You are aware, since you state you have studied NLP, that it is the REPEATED use pacing, leading, anchoring and subconscious commands that differentiate it from a single "innocent" yet effective tool of excellent public speakers.

To take one instance alone, it can easily be discredited. But when you have 40 or more documented in one speech, it is not so easy to discredit. This article documents each and every instance.

Do you really want me to repeat them all here? I *think* that there is enough presented now to start a dialog on, and I await your rebuttal of the author's allegations.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


Then don't do it for me


Do it for every one else. Every new reader to this thread. Members that may not have read the pdf.

Give one specific example of Obama using "hypnotic anchoring" from a speech or debate. So we can all discuss it, not just me, and not just for me. For everyone, even those that have not read the pdf.

Also, I am suggesting we start at one so we all can make progress. I am not discounting that you already gave some examples that were in the pdf. I am saying let's pick one and talk about it.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


You know Lucid. I have given an honest attempt to "play by your rules." I have already given the pages to refer to.

If a person chooses to not read the article, it is not my responsibility to spoon feed it to them.

I have brought up how Ericksonian Hypnosis/NLP requires multiple uses of it's many tools, and even cited the page #s to show how just such an activity has been documented.

Yet you continue to bring nothing to the discussion but more requests for me to cite more.

Just like your assertion that I have a burden of proof to validate the statement that I *believe* the article is spot on.

Come now, have you nothing to work with yet? Have I not presented enough? Why more requests instead of that dialog you seemed so interested in having?

Ah I saw your edited in addition.

Well since pacing and leading has already been well documented earlier, let's go with that one. I provided specifics from the article that explain it and show where it is being used repeatedly by Obama. Now it's your turn to offer up something to the discussion.

[edit on 10/19/08 by redhatty]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


Actually I was asking you to cite less


Okay. Don't worry about it man.

I will take it all into my own hands and both present it myself and then analyze it myself. Then all the members can discuss on my thoughts.

It will take me a few moments. I have to finish some other stuff first.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
Ah I saw your edited in addition.


Correct. I do edit my posts. To add content, not to change it. Hence my 'ninja editor' subtitle



Well since pacing and leading has already been well documented earlier, let's go with that one.


Okay. I will use the 'pacing' and 'leading' techniques when I *refer to earlier post*

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


As some one who has read all 67 pages, dug deeper into Erickson, read your entire discussion with lucid I can assert that A. There is more than substantial proof in the article B. No matter how much you post of the article regarding pacing, leading, anchors or Obama's use it won't be enough C. You're being baited into a discussion in which the other end has no real intent of reading or replying to the information



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jdl79
 


Unfortunately you are probably right about

C.

I hope not. We will see though.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdl79
You're being baited into a discussion in which the other end has no real intent of reading or replying to the information


Are you gonna bet some ATS points on that?



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Also, just so you guys know what to expect.

This is my assertion:

Obama is an effective public speaker, more so then McCain.

Obama uses known public speaking techniques.

McCain also uses them, but not as effectively as Obama.

The techniques are not negative in nature.

The techniques are not exclusive to a clinical setting. They are used widely amongst public speakers abroad.

I will use the PDF, points from the opposing argument, and other sources I find relevant to my argument.

Please give me some time. As I have other responsibilities and I plan on making a quality post



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join