It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:01 PM

Pretty common technique, if Obama can do it then that's great. I'd rather have a president who can persuade the people he's talking to rather than resorting to blinking a lot, losing his temper and poking them to death via McCain.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:06 PM
Obama's not using clinical hypnosis on me

Because I've watched the You Tube videos

and read the allegations

and studied the photos of him posing like Doris Day

and wouldn't trust him as far as I could toss him

So Obama .. if you're reading ... the clinical hypnosis isn't working

Same goes for you, McCain

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:59 PM

Originally posted by ballast
Politicians everyday use of NLP tactics and the powerful hypnosis Obama appears to use do not seem to have the same effect. People don't commonly swoon in a politician's presence.

That is generally seen in Religous mania. It would be interesting to find historical records of people swooning or fainting for other candidates. Has it happened, historically, in the past?

Here is a reference The Reality of the Resurrection
The evidence and significance
by Dr. David R. Reagan

This is interesting because the doctor is writing for an entirely different subject and premise, yet this applies when looking at the probability of mass hypnosis.

"4) Hypnosis — Another modern theory is that the disciples experienced mass hypnosis. The advocates of this idea argue that the disciples so desperately wanted Jesus to rise from the dead that they created an aura of auto-suggestion (or mental hypnosis) and thus, whenever the name of Jesus was mentioned, His disciples believed they could see Him.

Now, mass hypnosis is a probability, with even as many as 500 people, given precisely the right type of controlled environment and the proper mass medium like radio, television, or film. But mass hypnosis without some form of mass media, and without a professional hypnotist, and without ideal conditions, is utterly outside the realm of sound reasoning. So, I ask you, how could 500 people in the open air of a country side, before the invention of mass media, and before the discovery of hypnosis, be subject to mass hypnosis? And how does this explain the fact of the empty tomb? I think it's obvious that the skeptics are grasping at straws.

5) Fainting — This leaves us with a centuries old theory that has recently been popularized by an apostate Christian named Hugh Sconfield. It's called the "swoon theory.""

[edit on 21-10-2008 by ballast]

Hi Ballast,

I just wanted to respond a bit to your statement. Historically, it has been the presence of political figures that made people swoon, as well as religious ones. Every President since JFK has spoken in that elevated, noble language that isn't used in common conversation. European, Asian, and Caucasian histories are also laced with rhetoric from leaders that speak in elevated style.

The "common man" language didn't come into American Politics until very recently.

Other than that, I think if you liked Obama before, you'll still like him. And if you didn't, you never will, and no amount of magical hand waving hypnosis is going to change our free will and opinion.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 03:56 PM

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 07:14 PM
I ran accross an interesting comment by Biden. His praises, choose of words and commands may be telling. He was talking to "top Democratic donors":

"Biden told the top Democratic donors that a “generated crisis” will develop within six months and Barak Obama will need the help of community leaders to control the population as unpopular decisions are made and Americans resist.

Biden speaking at the fundraiser, “I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate, And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

Sounds more like "he", Biden, is trying to generate a crisis to me. Replete with commands and instructions.

"Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.” This particular quote concerns me.

When he told top Democratic donors that a "generated crisis" will develop that could be a reference to Obama and the lawsuits regarding his legal eligability to qualify, according to the Constitution, to be a candidate or president. The DNC see any question regarding Obama as an attack.

Biden's quote

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 11:39 PM
God, how more fitting then being at a conspiracy site

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 02:08 AM
i am actually a licensed hypnotherapist, and i have seen no NLP or hypnotic technique in Obamas rhetoric.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:20 AM
Preprogrammed Response Adaptation ?????????????????

How can something that is, buy definition PRE-PROGRAMMED go on to ADAPt to ANYTHING???

Whoever published these "findings" (and whoever buys into it) is a vile, manupulative, and probably racist tosser.

...and an illitarate one at that (American Doctor - what a surprise).

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:17 AM
I think a lot of people are looking for answers as to why people support Barack Obama at all, much less why some people seem to worship him. He's a junior senator and even he admits the only real experience he has is managing his presidential campaign.

The only opinion I can come to is there must be enough animosity towards Bush that people are willing to accept anyone else this year. If someone were to spend some time doing research (hey I have to work for a living sorry) they could probably present a very good case that if Obama is elected he will be the least qualified candidate ever. Of course that does not mean that he may or may not do a good job but generally speaking you want the most qualified person to be in the position. What we're getting however is the best public speaker and the one who is promising Americans everything under the sun: lower/free healthcare, college education, stopping of jobs going overseas, lowering of everyone's taxes regardless if you have to pay them or not, etc.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by SkipShipman

Well, if it's "hack" hypnosis, no need to worry. And you are living in a fantasy world if you don't believe public figures running for President are not some of the most controlled, educated people in speaking to the public for effect. It's called doing your job.


posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:52 PM
Goodwin's law! Thank you, JohnnyElohim! A 'juicy tidbit' and a 'keeper', by the very definition!

"Hardly unique to debates on the subject of Barack Obama." I can certainly understand that, excellent point.

What is particularly apt is how it applies to the subject at hand and the people that appear to be affected.

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable.

For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.

It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime."


"On October 20, 2008 Rachel Maddow, on The Rachel Maddow Show, proposed a corollary to Godwin's law that as the time a liberal candidate is believed to be winning an election or argument increases, the probabilty that they will be labeled communist or socialist approaches 1."

"On October 20, 2008 Rachel Maddow....." Interesting timing, hmmm?

e.g.: Ats poster: (nothing personal to anyposter, name omitted. Compilation of several posts from same poster):

"And I'm no longer astounded there is an illogical debate going on about this . . . because with each post supporting this propaganda piece, the clear bias and hatred show.

Or since I had to read a 67 page propaganda piece....

"Leading" one to believe, supported by the subsequent posts, that this was some sort of calculated manipulation . . . thus, making sense of the support Obama receives. Obama receives his support through the beliefs of his followers . . . Just as McCain or Bush or Hitler.

Someone that believes in this propagandist theory, please show me empirical evidence to support this articles claims.

However, you seem to think it's a post about qualifications and the propaganda that goes along with any campaign (McCain's black child, Swift Boat Vets, etc) . . . if that is the case, then his post is off topic . . . and yours is supporting propaganda unrelated to the topic and biased.

...delete an off topic post, which only served partisian propagandist purposes.

...but the fact that intelligent people can't see that this document is absolute propaganda, looking to polarize, generate fear, feed off of ignorance and bias has me a little worried for this country. Obama isn't brainwashing anyone .

I'm denounce this farce of a document that takes real scientific research (which I am in favor of) and uses it to substanciate propagandist agendas...

...please show me some evidence that makes this document valid or produce something that doesn't reek of ignorant partisan propaganda."



JohnnyElohim's post:

[edit on 23-10-2008 by ballast]

[edit on 23-10-2008 by ballast]

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:28 PM

Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, because although mentioning and trivializing Nazism in an online discussion, this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.

Sexton in 1989: "You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis."[8] Godwin's Law does not, however, claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust,"

However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.


As no one in the debate was compared to Hitler or Naziism . . . or labled as such. I believe the third section above more aptly applies to this thread. Godwin's doesn't apply here, as there was no comparison made to an antagonist, nor was Naziism/Holocaust trivialized. Using the historical figure as reference doesn't denote use of this "law".

[edit on 10/23/08 by solomons path]

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 11:21 PM
Oh my gosh!! This thread is still around???

The very definition of 'Clinical Hypnosis', even though a half-assed phrase, needs to be understood.

'Clinical' involves a controlled setting...say in a Doctor's office, or any other environment that is already controlled. That DOES NOT include AN arena or Stadium...which are the venues for BOTH of the two 'front-runners'...

'Hypnosis' is an entirely different discipline, and involves a lot of one-on-one contact and communication.

So, this OP is about to blown out of the water....unless it gets more 'legs' by people who are either not educated, or have a certain Political agenda to foment.

The very term 'Clinical Hypnosis' is an oxymoron.

This is a non-starter, and not worthy of further intelligent discussion.

EDIT.....if you wish to try to equate a Candidate's message to some sort of mass delusion, then you might wish to pay attention to WHICH Politico happens to use the message of FEAR to rile up the followers....and which one cares to use a message of HOPE, instead.

I can only think of a few historical examples....

Hitler: Fear

Churchill: Hope

FDR: Hope

Perhaps others have more examples??

PS....McCain: FEAR!!!!

Get the point?

[edit on 10/23/0808 by weedwhacker]

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 02:14 AM
reply to post by SkipShipman

lol u americans need 2 get to grips with the fact that obama does sumtimes use nlp only because half ur nation is retarded. and have been brain washed by ur media and bush for a long time. i see obama using nlp to deprogram what has already been done.. i think for the very first time you have a president that cares for the world and not about money for him and 1st class citizens. i have watched him and his ideas for working family's beats mc cain by miles.. if anythink mcain is the worst nlp user.. is ideas worry me and his health plan sucks. think about you parents or grandparents if your a lower class citizen, ur not going to be able to afford health plans no more..


posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 12:17 PM
I am not sure why people here seem to dismiss thought, and engage the issue without proofs. An Ad Hominem attack such as "this doesn't hold water," or "it's an oxymoron," or "you are grasping at straws," all of these responses do not offer reasons why those opinions are proved logically.

Thinking that 60 pages of documentation would answer many questions, one would think that any rebuttals would be more direct, citing the premises, and entering logic of what is sound or unsound, valid or invalid. I am thoughtful to add Introduction to Logic by Copi in this analysis. Does the paper pass logical analysis?

[edit on 24-10-2008 by SkipShipman]

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker


Welllllll . . . . You may need to HOPE to God that you FEAR that bear 3 feet behind you sufficiently to get your rear in gear up the nearest large tree.

Groundless fear is . . . useless or worse.

Groundless hope is . . . useless or worse.

Failing to fear potentially, probably the most duplicitous, lying, deceptive, tyrannical, thuggery oriented, Marxist, Globalist, authoritarian leader in America's history could be clear sign of delusional cluelessness.

His record is abundantly clear on those points for any with the courage and disciplined energy to search THE TRUE FACTS out.

I've long been a fan of Milton Erickson from way back in my PhD program when lots of my classmates were making pilgramages to Phoenix from San Diego to see him. I love sharing Milton's therapy strategies and examples with my students.

HOWEVER, the Bandler and Grinder analysis and popularization of NEURO LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING resulting from their studies of Milton et al . . . are sobering to the max.

They ARE applicable to advertising and mass media control/INFLUENCE of masses of people. THEY DO WORK incredibly powerfully depending on a number of variables and certainly for a very sizeable chunk of the target subjects . . . when done well.

And, certainly the pseudomessiah is a gifted trained performer in terms of teleprompter sponsored oratory. He's a perfect stooge to apply NLP principles through.

And, such will, no doubt, have some measure of impact on this election, sadly.

However, a lot of folks are also waking up to all the hidden stuff from hell in his background and in his goals, methods, plans . . . straight from the NWO playbook.

He's also not honest enough to declare openly--STEP-RIGHT UP, FOLKS, GET YOUR KOOL-AID HERE!

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 12:53 PM
reply to post by BO XIAN


A bear three feet behind me is likely to over-run me before I could climb the tree to escape!!!!

But seriously, if Sen. Obama knows how to use so-called 'Clinical Hypnosis' in order to influence the masses....then I'd assume that Sen. McCain would also know the same techniques.....??

If we wish to equate 'Clinical Hypnosis' with some sort of 'programming' concept, then we'd have to think that the McCain/Palin campaign is using 'FEAR' as a tactic, to try to improve their Poll Numbers.

The McCain/Palin Campaign has been all over the map.....even to the point of sending a surrogate out to criticize Sen. Obama for going to see his ill Grandmother!!!!

EDIT...They ALL use teleprompters!!!

Bush, Cheney, Palin, McCain...and yes Obama and Biden.....they ALL use teleprompters.

Sean Hannity, O'Reilly, and all of thier ilk use the teleprompter....or ...their twiisted brains....

REAGAN used a teleprompter!!!!'s simple....if you've never been in front of camera, then you would not understand....if you are on camera, you look directly into the lens, because it looks like you are speaking 'directly' to the viewer.

Just watch how actors/comedians on SNL move their eyes, during skits. They are reading Cue Cards!!!!

For high-profile people who MUST appear to be looking into the camera as they speak, the teleprompter is very, very close to the continue the illusion.....

Watch how a certain VP Candidate sometimes refers to notes out of camera range....she is not even subtle about it!@!!!!

To imply that Sen. Obama somehow uses phrases or symbols that could possibly be "HYPNOSIS" is patently ridiculous.

It's tantamount to accusing SNL of using 'Clinical Hypnosis' on the USA for the last 30+ years....well, in the last 30+ years we've had a Democratic Presidency for exactly....8 years.

'Nuf said!!!!!!

[edit on 10/24/0808 by weedwhacker]

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 03:23 PM
I DID read the paper and it is a bit too general for it to absolutely prove anything. Everything they point out that Obama is doing can be said about any convincing public speaker.

This doesn't make him any more nefarious than it would make McCain, Bush, or even any given commercial that may use this technique because if you want someone to vote for you or you want someone to buy your product you're going to use words and gestures to get them to do so.

It's not mass hypnosis, it's called marketing.

The other thing is this hypnosis and not Obama's own subconscious acting out in ways even HE isn't aware of.

Again, this could apply to McCain and pretty much any other politician. I'm sure if we dredge up some video's/speeches we could apply many of these tecniques to him also.

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 07:23 PM
You can't be hypnotised unless you really want to be hypnotised, either. I know this due to the fact that I have studied hypnosis in school before. This article is just biased and stupid, in my opinion.

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 07:37 PM

As no one in the debate was compared to Hitler or Naziism . . . or labled as such. I believe the third section above more aptly applies to this thread. Godwin's doesn't apply here, as there was no comparison made to an antagonist, nor was Naziism/Holocaust trivialized. Using the historical figure as reference doesn't denote use of this "law".

I'm sure you caught the context, but just for clarity of the record: I mentioned Godwin's law in response to another poster who mentioned that (paraphrased) "Obama's supporters often resort to references to Hitler." I was trying to make the point that comparisons to Hitler are not the province of Obama supporters in particular but a common conceit of debate. It's not even so much about Hitler as it is the invocation of something or someone universally detested and feared which can be argued short circuits rational discussion and derails the topic. For example, Communism is often invoked as a reason to fear Obama. It's hyperbole at best, as Obama has never supported anything approaching Communism, but it does serve to "up the ante" and put the opponent in the unenviable position of either sparring with a windmill or proving that Obama's policy positions hardly amount to Communism. It just goes with the territory, I suppose.

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in