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

reply to post by redhatty


I really hope you don't think you can ignore and sidestep everything I posted to you and then you can pose questions for me and expect answers

I was not the one supporting the assertion of this thread. It is not my burden of proof.

If you don't understand what the above sentence entails, then I will try another approach:

I asked you first

Originally posted by redhatty

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by redhatty

 

Why? Do you want me to finish reading it so we can discuss it together?

I have another idea. I think it might be better for this thread

Why don't you take the best parts from it.

The parts that best represent your assertion that Obama is using 'conversation hypnosis', and not just effective speaking skills, and then post it in this thread for all of us to see.

This way we can all make some real progress here. How bout it?

You want me to excerpt 67 pages of proofs into this thread to discuss?

Here's a better idea, since I see you are now reading the article, why don't YOU show me (page number and footnote references is fine, don't want to infringe on copyrights) where the author is wrong and why you think he's wrong?

Oh! Oh! I know! Maybe that's because the proponent of the argument bears the burden of proof?

If I'm proposing that that the Bush administration is criminal and guilty of war crimes, and I've got this whole encyclopedia of information that I interpret as unassailable evidence, I have a responsibility. That responsibility is to interpret the data in a convincing and responsible way to portray my interpretation of the facts to the audience or judge. In any sort of formal debate context, or in a court of law, you'd lose your case outright by opening with an unequivocal position statement followed by a demand that the people you're trying to convince read your mountain of evidence and debunk it (or agree with your interpretation of it). That's your job, not theirs.

More constructively, however, I'm about a 1/3rd of the way through the work. Honestly, it's rather pseudo-scholarly. For instance, the author makes mention of Obama's DNC speech and the anchor phrases of the speech. Particularly, things like "the time is now" and "I stand before you tonight". The problem is there's nothing there to explain how we get from point "A" to point "B". How is this any different from McCain repeatedly saying "My Friends" and "Who Is Barack Obama"? How is this any different from the way anyone trying to be compelling and convincing is to a degree manipulating the critical analysis of the listener? How it any sneakier? Have you ever listened to a Martin Luther King, Jr. speech? He employed many of the same techniques. He was a brilliant orator. I think it's a stretch to say it's sinister instead of effective. These people are trying to convince you of something, after all.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by redhatty

 

I was not the one supporting the assertion of this thread. It is not my burden of proof.

(edited to fix one-liner)

Ahh! Jinx! Seriously, though: exactly. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks these stuffy old principles are important.


[edit on 19-10-2008 by JohnnyElohim]

reply to post by JohnnyElohim


I noticed that I suck at the jinx game

Thank you for being one of the ATS members who understands the 'burden of proof'

reply to post by redhatty


I am not from the USA I have not been brainwashed or swayed in anyway by your media. I watched every debate though and heard what each man had to say.

Instead of telling your fellow countrymen why they should not vote for Obama, why dont you tell them WHY they should vote for Mcain. What are his qualities?, what has he done to inspire such confidence? why is he the man for the presidency of the United States?

All I see is negetivity from you against Obama, your actually playing the same game as Mcain. As in dont vote for Obama because of such and such.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Horus12]

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by redhatty

 

I really hope you don't think you can ignore and sidestep everything I posted to you and then you can pose questions for me and expect answers

I was not the one supporting the assertion of this thread. It is not my burden of proof.

If you don't understand what the above sentence entails, then I will try another approach:

I asked you first

You have posted little more than attacking the messenger. The ONE question you asked me directly I answered.

The Proof IS the article. There is no burden. All the "evidence" is in the article. If you disagree with conclusions of the article, then present what you disagree with. The author of the article has taken extensive time to footnote and document each and every assertion, including the video evidence to review.

So far your biggest complaint is the wording of the thread title - that is a distraction. Also your attack on my sig line, another distraction.

If you don't think the author of the article was using factual evidence or logical conclusions, then point it out. The OP is not responsible for the content of the article, the author of the article is.

If you are going to attack the messenger instead of the message, you are nothing more than a distraction.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by SkipShipman

 

It's fine that you think that.

I for one believe he is just expressing effective public speaking skills.

You thread title is still an absolute statement. Why does anyone need to read the PDF (which I finished) if it's already absolutely true? You worded that thread title for shock and awe. You were trying to illicit negative emotions against Obama. It's obvious. One could even say you are trying to hypnotize us!!!!

OP also means 'Original Post' by the way. I know you are the original posterI know the PDF is from an external source, as I said I was reading it. Clearly.

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

Thanks for humbling my efforts, which is what I intended for Obama, but I take it with a grain of salt. Yes and I agree the post is sensational, yet I think the portion of the post with my comments is reasonable. I do not however know any better title than the one given, to describe the pdf. It has given this thread great traffic. If it looks like an "absolute statement," then I think big boys and girls can sort it all out.

I cannot control anyone else for their emotions, and if people feel bad about it, it is better to confront the truth of the matter and that sometimes hurts. On the other hand if the information does not align with the facts at least a great percentage of the time, as any literary endeavor may contain errors, then I will stand corrected.

This is not an easy business, I am from Hawaii, I want to like Obama. I have liked Obama for a long time. Just as when you are hiring someone, you might wish to do your own background investigation. If something is not right, if something does not appear ethical, you have to at least reconsider, align everything with the facts, and make your decision. Before reading this article, it seemed to me something was not quite right, but I could not put my finger on it. I looked around the web and found Webster Tarpley's books, and that identified the devotion factor, the swooning crowds, and dangerous historical lessons of fascism.

Let me tell you this hurt my feelings, but I looked deeper into his sponsors and for other aims underscoring his candidacy. Why the lack of resistance to a Senator with about 100 days of experience? Then I remembered these books and realized Obama has been groomed for years. Is history repeating itself? Can Obama overcome his own oratory that has characteristics of other historical figures that destroyed other nations over the last century? Will he act with conscience? Were Hitler and Mussolini exercising effective public speaking skills? Some people say yes they did, however what were the consequences? If this is a well planned hypnotic set of speeches, and that it really does appear under the characteristics of such speeches, then we might be in trouble. On the other hand if Obama is an exception to the rules of history so far, then maybe we have nothing to fear. The search for truth is never easy, and it sometimes hurts. I would want to pray every day that Obama is not going to fall into those historical traps.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by Horus12
reply to post by redhatty

 

I am not from the USA I have not been brainwashed or swayed in anyway by your media. I watched every debate though and heard what each man had to say.

Instead of telling your fellow countrymen why they should not vote for Obama, why dont you tell them WHY they should vote for Mcain. What are his qualities?, what has he done to inspire such confidence? why is he the man for the presidency of the United States?

All I see is negetivity from you against Obama, your actually playing the same game as Mcain. As in dont vote for Obama because of such and such.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Horus12]

Horus,

I have repeatedly stated in this and many other threads that I do not support either Obama or McCain. I think they are both tools, and we as a country as scroomed either way. Believe me, my negativity to the candidates is quite equal.

These anti-Obama threads are getting tiresome.
Every politician uses body language and key words to get their message across.
The same applies to McCain, what about his 'my friends' mantra?

uk.youtube.com...

Originally posted by redhatty
The ONE question you asked me directly I answered.

I didn't ask 'one'.

The Proof IS the article. There is no burden. All the "evidence" is in the article.

You made your assertion in this thread, you didn't make it in the PDF. The burden is to show ATS within this thread how Obama is using hypnosis techniques, that are exclusively used for the medical profession, to persuade voters.

Surely you can take the best parts that represent your assertion from the PDF and show us...

1. The techniques in question
2. How these techniques are not for public speaking
3. Specific examples of Obama using these techniques

That's the burden. That's your 'one' question.

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

reply to post by SkipShipman

Yes and I agree the post is sensational, by I think the portion of the post with my comments is reasonable. I do not however know any better title than the one given, to describe the pdf.

"Is Obama using Clinical Hypnosis on you?" and without the 'snap out of it' part.

It has given this thread great traffic.

Congratz on the stars and traffic. If that was your main objective. I thought denying ingorance was supposed to be though.

If it looks like an "absolute statement," then I think big boys and girls can sort it all out.

It is an absolute statement. You know that.

Obama is using Clinical Hypnosis on You!

I believe you already know how this is an absolute statement, but if you want me to grab a few definitions for comparison I will.

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

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. I dont actually vote myself, never have, because of along the lines same reason you claim, different parties same politics.

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.



[edit on 19-10-2008 by Horus12]

okay...

Ericksonian Hypnosis

The kind of hypnotherapy most frequently practiced in psychotherapy today is "Ericksonian Hypnosis," named after the late Milton H. Erickson, M.D. From the 1930's to the 1980's Dr. Erickson was very influential in bringing the use of clinical hypnosis into the fields of medicine and psychotherapy. He taught and practiced a kind of hypnosis that was gentle, permissive, and respectful of the client. He established the National Association for Clinical Hypnosis and published the first professional journals and monographs on the therapeutic uses of hypnosis. The Ericksonian Foundation continues his work. Hundreds of books and articles have been written about Dr. Erickson and his methods. Dr. Erickson has been regarded as the leading hypnotherapist in the world.

www.athealth.com...

More on Erickson and his techniques

en.wikipedia.org...

From the article:

This document contains over a hundred examples of Obama’s specific language patterns and hypnosis techniques that follow textbook Ericksonian principles and characteristics too much to be coincidence.

The techniques used by Obama are the most deceptive forms of communication known to man. They sideline rational judgment and implant subconscious commands that change how people feel and behave without any awareness of the manipulation. Obama’s techniques overcome the will without convincing the judgment through trickery.

Obama is using textbook, clinical trance inductions in his speeches. Obama’s hypnotic techniques work on a subconscious level, and are designed so that people watching him in an audience or on TV are completely unaware of his techniques and their effects. Obama is using clear hypnotic anchoring, pacing and leading,
and numerous other hypnosis techniques designed to take away our rational judgment in deciding for whom to vote in November.

Ericksonian trance induction has three dimensions which we will return to often and compare to Obama’s
language patterns. They are:9

1. Pacing and distraction of the dominant (language) hemisphere;

2. Utilization of the dominant hemisphere, language processing which occurs below the level of
awareness;

3. Accessing of the non-dominant hemisphere;

The entire field of “covert hypnosis”, or “conversational hypnosis” is based on Dr. Erickson’s techniques, and is now primarily used by hypnotists and psychiatrists.19 Conversational hypnosis is often referred to as Ericksonian hypnosis.

covert hypnosis is designed to sideline rational judgment.

Illegality of Obama’s use of hypnosis
Hypnosis-type mental pressure has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be so unduly influential as to deprive someone of their fundamental rights. The US Supreme court case was Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556 (1954), Leyra v. Denno, No. 635, Argued April 28, 1954, Decided June 1, 1954, 347 U.S. 556. After police questioned a suspect day and night unable to obtain a confession, a hypnotist tried,
and did successfully get the suspect to confess. The legal battles over whether the confession was voluntary or not, undue influence or not, went all the way to the Supreme court of the United States, which decided that his confession could not be used as evidence against him in court. In discussing what the New York Court of Appeals held, that “were so clearly the product of ‘mental coercion’ that their use as evidence was inconsistent with due process of law”, the United States Supreme Court said “exhausted suspect's ability to
resist interrogation was broken to almost trance-like submission by use of the arts of a highly skilled psychiatrist.” It violated the most fundamental rights of the suspect to have this confession used, because it was not of his own free will.

The Executive Committee of the American Psychological Association Division of Psychological Hypnosis has said, “clinical hypnosis should be used only by properly trained and credentialed health care
professionals (e.g. licensed clinical psychologists), who have also been trained in the clinical use of hypnosis and are working within the areas of their professional expertise.” The Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court has held that practice of hypnotism as curative measure or mode of procedure by one not licensed to practice medicine amounts to unlawful practice of medicine.41

Next post will deal with Pacing and Leading

reply to post by Horus12


Indeed.

In addition to that I would love to see Redhat and Ship explain how McCain is not using these medical hypnosis techniques but Obama is.

That is just along the same lines as NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programing) which I have heard your media uses and a lot of social speakers do as well.
Theres plenty of threads about it on this site.


Still doesnt answer my question though, as why does it ultimately matter to you which "tool" gets elected, If you hold the same bias for both?

It begs the obvious question, is it because one is black?

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Horus12]

reply to post by redhatty


Redhat.

Thank you for posting information. All I am seeing though is...

1. What Ericksonian Hypnosis is.
2. The PDF author 'believes' Obama is guilty of using them maliciously

You have not shown

1. How these are not public speaking techniques (exclusive to medical profession)
2. Specific examples of Obama using them.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Horus12

 

Indeed.

In addition to that I would love to see Redhat and Ship explain how McCain is not using these medical hypnosis techniques but Obama is.

You ought to know that you can never prove a negative. Flying Saucers do not exist. Now prove it will you!

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

Let's, everyone, take a deep breath and put our thinking caps on...

I took ANOTHER look at the title of this thread....the term used is 'clinical'...that implies a controlled environment, not some amateurish ability to 'control' you through the TV screen!!!

Besides....and I can't believe this nonsense has gotten to nine pages!!!...a person can only be 'hypnotized' if he/she is willing.

To imply that a Political Candidate could 'hypnotize' people who watch him/her is patently ludicrous.

If anyone can believe this baloney, it speaks to HIS/HER capacity for critical thinking, not to the Electorate!

Also

Obama is using textbook, clinical trance inductions in his speeches. Obama’s hypnotic techniques work on a subconscious level, and are designed so that people watching him in an audience or on TV are completely unaware of his techniques and their effects. Obama is using clear hypnotic anchoring, pacing and leading,
and numerous other hypnosis techniques designed to take away our rational judgment in deciding for whom to vote in November.

So Redhat why are you not affected?

Ship?

Everyone else?

It seems like everyone in this thread that does support the notion Obama is using powerful hypnosis on the audience to persuade them, ARE NOT PERSUADED AT ALL

How do you explain that?

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?"