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.


Understanding socially indoctrinated beliefs on non mainstream issues (UFOS ex)

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 10:24 AM

Originally posted by silver6ix
Critical theory is an exceptionally complex subject with very long theoretical positions and counters and if you image for a second ill answer every stupid question you make with a forty page essay, I think you believe in free tuition a little too much.

And now you add the straw man to your arsenal. I don't want a forty page essay; I simply want a brief answer. You were happy to pontificate at length at first, in a thread you started. I mean, why did you start this thread? Just to show off that you can quote a few academics? It seems that way, because you seem curiously unwilling to discuss their views.

Originally posted by silver6ix
This isnt you presenting a critical postion, you HAVE no critical position, all of the questions you ask have been dealt with long ago by theorists who understand the subject, so why should anyone take your point of "I dont know so it doesnt exists" seriously?

All my questions have been dealt with long ago? Are you trolling? I've repeated a single question since you, yourself - that's you - raised the example of ID cards as effective social indoctrination via the media. I simply want to know how the extensive and negative press coverage of data loss this year fits into that grand scheme.

Give me your opinion, Silver. That's all. A paragraph will do. If there is a library of references that will answer my question, point me to one of them. I'll even let you have a duff one that nobody respects. I dare you. I double dare you.

Oh - and I never said "I don't know so it doesnt exists" (sic), so that's another straw man. Go you. My point, backed by increasingly overwhelming evidence, has become more like "you don't seem to know". Fortunately, you can easily refute it, can't you?

Originally posted by silver6ix
Maybe someday you will take that wooly jumper off...

An Ad Hominem too! I am beaming with delight. With all these logical fallacies, you are really spoiling us...

[edit on 3-11-2008 by damagedoor]

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 10:47 AM
reply to post by damagedoor

You have your answer. If you are incapable of understanding it, thats something you need to work on.

Heres the best solution:

Again, if you want the answers, read them for yourself.

Culture of Fear: Risk taking and the morality of low expectation, Frank Furedi,

Manufacturing Consent: The political economy of the mass media, Edward S. Herman & Noam Chomsky

Urban Nightmares: The Media, the Right and the Moral Panic over the City, Steve Macek

You Have the Power: Choosing Courage in a Culture of Fear Frances Moore Lappe and Jeffrey Perkins,

Electronic Media, Identity Politics, and the Rhetoric of Obsolescence
Monkkonen, Homicide: Explaining America's Exceptionalism, 2006

What I wont be doing is trying to explain rocket science to someone who hasnt even studied physics 101.

Since you dont understand ANY of the theory, any of the devices, tools, operating parameters or the years and years of theory upon which modern theory has been based upon theres very little point tring to explain to you anything at this level.

To be quite honest, you currently lack the ability to even begin to understand and if you take the time to consider the issue and read you will realise why that is.

The fact is I already GAVE you in this thread the answer, you simply do not have the relevant background knowledge to translate it. The answer was given and anyone who knew theory would already know the issues and what its based on, im afraid I wont be relating years and years of theory to you to help you understand.

Read or dont, but please stop playing "wise owl" here because your current position in the subject is ZERO knowledge.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:44 PM
reply to post by silver6ix

This is just absurd. Seriously - are you not embarrassed? I'm embarrassed for you. None of those sources answer my question, as I'm sure you're aware - once again, you're just flinging out names in the hope of convincing people.

Here is what you said:

Originally posted by silver6ix
Uk Id cards, never going to happen, people dont want them, cant do it. That was the position 15 years ago.

Now what? 15 years of media saturation on "illegal immigrants" and social fears regarding immigrancy and illegal aliens. Whats come in now?

Thats right, national ID cards biometric IDs for immigrants. Next step? Positive publicity, saturation of the success, ohh look ID cards work and in 5-10 years everyone carries biometric ids.

You imply that media manipulation has enabled this to come about, as though there's been an orchestrated campaign via the media to lull the public into accepting them. And you're completely incapable of answering why, if that was the case, the media collectively slammed the idea after seizing on the recent data losses.

Your eventual response is to quote various references, none of which address my question. None of them are overly objectionable in themselves. As I've said, I largely agree with Chomsky's filters (I just don't think they're powerful enough for your needs) and Furedi's culture of fear, which most of your links, albeit almost randomly, pertain to (I think it's mostly based on what sells, with a political slant, then seized on opportunistically by particular parties).

Do you have anything that addresses my actual question? Even just from your own head?

I suspect your answer will be "I'm giving you the pieces, you need to put them together yourself", but I'm sorry: that's rubbish. It's a blatant attempt to obscure and stall. If you had an answer, you would give one.

I'll leave you with an actual quote from Frank Furedi:

The conspiratorial imagination views people, not as the authors of their destinies, but as objects of manipulative, secretive forces. Life is interpreted through the prism of a Hollywood blockbuster, where powerful evil figures pull all the strings. The flourishing of this imagination in recent years has been driven by society’s own difficulty in putting forward an authoritative account of events.

These days, virtually every aspect of public life is contested, challenged, doubted: there is little agreement on what are the causes of our current predicament. We might refer to this as a ‘crisis of causality’, and it is a crisis which continually calls into question any official version of events. Of course, officialdom’s account of event often needs to be questioned, but not by putting forward a simplistic, conspiratorial worldview that blames small cliques of evil people for everything that goes wrong in the world.

Read more here

That's you, isn't it?

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:52 PM
reply to post by silver6ix

Silversix~lovely post!

Terry hansen has done a good job of investigating corporate media manipulation,indoctrination and precision propaganda techniques with regard to the UFO/OVNI subject.
Heres he is discussing it:
Also the excellent documentary ´Orwell rolls in his grave´ is linked on the page and deals with the corporate media cartels attempting to control the masses through various techniques such as editorial censorship and groupthink conditioning.
Also this film called ´Spin´ (or also known as ´Footage you were never meant to see´) is very revealing:
Cheers Karl

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by damagedoor

Actually its not what I implied at all and it certainly isnt what theory discusses. Active manipulation and consequence of environmental stimuli are two entirely different thing, the former you invented to present a duplicitious case, the latter is the reality which I presented.

Please, your attempts to manipulate concepts are genuinely fragile and without chance of success.

Theory does not dictate illuminati, it only highlights and studies the construction of reality in the ages on man, and the tools and devices in use and how these impact the social pyschology and behavior patterns.

If you wish to go down the illuminati route (interesting that you attempt to tie the semantics of agenda to the validity of free concepts here), then you would proceed down the route of power and corruption, the essence of need and the evolution of greed in the human mind. Power corrupts and greed is an addiction.

Therefore in a world where the reality of formed through readily controllable tools and devices and society is shaped in its conceptualising of reality by environmental stimuli, by cross refrencing the promulgation of propaganda, mass marketing and advertising we can clearly see the potential for controlling the masses via a non obtrusive methodology which becomes almost invisble to the consumers themsleves.

However, that wasnt the point at all, the point was an awareness of device and tool and how the enivronment impacts the mind, the concepts ofreality and the very constructs of truth and fantasy.

Now while you might wish, for whatever reason, to attach the semantics of conspiracy to the issue, I will not be playing the game. There are no conspiracies in this subject, only the subject itself and the objective of self awareness of the world around you.

Im sure you will yet again attempt to push your agenda, but really, its not going anywhere.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 01:35 PM

Originally posted by silver6ix
Actually its not what I implied at all and it certainly isnt what theory discusses.

It certainly isn't what the theory discusses, which has been my whole point all along. If you weren't implying that, then I suggest you avoid the words "social indoctrination" in future thread titles, along with comments like this:

Originally posted by silver6ix
I could list an endless list of these events which have been going on for years and are going on right as we speak and in most cases I could point back 30 years to a consipiracy theory which predicted these things and which was tagged "fiction, fantasy, never going to happen".

Immediately before that, incidentally, you listed government ownership of the banks. I'm curious how you think that's relevant under your revised view. Never mind ID cards. Or the Iraq War.

Seriously - is that all you've been arguing? That the media uses semantics - "terrorists" versus "freedom fighters" - and its own political standpoint to very marginally distort public opinion?

That's fine as it goes, but - as I have said - people seek out the media that agrees with their pre-existing beliefs. And the modern media can't hide anything, even the things that, if they had the power, they would suppress. You only need to look at the issue of ID cards and the Iraq War to see how major issues inevitably make it into the news, despite the best interests of those in charge, and how Chomsky's filters are becoming increasingly thin.

However something is spun, another media picks up the spin and reports on it.

To be honest, I feel you're backtracking, but I'll let that go. How do you see aliens and UFOs fitting into this?

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 01:40 PM
reply to post by damagedoor

I did not state purpose or objective. I simply implied a means to an end.

You chose to interpret agenda and consiracy into the statements. That does not mean that agenda doesnt exist, the only matter of importance remains the possibility for control.

Remove the possibility of control and the aspect of control becomes a moot point.

Aliens, UFOs and any other aspect of fiction or reality is directly related to this because this is related to the formation of reality and the presentation of fiction. If you do not know what reality is, you cannot possibly know what fiction is. If reality is fiction then fiction by implication may well be reality.

Thus the defence that "fiction" requires evidence from within the counterpoint of constucted reality becomes little more than a paper defence.

The path to determining what is real and what is fiction is an active process of open consideration not bound by document, credibility or any other contruct from with the construct of what you determine real.

No "reality" based confirmation can confirm or deny fiction because reality by its very nature is suspect and constructed so without a true position the determination of real is a process of the self, of the individual mind and its ability to freely consider both unreal and real concepts and evaluate positions of understanding from all sides of the spectrum of "reality" itself.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by silver6ix]

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:23 PM
Oh God, that's terrible - I think I understand now. You're a postmodernist. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for you, but I feel I must bow out.

This isn't an appeal to authority, but an explanation. I did a degree in Philosophy, then spent ten years working in a Feminist Theory department, and I'm afraid I simply won't be able to bear it. I've seen people physically fawning over Luce Irigiray. If I hear somebody mention Foucault, I don't know whether to laugh or vomit. I want to scream "Alan Sokal!" at everyone I see.

So that's very probably me. I'd encourage anyone convinced by Silver to read the following:

Originally posted by silver6ix
The path to determining what is real and what is fiction is an active process of open consideration not bound by document, credibility or any other contruct from with the construct of what you determine real.

No "reality" based confirmation can confirm or deny fiction because reality by its very nature is suspect and constructed so without a true position the determination of real is a process of the self, of the individual mind and its ability to freely consider both unreal and real concepts and evaluate positions of understanding from all sides of the spectrum of "reality" itself.

and not bear it in mind when they're deciding whether to take their sick child to a doctor or a witch-doctor, or facing a tenth-storey window and wondering if they can fly.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:38 PM
Great thread silver6ix

The words you keep showing me lots of things but no evidence,I feel is a of a mind that isnt open to any evidence.
The fact that there are plenty of things to point out in the first place shows that there is something.
We have all Im sure at one time looked for something and not found it by looking to hard.Then to have gone and looked again with a different frame of mind and found it at the first place we originally looked.
Keys are my nemesis with this.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by gallifreyan medic

Disgard the concept of evidence all together. Evidence is a modern concept defined in terms that may or may not be real, it has no value in the pursuit of truth.

If reality is a construct then evidence is a sub construct which reinforces it, seeking to rationalise everything to what you see every day is a trap of the mind. If reality is false, and you search for truth, by forcing yourself to equate understanding on the premise of evidence, you will never be able to think outside of "reality". In that sense, if "reality" is alie, they by relying upon its approval for everything, you will only ever wind up with another lie.

There is no need to submit your mind to "evidence" and "proof". throw both concepts away and explore on possibility alone, look for patterns, coinsider incidences, run through the possible equations of what might be and forget all about what is, because the idea issimply to redefine the scope of your minds ability to reason beyond constraints.

You can accept on one hand that you live within the construct of "reality" know how to function withing it and live within the modern world, but you mind is yours and yours alone and it is free to explore and wander through all possible truths and paths seeking its own understanding of what reality is.

new topics

<< 1   >>

log in