US Government Social Engineering Exposed: OSD Human Social Behavior Modeling Program

speaking of school. back in grade school they tested students for photographic memory by placing objects up front and then you would have to draw them. was that type of testing commonplace ? and if so is it still going on?

reply to post by Hefficide


They might be able to predict the outcomes, but never can they manipulate the individual variables. What they have learned to do is control the masses, but people, like Einstein, have the potential to have extra folding in their brains, and/or could be more a left/right brain thinker they have no way in controlling. They are counting on a certain amount of persons to have a set mind-frame that, of course, has already been manipulated by fluoride, aspartame, pesticides, GMO, and sugar/HFCS.

reply to post by WhatThallShallWilt


I addressed this in another thread, but in short you don't need to predict individual behavior. You will go crazy trying to do it. If you want to control individual behavior, it takes individual attention that is kind of in a vacuum from the desire to control another person. To control an individual you have to leverage things that will decrease your control in another person.

But to predict mass movements? That is easy. I have done it in a call center. When I tried to predict individual agent absenteeism I wasn't even close. But if i applied the same model to a grouping of around 100 agents, I could predict macro level movements, however, to a high level of accuracy. With 90% to 95% certainty I could predict how many agents would be absent from their desk (absent from work, or just unscheduled break) during any minute of the day.

The input was a dataset of the agent behaviors of absenteeism on individual levels. And while those behaviors don't wash out on individuals, when viewed from 30,000 feet the patterns will hold true. If one isn't absent, another will be (and so on).

Forecasting is not hard. Not at all.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


You ever read the Foundation series by Issac Asimov?

The premise is that there is a galactic civilization and a brilliant scientist who is able to predict political/sociological events using mathematics...one of the prevalent themes is the ability to predict outcomes involving large numbers of people, but it is impossible to predict individuals.

Maybe we can view this maxim as opportunity? Or at the least hope...

Because as much as society's movers want to control everything, their weakness is probably when a leader pops up somewhere that they didn't see coming, and starts a movement to restore power back to individuals.

It's one of the more consistent ideas in the world's mythologies..a "chosen one," "savior," or "messiah."

Then again, this type of thinking could easily be a detriment to most individuals as they wait for a savior instead of saving themselves.

Good job world, you got me confused

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by WhatThallShallWilt

 

I addressed this in another thread, but in short you don't need to predict individual behavior. You will go crazy trying to do it. If you want to control individual behavior, it takes individual attention that is kind of in a vacuum from the desire to control another person. To control an individual you have to leverage things that will decrease your control in another person.

But to predict mass movements? That is easy. I have done it in a call center. When I tried to predict individual agent absenteeism I wasn't even close. But if i applied the same model to a grouping of around 100 agents, I could predict macro level movements, however, to a high level of accuracy. With 90% to 95% certainty I could predict how many agents would be absent from their desk (absent from work, or just unscheduled break) during any minute of the day.

The input was a dataset of the agent behaviors of absenteeism on individual levels. And while those behaviors don't wash out on individuals, when viewed from 30,000 feet the patterns will hold true. If one isn't absent, another will be (and so on).

Forecasting is not hard. Not at all.

You hit the facade in the context I was writing in, however, there are people who cannot be manipulated and will not be controlled, and the movements started by that person could be at a great cost to the game. Even stupid can have it’s own set of smarts.
Further, Im not saying that one cannot create the end game scenario, but they will have a heck of a time trying to control the masses when the one person that stands up and refuses to hear “no”. Sure you can kill that person, but the ripple effect alone will change the game entirely.

reply to post by Hefficide


Calibrating a human is a bigger job than calibrating a digital camera or a touch screen. The amount of resources shown here should not be a surprise. In fact, considering how much bluster is probably in those documents, they probably aren't doing enough.

This is the kind of thread I originally came to ATS to find. But the site has devolved in recent years. My continued trolling has been rewarded. Great post, keep the info coming. This is truly scary stuff the question is when will the early adopters have had enough and act. Or, the op could be a dis-info agent testing the waters to see what reactions accrue, we are after all the lab rats in these experiments. Pass the cheese please

reply to post by WhatThallShallWilt



There will be no ripple affect. Not without society already being under severe stress.

One person, or a hundred individuals, they can stand up and say "No". They will simply be shouted down, then shuffled off. Before long, no one even remembers they were there.

History is full of people who stood up and said "no". But history books have nothing to say about them. What you describe is what we would hope for humanity. But tens of thousands of years have shown that it just won't happen. And if Spartacus stands to announce his name, be sure that he will stand alone.

We can't even count on our fellow humans to stop rapes that are happening on a consistent basis. How many cases are there on the books where witnesses did nothing to stop an attack?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I've been waiting to add this thought to the conversation. Once you have removed moral ethics from a population and replaced it with moral relativism, politically correct dogma, and cheap, easy entertainment with XXX sex and violence - people won't stand for anything, and are easily controlled and lazy.

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I've been waiting to add this thought to the conversation. Once you have removed moral ethics from a population and replaced it with moral relativism, politically correct dogma, and cheap, easy entertainment with XXX sex and violence - people won't stand for anything, and are easily controlled and lazy.

Happy, I agree with you. Modern societies leaders lack morality. Denmark is rotten to the core. The system that has been in place for over two thousand years is based on a lack of morality. It is very difficult to succeed within the system if you have morals.

Krishnamurti said something to the effect that, it is not a sign of wellness to be well adjusted to a sick society.

I agree however, on the other hand we live in amazing times. Never have so many people had the opportunities to improve their lives. Many people live much more comfortable lives than in the past.

The ability to make change is Darwinism. We must adapt, or perish. Take it as a challenge.

reply to post by Happy1


The idea of moral relativism is along the right track - but one has to understand that "morals" are really just a term for "socially mandated, desirable, and promoted behaviors". Because these "morals" usually include prohibitions against the things that we tend to have a natural revulsion to - they are accepted by society as right and proper.

This is one of the core concepts in social engineering - piggybacking your own agendas onto those that a given culture already had in place. Subversion, alteration, or progression of those taboos might suite ones agenda, or it might not. But the point is to use those already existing, "hardwired" predispositions to ones favor in the act of constructing new paradigms.

This can be very tricky when dealing with more than one culture. In the west, for example, we have a set of taboos that we all tend to find universally revolting.... murder, rape, exploitation of innocents ( children and the elderly ), gross and vulgar displays of power ( bullying ), etc. It is natural for us to feel that we can refer to these as universal evils. But the truth of the matter is that they are not. Heck, our modern world is built upon the model of Rome - and in Rome murder and vulgar displays of power were not just acceptable - they were the primary form of entertainment.

Add to this the very real sociological reality that generations tend to rebel against the values and aesthetics of the previous generation - and one gets a better handle on the painful and difficult truth.... The things we define as moral are actually a fluid and evolving set of principles that can organically change, or be deliberately altered over time.

Having said that...

Behavioral modeling is not solely focused upon creating our reality or dictating our taboos. It's also very much about learning to predict our cultural reactions to certain events - and then to use those models to create "action plans" with which to mitigate those group reactions in the case of an external event.

Ever wonder why our society has the most violent media in the world? That's an issue that most Americans don't readily discuss our realize. But even some of our TV shows would merit the equivalent of a XXX rating in other nations based upon their violent content. Even our closest cousins, culturally, the British understand this. Their TV shows are taboo here because they can contain brief nudity, sexual situations, and profanity - but very little violence. We have an opposite approach. You can see people get shot in the face on our shows, but you will never hear a truly bad word nor see an exposed breast.

The reasons for this, to me, are obvious. Our Government wishes for us to be much more desensitized to violence as we are a much more warlike and crime ridden society than the Brits are currently. Therefore it is in the best interest of our Government that we don't react to violent crimes and war with revulsion. This keeps us in check and is very much part of the social engineering game.

I'll add my standard disclaimer now... This is only a single aspect of a highly complex and involved strategy - it is by no means the only chess piece on the board. It's just one tentacle of a much, much larger beast.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


I love that word - desensitized.

What is our gov't desensitizing the US population to presently? Besides promiscuous sex and violence.

Police state searches - for our own good.

And, I believe a big one, ET, intelligent life in space and possible invasion.

Not global warming per se, but huge catastrophic natural disasters (man-made?)

reply to post by Happy1



I would suspect that most moves made are made with multiple objectives in mind. Each move is meant to enact multiple actions, in other words.

Thus, it would surprise me if the global warming scam was only the control lever and cash grab. You may be right that it is desensitization to the fact that we are pooping in our community well, to employ ridiculous metaphor. With ever increasing needs to not only fuel global energy demand, but also to insert more value into the global economy by using the global reserve currency: petrodollars.

That is how it works: they created the economy as a system by which we were incented to produce for nothing (which can be traded for something, because the whole world is in on the game). The system is then designed to push the fruits of that production up the ladder.

There really is a King of Earth. He isn't really called that, but what else do you call a person (or, actually a small group of persons) that have enough wealth to equal the rest of the planet combined?

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by Hefficide

 

I love that word - desensitized.

What is our gov't desensitizing the US population to presently? Besides promiscuous sex and violence.

IMO one word - Empire. We are currently being transitioned from a first world nation ( historically but not currently ) into a second world state. The premise, I believe, is that the agenda is to change the world paradigm. Traditionally speaking ( recent history ) there were a few first world powers, a handful of second world states, and then a plethora of third world nations. I believe that the current agenda is to "level it all out" - creating an entire world where all nations are effectively second world states. Then, within those, especially in the west, Asia, parts of the middle east, and in Asia, there will be small pockets of highly first world communities.

Think Feudalism on a global scale - in an abstract and modern application.

In truth this type of social structure already exists to a great degree - at least among the wealthiest people. Their nationality is very much secondary to their wealth. In essence, even if we are at war with a nation - the rich are excluded from both battle and from the complications. They are above such things. No matter what the political conditions - the super wealthy from warring nations still end up hanging out with one another at the same resorts as they engage in enduring friendships.

Corporations, regardless of national location, routinely exchange CEO's and CFO's from the entire globe - regardless of politics or public opinions.

Some of the things that you discuss, such as pornography, IMO are merely distractions and are considered, by those in control, to be in the same category as soap operas, sports, and video games. Just things to keep the masses sated, focused, and preoccupied.

~Heff

We were warned. We were 'educated' with the works of 1984 and Brave new world. Those dystopian novels were part of behaviour modelling.

The problem is when people understand these novels and their programming, or meme, as binary oppositions, instead of more of a continuum.

We still have the choice with how we respond to this 'new world'. Americans may have the hardest time adapting to the changes that are taking place.

reply to post by Hefficide


I 100% agree with you. You should look into and do a thread on Agenda 21, it fits right in with this information.

reply to post by Happy1


I have touched on Agenda 21 in other threads as a reference. But others on ATS have already done stellar threads upon the subject to which I currently have no new information to add.

Though I might do a thread on the rational role of the UN in society - as that is something I think is still open fodder for a thread. The idea of it basically being nothing more than a facade, testing ground, and justification machine for the members of the UN Security Council to do what they wish, when they wish. Logical fallacy in action - an appeal to authority utilizing a self-created authority!

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide

Some of the things that you discuss, such as pornography, IMO are merely distractions and are considered, by those in control, to be in the same category as soap operas, sports, and video games. Just things to keep the masses sated, focused, and preoccupied.

I have often wondered about how would it be to be one of those "at the top". How much responsibility it entails, and how would a select few keep everyone else in check? How would they maintain order and make sure everyone else's needs were met, so the status quo could continue.

The right way IMO would be to provide opportunity for people to better themselves, achieve their dreams, and create and flourish in a healthy environment.

The easy way would be to do as heff said "keep the masses sated, focused, and preoccupied".

I often think the people holding the reigns took the easy way. But sometimes I wonder if it was us that took the easy way and our leaders are just a reflection of us as a society....chicken and egg thing again...I can't wrap my head around which one came first.....

In the end it doesn't really matter....someone has got to break the cycle, and those at top hold the power to break it, but instead, they give into it. After all, it doesn't really affect them when they can sit in their ivory towers, right?

Maybe it is up to us to break down this mess that has been created, but in order for us to do it and be successful, we first got to have enough people that admit there is a problem and as long as we have a good chunk of people who are "sated, focused, and preoccupied" on petty crap I don't see us breaking the cycle either. And it seems those at the top are just fine with that...and that is the saddest part of it all.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by WhatThallShallWilt

 

There will be no ripple affect. Not without society already being under severe stress.

One person, or a hundred individuals, they can stand up and say "No". They will simply be shouted down, then shuffled off. Before long, no one even remembers they were there.

History is full of people who stood up and said "no". But history books have nothing to say about them. What you describe is what we would hope for humanity. But tens of thousands of years have shown that it just won't happen. And if Spartacus stands to announce his name, be sure that he will stand alone.

We can't even count on our fellow humans to stop rapes that are happening on a consistent basis. How many cases are there on the books where witnesses did nothing to stop an attack?

My faith in the human race has deminished, but not to the extent yours has. I still have some faith that there will be a wake-up of the masses. Further, you are noting history books made by the "evil-in-charge", like you would really get truth from books that are spoon-feed to you? HA! I rather educate and be educated by my own accord and not the socialism that has come into the US from the hippies and their children that are lach-key and stupid. Yah, Im pissed.

Why act like you can do nothing? Sure, there are stupid people out there; when you try to educate them they shut down--move on to the next person. Why are we just going to quit?