Roseanne Barr: “MK ULTRA Mind Control Rules in Hollywood”

Originally posted by WhiteAlice

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

I would suspect that Mind Control in Hollywood is just the tip of the iceberg; Think gaming, TV, Recording industry, and everything else where people are exposed to images and sound.

Subliminal suggestion is a fact. It works!!!

en.wikipedia.org...

It would be extremely naive to think that governments wouldn't use this technology.

For what purpose would they be using this technology exactly?

Can't wait to hear this one.

Very simple--social control. For the record, I'm not a fan of finding hidden occult messages in movies, tv shows, or commercials although I am keenly aware that ancient symbolism may sometimes provoke a response. That said, to me, it's patently clear that the social controls exist in the US. Some of them are self-perpetuating, as Roseanne states, and some of them are outright manipulations. One of the things that I do is listen and basically find patterns in thinking, especially those that can be directly sourced from media, itself. Kind of like "Get a job, you dirty hippy!". Where do you think that line originated? Fox.

The whole art of the orator probably consists in his giving listeners the illusion that the convictions and feelings he arouses within them have come not from him but from themselves, that he has only divined and lent his voice to what has been worked out in their innermost consciousness. Maurice Halbwachs, On Collective Memory

Very interesting book, btw. Social control or mind control isn't something that was just being researched by Nazis. IT was actually a subject of research that really gained momentum in the early to mid 1940's. You have the likes of Sigmund Freud, Maurice Halbwachs, Edward Bernays (politics and marketing), John B. Watson and his "Little Albert" experiment, Ivan Pavlov--all basically toying with ideas that were both novel at the time and opened the door for the idea that conditioning[/] could be a way to control an individual. They basically opened Pandora's Box. Social control and mind control are pretty much the same thing as both are deliberately using the human psyche to control order and attempt to provoke premeditated responses whether it's buying a particular brand of clothing or buying into a particular politician or political party. Or a war. The two biggest things that I see that I suspect as being indicators that social controls are being utilized on US citizen is "us v. them" mentalities, the sometimes rabid and irrational defense of things that should not be important to them (ie. saying you're going to vote independent or a third party, better yet--try telling people that you don't watch tv), controlled opposition, and then, there are those people who are saying the same damn things, often word for word, in a perverse Halbwachian echo.

Why? Because it keeps us busy. It keeps us buying things whether it be a product or an ideology. We are a democracy and that means that, whatever the public thinks is what is intended to become the law (with checks in place at the Executive and Judicial branches to assure constitutionality). Compartmentalizing us and setting up strict boundaries for behavior that become literally self-preserving and self-perpetuating in an effort to simply maintain the status quo. If you look at anything--anything at all--the larger and more complex something becomes, the more difficult it is to control. That should be a no brainer. It's precisely the same claim as why CEOs of mega corporations deserve such large paychecks (and stock options!). Same thing applies to nations and each has its own methodology for attempting to maintain it. Ours is just based on a whole lot of psychiatric research, philosophy, sociology, and educational theory.

Why do some seem to have been hit with more? Social position, perhaps? Potentiality of what they may become as they do look for future leadership capabilities in children, usually starting at the 3rd grade? One of the things that I find very interesting is that, usually when a large political movement erupts, there's always some great orator that naturally arises from it. Civil rights had MLK, Jr, Free Speech Movement had Mario Savio, Anti-war movement had J. Robert Oppenheimer. Although Occupy made claim that they were a "leaderless movement", they should've still had a great orator rise up. Didn't happen and I thought that was a little weird.