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.


Social Engineering, Amongst Other Things

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:51 PM
This started out as part of a book I've been intending to write and just thought I'd put some of it out there to get some feedback. Some of it is probably 101 type info to the regulars but you still might find it interesting. Thanks to anybody who takes the time to peruse it. _javascript:icon('

After seeing the deterioration of media coverage of major news stories over the last 10 years I’ve came to the conclusion that there truly is a hidden group of elite people joined together in their quest to dominate the rest of us by any means necessary. The problem is they have the financial and political resources needed to succeed and have been doing so with great detriment to the rest of the world.

The issue I kept running into in trying to write this is where to begin and how to express myself. My goal is to open some eyes to the hidden truths without sounding like a nut job but at the same time being true to what I believe and passing that on as clearly and concisely as possible. From time to time in relating this message I’m going to reference dictionary definitions that some readers are going to think are condescending and that isn’t my intention at all. The issue when trying to relate this kind of information is that we’ve been conditioned(manipulated) since birth to look with blind eyes at anything that challenges the status quo.

Sometimes the truth’s that are staring us right in the face are the hardest ones to accept, ask any spouse whose been cheated on or the parents of any drug addict.

Social Engineering is a very real field of study dedicated to changing society as a whole by planting thoughts and beliefs through entertainment, books, newspapers and media.

A past historical example is when the Soviet Union put their efforts into creating The New Soviet Man.

Individuals are capable of embarking on the process now in a way in which the dictators of old only dreamed about in their wildest totalitarian fantasies. The technology of today enables your personal likes and dislikes and pre-disposition’s to be charted and catered to in a way in which was never possible before the computer revolution. The speed and accuracy of this mental tinkering are amazing as is the ability to exert influence over a huge portion of the global population.

Think about this with me for a minute. 500 million people worldwide are members of a certain website that I don’t even have to name for you to know which I refer to. Your date of birth, current location, hometown, full name, political affiliations, favorite websites, family tree, friends, updated photo’s, schools attended, current workplace, former jobs, thoughts, hopes and dreams are all laid out for ANYONE to access.
The illusion that only people you “add as friend’s” can see your entire life is a complete falsity., are just two of the websites available to those who wish to “hack” into every aspect of your life.

Remember when you were supposed to worry about hackers??The irony of this is hacking ,as it was originally thought of, isn’t even needed to access this info. Remember when the norm was to protect your personal info because you didn’t want any weirdos or perverts getting ahold of it? Now take that one step further and think about what’s possible for someone with the full resources of a government agency or a private individual with billions of dollars behind them.

Here’s where red flags maybe popping into your head about what I’m saying, you might be thinking “ This guy is completely paranoid.” And I can accept that, only the completely insane are ever completely positive of their sanity.

I jest to try and lighten what I’m relating to you. I’m trying to encourage some debate not simply have you implicitly trust everything I say but at the same time I ask that you do not simply shut your mind off to the possibility by a kneejerk reaction, an it couldn’t happen here we’re too smart for that kind of reaction.

And yes, I know I’m the king of run-on sentences and my punctuation may be lacking in certain area’s but don’t use that as an excuse to negate the importance of what I’m trying to get across here. I digress.

The websites I mentioned allow users to search status updates and see your “ personal” thoughts. And I use the word personal very loosely. Are you really comfortable having all that information a few keystrokes away from anyone who wishes to know? Now think about the ability to extrapolate data from all your publicly available info and how that could possibly be detrimental to you personally let alone our society as a whole.

There is an entire multi-billion dollar industry built around the fact that if we show you an image of a certain person performing a certain action you will then have our desired reaction. Does advertising come to mind? Everyday we’re completely inundated by commercial propaganda encouraging us to buy everything from the mundane like Snuggies and 70’s Gold music compilations to the truly important like housing, food, security and health and most of us don’t even consciously notice.

On average American men spend around 2.7 hours a day watching television, women a little less at 2.4 hours and during those hours how many commercials do you think you see on average? By age 65 it’s estimated that we’ve seen in the neighborhood of 2 million 30 second commercials. Think of the influence that has on a human mind.

If we’re expected to believe that people who grow up around violence or drugs have much higher pre-disposition to engage in those activities doesn’t it also hold true that we’re more likely to engage in mindless consumption and continue the cycle we’re conditioned to follow if we‘re repeatedly bombarded with the same thing over and over?

Now if you ponder some of the messages we, and I mean society as a whole, are bombarded with while watching the actual program we turned on it’ll make your head spin.
Think of how many young adults are being influenced by garbage like Jersey Shore(which is just one example) where the worst parts of humanity are shown repeatedly. And add to that the fact that it’s not simply being shown to us, its celebrated as something to be strived for. C follows B follows A. Just like there’s positive reinforcement there is also negative reinforcement and you have to question who or what benefits from all this behavior modification. To what end are the susceptible being brainwashed? And trust me, we’re all susceptible to this.

Who is actually responsible for choosing what programming gets air time and what is relegated to oblivion? When you start researching the people behind the scenes that are in charge and what their political and social views are that’s when it gets truly scary. There’s not much difference in conspiracy to commit low level crimes versus conspiracy to enslave an entire populace, mainly the means and the motive. I’ll get back to some of these people pulling the strings later on.
Now I know I’ve been asking you to think outside the box and do quite a bit of soul searching about realms of possibility and such already but the fact is …………..I’m barely scratching the surface.

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:04 PM
I’m sitting here right now staring at the computer screen and the clock in the corner says its 3:33 AM and I’m feeling a little overwhelmed by what I’m trying achieve by writing all this out in what I hope is a somewhat coherent narrative on what I feel is slapping us all in the face with it’s blatancy. The obviousness of how perilous these times truly are is out there in the open for anyone to see who chooses to dig a little deeper. And as I look at the clock telling me it’s 3:33 AM I’m reassured for a few reasons, one being the fact that I’ve been a lifelong insomniac so it doesn’t matter how much late night time I invest into writing this, and two, 333 is a supposedly significant number and it gives me hope that I may be actually doing the right thing by trying to influence some hearts and minds.

Another run-on I know, please bear with my grammatical failings and understand the message even though the messenger may have not had the most exemplary grades in English. And to those who aren’t practicing Christians don’t worry I’m not going to go Biblical on you as I myself have lapsed in my faith somewhat so I won’t be jumping on the table to preach. Back to the story.

Currently when we turn on the television we’re rewarded with shallow people living completely intellectually shallow lives and being handsomely rewarded for doing so. This is designed to keep us distracted and chasing pipe dreams instead of doing some actual true, honest to goodness critical thinking. The fact that these so-called celebrities are able to keep themselves in designer clothes and disgustingly expensive jewelry by going to clubs and just getting drunk and spreading disease is troublesome.

I don’t know how much it costs to get into a bar in say Las Vegas where Paris Hilton will be for an hour or how much the owners of said club make because frankly I don’t care, but I imagine its rather costly compared to any other night. My point is we are helping these scumbags spread their morals and message which may or may not be non-existent and not only that we’re paying for them to do so.

Are we the enabler’s in this relationship or are they. Our society seems to be co-dependent in this marriage and there aren’t any easy answers when noone even asks the question of Why? Would you really be ok with your niece or sister or daughter spending time with someone like The Situation in person? How about your son or nephew or brother bringing home a Snookie?

“Bleaaaaagthph“ is what throwing up inside your mouth sounds like.

Time to move on, if I haven’t made a point yet in this area I’m probably not going to. There is a very real and organized movement to destroy the moral fabric of this country. And before you pigeonhole me in with The Moral Majority or some like-minded group realize that I have not led a sheltered life and I currently engage and have engaged in activities that said Moral Majority members would deem unappealing.

I’m not a Johnny Do-Good that casts judgement on everybody I meet because of a narrow minded view of the world, but we truly need to say enough is enough. The gay community screams about hypocrisy and discrimination whenever their lifestyle is critiqued, but who in their right mind thinks its acceptable to organize parades where people are going to be dressed up in bondage gear and assless chaps in public

I challenge any gay couple who has children to defend their kids seeing these types of displays. I don’t care if you come from a traditional judeo-christian background or not some things should not be tolerated.
I would never advocate public stoning’s and the like but political correctness has now gone so far beyond the scope of rationality that it’s sickening.

We’re all so afraid of being deemed a bigot or a racist that we have to stand silently by as these things are trumpeted across the land. Political correctness has reached the point now where traditional values are what’s being discriminated against, can I get a Hallelujah?

Why should we allow this to be the case? How do we take back some of the ground we lost? I believe it all starts with a little critical thinking and some accountability to our own conscience.
It all boils down to control. Government control, monetary control, population control, control over how much of your life will be spent doing mind numbing tasks in chase of a wage that doesn’t even really belong to you when you think about. Control over choices for whose elected to political office that really aren’t any different in the first place.

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:18 PM
I seen a report the other day that gave a breakdown of net worth of our elected members of congress and the senate and it sickened me. Self proclaimed Republicans let me ask you a question, do you truly believe that a person like John Boehner, net worth estimated between 2 and 5 million, has more to gain by protecting your interests or that of the rich? Democrats I ask the same of you in regards to say a John Kerry, with an estimated net worth of between 183 million and 295 million? Or do you think their personal interests have far more in common with each other then with your well being?

Has anybody ever read or even heard of a leaked document titled "The Plutonomy Symposium Rising Tides Lifting Yachts” by Citigroup’s chief global strategist Ajay Kapur? A little background on Citigroup so you can appreciate the probability of its accuracy.
Citigroup has over 200 million customer accounts and does business in over 140 countries around the world, its one of the very largest financial institutions so it stands to reason that their chief global strategist is one of the best informed, highest paid, smartest men on the

In this report, which was only sent to its very wealthiest clients, we’re given an insight into the true state of affairs in plain English of the United States and the world as a whole. The basic gist of this report is that the extremely wealthy will keep making obscene amounts of money off the blood and sweat of the other 99 % of us while we’re expected to collectively continue bleeding money and losing net wealth at a faster pace then ever seen before. In this memo he advises these uber-rich clients to shift their investments into area’s which cater to the ultra rich since there aren’t any foreseeable challenges to this status quo. One area of concern in this report is as follows, taken directly from that document :

RISKS -- WHAT COULD GO WRONG? Our whole plutonomy thesis is based on the idea that the rich will keep getting richer. This thesis is not without its risks. For example, a policy error leading to asset deflation, would likely damage plutonomy. Furthermore, the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash. Whilst the rich are getting a greater share of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was -- one person, one vote (in the plutonomies). At some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich. This could be felt through higher taxation on the rich (or indirectly though higher corporate taxes/regulation) or through trying to protect indigenous (home-grow)] laborers, in a push-back on globalization -- either anti-mmigration, or protectionism. We don’t see this happening yet, though there are signs of rising political tensions. However we are keeping a close eye on developments.

How do you feel after reading this? The fact that their primary obstacle to maintaining their rising wealth is political enfranchisement? The fact that the main principle that our nation was founded upon being one person, one vote is the greatest potential risk in maintaining their cash flow. Democracy is dead my friends and we seem to be the last ones to realize it. Bold statement huh? Not all that far-fetched once you start to examine the depths to which these very people have their tentacles sunk into all aspects of our government, the influence they have on every business and the global power structures of every nation on our Earth.

What exactly is a plutonomy you ask?

Plutonomy- An economy that is significantly influenced by the very wealthy.

Now everyone knows money makes the world go round, cash is king and in the words of Gordan Gekko “ Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works.”

What does all this have to do with democracy? What should be your major cause for concern in regards to this report by one of the most powerful financial institutions in the world? Lets examine the definition of Plutocracy.

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:21 PM

Plutocracy- Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. The term plutocracy is generally used to describe these two distinct concepts: one of a historical nature and one of a modern political nature. The former indicates the political control of the state by an oligarchy of the wealthy. Examples of such plutocracies include the Roman Republic, some city-states in Ancient Greece, the civilization of Carthage, the Italian city-states/merchant republics of Venice, Florence, Genoa, and pre-WWII Empire of Japan zaibatsus. Before the equal voting rights movement managed to end it in the early 20th century, many countries used a system where rich persons had more votes than poor. A factory owner may for instance have had 2000 votes while a worker had one, or if they were very poor no right to vote at all. Even artificial persons such as companies had voting rights. One modern, perhaps unique, formalised example of a plutocracy is the City of London. The City (not the whole of modern London but the area of the ancient city, which now mainly comprises the financial district) has a unique electoral system. Most of its voters are representatives of businesses and other bodies that occupy premises in the City. Its ancient wards have very unequal numbers of voters. The principal justification for the non-resident vote is that about 450,000 non-residents constitute the city's day-time population and use most of its services, far outnumbering the City's residents, who are fewer than 10,000.

Modern politics The second usage of plutocracy is a reference to a disproportionate influence the wealthy have on political process in contemporary society: for example Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to U.S. President Richard Nixon, argues that the United States is a plutocracy in which there is a "fusion of money and government."[1] The wealthy minority exerts influence over the political arena via many methods. Most western democracies permit partisan organizations to raise funds for politicians, and political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporations or advocacy groups). These donations may be part of a cronyist or patronage system, in which major contributors and fund-raisers are rewarded with high-ranking government appointments. While campaign donations need not directly affect the legislative decisions of elected representatives, politicians have a personal interest in serving the needs of their campaign contributors: if they fail to do so, those contributors will likely give their money to candidates who do support their interests in the future. Unless a quid pro quo agreement exists, it is generally legal for politicians to advocate policies favorable to their contributors, or grant appointed government positions to them. In some instances, extremely wealthy individuals have financed their own political campaigns. Many corporations and business interest groups pay lobbyists to maintain constant contact with elected officials, and press them for favorable legislation. Owners of mass media outlets, and the advertisement buyers which financially support them can shape public perception of political issues by controlling the information available to the population and the manner in which it is presented (see also: fourth estate). Within government bureaucracy, there is often the problem of a revolving door: the employees of government regulatory bodies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States, often transition to and from employment with the same companies they are supposed to regulate. This can result in regulations being changed or ignored to suit the needs of business, since the regulators are more likely to later find employment in the private sector if their government work was beneficial to their new potential employer. In the United States, campaign finance reform efforts ostensibly seek to ameliorate this situation. However, campaign finance reform must successfully challenge officials who are beneficiaries of the system which allows this dynamic in the first place. This has led many

reform advocates to suggest taxpayer dollars be used to replace private campaign contributions; these reforms are often called clean money or clean election reform as opposed to simply campaign finance reform which does not address the conflict of interest involved where most or all of the campaign money is from private, often for-profit sources. In 2010, Justice Stevens along with Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor view Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission as having drastically weakened efforts to restrain the effect of money in government. In his dissenting remarks Justice Stevens states:

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:28 PM

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics Critics of clean elections point out that it allows the sitting government to decide which candidates would qualify to receive tax dollars - and therefore influence who would be allowed to win - thus solving one problem by creating another problem; courts in the United States[which?] have also agreed that some "clean election" legislation has discriminated against independent or third-party candidates, and has violated the constitution.

A lot of quoted content but bear with me.

Now lets check out the definition of a Democracy.

Democracy-Democracy is a political form of government in which governing power is derived from the people, by consensus (consensus democracy), by direct referendum (direct democracy), or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy).[1] The term comes from the Greek: δημοκρατία – (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",[2] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (Kratos) "power", in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[3] Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[4] equality and freedom have been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times.[5] These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to power. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no restrictions can apply to anyone wanting to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.[6][7] There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.[8][9] However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated – through the use of balances – to avoid an uneven distribution of political power, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power, thus become undemocratic.[10][11][12] The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without governmental or constitutional protections of individual liberties, it is possible for a minority of individuals to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential

process in representative democracies is competitive elections that are fair both substantively[13] and procedurally.[14] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.

Now which one of these two very different forms of governance sounds like the system in which we live today? In which one do we as citizens have a better chance to pursue life, liberty and happiness? Easy answer right?

Now to touch upon what I stated at the start about a hidden, elite group pulling puppet strings to keep the rest of us in servitude and virtual bondage. I’m sure the majority of you reading this thought I was bordering on paranoid schizophrenic by saying that but what’s your thoughts after seeing some of this info?

Lets do a fun little scavenger hunt so I can lend some credence to what I was talking about in regards to social engineering. Go to and find the search box and type in Jersey Shore. As of January 16th there are currently 405 reports by CNN on this completely asinine inconsequential show that encourages self-destructive behavior.

Now go to that very same search box and before you type this in I want you to think about what CNN is exactly. One of the very largest news organizations in the world right? Supposedly staffed by hard hitting reporters digging for the truth and keeping the world informed right? Or you could look at it as a relay for other media outlets and reporters to have their stories posted so that you remain well informed. If you go to the link for US News it gives a breakdown by region of the top stories affecting us, my point being that the site isn’t lacking for massive amounts of stories about everything under the sun. There are links to any story you could think of right?

Now type Plutocracy or Plutonomy into that same wonderful little search engine and see what you get for results. Zilch on Plutonomy and 4 stories where Plutocracy is mentioned.

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:34 PM
The only report from the last 5 years is about a recent uprising in Greece over the basic dissolution of the power of labor unions and wage cuts forced upon Greece after the nation’s recent bailout by the IMF and European Union due to the effects of the global financial crisis gutting the countries economy. I could snowball off from my main topic even further just from this one story if I went into what caused the financial crisis and who benefited from it. Lets just say members of the worldwide Plutonomy and leave it at that for the moment, I’m sure I’ll get back to it eventually.

The other 3 stories cover the donation by Warren Buffet to the Bill Gates Foundation, written in 2006, which I’ll devote some time to later, a story about the deaths of Saddam Hussein’s sons written in 2003, and a story from 1999 about Warren Beatty considering running for President in 2000. The Warren Beatty story has a quote from him stating that due to campaign finance laws the US is coming dangerously close to becoming a plutocracy. That was in 1999, way before the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court that I can’t wait to go into detail about before I’m through.

The object of this mini-quest was to bring to you the question, WHY AND THE HELL should CNN have links to 450 stories about Jersey Shore and not a single report about the United States edging towards let alone becoming a full fledged Plutocracy other then a single quote by Warren freaking Beatty in 1999. Not a single one.

And trust me that CNN is not alone by a longshot in not covering this. The question you have to ask yourself is Why? Is it more likely that in the entire Cable News Network organization not a single reporter has thought that the remotest possibility of our Democracy becoming a Plutocracy is a newsworthy story? Or is it more likely that someone or a group of people at the top with the will and the way, the means and ability, could and still continue to squash any dissemination of this information to the American people. And like I said before it isn’t just CNN that this applies to. While searching other major media websites for mentions of plutocracy, the majority of stories I read only contain the slightest reference to it and it’s usually whitewashed by preceding statements such as “ extremist belief” “far right wing rhetoric” or “ far left liberal” which serve to undermine the authenticity of it being a real concern.

Considering that the majority of us get our information from the mainstream media, which are part of huge corporate conglomerates with branches that reach into all aspects of our lives, this is something each and every one of us should be concerned with.

Allen Ginsberg once said “ Whoever controls the media; the images; controls the culture.“

It stands to reason that whoever controls the access to the information controls the money and ultimately the power behind and in front of the scenes. So who controls the media we peruse on a daily basis?Some of you may know this and to those who don’t I hope it shocks you to hear, 5 corporations. These 5 companies control every newspaper, every magazine, all your tv and radio stations, all the publishing houses of the books you read, the music you listen to, the movies you watch, the wire services such as Reuters, and all the major photo agencies in the United States and the world. Proven, documented fact.

I beg anyone to explain to me how this could be beneficial for the free flow of ideas and information. Beneficial to equality and human rights? Anyone? These 5 mega corporations are as follows: Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom. Mull that over for a minute. The corporate heads of these 5 mega-conglomerates own and have control over all aspects of every bit of information we take in through these outlets. If that isn’t a sobering thought and doesn’t cause you to at least consider the possibility we have been successfully propagandized then I don’t know what else to tell you. You may as well quit reading this because your blinders are too firmly in place to ever be lifted.

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:37 PM
So now that I’ve probably earned myself a spot on some government watch list for what I’ve written thus far lets examine them for a little bit. Farfetched?

Have I referenced revolution or violence or anything of the sort anywhere in this so far? No, but many other people have been placed on government terrorism watch lists for far less. For simply stating their opinions and belief. Its been currently estimated by the ACLU among others that there are over a million US citizens on terrorism watch lists.
Some for things as horrifying as making documentaries on the dangers of frac’ing. Never heard the term before? It’s industry slang referring to the drilling process hydraulic fracturing which is used to stimulate production at oil and gas wells by drilling a wellbore into a rock reservoir then basically injecting a toxic brew. This special blend of chemicals, a secret sauce if you will, is injected into the ground at an extremely high amount of pressure to create cracks in the surrounding rock to increase the flow of the targeted resource.

Sounds great until you hear about some of the possible risks associated with frac’ing. Increased seismic activity has been correlated to hydraulic fracturing operations, seismologists are documenting earthquakes in drastically increased frequencies in area’s in which there are high numbers of active drilling ops.

In Arkansas during the 20th century there were 694 earthquakes recorded in the area, in 2010 alone there were 622. Pretty newsworthy right? Sidetracked again. The point I was slowly getting around to is actor Mark Ruffalo recently discovered he had been placed on the terrorist watch list for organizing a screening of the documentary Gasland, which exposes the dangers of this type of drilling.

I’m sure one of the greatest sources of potential new terrorist recruits is at screenings for documentaries but it seems a little extreme. Scientists have recently confirmed the direct correlation between frac’ing and earthquakes in Ohio.

And that's all I have for now, thanks if you took the time to read and let me know what you think.

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 12:30 AM
I lost interest in reading when you started ranting about gay people.

As to social programming, and mind control through various methods, it's alive and well all over the place.
You can thank one of my heroes; John B. Watson , one of the founding pillars of Psychology for much of what influences a number of your choices and actions in every day life.

He's responsible for music in stores, where he put on slower music at Macy's when business was slow to influence people to linger, take their time, to keep the store occupied because a store with people in it attracts other people. When business was quick and the store was packed, a higher tempo was set to prod people into moving, buying, and making room for more people because an over-crowded store turns away customers as much as an empty store.

He put sexy curvy models in front of Studebaker automobiles for magazine advertisements, and Studebaker business thrived.

Applied Psychology in marketing was a hit. Controlling people through subtle cues is easy.
Now, the techniques have evolved, and are in force in more than just business marketing/advertising.
Influence a few key habits, likes, interests, designer label preferences, even political opinions with just the right people and you create a cult following of the same things.
You are who you hang out with.
What your friends like, you'll probably like too.

You're less in control of a number of every day decisions than you might think you are.

Most of it's harmless, and some of it, you'd have a hard time thinking about living without it.

If you don't have any training, or education in Psychology, feel free to take FREE open source courses from a number of top Universities: Here's a Thread with some links..
Learn your Psychology and your eyes will be open to many a mechanism at work.

edit on 8-12-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:21 AM
reply to post by Druscilla

Well there were only like 4 sentences about gayness? in the entire post, that wasn't the beginning of a soliloquy about gay culture and wasn't intended to be. The point I was trying to make is that the power brokers behind the scenes are tweaking things to polarize both sides of the issue towards some kind of gain. If you can keep the people separated by emphasizing differences instead of highlighting common grounds you have less of a united front to deal with.

I wholeheartedly agree in that we are far less in control of our subconscious decisions than we believe ourselves to be. People are influenced with these minor little mental checks all the time without noticing. Why is John Watson a personal hero of yours? Retail owner or mind control aficionado?

I bristle at the thought that my mind is being tinkered with so someone can sell more cheeseburgers or skinny jeans, let alone someone trying to influence my view on substantial things.

Whatever happened to laying out the truth and letting a person make their own decision, brainwashing is little intrusive in my eyes.

Thanks for the link to the Psychology courses, I'll check them out.

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:40 AM

Catcher in the Rye dropped from US school curriculum [replaced with environmental propaganda

and Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird

I just read this today. More crap from the people in charge. 46 out of 50 USA states will do this!! Crazy!!

edit on 8-12-2012 by RUFFREADY because: spelin of cores

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:19 PM
reply to post by RUFFREADY

I remember reading To Kill a Mockingbird in elementary school, can't remember being inspired to commit any heinous acts because of Boo Radley. Thinking I should give it another read to see what great evil is hidden inside.

Good thing we have Big Brother protecting our kids from those terrifyingly dangerous books. While allowing sexual predators leeway enough to continually manage molesting the same kids. YEEEAAAY for governmental involvement.

posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 07:16 PM
You only have to look as far as this site to see the effects of social engineering.

new topics

top topics


log in