Psychology and freedom

Daily Pickings frequently refers to the battle for your mind often citing the work of Edward Bernays, the father of Propaganda. Bernays was only the first to use human psychology for mass manipulation; since its origins in the early 1900s, the techniques have become much more sophisticated and subtle and pervade our existence. Dick Eastman writes on many aspects of the political economy and his recent email on psychology/behavioural-economics technology is particularly pertinent in this US presidential election year.

Subject: Powerful psychology/behavioral-economics technology is being used against you today without your knowledge of what it is or how it works


DickEastman1.JPG

There are two little robots assigned to spy on earth and the much bigger "authority robot" comes to check on them; the big one gives them their orders and then asks: "Are there any questions?" One of the robots speaks up and starts complaining about "no vacation time" and all the work they've got to do. That little robot suddenly implodes, is engulfed with flames and is gone from the ground where he stood smoking. The "authority robot" asks the other: “Do you have any questions?” The remaining little robot nervously says he understands everything, is very happy and ready to get started. This then recurs a lot in Hollywood movies.

I've also seen a lot of TV commercials -- one from the nineties or eighties comes to mind. There are some high school, maybe junior high school kids in this commercial, they look middle class, they look "college bound" -- there is some talking among them and then the tallest and prettiest girl among them says and keeps repeating -- she may have broken into song, I forget -- saying "I want to be a yes-man" over and over. That commercial, the point of which I could not see, the sponsor of which I can't for the life of me remember, but that commercial impressed and frightened me -- because some Madison Avenue man was able to put this message into "televisionland": -- why was that ad there and with that message -- which so represents the shift in values of the message for youth that the "establishment puts out.

One of my post graduate degrees is in experimental psychology. I went very far in behavioral psychology -- Skinner and Pavlov etc. -- reinforcement of behavior, stimulus control, differential reinforcement, conditioned suppression, learned helplessness, desensitization, operant extinction, conditioned secondary reinforcers, schedules of reinforcement, conditioned aversive stimulus, conditioned avoidance, anchoring, respondent conditioning, contingencies of reinforcement, response chaining -- these technical terms are suggestive of the subject matter. I also hold a post graduate degree in economics with two years towards the doctorate with such terms as - constrained profit maximization, utility space, indifference curves, consumption and production functions, optimization, Slutsky equations separating income effects from price effects in their control of consumers demand in response to a change in income or the imposition of a tax, or a fall in income, or a shift in supply etc., the theory of games, the rational expectations model, optimization, controlling economic behavior by changing the constraints under which the consumer or producer operates, but also "behavioral economics" terms anchoring, heuristics, game theoretic maxi-min strategies, predicting gambles, value theory, the prediction and control of evaluation
I am also a student of sociology and history. I am something of a generalist, but strong at some depth in certain subjects.
The point I wish to make at the outset is that I come by what I say below with at least some analytical sophistication, taking things into account that others perhaps would not see as clearly as someone with a "trained eye" for the "scientific" aspects of the subject I want to discuss.

So here it goes:

All of the horror and super action movies you have seen are behavior modification programs that affect your predisposition to respond in certain ways over other ways in situations you find yourself in after viewing the movie or TV program. In a movie, you see people act certain away and they are either punished or rewarded or -- and this last one is where the concepts of conditioned suppression and operant extinction and learned helplessness and related principles of conditioning come in -- showing people acting in ways that the previous free culture is used to reinforce with attention, approval, status, goods, movement to a state with a higher probability of reinforcement etc -- it shows people doing what we used to reward as "the right thing" but getting no good outcome from doing so -- teaching in fact that what the society used to hold up as "good behavior" is no longer reinforced in this new society -- this society of the Judeo-pornographic-zombie-bad-always-wins "reality" that Hollywood portrays. The 'bad guys in Hollywood are always so strong and destructive and invulnerable -- that the common man is really helpless -- a lot of people die horribly when every the dominant bad guy appears -- heroes only win by doing super things that everyone knows they themselves could not do -- so that you leave a Hollywood movie convinced that you are helpless, that evil reigns supreme and that the only an impossible hero could fight with impossible gadgetry -- that common people are helpless when the big powerful people want to impose tyranny. Hollywood is about intimidation.

Hollywood is also about modelling dysfunction. Every watch 2 1/2 men on Fox? All of that modelling of dysfunction -- and the message that your neighbors are all idiots with whom it would be impossible to have a discussion about politics or religion -- and all of this started in the 1970's -- there was a movie called "Joe", then in the UK there was a sitcom about a very vulgar "lower middle class" man who models the very picture of the "commoner that the British upper class flatter themselves that the commoners are so far below them in the commonness that the sitcom portrays. In the US a similar TV sitcom came out called "All in the Family" with a lead character, "Archie Bunker" -- which was the Eastern Establishment, ivy league elites portrayal of the lower middle class man -- but actually a brainwash program thought up by Jewish propagandist "TV producer" Norman Lear -- and Archie Bunker became representative to everyone watching it "what the middle class white family was all about" -- when the entire thing was a lie, a misrepresentation -- it was propaganda of an enemy at war with the values of the lower middle class -- but everyone never sees other people where they live -- they get their impressions of what other people in their society are like from the they watch.

Starting with the movie 1970s movie -- Network -- we have introduced to the public the idea that news reporting is different now -- that it is not about keeping the public of a republic with representative government informed of the issues -- but of conditioning a desired response to the policies the oligarchy wants conditioned to accept or at least to resign themselves to as inevitable.

Now we come to elections -- conditioned helplessness, people constrained to choosing the worst possible candidate given their interests because someone even worse has been found as the only one that will be running against him or her.

Capturing control of the administrative branch of government is easy. You pick your candidate and then use a lot of tricks to make sure that opponents of your candidate are weakened by the addition of a lot of dummy candidates who will each draw off a certain segment of voters from any candidate that emerges to oppose your pet candidate. You may run one opposition candidate -- a Bernie Sanders _- who will pretend to be opposition to your candidate but Bernie Sanders is really running for second place -- he is destined to sign on as the running mate of your corrupt candidate who will do your bidding (if for example you were David Rockefeller - he is still alive with his sixth heart transplant -- thank you Palestine!). So let us use him as our example -- as I was saying, if you were David Rockefeller and you wanted Hillary Clinton -- your "yes-girl" to be president -- you would run someone like Sanders to be her opposition -- to say things that Democrats like to hear but that your candidate, Hillary Clinton, will not say and will not do -- but in reality , underneath, Bernie is for the Rockefeller.Zionist/banker/CFR/Bilderberg/Trilateal Commission world order just as "yes-girlishly" as Clinton -- and in the end he will -- for unity of the party -- become Hillary Clinton's "Joe Lieberman" running mate -- the perfect AIPAC team. Meanwhile to make sure the Republican party does not field anyone who will oppose AIPAC/Rockefeller-YES Team you make sure that the GOP has a lot of people running each drawing votes from any candidate who represents true opposition to your views -- you just pull away votes from that real threat by running a lot of apparent "near substitutes", with each near substitute making himself especially attractive to one of the interest groups who without this "near substitute" might have voted for your real opposition. That strategy is divide and conquer -- with all of your "near substitutes" only dropping out after your real opposition is forced to drop out for failure to get enough volunteers and money -- because those volunteers and money were drawn off from him to support the various "near substitutes" you have provided. I remember Alan Keyes -- black roommate of neo-con William Krystol at Harvard -- who ran as an "anti-Abortion Christian" candidate in 2000 for the express purpose of drawing away protestant votes from truly anti-abortion real opposition Pat Buchanan (the former speech writer to Richard Nixon and Nixon's vice president Spiro Agnew -- real opposition to the Rockefeller interests) -- and it worked. Protestant Christian "family values" and anti-abortion votes were diverted to "substitute" Keyes -- and Buchanan lost the nomination. And what about the spoiler tactic. Bill Clinton urged Donald Trump to run -- and to run using Bill Clinton's scientific polling of focus groups and of specific demographic groups in sampling -- in order to find just the issues for Trump to mention to pull votes from real opposition that would be able to defeat Hillary Clinton. TRUMP IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, HE IS RUNNING TO DISPLACE REAL OPPOSITION TO CLINTON -- Trump pushes the right buttons and succeeds in keeping Republicans from supporting other candidates who would be too independent of you (Rockefeller) if they won. Those candidates eventually fall away for lack of volunteer and money and news-time "oxygen" -- because Trump stole all of their political oxygen to make them die politically. Bill Clinton knew what he was doing -- because the tactic worked for him. Billionaire Ross Perot was his Trump. Ross Perot was no populist, no paleo-conservative -- but he could sound like one -- he could attract voters starved for the ideas that pollsters told Perot to mention -- do draw voters -- not all voters, but enough of the right kind of voters -- to draw their votes away from others and to him so that, not him, but Clinton would win. IT IS KNOWN BY TRUMP THAT TO WIN THE REPUBLICAN LOWER MIDDLE CLASS -- THE FOX NEWS VIEWERS -- HE MUST SAY CERTAIN THINGS -- BUT HE ALSO SAYS OTHER THINGS THAT HE ALSO KNOWS BY POLLING -- THAT WILL REPEL OTHER VOTERS -- LATINOS, MIDDLE EASTERN, WOMEN, INDEPENDENTS, EDUCATED PEOPLE, INTELLIGENT REPUBLICANS, ANYONE WITH COMMON SENSE -- SO THAT HE KNOWS HE WILL NEVER WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION -- BECAUSE HE DOES NOT WANT TO WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION -- HE ONLY WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT HIS CLOSE FRIEND HILLARY CLINTON DOES NOT FACE REAL OPPOSITION -- AND THAT FAVOR WILL BE REPAID WHICH IS WHAT THIS BILLIONAIRE REALLY IS LOOKING FOR -- SUCH A DEAL!

But what about us? All this (above) is going on to keep us from getting a candidate that is really our own -- a true populist.

Getting back to conditioned helplessness ..... blah blah blah -- you have had the ability to find a good man and support him and work for him -- you have had that conditioned out of you.

I have an extraordinary "immunity" to the conditioning - because, let us say, I know the "devil's devices" -- but I should add -- knowing that your are being conditioned and what the conditioning procedures are and how they work -- is not necessarily enough to prevent oneself from being conditioned -- the conditioning technique still works, even if you are aware that it is being used. They can still make me choose the wrong thing, a thing that is bad for me and for the country I love -- simply by using the technique called "anchoring" which involves "tricking" (conditioning) me to pick the wrong criteria with which to evaluate the situation where a decision must be made. For example, if there is a candidate who if for what is good for you, but he is old -- and a candidate who is bad for you, who is young -- then they can get you to pick the the candidate that is bad for you by focusing on the age issue. If I am a pollster and I want the bad candidate to be ahead in the polls -- I send pollsters out but have them -- before asking "which candidate do you support" to ask the person being polled a lot of questions about "when is a candidate too old" to be president; does age matter?; why is it youth an advantage for a president, reason a? reason b? or reason? And after the person being polled is "anchored" on "age" as the prime criterion for selection -- the pollster then asks the person "Which candidate, A (the young one) or B (the old one) are you for. And most of the people who were not really committed to either candidate, not knowing much about them because they are busy with their job or their family etc.) they will vote for the young one who is really against their interests because the pollster has "anchored" the person on age as the primary selection criterion. That is how polls are used to influence voters -- since voters will vote for candidates only fi they think the candidate will have a chance of winning -- and high polling is the only indicator they have to go on - not trusting their own instincts, because they are told to believe that their instincts don;t count, that others do not think like they do. {I use the term "instinct" loosely here -- it is not a scientific term useful in analysis).

I wonder if anyone will read his far? And where did I get the idea that you will not and that I am wasting my time trying to talk to you about politics? Where, indeed?

I've got a populist program -- but I despair of finding anyone to take it up, to fight for it. A click on "like" is the most support one can expect.

Knowing about the conditioning program they are using on you -- does not mean it will not still control you.

And of course every message we send to people is itself an attempt to control behavior -- this message, for instance, is my effort to weaken the hold the oligarchy has over you so that you will be more likely to quit your previous pattern of behavior and to act more like a populist who favors a Jeffersonian republic like I do -- and a social credit money system like I do

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

DickEastman2.JP

DickEastman3.JPG

DickEastman4.JPG

DickEastman5.JPG

More "clippings" to let you know about the most powerful psychology/behavioral-economics technology being used against you today without your knowledge of what it is or how it works -- the work of brilliant Amos Tvarsky, the Israeli "economist/psychologist" pioneer who made very important discoveries about human behavior (the prediction and control of evaluation and decision making that is far from the "rational model of economic man" . and the more sinister and CIA/Mossad involved Daniel Kahneman, a Zionist Jew who has put Tvasky's ideas to work controlling the political and economic decisions in ways that bias you against your own self interest as complete rational analysis of options without bias would have dictated without anchoring you to their best selection criteria rather than the one that would serve you best.

DickEastman6.JPG

DickEastman7.JPG

DickEastman8.JPG

DickEastman9.JPG

DickEastmanA.JPG

DickEastmanB.JPG

DickEastmanC.JPG

DickEastmanD.JPG

DickEastmanE.JP

DickEastmanF.JPG

DickEastmanG.JPG

 

Prescription for freedom? Educate yourself from multiple, independent sources of information and analysis. Knowledge is the power to face down behavioural conditioning.

 

Please register to post comments