Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The False Flag & Persian Gulf Attacks
#1
False Flag - An intentional misrepresentation, especially a covert political or military operation carried out to appear as if it was undertaken by another party.

The longer I live, and the more I follow the news, the more skeptical I am about reported fact.  And this latest Persion Gulf attack on the oil tankers just doesn't add up.  Something is not right here, and I am reminded of the many "False Flags" that have managed to get the US, and others, into military conflicts.  For example the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin affair is now universally recognized as a put-up event, i.e. "False Flag", which led the US into the Vietnam conflict.   Hitler used the infamous Gleiwitz incident as an excuse to invade Poland on 1 September, 1939. There are so many out there that took place in the last hundred years, that is it time for all of us to hesitate and skeptically check each and every event that has the ring of being falsely put up.  In other words, don't take things at face value.

This latest incident appears to me to be just too good to be true.  Granted Iran admits shooting down the drone, claiming it entered their airspace, but the actual attacks on oil tankers?  I can't vouch for the first attack, but have more than serious doubts over this second incident.  For instance, the damage to the tankers were almost certainly above the water line.  One actually has a hole several feet above the ocean, so the pretense of mines, or torpedoes tells my skeptical brain that things are not on the level here.  

[Image: LYNXNPEF5D0F8_L.jpg]

False Flag? Aerial footage shows one of the oil tankers targeted in the Sea of Oman




Note that both ships have holes made above the water line.  This gives the ships a better than even chance of surviving the attack.  If Iranian gun boats had attacked, they would have almost certainly used torpedoes, which would explode Under the water line. Had they been limpet mines placed on the ships by Iranians, they would have been placed slightly under, or right at the water line.  That way the ships would sink.

Note further that the attacks were made on the starboard, and not the port sides.  At least the one on fire was filled with oil, and would be leaving the area.  This means that the port(left side) would be facing Iran, and the starboard facing the Saudis.  It makes no sense for the Iranians to take their boats around and attack on the Saudi side of the ships.  

Something is Not right here, and it leaves me to highly consider the False Flag scenario.  Now which side would benefit the most by such attacks?  Both sides of the isle have been pushing for military action, including some in Trump's immediate staff.  But he wisely chose not to do that.  Why did he change his mind and call off military action?

This interview with Doug Casey, does a good job of presenting his skepticism as well.  Below is just a small portion, but the entire article should be read in its entirety.


Quote:Doug Casey on False Flags and Pretexts For the Next War


International Man: People who look outside the mainstream narrative of historical events often encounter the term “false flag” attack. What does this mean exactly? Who uses this tactic?

Doug Casey: Let’s define this term exactly. The Oxford Dictionary defines a false flag as “A political or military act orchestrated in such a way that it appears to have been carried out by a party that is not in fact responsible.”

The concept of false flags has gotten a bad reputation in media and government circles and perhaps with the population in general, because they’ve come to be associated with conspiracy theories. And “conspiracy theory,” whether valid or not, is used as a pejorative. While there are definitely some people out there with tin foil hats, the establishment likes to label any beliefs that don’t follow the party line as conspiracy theory.

In fact, false flags make all the sense in the world for someone who wants to start a war or who needs a cover for some other criminal enterprise. You never want to be seen as the aggressor or the bad guy. You always want to be able to blame what happens on the other guy. If you’re going to start a war, you want to look like the innocent aggrieved party in order to get the population on your side.

What do you all think?  Am I off key here?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#2
No, you are on target, except for two things:

I don't see the port/starboard argument as important.

and what you wrote is the 1-st level skepticism (not trying to put this down in any way, your arguments are similar to ones coming from a number of sources I respect), but there is also 2-nd level skepticism : Iran did it after all but made it appear as a false flag. This is the MoA view.

Given the scarcity of decent English language news sources, reading MoA is essential, and in this case specifically the pieces from 6/15 and 6/16.

Personally I still think the US is the most likely culprit, because this is the simplest explanation and because is as MoA puts it

Quote:We know that false flags attacks are as American as apple pie. The Boston Tea Party was committed by colonial settlers camouflaged as Indians. Remember the Maine? The Gulf of Tonkin "attack" that never happened? The fake chemical attacks staged by U.S. paid actors to then be blamed on the Syrian government?

there is a long history of doing things like this.

But here is one more intriguing variation: if the US, was it Trump's forces ? Or perhaps Bolton's ? Or maybe even Deep State's ? S6
Sanders 2020

Reply
#3
mv Wrote:I don't see the port/starboard argument as important.

Its really important.  Ships that are loaded will be leaving the area, which means their port side will be exposed by facing Iran.  Ships headed for their destination to pick up their load will approach with their starboard side facing Iran.  It makes no sense for Iran to send an attack boat and make it move much further toward Saudi Arabia and then do a 180 degree turn in order to attack.  Radar would pick them up more easily.

If the US is guilty in any way, it is almost certainly not with Trump's approval.   Most likely the Pro-War deep staters from both sides of the isle.  The added bonus would be for things to go well, AND let Trump catch all the flack due to political fallout.  In fact, before he axed the attack, the Jackasses were convinced that he was going to do it.  So they apparently began celebrating outside as they were leaving.  

Video: Pelosi and Schumer caught on camera dancing after thinking Trump would attack Iran


Pelosi & Schumer Caught Doing Victory Dance After They Thought They Goaded Trump into War with Iran!


___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#4
Something tells me that Trump played Miss Nancy and Little Chucky Shumer perfectly. And afterwards, this is Miss Nancy realizing that she was suckered. S13

[Image: D9sZxpfXYAcnL-8.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#5
Quote:It makes no sense for Iran to send an attack boat and make it move much further toward Saudi Arabia and then do a 180 degree turn in order to attack.

Actually it does make sense, this is the problem....

Taking a bit of extra risk for the sake of deniability. Not saying this is what happened and still think attacks were not Iranian work, but cannot exclude this.

There is a high chance of similar attack repeating, maybe we can see more the next time.

====

Pelosi/Schumer attitudes is one part that is fully understandable. Great ammo for any rat running on an antiwar platform.

====

Here is an extra piece (a better one later, no time now): there are some claims out that Dunford is the one who stopped the US attack. Simplistic version is here :


(but this Twit is a prediction from before the events).

Let me throw one of
Sanders 2020

Reply
#6
John, I'm skeptical about this story from the beginning. I didn't want to bring that up because you and William would have found many reasons to prove that Trump didn't lie.
Since you started the topic and carefully made clear from the beginning it's not Trump who lied but forcibly the "Deep State" (as if trump wasn't Deep State - LOL), we are able to talk about it.

IMO If Iran had wanted to sink the tankers, they would have done it. Not just damage the hull.
I don't think Iran want to sink a tanker in the Strait of Ormuz because it would block it indefintely for them too. Iran is still exporting oil despite rumours on Trump TV.

Such attack is the hallmark of al-Qaida. Problem is al-Qaida or its affiliates always claim what they do (unlike Iran which always deny what they do). And they didn't claim it.
I don't think it would be possible for the US to conceal such claims even with the help of the Saudis.

Another possibility: Iran did it as a warming. Not with the intent to sink the tanker, not with torpedoes or mines.
Problem is that the US assserts the damaged were caused by mines, and as you said, it doesn't add up.
One possibility is that the tanker emptied some of its cargo to keep the hole above water. But I don't know.
The picture doesn't look like a mine blow.
It's also unlikely that Iran would have dropped mines there as it could blow their own vessels too.

The fourth scenario is a plot by Saudis and their allies with the knowledge or collaboration of the US.

Did Trump knew about it? As I said above it's impossible because Trump is perfect, it's essentially impossible that he does something bad or lie about something. So, no, no, no he didn't know it at all. If he knew it, he would have told us. S12 S24

But Trump is incredibly clever with communication: He stages these attacks (the drone being shut down by Iranian copies of S-100's was an accident), everybody is aware that it's a perfect ground to start a war. But Peace Nobel Donald Trump says he doens't want war and wants dialogue.

The problem Trump is having right now is the same as with North Korea: It doesn't change a single bit the policy of the theocratic rule in Iran.
Reply
#7
Quote:I didn't want to bring that up because you and William would have found many reasons to prove that Trump didn't lie.

LOL. The case with Wm was depicted in a Russian sci-fi novel from 1966, recently made into a fairly good action movie.

It depicts a society where a substantial part of the population lost their ability to think critically, so that any programming works. This happens to accurately describe the situation in the modern USA, albeit while in the book the rulers used specific radiation, in the US they seem to be using chemicals. Now, a problem : one can replace the message and the vulnerable types will switch to a new belief system eagerly.

For example: take a person like Wm, tie him to a chair, and make him read New York Times and watch CNN. Within two weeks he will be arguing that Trump is a Satan-incarnate and Hillary is a reincarnation of Holy Mary. His arguments will be weak, bordering on nonsense, but his beliefs would be just as sincere as now. And if you make him read Quran don't be surprised to see him going to check what kinds of belts Amazon ships on their Prime account.

Now, John is different, he actually can think, he knows the truth, only unwilling to admit it. S6 The top post on this thread testifies to a functional brain. If you try the above experiment on John you are unlikely to see an easy conversion but you may get bitten.

===

Quote:Another possibility: Iran did it as a warming. Not with the intent to sink the tanker, not with torpedoes or mines.

Not another but only possibility if Iran indeed did this.

Now, the KSA option I really doubt... they cannot do anything right, ever, even disassemble a journalist with a chainsaw.
Sanders 2020

Reply
#8
First an update:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/23/polit...1561328722

Why is it relevant who in Iran ordered to take out the invading aircraft? -- it was a totally legitimate self defense action!

Well...only because the US sticks to the lie of the drone not being in Iranian airspace .... creative fiction builds up.

=========================

OK, here is another extra piece to consider : same day as the Iranians took down the drone there was a missile launched by the Yemenites against a KSA desalination plant. Minor damage, Yemenite missiles are crap, albeit they did something to greatly improve the accuracy lately ... need to improve the warhead still.

But if we take downing the drone as a message this may be the 2nd part of the message with a very powerful threat... Iranian missiles are quite real. And in KSA the most precious liquid happens to be water! take the plants out and things will get very very interesting shortly.

The 3rd message -- again, no real damage -- are a few grenades (mortar shells) on a US base in Iraq. A plenty of US bases and ships are in range of Iranian missiles but those in Iraq can be dealt with at the cheap.

This may be all coincidental, or may be a part of a single warning to Trump.
Sanders 2020

Reply
#9
mv Wrote:For example: take a person like Wm, tie him to a chair, and make him read New York Times and watch CNN. Within two weeks he will be arguing that Trump is a Satan-incarnate and Hillary is a reincarnation of Holy Mary.
I don't think it would work: Political and religious opinions are genetically inherited.
Look at Ron...

mv Wrote:The top post on this thread testifies to a functional brain.
Yes: He managed to edit this post without contradicting himself. Another Orange Face fanatic would simply ignore that it hurts Trumps'reputation.


Back to topic:

mv Wrote:First an update:
Mike Pence Wrote:We're not convinced that the order to shoot down a US drone by Iran was authorized at the highest levels.
....The President also had doubts.
Come on! Neither the vice-president nor Trump himself remember what they have authorized or not?
Hard to believe! S6

But there is even better: Trump thinks it could be possible to put somebody in a drone.
Trump Wrote:it made a big, big difference that the drone had nobody in it.

mv Wrote:Well...only because the US sticks to the lie of the drone not being in Iranian airspace .... creative fiction builds up.
I agree. Usually when you send a spy drone it's in the airspace of the opposite side, not in your own airspace nor to observe empty sea.
The very fact that Iran managed to destroy it is enough proof it was in their airspace.

And if you send a drone in an enemy airspace, you sort of allow it to be destroyed if detected. (Just in case you thought my comment above was stupid or sarcastic).

Trump's comment about an Iranian general ordering the drone destruction by mistake is high level moronism.
I'm always puzzled wether Trump tells incredibly stupid things intentionally or not...

It's not the first time Iran intercept a US drone. Two years ago they hacked one and made it land at their own airport for data download.
But I agree that, this time, blowing it violently in the air is lack of respect.

mv Wrote:: same day as the Iranians took down the drone there was a missile launched by the Yemenites against a KSA desalination plant.
.... again, no real damage -- are a few grenades (mortar shells) on a US base in Iraq.
That would show unprecedented coordination among Iran sponsored groups.
Only Osama Bin Laden was able to set up such coordinate action.
The Yemenites fight the other tribe and don;t think US infidel dogs when doing it.
As for grenades on a US base in Iraq, it's a non event. They could have throw dattes as well. Could be done by sunnis, shiites, or even kurds.
Reply
#10
Quote:I don't think it would work: Political and religious opinions are genetically inherited.

No, consider the success of the liberals in reprogramming conservatives in colleges. --- absolutely essential feature for the US system since the conservatives reproduce better and unless you reprogram the balance would shift.

OTOH, liking of cats is genetic, there was a study of this a month ago.... so it maybe difficult to reprogram a cat lover into a cat hater.

Quote:That would show unprecedented coordination among Iran sponsored groups.

Not at all.... there are lots of Iranians in Iraq (and lots more sympathizers) ... as for the Yemenis, they would gladly hit anything in Saudi Arabia even if they prefer civilian airports. And somehow I doubt that the improved accuracy of their missiles was entirely their work, so they owe Iran a favor.
Sanders 2020

Reply
#11
MV, as one who has at times argued with my brother, I can say that you vastly underestimate his tenacity of viewpoint. Just because Patty Hearst succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome (after being held captive for months), does not mean everyone would, or even the majority of people. Many people do have conscientious convictions that run deep. How many Union soldiers who were captured and held as prisoners of war by the Confederates ever came to embrace slavery?

Fredlingue, I am the only Seventh-day Adventist in my family. Everyone else in my very large family are Free Will Baptists (a few in-laws are Roman Catholics, and one nephew and his family have become Mormons by their own choice). I was raised a Free Will Baptist, was baptized at the age of nine, and became a Seventh-day Adventist through my own study of the Bible and history, and was rebaptized at the age of 15. The idea of rebaptism is set forth in Acts 19:1-6, where the Apostle Paul encountered some sincere followers of Bible truth who had been baptized by John the Baptist, but they had never heard of the Holy Spirit, or been adequately informed about Jesus Christ who was anointed by the Holy Spirit to be the Messiah when John baptized Him. When Paul conveyed to them this significantly increased light, the believers felt it was proper for them to be rebaptized to acknowledge this greater light. Then they became Christians and received the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Rebaptism was not a denial of the truth that John had taught them, but an acknowledgement of further light that built upon what went before.
Reply
#12
Sorry to correct all the misstatements - but it is possible to be brainwashed. It is also possible to understand the process and successfully resist it.

Brainwashing: It's a Cold War term first used by Edward Hunter in his 1953 book, Brainwashing in Red China, and made popular in the 1962 Frank Sinatra movie, The Manchurian Candidate.

I first learned about the principle of Religious Conversion (This is a laboratory appellation and does not have anti-church motives), through my University of Michigan Philosophy of Persuasion Professor John V. McConnell, who was interviewed by Walter Cronkite and others for his expertise in the field. (He was the professor who taught flatworms to turn to the right for a reward when a yellow light was switched on. He then ground up the trained flatworms, fed them to untrained flatworms who picked up the behavior chemically. he proved knowledge can be transferred chemically.}

He explained the psychological mechanism was documented by the famous Russian behavioralist Pavlov after witnessing the behavior of hundreds of animals in his compound who were saved from drowning by laboratory assistants in rowboats during the great flood of Leningrad. Some of these animals had been swimming for hours in their cages with less than an inch of air at the tops of their enclosures. These dogs were some of the most observed and documented animals on earth. Pavlov knew what training was required to teach them tricks and he knew what tricks were too difficult for them to learn. After the flood, he observed that the highly trained animals had completely lost their training, yet in the immediate plastic period after the trauma were able to learn new tricks, harder tricks then they had the capacity to learn before, and at a faster rate than before. After the plastic period was over, these animals had replaced their old collections of well-learned training with these new behaviors - at a much deeper and more retained level. For the rest of their lives, during moments of stress, these animals would start performing the training learned during the flood.

Pavlov was able to document this was a psychological mechanism which occurred to all mammals - including man. The concept of "conversion" in Christianity and some other religions is like a brainwashing process. This is the reason why so many patients in hospitals awaiting dangerous surgery undergo religious conversion (Hence the proper name of the effect.) Jews awaiting bypass surgery become Catholics. Catholics become Born- again Christians, Christians become Buddhists, Buddhists become Muslim, Muslims, become Hindu, and Hindu become Jews. The trauma of their situation brings on the plastic period, and if even simple persuasion is present with a modicum of reinforcement, can convert them to the proffered behavior.

Religious conversion in the process of revival meetings was invented in 1735 by Jonathan Edwards of Massachusetts. McConnell told us about Appalachian mountain illiterates who learned they could wait outside Revival meetings and then take almost any pretty young girls after they left the tents and easily seduce them regardless of their upbringing and moral scruples. (The day he taught "Seduction" we had to move to the largest assembly hall in the University for the huge numbers of drop-ins who were auditing that class.)

Quote:{The source of this quote is no longer available online, so is included in its entirety.) The history of Edwards is extremely interesting. During a religious crusade in Massachusetts in the 1730s, the theologian Jonathan Edwards discovered that he could make his 'sinners' break down and submit completely to his will. He achieved this by threatening them with Hell and thereby inducing acute fear, apprehension and guilt. Edwards, like many other preachers before and after him, whipped up the emotions of his congregation to a fever-pitch of anger, fear, excitement and nervous tension, before exposing them to the new ideas and beliefs he wanted them to absorb. To this day, live rattlesnakes are passed around some congregations in the southern parts of the USA; the fear and anxiety they induce can impair judgement and make the candidates for conversion more suggestible. Once this state of mental plasticity has been created, the preacher starts to replace their existing patterns of thought. There is quite a controversy surrounding Jonathon Edwards, because some vilify him for bringing so many attendees of his revival meetings to a point where they committed suicide because of their perceived past transgressions. He often didn't try to "Save" them until after they were already dead.

I stress this is a normally occurring mammalian psychological mechanism which is verifiable. You can easily understand the repercussions it has in religion, and why "Born-again" Christians and other converts are as zealous as they are. It has been demonstrated that it is possible with the right persuasive regimin and the proper schedules of reinforcement that any person can be utterly convinced that a chair is God - or some other equally illogical belief system. Our government did extensive testing of this mechanism in Project MK-Ultra, reintroduced to us in the Mel Gibson Movie, Conspiracy Theory.
Reply
#13
One should separate two types of reprogramming (brainwashing): reprogramming of an individual and reprogramming of masses.

The first type is more studied but it is of no interest to totalitarian regimes, it is just not cost effective, except for perhaps unique cases of important individuals in right places. Manchurian candidate is fiction; a heiress to a large estate would be of interest to a minor group, not to a state. John McCain... perhaps.
But generally it is most cost effective to kill, imprison or merely ignore individuals who don't toe the party line;... or eat them, like in the V miniseries where conversion was an option, but too costly to apply to more than a few!

Now, reprogramming of masses is of interest to totalitarian states (Nazi Germany, USSR, US, etc.), this is a factor in their survival!

The traditional programming is based on the concept "we are ALL good, others are BAD" --- and the weakness is that "we are ALL good' is too idealistic.. thus not believable" ; the uniqueness and genius of the American approach is to use a new formula: "Half of us are GOOD, the other half are BAD, feel free to hate them".

So.... divide the population into two parts, make each one see the other as perverts and idiots, and every convert can live in a pseudo-logical world because he is right! Of course, his opponent from the other part is equally right!

Have you seen the debate yesterday? Bunch of D- perverts and idiots, and just like the crowd of R- perverts and idiots from the 2016 cycle...

Something else recent: a few days ago there was a poll about desirability of a "preventive" nuclear strike on North Korea... is it a good idea, even if a million civilians will be killed? Results: 30% of US population approved this!

Does this mean that 30% of US population are no longer human but reprogrammed maniacal killers?

NO!

The devil is in the details... the approval came mostly from R-maniacs, D-maniacs were against!

And naturally under a D-president the approval would be about the same...just coming from the other part. In essence this proves that at least half of the US population are no longer human but reprogrammed maniacal killers!

Now, how do we detect such reprogrammed individuals? We already know that they compose at least half of the US population?

Simple.... blind love to the leader from their part, blind hate to the leaders of the other part, not seeing their total equivalence .... for instance..... "Trump is an experienced business leader"+"Clintons are crook" is sufficient for a diagnosis already S6 but to be absolutely certain one can find totally illogical ideas that fit into the symmetric hatred US model ... the idea of Clintons selling US air technology is a such symptom. We should be hearing more about this when the depth of Boeing problems becomes apparent.
Sanders 2020

Reply
#14
Ron Wrote:The idea of rebaptism is set forth in Acts 19:1-6, where the Apostle Paul encountered some sincere followers of Bible truth who had been baptized by John the Baptist, but they had never heard of the Holy Spirit, or been adequately informed about Jesus Christ who was anointed by the Holy Spirit to be the Messiah when John baptized Him. When Paul conveyed to them this significantly increased light, the believers felt it was proper for them to be rebaptized to acknowledge this greater light.

That's passionating. But weren't these issues solved somewhere like around the 5th century AD? If not during the first Council of Nicea?
That some poeple still argue about that in 2019 is amazing. S5

mv Wrote:The traditional programming is based on the concept "we are ALL good, others are BAD" -
I thought the traditional concept of mass programming was TV. :?:
Yet, the US is a democratic country since people can chose from which of the two channels to be brainwashed.

mv Wrote:for instance..... "Trump is an experienced business leader"+"Clintons are crook" is sufficient for a diagnosis already
That's why asking Trump to show his tax records is so outrageous. S2
Reply
#15
mv Wrote:One should separate two types of reprogramming (brainwashing): reprogramming of an individual and reprogramming of masses.

The first type is more studied but it is of no interest to totalitarian regimes, it is just not cost effective, except for perhaps unique cases of important individuals in right places.  Manchurian candidate is fiction; a heiress to a large estate would be of interest to a minor group, not to a state. John McCain... perhaps.
But generally it is most cost effective to kill, imprison or merely ignore individuals who don't toe the party line;... or eat them, like in the V miniseries where conversion was an option, but too costly to apply to more than a few!  

Now, reprogramming of masses is of interest to totalitarian states (Nazi Germany, USSR, US, etc.), this is a factor in their survival!

The traditional programming is based on the concept "we are ALL good, others are BAD" --- and the weakness is that "we are ALL good' is too idealistic.. thus not believable" ; the uniqueness and genius of the American approach is to use a new formula: "Half of us are GOOD, the other half are BAD, feel free to hate them".

No. They are both the same. Jonathon Edwards converted hundreds at a time. The more, the easier.

However people are individuals, and the degree of trauma necessary to launch the plastic period may vary also. A small traumatic episode may weakly affect one's fundamental principles, but the amount of reinforcement can be traumatic in itself. After years of classroom disinformation, most students have accepted what they were told. When John Dewey designed our current educational system, he admitted he wanted to make students into accepting dullards with no backbones. Not one at a time. Millions all at once.
Reply
#16
Instant conversion (Edwards example) does not really exist; it works only if the audience is preconditioned to the conversion already, then a talented speaker can deliver the masterstroke by supplying confirmation to inner details/understanding of the listeners. Examples in politics would be early Hitler, or Trump, or Trotsky. For instance Trump "converted" millions into MAGA and anti-immigration stand because these millions already knew that this to be right, Trump only formulated it for them. Ditto for the others. Truth works.

But it is not a technique that can be used by a State! -- because States are always based on Lies.

As for the education system (ES) issue: yes, true, but despite horrendous problems with the US educational system this is NOT the cause of the demise of the US. ES is merely a mechanism of control by the state; I'd rather look deeper into fundamental factors that determine history, not tools.

===

LOL, in fact it was YOU who asked the correct question a couple of weeks ago --- when talking about contribution of Judaism and Christianity. Consider the 1st for now, it is simpler. The answer you gave was totally wrong, but once one sees the correct answer, some general trends in history become clear.
LOL*2... in fact, I made an experiment, asking my wife this very question... she is not a person who spends much time thinking about things like this .. but within half hour she got the picture, mostly herself -- I only supplied some details she could not possibly know... that was a pleasant surprise!
Reply
#17
"...Instant conversion (Edwards example) does not really exist; it works only if the audience is preconditioned to the conversion already, then a talented speaker can deliver the masterstroke by supplying confirmation to inner details/understanding of the listeners."

Did I not make my statements clear? It has been proven (look up the word) and is a basic psychological mechanism extant in all mammals, not just humans.

A traumatic experience causes a plastic state, in which deeply-held beliefs are no longer deeply-held. Those in such a plastic state are susceptible to their deepest beliefs being altered and new ones religiously held and almost impossible to be changed without a similar trauma and new plastic state. These new beliefs are retained, at a much deeper level than mere logic. These new beliefs (if reinforced well enough) become basic foundational beliefs.
Reply
#18
Quote:Did I not make my statements clear?

Yes, you made it very clear that you are again confusing mass conversion to individual.

Individual conversion is of little use to totalitarian states, thus pointless to discuss.

(but inflicting " traumatic experience " on millions of people to convert them... I see some SF potential here!)
Sanders 2020

Reply
#19
No. You are creating a scientific thing that you call "Mass conversion" which does not exist. What behavioral science has proven, is that all conversion is individual. What you are conflating is schedules of reinforcement. Jonathon Edwards could not have brainwashed hundreds of victims at a time, if he didn't have minions inside the tent giving individual reinforcement and blocking family members from interceding.
Reply
#20
LOL.

Recheck your post
https://ai-jane.org/thread-14863-post-27...#pid279959
and see that you have agreed with the mass brainwashing just a few days ago, now we are witnessing a 180 degree turn.

A symptom of a converted/zombified poster in itself.

Nuf, the subject is not interesting. If you want to know what happened to you (and millions of others) try to figure out just where your liking of one crime family (at the expense of another, nearly identical, crime family) is coming from.. obviously not from rational thinking?

Buf I pass.
Sanders 2020

Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  tightening up in the persian gulf jt 2 924 05-02-2008, 01:14 AM
Last Post: track_snake

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)