The Doors Of Perception: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything
From: Quintal (xavier22_at_PASLATETEclub-internet.fr)
Date: 03/19/05
- Next message: habshi: "Tea pill on the way"
- Previous message: Lionel: "Arousal after a bowel movement, normal?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:09:10 GMT
alt.conspiracy,fr.soc.complots,francom.esoterisme,sci.med,fr.bio.medecine
"Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an
invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We
are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested
largely by men we have never heard of.
This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is
organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner
if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or
business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are
dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the
mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who
pull the wires that control the public mind."
http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/15/perception.htm
The Doors Of Perception: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything
by Dr. Tim O'Shea
-- poster's note: data between brackets refer to the references
section in the end. --
We are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever
known. Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being
shaped and molded; our very awareness of the whole design seems like
it is being subtly and inexorably erased.
The doors of our perception are carefully and precisely regulated. Who
cares, right?
It is an exhausting and endless task to keep explaining to people how
most issues of conventional wisdom are scientifically implanted in the
public consciousness by a thousand media clips per day. In an effort
to save time, I would like to provide just a little background on the
handling of information in this country.
Once the basic principles are illustrated about how our current system
of media control arose historically, the reader might be more apt to
question any given story in today's news.
If everybody believes something, it's probably wrong. We call that
Conventional Wisdom.
In America, conventional wisdom that has mass acceptance is usually
contrived: somebody paid for it. Examples:
Pharmaceuticals restore health
Vaccination brings immunity
The cure for cancer is just around the corner
When a child is sick, he needs immediate antibiotics
When a child has a fever he needs Tylenol
Hospitals are safe and clean.
America has the best health care in the world.
And many many more
This is a list of illusions, that have cost billions and billions to
conjure up. Did you ever wonder why you never see the President
speaking publicly unless he is reading? Or why most people in this
country think generally the same about most of the above issues?
How This Set-Up Got Started
In Trust Us We're Experts, Stauber and Rampton pull together some
compelling data describing the science of creating public opinion in
America.
They trace modern public influence back to the early part of the last
century, highlighting the work of guys like Edward L. Bernays, the
Father of Spin. From his own amazing chronicle Propaganda, we learn
how Edward L. Bernays took the ideas of his famous uncle Sigmund Freud
himself, and applied them to the emerging science of mass persuasion.
The only difference was that instead of using these principles to
uncover hidden themes in the human unconscious, the way Freudian
psychology does, Bernays used these same ideas to mask agendas and to
create illusions that deceive and misrepresent, for marketing
purposes.
The Father Of Spin
Bernays dominated the PR industry until the 1940s, and was a
significant force for another 40 years after that. (Tye) During all
that time, Bernays took on hundreds of diverse assignments to create a
public perception about some idea or product. A few examples:
As a neophyte with the Committee on Public Information, one of
Bernays' first assignments was to help sell the First World War to the
American public with the idea to "Make the World Safe for Democracy."
(Ewen)
A few years later, Bernays set up a stunt to popularize the notion of
women smoking cigarettes. In organizing the 1929 Easter Parade in New
York City, Bernays showed himself as a force to be reckoned with.
He organized the Torches of Liberty Brigade in which suffragettes
marched in the parade smoking cigarettes as a mark of women's
liberation. Such publicity followed from that one event that from then
on women have felt secure about destroying their own lungs in public,
the same way that men have always done.
Bernays popularized the idea of bacon for breakfast.
Not one to turn down a challenge, he set up the advertising format
along with the AMA that lasted for nearly 50 years proving that
cigarettes are beneficial to health. Just look at ads in issues of
Life or Time from the 40s and 50s.
Smoke And Mirrors
Bernay's job was to reframe an issue; to create a desired image that
would put a particular product or concept in a desirable light.
Bernays described the public as a 'herd that needed to be led.' And
this herdlike thinking makes people "susceptible to leadership."
Bernays never deviated from his fundamental axiom to "control the
masses without their knowing it." The best PR happens with the people
unaware that they are being manipulated.
Stauber describes Bernays' rationale like this:
"the scientific manipulation of public opinion was necessary to
overcome chaos and conflict in a democratic society." Trust Us p 42
These early mass persuaders postured themselves as performing a moral
service for humanity in general - democracy was too good for people;
they needed to be told what to think, because they were incapable of
rational thought by themselves. Here's a paragraph from Bernays'
Propaganda:
"Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an
invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We
are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested
largely by men we have never heard of.
This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is
organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner
if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or
business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are
dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the
mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who
pull the wires that control the public mind."
Here Comes The Money
Once the possibilities of applying Freudian psychology to mass media
were glimpsed, Bernays soon had more corporate clients than he could
handle. Global corporations fell all over themselves courting the new
Image Makers. There were dozens of goods and services and ideas to be
sold to a susceptible public. Over the years, these players have had
the money to make their images happen. A few examples:
Philip Morris Pfizer Union Carbide
Allstate Monsanto Eli Lilly
tobacco industry Ciba Geigy lead industry
Coors DuPont Chlorox
Shell Oil Standard Oil Procter & Gamble
Boeing General Motors Dow Chemical
General Mills Goodyear
The Players
Though world-famous within the PR industry, the companies have names
we don't know, and for good reason.
The best PR goes unnoticed.
For decades they have created the opinions that most of us were raised
with, on virtually any issue which has the remotest commercial value,
including:
pharmaceutical drugs
vaccines
medicine as a profession
alternative medicine
fluoridation of city water
chlorine
household cleaning products
tobacco
dioxin
global warming
leaded gasoline
cancer research and treatment
pollution of the oceans
forests and lumber
images of celebrities, including damage control
crisis and disaster management
genetically modified foods
aspartame
food additives; processed foods
dental amalgams
Lesson #1
Bernays learned early on that the most effective way to create
credibility for a product or an image was by "independent third-party"
endorsement.
For example, if General Motors were to come out and say that global
warming is a hoax thought up by some liberal tree-huggers, people
would suspect GM's motives, since GM's fortune is made by selling
automobiles.
If however some independent research institute with a very credible
sounding name like the Global Climate Coalition comes out with a
scientific report that says global warming is really a fiction, people
begin to get confused and to have doubts about the original issue.
So that's exactly what Bernays did. With a policy inspired by genius,
he set up "more institutes and foundations than Rockefeller and
Carnegie combined." (Stauber p 45)
Quietly financed by the industries whose products were being
evaluated, these "independent" research agencies would churn out
"scientific" studies and press materials that could create any image
their handlers wanted. Such front groups are given high-sounding names
like:
Temperature Research Foundation
Manhattan Institute
International Food Information Council
Center for Produce Quality
Consumer Alert
Tobacco Institute Research Council
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
Cato Institute
Air Hygiene Foundation
American Council on Science and Health
Industrial Health Federation
Global Climate Coalition
International Food Information Council
Alliance for Better Foods
Sound pretty legit don't they?
Canned News Releases
As Stauber explains, these organizations and hundreds of others like
them are front groups whose sole mission is to advance the image of
the global corporations who fund them, like those listed above.
This is accomplished in part by an endless stream of 'press releases'
announcing "breakthrough" research to every radio station and
newspaper in the country. (Robbins) Many of these canned reports read
like straight news, and indeed are purposely molded in the news
format.
This saves journalists the trouble of researching the subjects on
their own, especially on topics about which they know very little.
Entire sections of the release or in the case of video news releases,
the whole thing can be just lifted intact, with no editing, given the
byline of the reporter or newspaper or TV station - and voilá! Instant
news - copy and paste. Written by corporate PR firms.
Does this really happen? Every single day, since the 1920s when the
idea of the News Release was first invented by Ivy Lee. (Stauber, p
22) Sometimes as many as half the stories appearing in an issue of the
Wall St. Journal are based solely on such PR press releases.. (22)
These types of stories are mixed right in with legitimately researched
stories. Unless you have done the research yourself, you won't be able
to tell the difference.
The Language Of Spin
As 1920s spin pioneers like Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays gained more
experience, they began to formulate rules and guidelines for creating
public opinion. They learned quickly that mob psychology must focus on
emotion, not facts. Since the mob is incapable of rational thought,
motivation must be based not on logic but on presentation. Here are
some of the axioms of the new science of PR:
- technology is a religion unto itself
- if people are incapable of rational thought, real democracy is
dangerous
- important decisions should be left to experts
- when reframing issues, stay away from substance; create images
- never state a clearly demonstrable lie
Words are very carefully chosen for their emotional impact. Here's an
example. A front group called the International Food Information
Council handles the public's natural aversion to genetically modified
foods.
Trigger words are repeated all through the text. Now in the case of GM
foods, the public is instinctively afraid of these experimental new
creations which have suddenly popped up on our grocery shelves which
are said to have DNA alterations. The IFIC wants to reassure the
public of the safety of GM foods, so it avoids words like:
Frankenfoods Hitler biotech
chemical DNA experiments
manipulate money safety
scientists radiation roulette
gene-splicing gene gun random
Instead, good PR for GM foods contains words like:
hybrids natural order beauty
choice bounty cross-breeding
diversity earth farmer
organic wholesome
It's basic Freudian/Tony Robbins word association. The fact that GM
foods are not hybrids that have been subjected to the slow and careful
scientific methods of real crossbreeding doesn't really matter. This
is pseudoscience, not science. Form is everything and substance just a
passing myth. (Trevanian)
Who do you think funds the International Food Information Council?
Take a wild guess. Right - Monsanto, DuPont, Frito-Lay, Coca Cola,
Nutrasweet - those in a position to make fortunes from GM foods.
(Stauber p 20)
Characteristics Of Good Propaganda
As the science of mass control evolved, PR firms developed further
guidelines for effective copy. Here are some of the gems:
- dehumanize the attacked party by labeling and name calling
- speak in glittering generalities using emotionally positive words
- when covering something up, don't use plain English; stall for time;
distract
- get endorsements from celebrities, churches, sports figures, street
people - anyone who has no expertise in the subject at hand
- the 'plain folks' ruse: us billionaires are just like you
- when minimizing outrage, don't say anything memorable, point out the
benefits of what just happened, and avoid moral issues
Keep this list. Start watching for these techniques. Not hard to find
- look at today's paper or tonight's TV news. See what they're doing;
these guys are good!
Science For Hire
PR firms have become very sophisticated in the preparation of news
releases. They have learned how to attach the names of famous
scientists to research that those scientists have not even looked at.
(Stauber, p 201)
This is a common occurrence. In this way the editors of newspapers and
TV news shows are often not even aware that an individual release is a
total PR fabrication. Or at least they have "deniability," right?
Stauber tells the amazing story of how leaded gas came into the
picture. In 1922, General Motors discovered that adding lead to
gasoline gave cars more horsepower.
When there was some concern about safety, GM paid the Bureau of Mines
to do some fake "testing" and publish spurious research that 'proved'
that inhalation of lead was harmless. Enter Charles Kettering.
Founder of the world famous Sloan-Kettering Memorial Institute for
medical research, Charles Kettering also happened to be an executive
with General Motors.
By some strange coincidence, we soon have the Sloan Kettering
institute issuing reports stating that lead occurs naturally in the
body and that the body has a way of eliminating low level exposure.
Through its association with The Industrial Hygiene Foundation and PR
giant Hill & Knowlton, Sloane Kettering opposed all anti-lead research
for years. (Stauber p 92). Without organized scientific opposition,
for the next 60 years more and more gasoline became leaded, until by
the 1970s, 90% of our gasoline was leaded.
Finally it became too obvious to hide that lead was a major
carcinogen, and leaded gas was phased out in the late 1980s. But
during those 60 years, it is estimated that some 30 million tons of
lead were released in vapor form onto American streets and highways.
30 million tons.
That is PR, my friends.
Junk Science
In 1993 a guy named Peter Huber wrote a new book and coined a new
term. The book was Galileo's Revenge and the term was junk science.
Huber's shallow thesis was that real science supports technology,
industry, and progress.
Anything else was suddenly junk science. Not surprisingly, Stauber
explains how Huber's book was supported by the industry-backed
Manhattan Institute.
Huber's book was generally dismissed not only because it was so poorly
written, but because it failed to realize one fact: true scientific
research begins with no conclusions. Real scientists are seeking the
truth because they do not yet know what the truth is.
True scientific method goes like this:
1. Form a hypothesis
2. Make predictions for that hypothesis
3. Test the predictions
4. Reject or revise the hypothesis based on the research findings
Boston University scientist Dr. David Ozonoff explains that ideas in
science are themselves like "living organisms, that must be nourished,
supported, and cultivated with resources for making them grow and
flourish." (Stauber p 205)
Great ideas that don't get this financial support because the
commercial angles are not immediately obvious - these ideas wither and
die.
Another way you can often distinguish real science from phony is that
real science points out flaws in its own research. Phony science
pretends there were no flaws.
The Real Junk Science
Contrast this with modern PR and its constant pretensions to sound
science. Corporate sponsored research, whether it's in the area of
drugs, GM foods, or chemistry begins with predetermined conclusions.
It is the job of the scientists then to prove that these conclusions
are true, because of the economic upside that proof will bring to the
industries paying for that research. This invidious approach to
science has shifted the entire focus of research in America during the
past 50 years, as any true scientist is likely to admit.
Stauber documents the increasing amount of corporate sponsorship of
university research. (206) This has nothing to do with the pursuit of
knowledge. Scientists lament that research has become just another
commodity, something bought and sold. (Crossen)
The Two Main Targets Of "Sound Science"
It is shocking when Stauber shows how the vast majority of corporate
PR today opposes any research that seeks to protect
- public health
- the environment
It's a funny thing that most of the time when we see the phrase "junk
science," it is in a context of defending something that may threaten
either the environment or our health.
This makes sense when one realizes that money changes hands only by
selling the illusion of health and the illusion of environmental
protection. True public health and real preservation of the earth's
environment have very low market value.
Stauber thinks it ironic that industry's self-proclaimed debunkers of
junk science are usually non-scientists themselves. (255) Here again
they can do this because the issue is not science, but the creation of
images.
The Language Of Attack
When PR firms attack legitimate environmental groups and alternative
medicine people, they again use special words which will carry an
emotional punch:
outraged sound science junk science
sensible scaremongering responsible
phobiahoax alarmist hysteria
The next time you are reading a newspaper article about an
environmental or health issue, note how the author shows bias by using
the above terms. This is the result of very specialized training.
Another standard PR tactic is to use the rhetoric of the
environmentalists themselves to defend a dangerous and untested
product that poses an actual threat to the environment. This we see
constantly in the PR smokescreen that surrounds genetically modified
foods.
They talk about how GM foods are necessary to grow more food and to
end world hunger, when the reality is that GM foods actually have
lower yields per acre than natural crops. (Stauber p 173)
The grand design sort of comes into focus once you realize that almost
all GM foods have been created by the sellers of herbicides and
pesticides so that those plants can withstand greater amounts of
herbicides and pesticides. (The Magic Bean)
Kill Your TV?
Hope this chapter has given you a hint to start reading newspaper and
magazine articles a little differently, and perhaps start watching TV
news shows with a slightly different attitude than you had before.
Always ask, what are they selling here, and who's selling it? And if
you actually follow up on Stauber & Rampton's book and check out some
of the other resources below, you might even glimpse the possibility
of advancing your life one quantum simply by ceasing to subject your
brain to mass media.
That's right - no more newspapers, no more TV news, no more Time
magazine or Newsweek. You could actually do that. Just think what you
could do with the extra time alone.
Really feel like you need to "relax" or find out "what's going on in
the world" for a few hours every day? Think about the news of the past
couple of years for a minute.
Do you really suppose the major stories that have dominated headlines
and TV news have been "what is going on in the world?" Do you actually
think there's been nothing going on besides the contrived tech slump,
the contrived power shortages, the re-filtered accounts of foreign
violence and disaster, and all the other non-stories that the
puppeteers dangle before us every day?
What about when they get a big one, like with OJ or Monica Lewinsky or
the Oklahoma city bombing? Do we really need to know all that detail,
day after day? Do we have any way of verifying all that detail, even
if we wanted to? What is the purpose of news?
To inform the public? Hardly. The sole purpose of news is to keep the
public in a state of fear and uncertainty so that they'll watch again
tomorrow and be subjected to the same advertising.
Oversimplification? Of course. That's the mark of mass media mastery -
simplicity. The invisible hand. Like Edward Bernays said, the people
must be controlled without them knowing it.
Consider this: what was really going on in the world all that time
they were distracting us with all that stupid vexatious daily
smokescreen? Fear and uncertainty -- that's what keeps people coming
back for more.
If this seems like a radical outlook, let's take it one step further:
What would you lose from your life if you stopped watching TV and
stopped reading newspapers altogether?
Would your life really suffer any financial, moral, intellectual or
academic loss from such a decision?
Do you really need to have your family continually absorbing the
illiterate, amoral, phony, uncultivated, desperately brainless values
of the people featured in the average nightly TV program? Are these
fake, programmed robots "normal"?
Do you need to have your life values constantly spoon-fed to you?
Are those shows really amusing, or just a necessary distraction to
keep you from looking at reality, or trying to figure things out
yourself by doing a little independent reading?
Name one example of how your life is improved by watching TV news and
reading the evening paper.
What measurable gain is there for you?
Planet of the Apes?
There's no question that as a nation, we're getting dumber year by
year. Look at the presidents we've been choosing lately. Ever notice
the blatant grammar mistakes so ubiquitous in today's advertising and
billboards?
Literacy is marginal in most American secondary schools. Three fourths
of California high school seniors can't read well enough to pass their
exit exams. (SJ Mercury 20 Jul 01)
If you think other parts of the country are smarter, try this one:
hand any high school senior a book by Dumas or Jane Austen, and ask
them to open to any random page and just read one paragraph out loud.
Go ahead, do it. SAT scales are arbitrarily shifted lower and lower to
disguise how dumb kids are getting year by year.
At least 10% have documented "learning disabilities," which are
reinforced and rewarded by special treatment and special drugs. Ever
hear of anyone failing a grade any more?
Or observe the intellectual level of the average movie which these
days may only last one or two weeks in the theatres, especially if it
has insufficient explosions, chase scenes, silicone, fake martial
arts, and cretinesque dialogue.
Radio? Consider the low mental qualifications of the falsely animated
corporate simians they hire as DJs -- they're only allowed to have 50
thoughts, which they just repeat at random.
And at what point did popular music cease to require the study of any
musical instrument or theory whatsoever, not to mention lyric? Perhaps
we just don't understand this emerging art form, right? The Darwinism
of MTV - apes descended from man.
Ever notice how most articles in any of the glossy magazines sound
like they were all written by the same guy? And this guy just
graduated from junior college? And yet he has all the correct opinions
on social issues, no original ideas, and that shallow, smug,
homogenized corporate omniscience, which enables him to assure us that
everything is going to be fine...
All this is great news for the PR industry - makes their job that much
easier. Not only are very few paying attention to the process of
conditioning; fewer are capable of understanding it even if somebody
explained it to them.
Tea In the Cafeteria
Let's say you're in a crowded cafeteria, and you buy a cup of tea. And
as you're about to sit down you see your friend way across the room.
So you put the tea down and walk across the room and talk to your
friend for a few minutes.
Now, coming back to your tea, are you just going to pick it up and
drink it? Remember, this is a crowded place and you've just left your
tea unattended for several minutes. You've given anybody in that room
access to your tea.
Why should your mind be any different? Turning on the TV, or
uncritically absorbing mass publications every day - these activities
allow access to our minds by "just anyone" - anyone who has an agenda,
anyone with the resources to create a public image via popular media.
As we've seen above, just because we read something or see something
on TV doesn't mean it's true or worth knowing. So the idea here is,
like the tea, the mind is also worth guarding, worth limiting access
to it.
This is the only life we get. Time is our total capital. Why waste it
allowing our potential, our personality, our values to be shaped,
crafted, and limited according to the whims of the mass panderers?
There are many important issues that are crucial to our physical,
mental, and spiritual well-being. If it's an issue where money is
involved, objective data won't be so easy to obtain. Remember, if
everybody knows something, that image has been bought and paid for.
Real knowledge takes a little effort, a little excavation down at
least one level below what "everybody knows."
References
Stauber & Rampton, "Trust Us, We're Experts", Tarcher/Putnam 2001
Ewen, Stuart PR!: A Social History of Spin 1996 ISBN: 0-465-06168-0
Published by Basic Books, A Division of Harper Collins
Tye, Larry The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and the Birth of
Public Relations Crown Publishers, Inc. 2001
King, R Medical journals rarely disclose researchers' ties Wall St.
Journal, 2 Feb 99.
Engler, R et al. Misrepresentation and Responsibility in Medical
Research New England Journal of Medicine v 317 p 1383 26 Nov 1987
Black, D PhD Health At the Crossroads Tapestry 1988. revanian Shibumi
1983.
Crossen, C Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in America 1996.
Robbins, J Reclaiming Our Health Kramer 1996.
O'Shea T The Magic Bean 2000.
Inhibitory effect of conjugated dienoic derivatives of linoleic acid
and beta-carotene on the in vitro growth of human cancer cells CANCER
LETT. (Ireland) , 1992, 63/2 (125-133)
Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes by fatty acids and monoglycerides
APPL. ENVIRON. MICROBIOL. (USA) , 1992, 58/2 (624-629)
http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/15/perception.htm
alt.conspiracy,fr.soc.complots,francom.esoterisme,sci.med,fr.bio.medecine
- Next message: habshi: "Tea pill on the way"
- Previous message: Lionel: "Arousal after a bowel movement, normal?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
