Author Topic: Peace deal with Taliban  (Read 17626 times)

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #100 on: March 10, 2020, 12:54:24 PM »
Read my edit to my previous post.  Also note that I asked you to point to an example or two, which you decline to do.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #101 on: March 10, 2020, 01:04:11 PM »
Read my edit to my previous post.  Also note that I asked you to point to an example or two, which you decline to do.

Yeah, I just saw it now. Well I'm sort of reluctant to try to dig through old threads, which you could just as soon do, to find instances of arguments I've made. I'm sure you'll see more over time.

Regarding the "staying silent", I tend to neither endorse nor criticize Presidential moves because, well, neither are that interesting to me. I did make comment on the NK situation because that did uniquely interest me, but otherwise I don't tend to dip into scrutinizing each move Trump makes or Tweets with an eye toward "do I like this." I tend to prefer looking at the system as a whole and asking how each part affects the other, of which Trump is a part but not the whole. But my comment about not partaking of a toxic bandwagon has a few reasons, I guess, not the least of which is making sure we stay intellectually honest. It has nothing to do with respectfully avoiding criticizing the President, and everything to do with observing how much mutual brainwashing goes on in America. Whereas the typical approach is to support those "on one's side" and criticize the enemy, I view the enemy as brainwashing itself. From that standpoint 'my side' is to avoid using particular events as a means to an end, and therefore my criticisms will be based on what I see as the greatest problem.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #102 on: March 10, 2020, 09:37:16 PM »
...I tend to neither endorse nor criticize Presidential moves because, well, neither are that interesting to me. I did make comment on the NK situation because that did uniquely interest me, but otherwise I don't tend to dip into scrutinizing each move Trump makes or Tweets with an eye toward "do I like this." I tend to prefer looking at the system as a whole and asking how each part affects the other, of which Trump is a part but not the whole. But my comment about not partaking of a toxic bandwagon has a few reasons, I guess, not the least of which is making sure we stay intellectually honest. It has nothing to do with respectfully avoiding criticizing the President, and everything to do with observing how much mutual brainwashing goes on in America. Whereas the typical approach is to support those "on one's side" and criticize the enemy, I view the enemy as brainwashing itself. From that standpoint 'my side' is to avoid using particular events as a means to an end, and therefore my criticisms will be based on what I see as the greatest problem.

Interesting statement. I don't know how such a position works. I look at the metrics of the administration's successes and what policies come into being, also; but don't see how to separate out the man from the actions. I am more focused on 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 a 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
« Last Edit: March 10, 2020, 09:47:36 PM by wmLambert »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #103 on: March 10, 2020, 09:45:30 PM »
I was referring to the slightly less clinical, but not *completely* separate, version of brainwashing, which is what we might call soft radicalization. Basically not only being told repeatedly who the enemy is - thus making a part of one's self-identity based on opposition of another, rather than a positive attribute - but also establishing a reward/punishment system in the psyche where contrary information is treated like an invading infection to be attacked. This sort of thing has been happening on and off forever, as you sort of note, but never so deliberately or targeted as it has been since WWII. I do believe that people end up as pawns on a chessboard, and that our best defense is to realize that the pawns clashing is not in our interest, it's in someone else's. This isn't even a new view; as far back as Aeschylus it was spoken of that wars and conflict make victims of the regular people on both sides. So no, I will not stand on one side of a made-up line and take sides for or against someone like Trump, or anyone else, if doing so is a way to distance me from half of humanity. No thanks; which is why I'm 'not interested' in scrutinizing the minutiae of Trump's activities. It has nothing to do with separating the man from his actions. It's about declining to play that game.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #104 on: March 10, 2020, 10:04:53 PM »
I was referring to the slightly less clinical, but not *completely* separate, version of brainwashing, which is what we might call soft radicalization. Basically not only being told repeatedly who the enemy is - thus making a part of one's self-identity based on opposition of another, rather than a positive attribute - but also establishing a reward/punishment system in the psyche where contrary information is treated like an invading infection to be attacked. This sort of thing has been happening on and off forever, as you sort of note, but never so deliberately or targeted as it has been since WWII. I do believe that people end up as pawns on a chessboard, and that our best defense is to realize that the pawns clashing is not in our interest, it's in someone else's. This isn't even a new view; as far back as Aeschylus it was spoken of that wars and conflict make victims of the regular people on both sides. So no, I will not stand on one side of a made-up line and take sides for or against someone like Trump, or anyone else, if doing so is a way to distance me from half of humanity. No thanks; which is why I'm 'not interested' in scrutinizing the minutiae of Trump's activities. It has nothing to do with separating the man from his actions. It's about declining to play that game.

Okay, ...slightly less clinical, but not *completely* separate, version of brainwashing, which is what we might call soft radicalization. We did cover that in Professor McConnell's class. Take a typical kid in college who follows a teacher as a mentor and listens to what that professor says. Each word does not become imprinted upon his/her soul, yet over the course of the course, the info provided is accepted deeper than logic by itself allows. It also can be be cemented more fully with additional reinforcement outside of the course, itself.

But this is not a purposeful agenda. It just happens. We were taught that as long as you understand the process, then you can resist it and allow logic to prevail. It doesn't make those who create this brainwashing process evil, it just perpetuates disinformation.

However; even such deeply-held incorrect preconceptions CAN be overcome. Hysterical blindness is similar and can often be "cured" by the laying on of hands. Wierd, but true. To my thinking, it is hard and is often misunderstood, but fighting against disinformation is one truly honorable action to take.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #105 on: March 10, 2020, 10:50:05 PM »
But this is not a purposeful agenda. It just happens. We were taught that as long as you understand the process, then you can resist it and allow logic to prevail. It doesn't make those who create this brainwashing process evil, it just perpetuates disinformation.

I don't understand what this argument is supposed to be. Because things can happen unintentionally, therefore they can't happen intentionally?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #106 on: March 10, 2020, 11:37:05 PM »
...I don't understand what this argument is supposed to be. Because things can happen unintentionally, therefore they can't happen intentionally?

It can be done intentionally, as in MK-Ultra, however; per your "soft radicalization" most who do the damage are innocent of evil intent. They just believe something that is incorrect, yet want others to believe the same thing.

The Left is genuinely pure in their motives. They believe what they stand for. They believe the Right is wrong. My assessment is that if both sides worked from the same set of facts they would hold the same beliefs and work for the same successes. What I see is that the foundational elements are easily put straight, and both sides could work together with a little patience and courage to rethink incorrect preconceived notions. The Right needs a dose of reality as well - but the largest change needs to come from the Left, because the Left owned the schools where the revisionist doctrine was taught. It is also the Left playing class warfare and the racism card. Agreeing on the same starting points would greatly reduce the contention.

What went wrong? When did East become West, and apples be compared to cinder blocks? The Left's sensibilities are rooted in three main "truths"; uncompromisable certainties that rationalize all else.

One: that the religious believers are vapid dupes wrapped up in magical preachments that allow bigotry, bias, and hatred to flourish in the name of Church and God. After all, hasn't religion been the root cause of all wars throughout history, and the cause of the Dark ages that destroyed civilization, until Liberal elites appeared, giving birth to the Rennaissance?

Two: that money is the root of all evil; that evil Republican tycoons did and do extort and prey upon the poor to enrich themselves, and only a strong and benevolent central government run by the true elite can hold these Robber Barons in check.

Three: that popular patriotism separates nations and creates the divisiveness that allows wars to be waged. A proper global atheist central world government, run by the intellectual elite, could eliminate all conflict and make Paradise on Earth.

Is this correct or just more bias from the Right? Surely most Liberal minds do embrace these as foundational issues. Individuals may hold slightly divergent views on each one of these points, but they appear to fairly summarize the basis of the Liberal mindset. It is easy to attack each plank - but my focus is on where these ideas originally came from, where and by whom did the Liberals become educated by them, and if the history of the foundational premises is true or provable falsehood.

The problem isn't that contemporaneous Democrats are confrontational for lust of lost power, but because they honestly believe their way is the only way.

D. H. Lawrence, Aldous Huxley, H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and Virginia Woolf, are bright lights amongst the Left, unarguably successful talents and admired thinkers. What they were taught as children is what caused their beliefs they have published. But since they were bright lights in an earlier era, they spoke plainly and honestly. Their words are more blunt than present day celebrity pols, but more clearly define what the present day Left-wing/atheistic movement is all about.

These spotlighted intellectuals were ultra-elite Liberals who made no bones about their innate superiority over the intellectually turgid who can't handle knowledge even when it is spoon-fed them in Liberal schools. Lawrence proposed, "all schools should be closed at once. The great mass of humanity should never learn to read and write." The hatred and disgust for the intellectually vapid underclass was spelled out by Huxley and Wells. Huxley said "about 95.5 percent of the entire population of the planet are stupid and philistine." Woolf described others as social inferiors. Her diary mentioned self-taught working class men. "We know how distressing they are." Other women using public lavatory were "common little tarts." Middle-class working women in a restaurant eating cakes were "scented, shoddy, parasitic. Where does the money come [from] to feed these fat white slugs?" Wells fought for an atheist world government, because he said all wars are caused by popular patriotism and religious belief. His burning anti-Semistism was so pronounced that Eleanor Roosevelt asked Wells to leave the country. Shaw joins Wells in the idea that global domination must be brought about by genocide. In a time before Hitler, they wanted the mentally and physically unfit to be exterminated. According to Wells, "the swarms of black, brown, dirty-white, and yellow people in Africa and Asia will have to go." In Europe the "vicious, helpless and pauper masses, the weak and silly and pointless, and the lumpy, unteacheable, unimaginative people must be annihilated in a mercifle obliteration through disease, starvation, and execution." Shaw said, the "extermination must be put on a scientific basis if it is ever to be carried out humanely and apologetically as well as thoroughly. ...If we desire a certain type of civilization and culture, we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it."

I was recently reminded to include Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood in our list of Leftist icons. She supported Nazi-style Eugenics to weed out the undeserving:
Modern studies indicate that insanity, epilepsy, criminality, prostitution, pauperism, and mental defect, are all organically bound up together and that the least intelligent and the thoroughly degenerate classes in every community are the most prolific. Feeble-mindedness in one generation becomes pauperism or insanity in the next. There is every indication that feeble-mindedness in its protean forms is on the increase, that it has leaped the barriers, and that there is truly, as some of the scientific eugenists have pointed out, a feeble-minded peril to future generations - unless the feeble-minded are prevented from reproducing their kind. To meet this emergency is the immediate and peremptory duty of every State and of all communities.

Let us not let these icons of Liberal thought be lionized.

However, their defining thoughts reoccur in modern Liberals for a reason. The facts that they understood to be true in the schools they attended bent them badly, yet these same mistruths are still taught. Why did Paul Ehrlich call for population control to answer the "Population Bomb" that never appeared as he predicted? Why did so many Ecology-movement activists agitate for DDT to be outlawed? Many argued the Wells-Shaw argument, that banning DDT would allow Malaria to help reduce the global population, and best target the "inferior, hopeless masses."

The biggest divergence from reality sprung from a simple mistruth offered up in 1832. If there ever was a simple causation for all belief in the benevolence and value of a strong centralized government, then this is it.

In a review of fourth and eighth grade history books, all of them get it wrong. None of them were honest about big government vs. big business. Each book spent much effort painting a picture of successful government monopolies in the Fur trade, building canals and railroads. The historical truth is that these government monopolies were uncontested failures - Failures so severe that the populace rose up in anger, ended the political forces that fed them, and turned them over to successful entrepreneurs. The books all preached to the young that big government was the savior and Robber Barons the nemesis, when in all actuality, it was the opposite that held true.

What caused this was a reliance on the historical works of John L. and Barbara Hammond, who influenced all the school books that followed. They relied on the Sadler Report of 1832 that reported the Industrial Revolution was "crowded with overworked children", "hotbeds of putrid fever," and "monotonous toil in a hell of human cruelty." Charles Dickens' novels helped to codify this image.

Would modern day Leftists feel less secure promoting big government to solve social and economic problems, if they knew in their hearts that what they learned as children was a lie? An historical review by Dr. Burton W. Folsom points out that
Quote
Mr. Sadler, we know today, lied in his report. He was a member of Parliament and made up much of his report to gain support for a bill he wanted to see Parliament pass. Economist W. H. Hutt has described Sadler's falsification of evidence. Even Friedrich Engels, comrade of Karl Marx, concluded that "Sadler permitted himself to be betrayed by his noble enthusiasm into the most distorted and erroneous statements."

The history of our country is clear: It was the government that charged outrageous prices and tried to pawn off shoddy merchandise, while the private businesses that supplanted them did the job right, charged lower prices, and did it without government subsidies that kept the monopolies afloat.
Quote from: Folsom
The school books give the impression that robber barons stepped in to exploit whatever they could, and were a negative point in history. The lesson the books should be teaching is that in the world of commerce, the profit motive, the structure of incentives. and the stifling tendencies of bureaucrats are such that those businesses run by entrepreneurs will consistently outperform those run by the government. Instead, the authors had a bias for a strong central government. When the authors were called on these reports, they agreed that they were not reporting fact, but incorrect, unsubstantiated ideology.

As a prime example, what happened in Michigan, my home state, is the rule and not the exception.

Quote from: Based on Grace Kachaturoff, author of [i]Michigan[/i], Folsom
When the state builds a project, the incentives are different from those of private enterprise. Satisfying political interests is often more important to legislators than building a railroad that is financially sound and well constructed. State builders use taxpayers’ money, not their own. If the road fails, it’s the state, not the builders, with empty pockets. The Michigan story is full of accounts of padded vouchers, illegal bidding, cost overruns, and the stealing of materials by contractors and even by the citizens themselves. Since no one actually owned the railroads, no one felt the responsibility to take care of them.


wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #107 on: March 10, 2020, 11:37:31 PM »
(continued)
Judge Thomas Cooley, Michigan’s most famous 19th-century lawyer and a president of the American Bar Association, observed this waste firsthand. He wrote about it later and said, "By common consent it came to be considered that the State in entering upon these works had made a serious mistake." The people of Michigan, Cooley reported, became convinced "that the management of railroads was in its nature essentially a private business, and ought to be in the hands of individuals." In 1846, therefore, the state of Michigan abandoned all the canals and sold the Central and Southern Railroads, which were only partly completed, to private investors. The new owners promised to do some rebuilding and to expand the lines to the Chicago area. From this distress sale, the state recovered one-half of its $5 million investment and ended its headaches from being in the railroad business.

Once the railroads had been privatized, they were rebuilt with care and extended across the state. At last, Michigan citizens had the roads they needed to trade and thrive. This turnaround was so startling that its implications were not lost on Michigan voters. They learned from history.

In 1850, Michigan threw out its old constitution and wrote a new one. It read, "the State shall not subscribe to or be interested in the stock of any company, association, or corporation." Furthermore, "the State shall not be a party to or interested in any work of internal improvement, nor engaged in carrying on any such work" except to provide land. The heavily taxed voters were determined to learn from their mistakes and chart a better future for the state. In the years of laissez-faire that followed, Michigan’s entrepreneurs developed the state’s natural resources—lumber and iron ore—so effectively that Michigan soon became a major industrial state.[/quote]

This is a root principle that denies the Liberal belief that is inculcated into their belief systems as school children. How can you dismiss the honor and veracity of a Liberal who believes what he was taught in school?

Going deeper into disinformation, consider the tendency of the Left to disparage the right as religious extremists and strongly anti-science. Once again, how can one begrudge a poor Leftist who learned Columbus almost never discovered America because the religious zealots said he was a heretic? The Dems learned in school that the church decreed the Earth was flat and that was that. Going back farther, who hasn't learned that the great enlightened civilization of Greece and Rome ended when the Church entered the picture, and then began a "Dark Ages" That lasted until The Rennaissance? This disinformation is all wrong, yet believed devoutly by the Left.

Rodney Stark in How Christianity (and Capitalism) Led to Science presents the accepted and unargued true history that is unreported in school books.
Quote from: It was Andrew Dickson White who
The warfare of Columbus [with religion] the world knows well: how the Bishop of Ceuta bested him in Portugal,; how sundry wise men of Spain confronted him with the usual quotations from Psalms, from St, Paul, and from St. Augustine; how, even after he was triumphant, and after his voyage had greatly strengthened the theory of the Earth's sphericity... the Church by its highest authority solemnly stumbled and persisted in going astray... the theological barriers to this geographical truth yielded but slowly. Plain as it had become to scholars, they hesitated to declare it to the world at large... But in 1519 science gains a crushing victory. Magellan makes his famous voyage. He proves the Earth is round, for his expedition circumnavigates it... Yet even this does not end the war. Many conscientious [religious[ men oppose the doctrine for two hundred years longer.
Every history book recounts how Columbus fought the religious extremists who used the Bible to decree the Earth was Flat. Name a Leftist who knows any different!

White lied. He was running for President of Cornell and admitted he wrote this to "get even with his Christian critics of his plans for Cornell." Every educated person of Columbus's time knew the earth was round. This includes Roman Catholic theologians. The Venerable Bede (ca. 673-735) taught that the Earth was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (ca. 720-784). Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), and all four became Saints. It was part of an ages-old conspiracy of atheists to portray Religion as being anti-Science. Columbus was not argued out of sailing off the edge of the world. The scientist of his day knew the world was round - but much larger than Columbus estimated. He put Japan at being only 2,080 miles from the Canary Islands, but the "sundry wise men of Spain" knew it was over 14,000 miles. Had Columbus not run across an unsuspected continent - his crew would have all died at Sea.

But then again, the entire "Dark ages" is a crock. Christianity actually inspired science. There was no science in ancient Greece or Rome. Aristotle thought the weight of objects were proportional to the speed with which they dropped. A simple test by dropping two different weights off a cliff never occurred to him. Guesswork without empiricism is not science. It was only at the birth of Christianity, that a wise God appeared who fostered the idea that science could be done and should be done. The Church understood there was a duty to understand God's handiwork, the better to marvel at it.

As for a time of barbarism, superstition, and widespread ignorance - there was no "Dark Ages." The march of progress was sure and steady, and sparked by the Christian concept of the world as an understandable creation following understandable laws which needed to be studied. The phrase,  "Dark Ages," was a myth, first used in the early 19th century by atheists to claim credit for a sudden "enlightenment" that occurred against the Church's wishes. In fact it was the Church that fostered science. Quintus Tertullian instructed in the second century, "Reason is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason — nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason." The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.

Yet, every good Liberal knows Gibbons wrote The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and blamed the Fall of Rome and the rise of barbarism on Christianity. Historians disagree - yet the schools still distort the truth. The New Columbia Encyclopedia (1975) says the term "Dark Ages" is no longer used by historians because this era is no longer thought to have been so dim. The Encyclopedia Britannica concurs.

During the era of Classical Greece, neoPlatonism originated, a philosophy which merged Plato's philosophy with Indian pantheism. Plotinus taught that the world was an "emanation" or radiation of being from a nonpersonal Spirit or Absolute--somewhat as light is a radiation from the sun. This is New-Age religion. The Godhead is unknowable, pure and good; the farther away one is the more evil and base. This religion only subscribes to ascetic practices that suppress bodily desires that liberate the spirit and allows it to be reabsorbed into the infinite essence. Through the years, Neo-Platonism has become a mystical religion, crafted in part to counter Christianity. In some aspects it has merged with Christianity.

But here we are... products of strong disinformation that tells us religion engenders ignorance and is anti-science - when true history claims Christianity is the single catalyst that sparked and promoted science. A famous poll taken in Darwin's day found that almost all celebrated scientists, including Darwin, were deeply religious. Eighty-four years later, the same poll showed exactly the same results. Modern scientists are profoundly religious.

The third major change in misdirected thinking has to be in Civil Rights. The Democrats have staked out their identity as being pro-Civil rights and that all Republicans are bigots. They own 90% of the Black vote.

Check out the message from Rev. Dr. Levon Yuille, who does a weekly radio program. It is paid for strictly with donations: The Ypsi Bible Church - Joshua's Trail He recounts the history of how Blacks gained their emancipation and Civil Rights. It reads as all Republicans. The Democrats form the Ku Klux Klan and filibuster the bills that Eisenhower launched, and Everitte Dirksen pushed through in 1964 and 1965, under LBJ.

LBJ's "Great Society" was a turning point for minorities in America and the Democrats. Before they were the party of bigotry and slave masters - now they became the enablers of victims and entitlements that broke up the Nuclear family, penalized responsibility, and rewarded discrimination. As Rev. Dr. Levon Yuille states: During the Reagan, Bush years of the 80's the Black middle class grew faster and larger than at anytime in America's history. When the tide rises all ships rise with it. On July 7, 2000 a story appeared in The Detroit News, which stated that the Black middle class loss ground during the Clinton years. University of Michigan Researchers did the research for this story.

If that is not enough, the Democrats claimed the Voting Rights laws of the 60's were going to be canceled by Republicans. (False) The Democratic Black Caucus stopped the voting right law from becoming permanent. This way they could be brought up over and over again as a motivating cause to maintain a stranglehold on the Black voting bloc.

Now if we can start with a clean slate and not indict all Republicans as racist and evil religious extremists only out to support the undeserving rich, and allow that Liberals are not evil in their condemnation of the Right, just unfairly misinformed, perhaps we can at least sit down at the same table again.

If the Left refuses to admit being brainwashed, they will miss the irony of George Romney, who came to realize and admit to his own mistaken preconceived notions and then was destroyed by the MSM that refused to admit their part in the process - but will pay a bigger price - being on the wrong side of history.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #108 on: March 11, 2020, 10:51:12 AM »
Brainwashed is a difficult idea to parse. To some extent we all 'influenced' by others, our culture, our families, geography .. when does it qualify as brainwashing? When we don't like what the other has to say = they have been brainwashed?

The riddle: As above so below, As below so above
We are influenced and we influence. We are far more influenced and have less influence then we realize. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #109 on: March 11, 2020, 11:11:16 AM »
Brainwashed is a difficult idea to parse. To some extent we all 'influenced' by others, our culture, our families, geography .. when does it qualify as brainwashing? When we don't like what the other has to say = they have been brainwashed?

The riddle: As above so below, As below so above
We are influenced and we influence. We are far more influenced and have less influence then we realize.

Yes, there is no hard and fast distinction between "my idea" and "idea put into me", since most ideas are a combination of both. We could probably loosely use the term "brainwashing" in reference to an idea being (a) overwhelmingly derived from external sources telling you it's true, and (b) installed in such a way that it becomes part of your fight or flight system, and (c) that you are NOT aware that (b) is the case.

There are many facts we know that don't fall under this category, even if they came to us from external sources. For instance what I know about soap could be supplanted by something different if I read about it, and it wouldn't affect me in any particular way other than I would say "huh, that's interesting." The same is true for all of us depending on the area. The areas that we can't or won't even entertain accepting new information on - these are surely more what I'm talking about. And yes, it can happen incidentally that a person forms an identity association with an idea, but it can also happen deliberately in any number of ways. This is literally the basis of advertising, to connect the image and the idea of the product with the customer's sense of personality. The reason 'brainwashing' is a reasonable term, to me, is because all of these things really are not our personality, but masquerade as personality, and we'll defend them while trapping our real selves beneath. It's 'washing' because we actually end up wiping out part of who we really are in the process; undoing that takes a lot of work.

ETA - I added a "NOT" in a critical place above!
« Last Edit: March 11, 2020, 11:20:35 AM by Fenring »

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #110 on: March 11, 2020, 11:14:28 AM »
To some extent We are all exclusively 'influenced' by others, our culture, our families, geography ..

Adjusted. Our opinions are almost entirely assigned to us. We internally justify our opinions after the fact, primarily based on emotion. It's not weakness, just how our brains are wired for survival.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #111 on: March 11, 2020, 11:51:18 AM »
Brainwashed is a difficult idea to parse. To some extent we all 'influenced' by others, our culture, our families, geography .. when does it qualify as brainwashing? When we don't like what the other has to say = they have been brainwashed?

The riddle: As above so below, As below so above
We are influenced and we influence. We are far more influenced and have less influence then we realize.

There are some lawyers and doctors among my friends, some of whom fall into the category of believing they are above the level of the masses when it comes to self-determination.  Even worse members of that group are people I know who have had successful business careers in leadership roles.  All of them think that their success is only minimally influenced by their mass market experiences, because they are too smart to be sucked in.  In reality, they all share a lot of ideas on possessions and activities that make them instantly recognizable as members of a different herd than other groups, but still members of a herd.

The simple truth is that your experiences in life are the primary reason you think and act as you do, beginning with the indoctrination your family forced upon you as a child.  Imagining that you came to the same attitudes and habits as other people like you by some sort of divine or natural determinism is one of the - if not the most - dangerous self-deceptions imaginable.  [Notice I slipped in the word "imaginable", since our senses collect information about the world, but we only understand the world through our imaginations.]

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #112 on: March 11, 2020, 12:05:11 PM »
The strongest case I can make for "brainwashing" is when someone clearly claims to believe - even zealously believe - something, when in fact they don't actually believe it at all. I don't mean they're lying; I mean they don't even realize they're parroting something and speaking on behalf of someone else. How to learn to speak for yourself - ouch, that's a tough one; it feels much safer to speak as if for oneself but with the cover of actually referencing some group's slogans. I personally believe we are all really unique in ways we don't want to acknowledge most of the time, and this uniqueness sticks in the craw of the desire to conform; and so the uniqueness gets whitewashed into a repetition of slogans and bromides that are inauthentic. And I disagree with the idea that pretty much all of our ideas come from others, and we only adopt them after the fact using reverse-justification. This does happen, of course, but I think the power of our will can also do a great deal of 'original' legwork if it wants to. In the case of people who don't want to then of course they will mostly be informed from their environment and little else. How much of yourself you add to the equation is a strictly person-by-person issue.

Now when I talk about 'brainwashing' I'm referring to these exterior ideas which feel like they're replacing our unique identity. In other words, "I'm a Republican" (just as an example of a label) can often take the place of "I am just me" in assign identity to self.  This can go down a long rabbit hole, so sorry that I can't explain better in a brief space what I mean by brainwashing. But I sort of know it when I see it: people repeating things that don't sound like it's coming from them, but that they're circulating around. Think of it maybe like Facebook viral memes or articles that get passed around; the person doing the passing around may really think of these things as 'part of who they are' even though their actual participation is just to propagate some stupid picture their friend posted. It's not original content, not even relevant to that person's life most of the time, but they attach huge meaning to the mere fact of passing it around much of the time. And we do know that it's possible to create original content, so it can't be argued that the only content there is comes passed to us from others.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #113 on: March 11, 2020, 12:16:07 PM »
My best advice is to recommend everyone read Shakespeare, a lot of Shakespeare, especially the tragedies. They rely on self-deception as the primary plot vehicle, but no less so than in his comedies.  I've shifted my attitude in recent years about which plays I would recommend first and now suggest Othello as the best one to start with.  It's a famous cliche that nobody understands Iago's motivations, but how do you explain Othello's inability to sustain his love for Desdemona?  Another dozen or so books will be published this year and every year for decades or centuries to come attempting to explain that.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #114 on: March 11, 2020, 12:19:59 PM »
I disagree with the idea that pretty much all of our ideas come from others, and we only adopt them after the fact using reverse-justification. This does happen, of course, but I think the power of our will can also do a great deal of 'original' legwork if it wants to.

The challenge with this opinion is that we live in a society and time where your "will" cannot operate in anything approximating isolation. Ever. Unless you decide to retreat to the woods and create a hermitic lifestyle. In which case, I agree that more of the decisions you make would lean more towards pre-justification instead of post.

If you disagree, what's an example of a political or social opinion you have that isn't originally determined from external influence?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #115 on: March 11, 2020, 12:26:20 PM »
It's a famous cliche that nobody understands Iago's motivations, but how do you explain Othello's inability to sustain his love for Desdemona?

He loved her to the end:

"When you shall these unlucky deeds relate,
Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate,
Nor set down aught in malice: then must you speak
Of one that loved not wisely but too well;"

I've studied the play a fair amount, although not to the thoroughness as if I were to direct it; my first instinct is that the intensity of his love is as with his valor in battle; ardent and fiery. Presumably, being black in a white society, I have to expect she was the first person to accept him without reservation, and in a way it was overwhelming to him. The idea of her cheating on him basically drove him mad.

But yes, Shakespeare is a great resource, as his characters avoid being 'like' any tropes or archetypes. They're individuals, which is why they're great to act.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #116 on: March 11, 2020, 12:31:42 PM »
If you disagree, what's an example of a political or social opinion you have that isn't originally determined from external influence?

Rather than try to argue about particular opinions we may have, which in isolation may be hard to make determinations about, let me suggest to you an analogy: when you read a book, where are you getting the impression of the story from? You might argue that, well, of course it's from the words on the pages; where else? But my answer would be that good reading is when your own imagination is working, and even working more than the words of the book are working. You picture these things, add emotional content to them, trace back a history to them when the author only offers a phrase, and so on. In the case of a book with real ideas in it, as opposed to pulp fiction, then there's your consideration of the ideas, how your thinkings color the subsequent things the author writes, how you try to unravel what the bigger picture is; and finally even the possibility of stopping to read so that you can think through what you've read so far. This happens more formally in book groups where after a section of reading a discussion or lecture happens. All of this is the contribution of your own mind, reasoning, feelings, and worldview impacting on the text while of course being fed by the text. Take your side of it out, and what you've got is passive consumption. Does this happen? Well yeah. But I don't believe it should be understood to be (a) ideal, or (b) the vast majority of what you get out of, say, a book. For some person maybe, for another maybe not.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #117 on: March 11, 2020, 12:38:01 PM »
Quote
I've studied the play a fair amount, although not to the thoroughness as if I were to direct it; my first instinct is that the intensity of his love is as with his valor in battle; ardent and fiery. Presumably, being black in a white society, I have to expect she was the first person to accept him without reservation, and in a way it was overwhelming to him. The idea of her cheating on him basically drove him mad.

Have you thought about writing a book? :)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #118 on: March 11, 2020, 12:41:11 PM »
Have you thought about writing a book? :)

Not about that play, my understanding is not great enough. But another play... :)

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #119 on: March 11, 2020, 12:47:19 PM »
In your deconstructionist bent you can appreciate that every play is a play on words and that whatever preposition we use in a description of it signals our prepositions about it.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #120 on: March 11, 2020, 01:33:26 PM »
...we live in a society and time where your "will" cannot operate in anything approximating isolation. Ever. Unless you decide to retreat to the woods and create a hermitic lifestyle. In which case, I agree that more of the decisions you make would lean more towards pre-justification instead of post.

Brainwashing can be a colloquialistic term used to describe being lied to and accepting the lie because the source has staying power. Yes, a strong will can challenge it, but the basis to accept something from what you consider a positive source is hard to oppose. The psychological mechanism of brainwashing goes beyond that. In this particular, the mind is put into a mental state that handles information abnormally. Once in this plastic state, the stuff learned normally which is already firmly held and believed gets unstuck. With reinforcement, new ideas get accepted and held more strongly than logical decision-making ever did in the past. Because this mechanism exists, those who understand how it works can use it to mold others' perceptions. This intentional action is criminal, in my opinion. Sad to say, though, is that most is done unintentionally, because the person pressing the disinformation is unaware that it isn't the truth. If such a person gets you at a vulnerable time, it is hard to not become a convert.

McConnell said the onset of the plastic state is caused by a "great experience." This is normally a trauma of some sort. Jonathon Edwards used revival meetings to create it in people. You can imagine all the ways that challenging a person's personal view of oneself can make them vulnerable. Reading books or going to Shakespeare dramas is one way to absorb other people's thoughts, but brainwashing doesn't enter the equation unless one is vulnerable and unable to resist reinforcement. If that doesn't exist, one uses normal logic to evaluate what you accept. If you are aware of the potential trap, the plastic state can be avoided. Psychological mechanisms are usually positive things that work for our benefit, but controlling what is often uncontrollable is even more positive.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #121 on: March 11, 2020, 02:30:39 PM »
Because this mechanism exists, those who understand how it works can use it to mold others' perceptions. This intentional action is criminal, in my opinion.

Well, if you mean morally criminal then I'll probably agree with you. Legally it is of course how the current system works.

Quote
Sad to say, though, is that most is done unintentionally, because the person pressing the disinformation is unaware that it isn't the truth. If such a person gets you at a vulnerable time, it is hard to not become a convert.

Again, I find it hard to believe that if a known process that works can generate money and identification with a product or team that this won't be used constantly. This idea of "well this can happen but probably doesn't" is so naive in my opinion. When the laws permit it people will use literal slavery to make more money; I hardly see how there can be the slightest doubt that any and all mechanisms for manipulating a person's perceptions are used as a matter of course. Advertising is virtually reliant on creating a problem-solution scenario, where your sense of self (often through body image or success-evaluation) is questioned and a series of images tells you how to fix the problem - a problem it is largely responsible for creating. The entire process is at any rate analogous to the big tobacco strategy of creating the dependency for which their product is the solution. They do the same with baby formula in Africa. My eye, the person pressing the disinformation is 'unaware.' If they were they'd be fired.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #122 on: March 11, 2020, 08:12:25 PM »
...I hardly see how there can be the slightest doubt that any and all mechanisms for manipulating a person's perceptions are used as a matter of course. Advertising is virtually reliant on creating a problem-solution scenario, where your sense of self (often through body image or success-evaluation) is questioned and a series of images tells you how to fix the problem - a problem it is largely responsible for creating. The entire process is at any rate analogous to the big tobacco strategy of creating the dependency for which their product is the solution. They do the same with baby formula in Africa. My eye, the person pressing the disinformation is 'unaware.' If they were they'd be fired.

What you are discussing now is simply "name-branding." In advertising, it is said that a person needs to see an ad for a new product about a dozen times for it to become a "name brand." This is an offshoot of schedules of reinforcement needed to lock in conversion concepts for someone in an altered plastic state. In the name branding, nothing is locked in and can be easily changed by new data. With true brainwashing, the embedded concepts are religiously accepted and almost impossible to change only with logic. To change in this case, a counter plastic state needs to be created to unlock the locked-in disinformation. That is how the laying-on of hands works to cure hysterical illnesses. It's not medicine, it's mental.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2020, 08:15:10 PM by wmLambert »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« Reply #123 on: May 13, 2020, 02:03:37 PM »
This thread is titled appropriately for this post, though it doesn't seem like it's been used for this purpose much.  Anyhow, it looks like the so-called Afghanistan peace deal that the US negotiated with the Taliban is well and truly dead, as seemed obvious would be the case from the start.

Ashraf Ghani orders troops to resume offensive against Taliban