Mind games

Saturday's Daily Pickings referred to how hierarchy relies on propaganda to survive and in the past, to the close relationship between banking and intelligence. The term "conspiracy theory" was coined by the CIA to discredit any revelations or criticism of their activities and MKUltra is frequently referred to as such but there is so much evidence of its existence - it is a real conspiracy.

We've also referred in the past to the layers of obfuscation mixing multiple contradictions containing both some truth and lies. No-one is immune to these tricks which explains, in part, why Saturday's MediaLens article contained mainly sound criticism but alluded to climate change as a real threat - a view shared by many who recognise many of the other "conspiracies".

Some of the most important weapons in the MKUltra program are (and have been from its inception) books.

In her book The Cultural Cold War, Frances Stonor Saunders makes startling revelations regarding the CIA’s clandestine books program. Citing the Frank Church Committee and the New York Times, she states that by 1977 the CIA had published over 1000 books, including those, ironically on “indigenous national or international organizations” – which would very likely include neo-shamanism and “native revivalism”.

Spies in Academic Clothing by Jan Irvin
The Untold History of MKULTRA and the Counterculture – And How the Intelligence Community Misleads the 99%

Those who read books may think they are more sophisticated than those who rely on popular culture for their world view but in the same way that Rothschilds' Economist influences opinion-formers, so literature in turn spawns derivative works in academia as well as popular culture.

Academics and "the intelligentsia" need to challenge their long established beliefs more than anyone, if we are to escape this phenomenon of mass indoctrination - no-one is immune.

Comments   

 
0 #1 Janos Abel 2016-05-16 15:21
Danger!
More of the truth adds to information overload but does not necessarily lead to preventive action.

Here is a problem:
On an intensity-of-ef fort scale more research and information takes 20% of effort, while preventive actions demand more like 80%.
This operational imbalance is one of the main reasons for failure of the victims to dismantle hierarchy.

I have no idea how to address this imbalance but point it out in the hope that it may start an analytical discussion among us.
However, I can recommend that serious attention be paid to the difference between classic activism and analytical activism as laid out at http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/ClassicActivism.htm , and http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/AnalyticalActivism.htm .
 

Please register to post comments