January 25th, 2013

Ace nails it: it’s the press, stupid!

Ace nails it, completely and totally, here.

The press is the key to the whole shebang.

So I’ve got a question for you all: by which mechanism does this happen to the MSM?

It’s a serious question, not a sarcastic one, about a serious and even frightening phenomenon.

There’s got to be a fairly large number of people in the press who aren’t actually too overwhelmed to ask Obama the tough questions, but who just prefer to avoid challenging him because they favor his politics. But I take the man in the video at his word that there are also a lot of people in the MSM who are truly so awed just to be in the presence of The One that they are reduced to tongue-tied worship (or the use of sock puppets, as discussed in the clip).

Why? Here’s a stab at an answer.

Some people give off different vibes in person than they do onscreen. My guess is that Obama has that quality. Is he more intimidating, more charismatic, more arrogant and powerful-seeming in person? So certain that he’s the smartest and most competent person in the room that he somehow projects that view so strongly that others believe it? The effect he has is certainly not just one that emanates from the office of the presidency itself (George W. Bush did not have this effect on the press, for example). And in fact this effect for Obama seems to have long predated his presidency; he appears to have gone through most of his adult life with a certain je ne sais quoi that caused a great many people to believe he ought to be president someday and to tell him so.

There’s another, seemingly-stranger possibility, which could work in concert with the others. You may recall that during the 2008 there was a lot of blogosphere and internet speculation about Obama’s use of the power of suggestion/hypnosis during his public appearances. I read some of it, and although I thought it was overstated, he certainly did appear to use some of these techniques. But that’s not so unusual; in fact, many family therapists do some of this (for example, being very careful to state things in ways that shape action effectively, such as asking a client “when are you going to do such and such?” rather than just “are you going to do such and such?”). Milton Erickson, on whose work it has been claimed that Obama’s hypnosis is based, was, after all, a family therapist.

So although there’s nothing especially straightforward about using these techniques, there’s nothing especially spooky or otherwordly about them, either. Salesmen use them all the time (and what is a politician if not a salesman?).

Race probably enters into it in some way I have yet to understand. For me, and for most conservatives I know, Obama’s race is inconsequential in our evaluation of him as president. In the abstract, it’s a very nice historical fact that American has elected a black man as president, but this particular black man is way too far to the left to allow us to approve of his actions. We are not awed by the strangely racist thought that Obama is (as Joe Biden once famously put it) “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” We don’t think in those terms, but perhaps a lot of liberals in the MSM do.

It’s often forgotten what Biden said right after that, which was, “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” And there I think he may have actually put his clumsy finger on something rather important: the mythic aspects that Obama holds for a lot of people on the left. He is, almost literally, a dream come true. That alone might be enough to make a person somewhat tongue-tied.

55 Responses to “Ace nails it: it’s the press, stupid!”

  1. George Pal Says:

    “Some people give off different vibes in person than they do onscreen. My guess is that Obama has that quality. Is he more intimidating, more charismatic, more arrogant and powerful-seeming in person?”

    None of the above. Obama is not so beguiling as those who are beguiled by him have exotic (gnostic) desires – political/cultural and personal. The “well-creased-pant-leg-means-he’ll-make-a-good-president” hypothesis of David Brooks demonstrates the inability to make any case for Obama’s gifts/powers in any way but the absurd. What has hold of the elite is a mania – the Tulip Bulb mania to the nth degree. The Turkish bulbs, for which many of the Dutch impoverished themselves, were no different than Dutch bulbs but exotic in being from Turkey and having a slight flash of color stronger/weaker than the overall color.

    Manias have a strong attraction among those with the Gnostic impulse to being bored with the tried and true, the traditional, and seeing everything as the same old same old until… it/he comes along. Practically speaking, the Gnostics see concepts, ‘life’ and ‘liberty’, and meanings, ‘marriage’, as not immutable. All these things, they insist, are old and used up, or just tiresome; they have failed to make the world as it should be, so they must change – to meet the new visions. Obama services all their urges, and promises more, such as in the inauguration address. By himself, personality and character, he is as uninteresting as zero.

  2. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Ace briefly mentions, “I keep banging this drum but honestly, some patriotic billionaires do have to band together to purchase or build a media outlet. The outlet would be founded upon a simple premise: that it is dangerous and ultimately fatal for democracy for media power to fuse with government power, that the adversarial press is vital.”

    I too keep banging the drum, though so far to little reaction. Every single major media outlet is owned by publicly held parent corporations.

    Quietly buying up major shareholder positions in these parent companies would allow for takeovers where conservatives would then appoint the boards and replace from the top down the leftist editors and journalists.

    Right now the left owns these companies but there is no reason in principle that the right can’t purchase majority positions in these parent corporations.

    The only obstacle to doing so is that the wealthy contributors to the republican party do so in order to maintain the financial status quo. Not to reestablish and maintain conservative principles.

    The argument to persuade them to reconsider is to to point out that if the left continues to dominate American politics, the day will come and within many of their lifetimes, when their fortunes will be seized and their companies nationalized.

    Socialism must by its very nature either evolve into communism or collapse and, pride will ensure that the left never admits to its cognitive dissonance.

    Creating a new FOX is not the answer. Legally seizing control of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the NYT, WAPO, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune is necessary in order to end the propaganda and restore objective reportage.

  3. Jim Nicholas Says:

    For several years I listened to Obama’s speeches and then read them. I quickly noticed that I was more persuaded as I listened than later as I read.

    I think Obama is articulate in a clever and slippery way. For me, he has an ability to make an empty phrase sound meaningful.

    Perhaps if I were younger and able to think more quickly, I could analyze better what he says as he speaks. Reading gives me more time to think and evaluate what he is saying. It seems to take me time to realize I am being conned. This is different than being intimidated.

    Perhaps others react in a similar way in person.

  4. Lizzy Says:

    Ace is absolutely right.
    I would only add that the entertainment industry – movies, TV, music, books – only serve to reinforce what the press is doing. For example, look at the way they worked hand in hand to destroy Palin in 2008: the news would air/print a hit job story on Palin, the the comedians would make jokes & skits about it, and then the news shows (such as MSNBC’s Morning Joe) would repeatedly air the joke/skit while their panel of journalists and political guests laughed. How many people still believe Palin said “I can see Russia from my house!” – which was actually said by Tina Fey on SNL?

  5. thomass Says:

    “Some people give off different vibes in person than they do onscreen. ”

    Yeah; I worked in Hollywood a few years and this is a real thing. I noticed very quickly that most (re: almost all) people who look good on film look bad face to face. Only recall one exception… Ditto screen presence btw but I got hung up on the looks thing.

  6. Harry the Extremist Says:

    [i]“Some people give off different vibes in person than they do onscreen. My guess is that Obama has that quality. Is he more intimidating, more charismatic, more arrogant and powerful-seeming in person?”[/i]

    He’s a friggin community organizer for Christ sakes. He’s done nothing that merits worship. The emperor has no clothes! This is such an incredible accident of history that this near complete nothing has ascended to the presidency of the finest nation on the planet; a nation whose laws and history he has no respect for. A century from now, people in the remnants of the United States learning the history from banned books stashed in secret basement hiding places will marvel at how far and completely society had fallen and how the media and academia led the way. Amazing.

  7. holmes Says:

    23 You need to find billionaires who are willing to be villified like the Koch Bros. are, ridiculed like Clint Eastwood was and have their families threatened like the Palins.

    No pushing or shoving the line forms to the left.

  8. holmes Says:

    (from a comment to the Ace article)

  9. vanderleun Says:

    “For me, and for most conservatives I know, Obama’s race is inconsequential in our evaluation of him as president.”

    Well that’s going to be up for reevaluation.

  10. Mac Says:

    About the charisma factor: on the slender basis of one very brief ceremonial encounter with him, I would say that he does not have an excess of it in person. Certainly not enough to reduce a supposedly tough-minded reporter to awed silence. Obviously this is extremely subjective, and I don’t know what my reaction would have been if I’d had to sit down for a conversation with him. I think in that circumstance I would be intimidated, if not awed, by *any* president. And probably even more by, say, Bob Dylan. My guess (that’s all) is that the journalists’ reaction is all bound up with their politics, the psychological function of politics in place of religion for them, etc.

  11. carl in atlanta Says:

    And what about all those women fainting during his speeches during the 2008 campaign?

    Again, from Ace’s piece:

    “What we are witnessing is the full and seamless fusion of media power with government power.”

  12. neo-neocon Says:

    Harry the Extremist: yes, of course some people on the left like him because of his politics, as I said. But some of those journalists awed by him, practically in love with him, are not particularly leftist at all. David Brooks is a good example. I don’t think of him as particularly conservative, but I really doubt he’s politically a man of the left, pretending not to be. And he used to adore Obama.

  13. Harry the Extremist Says:

    [i]“But some of those journalists awed by him, practically in love with him, are not particularly leftist at all. David Brooks is a good example…. And he used to adore Obama.[/i]

    Why? Thats what I cant understand. These are supposed to be intelligent people yet they dont seem to understand that the charisma and the arrogance is an unwarranted facade. There’s nothing there that props that up save media narrative. Thats it; a lot of substance-less smoke. This is so incredible.

  14. George Pal Says:

    NeoNeocon:

    The likes of David Brooks and Peg Noonan are certainly not Leftists. They are preternaturally measured, thoughtful, incisive, fair… and paranormally gifted to detect what is not evident materially, spiritually, or in the abstract in any universe or dimension but the one they call their own. They are precisely the type given to acclaiming our better natures and the possibilities if only… They are precisely the type to fall for Obama, not for his, at the time socialism, but for his Kumbaya otherness. And they are precisely the type of which there are too many of.

  15. holmes Says:

    Brooks and Noonan liked him for what he represented- an Ivy league minority. The best of everything!

  16. holmes Says:

    You refer to Ace’s blog a fair amount, I would say more than most blogs. What are the top 3 blogs you read, Neo? Just curious.

  17. JimBobElrod Says:

    The first thing that came to mind when I watched the clip was young girls in the presence of Justin Bieber. The “reporters” are having a purely emotional reaction typical of liberals. As conservatives, this type of reaction does not compute.
    I’ve been trying to think of someone that I could be embarrassingly deferential to if I were a big time reporter and am having a hard time coming up with a name. Gordie Howe maybe.

  18. holmes Says:

    I recall some artist on Althouse’s blog (when I used to read her, you know) saying how art had become this competition amongst liberals to see who could be more and more shockingly liberal and offend bourgoise sensibilities. That’s how you get noticed by the kingmakers in the Art World, you see. Well, that’s probably the press too. Their reactions aren’t meant for the audience, their meant for the bosses and a promotion later for being good little liberals. The media is a pyramid scheme, and they’re all trying to claw their way up to Matt Lauer Status.

  19. Artfldgr Says:

    by which mechanism does this happen to the MSM?

    The press was first controlled by political correctness and it was the communist feminists that NORMALIZED such things.

    so the press is not the whole shebang, feminism is.
    the press does what the women want.

    and the leaders of women copied hitler to get everything going..

    The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.

    so everything was put in terms of better for children, even abortion!!!

    when feminists wanted women to smoke and drink (because you can get so many rewards by giving people license to hurt themselves), what did the press do? back them, promote them, link smoking with liberation, and so on

    EVERY point you can bring up, i can show you started before the press with the people that control the press and whom the press looks to for what to write.

    GO AHEAD, I DARE YOU!!!!!!

    affirmative action? women got it before African Americans
    it violates equality before the LAW… as other things violate the right to know your accuser, and contracts and more.

    changing the reasonable person standard in the 80s to the nutty woman standard, so we all worry about offending the wackaloons.

    changing school studies to equalize men and women came before equalizing races by dumbing them all down.

    promoting number two as number one

    the self esteem movement

    drugging boys and pushing them out of family, education, sports as a way to show young women their power

    favoratism in education, jobs, and so on

    now pushing communist concept of equal pay for equal work
    (ie state says doctor is equal to a secretary… so thats what they earn. in the soviet union it caused janitors to earn more than physicists.. which is why so many physicists were janitors. funny, but dilber has the genius janitor and people dont get it)

    pushing violence against women as a special law to also violate equality before the court… why not stop violence against everyone?

    and this list can go on.. as it spans nearly 180 years of such bullshit we are too afraid to look at and too afraid to talk about.

    but note:
    raising the amount of abortions genocides the target faster
    nationalizing health care genocides the target faster
    pushing out their men, genocides the target faster
    women in war, genocides the target faster
    depriving education genocides the target faster
    unequal before the law, genocides the target faster

    due to feminism, the target cant defend itself without proving the ideology correct – and the target would rather die out than be considered that way forever…

    and all that insures that there is no way to reverse this course

    the banks helping Obama, and large companies, and organizations and all that… that is what Nazi Gliechshaltung is and looks like. NOW that we have it, is it possible that we can realize its too late to stop it now that everything is moving in that one direction ranging from large corporations, women’s organizations, unions, and even west point.

    heck… even Czech Vaclav is commenting…

    now i will look at what others wrote, and tie each thing back to its source in political action…

  20. Artfldgr Says:

    Every single major media outlet is owned by publicly held parent corporations.

    actually not.. or rather, who owns them doesn’t matter in fascism
    its who controls them… as Ford said “i want to own nothing and control everything”

    ie. i want control without being responsible for what happens.

    Six largest media corporations in the world:

    Time Warner (Time magazine, Warner Brothers, HBO, CNN, AOL),
    Disney (ABC, ESPN)
    Bertelsmann (Random House)
    Viacom (CBS, Paramount, MTV, the Infinity radio network)
    News Corporation (Rupert Murdoch’s vehicle: Fox TV, the New York Post, HarperCollins)
    Vivendi Universal (with labels such as Polygram and Motown, it controls a fifth of the world’s music sales)

    lets start with TIME WARNER…
    who controls it? Jeffrey L. Bewkes: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Time Warner Inc. he is also CEO.

    who is he?

    He was raised in Darien, Connecticut,[7] and is a graduate of Deerfield Academy. Bewkes holds a BA from Yale and an MBA from Stanford, and sits on their respective advisory boards.

    He is a member of the CFR

    in fact most leaders of huge corporations are CFR members along with the intelligence community and so on. check out who founded it, and who are their neighbors… (want to guess?)

    corporations don’t control anything
    people who use corporations do (not all corporations are used)
    change who leads, you change the company

    just look at what feminist carly fiorina did to hewlette packard

  21. Artfldgr Says:

    “We meet on the heels of an enormous people’s victory. It was a long and bitterly contested battle in which the forces of inclusive democracy came out on top. The better angels of the American people spread their wings,” Sam web CPUSA celebrating obama win

    The Communist Party USA echoes President Obama’s call for more gun control
    http://www.examiner.com/article/the-communist-party-usa-echoes-obama-s-call-for-more-gun-control

    put it with all the other headlines

    Report: Communist Party USA backs Obama’s position on fiscal cliff

    Communist Party head: Obama win a ‘people’s victory’ over racist white people

    Communist Party leaders at convention: Socialism an ‘imperative’ for America

    Communist defector warns of alliance between Democratic Party and communists

    at least he is making his constituency happy

  22. parker Says:

    Those who adore BHO are as emotionally involved with the focus of their adoration as a 13 year old girl in 1964 at a Beatles performance. But because the MSM cultists are adults they don’t scream and shout. Its more ‘dignified” in the form of tingles and gushing rhetoric.

  23. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    I am reminded often of “the Mule” from Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy.
    A character with such charisma that he charms all into doing his will.

  24. Artfldgr Says:

    “Fight to end gun violence is key to defending democracy” – Rick Nagin

    http://www.peoplesworld.org/fight-to-end-gun-violence-is-key-to-defending-democracy/

    How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process

    Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm – DAVID MAMET
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html

    Communist China Blasts Second Amendment, U.S. Human-rights Record
    http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/11615-communist-china-blasts-second-amendment-us-human-rights-record

    oh.. and the soviets have made a federal law to prevent what they worked so hard to make happen in the US from coming back to them!

    the big question…

    why don’t they like or even promote the things that their followers claim they stand by, and promote here, and have done so as we keep declining..

    at what time, after they run it ragged, with they give the Estocada?

  25. Don Carlos Says:

    I happen to agree with Artfdgr, but to return to Neo’s theme re the MSM, I think the nation is now peopled by a ‘visual snapshot’ crowd which has been decades in the making. They snapshot the headlines and the billboards. Every house has its TV on every evening, many all day too, whence they get more snapshots. They don’t read, and they think in only the most rudimentary terms because that’s all they have to think about, and it’s all they know. They don’t deserve liberty because they have not earned it. So it is all coming to pass.

  26. southpaw Says:

    Neo – In a recent post of yours it occurred to me to look up the media’s role in Hitler’s rise to power- I cannot imagine it happened without their early support. However your mention of hypnosis really caught my attention because in college I was forced to take a course in psychology, and recall “mass hypnosis” being offered as one explanation for Hitler’s ability to captivate an audience. But he clearly had a very different style than BO in a public speaking venue. Less Barry White and more – whatever it was.
    But to my point- I understand in order to be hypnotized, you must want to be hypnotized – which means to me anyway that the mental state of media is more important, than the magical powers of the man who is charming them out of their socks. They truly want to believe.
    You’re not alone in your uneasiness with how the media have become an arm of the political ruling class. But these things are not easily discussed with the true believers. A large percentage of people I know are afraid to speak up, or criticize this man in public or express a negative opinion for fear of being ostracized.
    I have to believe this is how things unravel in the best of democracies. The German people in the 30s were not uneducated or ignorant, but their media over time was infiltrated and run by the ruling party to the point that truth and propaganda became indistinguishable. I’m not suggesting this as an excuse for what happened, just wondering if we’re ignoring their fate at our own risk.

  27. Artfldgr Says:

    Figures a man with the name Don Carlos would get the thrust of my argument and answer first ;)

  28. BOBZ Says:

    I take comfort in the fact that most college age students in my family, and that I’ve talked to, have a healthy skepticism about their professors and newsreaders. I was taught to bring a contrary point of view to most subjects – by my teachers. I have to admit that I am dumbfounded by the fact that Te’o is grilled more harshly by the MSM than Hillary and President Obama.

  29. Rob Miller Says:

    It’s not just Obama. This has been going on for a long time.

    Ace does a good job of stating the obvious, but he doesn’t really mention any solutions.

    But those solutions are readily at hand, if we’re want them.

  30. Artfldgr Says:

    I should point out that when people refer to the Hans Christian Anderson tale of the “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, they first change the Emperor into a king, but they also completely forget WHY the people would not admit to what they saw.

    I guess its a Freudian anti-slip. rather than slip thoughts in, this one is left out. harder to detect, easier to miss.

    about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that is invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!”

    This is what is going on for the most part among what some have many names for, ranging from distracted, low information, other interested, snapshot, etc.

    the rules of the magic of the cloth was that it detected others merit and ability, and refused to show itself and be gazed upon by unfit eyes, and so became invisible. (a form of “the hostile gaze” through the response of the gazer/detector/object of magic, which we have to infer from the rules from how it functions).

    anyway..

    like a chess piece guarding another, the sociological game is to place X in a position guarded by a Y… (no alphabetical biological pun intended).

    women cant stop the train they are pushing or they would have to admit what? so they are going to push this all the way to women in war, and complete ignoring the asymmetrical value to society – and what it means to such a society that practices it – or a race if demographics are ignored.

    unless women declare the emperor has no clothes, they are going to push them till they and their 1.2 billion plus year unbroken familial line to the end result till someone cries uncle. and i am sure the people who are putting the subjects in this “catch 22″ are sure they will win the battle of wills (given they suffer none of the ill effects).

    to put things in a different perspective…

    What if Hitler had not started his war then? What would have been different had he instead steeped his people for 40 years in ideas and truths not 4 years? What if many other countries instead of going to war against someone that wasn’t attacking them, traded ideas and kind of homogenized around them as there was no outward reason or example to avoid them?

    after so long, who then would say the emperor was naked?

  31. neo-neocon Says:

    holmes: I don’t read many blogs anymore, but one of the ones I read nearly every day is Ace’s. It may seem an odd choice because of our extreme difference in styles, but I read him for three reasons (1) we actually agree on most things; I often find that, despite the style differences, we tend to focus on similar issues and essentially come to the same conclusions (2) he’s very entertaining and funny, as well as very smart (3) his commenters are probably among the funniest and most outrageous in the blogsophere.

    It’s an unusual combination of brains and really un-PC humor.

    I often read Instapundit, Powerline, Althouse (I like the eclectic nature of her posts, and she also writes a lot about the arts, as do I), Legal Insurrection, American Digest, lots of people at PJ (Belmont Club in particular), and of course I used to read Dr. Sanity and the other Sanity Squad bloggers, who’ve all stopped blogging at this point.

  32. BOBZ Says:

    Artfldgr – Hitler would have been deposed if not for the easy win over France. I have to wonder what victories President Obama has won to keep the populace faithful.

  33. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    As to the willingness to be hypnotized that southpaw posits:
    I came to the conclusion long ago that people will believe what they want to believe.
    I have debated issues (abortion) with friends who then stopped talking to me. They said they couldn’t counter my argument but it caused them much inner turmoil because they didn’t want to change their position!
    This is probably true with Obama.
    They WANT to believe.
    Therefore they ignore anything to the contrary.
    How do you combat that?

  34. James Says:

    ” Is he more intimidating, more charismatic, more arrogant and powerful-seeming in person?” Someone else may have already said this but here goes. I doubt it. They’ve made themselves 95% ga ga without ever meeting him.
    1. They see themselves in him smart, witty, hip, and sticking it to the old fuddy duddys.
    2. Smart, hip, and witty people can never criticize black people ever, it’s just not cool.
    3. Last but not least this all in essence is a “religion” and they are the true new Puritans.

  35. BOBZ Says:

    The abortion issue has gone from “is it a human life” when I was young, to “the world is over-populated, who cares, they are better off not living, etc. This path leads to no good. It is frightening to say the least.

  36. expat Says:

    southpaw,

    Hitler: The Rise Of Evil was shown on TV here tonight. I really got he creeps as I watched because of the similarities in people’s reactions to Obama. There wasn’t a single answer to why the Germans fell for Hitler. The SA and others believed the same things. Others sort of believed part of what he said and thought he could be tamed a bit. Some just saw him as an opportunity for themselves. Some were actually entranced. But after a certain tipping point, you couldn’t harbor doubts about him.

    Maybe some journalists who have had to cover the Rangels, Sharptons, and their ilk without being able to say what they honestly thought about them saw Obama as a great relief. He knew just what to throw them to prove he was different, and they didn’t have the street smarts to realize he is a phoney.

  37. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Artfldgr @6:29,

    A CEO may control a corporation by being a voting majority stockholder, the leader of the largest faction of shareholders who together possess a majority position, or through charisma, maneuvering, manipulation, etc. when no clear majority exists.

    If wealthy conservatives either individually or through perhaps a foundation, gained a majority position in Time Warner preferred and/or common stock, Bewkes could be tossed out on his ear and any control he may have would vanish.

    That would apply to any major corporation where enough stock can be secured.

    As for membership in CFR (I presume you refer to the Council on Foreign Relations) unless you are prepared to present conclusive evidence demonstrating it to be an actual modern Illuminati…membership in it merely reveals personal interest and/or associating with the ‘right’ people.

  38. Artfldgr Says:

    I forgot to end the paragraph about the cloth, that this was as if the cloth did exist and was magical in that realm. Not just a lie tied with a guardian that forces those without the will and moral strength to tell the truth (regardless of what power may do).

    as a reward for reading this correction..

    i would suggest also thinking about this, though i suspect that neo may have studied it on her way to earning her degrees..

    Solomon Asch experiment (1958) A study of conformity
    “The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct.”

    Why did the subjects conform so readily? When they were interviewed after the experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought “peculiar.” A few of them said that they really did believe the group’s answers were correct.

    Asch conducted a revised version of his experiment to find out whether the subjects truly did not believe their incorrect answers. When they were permitted to write down their answers after hearing the answers of others, their level of conformity declined to about one third what it had been in the original experiment.

    Apparently, people conform for two main reasons: because they want to be liked by the group and because they believe the group is better informed than they are.

    So what would that tell you about what you can exploit in people if you can set up the social conditions?

    the people didn’t have to believe, they only had to act so, and try to avoid punishment for failing to do so. random acts against people kept them wondering what it was that caused the act, and then self examine to figure out what to change in the self to avoid the same fate. since there was no real trigger in many many cases, it kept them focused on what they thought was it, and so could not argue with themselves that the best reason was not the best reason.

    once we were forbidden to believe that we had natural abilities, tendencies, weaknesses, and differences, including between sexes. it was very easy to get people to ignore what sociologists were finding out about how we worked with a state willing to fund their inventions in interventions: ie. some medical social reason to act to use some medical social knowledge to manipulate to a desired end.

    Asch found that the subjects conformed to a group of 3 or 4 as readily as they did to a larger group. However, the subjects conformed much less if they had an “ally”

    this is why dialoging to consensus tells the change agent to contact those who dont agree alone and so put this group pressure to conform on them. in this way, you can gain consensus through “other means” than debate, merit, etc.

    In the presence of this nonconformist, the real subjects conformed only one fourth as much as they did in the original experiment.

    There were several reasons:

    First, the real subject observed that the majority did not ridicule the dissenter for his answers.

    Second, the dissenter’s answers made the subject more certain that the majority was wrong.

    Third, the real subject now experienced social pressure from the dissenter as well as from the majority.

    Many of the real subjects later reported that they wanted to be like their nonconformist partner (the similarity principle again). Apparently, it is difficult to be a minority of one but not so difficult to be part of a minority of two.

    So, this would explain their responses. since they don’t have a merit based position (ie. being really right), they negate rule one, and yell or ostracize, etc… the rest of the game follows from the other points.

    they do not have to figure out what to do, or if it makes sense to people logically. they only have to know you better than you are allowed to know you, or are allowed to know yourself without them telling you who you are so you know its approved.

    would ya’ll believe that there are whole books on techniques and things based on this stuff and more? that they span the political, business, and military worlds? (campaigns, management, psyops).

    read through the works of people like B.F.Skinner or even Jane Elliott.

    Jane Elliott
    is an American former schoolteacher, recognized most prominently as an anti-racism activist and educator, though also a feminist and LGBT activist. She created the famous “blue-eyed/brown-eyed” exercise, first done with grade school children in the 1960s, and which later became the basis for her career in diversity training.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott

    this all leads to the stanford experiment, meade, kinsey, boas, friedan, and all the way up to people like andy warhol, and more..

    And just to make sure that i am not just lumping stuff.
    it also links to

    The Pygmalion effect, or Rosenthal effect, is the phenomenon in which the greater the expectation placed upon people, often children or students and employees, the better they perform. The effect is named after Pygmalion, a play by George Bernard Shaw.

    yes.. the Fabian founder, who thought we should stand before a soviet, i mean a council, and justify the value of our existence before them. you know, like appearing before a health council, and telling them why you should be able to be exempted and get the treatment… right?

    from there follow to Stereotype threat..

    whats that?

    the guardian!

    Stereotype threat is the experience of anxiety or concern in a situation where a person has the potential to confirm a negative stereotype about their social group.

    Since its introduction into the academic literature in 1995, stereotype threat has become one of the most widely studied topics in the field of social psychology.

    their focus on the effect is to generally formalize that what you believe about your group, you become, or perform at. with the classical safer example (over race) being women are socialized to think they cant perform like men. so stereotype threat is used to explain that.

    but it also has a flip side that is more valid. what if you don’t believe it and you care how your social group is perceived? would you not try to not be a certain way or behave a certain way, for yourself and your social group?

    Stereotype threat is a potential contributing factor to long-standing racial and gender gaps in academic performance. However, it may occur whenever an individual’s performance might confirm a negative stereotype. This is because stereotype threat is thought to arise from the particular situation rather than from an individual’s personality traits or characteristics. Since most people have at least one social identity which is negatively stereotyped, most people are vulnerable to stereotype threat if they encounter a situation in which the stereotype is relevant. Situational factors that increase stereotype threat can include the difficulty of the task, the belief that the task measures their abilities, and the relevance of the negative stereotype to the task. Individuals show higher degrees of stereotype threat on tasks they wish to perform well on and when they identify strongly with the stereotyped group.

    so what if you are not racist and you dont want to be labeled racist so you go out of your way to avoid situations that could be seen as such? what if you dont want to be a male chauvinist pig?

    Do you now have the general social pressure to say the emperor has a fine set of duds?

    since neo likes videos, here is a VERY timely and relevant example: interviews with people about Obama inauguration before it had happened yet…

    Jimmy Kimmel Pranks People About Obama Inauguration
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Jimmy-Kimmel-Pranks-People-About-Obama-Inauguration-Video-322865.shtml

  39. BOBZ Says:

    I fear that the last election was about people trying to get their fill of a government trough that will soon be empty. Seriously – do you know anybody expanding their business – or people trying to get what they need to survive. There is a tipping point that will come. I, for one, do not want to fight neighbors for survival.

  40. BOBZ Says:

    Artfldgr – it is unfortunate that few people in power will consult your words. It literally hurts to read what you say, but it definitely makes sense.

  41. Artfldgr Says:

    Geoffrey Britain
    i never said they were an illuminati thing

    I just say they are rich and powerful people who like to get together so that what they discuss can be used to earn and maintain said positions.

    you cant put such people together and NOT have that happen. even better if you leaders can inject agendas to discuss or focus on as reasons to meet and swagger

    the kind of people who get to those places in that kind of positions are all inter connected and familial related… (I learned that from my social register deb girlfriend years ago)…

    they are not stupid… there is no need to have a Illuminati binding them to some secret handshake.

    just the common interest and common knowing as to what counts and what doesn’t. ie. ever check out how their family lines are doing compared to yours?

    want to join them? show your exceptional in a big way. that you have lots of influence, or lots of money you earned yourself despite their general efforts, getting promoted etc.

    the problem with denying control is that you cant conceive of how it actually works. even though its right in front of you. since you cant COMPEL you think you cant CONTROL, but that is a different kind of power and not what you exercise among civilized equals.

    let me make it easy… if you rose to such heights, and you were concerned about things, and they invited you… would you turn them down, or would you show up? they are only asking you to be a member and to come to their soiree’s and so on…

    if you dont, you dont know what goes on. if you do, you show up and think nothing is going on but a bunch of people commiserating. so benign.

    but you see… if you spend time on X and not Y, X influences your world view and focus, Y does not. So there is no way for such a crowd to meet and talk and not “commiserate” and not have that homogenize things across many places in the world.

    even you tell someone else about cool things you read, or ideas, or such. no?

    except that when you go back to your life from reading, and tell someone, it has a small effect.

    but when he came back, or she, it changed what they chose to do or focus, and so, thats why you ended up reading that article. they decided to run that one, instead of another, and you bought it.

    :)

  42. rickl Says:

    carl in atlanta Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    Again, from Ace’s piece:

    “What we are witnessing is the full and seamless fusion of media power with government power.”

    That’s the real money quote in Ace’s article.

    Of course, the Nazis and Communists had that, too.

    Anyone who does not find this chilling is a person I choose not to associate with in any way, shape, or form. That is not the sort of person I could ever trust.

  43. BOBZ Says:

    Are there enough Americans that see through the corruption of politics? Freedom has always been a hard fight. I’m sick and tired of those who give up. Do we not ask for a challenge? Should we not welcome the hardships that come with Liberty.

  44. southpaw Says:

    Expat- I guess this is how it starts. The founding fathers knew the only thing that stood between tyranny and liberty was a courageous independent press, and an armed populace.
    One thing Ace doesn’t touch on is the editors and producers in the MSM are every bit as intoxicated by the power as the political class. In my opinion, they ARE in the driver’s seat. They make it very clear now where they stand – If a politician wants to be successful, he promotes the positions the media heads favor. The media rewards with favorable coverage the politicians who champion the policies they want to promote, and destroy the others.
    They’re not just in a love affair, they’re exerting power and shaping policy by manipulating public opinion. And they know they can ruin or make a candidate. Thats intoxicating power and its being abused as never before. It’s hard to tell if the politicians like Obama are manipulating the media, or its an illusion.

  45. Richard Aubrey Says:

    We see Hitler shrieking and fulminating. It’s said that he began his speeches as if he were a respected neighbor, stopping by to offer some good advice, good advice you may not have thought of yourself.
    At one point, he said something to the effect that, “three hundred years of blood and war stand in no relation to the state of Germany today” That was approximately the three hundredth anniversary of the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the devastaing Thirty Years’ War. No idea if he meant it as an observation of the date. Didn’t need to. Every German knew of the horrors.
    So, what is he saying to Germans? He knows. He knows what we know. He understands. He knows another war would be infinitely worse than useless. We can trust him. (Because they had to trust him–see Stockholm, IMO)
    ‘nother venue altogether: Later Harry Potter movie. The forces of evil have pretty much overcome the defenders of Hogwarts. The lead bad guy says they should surrender after they “deal with your dead with dignity”. IOW. See, he’s okay. He understands. It will be okay to surrender. Because they had to believe that, since surrender was about the only choice left.
    So you start where you know your listeners are. And in that case, it means the lefties, the free-stuff cohort, the people who can tell the Kardashian sisters apart–or how many there are, the folks who think a mushy heart can overcome arithmetic….

  46. M J R Says:

    neo-neocon, 7:39 pm — “I read [Ace] for three reasons (1) [skip] (2) [skip] (3) his commenters are probably among the funniest and most outrageous in the blogsophere.”

    A little late to this party, but . . .

    I just sampled the comments on the Ace piece referenced above.

    neo, I find the commenters here to be head-and-shoulders over those of Ace. Maybe my sample was unrepresentative, but I find much more substance from commenters, well-expressed, right here, than I found in my sample.

    I know, I know, you were referring only to “funniest and most outrageous” commenters. Got it.

    But . . . just sayin’ . . . my two cents’ worth.

  47. Eric Says:

    In law school trial competitions, neurolinguistics that focus on visual and verbal cues independent of substantive content make a big difference.

    Bush in person was not the same as the Bush portrayed in the media. His speeches were also more thoughtful and content-rich than Obama’s speeches, although that characterization has been entirely lost on the pop media culture.

  48. expat Says:

    Eric,
    Bush also put a lot of thought into decisions. I remember reading about his decision on stem cell research and how many people he discused the topic with. In the end, he came up with don’t stop the embryoninc research, but don’t fund it and make it the next big thing. Just like the current anti-gun proposals, some things are best delt with a bit later when heads are cooler.

    Cool for Obama doesn’t mean rational thinking, it means never letting a crisis go to waste. If there isn’t a crisis, he makes one.

  49. Snackeater Says:

    I’ve always thought that subconsciously, Liberals are racists. Not that they hate people of other races – quite the contrary – they truly love them. But they do think that people of other races are inferior and therefore unable to make it on their own. So they do whatever they can to help them (with other people’s money, of course). The War on Poverty is a perfect example. So is affirmative action. And 0bama is another.

    So the T-P media falls all over themselves trying to help him. They cover for him, attack his enemies, whatever it takes. They project their racism onto their opponents. And the more inferior they think the person is, the more they try to compensate. Hence the completely in-the-tank attitude over 0bama.

    Remember Shannon Faulkner? The woman who lied to gain admission to The Citadel? Everyone was so giddy about her being the first woman to attend the then all-male academy that they overlooked the fact she was completely unprepared – thirty pounds overweight and out of shape. She lasted three days, two of which she spent in the infirmary, and was an embarrassment to women throughout the country. 0bama is the Shannon Faulkner of politics.

  50. Jan of MN Says:

    Ed Bonderenka: I agree that the people who can’t be persuaded to look at Obama objectively are those who want to believe in him. They want to believe in him because he seems to be the perfect leader: handsome, charismatic, a glib orator with a dazzling smile and empty message delivered as if it’s the Sermon on the Mount — and a born performer. No doubt he has been honing his performance skills from his earliest days, manipulating his environment — the people around him — to suit his needs.

    Then there’s the other side of him: the bully, mostly seen away from the public, such as in his dealings with Republicans, but also frequently in his 2012 campaign. It didn’t matter that his opponents were offended, because his base loved it.

    Either way, the emperor can be intimidating, except to those who can see his nakedness. In his press conferences it’s mostly the Fox correspondents who ask the tough questions with persistent followups, although when he was in the WH press corps, Jake Tapper, then of ABC, was stronger than the rest of the MSM. The unintimidated Bret Baier’s interview with Obama was terrific; Bret kept bringing him back to the question asked, not allowing him to veer off bloviating as usual on unrelated topics. Of course there’s not likely to be another Baier-Obama interview anytime soon.

    All this, and the big one: he’s black. He could never have been elected the first time if he wasn’t black — this was the factor that thrilled so many, and not only liberals — that a black man was actually a contender for the presidency.

    The trouble was not that people were excited about breaking the racial barrier to the top elected office, but that so many were therefore rendered incapable of objective evaluation of his qualifications. It was too great an opportunity for many to demonstrate political correctness or non-racist purity, and it seems it’s not allowable to criticize a black president without being racist.

    Still, I’d have thought more people would have caught on by now, but they’re all too willing to keep on being conned.

  51. IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States and some Canadian provinces Says:

    }}} what is a politician if not a salesman?

    Last time I checked, salesmen don’t have the option to shoot you if you don’t buy their product… :-P

  52. carl in atlanta Says:

    Latest example was this morning:

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/162304/

  53. Steve D Says:

    ‘The press is the key to the whole shebang.’

    So, what is the key to the press?

  54. Eric Says:

    Media spin on Katrina vs Sandy re the presidents.

  55. Ymarsakar Says:

    “on whose work it has been claimed that Obama’s hypnosis is based, was, after all, a family therapist.”

    The effect is somewhat stronger than that.

    People may have heard about how therapists when using hypnosis back in the 1960s, suddenly discovered an epidemic of adult women who during memory regression, reported that their fathers or close family sexually molested them. They then brought this to court. It turned out that people found out that in the vast majority of such cases, the memories were falsified. The therapist, by merely suggesting or asking about such things during hypnotic regression, implanted the memory themselves. I find it ironic that the fore front of science ultimately ended up with a bunch of foolish and puppet human dolls destroying their own families because they were too suggestible. Resistance against interrogation, suggestion, hypnosis, and various other forms of propaganda, was one of the first things I researched.

    There is a group of techniques called NLP, aka conversational hypnosis, that achieves a similar result. Instead of manipulating and fabricating memories however, it manipulates and fabricates emotions on demand, based upon central core program alterations of a person’s premises and base truths. Some are more resistant than others, of course.

    It may be that the Left is particularly vulnerable to following mass murderers (Tookie, rapist Hollywood actors/directors, Kennedy family of freaks and sociopaths, Saddam, Communist mass murderers, etc), or it may merely be that Obama has a unique talent and skill.

    American children must be trained to resist both physical and verbal violence. For it is all too easy now to make them slaves using physical violence as well as verbal brainwashing. When your society’s children are made into slaves and dolls by the Left, do not think you future will last for much longer.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge