Cia mind control etc..

[BLEED REBELION!!!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iptbB1rZ-6I


America isnt it great...........A land where your aloud to have your own thoughts.............ohhh wait hold on ...theses are not my thoughts............




Even if the brainwashing isnt to this extreme its still there.........I dont watch much tv any more I find its brainwashing and used as a distractor.........

[Splintered]

I watch some TV.
As in, the History Channel, some CNN, a teeny-tiny bit of the Daily Show, and I used to watch Stargate SG-1.

I don't believe in Brainwashing too much, because it's too impractical. To implement it, you'd need to pretty much start with a clean state. The US wouldn't work for that; it already has a free press with a tradition that goes back way before the methods of mass mind control were actually viable. Even with 300 years, a free press like the US has (Which isn't totally 'free', but still good enough) shouldn't be able to fall into the mind-control trap.

And before you say, "They mind controlled you to believe that.", realize that's an infinite loop.

[BLEED REBELION!!!]

Most of the media is owned by a few corporatiosn so they have allot of power over what people think..

And as for the clean slate thing.....Take a 5 year old and sit him in front of some psycho ass tele program and watch him become more of a fucking clone (tool) every day..

[BLEED REBELION!!!]

Did I just say "Tele"
LOL

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by BLEED REBELION!!!

Most of the media is owned by a few corporatiosn so they have allot of power over what people think..

And as for the clean slate thing.....Take a 5 year old and sit him in front of some psycho ass tele program and watch him become more of a fucking clone (tool) every day..

Sit him in front of a book and the same potential can occur.

The Media is far from owned by a few individuals. The internet is still in the hands of people however. The Internet is far more expansive then TV, in my opinion. Newspapers and radio stations can (and are) still locally owned as well.

And not every kid becomes a clone from watching TV.

[BLEED REBELION!!!]

It was just an example I know its not definite....

Im just saying I feel like the gov and the corporations are constantly attacking people with brain washing type shit............

And as for the vid I posted at the very top of the thread.
I wouldnt be surprised if the cia (and other govermental organizations) were still pulling crazy shit like that.

[Splintered]

I hear you. Trust me, I do. Even supermarkets try to 'brainwash' you in some way or another. It's just the way society functions, and there isn't much way around it.

Hell, it's even done in basic senses. The reason things are 39.99 and not $40, is to make people think it's within their $30 budget.

The CIA has investigated crazy stuff, but I'm not too afriad of what they'll come up. They haven't gotten much before.

[Circle V]

Try living in Venezuela, where the last television station not owned by the government was just closed down. Or China, where Google searches are censored by the state. Or Bolivia, whose current president once said "[our party's] greatest enemy is the majority of the means of communication." The US isn't even close and never will be. Our economic system would fail without competition, and competition would be impossible with brainwashing.

[BLEED REBELION!!!]

We are very much taught to be consumers who care less about the state of venezuela and more about the newest Ipod... People are very ignorant of the outside world and it annoys me. I think gov likes it this way...

I do realize that I have the "freedom" to say certain things...but I feel like we are taught what to say...



OHhh I feellike im failing to express what I want to say correctly I cant find the words...AAGHHHHHHHHHH

[Circle V]

There is no way to be free of the influence of others without being raised by wolves-- but then you'll be 'brainwashed' by the wolves.

[Circle V]

No, Americans aren't likely to care about Venezuela. Neither are Venezuelans likely to care about Americans, or Australians about Russians. People aren't likely to care about anything that doesn't pertain to them directly, regardless of gov't brainwashing.

There are groups that would rather have you care about Venezuela than iPods. Many of these groups are political entities that would use your empathy to secure their own status.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Splintered

I don't believe in Brainwashing too much, because it's too impractical. To implement it, you'd need to pretty much start with a clean state. The US wouldn't work for that; it already has a free press with a tradition that goes back way before the methods of mass mind control were actually viable. Even with 300 years, a free press like the US has (Which isn't totally 'free', but still good enough) shouldn't be able to fall into the mind-control trap.

And before you say, "They mind controlled you to believe that.", realize that's an infinite loop.

You don't have to believe in brainwashing to make it work. How exactly can you say it wouldn't work and that you need a clean slate?

Brainwashing is a fancy word for conditioning. People are conditioned all the time. Like training a dog to fetch a stick, people are conditioned everyday they are alive.

Think about this - when people mention 'Im loving it' - the McDonalds theme tune, or 'by menon' or 'ooh dannon' that little ditty at the end of their adverts - can you hear the tune in yer head?

When I say Burger King, do you think 'have it your way'? When I say pizza hut, do you think big red roof building?

Of course you do. Brainwashing implies that the person who is reconditioning you is making you do something you normally wouldn't do. Thats not it at all. What they do is force your mind to think of something, something they want you to think of or associate with something else.

Sure, tying you to a table and sending electric shocks through you when they say the word CLINTON might cause you to hate people with the name CLINTON, but this in reality is not what brainwashing is.

Instead of something so drastic, why not hire billboards and tv ad spots telling people how bad CLINTON is? Send them a mental barrage, all day and night, in their car, in their living room, at work, so their subconscious picks it up. If they have no opinion, or watch a lot of mass media, they will pick up whatever it is yer selling, no matter if they want to or not.

That mate, is brainwashing. Forget what they tell you about beatings, water torture, and all that stuff they experimented with in the 60's (ala MKULTRA). They found inundating you with their message 24 hours a day works much better. They also found they making you believe it doesn't work and constantly saying the word 'freedom' makes you think you are free.

Ever hear how many times bush says freedom in his speeches? We are 'fighting for freedom', or that 'terrorist hate feedom', and that we are 'trying to bring freedom' to the world? They have taught people to think America and its policies somehow equal 'freedom'. By putting that word in every speech, even the ones where they talk about removing your constitutional rights like in the patriot act, they make people get the opposite idea of what they are doing.

The bush admin is notorious for this. Bill Clinton did the world a favour when he passed the Clean Air Act. It forced companies to stop polluting. The bush admin passed the Clear Skies Act. Sounds good, and to read it, it constantly mentions how its 'protecting our environment', a phrase used over and over in the act itself and also used when any person in the bush admin speaks about it.

In reality, it was an act to un-do the Clean Air Act, and allows companies now to pollute without any fear of government prosecution.

But to hear bush talk about it you would think it was somehow helping the environment, and when people talk about bush's environmental record, they cite that act - and usually pull they same phrase out of it 'protecting the environment', and skip over the actual content so to speak, the real guts of the policy, which say the exact opposite of that statement.

Now, of course bush and his cronies do this because they wrote it and want you to believe what they tell you. The normal persons who do this many times do it unknowingly, because they have been conditioned watching bush and his cronies and listening to their talking points.

So yeah, you can not believe in it all ye want, but have no illusions, it is happening, and in reality, its a much more subtle technique that a majority of people never catch on to.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Circle V

Try living in Venezuela, where the last television station not owned by the government was just closed down. Or China, where Google searches are censored by the state. Or Bolivia, whose current president once said "[our party's] greatest enemy is the majority of the means of communication." The US isn't even close and never will be. Our economic system would fail without competition, and competition would be impossible with brainwashing.

First off, Venezuela and Boliva are both fine countries, who both have stood up to bush and his admin, which is funny that you mention them.

Both leaders have decided to nationalise their countries resources and use them to help their people. Contrary to what American media and government says about this sort of thing, it works brilliantly in the nations which have done it. Cuba, contrary to what Americans hear, is doing well and is a brilliant holiday spot to visit.

That being said, nationalising their television and paper services is nothing bad, nor is it anything new. The reason Chavez shut down that station was because after an investigation a panel concluded that CIA operatives were working in the station in efforts to incite a coup. It has been proven the CIA already tried to setup a coup just a few years back if you recall.

Why? Chavez kicked out all the big US oil companies and told them the government would be selling the oil. Next thing you know, riots, an attempted coup, and once it was all over the persons in charge of the coup being tied directly to the CIA. They then try it again using the mass media against him.

I mean, seriously, if NBC/ABC/CBS began running ads and news pieces claiming the country would be better off if the people rose up and overtook government office buildings and that bush should be assassinated, I'm thinking the US government would shut them down as well. Thats exactly what happened in the studio there that was shut.

Of course, this never made it to the US news, all you heard was 'media stifled' and they never said why.

But on to yer second argument that it could never happen in America.

Sorry mate, yer waaay past that - it already has. Think about the run-up to the Iraq War - all those miss opportunities to get the truth out there, the questions nobody was asking, all the hype over WMD's - there wasn't a news agency in America which didn't buy into the lies the White House sold the public.

Part of this was for ratings, the rest was for their own economic future. What do I mean? Think about this...

The White House press corps - ever seen them do a Q&A with the President or his people after a big event? Guess who they let in to those things? Guess who gets to ask the questions? Thats right, the people the presidents admin pick. So if your a new agency that doesn't fall in line and report what the US government wants you to report, you don't get invited back. If you do make it into a press meeting, don't expect to be allowed to ask any real questions.

Also, local news stations, don't expect other related events (i.e. your local republican governor, or the local republican congressman) to call your local news outlet when they have a story or press release.

The government controls the media by excluding those who don't follow their rules. It's not something they are working on, its something that has already been institutionalised and has been in practice since the 1980s.

To argue that America doesn't engage in such activity is yet more proof they have already pulled the wool over yer eyes.

[Circle V]

I was living in fucking Bolivia when Evo was 'elected'. Between the idiot socialists like Morales and the corrupt capitalists there is little room for progress.

Of course America engages in such activities-- but America isn't alone in this, and gov't brainwashing pales in comparison to peer or societal conditioning.

The problem isn't that that particular network was shut down, but that the country was put into a position where there was only one private network left in the first place.

For someone so distrustful of government, you seem awfully willing to place everything from the media to petroleum into the hands of governments whose policies you agree with. Regardless of how noble they might seem to you now, don't pretend that it couldn't change. You could end up with Latin version of a Bush administration-- except this one has full and legitimate control over the most important resources in the country-- thanks to a populist predecessor's efforts to nationalize everything.

[Circle V]

By the way, where can I find news that the US gov't doesn't taint?

[CptSternn]

We have state-run television/radio here in Ireland as well and no one ever says anything about Ireland being some type of dictatorship.

All thoughs socialist/communist ideals America blasts in South America exist all over Europe, and for some reason are never mentioned.

Healthcare, state owned natural resources (including phone services), state run tv/radio, and more exists in pretty much all of the EU.

Only when Americans want to attack a nation do they bring this sort of thing up, and claim its bad, ignoring the fact this way of government is working today across the globe, and has been working in many countries before America was even discovered.

As far as untainted news, its hard to find truly unbiased news. That being said I use a few sources. I find if you check a few stories in a few locations from a few sources its easier to get the real picture.

AP/Reuters websites are a good start. Their feeds are syndicated on Yah00 News along with Washington Post and New York Times which I also look at. They also index a few other local papers from LA, Boston, etc.

That being said Indymedia is also a prime site for good unreported news.

[Circle V]

Socialism can and has worked, yes, but it seems to lead to stagnation. The lowest common denominator may be better off, but homogeneity is never a noble goal. I'd rather have a gov't that does as little as possible than one that can do whatever it wills, for good or for evil.

Who said "a government that has the power to grant you everything you want has the power to take everything from you" ?

[Splintered]

There is a grand problem with your argument, Sternn.

What is the difference between your 'conditioning', and the simple effects of society?

Society isn't totally run by the government. To the largest extent, society is run by the everyday people and their actions. When I see the band Arch Enemy, I naturally associate it with my friend Matt because he is a fan of Arch Enemy. This is not the direct action of Arch Enemy paying Matt to make me think of him. When I hear the word 'Dannon', I think of the song 'Daniel' by Elton John.

When I hear Burger King, I think of fat, greasy burgers that are rather tasteless. Pizza Hut simply reminds me of an old town I used to live in, not a big red roof.

This is simply the natural cause of my mere existance, and not some form of brainwashing. This conditioning would occur whether I got it from an intentional misleading, or my day-to-day activity of actually interacting with the world.

Of course people will pick up something on a billboard. This can't make their reactions predictable, because their reaction will be the sum of every memorable past action that occured. When I see an anti-gun control banner, do you automatically assume that I will hate guns for taking * number of children the past year? No. I, and I believe that the majority of my fellow men and woman, will take it with a grain of salt.

You're argument also completely crumbles to the ground when you say, "They work to make you not believe in it." If they worked to make you not believe that brainwashing exists, then I can argue that you have been brainwashed to believe brainwashing exists. It's the equivalent of a logical black hole, or an infinite loop in which you can never escape. It's circular logic, "Brainwashing exists because you've been brainwashed to believe it doesn't exist."

Once again, I must reiterate that you assume the majority of people agree with Bush. Look at the polls: Most of the world doesn't agree with what Bush says, despite how many times Bush says Freedom and says it's for our own good.

Read it over Mon Capitan, the majority of the world does not believe what Bush actually says. The best we can say is that works counter to your theory; brainwashing people causes them to reject what Bush has said.

Of course, I can easily defeat that using another one of your premises; we're being brainwashed to think the majority of the world doesn't believe what Bush says.

But wait, we can go even further and say that we're being brainwashed to think we're being brainwashed to think the majority of the world doesn't believe what Bush says.

I plead you to see the ridiculousity of your claim. It's essentially a special case in which you can concoct anything you want, then hide under the viel of 'you've been conditioned to think otherwise'.

[Circle V]

I agree with Splintered, to an extent. The brainwashing influences are so numerous and conflicting that they come close to canceling each other out. How the message affects individuals depends upon their personality-- despite being hammered with a message, any given person may not be influenced by it. Of course, the majority would be, if the power and constancy of the message was great.

In cases when there is little or no conflicting influence (for example, many fundamentalist societies,) true brainwashing can occur. This is why I oppose raising children into a religion or other ideology.

There is no united front of brainwashers in the US. The White House is very influential, but most Americans have discovered or been influenced to believe that the government is not to be trusted.

The media's influence upon society and the gov't's influence on the media are undeniable. But what can be done to change it?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Splintered

There is a grand problem with your argument, Sternn.

What is the difference between your 'conditioning', and the simple effects of society?

Well thats simple. Societies effects happen as a result of daily interaction. Brainwashing although happens in a similar manner is a forced action with the same results.

You might be arguing that ads and the like are part of society, therefore are not brainwashing techniques, where as I would agree on some level advertising is a product of a capitalist society and always will be present I would have to disagree on the fact that when a government or group with a politicial agenda uses the same technique a company does to promote a healthy view of its product on a policy or government action, its no longer just society in effect, it is brainwashing.

Society isn't totally run by the government. To the largest extent, society is run by the everyday people and their actions. When I see the band Arch Enemy, I naturally associate it with my friend Matt because he is a fan of Arch Enemy. This is not the direct action of Arch Enemy paying Matt to make me think of him. When I hear the word 'Dannon', I think of the song 'Daniel' by Elton John.

When I hear Burger King, I think of fat, greasy burgers that are rather tasteless. Pizza Hut simply reminds me of an old town I used to live in, not a big red roof.

Your intentionally ignoring the facts and trying to force your argument here. Sure, you may think of a grease burger, but are you in all honest saying you have no idea of what the burger king tagline/motto is? When think Dannon, can you not tell me how that advert sounds? Can't place those three small notes in yer head?

Your argument is that burgers are the first thing you think of. While that may be true, you do know the exact advert I am on about, and know exactly the tunes I am describing, and they did pop into yer head about a split second after you thought burger. Just because it wasn't the first immediate thought doesn't mean you can discount the whole idea. If that were true, you would have no idea what I was on about. Trying to argue this based on such a flimsy premise, i.e. the fact you thought about those things second, a few milliseconds later does not mean those adverts didn't have their intended effect, it means you are selectively trying to convince yerself that they had no effect.

Of course people will pick up something on a billboard. This can't make their reactions predictable, because their reaction will be the sum of every memorable past action that occured. When I see an anti-gun control banner, do you automatically assume that I will hate guns for taking * number of children the past year? No. I, and I believe that the majority of my fellow men and woman, will take it with a grain of salt.

Really? Maybe you should take a look at the Fox News thread then. The percentage of viewers of various networks who thought they had found WMD's, when in reality they didn't was all based on the news, media, and hype put out by the white house. Your trying to argue that billboards and mass media have no effect on people - but if this were true, then why would companies spend billions a year on advertising?

You're argument also completely crumbles to the ground when you say, "They work to make you not believe in it." If they worked to make you not believe that brainwashing exists, then I can argue that you have been brainwashed to believe brainwashing exists. It's the equivalent of a logical black hole, or an infinite loop in which you can never escape. It's circular logic, "Brainwashing exists because you've been brainwashed to believe it doesn't exist."

Once again, your creating your own arguement, and trying to force my post into it. I never said that it couldn't be seen or identified. It can, quite easily, as I pointed out in the post by listing references like McDonalds and Burger King. Also, as previously mentioned, the fox news reference clearly demonstrates it does happen, is happening, and it does work. Yes, they will tell you its not as effective as many would think, but again, if that were true, why do companies, and government, spend so much money on adverts and PR?

Once again, I must reiterate that you assume the majority of people agree with Bush. Look at the polls: Most of the world doesn't agree with what Bush says, despite how many times Bush says Freedom and says it's for our own good.

You are looking at todays statistics, not taking into account a few years ago bush started a war with a large chunk of the American people supporting him. Why? Because they were misled. With billboards, tainted news, and speech after speech using buzzwords and phrases to condition the people to think Iraq was some type of threat. Once again, todays assessment, as you pointed out, shows a different view by the masses of Americans. Is this because that the billboards, ads, media are no longer effective? Of course not. The thing is, when you mislead people, sooner or later the truth comes out. Doesn't mean during the start that all the pre-war hype wasn't taken in hook-line-and-sinker by the masses, and yes, that is a perfect example of brainwashing.

[Splintered]

You might be arguing that ads and the like are part of society, therefore are not brainwashing techniques, where as I would agree on some level advertising is a product of a capitalist society and always will be present I would have to disagree on the fact that when a government or group with a politicial agenda uses the same technique a company does to promote a healthy view of its product on a policy or government action, its no longer just society in effect, it is brainwashing.

The whole point of having a political policy, is to promote that political policy and achieve it in the first place. If one were to believe believe that the best state for the United States is the result of a policy of isolationism, then is that not justification for attempting to achieve that goal by promoting the policy in a healthy view? More so, there is no reason why someone who uses a logo, symbol, or phrase to promote public policy should be labelled as a brainwasher.

Not everyone can remember that Communism is spelt out in detail by Karl Marx in Das Kapital or The Communist Manifesto or less can they remember the individual events in the life of Trostky and Lenin, and then the supposed fight for it by Che Guevara. It is rather absurd to assume that your average farmer will have enough time to care, or your soldier will have enough time to sit down and read it during the field of battle. Yet, if they hear "You have only your chains to lose" or see the Hammer and Sickle, they know that the theme is Communism.

Then, in effect, every single example you listed is both the example of advertisement, but also the condensed transmission of information to create a memory of the event, no more different then I telling you that the difference between brainwashing and normal advertising is 'a point of view'.

Your intentionally ignoring the facts and trying to force your argument here. Sure, you may think of a grease burger, but are you in all honest saying you have no idea of what the burger king tagline/motto is? When think Dannon, can you not tell me how that advert sounds? Can't place those three small notes in yer head?

Your argument is that burgers are the first thing you think of. While that may be true, you do know the exact advert I am on about, and know exactly the tunes I am describing, and they did pop into yer head about a split second after you thought burger. Just because it wasn't the first immediate thought doesn't mean you can discount the whole idea. If that were true, you would have no idea what I was on about. Trying to argue this based on such a flimsy premise, i.e. the fact you thought about those things second, a few milliseconds later does not mean those adverts didn't have their intended effect, it means you are selectively trying to convince yerself that they had no effect.

To be quite frank, no, I can not place those three small notes in my head. [I have not seen a dannon commercial in several years]. You used too many variables in your attempt to debate, because if you will please reread your post, you will not you introduced the stimuli and the desired effect in the same breath. Allow me to demonstrate.

When I say Burger King, do you think 'have it your way'?

Of course the natural reaction to this statement would be to think "Have it your way", even if the reader had never even heard of the saying before. That is because you introduced it at the same time. It is then unreasonable ot assume that this would happen every single time, because you introduced the concept right after.

If you hadn't done so, there is no telling what I might have thought. You are clearly asserting things you don't know in this case, because you do not know my collective experiences. In reality, the thought I would have towards Burger King might have been 'have it your way'. Yet, it also could have made me think of the air force base on which I frequented for Burger King.

The arguement is then ruined, because the stimuli were introduced with the results. I don't have to hide the fact that I thought of those, because you intially brought them up. There is no telling whether that came from Burger King, or from you.

Really? Maybe you should take a look at the Fox News thread then. The percentage of viewers of various networks who thought they had found WMD's, when in reality they didn't was all based on the news, media, and hype put out by the white house. Your trying to argue that billboards and mass media have no effect on people - but if this were true, then why would companies spend billions a year on advertising?

This is a false dichtonomy. I am not arguing that they do not have an effect on people. The mere existance of billboards naturally has effects on people. The effect of having any type of existance has an effect on someone when they are introduced to it. It is the pure concept of stimuli.

Instead, I am arguing that advertising is not as brainwashing as you put it out to be. I am making the arguement that brainwashing doesn't immediately shift the opinion of someone; that is cumulative. Advertisement agencies spend billions a year on advertising because they know the cumulative effect will help sway opinion for those who have not made up their mind.

Once again, your creating your own arguement, and trying to force my post into it. I never said that it couldn't be seen or identified. It can, quite easily, as I pointed out in the post by listing references like McDonalds and Burger King. Also, as previously mentioned, the fox news reference clearly demonstrates it does happen, is happening, and it does work. Yes, they will tell you its not as effective as many would think, but again, if that were true, why do companies, and government, spend so much money on adverts and PR?

We are both guilty of that charge Sternn, I assure you.

AS I have stated before, it is a false dichtonomy, asserting that I am either saying they don't have an effect, or they do have an effect. I am saying that their effectiveness is severely hampered. The Fox News reference indicates that some people have formed opposing viewpoints based on the information presented to them. It does not clearly show that they have been, for the lack of a better term, brainwashed. Merely that they believe through conclusion of what they are told.

Your assertion also fails under scrutiny. How do you know they have spent so much money on advertising on the first place? If those were agents of brainwashing as well, I can very well argue that your ideas have been swayed by information you have recieved. By this very loose definition you have provided, I can say we have all been brainwashed to some degree or another, by one group or another.

You are looking at todays statistics, not taking into account a few years ago bush started a war with a large chunk of the American people supporting him. Why? Because they were misled. With billboards, tainted news, and speech after speech using buzzwords and phrases to condition the people to think Iraq was some type of threat. Once again, todays assessment, as you pointed out, shows a different view by the masses of Americans. Is this because that the billboards, ads, media are no longer effective? Of course not. The thing is, when you mislead people, sooner or later the truth comes out. Doesn't mean during the start that all the pre-war hype wasn't taken in hook-line-and-sinker by the masses, and yes, that is a perfect example of brainwashing.

Except that it's not an example of brainwashing at all.

Rather, it's an example of mass opinion. These masses can still believe, through extensive research that they have done, that Iraq was still a threat. Large portions of Bush-Loyal people still believe that the Iraq attack was justified. They were not brainwashed. They have rather formed their own opinions through their own experiences.

If we are to argue that forming an opinion based on one's exposure to information is brainwashing, then anyone who has any contact with any media has been brainwashed, which makes it pointless to argue.

And before you go screaming, "I'm making up my own arguement", yes, as a matter of fact, I am. I am simply using what you provide to do it.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Splintered

The whole point of having a political policy, is to promote that political policy and achieve it in the first place. If one were to believe believe that the best state for the United States is the result of a policy of isolationism, then is that not justification for attempting to achieve that goal by promoting the policy in a healthy view? More so, there is no reason why someone who uses a logo, symbol, or phrase to promote public policy should be labelled as a brainwasher.

There is quite a bit of difference between what you claim to be 'promoting a healthy view' and brainwashing, I admit. But when a government puts out fake news stories, falsifies evidence presented to the U.N., makes claims based on falsified information to make the people of a country believe the exact opposite of the reality of a situation, you can no longer claim that is just 'promoting a healthy view' of the governments policies. That is the essence of brainwashing.

Then, in effect, every single example you listed is both the example of advertisement, but also the condensed transmission of information to create a memory of the event, no more different then I telling you that the difference between brainwashing and normal advertising is 'a point of view'.

Thats my point exactly, however, you are wrong when you say I am claiming advertising is the same as brainwashing. There is a distinct line, and it has nothing to do with the point of view. Posting ads to promote a product, or a 'healthy view of a government policy' is one thing. Actively changing the facts or intentionally omitting relevant facts in order to make persons believe the opposite of the truth is brainwashing and cannot be classified a merely a different 'point of view'.

To be quite frank, no, I can not place those three small notes in my head. [I have not seen a dannon commercial in several years]. You used too many variables in your attempt to debate, because if you will please reread your post, you will not you introduced the stimuli and the desired effect in the same breath. ...You are clearly asserting things you don't know in this case, because you do not know my collective experiences. In reality, the thought I would have towards Burger King might have been 'have it your way'. Yet, it also could have made me think of the air force base on which I frequented for Burger King.

As I said previously, you obviously know the point of the argument, and know I am correct, but again try and avoid the actual point in this argument and try and substitute your own personal experiences with this.

Just because you represent the 1% of Americans who don't watch television and doesn't eat fast food you are trying to say a majority of people are like yourself, when in reality you yourself know that you are a very. very small percentage of people.

Maybe I should have said what do you think of when you see two golden arches? Will that get you to look at the principle of the argument instead of trying to break apart the example and try and fit it into your own personal experiences which obviously are lacking in comparison to the majority of Americans, and people worldwide?

Sure, you may be totally honest when you claim you have no idea what a 'Burger King' advert looks or sounds like. I'm sure there are natives in Pupa New Guinea living in grass skirts that have no clue about it either. Trying to argue that my statement is incorrect because you have no reference to this is an obvious attempt to change the focus of the argument from what it means to debating what you, yourself have experienced.

...I am arguing that advertising is not as brainwashing as you put it out to be. I am making the arguement that brainwashing doesn't immediately shift the opinion of someone; that is cumulative. Advertisement agencies spend billions a year on advertising because they know the cumulative effect will help sway opinion for those who have not made up their mind.

Once again, attempting to 'sway' a person who hasn't decided is one thing. Providing false and inaccurate information and selling it as the truth on billboards, radio, news services, etc. is brainwashing.

AS I have stated before, it is a false dichtonomy, asserting that I am either saying they don't have an effect, or they do have an effect. I am saying that their effectiveness is severely hampered. The Fox News reference indicates that some people have formed opposing viewpoints based on the information presented to them. It does not clearly show that they have been, for the lack of a better term, brainwashed. Merely that they believe through conclusion of what they are told.

You say, and I quote from the paragraph above 'these people haven't been brainwashed, but they merely believe what they are told'. How is it that these people that believe the opposite of the truth, which you yourself say above is because they were given information which was incorrect, and thats not brainwashing?

These people were told repeatedly that up was down. This message was repeated over, and over, and over, until it effected their beliefs. Only now, when the truth makes an appearance due to the amount of news reporting the facts do they find out they were lied to.

This is the epitome of brainwashing. These people were led to the wrong conclusions by the government, not by the news that reported it. The new agency acted as merely the messenger for the government and used its influence, masquerading as honest reporting, to mislead the people and make them support things that they normally would have supported.

Brainwashing by definition is getting people to do your will, things they normally would not do, by breaking them down and making them believe your reality. How can you not classify a government creating false news and having a media outlet spread these lies as unbiased truth, backed by a nationwide ad campaign to perpetuate these false beliefs not be classified as brainwashing?

Your assertion also fails under scrutiny. How do you know they have spent so much money on advertising on the first place?

According to the Department of Defense's budget materials on their website, the combined military recruitment and advertising budget is $1,407,100,000 ($1.4 billion). Here is a break down by branch of the military:
ARMY $854,146,000
NAVY $297,141,000
MARINE CORPS $123,465,000
AIR FORCE $132,349,000

http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbu.../fy2007_o1.xls

There is the link to the Dept. Of Defence budget so you can look a it yourself.

1.4 billion a year on advertising. Seems to me, if you were selling the truth you wouldn't need billions to get your message out there.

If those were agents of brainwashing as well, I can very well argue that your ideas have been swayed by information you have recieved. By this very loose definition you have provided, I can say we have all been brainwashed to some degree or another, by one group or another.

Except that it's not an example of brainwashing at all.

Rather, it's an example of mass opinion. These masses can still believe, through extensive research that they have done, that Iraq was still a threat. Large portions of Bush-Loyal people still believe that the Iraq attack was justified. They were not brainwashed. They have rather formed their own opinions through their own experiences.

If we are to argue that forming an opinion based on one's exposure to information is brainwashing, then anyone who has any contact with any media has been brainwashed, which makes it pointless to argue.

And before you go screaming, "I'm making up my own arguement", yes, as a matter of fact, I am. I am simply using what you provide to do it.

You once again skip over the fact the the 'opinion' which the 'bush loyalists' have is based on lies. Yes, you are correct that they made their own opinion on the information provided.

The thing is, they were lied to. They were given bad information. They were made to believe the opposite of what the reality is.

I never say anyone who has seen an ad is brainwashed. My argument is that people who were given false information on which to base their opinions and ideas have been brainwashed. My argument is that false information bombarded them 24/7 from all media and advertising outlets, thereby having a direct effect on their judgment.

That is why at the start of the war so many backed it, believed there were WMD's, and all that other non-sense. Now, current polls put the number of people opposing the war at 71% - a huge shift that correlates with the reality that these people were in fact lied to, made to believe something that wasn't, played like puppets by the government.

Thats not 'promoting a health view of government policies', that mate, is brainwashing.

[Splintered]

I will respond Sternn. It's just that this week has been a teeny-tiny bit hectic.

[Lapin]

Brainwashing is not hard to do. Look at all the cults that spring up.

I think people, no matter how 'indiviual' they are (insert eye roll), can always be coerced into thinking a certain way if you use the right methods; religion, guilt, pain, etc.

[ArtificialOne]

It would be nice to brainwash people. Maybe then they could finally get my order right at mcdeaths...