How your thinking is Manipulated - REALLY LONG!

[Guest guest]

Got this from another list (http://naturalhygienesociety.org) and thought

you might be interested. It is very lengthy, but explains a lot of what I

think about quite often! -- Shari

Subject: Fw: [iNHS] How your thinking is Manipulated

> Subject: How your Thinking is Manipulated

>

> THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION:

> WHY AMERICANS WILL BELIEVE ALMOST ANYTHING

> - Tim O'Shea

>

>

> We are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever

> known. Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being

> shaped and molded; our very awareness of the whole design seems like

> it is being subtly and inexorably erased. The doors of our perception

> are carefully and precisely regulated. Who cares, right?

>

> It is an exhausting and endless task to keep explaining to people how

> most issues of conventional wisdom are scientifically implanted in the

> public consciousness by a thousand media clips per day. In an effort

> to save time, I would like to provide just a little background on the

> handling of information in this country. Once the basic principles are

> illustrated about how our current system of media control arose

> historically, the reader might be more apt to question any given story

> in today's news.

>

> If everybody believes something, it's probably wrong. We call that

>

> CONVENTIONAL WISDOM

>

> In America, conventional wisdom that has mass acceptance is usually

> contrived: somebody paid for it. Examples:

>

> * Pharmaceuticals restore health

> * Vaccination brings immunity

> * The cure for cancer is just around the corner

> * Menopause is a disease condition

> * When a child is sick, he needs immediate antibiotics

> * When a child has a fever he needs Tylenol

> * Hospitals are safe and clean.

> * America has the best health care in the world.

> * Americans have the best health in the world.

> * Milk is a good source of calcium.

> * You never outgrow your need for milk.

> * Vitamin C is ascorbic acid.

> * Aspirin prevents heart attacks.

> * Heart drugs improve the heart.

> * Back and neck pain are the only reasons for spinal adjustment.

> * No child can get into school without being vaccinated.

> * The FDA thoroughly tests all drugs before they go on the market.

> * Pregnancy is a serious medical condition

> * Infancy is a serious medical condition

> * Chemotherapy and radiation are effective cures for cancer

> * When your child is diagnosed with an ear infection, antibiotics

> should be given immediately 'just in case'

> * Ear tubes are for the good of the child.

> * Estrogen drugs prevent osteoporosis after menopause.

> * Pediatricians are the most highly trained of al medical specialists.

> * The purpose of the health care industry is health.

> * HIV is the cause of AIDS.

> * AZT is the cure.

> * Without vaccines, infectious diseases will return

> * Fluoride in the city water protects your teeth

> * Flu shots prevent the flu.

> * Vaccines are thoroughly tested before being placed on the

> Mandated Schedule.

> * Doctors are certain that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh

> any possible risks.

> * The NASDAQ is a natural market controlled only by supply and demand.

> * Chronic pain is a natural consequence of aging.

> * Soy is your healthiest source of protein.

> * Insulin shots cure diabetes.

> * After we take out your gall bladder you can eat anything you want

> * Allergy medicine will cure allergies.

> * An airliner can be flown with professional precision by a group

> of crazed amateurs into a 100-storey building and can cause that

> building to collapse on its own footprint. Twice.

>

> This is a list of illusions, that have cost billions to conjure up.

> Did you ever wonder why most people in this country generally accept

> most of the above statements?

>

> PROGRAMMING THE VIEWER

>

> Even the most compliant and naïve viewer may suspect that TV

> newsreaders and news articles are not telling us the whole story. The

> slightly more lucid may have begun to glimpse the calculated intent of

> standard news content and are wondering about the reliability and

> accuracy of the way events are presented. For the very few who take

> time to research beneath the surface of the daily programming and who

> are still capable of independent thought, a somewhat darker picture

> begins to emerge. These may perceive bits of evidence of the

> profoundly technical science behind much of what is served up in mass

> media.

>

> Events taking place in today's world are enormously complex. An

> impossibly convoluted tangle of interrelated and unrelated occurrences

> happens simultaneously, often in dynamic conflict. To even acknowledge

> this complexity contradicts a fundamental axiom of media science: Keep

> It Simple.

>

> tiniest fraction of actual events, but stupidly claim to be

> summarizing " all the news. "

>

> The final goal of media is to create a following of docile,

> unquestioning consumers. To that end, three primary tools have

> historically been employed:

> # deceit

> # dissimulation

> # distraction

>

> Over time, the sophistication of these tools of propaganda has evolved

> to a very structured science, taking its cues in an unbroken line from

> principles laid down by the Father of Spin himself, L Bernays,

> over a century ago, as we will see.

>

> Let's look at each tool very briefly:

>

> DECEIT

>

> Deliberate misrepresentation of fact has always been the privilege of

> the directors of mass media. Their agents - the PR industry - cannot

> afford random objective journalism interpreting events as they

> actually take place. This would be much too confusing for the average

> consumer, who has been spoonfed his opinions since the day he was

> born. No, we can't have that. In all the confusion the viewer might

> get the idea that he is supposed to make up his own mind about the

> significance of some event or other. The end product of good media is

> single-mindedness. Confusion and individual interpretation of events

> do not foster the homogenized, one-dimensional lemming outlook.

>

> For this reason, events must have a spin put on them - an

> interpretation, a frame of reference. Subtleties are omitted; all that

> is presented is the bottom line. The minute that decision is made -

> what spin to put on a story - we have left the world of reporting and

> entered the world of propaganda. By definition, propaganda replaces

> faithful reporting with deceitful reporting.

>

> Here's an obvious example: the absurd and unremitting allegations of

> Saddam's weapons of mass destruction as a rationale for the invasion

> of Iraq. Of course none were ever found, but that is irrelevant. We

> weren't really looking for any weapons - but the deceit served its

> purpose - get us in there. Later the ruse can be abandoned and

> forgotten; its usefulness is over. And nobody will notice.

> Characterization of Saddam as a murderous tyrant was decided to be an

> insufficient excuse for invading a sovereign nation. After all, there

> are literally dozens of murderous tyrants the world over, going their

> merry ways. We can't be expected to police all of them.

>

> So it was decided that the murderous tyrant thing, though good, was

> not enough. To whip a sleeping people into war consciousness has

> historically involved one additional prerequisite: threat. Saddam must

> therefore be not only a baby-killing maniac; he must be a threat to

> the rest of the world, especially America. Why? Because he has weapons

> of mass destruction. For almost two years, this myth was assiduously

> programmed into the lowest common denominator of awareness which

> Americans substitute for consciousness. The majority still believe it.

>

> Hitler used the exact same tack with the Czechs and Poles at the

> beginning of his rampage. These peaceful peoples were not portrayed as

> an easy mark for the German war machine - no, they were a threat to

> the Fatherland itself. And threats must be removed by all available force.

>

> With Iraq, the fact that UN inspectors never came up with any of these

> dread weapons before Saddam was captured - this fact was never

> mentioned again. That one phrase - WMD WMD WMD - repeated ad nauseam

> month after month had served its purpose - whip the people into war

> mode. It didn't have to be true; it just had to work. A staggering

> indicator of how low the general awareness had sunk is that this

> mantra continued to be used as our license to invade Iraq long after

> our initial assault. If Saddam had any such weapons, probably a good

> time to trot them out would be when a foreign country is moving in,

> wouldn't you say?

>

> No weapons were ever found, nor will they be. So confident was the PR

> machine in the general inattention to detail commonly exhibited by the

> comatose American people that they didn't even find it necessary to

> plant a few mass weapons in order to justify the invasion. It was

> almost insulting.

>

> So we see that a little deceit goes a long way. All it takes is

> repetition. Lay the groundwork and the people will buy anything. After

> that just ride it out until they seem doubtful again. Then onto the

> next deceit.

>

> DISSIMULATION

>

> A second tool that is commonly used to create mass intellectual torpor

> is dissimulation. Dissimulation simply means to pretend not to be

> something you are. Like some insects who can disguise themselves as

> leaves or twigs, pretending not to be insects. Or bureaucrats who

> pretend not to be acting in their own interest, but rather in the

> public interest. To pretend not to be what you are.

>

> Whether it's the Bush league in Iraq or Hitler in Germany, aggressors

> do not present themselves as marauding invaders initiating

> hostilities, but instead as defenders against external threats.

>

> Freedom-annihilating edicts like the Homeland Security Act and the

> Patriot Act - currently the law of the land - do not represent

> themselves as the negation of every principle the Founding Fathers

> laid down, but rather as public services, benevolent and necessary new

> rules to ensure our SECURITY against various imagined enemies. To

> pretend to be what you are not: dissimulation.

>

> Other obvious examples of dissimulation we see today include:

>

>

>

> * pretending like more and more government will not further stifle

> an already struggling economy

> * pretending like programs favoring " minorities " are not just

> another form of racism

> * pretending like drug laws are necessary for national security

> * pretending like passing more and more laws every year is not

> geared ultimately for the advancement of the law enforcement,

> security, and prison industries

>

>

>

> * pretending the Bush regime has not benefited from every program

> that came out of 9/11

>

>

> To pretend to be what you are not: dissimulation.

>

> DISTRACTION

>

> A third tool necessary to media in order to keep the public from

> thinking too much is distraction. Bread and circuses worked for Caesar

> in old Rome. The people need to be kept quiet while the small group in

> power carries out its agenda, which always involves fortifying its own

> position.

>

> All actions of the present regime since 9/11 may be explained by

> plugging in one of four beneficiaries:

> # Oil

> # Pharmaceuticals

> # War gear

> # Security systems

>

> Every act, every political event, every public statement of the

> present administration has promoted one or more of these huge sectors.

> More oil, more drugs, more weapons, more security.

>

> But the people mustn't be allowed to notice things like that. So they

> must be smokescreened by other stuff , blatant obvious stuff which is

> really easy to understand and which they think has a greater bearing

> on their day to day life. A classic axiom of propaganda is that people

> shouldn't be allowed to think too much about what the government is

> doing in their name. After all, there's more to life than politics,

> right? So while the power group has its cozy little war going on, the

> people need to have their attention diverted.

>

> All the strong men of history would have given their firstborn to have

> at their disposal the number and types of distractions available to

> today's regimes:

>

> - TV sports, its orchestrated frenzy and spectacle

>

> - Super Sunday

>

>

> - the wanton sexless flash of MTV with its uninspired lack of talent,

> a study in split second phony images

>

> - colossally dull TV programs which serve the secondary purpose of

> instilling proper robot attitudes into people who have little other

> instruction in life values

>

>

> - the ever-retreating promise of financial success, switched now to

> the trappings and toys that suggest success, available to almost everyone

>

> - organized superstitions of all varieties, with their requisite

> pseudo-spiritual trappings

>

>

> Media science holds the advantage: as people get dumber and dumber

> year by year it gets easier and easier to keep them dumb. The only

> challenge is that their threshold keeps getting lower. So in order to

> get their attention, communication messages have to become more

> obvious and blatant, taking nothing for granted.

>

> Here are some indicators of our declining intelligence:

>

> - flagrant errors of grammar and spelling rampant in advertising,

> which go unnoticed

>

> - declining SAT scores and the arbitrary resetting of normals, in

> order to cover up the decline

>

> - increased volume and decreased speed of the voices of newsreaders on

> radio and TV

>

> - limited vocabulary and clichéd speech allowed in radio programs;

> obvious lack of education and requisite pedestrian mentality required

> of corporate simians who are featured on radio

>

> - increasing illiteracy of high school graduates, both written and spoken

>

> - decreasing requirements for masters theses and PhD dissertations in

> both length and content

>

> - increasing oversimplification of movie and TV plot lines - absence

> of subtlety in conceptual and dramatic content; blatant moralizing of

> compliant robot values

>

> - newspaper articles that are not written by reporters but that are

> scientifically crafted phrase by canny phrase by the PR industry and

> placed into the columns of syndication in the guise of 'hard news'

>

>

> - the downward spiral of the level of ordinary conversations, which

> are commonly just exercises in stringing together random clichés from

> the very finite stock of endlessly repeated homogeneous bytes. It's as

> though we're only allowed to have 50 thoughts, and most conversation

> is just linking these 50 programmed audio clips together in a

> different order. Listen to what people say, the way they say it.

>

> PUT-UP JOB

>

> Imagine for a moment that 9/11 was a put-up job engineered for the

> sole purpose of cementing the current regime into power and

> frightening the bovine populace into surrendering even more of what

> little freedom they have left. Hypothetical situation of course, just

> work with me a little. Imagine there never were any dissident crazed

> terrorists representing Osama or Saddam, but instead a highly

> disciplined though slightly whacked-out team of military fanatics,

> programmed somehow to think they were doing something valuable for

> some faction or other. A put-up job, from the inside.

>

> Imagine that all the violence and stress perpetrated on the collective

> American psyche since 9/11 about war, bioterrorism, and security has

> all been completely unnecessary. And that all the billions of dollars

> of extra security and wasted time in airports and borders was also

> totally unnecessary because there never were any terrorists, except

> those on Capitol Hill. And all the shrill media articles and " stories "

> that support the few underlying events have been unnecessary, their

> prime purpose being self promotion. Think how much our quality of life

> has suffered. What if all this stress has been totally unnecessary?

>

> Many of our best people have come to precisely these conclusions. Once

> you get past the initial hurdle of being able to consider the

> unthinkable possibility that a regime could be so obsessed with

> gaining political advantage that they would actually blow up 3000 of

> our own people, the rest falls into place. Over the top? Not such a

> stretch really when you compare the thousands that have been

> sacrificed to the whims of other murderous tyrants the world over

> throughout all of recorded history. Exactly how is it impossible?

>

> WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW?

>

> When it comes to a discussion of what's going on in the world, the

> honest individual must admit that he has almost no idea. When was the

> last time Bush invited you into the Green Room for a private

> chat with Cheney and Ashcroft about the future of big oil? When did

> Bill Gates last invite you up to his Redmond digs for a wine and

> cheese brainstorming session about the next Big Thing? Or when did

> your neighbor who lives three blocks away from you call you up to tell

> you about the unfulfilled plans of his father who just found out he's

> dying of cancer? How many life stories of the world's six billion

> people do you know anything about? This is to say nothing of fluid

> events which are coming in and out of existence every day between the

> nations of the world. What is really going on?

>

> Seems like much more effort is spent covering up and packaging actual

> events that are taking place than in trying to accurately report and

> evaluate them. These are questions of epistemology - what can we know?

> The answer is - very little, if our only source of information is the

> superficial everyday media. The few people who buy books don't read

> them. Passive absorption of pre-interpreted already-figured-out data

> is the preferred method

>

> HOW IT ALL GOT STARTED

>

> But wait, we're getting ahead of ourselves. Let's back up a minute. In

> their book Trust Us We're Experts, Stauber and Rampton pull together

> some compelling data describing the science of creating public opinion

> in America. They trace modern public influence back to the early part

> of the last century, highlighting the work of guys like L.

> Bernays, the Father of Spin.

>

> >From his own amazing 1928 chronicle Propaganda, we learn how L.

> Bernays took the ideas of his famous uncle Sigmund Freud himself, and

> applied them to the emerging science of mass persuasion. The only

> difference was that instead of using these principles to uncover

> hidden themes in the human unconscious, the way Freudian psychology

> does, Bernays studied these same ideas in order to learn how to mask

> agendas and to create illusions that deceive and misrepresent, for

> marketing purposes.

>

> THE FATHER OF SPIN

>

> L. Bernays dominated the PR industry until the 1940s, and was a

> significant force for another 40 years after that. (Tye) During that

> time, Bernays took on hundreds of diverse assignments to create a

> public perception about some idea or product. A few examples:

>

> As a neophyte with the Committee on Public Information, one of

> Bernays' first assignments was to help sell the First World War to the

> American public with the idea to " Make the World Safe for Democracy. "

> (Ewen) We've seen this phrase in every war and US military involvement

> since that time.

>

> A few years later, Bernays set up a stunt to popularize the notion of

> women smoking cigarettes. In organizing the 1929 Easter Parade in New

> York City, Bernays showed himself as a force to be reckoned with. He

> organized the Torches of Liberty Brigade in which suffragettes marched

> in the parade smoking cigarettes as a mark of women's liberation.

> After that one event, women would be able to feel secure about

> destroying their own lungs in public, the same way that men have

> always done.

>

> Bernays popularized the idea of bacon for breakfast.

>

> Not one to turn down a challenge, he set up the liaison between the

> tobacco industry and the American Medical Association that lasted for

> nearly 50 years. They proved to all and sundry that cigarettes were

> beneficial to health. Just look at ads in old issues of Life, Look,

> Time or Journal of the American Medical Association from the 40s and

> 50s in which doctors are recommending this or that brand of cigarettes

> as promoting healthful digestion, or whatever.

>

> During the next several decades Bernays and his colleagues evolved the

> principles by which masses of people could be generally swayed through

> messages repeated over and over, hundreds of times per week.

>

> Once the economic power of media became apparent, other countries of

> the world rushed to follow our lead. But Bernays remained the gold

> standard. He was the source to whom the new PR leaders across the

> world would always defer. Even f Goebbels, Hitler's minister of

> propaganda, closely studied the principles of Bernays when

> Goebbels was developing the popular rationale he would use to convince

> the Germans that in order to purify their race they had to kill 6

> million of the impure. (Stauber)

>

> SMOKE AND MIRRORS

>

> As he saw it, Bernay's job was to reframe an issue; to create a

> desired image that would put a particular product or concept in a

> desirable light. He never saw himself as a master hoodwinker, but

> rather as a beneficent servant of humanity, providing a valuable

> service. Bernays described the public as a 'herd that needed to be

> led.' And this herdlike thinking makes people " susceptible to

> leadership. " Bernays never deviated from his fundamental axiom to

> " control the masses without their knowing it. " The best PR happens

> with the people unaware that they are being manipulated.

>

> Stauber describes Bernays' rationale like this:

>

> " the scientific manipulation of public opinion was necessary to

> overcome chaos and conflict in a democratic society. "

>

> -- Trust Us, p 42

>

> These early mass persuaders postured themselves as performing a moral

> service for humanity in general. Democracy was too good for people;

> they needed to be told what to think, because they were incapable of

> rational thought by themselves. Here's a paragraph from Bernays'

> Propaganda:

>

> " Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute

> an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

> We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas

> suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical

> result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast

> numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to

> live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act

> of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business in our

> social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the

> relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes

> and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that

> control the public mind. "

>

> A tad different from Jefferson's view on the subject:

>

> " I know of no safe depository of the ultimate power of the

> society but the people themselves; and if we think them not

> enlightened enough to exercise that control with a wholesome

> discretion, the remedy is not take it from them, but to inform their

> discretion. "

>

> Inform their discretion. Bernays believed that only a few possessed

> the necessary insight into the Big Picture to be entrusted with this

> sacred task. And luckily, he saw himself as one of that elect.

>

> HERE COMES THE MONEY

>

> Once the possibilities of applying Freudian psychology to mass media

> were glimpsed, Bernays soon had more corporate clients than he could

> handle. Global corporations fell all over themselves courting the new

> Image Makers. There were dozens of goods and services and ideas to be

> sold to a susceptible public. Over the years, these players have had

> the money to make their images happen. A few examples:

>

> * Philip

> * Pfizer

> * Union Carbide

> * Allstate

> * Monsanto

> * Eli Lilly

> * tobacco industry

> * Ciba Geigy

> * lead industry

> * Coors

> * DuPont

> * Shell Oil

> * Chlorox

> * Standard Oil

> * Procter & Gamble

> * Boeing

> * Dow Chemical

> * General Motors

> * Goodyear

> * General Mills

>

> THE PLAYERS

>

> Dozens of PR firms have emerged to answer the demand for spin control.

> Among them:

>

> * Burson-Marsteller

> * Edelman

> * Hill & Knowlton

> * Kamer-Singer

> * Ketchum

> * Mongovin, Biscoe, and Duchin

> * BSMG

> * Ruder-Finn

>

> Though world-famous within the PR industry, these are names we don't

> know, and for good reason. The best PR goes unnoticed. For decades

> they have created the opinions that most of us were raised with, on

> virtually any issue which has the remotest commercial value, including:

>

> * pharmaceutical drugs

> * vaccines

> * medicine as a profession

> * alternative medicine

> * fluoridation of city water

> * chlorine

> * household cleaning products

> * tobacco

> * dioxin

> * global warming

> * leaded gasoline

> * cancer research and treatment

> * pollution of the oceans

> * forests and lumber

> * images of celebrities, including damage control

> * crisis and disaster management

> * genetically modified foods

> * aspartame

> * food additives; processed foods

> * dental amalgams

> * autism

>

> LESSON #1

>

> Bernays learned early on that the most effective way to create

> credibility for a product or an image was by " independent third-party "

> endorsement. For example, if General Motors were to come out and say

> that global warming is a hoax thought up by some liberal tree-huggers,

> people would suspect GM's motives, since GM's fortune is made by

> selling automobiles. If however some independent research institute

> with a very credible sounding name like the Global Climate Coalition

> comes out with a scientific report that says global warming is really

> a fiction, people begin to get confused and to have doubts about the

> original issue.

>

> So that's exactly what Bernays did. With a policy inspired by genius,

> he set up " more institutes and foundations than Rockefeller and

> Carnegie combined. " (Stauber p 45) Quietly financed by the industries

> whose products were being evaluated, these " independent " research

> agencies would churn out " scientific " studies and press materials that

> could create any image their handlers wanted. Such front groups are

> given high-sounding names like:

>

> * Temperature Research Foundation

> * International Food Information Council

> * Consumer Alert

> * The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition

> * Air Hygiene Foundation

> * Industrial Health Federation

> * International Food Information Council

> * Manhattan Institute

> * Center for Produce Quality

> * Tobacco Institute Research Council

> * Cato Institute

> * American Council on Science and Health

> * Global Climate Coalition

> * Alliance for Better Foods

>

> Sound pretty legit don't they?

>

> CANNED NEWS RELEASES

>

> As Stauber explains, these organizations and hundreds of others like

> them are front groups whose sole mission is to advance the image of

> the global corporations who fund them, like those -listed on page 2

> above. This is accomplished in part by an endless stream of 'press

> releases' announcing " breakthrough " research to every radio station

> and newspaper in the country. (Robbins) Many of these canned reports

> read like straight news, and indeed are purposely molded in the news

> format. This saves journalists the trouble of researching the subjects

> on their own, especially on topics about which they know very little.

> Entire sections of the release or in the case of video news releases,

> the whole thing can be just lifted intact, with no editing, given the

> byline of the reporter or newspaper or TV station - and voilá! Instant

> news - copy and paste. Written by corporate PR firms.

>

> Does this really happen? Every single day, since the 1920s when the

> idea of the News Release was first invented by Ivy Lee. (Stauber, p

> 22) Sometimes as many as half the stories appearing in an issue of the

> Wall St. Journal are based solely on such PR press releases.. (22)

> These types of stories are mixed right in with legitimately researched

> stories. Unless you have done the research yourself, you won't be able

> to tell the difference. So when we see new " research " being cited, we

> should always first suspect that the source is another industry-backed

> front group. A common tip-off is the word " breakthrough. "

>

> THE LANGUAGE OF SPIN

>

> As 1920s spin pioneers like Ivy Lee and Bernays gained more

> experience, they began to formulate rules and guidelines for creating

> public opinion. They learned quickly that mob psychology must focus on

> emotion, not facts. Since the mob is incapable of rational thought,

> motivation must be based not on logic but on presentation. Here are

> some of the axioms of the new science of PR:

>

> * technology is a religion unto itself

> * if people are incapable of rational thought, real democracy is

> dangerous

> * important decisions should be left to experts

> * when reframing issues, stay away from substance; create images

> * never state a clearly demonstrable lie

>

> Words are very carefully chosen for their emotional impact. Here's an

> example. A front group called the International Food Information

> Council handles the public's natural aversion to genetically modified

> foods. Trigger words are repeated all through the text. Now in the

> case of GM foods, the public is instinctively afraid of these

> experimental new creations which have suddenly popped up on our

> grocery shelves and which are said to have DNA alterations. The IFIC

> wants to reassure the public of the safety of GM foods. So it avoids

> words like:

>

> * enfoods

> * Hitler

> * biotech

> * chemical

> * DNA

> * experiments

> * manipulate

> * money

> * safety

> * scientists

> * radiation

> * roulette

> * gene-splicing

> * gene gun

> * random

>

> Instead, good PR for GM foods contains words like:

>

> * hybrids

> * natural order

> * beauty

> * choice

> * bounty

> * cross-breeding

> * diversity

> * earth

> * farmer

> * organic

> * wholesome

>

> It's basic Freudian/Tony Robbins word association. The fact that GM

> foods are not hybrids that have been subjected to the slow and careful

> scientific methods of real cross-breeding doesn't really matter. This

> is pseudoscience, not science. Form is everything and substance just a

> passing myth. (Trevanian)

>

> Who do you think funds the International Food Information Council?

> Take a wild guess. Right - Monsanto, DuPont, Frito-Lay, Coca Cola,

> Nutrasweet - those in a position to make fortunes from GM foods.

> (Stauber p 20)

>

> CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD PROPAGANDA

>

> As the science of mass control evolved, PR firms developed further

> guidelines for effective copy. Here are some of the gems:

>

> * dehumanize the attacked party by labeling and name calling

> * speak in glittering generalities using emotionally positive words

> * when covering something up, don't use plain English; stall for

> time; distract

> * get endorsements from celebrities, churches, sports figures,

> street people - anyone who has no expertise in the subject at hand

> * the 'plain folks' ruse: us billionaires are just like you

> * when minimizing outrage, don't say anything memorable

> * when minimizing outrage, point out the benefits of what just

> happened

> * when minimizing outrage, avoid moral issues

>

> Keep this list. Start watching for these techniques. Not hard to find

> - look at today's paper or tonight's TV news. See what they're doing;

> these guys are good!

>

> SCIENCE FOR HIRE

>

> PR firms have become very sophisticated in the preparation of news

> releases. They have learned how to attach the names of famous

> scientists to research that those scientists have not even looked at.

> (Stauber, p 201) It's a common practice. In this way, the editors of

> newspapers and TV news shows are themselves often unaware that an

> individual release is a total PR fabrication. Or at least they have

> " deniability, " right?

>

> Stauber tells the amazing story of how leaded gas came into the

> picture. In 1922, General Motors discovered that adding lead to

> gasoline gave cars more horsepower. When there was some concern about

> safety, GM paid the Bureau of Mines to do some fake " testing " and

> publish spurious research that 'proved' that inhalation of lead was

> harmless. Enter Kettering.

>

> Founder of the world famous Sloan-Kettering Memorial Institute for

> medical research, Kettering also happened to be an executive

> with General Motors. By some strange coincidence, we soon have

> Sloan-Kettering issuing reports stating that lead occurs naturally in

> the body and that the body has a way of eliminating low level

> exposure. Through its association with The Industrial Hygiene

> Foundation and PR giant Hill & Knowlton, Sloane-Kettering opposed all

> anti-lead research for years. (Stauber p 92). Without organized

> scientific opposition, for the next 60 years more and more gasoline

> became leaded, until by the 1970s, 90% or our gasoline was leaded.

>

> Finally it became too obvious to hide that lead was a major

> carcinogen, which they knew all along, and leaded gas was phased out

> in the late 1980s. But during those 60 years, it is estimated that

> some 30 million tons of lead were released in vapor form onto American

> streets and highways. 30 million tons. (Stauber)

>

> That is PR, my friends.

>

> JUNK SCIENCE

>

> In 1993 a guy named Huber wrote a new book and coined a new

> term. The book was Galileo's Revenge and the term was junk science .

> Huber's shallow thesis was that real science supports technology,

> industry, and progress. Anything else was suddenly junk science. Not

> surprisingly, Stauber explains how Huber's book was supported by the

> industry-backed Manhattan Institute.

>

> Huber's book was generally dismissed not only because it was so poorly

> written, but because it failed to realize one fact: true scientific

> research begins with no conclusions. Real scientists are seeking the

> truth because they do not yet know what the truth is.

>

> True scientific method goes like this:

>

> 1. form a hypothesis

> 2. make predictions for that hypothesis

> 3. test the predictions

> 4. reject or revise the hypothesis based on the research findings

>

> Boston University scientist Dr. Ozonoff explains that ideas in

> science are themselves like " living organisms, that must be nourished,

> supported, and cultivated with resources for making them grow and

> flourish. " (Stauber p 205) Great ideas that don't get this financial

> support because the commercial angles are not immediately obvious -

> these ideas wither and die.

>

> Another way you can often distinguish real science from phony is that

> real science points out flaws in its own research. Phony science

> pretends there were no flaws.

>

> THE REAL JUNK SCIENCE

>

> Contrast this with modern PR and its constant pretensions to sound

> science. Corporate sponsored research, whether it's in the area of

> drugs, GM foods, or chemistry begins with predetermined conclusions.

> It is the job of the scientists then to prove that these conclusions

> are true, because of the economic upside that proof will bring to the

> industries paying for that research. This invidious approach to

> science has shifted the entire focus of research in America during the

> past 50 years, as any true scientist is likely to admit. If a drug

> company is spending 10 million dollars on a research project to prove

> the viability of some new drug, and the preliminary results start

> coming back about the dangers of that drug, what happens? Right. No

> more funding. The well dries up. What is being promoted under such a

> system? Science? Or rather Entrenched Medical Error? "

>

> Stauber documents the increasing amount of corporate sponsorship of

> university research. (206) This has nothing to do with the pursuit of

> knowledge. Scientists lament that research has become just another

> commodity, something bought and sold. (Crossen)

>

> THE TWO MAIN TARGETS OF " SOUND SCIENCE "

>

> It is shocking when Stauber shows how the vast majority of corporate

> PR today opposes any research that seeks to protect

>

> * public health

> * the environment

>

> It's a funny thing that most of the time when we see the phrase " junk

> science, " it is in a context of defending something that threatens

> either the environment or our health. This makes sense when one

> realizes that money changes hands only by selling the illusion of

> health and the illusion of environmental protection or the illusion of

> health. True public health and real preservation of the earth's

> environment have very low market value.

>

> Stauber thinks it ironic that industry's self-proclaimed debunkers of

> junk science are usually non-scientists themselves. (255) Here again

> they can do this because the issue is not science, but the creation of

> images.

>

> THE LANGUAGE OF ATTACK

>

> When PR firms attack legitimate environmental groups and alternative

> medicine people, they again use special words which will carry an

> emotional punch:

>

> * outraged

> * sound science

> * junk science

> * sensible

> * scaremongering

> * responsible

> * phobia

> * hoax

> * alarmist

> * hysteria

>

> The next time you are reading a newspaper article about an

> environmental or health issue, note how the author shows bias by using

> the above terms. This is the result of very specialized training.

>

> Another standard PR tactic is to use the rhetoric of the

> environmentalists themselves to defend a dangerous and untested

> product that poses an actual threat to the environment. This we see

> constantly in the PR smokescreen that surrounds genetically modified

> foods. They talk about how GM foods are necessary to grow more food

> and to end world hunger, when the reality is that GM foods actually

> have lower yields per acre than natural crops. (Stauber p 173) The

> grand design sort of comes into focus once you realize that almost all

> GM foods have been created by the sellers of herbicides and pesticides

> so that those plants can withstand greater amounts of herbicides and

> pesticides. (see The Magic Bean)

>

> THE MIRAGE OF PEER REVIEW

>

> Publish or perish is the classic dilemma of every research scientist.

> That means whoever expects funding for the next research project had

> better get the current research paper published in the best scientific

> journals. And we all know that the best scientific journals, like

> JAMA, New England Journal, British Medical Journal, etc. are

> peer-reviewed. Peer review means that any articles which actually get

> published, between all those full color drug ads and pharmaceutical

> centerfolds, have been reviewed and accepted by some really smart guys

> with a lot of credentials. The assumption is, if the article made it

> past peer review, the data and the conclusions of the research study

> have been thoroughly checked out and bear some resemblance to physical

> reality.

>

> But there are a few problems with this hot little set up. First off, money

> .

>

> Even though prestigious venerable medical journals pretend to be so

> objective and scientific and incorruptible, the reality is that they

> face the same type of being called to account that all glossy

> magazines must confront: don't antagonize your advertisers. Those

> full-page drug ads in the best journals cost millions, Jack. How long

> will a pharmaceutical company pay for ad space in a magazine that

> prints some very sound scientific research paper that attacks the

> safety of the drug in the centerfold? Think about it. The editors may

> lack moral fibre, but they aren't stupid.

>

> Another problem is the conflict of interest thing. There's a formal

> requirement for all medical journals that any financial ties between

> an author and a product manufacturer be disclosed in the article. In

> practice, it never happens. A study done in 1997 of 142 medical

> journals did not find even one such disclosure. (Wall St. Journal, 2

> Feb 99)

>

> A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96%

> of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were

> studying. (Stelfox, 1998) Big shock, huh? Any disclosures? Yeah,

> right. This study should be pointed out whenever somebody starts

> getting too pompous about the objectivity of peer review, like they

> often do.

>

> Then there's the outright purchase of space. A drug company may simply

> pay $100,000 to a journal to have a favorable article printed.

> (Stauber, p 204)

>

> Fraud in peer review journals is nothing new. In 1987, the New England

> Journal ran an article that followed the research of R. Slutsky MD

> over a seven year period. During that time, Dr. Slutsky had published

> 137 articles in a number of peer-reviewed journals. NEJM found that in

> at least 60 of these 137, there was evidence of major scientific fraud

> and misrepresentation, including:

>

> * reporting data for experiments that were never done

> * reporting measurements that were never made

> * reporting statistical analyses that were never done

> * o Engler

>

> Dean Black PhD, describes what he the calls the Babel Effect

> that results when this very common and frequently undetected

> scientific fraud in peer-reviewed journals is quoted by other

> researchers, who are in turn re-quoted by still others, and so on.

>

> Want to see something that sort of re-frames this whole discussion?

> Check out the Mc's ads which routinely appear in the Journal of

> the American Medical Association. Then keep in mind that this is the

> same publication that for almost 50 years ran cigarette ads

> proclaiming the health benefits of tobacco. (Robbins)

>

> Very scientific, oh yes.

>

> KILL YOUR TV?

>

> Hope this chapter has given you a hint to start reading newspaper and

> magazine articles a little differently, and perhaps start watching TV

> news shows with a slightly different attitude than you had before.

> Always ask, what are they selling here, and who's selling it? And if

> you actually follow up on Stauber & Rampton's book and check out some

> of the other resources below, you might even glimpse the possibility

> of advancing your life one quantum simply by ceasing to subject your

> brain to mass media. That's right - no more newspapers, no more TV

> news, no more Time magazine or People magazine Newsweek. You could

> actually do that. Just think what you could do with the extra time alone.

>

> Really feel like you need to " relax " or find out " what's going on in

> the world " for a few hours every day? Think about the news of the past

> couple of years for a minute. Do you really suppose the major stories

> that have dominated headlines and TV news have been " what is going on

> in the world? " Do you actually think there's been nothing going on

> besides the contrived tech slump, the contrived power shortages, the

> re-filtered accounts of foreign violence and disaster, even the new

> accounts of US retribution in the Middle East, making Afghanistan safe

> for democracy, bending Saddam to our will, etc., and all the other

> non-stories that the puppeteers dangle before us every day? What about

> when they get a big one, like with OJ or Lewinsky or the

> Oklahoma city bombing? Or now with the Neo-Nazi aftermath of 9/11. Or

> the contrived war against Saddam? Do we really need to know all that

> detail, day after day? Do we have any way of verifying all that

> detail, even if we wanted to? What is the purpose of news? To inform

> the public? Hardly.

>

> The sole purpose of news is to keep the public in a state of fear and

> uncertainty

> so that they'll watch again tomorrow to see how much worse things got

> and to be subjected to the same advertising.

>

> Oversimplification? Of course. That's the mark of mass media mastery -

> simplicity. The invisible hand. Like Bernays said, the people

> must be controlled without them knowing it.

>

> Consider this: what was really going on in the world all that time

> they were distracting us with all that stupid vexatious daily

> smokescreen? We have no way of knowing. And most of it doesn't even

> concern us even if we could know it. Fear and uncertainty -- that's

> what keeps people coming back for more.

>

> If this seems like a radical outlook, let's take it one step further:

>

> What would you lose from your life if you stopped watching TV and

> stopped reading newspapers and glossy magazines altogether?

>

> Whoa!

>

> Would your life really suffer any financial, moral, intellectual,

> spiritual, or academic loss from such a decision?

>

> Do you really need to have your family continually absorbing the

> illiterate, amoral, phony, culturally bereft, desperately brainless

> values of the people featured in the average nightly TV program? Are

> these fake, programmed robots " normal " ?

>

> Do you need to have your life values constantly spoonfed to you?

>

> Are those shows really amusing, or just a necessary distraction to

> keep you from looking at reality, or trying to figure things out

> yourself by doing a little independent reading? Or perhaps from having

> a life?

>

> Name one example of how your life is improved by watching TV news and

> reading the evening paper or the glossy magazines. What measurable

> gain is there for you?

>

> What else could we be doing with all this freed-up time that would

> actually expand awareness?

>

> PLANET OF THE APES?

>

> There's no question that as a nation, we're getting dumber year by

> year. Look at the presidents we've been choosing lately. Ever notice

> the blatant grammar mistakes so ubiquitous in today's advertising and

> billboards? Literacy is marginal in most American secondary schools.

> Three-fourths of California high school seniors can't read well enough

> to pass their exit exams. ( SJ Mercury 20 Jul 01) If you think other

> parts of the country are smarter, try this one: hand any high school

> senior a book by Dumas or Jane Austen, and ask them to open to any

> random page and just read one paragraph out loud. Go ahead, do it. SAT

> scales are arbitrarily shifted lower and lower to disguise how dumb

> kids are getting year by year. (ADD: A Designer Disease) At least 10%

> have documented " learning disabilities, " which are reinforced and

> rewarded by special treatment and special drugs. Ever hear of anyone

> failing a grade any more?

>

> Or observe the intellectual level of the average movie which these

> days may only last one or two weeks in the theatres, especially if it

> has insufficient explosions, chase scenes, silicone, fake martial

> arts, and cretinesque dialogue. Doesn't anyone else notice how badly

> these 30 or 40 " movie stars " we keep seeing over and over in the same

> few plots must now overact to get their point across to an

> ever-dimming audience?

>

> Radio? Consider the low mental qualifications of the falsely animated

> corporate simians they hire as DJs -- seems like they're only allowed

> to have 50 thoughts, which they just repeat at random. And at what

> point did popular music cease to require the study of any musical

> instrument or theory whatsoever, not to mention lyric? Perhaps we just

> don't understand this emerging art form, right? The Darwinism of MTV -

> apes descended from man.

>

> Ever notice how most articles in any of the glossy magazines sound

> like they were all written by the same guy? And this writer just

> graduated from junior college? And yet he has all the correct opinions

> on social issues, no original ideas, and that shallow, smug,

> homogenized corporate omniscience, which enables him to assure us that

> everything is fine...

>

> All this is great news for the PR industry - makes their job that much

> easier. Not only are very few paying attention to the process of

> conditioning; fewer are capable of understanding it even if somebody

> explained it to them.

>

> TEA IN THE CAFETERIA

>

> Let's say you're in a crowded cafeteria, and you buy a cup of tea. And

> as you're about to sit down you see your friend way across the room.

> So you put the tea down and walk across the room and talk to your

> friend for a few minutes. Now, coming back to your tea, are you just

> going to pick it up and drink it? Remember, this is a crowded place

> and you've just left your tea unattended for several minutes. You've

> given anybody in that room access to your tea.

>

> Why should your mind be any different? Turning on the TV, or

> uncritically absorbing mass publications every day - these activities

> allow access to our minds by " just anyone " - anyone who has an agenda,

> anyone with the resources to create a public image via popular media.

> As we've seen above, just because we read something or see something

> on TV doesn't mean it's true or worth knowing. So the idea here is,

> like the tea, perhaps the mind is also worth guarding, worth limiting

> access to it.

>

> This is the only life we get. Time is our total capital. Why waste it

> allowing our potential, our scope of awareness, our personality, our

> values to be shaped, crafted, and boxed up according to the whims of

> the mass panderers? There are many important issues that are crucial

> to our physical, mental, and spiritual well-being which require time

> and study. If it's an issue where money is involved, objective data

> won't be so easy to obtain. Remember, if everybody knows something,

> that image has been bought and paid for.

>

> Real knowledge takes a little effort, a little excavation down at

> least one level below what " everybody knows. "

>

>

>

> ©Copyright MMIV Two Trees

>

>

> References

> Stauber & Rampton Trust Us, We're Experts Tarcher/Putnam 2001

> Ewen, Stuart PR!: A Social History of Spin Basic Books 1996

> Tye, Larry The Father of Spin: L. Bernays and the Birth of

> Public Relations Crown Publishers, Inc. 2001

> Bernays E Propaganda Liveright 1928

> King, R Medical journals rarely disclose researchers' ties Wall St.

> Journal February 2, 1999

> Engler, R et al. Misrepresentation and Responsibility in Medical

> Research New England Journal of Medicine v 317 p 1383 November 26, 1987

> Black, D PhD Health At the Crossroads Tapestry 1988

> Trevanian Shibumi 1983

> Crossen, C Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in America 1996

> Robbins, J Reclaiming Our Health Kramer 1996

> Huxley, A The Doors of Perception: Heaven and Hell Harper and Row 1954

> O'Shea T The Magic Bean www.thedoctorwithin.com

>

>

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/index_fr.html?content=articles/doors_of_perceptio\

n.html

>