Monthly Archives: May 2011

education memory mind control psychology world

Mind over Matter

Share

Mind over Matter

See here for full text.

Two of the most robust areas of scientific research are telepathy and telekinesis (mind over matter). In the first, a “sender” tries to connect with a “receiver,” though they are isolated from each other.[19] A sender may try to alternately calm and excite a receiver at random intervals, simply via his thoughts and own state of being; the receiver’s skin conductance and galvanic skin response (indications of arousal) are measured. Studies repeatedly demonstrate significant results.[20]

Mind over matter emerges as the most electrifying area of research. It seems that human intention can influence machines – even at a distance, when no influence seems possible. Researchers are both enthralled and puzzled by the data, which makes no sense. Studies thus far have examined machines that randomly produce positive or negative electrical pulses, or measure random radioactive decay, or randomly generate numbers. By concentrating, subjects try to influence the machines in one direction or another. After more than 14 million trials, Jahn has found a constant, significant influence of humans on the performance of machines, and the odds of this happening are 1 in 5,000. Other studies have shown that people can influence not only the random generator they are concentrating on, but hidden generators they don’t even know about.

The actual shift is small, but to understand it requires a stunning leap of perspective. Something is at work here that indicates our world may be far more fluid and interconnected than we ever imagined. Inspired by Jahn’s research, Radin tested five different random generators on October 4, 1995, the day the O. J. Simpson verdict was delivered. At 10 a.m. Pacific time, when 44 million Americans were tuned in to television and radio, the random generators all became significantly less random. The shift lasted for 50 seconds. Radin believes that “the movement of mind does affect matter. It influences everything you can imagine, including mind itself. If 44 million minds are focuses on one thing, that coherence spreads out, and influences even machines.”

Other researchers have tried to find flaws in the studies. “We’ve wondered if influence varies with distance, or with data rate, or with the voltage of the machine,” says physicist Michael Ibison, Ph.D., a visiting scholar at PEAR. “It doesn’t.” So, says Ibison, you start musing on the mysteries of quantum physics, where mind and matter don’t seem so separate and divided. “When cooled to zero degrees Kelvin,” he says, “matter exhibits very weird behavior at great distances, as if the whole system is a single, unified, unbroken, organic thing, and instantaneous changes are visible everywhere. But that’s still just a metaphor. All we really know is that what you are thinking now can actually be correlated with what is happening over there in a machine.”[21]

In January 1994, the Psychological Bulletin published a review of mental telepathy research spanning 20 years. The research not only shows significant proof that telepathy exists, but also reveals surprising connections between artists and psychic abilities. Daryl J. Bem, professor of psychology at Cornell University, co-authored the article with the late University of Edinburgh parapsychologist Charles Honorton. Honorton, who died in November 1992, conducted most of the experiments. “Taken with earlier studies, the probability that the results could have occurred by chance is less than one in a billion,” says Bem, who was deeply impressed with Honorton’s safeguards against flaws and cheating.[22] [They] argue that they have indeed found “replicable evidence” for “anomalous information transfer.”[23]

The studies used the ganzfeld (German for total field) technique that works to block noise and other distractions from the senses.[24] The ganzfeld studies, conducted at Honorton’s Psychophysical Research Lab in Princeton, New Jersey, consisted of 11 experiments, with 240 receivers tested in 354 sessions.[25] Six out of eight music students judged targets successfully, although their reported imagery was not as detailed as the drama students’. Four out of ten drama students correctly identifed their target, describing the imagery so vividly anyone could choose the correct target.[26]

Even the CIA came out of the closet…[in 1995] with its abashed confession that the government agency had spent $20 million on psychic research in the last two decades.[27] It was in 1973 that the Central Intelligence Agency began looking into the business of psychic phenomena.[28] The studies the CIA sponsored were conducted first at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in Menlo Park, California, and later at the nearby, privately owned Science Applications International Corporation.[29]

“The CIA studies were conducted in a number of ways,” says Jessica Utts, a statistician at the University of California at Davis who participated in some of the experiments, “but all the research had the same objective: to determine how well volunteers could perform in a sensory experiment in which something besides their usual senses was being studied.” [30] “Over the first 15 years of the 20-year study,” she says, “154 separate experiments were conducted consisting of 26,000 trials. During those experiments,…the statistical significance figure was a mere .00000000000000000001 [(p << 0.05)] – meaning that you would expect to see those results only once in 1020 tries if the outcome was due solely to chance.”[31] “The studies lead to the conclusion that psychic abilities exist.”[32]

The studies she analyzed…were conducted according to the most rigid of scientific methods: the trials were usually double-blind, with neither the experimenter nor the subject knowing what image had been selected; the subjects were unknown to the experimenters before the studies began; and when the experimenters chose volunteers, they sometimes went out of their way to select the least psychically inclined ones as possible.

“During one set of trials early in the study,” Utts says, “we were looking for Stanford employees who might want to serve as subjects, and we learned that one particularly skeptical man had been telling his colleagues what nonsense our work was. After testing, we decided he’d be perfect for our needs, and as it turned out he was. On one trial, he described seeing a target image that resembled a tree, but one that was almost entirely gray and mushroom-shaped at the top. The image we had selected for him was a videotape of a nuclear explosion.”[33]

After being tapped for the CIA’s psychic espionage program – now known as Star Gate – [David Morehouse] spent eight months, eight hours a day, being trained in the practice known as “remote viewing,” by which individuals are taught to…access people…remote from them.[34] A typical assignment, says Morehouse, was to access the mind of an enemy test pilot in order to get detailed information about fighter planes.[35] The information was correlated with other surveillance programs.[36] If the same extrasensory sleuthing could be used to locate…missile bases near Moscow or troop movements in China, the United States could gain a[n]…advantage in the global intelligence game.[37]

Though the CIA claims it has abandoned the program because of lack of success, Morehouse and his remote viewing colleagues believe Star Gate is as active as ever but has gone further undercover. They also believe the government is taking this technique into the realm of weaponry, training individuals in “remote influence” – accessing another human mind to inflict harm on it.[38]

[20] Jill Neimark, Do the spirits move you?, Psychology Today, Sep/Oct 1996, 29(5), p. 78.
[21] Op. cit.
[22] Lorrin Harvey, Mental telepathy in the lab; tests show psychic abilities among actors and musicians, Omni, Nov 1994, 17(2), p. 20.
[23] Steve Nadis, At long last, proof?, Omni, Sep 1994, 16(11), p. 78.
[24] Lorrin Harvey, Mental telepathy in the lab; tests show psychic abilities among actors and musicians, Omni, Nov 1994, 17(2), p. 20.
[25] Op. cit.
[26] Op. cit.
[27] Jill Neimark, Do the spirits move you?, Psychology Today, Sep/Oct 1996, 29(5), p. 51.
[28] Jeffrey Kluger, CIA ESP, Discover, April 1996, 17(4), p. 36.
[29] Op. cit.
[30] Op. cit.
[31] Ibidem, p. 37.
[32] Op. cit.
[33] Op. cit.
[34] Jill Neimark, I was a psychic spy, Psychology Today, Sep/Oct 1996, 29(5), p. 52.
[35] Op. cit.
[36] Op. cit.
[37] Jeffrey Kluger, CIA ESP, Discover, April 1996, 17(4), pp. 34, 36.
[38] Jill Neimark, I was a psychic spy, Psychology Today, Sep/Oct 1996, 29(5), p. 52.

Share
healthcare Tinfoil Hat world

Tinfoil Hat – Cradle to Grave

Share

Cradle-to-Grave

See here for full text.

Adopting new behaviors was addressed in 1953 by Howard Becker in “On Becoming a Marihuana User” for the American Journal of Sociology:

That the presence of a given kind of behavior is the result of a sequence of social experiences during which the person acquires a conception of the meaning of the behavior, and perceptions and judgments of objects and situations, all of which make the activity possible and desirable. Thus, the motivation or disposition to engage in the activity is built up in the course of learning to engage in it and does not antedate this learning process. For such a view it is not necessary to identify those “traits” which “cause” the behavior. Instead, the problem becomes one of describing the set of changes in the person’s conception of the activity and of the experience it provides him.1

The proficient use of social and psychological cues is crucial to grab an audience’s attention amongst the hundreds if not thousands of advertisements the average American is bombarded with every day.2 “Every waking moment of our lives, we swim in an ocean of advertising, all of it telling us the same thing: consume, consume. And then consume some more,” writes Morgan Spurlock, the investigator behind the documentary “Super Size Me” in his article “The Truth about McDonald’s and Children.” The article notes:

Today, corporations spend more than $15bn every year on marketing, advertising and promotions meant to program American children to consume.… Why? Because they realize that children not only have more expendable income of their own, but they influence how their parents spend their hard-earned bucks, too – to the tune of more than $600bn a year.…

McDonald’s and the other fast-food chains make no secret of the fact that kids are their primary targets. “We have living proof of the long-lasting quality of early brand loyalties in the cradle-to-grave marketing at McDonald’s, and how well it works,” James McNeal, a well-known children’s marketing guru and the author of Kids As Customers, has said. “We start taking children in for their first and second birthdays, and on and on, and eventually they have a great deal of preference for that brand. Children can carry that with them through a lifetime.” 3

Medial mogul Disney has gone even further by targeting maternity wards at hospitals. “The reps are offering new moms, within hours of giving birth, a free Disney Cuddly Bodysuit for their babies if they sign up for e-mail alerts from DisneyBaby.com,” reports NPR:

The idea is to encourage mothers to infuse their infants with brand loyalty as if it is mother’s milk.… Getting an expectant mom thinking about her family’s first theme-park visit while her child was in the womb, an exec told the [The New York Times], would be like hitting “a home run.”…

The Advertising Educational Foundation already hails infants 1 year and under as… “a more informed, influential and compelling audience than ever before.” Children as young as 12 months, the foundation adds, can recognize brands and are “strongly influenced” by advertising and marketing. Like that’s a good thing.

The truth is, some studies show that children under 8 years old can’t distinguish between ads and entertainment. Until then, they don’t fully comprehend that advertising is trying to sell them something. That gives marketers an unfair – not to mention predatory – advantage over our kids. No wonder so many other countries have tight restrictions on marketing to children under age 12.4

“Studies over the years have demonstrated that many people, especially young people, unquestioningly accept the reality presented by television,” notes the MindControlInAmerica.com website. “Popular culture (movies, television and music) carries messages about how society works and how people should behave.” 5

“Brand loyalty is hard to break for some,” writes David Butler for the Northern Colorado Beer Examiner. “The beers you started drinking when you were a young adult often become the beverage of choice later in life.… For some, it becomes part of their identity.” 6

According to the aysymtomatic.net website in their “Brand Addiction” article:

The big corporations aren’t worried about brand addiction to brands that aren’t their own. For example, Budweiser doesn’t care that you are brand-addicted to Miller, even though they have beer that is comparatively identical in its flavor similarity to water. They’re just biding their time until they strike the right nerve with their advertising and you suddenly switch brand loyalty. Until then, they have their own brand-addicts that they need not advertise to. It’s a big game to them.7

According to a 1990 paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association:

A study examined whether billboard advertising of tobacco and alcohol products is differentially targeted toward White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic neighborhoods.… The study suggests that the modeling of social cues can serve to motivate product use, disinhibit behavioral restraints, and reinforce existing habits.… Furthermore, the analyses of the content of the billboards revealed that alcohol and cigarette advertisements use social modeling cues such as anticipated rewards, attractive models, and similarity.8, i

i The magazine Advertising Age cited Ronald McDonald as No 2 on its list of top 10 advertising icons of the 20th century. Who was No 1? It was the Marlboro Man.
– Morgan Spurlock, “The Truth about McDonald’s and Children,” Independent/UK, 22 May 2005, at CommonDreams.org, http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0522-20.htm (retrieved: 13 May 2011).

1 Howard Becker, “On Becoming A Marihuana User,” American Journal of Sociology, 1953, pp. 235-242, in George S. Bridges, Deviant Behavior: An Anthology of Readings (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994), p. 51.

2 Google Answers: American advertising in the media, at http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=56750 (retrieved: 3 January 2011).

3 Morgan Spurlock, “The Truth about McDonald’s and Children,” Independent/UK, 22 May 2005, at CommonDreams.org, http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0522-20.htm (retrieved: 13 May 2011).

4 Peggy Orenstein, “Dodging Disney in the Delivery Room,” NPR.org, 9 February 2011, at http://www.npr.org/2011/02/10/133627064/dodging-disney-in-the-delivery-room (retrieved: 13 May 2011).

5 “Your thoughts may not always be your own!” MindControlInAmerica.com, at http://www.mindcontrolinamerica.com/mind_ctrl.htm (retrieved: 3 January 2011).

6 David Butler, “The reasons we drink beer,” Northern Colorado Beer Examiner, 8 July 2008, at http://www.examiner.com/beer-in-denver/the-reasons-we-drink-beer (retrieved: 13 May 2011).

7 “Brand Addiction,” Asymptomatic, 18 February 2005, at http://asymptomatic.net/2005/02/18/1361/brand-addiction (retrieved: 13 May 2011).

8 “Alcohol and Cigarette Advertising on Billboards: Targeting with Social Cues,” abstract, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association (40th, Dublin, Ireland, June 24-28, 1990), at http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED321323&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED321323 (retrieved: 4 January 2011).

Share
education mind control Tinfoil Hat

Tinfoil Hat – Dumbed Down

Share

Dumbed Down

See here for full text.

One means of bringing about thought reform is by “dumbing down” the population so it has less experience from which to draw. Throughout the 1980s and into the mid-1990s, “the reading level of textbooks…dropped by two grade levels. That is, what used to be third-grade material is now fifth-grade material,” writes Nancy Montgomery in her 1996 article “Dumbed-down texts too easy, too simple, too boring, critics say” for The Seattle Times newspaper.1


According to the ProLiteracy website, “In the U.S., 30 million people over age 16 – 14 percent of the country’s adult population – don’t read well enough to understand a newspaper story written at the eighth grade level or fill out a job application.” 2 They also reported that the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey discovered that up to 51 percent of American adults “lack a sufficient foundation of basic skills to function successfully in our society.” 3 A 2002 Seattle Times article entitled “What we don’t know about science could fill books” reported the National Science Foundation discovering “that only about a third of adults showed a good understanding of the scientific process.” 4

Carl Sagan, whose television series “Cosmos” popularized science, “knew that if we were to have even a little bit of democracy in this society, as many of us as possible should understand the workings, language, values and methods of science and technology so that we can’t be so easily manipulated.” 5

Jim Keith writes in Mass Control: Engineering Human Consciousness that “since the advent of ‘progressive education’ schools have not been intended to educate, but simply to regiment.… [Public school] does not challenge children to learn or to think creatively, but instead indoctrinates them to conform to their prison-like surroundings.” 6 Today’s schools are producing young adults primed to follow orders rather than think critically. According to Alvin Toffler in his landmark 1970 book Future Shock, “nothing could be better calculated to produce people uncertain of their goals, people incapable of effective decision-making under conditions of overchoice.” 7

“Who benefits when the great mass of people becomes complaisant, unable to think, unable to entertain themselves, and interested only in possessions?” asks Heidi Stevenson in “So-Called Education Intentionally Dumbs Down Americans” for Natural News Network. “The answer is simple: corporations. When the mass of children are forced to go through a system that destroys creativity and rewards group-think, they are prepared to fill their predestined roles in a lockstep workforce and unthinking consumption corps.” The article continues:

In 1918, Alexander Inglis, for whom a Harvard lecture hall was named, published the definitive book, Principles of Secondary Education, which defines modern schooling. He specifically stated that its purpose is to support a command economy and society. This book describes modern “education’s” design.… According to Inglis, there are six functions filled by the new mandatory “education” system:

1. Adjustive: Creating reflexive, fixed responses, as opposed to creative thinking.

2. Integrative: Making children conform, making them be predictable and easy to manipulate in a large labor force.

3. Diagnosis and Direction: Schools are intended to identify and enforce each child’s role in society and the labor force.

4. Differentiation: Once diagnosed, children are trained as far as their role in labor has been determined.

5. Selection: Children are tagged with punishments, poor grades, poor classroom placement, and any other humiliation that can be thought of. The purpose is to separate out those the system determines to be unfit and allow them to be treated as inferiors by the rest.

6. Preparation (called propaedeutic by Inglis): Those few deemed to be leaders, often only by their birth, are taught to be the controllers of the masses described in the other five functions.8

The average IQ is considered to be 100 for a target population. Given that education has been dumbed down by several grade levels since World War Two, today’s average 100 IQ would have been much lower in previous generations. “Technology is changing the world to such a large extent that many children know how to use a computer or a smartphone but cannot ride a bike, swim, make breakfast or even tie their own shoelaces,” reports the TechEYE.net website referring to the internet security firm AVG study which “surveyed 2,200 mothers of children under five who had internet access as part of the Digital Diaries series of studies, highlighting how exposed children are to technology.” The article continues:

It was revealed that 58 percent of the children in the two to five year old bracket had mastered how to play a basic computer game, with the figure jumping to 70 percent for children in the UK and France, showing the prevalence of video games for toddlers.

Even in the two to three year old bracket nearly half, 44 percent, were able to play a computer game. In comparison, only 43 percent of the same age knew how to ride a bike, one of the first skills learned in childhood.

19 percent of children aged two to five are smart enough to use a smartphone, but only nine percent of the same age group can tie their shoelaces, one of the most basic life skills we’re thought. 21 percent of four to five year olds knew how to use a smartphone app, while 17 percent of two to three olds had the same skill, showing that children are being exposed to technology at an even younger age.

The report also found that there is very little gender divide in terms of technology skills, with 58 percent of boys knowing how to play a computer game, compared to 59 percent of girls. Likewise, 28 percent of boys could make a mobile phone call, compared to 29 percent of girls.

25 percent of young children could open a web browser, but only 20 percent could swim unaided, so parents may need to keep an eye on their youngsters on the PC just as much as in the pool.

Older mothers were seen as better at teaching life skills, with 40 percent of over 35s teaching their toddlers how to write their own name, compared to only 35 percent of mothers under 35. Let’s hope they’re teaching them to value their family more than social networking at least, since a previous study revealed that Facebook and the like was more important.

More European young children had technology skills than US children, with 44 percent of children in Italy able to make a mobile phone call, compared to 25 percent in the US. 70 percent of children in the UK could play a computer game, compared to 61 percent in the US, and 78 percent of kids in France could use a mouse, compared to 67 percent in the US.

AVG said that parents need to take these findings into consideration, because with children using technology at a younger age it means parents need to teach them computer and online safety earlier than previously expected. They might want to teach them how to tie their shoelaces while they’re at it.9

Related links

1 Nancy Montgomery, “Dumbed-down texts too easy, too simple, too boring, critics say,” The Seattle Times, 3 March 1996, p. A1.

2 Basic Facts about Literacy, ProLiteracy, 10 February 2011, at http://www.literacyvolunteers.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=335&srcid=191 (retrieved: 12 March 2011).

3 “Facts on Literacy In America,” Literacy Volunteers of America, at http://www.literacyvolunteers.org/about/faqs/facts.html (retrieved: March 2006).

4 Malcolm Ritter (The Associated Press), “What we don’t know about science could fill books,” The Seattle Times, 19 June 2002.

5 Ann Druyan (Carl Sagan’s wife), interview with Pete Brady, “Carl Sagan: Visionary Scientist; World-renowned teacher, author and scientist found that cannabis helped him to fully explore the cosmos,” Cannabis Culture #32, Aug/Sep 2001, p. 45.

6 Jim Keith, Mass Control: Engineering Human Consciousness (Lilburn, GA: IllumiNet Press, 1999), pp. 28, 29.

7 Alvin Toffler, Future Shock (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1988, 1970), p. 398.

8 Heidi Stevenson, “So-Called Education Intentionally Dumbs Down Americans,” 11 May 2008, at http://www.naturalnews.com/023215.html (Retrieved: 12 March 2011).

9 Dean Wilson, “More children can use a smartphone than tie their shoelaces,” TechEYE.net, 19 January 2011, at http://www.techeye.net/internet/more-children-can-use-a-smartphone-than-tie-their-shoelaces (retrieved: 25 May 2011); See also: Charlotte Hilton Andersen, “Smartphones Before Shoelaces: Are Kids Too Techy Too Early?” Redbook, reported at http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/smartphones-before-shoelaces-are-kids-too-techy-too-early-2444762 (retrieved: 25 May 2011).

See also

“Dumbing Down,” SkewsMe.com, at http://www.skewsme.com/dumbdown.html (retrieved: 23 October 2008).

“Dumbing down,” Wikipedia.org, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbing_down (retrieved: 23 October 2008).

The Carl Sagan Portal, at http://www.carlsagan.com/ (retrieved: 23 October 2008).

National Science Foundation, at http://www.nsf.gov/ (retrieved: 23 October 2008).

John Dewey Project on Progressive Education, The University of Vermont, http://www.uvm.edu/~dewey/ (retrieved: 23 October 2008).

Related videos

“Americans are NOT stupid – WITH SUBTITLES,” eroncoelho video at YouTube.com, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE (retrieved: 12 March 2011). (Watch it here)

“First 10 minutes of Idiocracy (Clip 1),” video at Spike.com, http://www.spike.com/video-clips/f8drn8/first-10-minutes-of-idiocracy-clip-1 (retrieved: 12 March 2011). (Watch it here)

“RSA Animate – Changing Education Paradigms,” theRSAorg video at YouTube.com, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U (retrieved: 12 March 2011). (Watch it here)

“Creationists Pollute Young Minds at Museum on Nightline,” Nightline (ABC News), 19 March 2008, xrayman7040 video at YouTube.com, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D8AeiAamjY (retrieved: 12 March 2011). (Watch it here)


Share
Stop censorshipSkewsMe.com