Television news and mind control through cognitive dissonance
© Ranchodinero.com
From the viewpoint of elite television news, controlling the minds of its audience depends on what's politely called "cognitive dissonance":
As the anchor recites a news story, the viewer sees an obvious hole through which he could drive a truck.
The story makes no sense, yet it's being presented as bland fact. The trusted anchor clearly has no problem with it.
What's the viewer to do? He experiences a contradiction, a "dissonance."
For example, this year's flu vaccine. The US government has admitted the vaccine is geared to a flu virus that isn't circulating in the population. Therefore, even by conventional standards, the vaccine is useless. But the kicker is, the CDC says people should take the vaccine anyway.
The anchor relays all this information—and never seriously questions the situation, never torpedoes the government for recommending the vaccine.
The average viewer feels a tug, a pulse of discomfort, a push-pull. The vaccine story is idiocy (side one), but the trusted anchor accepts it (side two).
Dissonance.
The top chiefs of news—and top propaganda operatives—anticipate cognitive dissonance. In a real sense, they want it to happen. They make it happen. Over and over.
Why?
Because it throws the viewer into a tailspin. And in that mental state, in his effort to resolve the contradiction, he will normally choose to...give in. Surrender. Believe in the anchor. It's the easier path.
The viewer will even doubt his own perception. "I see no good reason for Building 7 to collapse, but the news doesn't bring that up, so...it must be me."
This is the power of the news. It presents absurdities and then moves right along, as if nothing has happened.
For the viewer, it's the equivalent of: "Don't you see that pile-up of smashed cars on the freeway, and the smoke? No? Oh well, it must be me. I guess I was wrong. There isn't any pile-up."
The introduction of contradiction, dissonance, and absurdity parading as ordinary reality is an intentional feature of brainwashing.
On the nightly news, the anchor reports that US government debt has risen by another three trillion dollars. He then cuts to a statement from a Federal Reserve spokesman: the new debt level isn't a problem; in fact, it's sound monetary policy; it strengthens the economy.
The viewer, caught up in this absurdity, tries to make sense of it, then gives up and passively accepts it. Brainwashing.
Smoothly transitioning from this story, the anchor relays information from the CDC: vaccination rates must achieve 90% in the population, in order to protect people from dangerous viruses. The viewer thinks, "Well, my daughter is already vaccinated, so if she comes into contact with a child who isn't vaccinated, why would that be a problem for her? Why does 90% of the population have to be vaccinated to keep her safe? She's already vaccinated."
The viewer wrestles with this absurdity for a moment, then gives in and accepts what the CDC and the anchor are saying. More passivity. More brainwashing.
The anchor moves right along to the next story: "The US is experiencing one of the coldest winters in history, further evidence of the effects of global warming, according to scientists at the United Nations."
The viewer shakes his head, tries to deal with this dissonance, surrenders, and accepts what he is hearing. Deeper passivity is the result. Deeper brainwashing.
On and on it goes, day after day, month after month, year after year, on the news.
Contradiction, absurdity, dissonance; acceptance, surrender, passivity.
The same general formula is used in interrogations and formal mind control. It adds up to disorientation of the target.
Most disoriented people opt for the lowest- common-denominator solution: give in; accept the power of the person of authority.
When it comes to the news, that person is the anchor , the narrator, the presenter of reality.
He sows the ground with seeds of dissonance. That is how he gains compliance from the viewer.
If the news anchor experiences moments of conscience and self-doubt, he can tell himself he is doing the work of a journalist: he's presenting information obtained from reliable sources. If these sources are spouting contradictions and absurdities, so be it. "Nothing better is available."
Among the many supporters of conventional news is the education system. Most teachers never learn logic, and they don't teach it. The result? Their students never gain the ability or the courage to reject the news and its dissonances.
What little these students gain from 12 or 16 years of schooling they eventually sacrifice on the altar of consensus reality—as broadcast every night on the screen before them.
In the face of absurdities that never add up or make sense, they surrender their minds.
If you gain enough distance from the news and watch it every night and pick it apart and see every dissonance, you realize the news is utterly Surreal. However, it is sold as utterly Normal. That is its trump card—the ability to sell itself as the ultimate in Normalcy.
That is its greatest achievement: overcoming its deepest contradiction.
Comment: Cognitive dissonance can be applied to every single action that is taken by so-called powers that be, as well as in our own personal lives. The list of situations are endless. Being aware of what they are can prevent us from falling into the cognitive dissonance trap of believing our own lies.
Whatever the degree of deception, the realization that one has been believing in a lie is a painful experience, not only psychologically but physically as well. Like a punch to the stomach, it can feel like one's breath has been taken away. And because our beliefs about the world are interconnected with other beliefs fixed in our brains, the destruction of one belief can often lead to a cascade of collapse of many others.
When a person is confronted with facts that contradict currently held belief systems, they have one of two choices. The first choice is to go into denial mode by rejecting the facts as being untrue in order to prop up their chosen belief system and continue living as before. The second choice is to accept the new data and try and reconstruct a new internal paradigm or map of reality that accommodates the new information, which may mean putting into question all other beliefs associated with the old model.
The second choice is difficult and takes a great deal of strength in order to let go of one's preconceived ideas and accept the new and factual data. The first choice is easy because it requires no effort, pain, sadness, or reordering of one's life or values. It is also more comfortable, and because humans generally prefer comfort over pain, the first choice is often the default option.
The exact moment when a person becomes aware of facts that go against what is believed to be true, they experience what psychologists call cognitive dissonance; it is that tense, uncomfortable sensation that what one sees is so out of sync with what one already believes to be true, that the mind instantly rejects it, even when the facts are plain and indisputable.
It is in this moment of experiencing cognitive dissonance (you can recognize it by the tension and discomfort that triggers a "knee-jerk" reaction) that the crucial battle for truth over fiction takes place. If a person can muster the awareness and strength of will to not give in and take the comfortable route by immediately dismissing the facts outright, and hold the conflicting information in their minds while consciously experiencing the negative feelings associated with cognitive dissonance, the resulting liberation can be transformational. It has to be experienced to be believed!
The interesting thing about our tendency to stick with old belief systems, even when faced with hard evidence to the contrary, is the neuro-chemical reward factor. Scientific studies have shown that when experiencing cognitive dissonance (the tension and stress produced when presented with facts that undermine one's normal perception of reality), the decision (knee-jerk reaction) to ignore the factual data and sweep any contradictory evidence under the rug causes the brain to release certain chemicals, making us feel happy and safe again.
So, if believing in an illusion makes us feel safe, happy and comfortable, and any contradictory evidence causes us pain, disorientation and sadness, what possible motivation is there to consciously choose to go through the process of disillusionment?
The love and desire for Truth.
The Necessity of Disillusionment
0 reacties:
Post a Comment