A Proper Gander At Propaganda


PLEASE NOTE: This is not a conspiracy theory blog.

This website exists to serve as public resource for reverse imagineering world-wide culture, one that takes a critical look at the numerous artifacts and other types of relics that represent our shared collective international heritage. This blog is dedicated to examining social engineering and the use of tax funded governmental propaganda, and the mainstream media, as international human resource management tools.

About The AA Morris Proper Gander At Propaganda Podcast: Coming to you from one of the suburban metropolitan melting pots of international culture, outside of one of the multimedia capitals of the world, New York City, the Proper Gander at Propaganda podcast is meant to be a filter free look at our shared international cultural heritage, our shared social media infused and obsessed present, and what our children and their children could be looking forward to. This link will bring you to the podcast page of this website, with embedded squarespace audio: link: http://www.aamorris.net/podcast/

Thank you for taking the time to read this,

AA "The Proper Gander" Morris

Article Index Link  •  Tip Jar Link: For those who wish to support independent media.

Web addresses: www.aamorris.net or www.aamorris.com

DARPA and How The Government Created the Surveillance State with Annie Jacobsen


image source: wiki commons, U.S. Taxpayer

"Experiencing a story alters our neurochemical processes, and stories are a powerful force in shaping human behavior. In this way, stories are not just instruments of connection and entertainment but also of control."

source: The science of the story | Berkeley News

DARPA and How The Government Created the Surveillance State with Annie Jacobsen

“DARPA, IARPA, ARPA, and how the US government rose from WWII to create a surveillance state that got tested in Vietnam before becoming the modern inescapable Big Brother it is today, is explained by author Annie Jacobsen.”

via: TheLipTV2

Surveillance or social engineering by means of scripted storytelling?


"Storytelling has always been an art, but do we know anything about its science? Darpa is going out on a limb to explore that very question later this week, in a workshop snappily entitled "Neurobiology of Narratives." This project is actually the latest in a series of studies on the neuroscientific implications of human narratives, which began in February this year. (A final workshop, on "influence-related modeling/simulation/sensor tools," will happen later.)"

source: Darpa Explores the Science of Storytelling | WIRED

Why Is the U.S. Government Interested in Storytelling? | The New Yorker

Narrative Networks - Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Storytelling affects human biology, beliefs, behavior | CultureReady

Why DARPA is Researching Storytelling - TriplePundit

Psychological Operations (United States) - Wikipedia

2017 Future of StoryTelling Summit Speaker: Justin Sanchez, Director of the Biotechnologies Office, DARPA

“Future of StoryTelling Summit Speaker: Justin Sanchez, Director of the Biotechnologies Office, DARPA Justin Sanchez, director of the Biotechnologies Office for DARPA, is changing the future of how humans use their brains. By harnessing the powers of neurotechnology, Sanchez and his team at DARPA have been able to help people overcome paralysis and gain independence.”


Journalist Annie Jacobsen: ESP and the U.S. Government

Can you pick out all the logical fallacies and all the empty gossip passed off as some kind of version of so-called 'science"?

Cartoon reasoning and childish comic strip narratives are the stuff of military industrial propaganda mythology Yellow journalism is indeed the blueprint for civilization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism  •  List of fallacies - Wikipedia  •  Trivium - Wikipedia

“Annie Jacobsen, Former Contributing Editor, Los Angeles Times Magazine; Author, Phenomena: The Secret History of the U.S. Government's Investigations into Extrasensory Perception and Psychokinesis; Twitter @AnnieJacobsen Barry Eisler, Novelist, Blogger, Former CIA Operative, Twitter @barryeisler-Moderator Annie Jacobsen is an investigative journalist and best-selling author who writes about war, weapons, U.S.”

via: Commonwealth Club

Propagandist Case Studies:

Annie Jacobsen - Wikipedia  •  Barry Eisler - Wikipedia  •  Edgar Mitchell - Wikipedia  •  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Noetic_Sciences

These two appear to be nothing more than examples of gossiping minds who uncritically accept governmental propaganda as fact.

Witting and unwitting minds act as medium for government growing gossip. Myth matters more than fact. Imaginative story telling and superstitious based "reasoning" still have as powerful a hold over human imagination as ever. Nothing ever changes. Modern superstitious nonsense is simply the same reimagined and rebranded witchcraft silliness (most of) humanity has long been addicted to. Divination is an old carnival side show scam. Military industrial scripted fantasy and cartoon physics and all sorts of impossible feats have long been sold to the mass public as natural and demonstrable fact. The fact of the matter is, a whole lot of the claims of ESP and all sorts of other military industrial propaganda are simply nothing but empty imaginative fantasy designed for its psychological operational effect. Art and fantastic and imaginative storytelling have always been the tools used by the few to manage the many.

Superstitious storytelling matters more than any demonstrable facts of the matter.

Humanity has a storytelling addiction. Government "spy" agencies rely on this natural fact of reality. Continuity errors in historical narratives are less likely to be examples of "easter eggs" and more than likely to be the result of the script writing process. Emotion arousing drama matters more than reality; and if the script calls for an impossible event, a fantastic feat will be sold, with peer reviewed, governmental sanction, and by means of international news media mouthpiece, as demonstrable fact of nature.

"While authors can capture our attention in many different ways, sooner or later a villain will appear and a conflict will develop..."

"We don’t need the science of storytelling to tell a story. We do, however, need science if we want to understand the roots of our storytelling instinct and how tales shape beliefs and behavior, often below conscious awareness. As we’ll discuss, science can help us to defend ourselves in a world where people are constantly trying to push our buttons with the stories they tell. The better we understand how stories unfold in our bodies, the more equipped we are to thrive in the story-rich environment of the twenty-first century. ... While authors can capture our attention in many different ways, sooner or later a villain will appear and a conflict will develop. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone may start gently, but Lord Voldemort looms in the background. As the action rises and Harry’s society of witches and wizards slides toward civil war, our attention sharpens and our bodies release more cortisol. If that doesn’t happen, a story loses us. Our spotlight turns to something else."

source: The science of the story | Berkeley News

Framing is very important.

Mainstream and related media, IE popular media, tend to restrict and limit information, unintentionally or not. Human beings like to have their belief systems reinforced. Most of us usually do not like to have our beliefs challenged. This is true for all of us and this is true for institutions that we tend to take for granted, as well. Censorship and idea framing come in many forms and many of these forms seem to be unconscious in intent. The few manage the many by talking advantage of basic human nature. Here information framing and belief reinforcement in the context of social psychology is the basic natural human behavior that is used as (systematic) human resource management tool.

Storytelling can create political Platonic polarization.

"A spike in cortisol can make us aggressive—one half of the “fight-or-flight” response we hear so much about—and oxytocin has been implicated in competition between groups. People dosed with oxytocin in the lab show strong preferences for their own in-groups, however defined, from school bands to fraternities. Oxytocin appears to play a role in trying to take what out-groups have. People dosed with oxytocin are also more likely to indulge in group-think—going along with collective decisions even when they believe those decisions are wrong."

source: The science of the story | Berkeley News

Allegory of the Cave - Wikipedia  •  Divide and rule - Wikipedia

"Sunstein on the Internet and Political Polarization"

Cass R. Sunstein December 14, 2007

"In 1995 the technology specialist Nicholas Negroponte predicted the emergence of "the Daily Me" -- a newspaper that you design personally, with each component carefully screened and chosen in advance. For many of us, Negroponte's prediction is coming true. As a result of the Internet, personalization is everywhere. If you want to read essays arguing that climate change is a fraud and a hoax, or that the American economy is about to collapse, the technology is available to allow you to do exactly that. If you are bored and upset by the topic of genocide, or by recent events in Iraq or Pakistan, you can avoid those subjects entirely. With just a few clicks, you can find dozens of Web sites that show you are quite right to like what you already like and think what you already think."

"Of course self-sorting is nothing new. Long before the Internet, newspapers and magazines could often be defined in political terms, and many people would flock to those offering congenial points of view. But there is a big difference between a daily newspaper and a Daily Me, and the difference lies in a dramatic increase in the power to fence in and to fence out. Even if they have some kind of political identification, general-interest newspapers and magazines include materials that would not be included in any particular Daily Me; they expose people to topics and points of view that they do not choose in advance. But as a result of the Internet, we live increasingly in an era of enclaves and niches -- much of it voluntary, much of it produced by those who think they know, and often do know, what we're likely to like. This raises some obvious questions. If people are sorted into enclaves and niches, what will happen to their views? What are the eventual effects on democracy? To answer these questions, let us put the Internet to one side for a moment and explore an experiment conducted in Colorado in 2005, designed to cast light on the consequences of self-sorting. About 60 Americans were brought together and assembled into a number of groups, each consisting of five or six people. Members of each group were asked to deliberate on three of the most controversial issues of the day: Should states allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions? Should employers engage in affirmative action by giving a preference to members of traditionally disadvantaged groups? Should the United States sign an international treaty to combat global warming?"

"As the experiment was designed, the groups consisted of "liberal" and "conservative" enclaves -- the former from Boulder, the latter from Colorado Springs. It is widely known that Boulder tends to be liberal, and Colorado Springs tends to be conservative. Participants were screened to ensure that they generally conformed to those stereotypes. People were asked to state their opinions anonymously both before and after 15 minutes of group discussion. What was the effect of that discussion? In almost every case, people held more-extreme positions after they spoke with like-minded others. Discussion made civil unions more popular among liberals and less popular among conservatives. Liberals favored an international treaty to control global warming before discussion; they favored it far more strongly after discussion. Conservatives were neutral on that treaty before discussion, but they strongly opposed it after discussion. Liberals, mildly favorable toward affirmative action before discussion, became strongly favorable toward affirmative action after discussion. Firmly negative about affirmative action before discussion, conservatives became fiercely negative about affirmative action after discussion."

"The creation of enclaves of like-minded people had a second effect: It made both liberal groups and conservative groups significantly more homogeneous -- and thus squelched diversity. Before people started to talk, many groups displayed a fair amount of internal disagreement on the three issues. The disagreements were greatly reduced as a result of a mere 15-minute discussion. In their anonymous statements, group members showed far more consensus after discussion than before. The discussion greatly widened the rift between liberals and conservatives on all three issues."

source: Sunstein on the Internet and Political Polarization | University of ...

Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia