Islamic Terror, brainwashing, new thoughts.

[sebbysteiny]

I've just had a scary revolation.

 

In a previous thread, I said that the cause of Islamic terror lies somewhere in moderate Islam and the arguments they use.

 

I have also, in yet another thread, discussed what exactly brainwashing (or thought reform) is and concluded it is the placing of messages directly into the subconcious bypassing the conscious mind.

 

I argued that the Muslim world is not capable of understanding absolute truth. In particular, I stated that many Moderate Muslims believe the war against terror is a war against Islam and that the innocent Iraqi's killed by insurgents are caused by the West.

 

What I was getting at was that within Muslim culture, there is a link long accepted between the Iraq war and terror that should never exist. Making such a link is an extreme position.

 

However, I recently did some thinking and discovered that many of the arguments used by moderate Muslims are not, as I suspected, cover for a more menacing argument away from the camera's; frequently they are themselves the menacing argument.

 

And the link lies with hypnotic suggestions.

 

Here is one that we might have all heard.

 

'Think what a moderate Muslim might think if he is chosing between extremism and moderation and he considers the Iraq war. That will push him over the edge.'

 

However, the link is false. The question in my mind is why would such an impressionable moderate create such link? Whatever creates the link is the menace responsible for Islamic terror in my mind. And then it hit me. The above argument IS A HYPNOTIC SUGGESTION FOR MODERATE MUSLIMS TO CONSIDER THE IRAQ WAR AND BECOME EXTREME. That argument IS the menace. Image being such an impressionable Muslim and hearing that argument. What effect would it have on you? It would create the link in your mind necessary to be pushed into extremism. Even though many who use the argument are not deliberately trying to send those signals, the hypnotic suggestion is still send.

 

And when you consider that this argument is used all the time again and again especially in Muslim circles, you have the repetitive brainwashing necessary to cause extremism.

 

Another example was an Australian Imam who recently caused a storm by saying that 'when western women dress like meat, they provoke rape'. His words that women are responsible for the crimes of unstable dangerous men committing crimes was shocking. But most people also realised that he wasn't merely discussing cause effect statements; he was actually condoning rape. Why? Because it was another hypnotic suggestion. If this argument is repetidly used, it could explain why women are so badly treated in many Muslim cultures.

 

And there are many more examples of arguments that also send hypnotic suggestions to become extremism.

 

So the cause of the Muslim's problems might be the one dimensional almost identically phrased arguements that the moderates use.

 

If I am right, then it's the arguments used amongst moderate Muslims that are the cause of extremism.

 

 

I think this is an alternative to my original idea.

 

Thoughts?

[Buffy]

My. Your post is a perfect example of its own argument! How recursive!

 

I'm not prejudiced, I just think all steiny's are born extremists,

Buffy

[Southtown]

Yeah SS, that's all common knowledge. Hence, a poll question must be phrased in such a way that it doesn't automatically provoke a reader to answer a certain way. The problem is that idle blabber and rhetoric are almost never under such scrutiny. How could anybody even hope to control everyones' speech, though?

[ughaibu]

Buffy captured things completely. The opening posts claims hypnotic effects can be wrought merely by words, that is without the induction of a state of suggestibility, and then proceeds with an attempt at persuasion that is stronger than the sentences that have been claimed to function hypnotically. In any case, the assertion is false, even the most persuasive statements or sequences of statements do not, on their own, constitute hypnotic suggestions. Take for example Pythagoras' theorem, there are said to be more than one hundred proofs of the theorem, as far as I know none of the proofs involve hypnotism.

[sebbysteiny]

Buffy captured things completely. The opening posts claims hypnotic effects can be wrought merely by words, that is without the induction of a state of suggestibility, and then proceeds with an attempt at persuasion that is stronger than the sentences that have been claimed to function hypnotically. In any case, the assertion is false, even the most persuasive statements or sequences of statements do not, on their own, constitute hypnotic suggestions. Take for example Pythagoras' theorem, there are said to be more than one hundred proofs of the theorem, as far as I know none of the proofs involve hypnotism.

 

You need to read the thread on brainwashing between KickAssClown and myself. In it we discussed what 'brainwashing' / 'thought reform' is.

 

A hypnotic suggestion need not be made by sombody 'in a state of suggestibility'. Infact, to get somebody in that state, you require hypnotic suggestions.

 

Let me give you an example.

 

"Some people on this forum might think you are being pretty stupid not being able to understand this."

 

Taken as read, I have not insulted you or called you 'pretty stupid'. Technically all I have done is say that others might think that way. But only the conscience understands such technicalities. However, these words are just a destraction. The real meaning, that you are pretty stupid for not understanding this, is sent by hypnotic suggestion to the unconscience mind that does not know the difference.

 

And by using this simply as an example and therefore distancing myself from that sentence, that could be a second level of hypnotic suggestions putting the idea into most readers that you are being stupid for not understanding this and leaving yourself with the feeling that you are being accused of being stupid but are not sure why or who to complain to. After all, that sentence was just an example sentence, wasn't it?

 

This is just communication science and like the laws of physics it is happening whether you understand it or not.

 

And if the menacing arguments were not sent by hypnotic suggestion, it would be so obvious that everybody would be able to recognise it instantly.

 

 

Your post is a perfect example of its own argument! How recursive!

 

I think you have misunderstood the structure of my argument. Probably partly my fault since I wrote it quite late at night.

 

1) Hypnotic suggestions work on many people if one comes into constant repetitive contact with them (see brainwashing thread).

 

2) There are many arguments that are used all the time amongst moderate Muslims that are unique to Muslim culture. Almost all moderate Muslims are in constant repetitive contact with these arguments.

 

3) Many of those arguments contain hypnotic suggestions encouraging moderates into extremism. It is irrelivent if the speaker does or does not know of the hypnotic suggestion. It will work regardless.

 

4) Moderates bridge the gap into extremism.

 

If 1-3 exist, 4 must follow. 1 is undeniably true, like the laws of physics in my opinion. 2 is also extremely likely to be true. 3 is just a matter of looking at the argument and checking it for hypnotic suggestions. This may or may not be true depending on the particular argument. However, I have found many in which this is true. Therefore 4 does follow.

 

So yes I have a very strong suspicion that the problem of extremist Islam is born from moderate Islam. I can't help but notice that more and more people are agreeing with me as they see that the politically correct model does not hold for extremist Islam. I am aware that holding this conviction based on facts that I have personally observed will leave me open to being called 'Islamophobic' but that is a risk I am prepared to take especially considering my otherwise anti racism credentials.

 

But you don't need that suspicion to agree that the mechanism proposed above 1) works and 2) is happening right now. All you need is to conclude that steps 1-4 are correct.

[sebbysteiny]

Yeah SS, that's all common knowledge. Hence, a poll question must be phrased in such a way that it doesn't automatically provoke a reader to answer a certain way. The problem is that idle blabber and rhetoric are almost never under such scrutiny. How could anybody even hope to control everyones' speech, though?

 

I thought I would dedicate a special reply to you because you understand exactly what I'm talking about (rep for you :shrug: ).

 

If I am right, then the idle rhetoric and blabber is where the menaceing arguments are found. Or rather, the sub communications that are not found when inspecting only the actual literal meaning of the sentence.

 

As for what could be done? I'm not sure. I'm just proposing a mechanism for extremism. Once found, then we need to try and use it if possible to stop extremism.

 

I'll make some quick 5 minute proposals though. Firstly, we could all become aware of the hypnotic suggestions so that we give the 'idle rhetoric and blabber correct scrutiny.

 

However, as you rightly point out, many genuinely meant arguments do also contain hypnotic suggestions. All arguments that start with the words 'if I were person x then I would think ...' for starters. And it does not seem right to prevent people from putting themselves into other people's shoes just because it contains a hypnotic suggestion.

 

Also, I find it highly unlikely that it is possible to educate vaste numbers of people in communication science so that they can spot these things.

 

Instead, I propose finding all the arguments containing extremist hypnotic suggestions and disecting those individual arguments publicly. People do not need to recognise every single hypnotic suggestion; only the bad ones.

 

In particular, the moderate Muslim world should be made aware of the problem so that they can either rephrase or drop those arguments from their discourse. I don't think we can control their speech, but by education, they might make it a taboo to use the arguments they currently now use every day.

[ughaibu]

Sebbysteiny: I suggest that you employ a hypnotist and have yourself hypnotised, your sentence, "the real meaning, that you are pretty stupid for not understanding this, is sent by hypnotic suggestion to the unconscience mind that does not know the difference", is nonsense.

[Southtown]

Also, I find it highly unlikely that it is possible to educate vaste numbers of people in communication science so that they can spot these things.

 

Instead, I propose finding all the arguments containing extremist hypnotic suggestions and disecting those individual arguments publicly. People do not need to recognise every single hypnotic suggestion; only the bad ones.

Until I read that "most Americans are hungry for change," I was unaware that I felt that way. =P I would say accomplish the first option by implementing the second. A little video at itube should suffice. It just needs to be a little controversial, so dissect pro-extremists comments first.

 

Sebbysteiny: I suggest that you employ a hypnotist and have yourself hypnotised, your sentence, "the real meaning, that you are pretty stupid for not understanding this, is sent by hypnotic suggestion to the unconscience mind that does not know the difference", is nonsense.

I can vouch for it, because I've experienced it. For what reason do you disagree? In the case above, the comment that "some people would think that" is an assumption that is impossible to argue. And it is usually beside the point, anyway.

 

One can choose to pause the dialogue (assuming that's even possible) and attempt to find out who would think that and verify that they would in fact think that. (Like that?) Or one can just skip it for the sake of the argument. Perhaps it's a personality flaw that causes me to experience this. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when threatened with derailing the topic.

[ughaibu]

Southtown: Where's the hypnosis?

[Buffy]

I think you have misunderstood the structure of my argument. Probably partly my fault since I wrote it quite late at night.

I honestly don't think that's the problem....

1) Hypnotic suggestions work on many people if one comes into constant repetitive contact with them (see brainwashing thread).

Cool. I'll even agree that this does in fact work. I'm marketing professional you know. :D

2) There are many arguments that are used all the time amongst moderate Muslims that are unique to Muslim culture. Almost all moderate Muslims are in constant repetitive contact with these arguments.

Racist claptrap. You take statements that apply to many different (I argue all) cultures and conflate them into honest to god hate speech. Its despicable and you should be ashamed of yourself. You want to know why I argue with you, its almost solely this issue, and you appear to be--sadly--completely clueless about how this attitude of yours affects people you deal with.

3) Many of those arguments contain hypnotic suggestions encouraging moderates into extremism. It is irrelivent if the speaker does or does not know of the hypnotic suggestion. It will work regardless.

Ditto comment on 1). I not only wear sexy clothes in my tradeshow booth, I hire booth bimbos. I know what I'm doing, most of my sales folks don't. It works. So what?

4) Moderates bridge the gap into extremism.

This point I've argued with you about too, and similar to 2) you are completely oblivious to evidence that counters what you *mean* by this statement in order to achieve your conclusion.

 

Extremism becomes popular in the mainstream NOT JUST DUE TO PROPAGANDA. Hitler did not gain power just on the Big Lie of Josef Goebbels, it *also* required 1) the punitive and unfair Treaty of Versaille and 2) the massive economic upheavals of the 20s in Germany that made America's depression of the following decade look like a cakewalk. The moderates do not become radical unless you back them into a corner.

 

You consistently belittle all evidence of economic poverty and inequality in the Arab world, that while in many cases self-generated, is very real. There's no question that the propaganda is indeed responsible for redirecting it against external enemies, but you continually fall into the trap of

1. Insisting because there's at least one example of a group that's got it worse that the "Muslims" have no excuse to claim ANY persecution, and
   
2. Insisting that the enemies like the US and Israel, are 100% blameless, and therefore any redirection is not only unfair, its evil.
   

You do not have to be a "Muslim sympathizer" in order to see this. So your analysis of these points:

If 1-3 exist, 4 must follow.

Falls appart completely, because 1-3 are full of holes, and 4 really has nothing to do with them, its just you jumping to conclusions.

 

Why you want to do this I don't know. You claim not to be racist or Islamophobic, but you're walking and talking like a duck my friend.

 

As I've told you before, if you stop seeing these real problems as being somehow unique to Musilm society--which should be easy because there are many places like Indonesia which are highly resistant to this extremist attitude in spite of being almost purely Islamic societies--you'll start to see *real answers* to how to get the moderates to start acting moderately again. If you don't you're going to be stuck with your inability to propose any solutions (you never did in your other thread on this topic in spite of all of us asking you to go ahead), and sit there wondering why people scream at you so much.

 

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful,

Buffy

[Southtown]

Southtown: Where's the hypnosis?

Good question. =P It's in the message. When accepted by the listener, the message becomes false perception. "Don't think of an elephant!" -- George Lakoff

 

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/howtorespond

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/08/25_lakoff.shtml

 

P.S. These articles are doing exactly what they accuse the subject of doing. How would the listener perceive that tidbit and thus get the real story?

[ughaibu]

Southtown: Hypnosis requires a hypnotic state, this is something specific: http://www.uclm.es/inabis2000/posters/files/037/session.htm

[Southtown]

Southtown: Hypnosis requires a hypnotic state, this is something specific: http://www.uclm.es/inabis2000/posters/files/037/session.htm

I see, thanks.

 

Why isn't your link underlined?!?

[Buffy]

These articles are doing exactly what they accuse the subject of doing. How would the listener perceive that tidbit and thus get the real story?

By getting both sides and making an intelligent decision!

 

In line with this thread, the most obivous explanation for what's happening in the Arab world is monopoly power on the media and investment in the results of the propaganda. And its *exactly* what discourse has decended to in America today!

 

Luckily, we have freedom of speech. Now all we have to do is to get people to actually *think*. (I know you agree with *that* South! :) )

 

The neocon's approach to the middle east will destroy our reputation and cause what may be unnecessary death and destruction, but their basic *premise*--that lack of freedom of expression is holding back these peoples--is actually the correct one. We just need to decide whether we should let them do this on their own terms or force it down their throats.

 

Again, its all about *power*, not some imaginary inherent evil of Islam. That's a McGuffin of neocon propaganda as I indicated in my first post in this thread...

 

Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind, :phones:

Buffy

[Southtown]

The neocon's approach to the middle east will destroy our reputation and cause what may be unnecessary death and destruction, but their basic *premise*--that lack of freedom of expression is holding back these peoples--is actually the correct one. We just need to decide whether we should let them do this on their own terms or force it down their throats.

A lot like interferring in a domestic dispute it seems. Trying to break up a fight will get you attacked by all disputers. Our reputation should consist of American dollars and lives spent.

 

Death and destruction should be blamed on the ones who commit the specific instances. "Arrest that country! They started my killing spree by pissing me off." Kinda like kids, Iraq needs to grow up, stop blaming others, and take responsibility for their own culture.

 

The new government is trying not only to instill order, but to first conceive their own concept of order. They need civil standards. For example, they are still in the '50s with discrimination.

 

From what I've read, they are getting trained and equipped quite well. But what to do with the new forces? Start a new dictatorship? I hope they are listening to the citizens in regard to rules of conduct, because it's my country that will end up taking the heat otherwise.

[Southtown]

Ok, perhaps I am hijacking. But I spotted the phrase "turn the other cheek" in an article called "How to respond to Conservatives." The logic makes me ill. :phones:

 

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/howtorespond

[Buffy]

Ok, perhaps I am hijacking.

You are. How cheeky!

 

Don't let nausea get in the way of seeing both sides, though. It can make you dizzy, but it will strengthen your character!

 

Ignorance is an equal-opportunity enabler,

Buffy