Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Token Vaccine Controversy

Vaccine video here, begun with a shot of Hugo Weaving's mask.

Rebel Hackers or COINTELPRO?

Was this really Anonymous? Maybe, maybe not. Is Anonymous a false-flag psy-op that never does actually damaging things? Almost certainly. "Anonymous" plays with the concept of the internet, where you can't use public shaming of someone's real name (or economic/career threats) to silence them. Ergo the more outlandish Anonymous becomes, while never actually harming the Powers That Be, the more it can be seen as a symbol of the futility or inherent error in trusting anonymous voices.

Anonymous is probably a black operation that does a few well-funded things, gets a mysteriously large amount of corporate media attention, then resultingly entraps some fools into mimicking what they wrongly identify as a grassroots movement--like Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, and Al Qaeda (as to the latter, see The Power of Nightmares).

Co-Opting Fawkes

The association with corporate entertainment, via major publishers (Marvel/DC/Batman/soulless superhero power fantasy) and studios, in the exploitation of the real Guy Fawkes via V is for Vendetta, is a shared trait for staged rebellions. Guy Fawkes was a religious zealot and soldier who actually fought to overthrow absolutist monarchy, while the historically-revisionist movie that corporate entertainers fabricated was the paladin of political correctness, fighting against villains who had eliminated diversity (in obvious contrast to the diverse coterie of bankers currently raping the world).

Vaccines?

Is the video's contention--that vaccines, including mandatory childhood and almost-mandatory everyone-flu, are used to dull religious sentiment--accurate? Maybe, maybe not. What we're interested in here is the irrational nature of either the actual Pentagon program, or the fake version of it created as a strawman to make anti-vaccine sentiment look silly.

Consider the staged research: that people who self-identify as religious, and who are then read a religious text, show increased activity in a certain area of the brain, while people who self-identify as not-religious, and who are then read a religious text, show increased activity in a different area of the brain. If the purported vaccine program is designed to dull genes associated with that area of the brain (a somewhat shaky argument, but we can assume the presenter is just a Communications major, or at least the dumbest biology PhD on the research team, and presenting it badly), will it have the desired effect?

The logical flaw lies in the incorrect use of the research. What religious text is read to the subjects? The Bible? The Qur'an? Scientology pamphlets? What part of the pamphlets? What tone of voice did the study moderators use?

Did the people who self-identified as religious do so because they thought the study was about religion and they wanted to earn the additional $50 (or just get the lunch box) by qualifying for Phase 2? Or, did they self-identify as "not-religious," despite being religious, because they didn't want to look stupid in front of a bunch of scientists?

Did their temporal lobes light up because they didn't favor the King James Version and/or the New International Version? Because the thought of a neutral computer voice reading sacred texts upset them? Because it was highly annoying sitting in a room being read the Bible when you aren't religious?

Were they receiving the MRI scans during the testing, or immediately after? How long did the MRI scans take, and how apprehensive (or not) were they about receiving a scan inside a spooky, coffin-like tube?

Statistics and Studies

Given that this particular test was probably staged, we can still learn from it. How obvious do you have to make something before it's figured out as a fake? Very, very obvious. If Building 7 collapsing out of nowhere is not irrefutable evidence, then baby, your fake agitprop had better be even more obvious for the benefit of dissection by the hoi polloi.

Sadly, though, the first generation of multiple-choice-tested physicians, researchers, and intelligence specialists have already hit the controlling apparatus, so internal corporate and government stuff is actually this senseless. Billions of dollars are spent on studies that are really that dumb. Check Dr. Dawson's Watching the Watchers, as a bunch of highly educated businesspeople review reactions to their Superbowl ads. When people bought Coca-Cola the next day, they told themselves it was because of those ads--not because of the World As Is.

If from nothing else, take heart that, even as to the programs that the Powers That Be are actually enacting, their techniques are based on logic exactly as unreliable as the initial Anonymous video. Their genuine attempt to subtly manipulate something is about as likely as not to strongly manipulate something else in the opposite direction.

1 comment:

  1. Your optimism at the close of this post is noble indeed.

    I have a somewhat different take on the need to make something very, very obvious before people figure out it's fake. People naturally trust what others say, and this seems especially true when the person making a particular claim occupies a position of authority.

    So generally speaking, all a person in authority needs to do is to say something and people will believe it. To believe otherwise would undermine one of the reasonable assumptions that people make in order to get through their daily lives. For example, if someone who was in a position to know told me that the Bruins won last night (which I already hoped would be the case), I'd tend to believe that person without question. To believe otherwise would cause undue upset to my little apple cart.

    Likewise with the Building 7s of the world. If somebody will give me an explanation along the lines of what I hope to hear I'll tend to believe it.

    So I don't think one necessarily needs to make something obvious before people start to figure out it's fake. Because even in the face of obvious facts to the contrary, people will believe in what they hope to be true.

    ReplyDelete