I am currently reading a 300 page interview by Jon Rappoport (behind a pay wall) with a man who claims to have been a propaganda agent for his whole career, going back to perhaps the late sixties. The problem is that he uses a pseudonym, so there is no hard connection. He could be anyone, and indeed, Rapporport could just make him up as his “source” and use him to advance his own agenda (as news reporters can so easily do).
So all I am left with is to pull from the interview those things I can relate to, and use them to advance my own thinking. I will cite, however, a few passages that stand on their own merit regardless of source:
“You tell a person that everything he sees is okay, except this one section of it. This is not there, he’s imagining it. So, to protect himself, the person shrinks down his concept of reality—to exclude the controversial area. If you can keep getting him to do that, in serial fashion, you’ll have a person inside iron bars of his own perception. This applies to visual and moral and all sorts of reality.” …
“Look at all those TV beer commercials. They’re actually fishing for the ideal young male beer drinker. They’re creating the environment and the atmosphere for that person, in thirty seconds, and the young kid fits himself into that blank framework and says, ‘This is me. This could be me.'”
The two quotes, pages apart, are related, as they also apply to something besides branding young kids to Bud Light: People brand themselves to news sources. They make themselves into ideal consumers of news, and build their self-image on the perceived sophistication of their news sources. In this manner, they make themselves easy dupes, or ideal marks in a confidence game. They will believe any lie, but more importantly, will shrink away from any piece of information not featured by their trusted sources.
It is mind control.
I am going to coin a word to describe this phenomenon: “Talbotian,” after Pete Talbot, who immediately dismisses any information that does not fit within the framework of his cherished sources. (I could have easily used the term “Pogrebian,” which rolls off the tongue a little easier. That would honor Don Pogreba, who no doubt preaches to his high school students the “trusted sources” concept, thereby teaching them while young and impressionable how not to think. Choose whichever you like.)
I bring this up today because William Skink has thrown out a piece of information today in his Reptile Dysfunction blog in a piece called “CIA Celebrates Unabomber Anniversary by Leaving Plastic Explosives in a School Bus.” I am deliberately not directly linking to it so to be sure that I do not accidentally participate in the comments as a link. I would be a usual suspect, as would SK. I predict that the piece will draw no comments, no interest, and again cite Rappaport’s anonymous source:
“People in the public begin to sense what kind of person you have to be to accept the news such as it is, and these people begin to re‐cast themselves as that sort of person. As the ideal viewer.”
Long before kids have their first beer, they have been branded. And long before we might have an original thought, we are branded to TV news. It owns us, and if something does NOT appear there, then we distance ourselves from it. Indeed, like American journalists, we really do not see or know about things that we should not see or know.
“Information is supposed to be the result of what we perceive. It’s supposed to be what we drag in from our net of perception of the world. If more and more people start to realize that their own apparatus of perception is really being shaped by their own surrender to outside sources of this information—the media—they are going to respond. They can’t help it.”
If people take the incident reported in Skink’s post without disparaging the sources and analyze it on its own merits, a light will flicker on.
I don’t mind being wrong. It’s part of the path of discovery. I hope to be wrong here. I hope his post unleashes a long and interesting comment thread. But I will be surprised.