Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts

Monday, 10 March 2025

How to decode a psychological operation (PSYOPS) 101:

Developing your critical thinking facilities (because so many of you are lacking in them) 

-Psyops create urgency to conform in mass 

Akin to a viral social media challenge (memetic evolution). 


- There is always a diverse social and or political agenda behind it



- Check the message, 

the timing, deconstruct the agenda, what is behind the smoke screen? 



- There is a sea of information on the internet to navigate, but limited tools to discern the facts from fallacy or understand the psychological warfare being conducted on the human population. 


- Social media is another form of media consumed that is full of misinformation and psyops. 


- Media is part of the problem but this is how social media has become “centralised”.  So to speak.


-  Remember the internet was initially created to become a weapon by the Department of Defence. 


- The art and skill of critical thinking involves deconstructing perspectives, beliefs, narratives, archetypes in the stories, characters in the narrative and the timing of the message. 


- There is the use of framing information from multiple angles, and researching information in a way to gather data that is collaborative. 


- This might contrast with your emotive “belief” about the narrative being portrayed but is key to becoming a better critical thinker. 


-Neurolinguistic programming (NLP) and hypnosis are also key tools utilised in psyops. 


-I highly recommend doing at least an introduction course to begin to understand the fundamental tools utilised in psychological warfare. 


-When psyops are carried out, they hijack our amygdala, the fear-based part of our brain. 

-Which means we cannot activate the prefrontal cortex. 

-This means our critical thinking is repressed. 


****

A step to begin to think critically is to begin to understand logical fallacies: 


1. Appeal to emotion


- relies heavily on emotive language that activates responses inciting fear, anger, hate or hope to bypass LOGIC


2. Strawman's argument 


- misrepresentation of someone's argument to attack it better 


3. Bandwagon fallacy 


- claiming something to be true because the majority agree 

  • i.e these people are doing x THEN it must be x that is the right method 


4. False dilemma 

- presenting ONLY two extreme options and ignoring alternative options

- the Hegelian dialectic 

- the us vs them and with us or against us 

  • the gender or race divide is commonly used 
  • In lockdowns, it was the masked or the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated 


5. Ad hominem 

- attacking the PERSON, not the argument,  attacking a perceived opponent because of some real or perceived characteristic

- this is all over this platform and the internet in general 

  • this might be juxtaposed but this is the biggest red flag that a person cannot think critically and regulate their own emotions & lacks insight into their cognitive distortions 



6. Appeal to “authority”. 

- claim things to be true because “authority figure said it to be so 

  • Insisting that a claim is true simply because an alleged authority or “expert” on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered
  • Antidote:

- become your researcher and collaborate on your own qualitative and quantitative data 

-aim: form your hypothesis, conduct your micro experiments, collect your data, & research the world although everything in your life as you experience it is an experiment 

-result: learning to think for yourself


7. the slippery slope 


  • ONE ACTION WILL LEAD TO AN EXTREME NEGATIVE OUTCOME 


  • These negative consequences are often bad and/or increasingly outlandish. 
  • The person using the slippery slope fallacy takes these consequences as a certainty and does not reflect or analyse the “logic” behind their position. 
  • A slippery slope fallacy may be used to deflect & avoid the merits of a position & shift the field of discussions/debate
  • The slippery slope fallacy is used in conjunction with fear (irrationally). 





8. Hasty generalisations 

  • no statistics, the argument is a generalised, faulty generalisation, hasty induction, insufficient sample, lonely facts fallacy, overgenality, overgenality, unrepresentative sample size. 
  • making a broad assumption based on one example 
  • broad claims made with limited quantitative data or evidence 
  • Drawing conclusions based on limited sample sizes can lead to misleading results. 
  • It is advisable to consider comprehensive statistical data that more accurately reflect typical or average scenarios.


9. Red herring 

  • The origin of “red herring”  originates from a procedure of utilising strong-smelling cured herring to divert hunting dogs from the smell of their target.
  • How to spot a RED HERRING: 
  • Be wary of topic changes that appear unrelated to the original conversation. 
  • If someone introduces a completely different subject out of nowhere, it may be a red herring
  • Also, pay attention to whether the novel topic is created to elicit an emotional reaction rather than addressing the logical factors of the original argument. 
  • Red herrings count on emotional manipulation to divert attention

Check for 

  • The deliberate diversion of attention to try to abandon the original argument
  • Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond


  1. False equivalents 

 - claiming two sides as equal when they aren’t truly equal 

  • insert thing, event, etc. here] has characteristics a, b, and c.
  • Another [insert thing, event, etc. here] has characteristics b and e.
  • Therefore, since both share a characteristic b, they are equivalent.
  • Apples and oranges are both fruits, and they are both round, therefore they must both taste the same.
  • Just because they are both round fruits doesn't mean they taste the same. 
  • This is across the board, social political and economic. 
  • This is a childs logic, taught in primary education. By puberty, you should be beginning to have a grasp on the methods of discernment. 
  • If not by high school. 
  • If not in adulthood, there is still time. 
  • I am still, as an adult, shocked the majority of the internet cannot discern the mostly simplistic critical thinking skills
  • This is not hard to master 
  • But it is possible to rewire your neural pathways into having a more refined critical thinking 
  • This will help you be armed against the false sea of psychological warfare, no only perpetuated by the mainstream media, but protect you from the false media propagated on social media platforms, alternative media is also rife with this now. 
  • It will help arm yoursf against narcissists, antisocial personality disorder predators and cult leaders who prowl through the internet seeking vulnerable “prey”. 
  • Do not for agents of psychological warfare who are just vectors of the psyops who operate in subsets of the internet to divert and divide (limited hangouts, shills and apply the entire psyops method to a single person who is conducting their own “psyops” recruiting people to build a cult with the same modalities and methods. 
  • Protect you from online scams, narcissist and psychopaths 
  • Knowledge here will give you discernment to minimise brain hijaking that modifies your perception from via media, social media and individuals using these mediums for psychological operations 
  • It will give you a skillset CRITICAL THINKING (that is a lost and dying art/skill).
  • TRAIN YOUR CRITICAL THINKING FACULTIES 
  • DONT BE LEAD BY EMOTIONS 
  • CHECK THE FACTS 
  • DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH 
  • THINK FOR YOURSELF
  • The new war isn't guns and weapons like 100 years ago, its a war of the mind. #

Monday, 15 November 2021

Part 1: Why I dislike Online Arguing

Behind every human being we have experiences, environments & personalities that perpetually mould and shape our present form. 


One form is my opinion that I dislike people who do not engage in fruitful online debate/or i dislike meaningless online arguments on social media. 


I see it as a form of energy vampirism. 


Why do I dislike & discourage the energetic vampirism that comes from feeding ONLINE ARGUMENTS that are OUTSIDE the realm of healthy academic scholarly debate or Socratic inquiry between two or more adults designed to open/expand the mind to encourage multi-dimensional perception? 


It’s a long story. 


When I reference “people who spend their adult life arguing online”: 


What is an argument ? 


Expressing a point of view on a subject and supporting it with

evidence in order to convince your audience to adopt your point of

view or take action.

- It begins with a main /central claim (the thesis), which is supported

by reasons, and those reasons are then supported by evidence.

-  It presents reasonable/logical ideas to convince the audience.

- It considers the audience; what are their values, morals, and beliefs,

and how will this impact their reception of the claims being made?

- It considers the oppositions instead of ignoring or attacking him/her.

- It considers the issue from multiple perspectives as a means of thoroughly analyzing it before judgment. 




I am referring to those who engage in arguing that is NOT aligned to the aforementioned in that it is:  


1. Resorts to attacking, name calling, juvenile or immature, resorting to insults or profane slurs to attack target. I am pretty open minded but honestly I prefer to

leave any and all pseudo intellectual social discourse in my 6th grade debating class..



2. Empirically invalid. No solid data point: quantitative or qualitative. 


So usually you aren't anyone important if you are just arguing via social media, if you want to be important publish your work in a journal/academia/research. Otherwise you cannot claim you are saying “novel” things, it is all “subjective”. you are using people

who have put information that is novel and trying to spin it into your own agenda. I’m all about harvesting data to understand evidence. 

Until you have a set of data points to prove otherwise stop using bias & emotional rhetoric to fuel your opinions. 

I’ll try to do the same. 


3. Time wasters. 

With all your back and forth semantics, waste time. Nobody can back up your writing or research with literature that is empirical. 

Waste of time, fools will be foolish, and if you enjoy the discourse, toastmasters or academic debating would be more productive uses of time to work on your Socratic line of thought. 


4. Lack of self awareness. 

Never understood the allure of gathering intel from anyone who isn’t attuned to who they are. 

So those arguing online usually lack self insight. 

There is little to no motivation to self reflect or self introspect and everything outside your own self is the issue, with little causation to your own self being the problem. 

Unfortunately fools who argue with other fools online do not rejoice in much of the self-introspective Socratic questioning that will enable self examination to awaken self change.


5. The false ego rocket fuel: 

You may be arguing online for “fun” or “self proclaimed kicks” or “semi self aware” and doing it due to your own egotistical, sadistic, cunning desires.

(Trolls, deep fakes). 

An example: years ago , I dated one of these, who was a Conservative, FAR RIGHT WING self proclaimed “troll” who legitimately enjoyed trolling the opposite spectrum of the political spectrum online. 

I watched him laugh and rejoice at the comments that he made that were intentionally annoying, offensive & as bait a feminist/leftist LGBTI (or whatever his current “victim” of the day was and HE FOUND IT HYSTERICAL). (Even more baffling is how good of a human my ex is, to this day we remain friends). 


He did sometimes engage in discussion. But nothing compared to what I’ve now seen in the present occult/magick community. 


My ex told me he would socially engineer reactions online to monitor responses in his own words.


But after hours of watching his nonchalant baiting, I can never take anyone who loves to argue on menial topics seriously: (spiritually or

mentally)


This is only a small primer into why I never take anyone who loves to argue online seriously. 


The academic literature speaks a plethora more than an adult in the hamster wheel, unable to see they are playing checkers in a left vs right, design by social engineering and the think tanks of Tavistock, you play the part they put you to be. 


A dialectic of irrational and repetitive arguments is never productive. It lacks a solution or a higher order of resolution, i posit a question: 


Why are you behaving to destroy when you are simultaneously proclaiming to want to create a world better? 


Why am I writing this? Free speech is not free. If you can discourse over the same nonsense and never find any solution; I’m sorry, but aren’t you are part of the same problem? 


How do I know?

Life experience. 


Learning. 

Growing.

Changing. 

Repeat.


My love of learning and living and devouring the highest level of what if; and how can we be better? 


If we can be better, let’s do it, let’s move into a better solution? 


I have many years of experience that is beyond the understanding of most people. 


I have gone through things nobody understands and that isn’t said in an elitist way but in a truthful traumatic testament to reclaim my own reality. 


I will continue to explore my own history with online freelance “writing” in high school; and how it got me expelled and my teachers sued my parents for my free speech. 


In addition to my study of digital media/journalism & film/media after high school & how it disenchanted me so far away from all forms of media that I stopped all pursuits of writing, communicating & journalism due to the ramifications of the Australian Media & Journalism industry destroying all creative, investigative journalism & incentivising censorship and conglomerates.  


- Vulcana la Vinca