http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_liberty
Cognitive liberty is the freedom to be the absolute sovereignty of the individual’s own consciousness. It is an extension of the concepts of freedom of thought and self-ownership.[citation needed]
The American nonprofit Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics, founded and directed by neuroethicist Dr. Wrye Sententia and legal theorist Richard Glen Boire, defines cognitive liberty as "the right of each individual to think independently and autonomously, to use the full spectrum of his or her mind, and to engage in multiple modes of thought."[1]
___
Now, I don't want to get into the politics regarding their stance on the freedom of/from drugs, but i'll drop some knowledge here so it's disclosed:
An individual who enjoys cognitive liberty is free to alter the state of their consciousness using any method they choose, including but not limited to meditation, yoga, psychoactive drugs, prayer and so on. Such an individual would also never be forced to change their consciousness against their will. So, for example, a child who is forced to consume Ritalin as a prerequisite for attending public school, does not enjoy cognitive liberty, nor does an individual who is forced to take anti-psychotics in order to be fit to stand trial, nor an individual who faces criminal charges and punishment for changing the state of their consciousness by consuming a mind-altering drug, although other explanations for criminalization of some drugs do not fit this argument.[citation needed]
We're playing with half a deck as long as we tolerate that the cardinals of government and science should dictate where human curiosity can legitimately send its attention and where it can not. It's an essentially preposterous situation. It is essentially a civil rights issue, because what we're talking about here is the repression of a religious sensibility. In fact, not a religious sensibility, the religious sensibility.
—American freethinker Terence McKenna in: Non-Ordinary States Through Vision Plants, Sound Photosynthesis, Mill Valley CA., 1988, ISBN 1-569-64709-7
American psychologist and writer Timothy Leary has summarized this concept by postulating two “new commandments for the molecular age”:
* Thou shalt not alter the consciousness of thy fellow men.
* Thou shalt not prevent thy fellow man from changing his or her own consciousness.[2]
Now, why isn't the "mind" free? Why is "thought" bought and paid for? What sort of discussion on ethics needs done?
Knowledgenugget:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics
Neuroethics is the ethics of neuroscience, and the neuroscience of ethics.[1]
The ethics of neuroscience deals with matters as a subclass of bioethics. Examples include the issue of mind control via the administration of psychopharmaceuticals substances, such as whether or not to give mind altering drugs to an autistic person to make them more "normal",[2] or the ethics of brain surgery such as performing an anterior commissurotomy to control epilepsy,[3] a consequentialist moral anthropologist considering the consequences of Mayan brain surgery, or a politician considering the ethics of war and the use of brainwashing techniques,[4] or the ethics of speech writing to control the mind of a crowd.[4]
The neuroscience of ethics deals with questions of moral development in the child, as in work of Piaget in the 20th century, or more modern theories of free will that derive from evolutionary theories and molecular biology.[5]
The origin of the term "neuroethics" has occupied some writers. Rees and Rose (as cited in "References" on page 9) claim neuroethics is a neologism that emerged only at the beginning of the 21st century, largely through the oral and written communications of ethicists and philosophers. They state that neuroethics addresses concerns about the effects that neuroscience and neurotechnology will have on other aspects of human life, specifically personal responsibility, law, and justice. Further, they claim that neuroethical problems will become real by the 2020s.
Adina Roskies identified two major divisions in neuroethics: the ethics of neuroscience and the neuroscience of ethics.[6]Research falling under the first area, the ethics of neuroscience, is focused on the ethics of practice of neuroscience and "the implications of our mechanistic understanding of brain function for society... integrating neuroscientific knowledge with ethical and social thought". The neuroscience of ethics borrows from the field of neurophilosophy and examines the neurological foundations of moral cognition.[6]
So what does the DSM now have to say:
http://www.stealthisknowledge.com/free-thinking-mental-illness/
Is nonconformity and freethinking a mental illness? According to the newest addition of the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), it certainly is. [B] The manual identifies a new mental illness called “oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD. Defined as an “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” symptoms include questioning authority, negativity, defiance, argumentativeness, and being easily annoyed.
The DSM-IV is the manual used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental illnesses and, with each new edition, there are scores of new mental illnesses. Are we becoming sicker? Is it getting harder to be mentally healthy? Authors of the DSM-IV say that it’s because they’re better able to identify these illnesses today. Critics charge that it’s because they have too much time on their hands.
New mental illnesses identified by the DSM-IV include arrogance, narcissism, above-average creativity, cynicism, and antisocial behavior. In the past, these were called “personality traits,” but now they’re diseases.
And there are treatments available.
All of this is a symptom of our over-diagnosing and overmedicating culture. In the last 50 years, the DSM-IV has gone from 130 to 357 mental illnesses. A majority of these illnesses afflict children. Although the manual is an important diagnostic tool for the psychiatric industry, it has also been responsible for social changes. The rise in ADD, bipolar disorder, and depression in children has been largely because of the manual’s identifying certain behaviors as symptoms. A Washington Post article observed that, if Mozart were born today, he would be diagnosed with ADD and “medicated into barren normality.”
According to the DSM-IV, the diagnosis guidelines for identifying oppositional defiant disorder are for children, but adults can just as easily suffer from the disease. This should give any freethinking American reason for worry.
Although the authors of the manual claim no ulterior motives but simply better diagnostic practices, the labeling of freethinking and nonconformity as mental illnesses has a lot of potential for abuse. It can easily become a weapon in the arsenal of a repressive state.[/QUOTE]
So...You want to talk about violent rhetoric eh:
House passes the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act"
First let’s take a look at the definitions of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as defined in Section 899A of the bill.
The definition of violent radicalization uses vague language to define this term of promoting any belief system that the government considers to be an extremist agenda. Since the bill doesn’t specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government. Considering how much the government has done to destroy the Constitution they could even define Ron Paul supporters as promoting an extremist belief system. Literally, the government according to this definition can define whatever they want as an extremist belief system. Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.
`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
The definition of homegrown terrorism uses equally vague language to further define thought crime. The bill includes the planned use of force or violence as homegrown terrorism which could be interpreted as thinking about using force or violence. Not only that but the definition is so vaguely defined, that petty crimes could even fall into the category of homegrown terrorism. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.
So we have a war on Cognitive liberty, THOUGHT...FREE THOUGHT. What happens as this new language that is defined by "The State". So now we have a virus of thought that is propagating it's way through out brains that consume this message.
We've seen VNR's used by the Executive Branch, and we know that a % of callers to "talk radio" shows are paid propaganda.
Which brings up propaganda techniques:
Rhetorical Techniques
During the period between World Wars I and II, the now-defunct Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) developed a list of common rhetorical techniques used for propaganda purposes. Their list included the following:
* doublespeak
* fear
* glittering generalities
* name-calling
Other Techniques / Terms
* ad hominem
* apologise
* astroturf
* bad science
* bait and switch
* big lie
* buzz
* buzzwords
* comic books
* concision
* controlling the message
* demonizing the opposition
* disinformation
* divide and conquer
* echo chamber
* front group
* greenwashing
* guerrilla marketing
* junk science
* misinformation
* photographic manipulation
* policy laundering
* politics of personal destruction
* Political Code Words
* product placement
* providing pictures
* Public Service Announcments
* push poll
* quoting out of context
* release of forged documents
* repetition
* straw man
* swiftboating
* using celebrities
* talking points
* vagueness
* video news releases
* viral marketing (word of mouth)
Most people base their arguments on "something they heard/saw/read/etc this is "Argument from Authority:
Examples of appeals to authority
[edit] Arguments
* Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Aristotle: "If Aristotle said it was so, it is so."
* Referring to a famous text or work: "Democracy in America criticized American political party division, so we ought to promote bipartisanship."
* Quoting a well-known personage: "As Samuel Johnson said, patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Implying that, therefore, patriotism is always bad. (The term "patriot" was used at the time by radical followers of John Wilkes, whom the conservative Johnson opposed); or "There is no need to critically examine Plan A because [person's name] is in favour of it, and [person's name] is [experienced, knowledgeable, respected] in this field."
* Referring to what one is told by one's teacher and/or parent: "My teacher said so, therefore it must be so."
* Believing something because it is attributed to an honored profession, as in: "This doctor recommends (brand-name) aspirin" or "Bankers recommend that people have six months' wages in a savings account".
* Appealing to some reference or citation from a famous book or author without considering the actual truth of the citation. References in no way ensure, without any doubt, that the claim is true. References simply show where the information or claim possibly originated and to avoid plagiarism.
* Appeals to various well known opinion poll firms that are assumed to have collected the best data from a large enough sample, and that there were no leading questions.
[edit] The nature of the fallacy
An appeal to authority cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion, given the nature of truth and the Consensus theory of truth, because the fact that an authority says something does not necessarily make it so. The fact that, objectively, a proposition is in fact true or that it has good unrelated arguments supporting it will be what makes authorities believe it to be true. The fallacy comes in when the opposite situation occurs, with authority opinions leading to the belief itself. Thus, an appeal to authority confuses cause and effect.
As with all logical fallacies, the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority does not make its conclusion untrue (this line of thought is sometimes known as the logical fallacy fallacy) and does not make it unreasonable to believe the truth of the argument. It also must be noted that a rigorous concept of truth is a complex subject. In informal logic, the fact that a majority of experts in a given field believe X—for example, the fact that nearly all medical scientists think that HIV causes AIDS and reject AIDS denialism—makes it more reasonable for a person without knowledge in the field to believe X.
The bandwagon fallacy is very similar to the appeal to authority, given that it—with popular opinion being cited in support of an idea rather than popular opinion coming to believe an idea based on the idea's own inherent truth—confuses cause and effect in the same way. In normal conversation, these two fallacies frequently intermingle. For example, consider the statement: "Basically everyone, economic experts included, supports the financial bailout and so must I."
So when people argue via Authority, they are only advertising. They aren't thinking for themselves...but the trick is...THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IT. That's the rub, they are made to think they thought it.
How does this work? Faith & Trust. They feel that their source for information is TRUSTED. They don't look at their source's agenda, or what profit is to be gained.
How can you have a conversation with someone who is only waiting to repeat the same message over and over again...?
Let's ask Newt!
NOTE: this is all verbatim from GOP documents
As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that "language matters."In the video "We Are a Majority," Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates, we have heard a plaintive plea: "I wish I could speak like Newt."
That takes years of practice. But we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.
This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that, like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used....
...third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)
--source link
image
Contrasting Words
Often we search hard for words to help us define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.
decay... failure (fail)... collapse(ing)... deeper... crisis... urgent(cy)... destructive... destroy... sick... pathetic... lie... liberal... they/them... unionized bureaucracy... "compassion" is not enough... betray... consequences... limit(s)... shallow... traitors... sensationalists...
endanger... coercion... hypocrisy... radical... threaten... devour... waste... corruption... incompetent... permissive attitudes... destructive... impose... self-serving... greed... ideological... insecure... anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs... pessimistic... excuses... intolerant...
stagnation... welfare... corrupt... selfish... insensitive... status quo... mandate(s)... taxes... spend(ing)... shame... disgrace... punish (poor...)... bizarre... cynicism... cheat... steal... abuse of power... machine... bosses... obsolete... criminal rights... red tape... patronage
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it."
-- Edward Bernays
Posts
