Fwd: comment vs no comment spy vs spy the brain wars

Fri Oct 22 10:27:49 UTC 2021

Also, as all who have written about lying, from Plato and Kant thru Sissela
Bok in her v good book know, one must be aware of the Real, the reality
that exists when one intentionally denies it.
All of those really running the US when they lied us into the Iraq War KNEW
they were lying. There is no evidence Powell knew--they kept the truth from
him and used him because, as you say,
people trusted him.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:21 AM
Subject: Re: comment vs no comment spy vs spy the brain wars
To: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>

Jst two things....the most major which you ignored except for the criticism
of Norton. Just to have to enlighten you, I'm afraid, an ad hominem attack
is what you just did to me; I just criticized one of your sources for the
stupid lack of clarity. Take Care: "  This comes from RT, Russian Times, no
lover of NATO, of course: "For example, a 33-page meditation <
https://www.innovationhub-act.org/sites/default/files/docs/WoNS.pdf> on the
“weaponization of neurosciences,” authored by Herve Le Guyader, professor
of evolutionary biology at Bordeaux’s Institut de Cognitique <
https://ensc.bordeaux-inp.fr/fr>, avowedly “uses fiction and mixes actual
facts and events, fairly logical foresights and some fictitious
extrapolations,” and “a few dramatization tricks, at the cost of being a
bit provocative to try and keep the reader’s interest,” to weave an
extensive, sensational fable about the steps NATO could take to launch a
cognitive war."    Solid fact-based stuff, eh Joseph? Give up your moron
commentators."

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:37 PM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> Where the hell is the guilt by association?  He simply quotes from Nato
> materials. and the quotes  are full sentences, not “scare quotes” ( I am
> actually quoting you here not trying to scare anyone). Scare quotes, a
> frequently misleading term, generally refer to a short phrase or word in
> quotes, not to sentences or paragraphs quoted to reveal the ideas
> expressed.. If you think these many quotes are taken out of context, show
> how restoring context changes their meaning.
>
> Show me an “unattributed quote”. You are grasping for straws there. He is
> clear where the quotes are from and there are links.
>
> I understood without the aid of your lame comments that the writers of
> this material were talking about what they call adversaries.But it is the
> Nato sponsored writers who fail to truly clarify what that means, not
> Norton. He doesn’t even comment very much on how weird this shit is.
> Unusual for him. But the materials he cites are so creepy that why bother.
> Who after reading this material will be inviting NATO to put a brain
> control chip in all their devices?
>
> As to it being old news, sure. Old news freshly revived from the worst
> paranoia of the cold war and McCarthyism.
>
> What the fuck right  does NATO have to try to shape or limit what I read,
> think about, who I talk to etc.  There is plenty of that already( Colin
> Powell lied us into war because he was one of the few in power that people
> trusted, though many of us knew he was lying his ass off) but putting  the
> goal of sophisticated warfare to conrol people’s brains in the stark
> military terms being used is fucking weird, police state, sci-fi nuts.  And
> Nato writers' idea that some adversary is responsible for social divisions
> is paranoid nonsense that is comical in its ignorance.
>
> As to moron commentators I would like to give up, you are near the top of
> that list. But you keep at it after promising to stop. Keep your ad hominem
> shit to yourself and I will do the same. If you don’t, I won’t. My interest
> in this  and my posting of it has little to do with who said it but the
> source materials quoted.
>
>
>
> >
> > The other article I reject wholesale, however. All those guilt by
> association quotes you find so telling and I find in their scare quotes way
> to be a failed high school paper level presentation--I still sting at a
> college-level course I took in high school where, basically, the teacher
> said "wtf?" about some unanchored, even unattributed quotes. ; that
> McCarthyism that starts with ignoring that this report begins in being
> about 'adversaries", which needs understood, deconstructed first to see IF
> there are and what they are doing and what this response might therefore
> mean if it is true. "In a chilling disclosure, the report said explicitly
> that “the objective of Cognitive Warfare is to harm societies and not only
> the military."--and is this about--also about?-- what those 'adversaries'
> are trying to do to NATO countries? ...And is this whole "hacking into
> one's brain" just another way of speaking about propaganda, controlling
> what enters our consciousness as we can? Old news, new dog tricks if so. On
> both sides.
> >
> > Besides all the Right Wing conspiracy sites repeating this vapid
> shit--and there are Google pages full of them, of course, including one
> called Communist News, I found the left-leaning, but knowing how to read
> and think, London Review of Economics piece a decent place to start with
> something I had not heard about before. It is below but:
> >
> > This comes from RT, Russian Times, no lover of NATO, of course: "For
> example, a 33-page meditation <
> https://www.innovationhub-act.org/sites/default/files/docs/WoNS.pdf> on
> the “weaponization of neurosciences,” authored by Herve Le Guyader,
> professor of evolutionary biology at Bordeaux’s Institut de Cognitique <
> https://ensc.bordeaux-inp.fr/fr>, avowedly “uses fiction and mixes actual
> facts and events, fairly logical foresights and some fictitious
> extrapolations,” and “a few dramatization tricks, at the cost of being a
> bit provocative to try and keep the reader’s interest,” to weave an
> extensive, sensational fable about the steps NATO could take to launch a
> cognitive war."    Solid fact-based stuff, eh Joseph? Give up your moron
> commentators.
> >
> > "like the plague", Joseph? Again, still so wrong, seeing "the
> mainstream" akin to the way those pre-emptive condemners of Rooney see her.
> "I fully expect to see "the mainstream" miss this because I know the
> mainstream and it always does and has never changed" even though, of
> course, using your own words and judgments, you do not seem to be aware
> that 'fascism' and "authoritarianism" and what's causing the Havana
> Syndrome mind "attacks" and so much more is almost all "the mainstream" IS
> consumed with these days. If this had reality enough to have legs, it would
> be all over "the mainstream", I suggest.
> >
> > Pull quote: "At this stage, the discourse about future warfare within
> NATO is rather abstract".
> >
> >
> https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/updates/LSE-IDEAS-NATO-and-the-Future-Character-of-Warfare.pdf
> <
> https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/updates/LSE-IDEAS-NATO-and-the-Future-Character-of-Warfare.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 8:20 PM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net <mailto:
> brook7 at sover.net>> wrote:
> >
> https://theintercept.com/2021/10/16/lies-told-sally-rooney-refuses-ignore-israeli-apartheid/
> <
> https://theintercept.com/2021/10/16/lies-told-sally-rooney-refuses-ignore-israeli-apartheid/>
> <
> https://theintercept.com/2021/10/16/lies-told-sally-rooney-refuses-ignore-israeli-apartheid/
> <
> https://theintercept.com/2021/10/16/lies-told-sally-rooney-refuses-ignore-israeli-apartheid/
> >>
> > Lies Are Being Told About Sally Rooney Because She Refuses to Ignore
> Israeli Apartheid
> > Robert Mackey makes some astute observations concerning the Sally Rooney
> vortex.  The Irish have many historical reasons to recognize and oppose
> colonial theft, oppression, apartheid.
> >
> >  mad magazine would have loved this:
> https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/08/nato-cognitive-warfare-brain/ <
> https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/08/nato-cognitive-warfare-brain/> <
> https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/08/nato-cognitive-warfare-brain/ <
> https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/08/nato-cognitive-warfare-brain/>>
> > Western governments in the NATO military alliance are developing tactics
> of “cognitive warfare,” using the supposed threats of China and Russia to
> justify waging a “battle for your brain” in the “human domain,” to “make
> everyone a weapon.”
> >
> > Some would discount Ben Norton but he does his homework and just the
> quotes from the NATO  materials is so off-the-wall fascist it deserves a
> certain awareness since the mainstream avoids this kind of thing like the
> plague.  This really is some weird shit.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l <
> https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l>
>
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>