<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Superstitious Psyops</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/</link>
	<description>public domain playground. friendly entities welcome.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:12:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tim Boucher</title>
		<link>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/comment-page-1/#comment-13578</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Boucher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 May 2006 16:23:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/#comment-13578</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Is it more efficient to have two factories making soap, or one? Buy up the compitition, shut it down!&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Yeah thats why I wrote that Tom's of Maine = Colgate post.

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/18/toms-of-maine-in-bed-with-colgate/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Is it more efficient to have two factories making soap, or one? Buy up the compitition, shut it down!</p></blockquote>
<p>Yeah thats why I wrote that Tom&#8217;s of Maine = Colgate post.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/18/toms-of-maine-in-bed-with-colgate/" rel="nofollow"></a><a href='http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/18/toms-of-maine-in-bed-with-colgate/'>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006...18/toms-of-maine-in-bed-with-colgate/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: prnsqlr</title>
		<link>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/comment-page-1/#comment-13478</link>
		<dc:creator>prnsqlr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 May 2006 12:35:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/#comment-13478</guid>
		<description>Of course they do, 9 times out of 10!

Is it more efficient to have two factories making soap, or one? Buy up the compitition, shut it down!

Studies show that feeling as though they had a choice and got a "good deal" is one of the major factors in influencing consumers.

If you buy a home printer, generally the higher-end models have the same hardware as the low-end ones, but a different plastic case and differently programmed firmware to turn off the higher-resolution printing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course they do, 9 times out of 10!</p>
<p>Is it more efficient to have two factories making soap, or one? Buy up the compitition, shut it down!</p>
<p>Studies show that feeling as though they had a choice and got a &#8220;good deal&#8221; is one of the major factors in influencing consumers.</p>
<p>If you buy a home printer, generally the higher-end models have the same hardware as the low-end ones, but a different plastic case and differently programmed firmware to turn off the higher-resolution printing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alistair</title>
		<link>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/comment-page-1/#comment-13177</link>
		<dc:creator>alistair</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 May 2006 02:30:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/#comment-13177</guid>
		<description>maybe the makers of tide make the cheap, itchy stuff too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>maybe the makers of tide make the cheap, itchy stuff too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: juno jones</title>
		<link>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/comment-page-1/#comment-13175</link>
		<dc:creator>juno jones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 May 2006 01:46:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/#comment-13175</guid>
		<description>Another sharp turn in the fun house! Careful, there's quicksand under the mirrors here... Thanks Tim, Great post, Juno</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another sharp turn in the fun house! Careful, there&#8217;s quicksand under the mirrors here&#8230; Thanks Tim, Great post, Juno</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SubstanceM</title>
		<link>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/comment-page-1/#comment-13171</link>
		<dc:creator>SubstanceM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 19:21:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/#comment-13171</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;But by and large I think America has become too demythologized, too rationalized, too materialistic for any such attack on our psyche to be effective.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I think you are overestimating the average joe, there.
I personally would be probably be better prepared to rationally evaluate any "god in the sky" type foolery if it were to take place, but I've thought and heard about this stuff. Lots of people don't, so then they would be taken completely by surprise and during that scenario only have the revelations / doomsday / movie scenarios / etc to refer to - pointing them to the idea they are fucked and better submit. At least until it was too late for them to re-evaluate.
My point is not that I am better - I know this "type" of thing (forms of advertising and promotion, "theories", viral marketing stuff) on a smaller scale has worked on me - maybe in some cases still is - until I went to work figuring them out and getting more info and finally having a better frame of reference / context to understand. U know, if you've seen Tide detergent on TV, then u see it in the aisle at yer friendly neighborhood supermarket, you have some kind of expectant relationship to it. So why would you buy that ugly no name brand. It'll make ur skin itch...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>But by and large I think America has become too demythologized, too rationalized, too materialistic for any such attack on our psyche to be effective.
</p></blockquote>
<p>I think you are overestimating the average joe, there.<br />
I personally would be probably be better prepared to rationally evaluate any &#8220;god in the sky&#8221; type foolery if it were to take place, but I&#8217;ve thought and heard about this stuff. Lots of people don&#8217;t, so then they would be taken completely by surprise and during that scenario only have the revelations / doomsday / movie scenarios / etc to refer to - pointing them to the idea they are fucked and better submit. At least until it was too late for them to re-evaluate.<br />
My point is not that I am better - I know this &#8220;type&#8221; of thing (forms of advertising and promotion, &#8220;theories&#8221;, viral marketing stuff) on a smaller scale has worked on me - maybe in some cases still is - until I went to work figuring them out and getting more info and finally having a better frame of reference / context to understand. U know, if you&#8217;ve seen Tide detergent on TV, then u see it in the aisle at yer friendly neighborhood supermarket, you have some kind of expectant relationship to it. So why would you buy that ugly no name brand. It&#8217;ll make ur skin itch&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gnomely</title>
		<link>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/comment-page-1/#comment-13169</link>
		<dc:creator>Gnomely</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 18:15:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/#comment-13169</guid>
		<description>I felt oddly depressed after reading that post and I do not know why it triggered such a response.
 Aliens abductions and exorcisms were two things which always filled me with fear.I remember being a kid and watching the movie Fire in the Sky, I couldn't sleep for nights, at night I remember thinking aliens were lurking around my house looking through the windows. I also had this intense fear of waking up at night and floating off my bed. The other fear were excorcisms. The idea that a demonic entity could control your being actually gives me fear to this day, and is a main reason which keeps me Catholic. 
  But by and large I think America has become too demythologized, too rationalized, too materialistic for any such attack on our psyche to be effective.
  Jung said this about UFO's
&lt;blockquote&gt;The transformation started in the historical era and left its traces first in the passing of the aeon of Taurus into that of Aries, and then of Aries into Pisces, whose beginning coincides with the rise of Christianity. We are now nearing that great change which may be expected when the spring point enters Aquarius&lt;/blockquote&gt;
 An interesting article http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/Analytical_psychology/symbolism_of_ufos.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I felt oddly depressed after reading that post and I do not know why it triggered such a response.<br />
 Aliens abductions and exorcisms were two things which always filled me with fear.I remember being a kid and watching the movie Fire in the Sky, I couldn&#8217;t sleep for nights, at night I remember thinking aliens were lurking around my house looking through the windows. I also had this intense fear of waking up at night and floating off my bed. The other fear were excorcisms. The idea that a demonic entity could control your being actually gives me fear to this day, and is a main reason which keeps me Catholic.<br />
  But by and large I think America has become too demythologized, too rationalized, too materialistic for any such attack on our psyche to be effective.<br />
  Jung said this about UFO&#8217;s</p>
<blockquote><p>The transformation started in the historical era and left its traces first in the passing of the aeon of Taurus into that of Aries, and then of Aries into Pisces, whose beginning coincides with the rise of Christianity. We are now nearing that great change which may be expected when the spring point enters Aquarius</p></blockquote>
<p> An interesting article <a href="http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/Analytical_psychology/symbolism_of_ufos.htm" rel="nofollow"></a><a href='http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/Analytical_psychology/symbolism_of_ufos.htm'>http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatr...ical_psychology/symbolism_of_ufos.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alistair</title>
		<link>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/comment-page-1/#comment-13046</link>
		<dc:creator>alistair</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 17:05:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/#comment-13046</guid>
		<description>hmmm. but i think in this situation we are at the working end of a lot of ideas that have resulted in a situation which is making a lot of people uneasy. military dictatorship or new world order or a seperatist arrangement like a quebec or whatever, i`m just pointing things out here and looking at agendas which are plainly heading to conflict......the liberal, just all get along one included.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hmmm. but i think in this situation we are at the working end of a lot of ideas that have resulted in a situation which is making a lot of people uneasy. military dictatorship or new world order or a seperatist arrangement like a quebec or whatever, i`m just pointing things out here and looking at agendas which are plainly heading to conflict&#8230;&#8230;the liberal, just all get along one included.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Boucher</title>
		<link>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/comment-page-1/#comment-13031</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Boucher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 16:42:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/#comment-13031</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Actually, I think what Tim is pointing to is the construction of an artificial enemy by somebody else. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

Yes. Exactly. It was a rhetorical device to drive home a point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Actually, I think what Tim is pointing to is the construction of an artificial enemy by somebody else. </p></blockquote>
<p>Yes. Exactly. It was a rhetorical device to drive home a point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: slomo</title>
		<link>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/comment-page-1/#comment-13030</link>
		<dc:creator>slomo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 16:31:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/#comment-13030</guid>
		<description>"minimize" = "trivialize"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;minimize&#8221; = &#8220;trivialize&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: slomo</title>
		<link>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/comment-page-1/#comment-13029</link>
		<dc:creator>slomo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 16:30:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/#comment-13029</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;why do you like to pick your enemies? enemies are adversaries by definition. do you really want to choose adversarial relationships? i would have thought that there is enough conflict as a background without the promotion of more.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Actually, I think what Tim is pointing to is the &lt;em&gt;construction&lt;/em&gt; of an artificial enemy by somebody else.  (But he can correct me if I'm wrong).

In any case, real adversarial relationships exist.  Not necessarily the same ones created or promoted by the state.

And, drawing from previous threads, I think it's a bit odd to advocate peace (which is how I read that quote) after having promoted the idea of racial separateness, an idea that can only lead to conflict.  If you advocate racial separation and minimize the suffering imposed upon one group by another, I don't see how you can be surprised when conflict erupts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>why do you like to pick your enemies? enemies are adversaries by definition. do you really want to choose adversarial relationships? i would have thought that there is enough conflict as a background without the promotion of more.</p></blockquote>
<p>Actually, I think what Tim is pointing to is the <em>construction</em> of an artificial enemy by somebody else.  (But he can correct me if I&#8217;m wrong).</p>
<p>In any case, real adversarial relationships exist.  Not necessarily the same ones created or promoted by the state.</p>
<p>And, drawing from previous threads, I think it&#8217;s a bit odd to advocate peace (which is how I read that quote) after having promoted the idea of racial separateness, an idea that can only lead to conflict.  If you advocate racial separation and minimize the suffering imposed upon one group by another, I don&#8217;t see how you can be surprised when conflict erupts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JP</title>
		<link>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/comment-page-1/#comment-13027</link>
		<dc:creator>JP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 16:16:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/#comment-13027</guid>
		<description>good one.  reminds me of the 'universal adversary,' that ambiguous tupla created by the dept. of homeland security to provide eternal opposition to empire...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>good one.  reminds me of the &#8216;universal adversary,&#8217; that ambiguous tupla created by the dept. of homeland security to provide eternal opposition to empire&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gunjin</title>
		<link>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/comment-page-1/#comment-13025</link>
		<dc:creator>Gunjin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 14:32:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/#comment-13025</guid>
		<description>the problem with a new world order? Well it's utopic.  It's like a communism but a bit more extensive I'd say.  Plus, are you really ready to relinquish your so called rights for a common good? Are you so self-rightious that the liberty to do and think as you desire is a gambling chip for the peace of all man kind?  If you are, then you are a better person than me and many others.  Yes I would like to see no more wars, and no more poverty and such, but not at the price of my personal freedom (whatever that would mean).  

About the article Tim, very nice.  Everytime I read you, u get me thinking.  Or at least you get the motor trying to run up here and making it try to think. hehehe.  That's always appreciated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the problem with a new world order? Well it&#8217;s utopic.  It&#8217;s like a communism but a bit more extensive I&#8217;d say.  Plus, are you really ready to relinquish your so called rights for a common good? Are you so self-rightious that the liberty to do and think as you desire is a gambling chip for the peace of all man kind?  If you are, then you are a better person than me and many others.  Yes I would like to see no more wars, and no more poverty and such, but not at the price of my personal freedom (whatever that would mean).  </p>
<p>About the article Tim, very nice.  Everytime I read you, u get me thinking.  Or at least you get the motor trying to run up here and making it try to think. hehehe.  That&#8217;s always appreciated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DearKomMissiar</title>
		<link>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/comment-page-1/#comment-13024</link>
		<dc:creator>DearKomMissiar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 13:41:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/#comment-13024</guid>
		<description>Hahahahahaahahahhaahahhahhhaahhahahahahhaa
Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahaaa...brings forth a Pink Floyd song.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hahahahahaahahahhaahahhahhhaahhahahahahhaa<br />
Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahaaa&#8230;brings forth a Pink Floyd song.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John W. Ratcliff</title>
		<link>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/comment-page-1/#comment-13022</link>
		<dc:creator>John W. Ratcliff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 13:07:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/#comment-13022</guid>
		<description>Wow, what a fantastic post!  Very entertaining. It does make me think though.  I have often wanted to start a discussion on the topic, "So what's so wrong with a New World Order?" 

It always seems amusing to me that the alleged goals of the New World Order' seem pretty reasonable.  The mostly negative reaction is from people who are overly fanatical about either their government or their religion or, usually, both.

A one world religion that ends hatred and religious wars?  Sounds good, sign me up.

A one world currency, language, and justice system providing opportunity and equality for all?  Sounds great.

Are we all so jingoistic that it is impossible to view ourselves as one human family rather than a bunch of nationalistic religious fanatics out to kill one another?

Where's the 'New World Order' recruiting center.  Maybe I'll sign up.  Oh..woops..I'm a Freemason, maybe I already joined and don't know it yet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, what a fantastic post!  Very entertaining. It does make me think though.  I have often wanted to start a discussion on the topic, &#8220;So what&#8217;s so wrong with a New World Order?&#8221; </p>
<p>It always seems amusing to me that the alleged goals of the New World Order&#8217; seem pretty reasonable.  The mostly negative reaction is from people who are overly fanatical about either their government or their religion or, usually, both.</p>
<p>A one world religion that ends hatred and religious wars?  Sounds good, sign me up.</p>
<p>A one world currency, language, and justice system providing opportunity and equality for all?  Sounds great.</p>
<p>Are we all so jingoistic that it is impossible to view ourselves as one human family rather than a bunch of nationalistic religious fanatics out to kill one another?</p>
<p>Where&#8217;s the &#8216;New World Order&#8217; recruiting center.  Maybe I&#8217;ll sign up.  Oh..woops..I&#8217;m a Freemason, maybe I already joined and don&#8217;t know it yet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alistair</title>
		<link>http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/comment-page-1/#comment-13020</link>
		<dc:creator>alistair</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 10:01:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/05/17/superstitious-psyops/#comment-13020</guid>
		<description>why do you like to pick your enemies? enemies are adversaries by definition. do you really want to choose adversarial relationships? i would have thought that there is enough conflict as a background without the promotion of more. i know you like to dig around the loose edge of recently healed tissues but are you really choosing conflict or merely reasoned debate?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>why do you like to pick your enemies? enemies are adversaries by definition. do you really want to choose adversarial relationships? i would have thought that there is enough conflict as a background without the promotion of more. i know you like to dig around the loose edge of recently healed tissues but are you really choosing conflict or merely reasoned debate?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
