Alada
The Living Force
From today's Signs:
Peres carries so many of the characteristics described by Lobaczewski. He has a very cold delivery that carries with it a 'pathological arrogance'. He is seemingly faultless in his constant application of 'Para-moralism' and 'Reversive Blockade', he never answers a question, deflects all criticism. Watching him 'perform' these manoeuvres in interviews reveals a potentially quite hypnotic effect.
Peres was on TV here in an extended interview a few months back, the effect was quite disturbing, causing it to come back to mind several times to review what was gong on there. Its not that Peres has charisma, but there was 'something' there that would either make you go along with him in agreement (not an option but you could see the lure), or would raise anger at what he was pulling on the interviewer. Now just getting angry is not a helpful option either, so perhaps this can be chance to direct that energy into something useful here.
In his book 'Tricks of the mind', Derren Brown suggests that hypnotism is not a 'magical state', more a way of leading the subject - of suitable psychological make-up - to follow instructions through the power of suggestion, but the suggestions have to fit with the subject's framework of belief. Could it be the case that with Peres, the effect is more than just shutting down his enemy's thinking ability, that he is more skillful yet, the effect becoming one of hypnotic suggestion replacing beliefs? It brings to mind the baffling effect on people that Dr Weizmann had, as described by Douglas Reed in 'The Controversy of Zion' that one might describe as 'hypnotic'.
I wonder if prolonged exposure to such people in an unprepared state (lack of awareness), is like a visit with a hypnotist? The subjects mind is 'relaxed' by the seemingly calm (cold) delivery, then thought is gradually shut down through use of 'Para-moralism' and 'Reversive Blockade', then, there is another deeper level where new suggestions are implanted?
I noticed Peres making such suggestions to the TV interviewer, to paraphrase: "But what can we do? Should we let A-B-C (terrible thing happen), or would you rather we... What would you do? What would you have us do?". He is replacing the beliefs of the subject. The unwary subject can no longer hold his original thought as being true - through para-moral suggestion. The new thought takes hold through its coupling with the now seemingly unworkable alternative.
In Peres' effect, one perhaps begins to see how Dr. Weizmann was able to bring so many politicians to make the unbelievable decisions they did. Peres is a live example, one to study with this in mind when he appears on TV I think. Interesting he should become President now, eh?
Reading this today reminded me of an interview on TV with Peres just a few months back, the effect is quite hair-raising when you see him 'in action'.
Peres carries so many of the characteristics described by Lobaczewski. He has a very cold delivery that carries with it a 'pathological arrogance'. He is seemingly faultless in his constant application of 'Para-moralism' and 'Reversive Blockade', he never answers a question, deflects all criticism. Watching him 'perform' these manoeuvres in interviews reveals a potentially quite hypnotic effect.
Peres was on TV here in an extended interview a few months back, the effect was quite disturbing, causing it to come back to mind several times to review what was gong on there. Its not that Peres has charisma, but there was 'something' there that would either make you go along with him in agreement (not an option but you could see the lure), or would raise anger at what he was pulling on the interviewer. Now just getting angry is not a helpful option either, so perhaps this can be chance to direct that energy into something useful here.
In his book 'Tricks of the mind', Derren Brown suggests that hypnotism is not a 'magical state', more a way of leading the subject - of suitable psychological make-up - to follow instructions through the power of suggestion, but the suggestions have to fit with the subject's framework of belief. Could it be the case that with Peres, the effect is more than just shutting down his enemy's thinking ability, that he is more skillful yet, the effect becoming one of hypnotic suggestion replacing beliefs? It brings to mind the baffling effect on people that Dr Weizmann had, as described by Douglas Reed in 'The Controversy of Zion' that one might describe as 'hypnotic'.
I wonder if prolonged exposure to such people in an unprepared state (lack of awareness), is like a visit with a hypnotist? The subjects mind is 'relaxed' by the seemingly calm (cold) delivery, then thought is gradually shut down through use of 'Para-moralism' and 'Reversive Blockade', then, there is another deeper level where new suggestions are implanted?
I noticed Peres making such suggestions to the TV interviewer, to paraphrase: "But what can we do? Should we let A-B-C (terrible thing happen), or would you rather we... What would you do? What would you have us do?". He is replacing the beliefs of the subject. The unwary subject can no longer hold his original thought as being true - through para-moral suggestion. The new thought takes hold through its coupling with the now seemingly unworkable alternative.
In Peres' effect, one perhaps begins to see how Dr. Weizmann was able to bring so many politicians to make the unbelievable decisions they did. Peres is a live example, one to study with this in mind when he appears on TV I think. Interesting he should become President now, eh?
