So, the main task of manipulating public consciousness is to create an information space in society through various methods (persuasion, criticism of other states and societies, propaganda, "democratic" elections, political talk shows, various levels of "spectacle" for every taste) that will convince citizens that all (or most) government decisions are made for their benefit.
In other words, the goal is to create a society in which the majority of citizens are loyal to the ruling authority.
Of course, achieving loyalty and consensus is the goal of any authority and, in general, is not contradictory to the goals of society itself.
However, it is unfortunate that in reality, authorities often resort to manipulating public consciousness rather than achieving this through real economic and social policy successes, well-developed civil society institutions, effective executive power, and fair resource distribution.
One could say that they create the "right" optics for the perception and evaluation of their actions.
Manipulation can be either situational, related to specific events, or systemic, concerning the support of social institutions, processes, and norms necessary for the existence of the state, such as the military, parenting, elections, and so on.
Let's look at how systemic manipulation is carried out through these three examples.
So, the military.
Every state needs to defend itself and implement its policies not only through diplomatic means but also through military means.
For this, each country maintains armed forces - the army.
Scholars typically distinguish between the internal and external functions of this social institution:
a) External functions include maintaining the inviolability of borders, ensuring the sovereignty of the state, creating favorable conditions for the realization of an internal set of tasks, solving problems of common human significance, assisting victims of aggression, and supporting allies.
b) Internal functions include ensuring power for the dominant social group, stopping and preventing internal social conflicts that threaten the state's collapse, preserving its territorial integrity, instilling in citizens a readiness to defend their homeland, forming ethical behavior skills for future employment, and providing moral and psychological preparation for youth to face life's challenges.
The army can be conscripted or contracted, with most countries operating a mixed system. Regardless of the approach, states need to attract new fighters to the armed forces and ensure that the military receives society's respect.
To achieve this, both real and manipulative means are used.
Real means include various benefits (e.g., when entering a university or working in law enforcement agencies, military mortgages, etc.), acquiring useful life and professional skills during service (such as obtaining driver's licenses and civilian professions), and providing the opportunity to connect one's life with the military (short-term service).
Manipulative and propagandistic efforts include attempts to stimulate interest in military service through art, such as books and especially movies, in which a romanticized portrayal of service and relationships between comrades is created. These portrayals often depict military service as a continuous adventure filled with alcohol and love, with a group of cheerful and witty individuals who continuously engage in idiotic antics but only receive wise advice from caring and attentive officer mentors.
Clearly, the reality of military service differs significantly from what is depicted on the big screen.
Additionally, patriotic education begins as early as kindergarten, with young boys being dressed in military uniforms and sent on militarized excursions to places of military glory.
Patriotism itself is a normal quality in an adult personality, but it can manifest not only in military service but also in working for the defense industry, healthcare, or simply by any individual who works honestly and professionally in their chosen field, thereby contributing to their homeland's defense.
However, military service is often presented as a necessity for every young man, reinforced by phrases like "a man is not a man until he's served," "men become men only in the army," and "a man must defend his homeland."
These ideas are aggressively instilled, both through schools and by elder family members, as well as through mass culture.
As a result of these patterns being embedded, military service is perceived not as a civic duty but as a mandatory initiation for young men.
In fairness, it should be noted that there is also counter-propaganda against military service, which is also based on manipulating consciousness.
Some media deliberately portray army life in a way that triggers panic among the parents of conscripts, who then make every effort to secure their children's exemption from service.
Articles and reports about "hazing," poor nutrition, excessive physical demands, the inability to regain educational skills after service, and the belief that "the army is a wasted year" drive young people, especially those from large cities, to avoid the draft.
Parenthood is another form of systemic manipulation.
Each state is interested in population growth, and various social programs are implemented to support this goal, including incentives for parents and mortgage benefits.
Alongside this, there is ideological conditioning of the population, with movies and TV shows promoting the idea that "a family without children is not a family." Female characters in these media often strive for motherhood at any cost, even if it goes against their own life plans.
The logic of state manipulation regarding parenthood aligns with religious traditions: more children are encouraged, and abortion is seen as murder and, consequently, a mortal sin.
Paradoxically, in advertising, children are presented not as future citizens who need proper upbringing and ideally a good education and profession, but rather as accessories necessary for a happy life.
Advertisements show children eating chocolate, taking care of pets, and choosing apartments with their parents – in other words, they are portrayed as markers of family happiness.
This manipulation encourages women to prioritize motherhood primarily to avoid unwanted questions from those around them, like "when will you have children?"
As a result, women often have children without considering their ability to provide for and raise them properly, guided by the belief that "God gave me a child, He will provide for it."
Blindly following this stereotype prevalent in society can lead to disillusionment with motherhood, the breakdown of families, and domestic violence.
It's challenging to come to terms with the fact that real parenthood is far more financially and emotionally demanding than what is portrayed in advertising and movies, and that subsidies barely cover the most basic necessities like food and clothing for a child.
In a social context, women also face numerous challenges, despite what is often portrayed in TV series. A young mother doesn't automatically become the object of universal support and admiration. On the contrary, she encounters difficulties in finding employment, in social interactions, and even in exercising her maternal rights. We often see reports in the media about mothers who were asked to leave a café or museum because they were breastfeeding their child, which consistently sparks waves of outrage on social media.
Another significant challenge is the colossal difficulties in securing a spot for their children in daycare centers. All of these obstacles deprive young mothers, pushing them into frustration. Nevertheless, the government's objective is accomplished: a child is born and grows, contributing a new citizen to the country who will either give birth to the next generation or join the military service.
To be continued...
#manipulation

Our group members have expressed interest in the topic of manipulation. This weekend, we will delve into the tools of manipulation and enhance your knowledge in this regard because the more educated you are, the harder it is to be manipulated.
The information society daily, if not every minute, poses complex challenges to both states, social groups, and every individual. It's difficult not to get lost in the flow of news and opinions, to be aware of your own interests, to make plans in accordance with your own interests rather than those imposed by various interests, from political to commercial.
State interests often conflict with the interests of society and individual citizens. However, to ensure survival and stability, the state is forced to employ various methods of societal control.
There are essentially two such systems: one based on coercion and the other based on persuasion.
The first system employs mechanisms of state compulsion, while the second works with mass consciousness, convincing citizens of the righteousness of the state and its activities for the benefit of each individual.
However, it is not feasible for the state to explain its position and seek consensus on every specific issue. Therefore, those in power resort to manipulating public consciousness, using complex techniques and technologies to make society adopt their stance.
Of course, in pure form, these systems do not exist.
All states, to varying degrees, use both violence and manipulation, with some relying more on one and others more on the other.
In ancient times, the Middle Ages, and even up to the mid-20th century, "legitimate violence" was almost universally applied. However, in today's world, where humanistic values prevail worldwide and civil society is strengthened, authorities have to find more effective means of influence.
Totalitarian and autocratic states with strong executive power tend to use state compulsion more actively to control society.
In democratic states, where civil society is relatively independent and robust, manipulation of consciousness is more common.
Originally, the word "manipulation" (from Latin "manipulus" – a handful or bundle) referred to a complex manual action that required specific skills and dexterity.
In medicine, "manipulation" can refer to actions such as taking samples, examining a patient by physically touching them, or performing complex procedures like gastroscopy, in which a specialized instrument (endoscope) is inserted into a patient's stomach and acts as an extension of the doctor's hand.
Manipulation can also describe manual control of mechanisms, like using the handbrake in a car or a stop lever on a train.
However, in interpersonal relationships and social psychology, manipulation of consciousness broadly refers to covert control of people's opinions, desires, and behavior. It involves psychological influence directed at subconsciously and implicitly motivating individuals to take specific actions (or refrain from them) for the manipulator's benefit, or, less commonly, for the manipulated person's benefit.
Manipulation for the benefit of the manipulated person is called altruistic manipulation and is primarily used in relationships with close individuals, such as child-rearing in families and educational institutions.
This tradition has deep roots and specific rituals, such as encouraging a child to eat by saying, "Eat a spoonful for Dad, a spoonful for Mom, a spoonful for the kitty, and so on."
In this case, the parent clearly has an important goal – to feed the child who is unwilling to eat.
However, it is an entirely different matter when, with the same benevolent intentions, a parent frightens and disorients a child, saying, "If you don't finish your meal, you'll leave all your strength on the plate."
While the motivation in the first case can be considered motivational manipulation, in the second, it's intimidation based on equally imaginative grounds.
In either case, manipulative actions, whether real or imaginary, serve the actual or perceived benefit of the manipulator.
Therefore, an exclusively negative perception of this term is not justified.
In one way or another, all individuals engage in manipulation to some extent.
We manipulate our children to study better, read more, eat healthier, and they manipulate us in games, and we manipulate them when we want something from them.
Relatives, friends, and colleagues manipulate each other for their own purposes. Almost every day, we interact with our environment through this mode of communication.
to be continued…
#manipulation

Examining the Concept of Short Squeeze in the Cryptocurrency Context

The phenomenon referred to as a "short squeeze" holds significant relevance for individuals engaged in the realm of investment and trading, particularly those who base their decisions on the expectation of a decrease in the value of a particular asset, encompassing both traditional stocks and cryptocurrencies. A short squeeze, also known as a "bear squeeze," materializes when the value of an #asset experiences a rapid and substantial increase, prompting those who had undertaken short positions to unwind their positions by purchasing the asset at a higher market rate.
Notably, within the cryptocurrency landscape, a short squeeze is often associated with market #manipulation due to its propensity to deviate from the projected trajectory of the asset's valuation. This divergence is often attributed to coordinated efforts among multiple traders. This intricate situation can yield profitable opportunities for certain participants while potentially exposing others to significant financial losses, particularly those whose carefully devised short-term strategies are disrupted.

Navigating Short Squeeze Dynamics in the Cryptocurrency Landscape:

Strategic Approaches for Navigating Short Squeeze Scenarios

A crucial factor driving pronounced short-term fluctuations in market dynamics, short squeezes possess the capability to generate substantial surges in asset prices. In light of this, the following strategic considerations are offered for effectively navigating instances of short squeeze:

Heightened Vigilance: The rapid and intense market movements inherent in short squeezes demand heightened vigilance. Neglecting to closely monitor these developments can lead to substantial losses, given the potential for price movements that surpass the bounds of typical market fluctuations.

Magnified Buyer Activity: The volatility associated with short squeezes tends to attract additional buyers, thereby amplifying purchasing activity and potentially propelling asset values to exceptionally high levels.

Prudent Risk Management: Implementing robust risk management strategies is essential, especially when holding short positions overnight, to mitigate the risk of being caught in the complexities of a short squeeze.

Nuanced Interpretation: Recognizing that endeavors to repurchase shorted assets are not universally driven by positive news is crucial. Certain circumstances, such as the recall of borrowed shares by the prime broker, can trigger a rush to repurchase assets.

Familiarity with Short Interest Ratio (SIR): Gaining proficiency in understanding the Short Interest Ratio (SIR) is pivotal. This metric gauges the ratio of shorted shares relative to the asset's average daily trading volume.

In conclusion, the concept of a short squeeze is a dynamic facet within the #cryptocurrency domain, underscoring its potential to disrupt anticipated trajectories and give rise to intricate market dynamics. Approaching such scenarios with astute comprehension and well-calibrated strategies is essential for investors seeking to navigate the nuanced terrain of short squeezes effectively.

I hope you like this Article, Don't Forget to Give a Like & Share with the #Crypto Community.

First Part
Second Part
The Power of Words, Part 3
In 1942, the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved the introduction of the "Inter-Service Code Word Index."
The most important operations were assigned names only after careful scrutiny.
A significant role in approving names and the principles of this work was played by the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill; he greatly enjoyed coming up with names himself.
Churchill believed that operations in which many people could die should not bear proud and "overconfident" names; they should not evoke despondency or undermine dignity.
"What mother would be pleased to learn that her son died in an operation called 'Nonsense?'"
It is necessary to avoid entirely ordinary words used in everyday speech, as well as names of people currently living," wrote the British Prime Minister. However, the names of these operations were declassified only after their completion and did not reach the public.
Concerns about the importance of public perception and "winning the hearts and minds" of citizens in the United States arose after 1945.
During the Korean War, General MacArthur allowed the declassification of operation names immediately after their commencement, rather than waiting for the end of the war. However, initially, this strategy worked more against the armed forces and their image.
Names like "Operation 'Killer' (Korean War) or 'Masher' (Vietnam War) generated a flurry of criticism and outright ridicule from the press. In particular, following a scandal in the White House, "Masher" had to be hastily renamed to "White Wing."
In 1975, an automated system for updating and coordinating terms, code meanings, and code names – NICKA – was launched.
The names of operations created by this system remained random and neutral until the late 1980s, such as "Operation El Dorado Canyon" (an airstrike on Libya in 1986) and "Operation Praying Mantis" (a strike on Iranian oil platforms in 1988).
The turning point came in 1989 when the U.S. military was preparing for an invasion of Panama. NICKA proposed the neutral name "Blue Spoon," which sparked protest from Special Operations Commander James Lindsey, who found the name absurd. He shared his concerns with General Thomas Kelly, who had a bachelor's degree in journalism and understood the importance of words in the information world.
It was Kelly who suggested the name "Just Cause," which subtly worked to create a positive image, so despite the controversy surrounding the Panama operation, critics' objections had little effect.
Military personnel especially liked the name and even humorously referred to the operation as "Just Because."
After the Panama invasion, operation names began to be chosen with consideration for the experience of private businesses introducing a new product to the market.
The Pentagon established a special office that calculated the possible public reaction, international perceptions, and various cultural connotations. As a result, the U.S. military's mission in Somalia in 1993 was named "Restore Hope," the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was called "Iraqi Freedom," and the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was dubbed "Enduring Freedom."
Today, names for American operations are chosen according to specific rules, primarily considering the media-manipulative aspect.
First, the name should convey a sense of righteousness, containing words related to universally approved values with positive connotations, such as "freedom," "hope," "justice," "law," and so on.
Second, it should emphasize the character or location of the actions. For example, the removal of chemical weapons from Germany was named "Steel Box," which, according to its creators, demonstrated the reliability and airtightness of the containers for transporting weapons. "Desert Storm" (Iraq, 1988) highlighted both the aggressive nature of the attack and the location of the military operation.
Third, the name should be well-received by the American and international public, as well as the population of the invaded country.
For example, the mission in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021 was initially planned to be named "Infinity Justice." However, experts realized in time that entering a Muslim region, where justice is believed to be the sole prerogative of Allah, would be offensive to the local population.
It is true that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan did turn out to be almost endless, spanning 20 years and tragically concluding in 2021.
Regardless, the U.S. Department of Defense has long recognized the importance of building the communication they need with the population and the media. In today's warfare, having a strong military alone is insufficient; one must leave not only the battlefield but also public opinion on their side.
Playing with the names of military operations is just a small part of the process that American linguists call "the taboo on the unpleasant." The number of euphemisms in modern English, and subsequently in other languages, adopted for the sake of political correctness and the desire not to offend anyone, is staggering.
These words create a new reality, blur and expand the boundaries of social norms. For example, "prostitution" becomes "sex services," "capitalism" turns into "market economy," "mental illness" becomes "mental disorder," and so on.
This phenomenon gives rise to what the ancient Greek historian Thucydides (460 BC - 400 BC) called "the corruption of language," where words begin to denote the direct opposite of what they mean.
Different political and economic forces often use the same word in completely different meanings.
In the example of the names of American military operations mentioned above, you can see this distortion: an invasion of a peaceful country living by its own laws is suddenly declared as "Freedom for Iraq." From this name, the general public only understands that the USA is bringing freedom, but whether there was freedom where American military is headed is no longer of interest, and what meaning is attributed to this very freedom is unclear.
One of the most effective manipulative techniques is the use of hypostatization - a logical error in which abstract entities are "objectified," and they are attributed independent existence. For example, considering that "justice" or "equality" exist in the same way as people bound by such relationships, or that "illness" and "health" are also independent entities.
Hypostatization is based on ignoring the qualitative difference between objects (individuals) capable of independent existence in space and time, and their attributes that exist only as part of the objects.
In the manipulation of consciousness, hypostatization is used to undermine the ability to reflect, analyze decisions, and their consequences.
To achieve this, concepts-substitutes are created, replacing the substantive description of entities such as "European house," "barracks socialism," "deficit," and so on.
The manipulation of consciousness through hypostatization is based on the manipulator using these abstract entities as something that requires no explanation. The manipulated individual doesn't need an explanation of what is specifically meant or what the discussion is about; the concepts are established in their consciousness as if they actually exist.
For example, the practice of erroneously asserting "consumer rights" is widespread. Residents of a building with, let's say, a non-functional elevator or poor garbage collection stop paying utility bills because they believe their rights as property owners are being violated. However, since the legislation does not consider such a form of protest legitimate, the property owner accumulates debts for maintenance fees and risks eviction.
In this case, the property owner sees their right as something with independent existence, but without legal backing to refuse payment for services not provided, it is merely the fantasy of the non-paying property owner.
To avoid such illusions, it is important to subject one's own "beautiful ideas" about the organization of the world to doubt and be guided not by them, but by real knowledge of the laws and structure of society.
The principle of hypostatization is also the basis for the slogans of many global protest campaigns in which concepts like "racism," "war," "environmental pollution," and "domestic violence" are presented as independent entities, despite the importance of the problems associated with them.
Few people consider war, racism, domestic violence, or environmental pollution as goods in themselves. However, in the absence of specific definitions of these concepts – such as war against whom? the boundaries of interpreting the words "racism" and "domestic violence"; how and what exactly pollutes the environment and what real methods exist to minimize the damage – people get entangled in the struggle with the very concept. This consumes their emotional energy and time, allowing manipulators to pursue their own power or financial interests.
In this sense, the history of the international environmental organization Greenpeace is illustrative. Greenpeace, famous for its radical actions, including inflatable boat attacks on ships believed to be causing irreparable harm to the environment, had even disappointed its founders by the 1990s despite operating on private donations since 1971.
"Greenpeace – information terrorists," according to Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of the organization. "They deliberately exaggerate and play on people's fears. Their campaigns are based on fabrications; they are just fooling people."
According to another Greenpeace co-founder, Paul Watson, who, like Moore, served on the organization's board of directors for many years, Greenpeace has long been taken over by bureaucrats and financiers who collect multi-million-dollar donations supposedly to address serious environmental issues but in reality are used to sustain a massive bureaucratic apparatus.
Watson is convinced that Greenpeace is only pretending to solve certain problems, for example, collecting around $30 million annually to combat whaling in Antarctica, but the situation doesn't change, and the organization's representatives are only managing budgets and attracting new funds, capitalizing on people's natural sympathy for dying animals and the modern human concern for ecological issues.
Both Patrick Moore and Paul Watson are of the opinion that Greenpeace has long turned into a lobbying structure. However, it's possible that Canadian entrepreneur David McTaggart conceived it as an instrument of corporate warfare.
In any case, most eco-activists who were at the organization's origins have long been disillusioned and have left it.
Yet, Greenpeace continues its work, inventing new scares for humanity. Currently, genetically modified products and their harm to the health of current and future generations are under their scrutiny.
In general, hypostatization can be described as the amusing phrase from the early 2010s, "the fight for everything good against everything bad."
However, despite its cleverness, it itself can be quite manipulative, as elaborated further.
#manipulation #words #psychology

The U.S. House of Representatives is preparing for a crucial vote on a cryptocurrency bill that seeks to establish comprehensive regulations and enhance consumer protection within the #cryptocurrency industry. This proposed legislation, expected to be decided upon in the upcoming weeks, reflects the government's efforts to address the growing significance of cryptocurrencies and their impact on the economy.

The bill's primary objective is to bring clarity and oversight to the cryptocurrency sector, ensuring that appropriate #regulations are in place to safeguard consumers and investors. By establishing a regulatory framework, lawmakers aim to mitigate risks associated with fraudulent activities, money laundering, and market #manipulation that can undermine market integrity.

Regulating the cryptocurrency industry is seen as a necessary step toward mainstream adoption and fostering confidence in the digital asset ecosystem. A comprehensive regulatory framework can provide a clear roadmap for businesses, promote innovation, and contribute to a more transparent and secure marketplace.

#Consumer protection is another critical aspect of the proposed legislation. As cryptocurrencies gain popularity, it is imperative to establish safeguards that protect individuals from scams, hacking incidents, and potential financial harm. By implementing regulations that prioritize consumer interests, the bill aims to instill trust and credibility in the cryptocurrency market.

The U.S. House's decision on this cryptocurrency bill will have far-reaching implications for the industry's future. It represents a significant opportunity for lawmakers to strike a balance between enabling innovation and ensuring a secure environment for participants. While regulations can bring certainty, it is essential to strike the right balance that fosters growth and innovation while addressing concerns regarding illicit activities and market stability.

The outcome of the vote will be closely watched by industry participants, investors, and cryptocurrency enthusiasts globally. It has the potential to shape the future trajectory of the cryptocurrency industry in the United States, influencing market dynamics, investment strategies, and the broader regulatory landscape.

In conclusion, the upcoming vote on the cryptocurrency bill by the U.S. House of Representatives signifies the government's proactive approach to regulate the industry and safeguard consumer interests. The proposed legislation seeks to strike a balance between providing regulatory clarity and protecting individuals. Its outcome will undoubtedly have a profound impact on the cryptocurrency ecosystem, setting the stage for its continued growth and maturation.