Article: Just a Charismatic Presidential Candidate?

I do not vote - but that is another topic, one I have discussed elsewhere. However, for those who still think that voting in the upcoming US Presidential election is a reasonable action, a 67 page heavily documented paper (unsigned, but at a website the owner of which is identified and who is a liberty promoter known to me for 6 years) is a must before casting a vote for Barack Obama - if they want to think of themselves as active rather than passive, as thinking voters rather than hypnotically motivated.

To many people who see this unaccomplished man's unnatural and irrational rise to the highest office in the world as suspicious and frightening and to those who welcome it, this document uncovers, explains, and proves the deceptive tactics behind true "Obama Phenomenon" including why younger people are more easily affected.

This paper is well structured and heavily documented, and it is the type of report that deserves to be read from OpEdNews.com because it will get little attention from most mainstream press sources. The author hirself says just that, and why s/he thinks it is so important to make hir information widely known:

The media may avoid this story for a number of reasons. Maybe it is too complicated for them, doesn't fit a sound byte mold, or maybe cannot be delivered in a 60 second news story before moving on. Then again, it may be the most watched news story from now until the election. This story must break. People must know what is happening and those who help spread this word may be looked back on as heroic defenders of democracy. Let's learn from history, not learn that we can repeat it. Obama's mesmerized, cult-like, grade-school-crush-like worship by millions is not because "Obama is the greatest leader of a generation" who simply hasn't accomplished anything, who magically "inspires" by giving speeches. Obama is committing perhaps the biggest fraud and deception in American history. Obama is not just using subliminal messages, but textbook covert hypnosis and neuro-linguistic programming techniques on audiences that are intentionally designed to sideline rational judgment and implant subconscious commands to think he is wonderful and elect him President.

At the bottom of the first page following the detailed Table of Contents, the author of this paper advises readers to read starting from the beginning because "definitions are built on top of one-another and understanding of these definitions is necessary to follow later interpretations and analysis." This is a reasonable recommendation for a detailed study, rather than a popularized criticism of practices of a well-known person--especially one who is seeking a position in government, which has the monopoly on legalized use of physical force in its claimed area. Prior to the bold recommendation for sequential reading that precedes the Foreward and Commentary, is a list of 4 items the author views as the major specific oppositions skeptics will take and which s/he thinks s/he has aptly covered with explanation of the techniques and numerous examples of their usage by Obama (with photos and links to actual video):

Hypnosis isn't real--hypnosis wouldn't / doesn't work on me
Obama isn't intentionally using mass hypnosis
Obama's popularity is not attributable to his use of hypnosis
There is nothing unethical about Obama's use of hypnosis

I will let the author's words on the first 3 speak for themselves without comment. However on the 4th, there are definite points that need to be brought out. I think that those few orators over history whom large numbers of people consider to be (or were, if now dead) hypnotizing are just that--highly effective in getting their listeners to forgo rational thought and make decisions based totally or chiefly on emotions. This ability has been described of some politicians, clergy and highly successful "motivational speakers." The last two can easily be ignored by those who have decided not to listen to their speeches--the effects of these are generally limited in scope unless coupled with those in the first group. It is politicians and their place in being or goal to be controllers of the legalized use of force, government, that makes the use of highly emotional presentations and, even more so hypnotic techniques, especially concerning. The fact that Obama uses the techniques described by the paper author and so successfully that the majority of the voting US public is (according to the polls) ready to vote for him to be President of the USA and is unaware of these techniques being used, is a credit to him in his "craft" of politics. The question of fairness and/or ethics is raised by the author of this paper--but I contend that the concept of fairness makes no sense in regards to politics since the purpose of government is to rule others, even if supposedly according to the "will of the majority." There is nothing fair in politics or government--if one is thinking of what is,in the long range, widely viewed as the best interest of each individual all at the same time. Those who are susceptible to the techniques described in this paper as being heavily used by Obama are dependent-type individuals--in essence dysfunctional in regards to reasoned independence. They are almost certain to get the majority of their information from the spoken word--via television, radio, Internet video, phone or in-person. Correspondingly, these individuals spend little time reading and evaluating the content of what a speaker is actually saying, often having never been helped to appreciate and develop such important analytical skills by a government school system designed to produce followers. In the present US society--and most of the industrialized world--this is the type of people government officials, whether appointed, hired and definitely elected, want in society. Such people make it possible for politicians to continue to operate as they have, and even to enlarge the scope of government in the lives of individuals. I am not suggesting that readers vote for John McCain instead of Barack Obama after reading the referenced paper. I don't think John McCain is any better a person than Barack Obama, even if he hasn't used the hypnotic oratory techniques that his opponent has apparently mastered. That is probably only because he didn't come across them in years past or no one on his election team made these methods known to him. On the night of November 4, I would very much like to see evidence that large numbers of those eligible to vote have actually studied the candidates--and the referenced paper is one very good resource for Obama--and what they are proposing that the federal government continue or change and how. This can only be done by reading transcripts of speeches, not simply listening/watching them. The evidence on the night of November 4, 2008 that such reasoned wide view long range thinking had been done by a large percentage of the eligible voting public, would be indicated by their decision to actually not vote in this election. This will send a definite message to all those who keep track of such statistics, that there is a large amount of dissatisfaction with who and what was available as a choice on the ballot. (National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960-2006 - lowest presidential is 49.1%) I think this message will actually mean far more in the long run than a large percentage of voters who, whichever way they vote, are still electing a mix of the status quo and even worse--the result with all of the declared candidates. The individual who succeeds at being elected President and others who seek to be in government power will not be able to ignore such a message; he and they cannot claim to have a "mandate of the people." And in the review process I am urging above, hopefully, those who consciously choose not to vote may actually stop and do some reasoned thinking and question the claimed necessity of government to insure an orderly society. I and husband Paul Wakfer contend that an orderly society of individuals voluntarily interacting to mutual benefit, each with the purpose of maximizing hir lifetime happiness and all at the same time can come about--not immediately, but with a paradigm shift in thinking by a growing number of people. The nature of human beings does not automatically lead to the conclusion that individuals must be ruled by others, as is done now virtually everywhere, in order that there be orderly interactions between them. Society, just like any other natural system can be naturally self-regulating by means of interactions between its members, if only humans seek to discover and are allowed to implement the methods by which such self-regulation can be effective, rather than continuing to embrace social systems that need to be constantly held in an unnatural (and very unoptimal) state of balance by the operations of their rulers and other influencers. Individual self-order without rule by others is the social system whose members are humans, who have become fully adult. Just as people can become physical adults, so can they become social adults - if only they are allowed (and even required in the sense that they will not achieve their desires unless they do) to socially mature sufficiently. Becoming familiar with the purpose and techniques of politicians as representatives of government, the monopoly holder of the use of force in its decreed jurisdiction, can be a first step for many individuals towards understanding the need for and growing socially mature on a wider, fully integrated scale, not just in their closest relationships. The paper on Barack Obama, "An Examination of Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches", hopefully will assist in this transition.