Hensōjutsu in Advertising

Hensōjutsu as a Business Model?

My first thought was.. "You have got to be crazy.."

Though as I thought about the possibilities of where it could take me I started to realize that the art of disguise isn't a practice that is left out in Advertising or any Marketing scheme. In fact it is usually the art of disguise and illusion that allows the allegorical construction within a consumers mind that develops this strong desire to need the product. Though the imagination is the culprit of any deception, it is the art of making things pretty and magnifying any glory brought by the product that makes the consumer imagine themselves unrealistically in the same position of... Well, whatever it is they imagine. 

So I started to think deeper into this concept and what it means to me.. Beyond acting a role that isn't truly your character trait or for that matter a social status that is implied but never was really obtained. Such as looking rich by wearing things that shine like there's expensive gems present or for that matter the ultra-deceptive but practically working 'wonder bra'. Granted, many women benefit beyond what magic it performs on their more valuable assets.. But it is simply amazing how many continuously need and convince others that the desire to want is practical let alone realistic (without truly caring about the disappointment it brings to the guys who seemingly rely on this kind of thing).
But how would I take this concept to the next level so that my practice of Hensōjutsu isn't one that is centered around leaving the consumer at a loss of realizing they were duped into a sale? In fact... How could I make it so that the glamour of the product simply can't be replicated because of my practical application of certain features that otherwise trick even the most savvy of advertisers?
The answer seems so simple: Get into the heads of your consumer and appeal to none of them by appealing to their need to fit in. Cigarettes still do it.. In fact millions of dollars are spent in the fight against the image which has been portrayed that is prevalent even without advertising present. Is this just because of people who were once subjected to the advertising campaigns that once ran rampant across magazines and billboards?
Perhaps... Though maybe that image wasn't something hard to portray considering the novelty of age restrictions as well as the 'cool' factor brought on by the rebellious nature of using a product.
The same can be seen with many other products, especially alcohol. 

Even still I know there's more to this thought than what meets the eyes, but to expound on it openly would be the same as letting anyone see that there is a difference between tricking the consumers legitimately versus using a totally bogus campaign that is sure to leave the advertiser running to the next idea.
Or in other words... Try to come up with something that can be recycled over and over and over again. 

You Believe Hate is the Way?

I have never been an advocate of hatred.

Is it acceptable to hate something, Ever?

I think that depends entirely on your intent.

Does it have to be universally accepted?

That depends on the standards you insist to adhere to.

At what point can we say it is legitimate to hate?

Hating hatred doesn't end the cycle of Hate.

Is it more proper to hate that which causes hate?

We are not god's, our emotion of hate is flawed by nature.

If we can't hate properly then what do we do?

I will always be an advocate of Love.

The Responsibility of the Warrior

Often times we define the warrior class as the War-Artist or the Battle Expert or the Killing Machine or the Force of Death or simply the Wraith.

Why?

What about the Peace Keeper?
Isn't the battle to maintain peace requiring the same endurance if not more?
Don't the Peace Keepers, often times, lay their life down in pursuit of their ultimate goals?
Why isn't the fight considered just as gritty as any other battle? Especially if it is to the death?

Is it applicable then to call a Martyr a warrior if they are willingly fighting against their oppressors to the death to preserve their conviction?

By definition, I believe so.

Not everyone is privy to the definition of warrior. For many, I am simply stating the obvious. Though for the others I am not making sense or I am making a contradiction to terminology.

It is these same people who have the understanding that Ninja is synonymous to killer.
I urge these thinkers to look outside their box of media-driven understanding. They should confirm that finding universally, without error and consistently.
To their surprise, as I hope it is, they are misguided in their deductions and definition..

This same principle can be applied to many more things than can be understood superficially.

Objectively Insane

Such a common aspect of a scientific mind is the ability to think outside the box to search for answers in un-likely places.
It is without a doubt that common sense leads us to believe that looking again and again at something isn't going to yield different results unless you stop looking the same way in the same place with the same reasons. In fact, all it can do is detail your analysis so redundantly that you finally notice the possibility of more extrapolation and thus finally do things a bit differently.
Why is it that this approach is deemed unscientific when it is the appeal to assumptive reasoning that is unscientific?
Have most researchers deemed the scholar as the researcher instead of the inventor? Isn't the inventor a scholar who is trying to test different theories through applied science? Isn't the scholar defined as the retainer of information and not the experimenting agent who uses knowledge as a basis to extrapolate more detail?
What basis do we have to say we don't bridge the gap of scholar and scientist together to make a researcher? Perhaps English defines too well the aspects in which any of those entails to not allow a well laid example using each separately.
I see the scholar as retaining any information that is useful in any area for the purpose of creating a library. I see the scientist as collecting data for the purpose of categorizing into a library for use. I see the researcher as using the library as a basis to create new knowledge to further build the existing categories of the library.
I see that some people argue the three are interchangeable but can not coincide in one act. I'm sure some people would argue that there is no need for distinction because all three work to the same goal even if by some way it is different means. I believe some would argue that each rely on each other for a process that completes an inadvertent goal that each rely on the other to begin their own respective process that circles back to the starting point.
Now check that out.. None are wrong in the assertion by reasonable deduction, all are useful in their process as far as ultimately helping themselves because it helps the others who then give needed help, yet all are very different in respects to origin of importance, manner of reasoning and ultimately conclusion.

Why can't you see?

A wise man once said...

"You can not believe what you can not see but you can not see which you do not believe."

If you are to see through lies, deception and/or manipulation.. You must believe in the improbable, assume the impossible and ultimately be illogical.
It is not to say you must disregard all notions of common sense or scoff at knowledge. It is to say that not everything is what it may seem...
Belief is more than an action of being convinced by empirical evidence or practicality. It is an extension of the imagination and intuition.