Why don't keywords enhance memorability?

[FourthBase]

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... 522#207522

IMO it's the most glaring logical hole in Hugh's keyword theories, as I said:

People who have encountered the show Dawson's Creek are just as likely upon encountering the Dawson's Field hijackings to have the hijackings stick in their head forever in a neutral or positive (i.e., serious) way as they are to have their brains dismiss the hijackings.

I meet new people at parties, and depending on the association I make with their name when first learning it, their name becomes more or less memorable to me, and almost always MORE memorable when there are other things to associate it with.

Hugh, explain away.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I've pointed at the neuroscience of brain bias and memory and sociology of cultural transmission about a zillion times.
But repetition connects the neural paths so once again-

Keywords always enhance memorability.
The psyops strategy is to bias what is remembered in favor of what power wants remembered and not anything that impedes their goals.

This is the whole point of using inoculation and interference theories to JAM social transmission of subversive information by affecting
>our memory's ability to recognize things
>achieve insight about them
>and them remember them well enough to pass it on to someone else thereby embedding it in the culture.

And this applies to the pre-internet human animal before the internet's search engine culture added even more advantage to competing for visibility and memory in a sea of stimuli.

There is a strategic advantage to multiplying the associations with a dangerous keyword AND to exposing the other definitions to the brain FIRST because-

1) No keywords can be completely suppressed.

2) It is always advantageous for keywords from scandals to have competing definitions in the culture at large. This mulitplicity creates the possibility of being diverted by the safe definition.
See 'interference theory.'

3) Young brains are extremely susceptible to a phenonemon called Mutual Exclusivity which is the tendency to become strongly biased towards the FIRST learned definition of a word EVEN when later exposed to another definition.
See 'inoculation theory.'

4) The brain has a number of 'path-of-least-resistance' dynamics including biasing towards pleasurable and coherent associations instead of disturbing and not well-understood ones.

So psyops culture makes sure there are always pleasurable, coherent, idealized packagings of SAFE definitions for keywords that could trigger subversive associations.
Like "Fonzie."

And these power-sanctioned versions of keywords are viral marketed in pop culture and given heavy social affirmations, often falsely created such as rigged 'best seller lists' or 'Top 10 Searches' or Hollywood movie awards.

Certain words have been tested for evoking responses in the audience in very predictable ways. This is how memetic-engineering works, carefully chosen linguistics.

This is why during the Gulf War I years of 1990-91 the Oscars for Best Picture went to
'Dances With Wolves' - 1990
'Silence of the Lambs' - 1991

You can read some interesting psyops history just by reading the titles of the Oscar winners. Because CIA-Hollywood is perhaps the most effective psyops institution on the planet. Can you think of how a movie titled 'GIGI' serves military recruiting?

So anything put in movies, which are largely attended by 14-24 year olds, serves to provide these FIRST power-sanctioned word definitions to an important demographic finalizing their sense of 'how things are' and whether or not to join the military.

Or whether to vote for Flyboy Buck McCain because he isn't "Hamlet 2," that movie hippie is.

CIA-Disney does this neural priming to kids. It is criminal.

[FourthBase]

Like "Fonzie."

Okay, so explain that particular example in depth in the context of this thread. Specifically, explain how amplifying the Fonzie character on Happy Days inhibited/diverted/whatever the memes of Gaeton Fonzi. Explain how this example would have worked its psy-ops magic in a 70's child's mind, and use details, hypothetical if need be. Do not rely on quoting the general thesis of inoculation theory or interference theory, not even the fact that it's been tested and proven, etc. I want this specific Fonzi example's effect on the mind explicated from beginning to end. How would an association with television's most influential sitcom hero suppress/defile/whatever anything? WHY DOESN'T THE EXACT OPPOSITE PROCESS OCCUR, OF STRENGTHENING THE MIND'S RECEPTIVITY TO GAETON FONZI? If I had been a young ABC executive in the 70's with a radical hankering to expose the Warren Commission, how could I have possibly elevated the potential profile of Gaeton Fonzi any better than by turning the name and character of Fonzie into a deeply beloved and respected meme for the nation's television-watching children? Fonzie was the 70's television apex of both coolness and moral fiber.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Like "Fonzie."

Okay, so explain that particular example in depth in the context of this thread. Specifically, explain how amplifying the Fonzie character on Happy Days inhibited/diverted/whatever the memes of Gaeton Fonzi.

Just making something fictional dilutes and, frequently, entirely displaces that it is real.

Explain how this example would have worked its psy-ops magic in a 70's child's mind, and use details, hypothetical if need be. Do not rely on quoting the general thesis of inoculation theory or interference theory, not even the fact that it's been tested and proven, etc. I want this specific Fonzi example's effect on the mind explicated from beginning to end.

I experienced it myself until recently. I kept trying to remember the name of the guy who wrote 'War is the Health of the State. But I kept coming up with the name from Robert Ludlum's novels-turned-movies, "Jason Bourne."

Over and over I tried to remember R...R...R....but it wouldn't come. Just "Jason."
I had to very deliberately create a mnemonic hook to get myself to remember-
RANDOLPH. Randolph Bourne. 'War is the Health of the State.' Finally!

I had been damn well affected by keyword hijacking of the REAL Mr. Bourne who just happens to be a serious danger to the Warfare State.

Many Americans don't read newspapers. What little that ends up on CIA-network TV news is IT. And for many, not even that. Zero news. All fictional entertainment designed by CIA to condition, misdirect, etc.

They only have so much bandwith and RECENT memories are stronger than any old ones from school and IDEALIZED memories, carefully constructed neuro-friendly spook entertainment, really gets a grip on memory.

People can't tell fact from fiction and mostly know fiction.
So turning reality into fiction is to mnemonically turn reality into a vibrating greased pig in a stampede of competing stimuli where the fiction has all been turned into velcro with super glue and fish hooks.

How would an association with television's most influential sitcom hero suppress/defile/whatever anything? WHY DOESN'T THE EXACT OPPOSITE PROCESS OCCUR, OF STRENGTHENING THE MIND'S RECEPTIVITY TO GAETON FONZI?

So the school kids watch sit-coms. Over and over. With every laugh, smirk, or even just moment at rest comfortably in a chair (yes, relief from fatigue reinforces conditioning) making the memory association with the fictional "Fonzie" stronger and stronger.

At school kids joke about and imitate the thumbs-up gesture accompanied by the minimalist catch-phrase, "Aaay." Lunchboxes and notepads with Mr. Aaay's image reinforce the association.

If one of these school kids overhears their parents talking about what little the CIA allowed into the NYTimes and they hear about "Gaeton Fonzi," the conditioned kid will have hours of conditioning and social affirmation pulling mnemonically in the direction of the fictional "guy called Fonzie."

If by some unlikely chance the kid reads about Gaeton Fonzi, there is still all that conditioned pleasure tempering any potential negative emotions that might be evoked by what Gaeton Fonzi is doing. Additionally, there is all the scripted framing baggage of the fictional character that comes up with those memories. The kid would much rather BE Mr. Aaay than the Gaeton dude, right?

Social affirmation gives propaganda extra heft, kind of like giving it more 'reality' mass than stuff without it because we are social animals and pay attention to...what we think people are paying attention to.

Now if this kid wants to tell some other kid about what he read about Gaeton Fonzi, there is likely to be a moment of smirking about the fictional character and perhaps that this poor Gaeton Fonzi dude shares a name with Mr. Ayyy. You can see on this board how people cannot resist making obvious jokes and puns on whatever is discussed. Viral marketing exploits this tendency to chew on thrown bones. Everyone wants to give it a bite and social affirmation accumulates.

This shared mirth over just the idea of someone actually being named Fonzi now dilutes the focus on what the heck Gaeton Fonzi is doing and the kids can't resist seeing him in the Senate in a leather jacket with a laugh track. "Oh, and Shirley is hot. I wouldn't kick her out of bed but Laverne..." etc.

All of this defeats memory of the real Gaeton Fonzi, adds positive associations which temper any reaction to what he represents, and the same effects are multiplied during social transmission which dilutes focus even more.

If I had been a young ABC executive in the 70's with a radical hankering to expose the Warren Commission, how could I have possibly elevated the potential profile of Gaeton Fonzi any better than by turning the name and character of Fonzie into a deeply beloved and respected meme for the nation's television-watching children? Fonzie was the 70's television apex of both coolness and moral fiber.

At first, Fonzie was an alpha-male.
But then he...jumped the shark.



Now this catch-phrase linked to fictional Fonzie is used PRECISELY to denote "ridiculous and unbelievable." Funny how that worked out, ay? I mean - Aaay?

When D.A. Jim Garrison was trying to prosecute one of the JFK murder perps, Clay Shaw from 1967 to 1969, the CIA media waged relentless character-assassination of Garrison AND keyword hijacked him into fiction for the non-reality based public, too.

ABC- 1967-68 television show, 'Garrison's Gorillas.'


Hey! There's a listing for 'Garrison's Gorillas' at...jumptheshark.com...a fun site.
Meme incest accomplished! Only it is the naive viewer that is...ahem.

http://www.jumptheshark.com/topic/Garrisons-Gorillas/Garrisons-Gorillas-General-Comments/747

You know what replaced 'Garrison's Gorillas' on ABC?
'The Mod Squad.' Cool kids working for the cops infiltrating....wait a minute.
Hey! That was COINTELPRO!




What happened to the idea of being "mod" shortly after COINTELPRO was discovered in 1971? 'The Mod Squad' was still on the air until 1973 but some keyword competition started up in September 1972 which began to take over the mnemonic burden like an unnoticable hand-off in a baton race. Or a hand-off between spies.

Mr. Norman CIA Lear gave us a homonym keyword hijacking and meme-reversal.



Mr. Lear also gave us a fictional man named Archie Bunker to give liberal viewers some catharsis when there was already a real man named Ellsworth Bunker who...was the US ambassador to South Vietnam.

I could go on and on showing how an entire parallel name matrix has been constructed to compete with reality since WWII.

[FourthBase]

Just making something fictional dilutes and, frequently, entirely displaces that it is real.

I understand that, but I also recognize that fiction can also magnify the real.

I experienced it myself until recently. I kept trying to remember the name of the guy who wrote 'War is the Health of the State. But I kept coming up with the name from Robert Ludlum's novels-turned-movies, "Jason Bourne."

Over and over I tried to remember R...R...R....but it wouldn't come. Just "Jason."
I had to very deliberately create a mnemonic hook to get myself to remember-
RANDOLPH. Randolph Bourne. 'War is the Health of the State.' Finally!

I had been damn well affected by keyword hijacking of the REAL Mr. Bourne who just happens to be a serious danger to the Warfare State.

But, of course, you still had the "Bourne" to hang your thinking cap on, thanks to the association with Ludlum. You might forget his first name, but you will always have "Bourne". And like someone said in the general discussion board, in the age of the internet such a mnemonic obstacle is made totally irrelevant. Without even the "Bourne", you could have just googled "War is the Health of the State":

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... +the+state

Or you could have looked up the surname "Bourne" in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourne_(surname)

And, of course, it's JUST HIS FUCKING FIRST NAME. Who the fuck cares what his first name is, jesus fucking christ. Few people will ever in their ENTIRE FUCKING LIVES NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF SCHOOLS THEY ATTEND OR PRINT THEY READ OR FRIENDS THEY HAVE encounter Randolph Bourne or his essay, because the vast majority of ALL political thought from almost 100 years ago has been subsumed and forgotten in the vacuum of recent history. That's not psy-ops, it's a fucking unfortunate phenomenon of time itself. You are truly either demented or dishonest if you claim that there's any tactical advantage whatsoever in giving the main character in a Ludlum book the same surname as an anti-war essayist from WWI. Besides the obvious and still-standing logical hole of the memorability doing the exact fucking opposite of what you claim and actually increasing:

Calculate the number of people who, in the course of their lives, will ever happen upon Randolph Bourne or his essay, and then...

- Subtract the number of those people who don't give a single shit about the world outside of their own lives and on whom any kind of psy-ops would be a total waste of effort.
- Subtract the number of those people who have never been exposed to Ludlum books or movies.
- Subtract the number of those people who are irrevocably pro-war and therefore permanently deaf to Randolph Bourne regardless of Jason Bourne.
- Subtract the number of people who have been exposed to Ludlum books or movies or advertisements starring Jason Bourne but who, like normal rational human beings, go ahead and read "War is the Health of the State" anyway, in a contemplative state of mind, unaffected by the miniscule synaptic association they may or may not sense with the Ludlum character.

Guess how many people are left? One. YOU.

There are three possibilities for you, and there are no others:

1. You're an intelligent person who's tragically crippled by schizophrenia.
2. You're a performance artist toying with the hive mind of a conspiracy forum.
3. You're a spook, oh-so-ironically inoculating us against inoculation theory, interfering with our potential comprehension of interference theory, meme-hijacking the concept of meme-hijacking.

Here's my advice, respectively:

1. Go to a psychiatrist, ask for some kind of anti-psychotic, then return to your psy-ops research with a healthy and potent frame of mind unfettered by schizophrenic solipcism.
2. Take a shit in the toilet, reach in and pick the shit up, and eat it.
3. Pray that no one here ever finds out who you are in real life, for real.

Well, I guess I owe you (or your fictional persona, or your spook handlers) a response to the Fonzi/Fonzie part, since I asked and you were kind enough to fart out a half-baked answer.

So the school kids watch sit-coms. Over and over. With every laugh, smirk, or even just moment at rest comfortably in a chair (yes, relief from fatigue reinforces conditioning) making the memory association with the fictional "Fonzie" stronger and stronger.

At school kids joke about and imitate the thumbs-up gesture accompanied by the minimalist catch-phrase, "Aaay." Lunchboxes and notepads with Mr. Aaay's image reinforce the association.

If one of these school kids overhears their parents talking about what little the CIA allowed into the NYTimes and they hear about "Gaeton Fonzi," the conditioned kid will have hours of conditioning and social affirmation pulling mnemonically in the direction of the fictional "guy called Fonzie."

- The mnemonic pull of Fonzie (and other putative KH devices) can also be, if it's not more likely to be, like the gravity of a planet, meaning that the figure of Gaeton Fonzi could get stuck in the kid's head like a little moon around the character Fonzie, whereas if there had never been a television Fonzie the kid would have never batted a fucking mental eyelash at the name Gaeton Fonzi to begin with.

- Again, how many kids were ever exposed to a single fucking utterance of the name Gaeton Fonzi? Very, very, very, very few. And no halfway thoughtful kid who would've eventually cared about the name Gaeton Fonzi in the slightest would ever have a mental block caused by the TV Fonzie.

- Again, what possible fucking tactical advantage is there to obfuscating the mere surname of a single dogged House investigator that would justify amplifying a minor character on a network sitcom who happened to have a nickname homophonic to the investigator's last name? Answer: ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NONE. Whatever resources you supposedly imagine being spent on such a tactic would surely be spent on framing Fonzi directly for a discrediting crime.

If by some unlikely chance the kid reads about Gaeton Fonzi, there is still all that conditioned pleasure tempering any potential negative emotions that might be evoked by what Gaeton Fonzi is doing. Additionally, there is all the scripted framing baggage of the fictional character that comes up with those memories. The kid would much rather BE Mr. Aaay than the Gaeton dude, right?

You couldn't even really describe the supposed mindset in detail, it turns out. Same old bullshit, just with Fonzi's name plugged in. Pathetic. Lazy. So anyway, a kid loves watching Happy Days, and like most kids in the 70's who love Happy Days his favorite character is Fonzie, and when he happens to hear his parents talking about Gaeton Fonzi or happens to overhear a brief mention of Gaeton Fonzi on network news during the House Investigation, what he feels is the pleasure connected with the character Fonzie, and...that pleasure is supposed to condition him AGAINST forming a favorable or lasting unique memory of Gaeton Fonzi? Pleasure...as a name-specific mnemonic deterrent. Um, sure. You don't figure that maybe the Fonzie pleasure would leak into the synapses that caught the name Gaeton Fonzi, and perversely turn those Gaeton Fonzi synapses into something rewarding? You don't figure that maybe the pleasurable association with the coolest and most morally sound television character in history would rub off positively on his Gaeton Fonzi synapses, on whatever sketch of an archetype the kid forms for Gaeton Fonzi in his head? What fucking "scripted framing baggage" are you referring to? And basically, with your supposed negative comparison, you're saying that there's no possible way for any character in a piece of fiction to be named in honor of a hero, no way for any character who happens to share the name of a real person to reflect positively on the real person, because if the character is too good/cool then it puts the real person to shame, and if the character isn't good/cool enough then it diminishes the real person. It's blatant circular reasoning, and if I'm not mistaken it's the kind of reasoning that schizophrenics (and pranksters and spooks) like to use. In fact, I bet books and TV shows carry that disclaimer about characters not representing real people specifically to ward off mental-diseased people with a hyper-associative disorder like you (if I'm being generous) seem to have.

Social affirmation gives propaganda extra heft, kind of like giving it more 'reality' mass than stuff without it because we are social animals and pay attention to...what we think people are paying attention to.

Now if this kid wants to tell some other kid about what he read about Gaeton Fonzi, there is likely to be a moment of smirking about the fictional character and perhaps that this poor Gaeton Fonzi dude shares a name with Mr. Ayyy. You can see on this board how people cannot resist making obvious jokes and puns on whatever is discussed. Viral marketing exploits this tendency to chew on thrown bones. Everyone wants to give it a bite and social affirmation accumulates.

This shared mirth over just the idea of someone actually being named Fonzi now dilutes the focus on what the heck Gaeton Fonzi is doing and the kids can't resist seeing him in the Senate in a leather jacket with a laugh track. "Oh, and Shirley is hot. I wouldn't kick her out of bed but Laverne..." etc.

You know what this is, if you're just an innocent schizo? This is you. Just you. This is your story, about growing up as a humorless latent schizophrenic getting shat on by kids you probably had no social business bringing up conspiracy-related shit to, expecting to be taken seriously when in fact you were just a big fucking joke to your peers. It wasn't a conspiracy, no matter how much your fucked head then tried or now tries to recontextualize it as one. You were just an intelligent but socially retarded lonely misfit, and they were probably just normal. Because only such a humorless fucked-in-the-head person would assume that the mere act of teenagers playfully mocking someone's name would preclude a serious appreciation of the person's life and work. What would preclude such a thing is, say, being a jock who doesn't give a shit about politics, or being a rock-and-roll fan who cares about liberal politics only in a surface way. Anyone who would actually give a shit about Gaeton Fonzi isn't going to be truly distracted by his name, even if they riff on it first to come up with a funny mental image. Joking is normal and healthy and just as likely to be the sign of intelligence and sympathy, you fucking pathetic (if I'm generous) psycho. IF the kids you tried to talk to about Gaeton Fonzi (or whoever you talked about) were ever predisposed to listen to you in the first place, then their joking was -- if anything more than just simple fucking joking -- probably just a natural little mechanism to unload a little bit of the stress of uncomfortable truths, so as not to have one's focus diluted in a flood of negative feelings, before then continuing to explore the matter seriously, or as seriously as kids and teenagers can take something that profound and complicated. But this all escaped you, because (if you're not a hoax artist or spook) you're a mentally ill human being to whom mirth and good-natured smirking are foreign, threatening concepts.

All of this defeats memory of the real Gaeton Fonzi, adds positive associations which temper any reaction to what he represents, and the same effects are multiplied during social transmission which dilutes focus even more.

In summary: A sane and/or honest person could not possibly believe that shit, because anyone who would learn enough about Gaeton Fonzi to comprehend that there's anything negative to associate with him would NOT BE FUCKING AFFECTED AT ALL BY "AYYYY" ASSOCIATIONS, and would possibly take Gaeton Fonzi EVEN MORE SERIOUSLY even if they WERE affected, because the character Fonzi was a morally upstanding cool-as-fuck hero. And again, you're so fucking nuts you can't decide if the figures being meme-jacked by the CIA should be meme-jacked by displacing appropriate positive feelings with inappropriate negative ones, or by displacing appropriate negative feelings with inappropriate positive ones. The problem is, you'll never be able to decide, because you're a fucking lunatic who needs help, and coming to a decision like that would possibly break your fractured mind, so you keep it nice and safe and circular. "Gaeton Fonzi was a hero who should elicit positive feelings of admiration, and the CIA jacked him with a character named Fonzie who is such a low life piece of trash that...oh wait, ummmm, here, how about...Gaeton Fonzi was a hero who should elicit negative feelings of truth recognition, and the CIA jacked him with a character named Fonzie who is so cool that" blah blah blah blah fucking blah.

So turning reality into fiction is to mnemonically turn reality into a vibrating greased pig in a stampede of competing stimuli where the fiction has all been turned into velcro with super glue and fish hooks.

Sounds more like your fucking head, actually.

Again, here are the three things you can possibly be:

1. You're an intelligent person who's tragically crippled by schizophrenia, or maybe some devastating combo of autism and schizophrenia, and you should seek help in the form of medication and therapy.

2. You're a loathesome obnoxious performance artist toying with the hive mind of a conspiracy forum, and therefore someone I would gladly beat senseless should we ever meet on the street.

3. You're a spook, oh-so-ironically inoculating us against inoculation theory, interfering with our potential comprehension of interference theory, meme-hijacking the concept of meme-hijacking, and therefore someone this whole forum would probably gladly hunt down and throw off a fucking cliff.

Get professional help, or eat shit, or kill yourself. Whichever applies. Don't expect a response from me again, unless you happen to be the tragic schizophrenic and you get help and come back repentent and sane.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Violent threats disqualify you from discussion on this board, in my opinion.

1) I recommend anger management.
2) Your insults are disruptive to this board and your calling me a spook is against board rules.
3) Stick with sports. Go scream at grown men playing with a ball.
4) When you can behave, do your own damn research.

THXBYE.


For the rational readers of this thread-

Just remember that the name "Fonzie" became
>fictional just when the House Select Committee on Assassinations was active with Mr. Fonzi in a key position
>associated with the 1950s cliches, not 11/22/63
>an expression for "ridiculous and improbable." As in, "jumped the shark."

It couldn't be any clearer than that. Play ball.

[Jeff]

FourthBase's language was stronger than it needed to be but it didn't, in my estimation, constitute a threat. Though I'm not happy to see statements suggesting even hypothetical violence here, so I'll ask 4B and all members to refrain from making them.

Hugh, I think I'll keep my comments to you private.

[FourthBase]

Let me clarify:

I am not advocating violence against anyone, for any reason.

But I make zero apologies for wanting to beat the shit out of anyone who purposefully sabotages a sincere discussion. Do I think Hugh is such a person? Probably not. There are three things I said he could possibly be, and by default of the latter two scenarios being unlikely IMO, I meant to highlight the first scenario as the one I think is real.

But IF he really is a troll or a spook? IF he is, then his real life deserves to be exposed, period. IF he is, then no one here should feel guilty about wanting to do him physical harm. IF he is a performance artist/troll, and IF we were to ever meet on the street, then yes it would be hard for me to restrain myself from acting on the impulse to punish him violently, even though I would ultimately restrain myself from doing so. IF he is a spook hired to disrupt/contaminate this forum, then yes I have little doubt that the vast majority of forum members would gladly hunt him down and throw him off a cliff...but only IF those same forum members were the kind of misguided people who would let themselves commit such a crime, which they aren't. I was posing hypotheticals that contained violent scenarios, but even the violent scenarios within those hypotheticals were themselves subject to hypothetical and counter-factual conditions. I will hereby refrain from posting any kind of scenarios that involve violence, no matter how counter-factual the conditions attached, no matter how subjunctive the mood.

Again, for emphasis: Physical violence is invariably counter-productive, and I am not recommending it in any way whatsoever, no matter what Hugh's deal is.

[FourthBase]

Fonzie was already a character long before the HSCA was conceived, even before the Church Committee was established.

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0026357 ... #tt0070992

[brainpanhandler]

3. You're a spook,...

I suppose most everyone has considered this. I know I have. It has to be considered. But it is just as reasonable to conjecture that you might be a spook and your intent is to discredit Hugh and thereby the ideas he espouses. And it should go without saying that it is just as reasonable to wonder about my spook status. For the record and knowing full well it means at best perhaps a tiny fraction of a scintilla more than nothing, I am not a spook.

One bit of evidence that I think weighs in favor of the argument for Hugh's non-spookhood is a comment I found under a different user name that was pretty unmistakably the voice of Hugh.

see this thread:
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... hp?t=19507

This doesn't necessarily disqualify Hugh as a spook, but the fact that his voice is so consistent from then and there til now and here I think supports the idea that Hugh really is just Hugh.

[FourthBase]

But it is just as reasonable to conjecture that you might be a spook and your intent is to discredit Hugh and thereby the ideas he espouses.

Nope, conjecture about me being a spook would be completely fucking unreasonable. If my intent is to discredit Hugh, then why the fuck have I been mostly sympathetic to him for years, why the fuck have I ever attempted to help him direct his psy-ops-researching instincts toward a more factual basis, why the fuck did I ever come to his defense? What could the explanation possibly be, that I've been setting up poor old Hugh all these years for this grand finale of rejection and excoriation? Yeah, I bet that's not too far off from the kind of delusion Hugh is entertaining. If you want proof that I'm not a spook I could Fedex you any and all personal information about me that would satisfy any suspicion you might have. I'll give you my fucking phone number and street address and email address and work address and social security number and copies of old family photos and the names of all of my friends and family members. I have absolutely nothing to hide. I'm a fucking loser from Southie, that's it.

[brainpanhandler]

Nope, conjecture about me being a spook would be completely fucking unreasonable. If my intent is to discredit Hugh, then why the fuck have I been mostly sympathetic to him for years, why the fuck have I ever attempted to help him direct his psy-ops-researching instincts toward a more factual basis, why the fuck did I ever come to his defense? What could the explanation possibly be, that I've been setting up poor old Hugh all these years for this grand finale of rejection and excoriation?

This might surprise you apparently but I haven't been reading you for years or even months.

If you want proof that I'm not a spook I could Fedex you any and all personal information about me that would satisfy any suspicion you might have. I'll give you my fucking phone number and street address and email address and work address and social security number and copies of old family photos and the names of all of my friends and family members. I have absolutely nothing to hide. I'm a fucking loser from Southie, that's it.

No thanks and I am surprised at the offer.

Hugh's not a spook and he's not a performance artist and he does not really evince any greater symptomology of mental illness than most of us. If professional therapists would never even dream of attempting anything even aproximating a diagnosis on the basis of online interaction I don't know why a loser from southie would.

I find it telling that among your list of possible explanations for who Hugh is and what his purpose is here you left off the possibility that hugh is sincere and just simply wrong.

What are you so fucking angry about? You're fucking furious all the fucking time.

[FourthBase]

Hugh's not a spook and he's not a performance artist and he does not really evince any greater symptomology of mental illness than most of us. If professional therapists would never even dream of attempting anything even aproximating a diagnosis on the basis of online interaction I don't know why a loser from southie would.

Wrong. Persistent identification of KH examples that aren't grounded in the slightest speck of reality and that not even a cross-section of the world's most open-minded people (us) can entertain seriously for even a split second...That's a symptom of some serious form of mental illness. We're all a little bit nuts, but get real: None of us does what Hugh does.

I find it telling that among your list of possible explanations for who Hugh is and what his purpose is here you left off the possibility that hugh is sincere and just simply wrong.

His incessant pimping of insane KH examples goes way the fuck beyond sincerity and simple wrongness. The only rational explanation for the insane KH examples, besides an explanation that involves him being dishonest, is that he himself is insane. In that case, he needs professional help. Some people who are on the nutty side can overcome mental failings on their own. Hugh, by all indications, is not one of those people. Continuing to support him in his current state of mind is irresponsible, IMO. Whatever factual basis there is to KH is continually undermined by Hugh's insanity, and for his sake and for the sake of psy-ops research, the only responsible response to Hugh at this point is to plead with him to seek a mental health professional and get his sanity back.

What are you so fucking angry about? You're fucking furious all the fucking time.

There's a lot to be angry about. But I'm not always angry, I'm usually full of glad tidings. When I get angry, though, I get really fucking furious. I'm the kind of person who doesn't try to contain a sneeze. I treat anger the same way, as long as it's just verbally expressed.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Look up "priming."
The brain assimilates new information using categories it already has.

That's basically what all psyops is meant to achieve, pre-emptively conditioning the brain to perceive things in a way that is advantageous to power.

Also, I'm quite sure that the psyops doctrine includes treating the nation's people as if they were all neurons in one big brain. And the more neurons programmed with power's definitions of keywords, the better on principle and in the long run since memes take time to disperse, gain social affirmation, and become embedded.

The brain's memory is a keyword economy. Keywords are a basic semantic unit, like an atom, and a few keywords can be combined into a bigger semantic unit, a meme, just like a molecule.

Once you've hijacked a keyword or meme, you can do a number of things with it.
> Fictionalize reality to minimize its effect on the target audience
> Subliminal framing of targets, positive or negative
> Create sophistication, awareness of a subject that previously didn't exist to define later
> Psychic shock-absorbing
> Inoculation theory
> Interference theory
...etc.

And keywords and memes only need to be similiar enough for the brain to link them up which the brain is good at, especially at a subconscious subliminal level where most psyops attempts to work unfiltered by critical thought.

Like the way Obi-Wan Kenobi is really "Obey, One Can Obey."
Homonyms and oronyms are as common as a double-entendre about sex.
Beavis: "He said 'plugging a hole'...a-heh a-heh heh..."

So. With all you can find searching, you think that two men with the same name at the same time, one on TV and one a JFK investigator, "Fonzi/Fonzie" is a coincidence.
Just like Garrison and 'Garrison's Gorillas.'
Or Dallas and 'Dallas.'
Or...etc. etc.
That's just amazing to me. Just amazing.

You really don't have to understand the neuroscience or psyops strategies to know when things are not just a coincidence. Especially when it happens hundreds of times with the same pattern of involving things power finds threatening.

Gaeton Fonzi was an early scorner of the Warren Commission and had high visibility and creds in 1974 just before Schweiker asked him to be an HSCA investigator.

Gee, why did Schweiker do that? What was going on in 1974? Pike and Church Committees? Yes. Discussing assassinations. And there was talk about re-hashing the JFK thing, too.

Was Gaeton Fonzie known to be a JFK researcher when 'Happy Days' was started? Damn right.

Think everyone on those House and Senate committees was bugged by CIA so they'd know what was going to happen? OF COURSE.

'Happy Days' was part of redirecting pop culture to the 1950s to avoid the 1960s.
'Happy Days' is loaded with Dealey Plaza decoys besides Fonzie.
There are names and even look-alikes, also in the spin-off shows - yes, look-alikes, perfect doubles, just like spooks used to frame Oswald.

Hollywood uses look-alikes all the time and so do spooks. So it is a useful tactic in a decoy show.

Just like Steve Martin being used as a fair look-alike for McCain in decoy movies like 'Novocaine.'

[annie aronburg]

You're gonna LOVE Bowfinger.