There are several things that I actually do agree with Hugh about, generally—such as the influence by the American intelligence apparatus upon foreign and domestic media (sometimes collectively referred to as "Operation Mockingbird")—but the "keyword hijacking" thing, as it is most often discussed here, is something I see comparatively little logic in, and almost no proof.
You can't attack KH on the grounds that it is illogical or not logical enough, or less logical than something else. By it's nature the effect is intended to be subliminal and therefore does not have to be logical in order to work. In fact, in order to remain a subliminal effect, which is obviously advantageous and arguably more effective, KH should be illogical. It is only our egos which keep us from recognizing how profoundly we are effected by that which we are not even aware of. Bringing those psyops into conscious awareness takes work
and "requires a broad database of understanding". Please watch the YouTube Darren Brown video at the link to get an idea of what is possible.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=befugtgikMgAlmost
1) What proof do
2) What proof would suffice?
The lack of proof of the existence of KH as a psyops technique is a function of it's subliminal nature. That is one of the obvious
advantages. Not even the very best examples Hugh has ever unearthed can serve as proof
in the conventional sense that I imagine you intend. Piles and piles of circumstantial evidence if it all begins to fit into recognizable, explicable patterns begins to serve as the foundation for a theory.
So, Hugh has staked out an almost impossible position to defend rigorously, however, his detractors in order to be fair have to take the above into consideration.
This is why I am constantly after Hugh for a list of criterion or rules whereby one can identify psyops. I want Hugh to stake out a clearer position and/or I want to understand his theory better. He's written a lot more here than I have read and so I am sure he is repeating himself a lot. He's incredibly patient and persistent. Until I am certain I fully understand him I will reserve judgement except where he fails in ordinary rules of argumentation that fall outside the conceivable bounds of the as yet defined and/or understood rules for identifying psyops. For instance:
PS... about the time thing... isn't it conceivable, as I've mentioned a number of times, that one of the purposes of these psyops games is to consume time and energy?
and Hugh wrote:No, the purpose of psy-ops is to subliminally influence language, attitudes, and behaviors for national security justifications.
Just a flat, NO. Hugh quite often thinks
he has no choice except to stake out these extreme positions. Relative to most readers, he is right. If he were to accept my suggestion here that some psyops are now designed for the purpose of running the Hugh Manatees of the world around in circles his detractors would be all over him, just as I responded to his theory of the relatively recent phenomena of KH decoys. It is irrational for Hugh to hold that KH decoys now exist but that it is not even conceivable
that one of the purposes of these psyops games is to consume time and energy?
My recent purpose in attempting to walk in Hugh's shoes and use his techniques is to fully understand what he is doing before I accept or reject anything. I pondered the Eli Stone example of psyops on the Hugh Manatee goes Mainstream thread for quite awhile earlier this evening. I suggested to Hugh a long time ago that he let me start a thread where members could submit potential examples of psyops for his analysis. He was understandably a bit reluctant, so I let it drop. Honestly, I brought up the Eli Stone example hoping he would do the work for me as I do not possess nearly as "broad [a] database of understanding" as Hugh does. In the meantime I am imagining myself into Hugh's headspace and trying to turn off the logician. It's a different kind of logic that is required and certainly a creative act of imagination is involved. I'll eventually probably just ask him to give me his take on the Eli Stone example and he probably will. The Eli Stone example fits in with a prediction Hugh has made about psyops, loudly, over and over again. Hugh contends that this is a year when we will see an upsurge of CIA/MSM psyops related to Oliver Stone/JFK. One of the defining characteristics of a sound theory is it's predictive value.
If all this seems like a tremendous waste of time ask yourself a few simple questions.
1) Are there powerful ruling forces which wish to effect us to their advantage without our knowing it?
2) What are the advantages of subliminal psyops as opposed to more overt techniques?
3) Given the NLP demonstration in the Darren Brown video what forms can you posit in good faith, however tenatively, those subliminal psyops might take?
I haven't even gotten around to asking Hugh what to do about it. I'm still trying to see it. But I presume one of the actions to take is to eschew all forms of mass media which have psyops embedded within them. If I had children I would feel morally compelled to shield them from mass media, regardless of how unrealistic some might see this task.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.