The KWH Game MOVED

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Postby orz » Sat May 24, 2008 5:00 am

Heck, I haven't even finished posting about the production history of Soderburgh/Clooney's 'Solaris' on a thread from four days ago and

You'd be a better person for not bothering with that and instead watching Tarkovsky's original in as non-schizoid frame of mind as you can manage.
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Sat May 24, 2008 5:06 am

Yeah, the Clooney version is not worth anyones time. Thou I didnt think it was as bad as it could have been.

Anyone who hasnt seen Tarkovski's Solaris should do so at once :)
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brainpanhandler » Sat May 24, 2008 10:03 am

Hugh wrote:Nope. I avoid watching TV like a poisonous snake.
I analyze movie videos and that's toxic enough.

If you do, let us know whatcha see. I like reading your analysis, bph.


Does that mean that you fear that psyops subconsciously effect you and even you are not able to defend yourself against them?

I intend on watching the remake. I'm especially curious about the mysterious ending. I'll even have a notepad handy.

And I know what you mean about how time consuming psyops snooping can be. Inspired by the ~"man screwing 1000's of cars thread" I looked up Disney's The Love Bug as a volkswagon (people's car) is mentioned in the story. A different KH angle has been mentioned already. Anyway, that lead to looking up the last name Steinmetz (Buddy Hackett's character) which lead to Charles Proteus Steinmetz (important german immigrant, scientist, inventor, early AC proponent, early figure at founding of GE, socialist...) Ugh... I just don't have time for that.... right now...
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brainpanhandler » Sat May 24, 2008 10:06 am

orz wrote:
Heck, I haven't even finished posting about the production history of Soderburgh/Clooney's 'Solaris' on a thread from four days ago and

You'd be a better person for not bothering with that and instead watching Tarkovsky's original in as non-schizoid frame of mind as you can manage.


And have a pot of coffee going. Tarkovsky's version is extremely hypnotic or at least it is for me.

Penguin wrote:Anyone who hasnt seen Tarkovski's Solaris should do so at once


or as soon as time allows.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brainpanhandler » Sat May 24, 2008 10:42 am

Hugh,

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?
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Eldritch » Sun May 25, 2008 9:51 pm

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.

Unfortunately, because some of these "keyword hijacking" discussions do appear so fanciful (and so frequently), my concern is that some readers may fail to take seriously the very real—and considerable—role being played by the intelligence establishment, using powerful allies in the media, in shaping public opinion specifically and even thinking generally.
Eldritch
 
Posts: 1178
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:02 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sun May 25, 2008 10:03 pm

brainpanhandler wrote:Hugh,

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?


No, the purpose of psy-ops is to subliminally influence language, attitudes, and behaviors for national security justifications.

It is buried deep and hard to pull out without some effort
>ONLY so it will stay subliminal
>and ESPECIALLY so that the very existence of psy-ops culture won't be discovered.

Because covert manipulation is the most effective kind plus national identity (key to military recruiting and social cohesion) includes the myth of a free press and the myth that the social order is natural instead of manufactured and enforced.

The stuff I dig up is buried deep and requires a broad database of understanding which does indeed take up bandwith but I'm trying to compact the discovery process so it doesn't take the 18 hours of reading a day since 9/11 I've been putting in when I can.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sun May 25, 2008 10:13 pm

Eldritch wrote:.....
Unfortunately, because some of these "keyword hijacking" discussions do appear so fanciful (and so frequently), my concern is that some readers may fail to take seriously the very real—and considerable—role being played by the intelligence establishment, using powerful allies in the media, in shaping public opinion specifically and even thinking generally.


I've loaded up the Data Dump forum with background history on propaganda+OSS+CIA perception management.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=16565
Principles of Propaganda in U.S. since 1935

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=9995
OSS (WWII CIA) and Psychological Warfare

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=12295
WWII Hollywood run by the Office of War Information

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=12707
The CIA in Hollywood: 1953 studio mole notes to boss at HQ

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=8590
CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein 10/20/77 Rolling Stone

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=17859
The CIA and Wash. Post - 2001 interview w/Deborah Davis

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=13121
MI5 + CIA in UK media attack Labour Party

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=16335
Timeline Data of US Imperialism-Wars+Covert Ops
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Eldritch » Sun May 25, 2008 10:22 pm

Thank you for that, Hugh. There is indeed an entire "redwood forest" of information pointing to both indirect and direct influence upon the media by American intelligence—and for the purpose of shaping public opinion and managing patterns of thinking among the American people.

Since there is a veritable "redwood forest" of such information, why all the emphasis on a single possible tree ("keyword hijacking"), versus the reams of data that would almost certainly seem more convincing to more people?
Eldritch
 
Posts: 1178
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:02 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sun May 25, 2008 10:47 pm

Eldritch wrote:.....
Since there is a veritable "redwood forest" of such information, why all the emphasis on a single possible tree ("keyword hijacking"), versus the reams of data that would almost certainly seem more convincing to more people?


I've known the easier and more obvious propaganda tactics for years and so have many others.
I still mention Operation Mockingbird constantly.
But many think this is just censoring the news for 'national security.'

People get propaganda.
But they really don't get counterpropaganda OR how much much more widespread is spook media than they think.

So I want to open up new territory by exposing how our culture is covertly shaped also using entertainment which conditions children (and adults) and their language and memories in ways not previously realized and not as easy to understand and provide atleast the basic vocabulary of this covert science-
>counterpropaganda
>keyword hijacking
>meme-reversal
>subliminal framing
>mutual exclusivity phenomenon
>inoculation theory
>interference theory
>elaboration liklihood model

As I type this I'm listening to NPR do a story on oversight (or lack of it) of CIA covert ops followed by an article on a UCBerkeley guy studying the symbols and slogans on military patches including a Roswell one referring to a Twilight Zone episode, "To Serve Man."

As we open up new territory in spook world it gets co-opted and normalized to steal our thunder but make it quieter and now 'old news' while stealing creds for the psy-ops venue.

This is a process that needs more explication than just citing 'Operation Mockingbird.'
Last edited by Hugh Manatee Wins on Mon May 26, 2008 1:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Ziggin' and a Zaggin' » Sun May 25, 2008 11:23 pm

Eldritch wrote:

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.


I am in total agreement with the above statement by Eldritch. It expresses very well what is essentially my position about KWH and the rest of HMW's contributions.

I'm also grateful to Hugh Manatee Wins for the material he has provided on the US Government's involvement with propaganda and information control starting with the OSS during WWII. I've scanned many of those documents. It soon became obvious to me that a lot of effort was expended and many brilliant minds were put to work in the field of propaganda. Much of it wasn't pretty and seemed to resort to the baser elements of human nature (for ex., outright racist stereotypes). But it was war. Total war.

How far would I have gone to do my part in a total war situation? Would I have been considered a traitor for not doing my utmost? Would the intense social pressure to go along/conform overcome any and all moral qualms I may have felt? I hope I would have found the courage to not cross certain bounds. What about after WWII? Would I have deemed the Communist Threat/Red Menace evil enough for me to engage in a total war against it, even though it was not a declared war? Or would I myself have been endoctrinated (brainwashed?) enough so that any personal resistance would have dissolved somehow? I've been fortunate not to have been confronted with such moral dilemmas. Consider this from American Dream's post in the Carl Rogers and the CIA thread:

Finally, perhaps, this story gives us pause to reflect on a concept Rogers helped to popularize and harness for the helping professions—empathy. He taught us that it is easy to judge but a lot harder to truly understand someone from his or her own perspective. The story of Rogers and the CIA gives us an occasion to practice the art of putting ourselves in another’s place and answer the question: If I were in Rogers’s shoes at the time, without the benefit of historical hindsight, what would I have done?


As for keyword hijacking, it remains, in my opinion, a game, played mostly by HMW. At least he seems to be having fun doing it, to the enjoyment of a number of RI members.
User avatar
Ziggin' and a Zaggin'
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:36 am
Location: The Great White North
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brainpanhandler » Mon May 26, 2008 5:10 am

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=befugtgikMg


Almost "no Proof"....

1) What proof do you see?

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:

I wrote:Hugh,

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.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brainpanhandler » Mon May 26, 2008 6:26 am

HMW wrote:Because covert manipulation is the most effective kind plus national identity (key to military recruiting and social cohesion) includes the myth of a free press and the myth that the social order is natural instead of manufactured and enforced.


No one can argue with this. You don't say it but I presume that you mean that covert manipulation is the most effective kind because children cannot defend themselves against it and even well meaning adults cannot counter it's effects, such as they are, if they are unaware of it. Even at that though the statement that "covert manipulation is the most effective kind" is a comparison and says nothing about it's general effectiveness. I am not arguing that a lack of effectiveness suggests nonexistence; just that effectiveness of psyops has to be measured by actions or inactions and behaviours which result in spite of all the other variables which go into making each of us who we are.

In order to defend oneself against psyops, if one does not simply avoid all media with psyops embedded in them, you need to bring into the conscious mind that which is subconscious. I can easily imagine very powerful techniques for keeping psyops subconscious. We are all of us profoundly motivated to keep certain aspects of our experiences and personalities subconscious. Creating shame and guilt in the human organism just for being human is one of the greatest psyops ever perpetrated on man. It is one of the most effective means of manipulation ever devised. We are crippled by it. It is the root of all our neuroses. Hook a psyops onto that matrix of shame and fear and you can keep subconscious what you want to remain subconscious.

Having said that, IanEye is right when he says that by implication you do not give people enough credit. Generally speaking I am appalled by the idiocy of the human species. Americans are ignorant, spoiled and childish. They've been made to be that way with astonishing effectiveness. And yet, somehow, there are plenty of folks who have been heavily exposed to psyops all their lives and are not drooling zombies with a hidden desire to join the army or hate women or dismiss whistleblowers out of hand. If I am committed to being a compassionate human being is there any psyop that can overcome this exercise of my will?

I have watched countless hours of mainstream media in my lifetime. I lived in front of the TV as a kid. Most of my adult life I have watched TV probably an hour a day at least. I have cable tv. I have therefore, presumably, been heavily exposed to psyops. Let's suppose that one of the psyops I have been exposed to all my life in various forms is "that the social order is natural instead of manufactured and enforced." This is reasonable to assume. How come I understood that the social order is manufactured and enforced rather than natural by the time I was old enough to begin thinking for myself in these terms? Believe me, it wasn't my parents doing. There is a rational argument to be made that we are naturally inclined to be acquisitive and competitive and that it is this paleoneurological artifact which the PTB exploits. Even granting that, it is obvious to me that we can override this baser nature and make choices which are governed by our conscience. So too are we able to override psyops. Our own will is a much greater force than you seem to give it credit for.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby justdrew » Mon May 26, 2008 6:58 am

brainpanhandler wrote:How come I understood that the social order is manufactured and enforced rather than natural by the time I was old enough to begin thinking for myself in these terms?


well, one experience that not everyone has or responds to the same...
childhood. school days. the other kids all say YOU broke the thing. you didn't, but teacher believes them, primarily because they spoke first and there's more of them than of you. Once she's decided you did it, nothing will convince her otherwise. ever.

another moment... when you notice that there are people who do not seem to give a rat's ass about following the religion they're happy to profess and preach but not even attempt to practice beyond going through the motions.

also, remember, there's a lot of damn good people working their asses off to get GOOD messages in the info stream as well, so you may have picked up some immunization that enables one to think about thinking early. or you could even blame the Paraclete.

some people seem to believe that 'thinking' is a painful difficult process that they simply DO NOT want to engage in. Others learn to enjoy that 'eureka' endorphin rush and never stop learning and thinking.

I have a saying... "I was raised by a pack of wild televisions"

(Speaking of which, I just got season one of Wonder Woman, watch the two part ep titled, "judgment from space" )
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Postby Eldritch » Mon May 26, 2008 7:57 am

brainpanhandler wrote:
Eldritch wrote: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.


You may be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not criticizing the phenomenon itself for being non-logical or illogical (although, if it exists, it may be), I'm questioning whether the phenomenon actually does exist—at least with the prevalence it is alleged to here.

By it's nature the effect is intended to be subliminal and therefore does not have to be logical in order to work. Or 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.


I would prefer to establish that "keyword hijacking" does, in fact, exist—before entering into too much of a debate about its alleged effects.

That said, many (and perhaps even most) of the instances that are brought up in order to establish its reality have seemed to possess the elusive quality of "seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data"—except for the fact that these data share a similar word, or sometimes even just a phonetic sound.

As such, "keyword hijacking" often seems like an example of something akin to apophenia, the experience of "abnormal meaningfulness."

In other words, as I've been observing the overall "keyword hijacking" discussion on this board, many of the instances cited as evidence for it seem to have a correlation which arises not from the uses of the "keywords" themselves, but from the observer—which is then overlaid onto the alleged example by the observer.

The point to which the discussion sometimes devolves—"You can't perceive this because it works so well"—is a very poor argument. (It is reminiscent of a woman I talked to once who was convinced that burning citronella candles "keeps the aliens away." She cited, as evidence for this, that she hadn't seen "the aliens" in "a long, long time.")

Is keyword hijacking ever real? Or is it merely a form of apophenia, combined with a capacity for self-reinforcing delusion?

I'm not really sure yet. But too many of the instances cited on this board appear to lean more towards the latter conclusion, so far as I'm concerned.
Eldritch
 
Posts: 1178
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:02 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Psyops and Meme Management

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests