http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?p=193479#193479
[/quote]JackRiddler wrote:[quote=HughManateeWins"]keywords, themes, timing
Except where you lose me is in the relative emphasis. You're stuck on one technique to the point where you, ahem, seemingly obsess in seeing it where it often isn't, and it tends to distort your big picture or lead you off on weird tangents.
Says you.
But seriously...I'm much better at identifying psyops then explaining it.
There are good reasons why I use the relative emphasis you note.
When I first discovered keyword hijacking in 2/05 I did point at a few clunkers while I figured out how this new discovery was used and it is used regularly, even daily.
Sometimes this trick is exploited opportunistically and awkwardly when events pop up (typically in rapid change newspaper/website editing) and sometimes it is perfectly planned from scratch and executed (magazines, tv, and movies).
I found out that some keyword hijackings are not very good at all, just a decoy for the sake of it but intentional nonetheless. Propaganda careerism is like any other, I'm sure. Must produce for the paycheck and promotion.
Some are stellar, really elegant Taj Mahals of veiled semantics and subtext.
George Lucas' use of military acronyms in 'Star Wars', for instance. I got another just yesterday.
Then I had to figure out how to tell how the trick worked.
And showing that it was a common and frequently used device meant pointing when the birdie flew no matter whether a hummingbird or a...condor.
So you might see the condors but not the hummingbirds and call this me seeing it "where it often isn't" and "weird tangents."
JackRiddler wrote:Try this order:
Themes, timing, keywords.
To EXPLAIN in themes first, not keywords. Yes, I think that does help.
There's a reason I emphasize keywords first in my analysis-
See 'Zipf's Law.'
Keywords are the atoms that build the semantic molecules of themes.
Keywords are the highest-value face cards in the vocabulary deck.
Keywords are what the brain uses to sort out semantic input because we think with language.
And this is the human brain before the computer.
Now this is probably one of the traits where the human brain and computer-internet systems are most alike, as keyword economies.
And that is the MASTER KEY that I'm trying to share, not just the specific movie doors I've opened.
When I sometimes don't know what a psyops movie's sub-theme is, I'm able to find it by reverse-engineering keywords (usually names) matched to timing (dates of production>distribution)...and thus find the theme at play in the news cycle.
So keywords are the light I use to shine into the psyops dark to find the hidden subliminal structure of themes which may not be overt.
I understand why you would choose your "emphasis" differently in revealing what I've found, yes, but in my practice, the keyword is really how I identify themes and thus find the rest of the buried treasure.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
on edit: 5/29/09 expaning this with a response to brainpanhandler from this thread about another CIA-Disney decoy movie-
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... highlight=
brainpanhandler wrote:Hugh,
You have said on numerous occasions that you post but a few of the examples of psyops in msm you've discovered. I'm curious
-what criteria you use to determine which ones you will post
.....
-RI is pretty much [b]the only place readily accessible that you post your psyops examples. Is that true? If so, why?[/b]
Since February 2005 I've been researching the history and cognitive nuts'n'bolts of psyops to figure out this esoteric field while at the same time observing today's media to see what it looks like around me.
I was learning and sharing as I went through uncharted territory.
So I used to point at more stuff, more subtle and harder to explain, during my learning curve years. Some were doubtful as examples but even some of their significance was redeemed as I learned more about their context, multiple psyops strategies, and the erratic quality of psyops which has developed under its own collective learning curve muddled by beaurocracy, secrecy, and efforts to meet events with a committee-made product.
Psyops and strategic culture require a huge database to understand well enough to recognize on the hoof and also requires a whole other expertise to expose and explain coherently, yet another learning curve to climb.
Having started my in depth research at RI and posting some database, I figured that the much-more-informed-than-average RI readership would be able to understand psyops and even be interested.
This was back when Jeff was participating, DreamsEnd was here, and the board was much more focused on CIA mind control history.
Now I'm scorned for going into this topic indepth, even by Jeff.
So five reasons for what I did/do:
1) Time.
It takes too much time to assemble and format an explanatory post and then defend/discuss it. My efforts are better spent elsewhere.
2) Jeff.
Jeff has written a posting rule to cap my efforts and is hostile to the subject of psyops himself. That means even more time spent transferring material out of a thread to start a new one per his HMW-rule and my efforts are better spent elsewhere. This is an example of deterrence friction. KH gets admin. friction but woo gets none and is even defended from debunking by admin. since, allegedly, my posts chase off UFO people.
I have no doubt that a few have complained about being victimized by the horrors of a contradicting viewpoint but...I can take a hint.
So Jeff wins on his own board, not HMW or others interested in psyops.
3) Confirming counterpropaganda.
Spooks have recently put more haystack around their social engineering history and are now trying to protect Spielberg, Lucas, and Disney.
They have thus indicated what they consider worth hiding and that they feel pressure in their testicular area. *Squeeze* oops - figuratively, of course. Not the way CIA torturers do it for democracy.
4) I also have learned not to show all my cards to the haystackers.
Let them worry about how much of their dirty laundry will hit the streets.
I've been bird-dogging for them and they've done some of the same for me. See #3.
5) I probably shouldn't have posted about fascist social control science on a board where I don't control that information's context, a whole bunch of woo. But I only learned that lesson after I'd gotten into psyops deep and invested time sharing my findings due to expecting a favorable response instead of skepticism and outright troll attacks. Damn, learning curves can be boomerangs, too.
I hate to see this board dilute its anti-fascist potential with woo and porn.
The spooks are thrilled to see the front page with thread titles about Roswell and UFOs while the same spooks at the Randi board are sneering at 9/11 truthers and other 'conspiracy theorists.'
Proximity contamination is one of their best friends online. And I've foolishly played into their discrediting agenda, a mistake I can only now regret.
This is Jeff's board and I was just a guest passing through in 2005 and learning to dig deeper...I have to take my findings elsewhere.
However, I will lately throw in an occasional opportunistic 'teachable moment' post like the one about General Electric's gay-themed agit-prop (Brokeback Mountain, Milk) or an easy one like 'Newt' just in case anyone cares about psyops aimed at children and I know many do even though they don't post on it themselves.
