Keyword Hijacking

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Joe's got it.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:14 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Memes are ideas that work and get passed on to the next generation of ideas. they work because of the way they resonate with certain aspects of human life, and the work underneath the verbal level. they wrap a need in language.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>"Wrap a need in language."</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> ! Fekkin' brilliant. Keeping that one, mate.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>However i am not sure this process is wholly or even remotely conscious. It could be something spontaneous in media culture as it lurches from one attention grabbing spectacle to another. Not that certain groups wouldn't take advantage of that.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>There is a built in tendency to increase the dose of stimulation as the population becomes a combination of more media-savvy and desensitized to normative levels of sex, violence, and the visual G-forces of motion.<br><br>And this creates a stratified market of divided-and-conquered markets to tap as well, from the older nostalgia oriented-viewers 'remembering when' to the newer cutting edge whipper-snappers multi-tasking and playing first-shooter videos.<br><br>But since the techniques behind button-pushing are the same in overt commerce and covert governance due to the same animal being targeted, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>AND manipulation is most effective in small barely noticed but constant doses more like humidity than hailstones,</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> there is a perfect environment for plausibly deniable embedding of mind viruses in the 'products' we put in our minds.<br><br>The plausible deniability comes from our choosing to put that stuff in our minds and, most damaging to society <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>our children's minds</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, like rats pressing the button for another shot of morphine until we can't react when the Nazis take over and set up torture gulags.<br><br>I despise tobacco because it is perfectly represents the process of commerce and media conspiring to set up a social norm that is chosen once as a child and then becomes a slow-motion addicted suicide that we ourselves pay for so others will suffer the same fate and even self-justifyingly defend this process as 'our choice' and our 'right.'<br><br>The first chairman of the CIA's Psychological Strategy Board was Gordon Gray, the RJ Reynolds tobacco mogul. I suspect this had something to do with the perpetuation of tobacco as a way for Americans to self-medicate while the US government was worried that nuclear anxieties would drive Americans to post-WWI peacenik-ism again. "Here, have a puff. Relax. There. We don't need peace, do we?"<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Bush_Eugenics.html">ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Bush_Eugenics.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/roundtable/SPEciaL.html">www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/rou...EciaL.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The director and architect of the Psychological Strategy Board was Gordon Gray.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> Henry Kissinger was Gray's consultant. Kissinger was also the paid political consultant to Rockefeller family. Gray, Kissinger, and Rockefeller were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Gray served in the administrations of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Gordon Gray was heir to the R. J. Reynolds tobacco fortune and President of the University of North Carolina. Gray was a broadcast and publication media specialist.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I keep coming back to the relationship of the media to the National inSecurity State because people need to know who has written the history they think is real and who shapes their very perceptions about the world around them.<br><br>What most Americans experience is more akin to the movie 'The Truman Show' than anything else. And that is another keyword hijacking of Harry Truman's creation of the CIA.<br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 10/7/06 1:19 am<br></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

jdsg

Postby orz » Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:38 am

Not to mention a '<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>the entire concept</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->-hijacking' of Philip K Dick's 'Time Out of Joint'! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START >: --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/mad.gif ALT=">:"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br><br>What i found interesting about Snakes on a Plane was the complete LACK of anything about 'terrorism'... ie no suspicious arab bad guys, no mention of terrorism at all as far as i remember. Good old fashioned criminal operation instead... i was kind of surprised. <p></p><i></i>
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: jdsg

Postby Dreams End » Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:56 am

Lots of interesting stuff on this thread. None of it is evidence specifically of "keyword hijacking" as Hugh defines it. Hugh is very smart, which is why I get on him. All the OTHER stuff he brings up to support the concept of "keyword hijacking" is where the real action is. It doesn't prove KH, but it's where I think the most fruitful research lies. <br><br>Just look at popular movies and you'll see so many themes that support the power structure. Not all of them, not even most of them, are deliberately planned by the CIA, of course. For example, if you live in a racist culture, your culture will produce racist movies. In general, whatever extent the CIA is doing this stuff, they are doing it to shape the cultural space, and if they are succesful, the themes will be repeated on their own. <br><br>But why concentrate on "Snakes on a Plane" the title and major plot points of which were chosen by the general public on a discussion board (that's the whole gimick of the movie...that they asked the potential audience to name it and come up with plot points) when you have decades of Clancy and Rambo and Bond etc etc etc.<br><br>It is the level of micromanagement that everyone here is disagreeing with. I'd be willing to be that there are a number of movies which are, in fact, almost wholesale creations of spooky types. I can't prove that, but it wouldn't surprise me. <br><br>Here's the biggest problem with Hugh's theory in terms of hijacking of search terms on Google. Let's take Mockinbird. Unless you ALREADY KNOW about Project Mockinbird, you would not be using that search term looking for CIA information. If you were looking for CIA information relating to the media but didn't know the term, you'd look up "CIA and media." But if you DID already know the term, you'd simply refine your search further or simply avoid the sites relating to the book that has been out for nearly half a century. <br><br>There's simply no reason to hijack those terms. those who know the terms will know how to search correctly (still PLENTY of hits) and those who do not would not use those terms. Once they'd found a reference to Mockingbird via searching on CIA and the media, then they, too, could realize "oh, that's also a book, so I'll revise my search and do 'CIA mockingbird". <br><br>This type of hijacking, then, would serve no purpose whatsoever.<br><br>But those of you supporting Hugh here, please don't be mistaken...it's that particular term and his lack of evidence about it that we are criticizing. To support his view he brings up all kinds of things about Google, and the (excellent) essay by Daniel Brandt, etc. Those are all really good topics to explore...and important. google is becoming some sort of monstrosity and is worth a thread on its own. DARPA wanting search terms, ditto. And Hugh one time posted (now in data dump, I hope) a series of papers by Bill Donovan about propaganda that should actually be required reading for all on RI. <br><br>So I want Hugh to sharpen his focus. This mistaking correspondence for causality (Event A precedes event B, therefore A causes B)...it leads Hugh to spend a lot of time barking up the wrong tree...or a tree that's not even there at all.<br><br>Unlike rdr and professor pan, I do believe that the intel and military communities really are mucking about in popular media. Sometimes you can even prove it. Books have even been written on it. However, it's not about Hijacking words, it's about developing themes in hopes of making part of our shared worldview in the US. The best examples, of course, are from the Cold War era. They were so blatant that now people watch them for their kitsch value, i.e rocky 4, Red Dawn Rising, etc. I don't know which if any of those were pushed by the Pentagon, though it is beyond dispute that any film getting military to provide hardware will be pushed to provide the right message or its no deal.<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: jdsg

Postby robertdreed » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:42 pm

HTML Comments are not allowed <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/7/06 10:54 am<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

back-browse cut and paste ezboard bypass...

Postby robertdreed » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:54 pm

HTML Comments are not allowed <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: back-browse cut and paste ezboard bypass...

Postby robertdreed » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:56 pm

"Unlike rdr and professor pan, I do believe that the intel and military communities really are mucking about in popular media."<br><br>Mucking about in the news media, yes. And when it comes to the news media, the "mucking about" often isn't subtle, as far as I'm concerned. It's blatant. Today's edition of the reknowned "liberal" paper, the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Washington Post</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, carries an "op-ed" column on the "progress in Afghanistan", by none other than Donald Rumsfeld. Who needs to hunt for symbolic arcana to prove government manipulation, when a flagship of the "liberal opposition"news media regularly loans out its pages to run government propaganda screeds? <br><br>Meanwhile, more subtly- Bush and Rumsfeld are the cover boys for this weeks edition if <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Newsweek</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, as Bob Woodward explains how the duo "decieved the American people- and themselves" about the Iraq war. That ignores the fact that neither of those men are playing the role of tragic figures, unable to cope with the consequences of their acts. To the contrary, they're absolutely steadfast in their insistence that they're telling the truth, and continue to express complete confidence in their strategy. So why the insistence on framing their actions as "self-deception"? Moreover, why the use of the past tense- "deceived"? That implies that they've since seen the error of their ways, that they're remorseful and seeking to correct their errors. Since when?<br><br>Note that even such mildly parsed equivocation is regularly framed as near-treasonous partisanship by the spokespeople supporting the Bush regime. <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>When the Bush supporters hurl that level of invective at "opposition" outlets like the Washington Post, they're implicitly seeking to delegitimize any criticism more pointed- as even more biased, partisan, and ideologically motivated.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> And as long as no one calls them on it- certainly no one at the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Post</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> does, they're too busy stuttering, bowing and scraping, at most gumming with toothless jaws- the level of debate stays in an arena where the Bush people can feel comfortable. <br><br>But in the popular entertainment media, there isn't nearly as much mucking around as there used to be- although that trend could be reversing. The fact is that some scriptwriters happen to have right-wing, jingoist, or racist perspectives. More often, they're simply exploiters of violence and trendy villain stereotyping. Do you think that there's something to be done about it, as a matter of public policy? <br><br>"This mistaking correspondence for causality (Event A precedes event B, therefore A causes B)...it leads Hugh to spend a lot of time barking up the wrong tree...or a tree that's not even there at all."<br><br>Yeah, that's my major gripe, too. Along with the fact that HMW's hunt for reactionary thematic content and symbolism is seriously undone by the fact that right-wingers like Michael Medved have done the exact same thing, from an opposite perspective- seeking out and finding thematic content and symbolism that they find objectionable, and plugging it into a wider theory alleging that Hollywood filmmakers have anti-American, anti-family, pro-social deviance agendas. <br><br>The real problem with the negativity in the popular media is more systematic...for instance, think of all of the present-day TV crime show episodes, film plots, and "gangster rap" music videos that would never have been made without the pre-existence of the conditions enabled by Drug War Prohibition. There would simply have been no analogous context of real-life circumstances for those products to draw on.<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/7/06 11:05 am<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re:Dreams End's comment on intersting stuff

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:37 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>But why concentrate on "Snakes on a Plane" the title and major plot points of which were chosen by the general public on a discussion board (that's the whole gimick of the movie...that they asked the potential audience to name it and come up with plot points) when you have decades of Clancy and Rambo and Bond etc etc etc.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I heard Samuel Jackson say in an interview that 'Snakes on a Plane' was a working title during production and they kept it. No wonder.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Titles are triggers for the vast majority who don't go see the movie.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>So there are multiple levels of programming from just seeing the title and poster/book cover to swallowing the whole experience.<br><br>This is why there is an 'above the fold' headline in newspapers so that even the passersby who don't stop and buy the paper get a message from the newsbox which acts like a billboard or a book cover. Again, a hierarchy of experiences each designed to trigger the subconscious which has already been predisposed to see it as intended by the source.<br><br>This black science/art is a work in progress as media changes and the public's savvy and language change.That's what is intesting about looking at 100 years of perception management and seeing how it evolved to both respond to and create events, the very manufacturing of 20th century 'history.'<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>when you have decades of Clancy and Rambo and Bond etc etc etc.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Exactly. It is an ongoing adaptive process. See above.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Here's the biggest problem with Hugh's theory in terms of hijacking of search terms on Google. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>This isn't just about internet search term hijacking although that is definitely affected by generating pop product linked to by pop websites.<br><br>Children are the most important people to innoculate against the dark truths of US history. And the GOP-Fox TV-watching base of military recruitables.<br><br>That means video stores and public schools. And that's what the Johnson Group/Peter Schroeder product targeted with their version of Project Paperclip.<br><br>But not everyone should be steered towards these keywords lest exposure be increased instead of decreased. Recall that when David Horowitz put out his horrid book about "100 Professors Who Harm America" or something like that to demonize and chill academia, he very interestingly left out the professor running Project Censored. Why? Because that would be too much exposure of the very things being censored and thus a diminishing return on the agit prop.<br><br>(As the CIA's Dan Mitrione said about teaching torture, ""The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect.")<br><br>I have to work in the worldwide world today so more later but I finally found a link to <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>the entire original 1977 article about Operation Mockingbird by Carl Bernstein.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> Copy it and distribute to those who don't even know this-<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/cia_press.html">tmh.floonet.net/articles/cia_press.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 10/7/06 12:41 pm<br></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Re:Dreams End's comment on intersting stuff

Postby Mentalgongfu » Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:20 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>This is why there is an 'above the fold' headline in newspapers so that even the passersby who don't stop and buy the paper get a message from the newsbox which acts like a billboard or a book cover<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I believe the above-the-fold headline in newspapers is more likely designed to attract attention in the hopes of selling a paper, but perhaps I am being too rational. <br><br>That doesn't mean the headline doesn't deliver a message - it obviously does - but I don't think headlines were invented for the express purpose of delivering a "trigger." <p></p><i></i>
Mentalgongfu
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Re:Dreams End's comment on intersting stuff

Postby Dreams End » Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:20 pm

I think "Snakes on a Plane" was a working title that was more or less tongue in cheek. The fans voted to have it stay. So I'd say this would not be a good example of your thesis, as it was a large group who made the decision.<br><br>Now you say that your theories aren't all about keyword hijacking in relation to internet searches. Fine. So I'll revise my criticism to say that the problem with your theory on keyword hijacking in relation to the the internet is...and insert rest of argument. No one goes searching for CIA and Mockingbird if they don't already know about it.<br><br>Meanwhile, I have no idea what message I am supposed to get from "snakes on a plane", except "don't go see this movie". However, you are once again making assertions about the purpose of such triggers, which assumes a specific person is making that decision to achieve that purpose...<br><br>So how do you know? Who, specifically, made that choice? What's your evidence that it is for the purposes you claim, which are not at all clear to me? None. You see a title, get some sort of message from it and then tell everyone that the message you receive is an intentional one, created for the very reasons you state...and never provide a bit of proof. <br><br>It's frustrating because it has so thoroughly sidetracked you that the best stuff you uncover takes second place. I know for a fact that Google manipulation takes place, because I know a guy who does it. You pay him some amount of money and he will see to it that your website is the number one hit on whatever search terms you want. This is far more effective than "keyword" hijacking. I don't know all his techniques...they change as the internet changes. He tells me there are books on how to do this but they are always at least 6 months behind.<br><br>He probably uses some form of the ACTUAL keyword hijacking, and who knows what else. Or, take the fact that some people, just for fun, have manipulated google ("google bombing") so that certain terms point to Bush or Clinton. I can't remember the phrases, but you've all seen the forwarded emails that say "oh this is funny, search for...."<br><br>So all this stuff goes on but your version is overly simplistic and really doesn't even make much sense. <br><br>A more interesting study would be to grab a few hot-button issues and do the searches and see what pops up. When it seems one sided in an improbable way then you'd learn more about search engines than I claim to know, and figure out how it's getting manipulated. This really does happen all the time...it's just not the thing you call "keyword hijacking". In other words, it's not done by using a term that's in use for something you want to keep secret, it's done by a variety of methods which uses an understanding of Google's various algorithms for determing relative position for items returned on a search to get your page to the top. Wiki entries, for example, are almost always at the top. I don't know if that's manipulation or simply the fact that lots of people use wiki.<br><br>By the way, does anyone have a link to the lakoff/colbert thing? I'd love to watch it if it's online.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

...

Postby robertdreed » Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:55 pm

If you can't find it, it will be around on a repeat before too long, DE.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

semantics and tactics

Postby robertdreed » Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:34 pm

One of the most effective manipulations of language by the American Right Wing is, quite simply, their emphasis on the terms "Right" and "Left" as a bifurcation, by which they define themselves and their opposition. <br><br>The result of falling into this semantic trap is to divert a debate over facts, ethics, into a debate over ideology and partisan oppositions. More specifically, Bush supporters on the wrong end of a factual debate will switch the subject matter in a minute in order to, for instance, make smug allusions to "San Francisco Democrats", and the like. Even more importantly, they have no qualms about characterizing all dissent against the Bush agenda as "Left" inspired, even though that's manifestly untrue. <br><br>My suggestion as to the best way to counter this tactic: I think that should people drop all references to ideological identification when discussing political questions. When questioned on ideology or pre-emptively labelled- typically, the label is hurled as an accusation-, one should simply refer to themselves as a "political independent." And then clobber the opposition by accusing them of attempting to divert the subject away from the topic to ideology and partisan politics- which is exactly what they're doing. And then return, D.A. style, to the matters of fact and the germane questions surrounding the specific events being discussed. Bust down on anyone trying to tag you with an ideological label, the first time they try. <br><br>This is easy for me, personally, because I actually <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>do</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> strive to think as a political independent, minimizing any ideological biases that I have. That's an insight I got from Robert Anton Wilson, incidentally- to consider politics phenomenologically, rather than ideologically. <br><br>I'm not a "proud Libertarian", a "proud Leftist", a "proud Liberal", a "proud Conservative", or any of those other things. In my view, politics is no place to put one's ego identifications. I'm trying to keep an independent mind on the spectrum of political issues and questions, and neither proud or ashamed of it. I do it because I've found that it's the only way that considering political questions makes sense to me. After I began practicing the phenomenological approach to politics, all sorts of things that had formerly frustrated me became clear. <br><br>I realize that there are a lot of people who don't feel the same way. They prefer to have a stake in personally identifying themselves with a particular ideology or political alignment. If you feel that way, I'm not here to stop you. But that doesn't mean that you can't attempt to use my suggestion, as a tactic of political dispute. I recommend it to everyone, in fact, not just those of Left allegiances. It has a way of dismantling a very common sort of logically fallacious misdirection at the outset. And consequently, you'll often find out how bewildered your adversaries are, once they can't resort to labelling you ideologically. Very often, that's all they got...on the facts, they're ass-out.<br><br>The fact is that the Right Wing has been defining the terms of ideological debate in this country for so long that they're often uncritically accepted by the majority of a given debate audience. And that being the case, an ideological debate only serves the Limbaughites, O'Reillys and Hennitys of this country. Because once the debate swings to ideology, no single exchange is going to be able to take apart the Straw Man they've built up over the years. <br><br>But if you simply decline the ideology gambit, insist on your independence, and get back on-topics, you'll often be able to make abundantly clear to your debate audience who has command of the facts, and who's faking their way through the test. <br><br>And, who knows, eventually you maight even find that, like myself, you prefer a stance of political independence over allegiance to ideology, yourself. <br><br>Phenomenology is the art of seeing exactly what's in front of one's face. That's what's desparately needed in politics these days. <br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/7/06 3:40 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: semantics and tactics

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:54 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>you'll often find out how bewildered your adversaries are, once they can't resort to labelling you ideologically. Very often, that's all they got...on the facts, they're ass-out.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I agree with all you wrote in this post, RR.<br>Accepting a falsely framed question is a recipe for "a failure to communicate," to quote from the sheriff in 'Cool Hand Luke.'<br><br>When suffering a criminal government and culture, make the case against them like a police detective- "Means-motive-opportunity-precedent-evidence."<br><br>Illustrate the skeleton of power behind the curtains of partisanship by focusing on military-intelligence history, the most cloaked and thus misunderstood element of our culture. And it pulls the strings of the puppets we see on the public stage.<br><br>The challenges I face when addressing this in a discussion board are<br>1) the crimes have such a long history, <br>2) the criminals have become so widespread and institutionalized, 3) their techniques have become extremely sophisticated by synthesizing numbers 1 and 2 above.<br><br>This makes it hard to sum up to the RI Reader Jury with "proof" and not everyone even can integrate the elements intellectually/emotionally anyway. Skepticism and cynicism are as much obstacles to perception as gullibility and naivete.<br><br>So for the sake of efficacy in outing a cryptocracy I do some data dumps and also make some bald assertions of what I see to point at a specific path through the event minefield in order that others can prioritize which steps to take in reaching their own conclusions. <br><br>Certainty about anything is not for everyone but one can get used to it given some encouragement.<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 10/8/06 12:59 pm<br></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mentalgongfu's comment

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:58 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I believe the above-the-fold headline in newspapers is more likely <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>designed to attract attention in the hopes of selling</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> a paper, but perhaps I am being too rational.<br><br>That doesn't mean the headline doesn't deliver a message - it obviously does - <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>but I don't think headlines were invented for the express purpose of delivering a "trigger."</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>You contradicted yourself here. That's what I see confusing some in this discussion. Triggering is what all commerce does, it isn't only some sneaky MK-ULTRA 007-ish plot by guys who look like <br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :hat --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>I hate to get all egg-heady about this with another Grand Historical Summary but it might clarify some of the micro vs macro confusion here because <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>'keyword hijacking' is the tip-of-the-iceberg of our entire culture being hijacked for 60 years right down to our language as Robert Reed layed out in his post above because language is a handle on our brains. That's what gives linguistic pioneer Noam Chomsky and cognitive scientist George Lakoff their political chops.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br><br>The motivations and mechanisms of perception management are identical for overt commerce and covert governance - to get you to DO something TPTB want you to do by appealing to your psychological disposition.<br><br>Most propaganda is effective by <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>being subtle yet pervasive so that it is not even analyzed</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> so it gets into our subconscious and thus we become predisposed to see the word as TPTB intend us to. <br><br>By "we" I don't mean those who read critically and know about this subject. Manipulation is for those who are manipulatable. And that can make some of the more perceptive people consider the things I point at as trivial and inconsequential. It isn't to children and even many adults. Military recruiters are still signing up kids to 'defend our freedom.'<br><br>One of the principles of social engineering is that you don't lead the horse to water, you spike what he is already drinking. And this is how commerce and spooky triggers are meshed together into poison pie.<br><br>There is a symbiotic relationship between <br>>marketing PR-types who want to sell you stuff using mundane, seemingly transparent, seemingly trivial, and daily media images that comprise the visual wallpaper of the American Experience AND<br>>Pentagon/State Department/CIA behavioral engineers who work towards over-arching strategic goals of creating an American Public behaving in desirable and predictable ways as worker drones, consumers, and cannon fodder.<br><br>This symbiotic relationship was previously incidental and merely based on the dynamics of class relationships (elites rubbing shoulders with elites) until WWII when the goal of mobilizing an adamantly isolationist public into a focused warrior culture was seen as critical to saving the world from Nazis.<br><br>The success of Hitler in mobilizing his culture into that threat created a mirror effort in the US to manipulate with mass psychology and led to the Office of War Information actually writing Hollywood scripts. Look at 'Forrest Gump' and ask yourself if that is still going on. Lucky Tom Hanks. He was recently inducted into the Army Rangers Hall of Fame. Watch Hanks in Steven Spielberg's 2004 comedy about being stuck in an airport called 'The Terminal' which came out when Big Brother passenger screening and "extraordinary rendition" torture flights were in the news and ask yourself if that is still going on. Of course, it is.<br><br>After Hitler was beaten and his science and intelligence assets were made a part of CIA and NASA, this new Nazi-like Total Warfare doctrine was deployed as a very deliberate effort towards researching mass psychology and maximizing the influence of all possible cultural elements in American society.<br><br>It was given massive financial support with every possible institution infiltrated by the CIA and its social allies to be warped towards the goal of keeping the war engine running in idle and easily revved up on short notice.<br><br>And thus WWII never stopped but was just given a new name, the Cold War with Nazi doctrines and actual Nazis made into assets instead of enemies.<br><br>And that's what made it possible and desirable to intertwine selling and social engineering so you CAN'T tell them apart and they reinforce each other. <br><br>As the MK-ULTRA project run under the cover of The Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology confirmed, humans are strongly influenced by their environment and perceived social norms deduced from the authority of the narratives they experience, especially as children. Examples: Hunting stories around the tribal campfire, bible stories, fairy tales, parables, Aesop's fables, etc.<br><br>Now those narratives are displaced with public schools nationalist/militarist indoctrination with our "bombs bursting in air" national anthem reinforced with flag-worship (symbol and color conditioning constantly re-triggered) plus whitewashed limited hangout history (if any at all) PLUS reinforcing mind control media developed with the assisstance of the 'cream-of-the-crop Best and Brightest Ivy League behavioral scientists.<br><br>From 'The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, by Victor Marchetti and John marks, p.162 of the chapter called Propaganda and Disinformation-<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"Working on the Covert Action staff are sociologists, psychologists, historians, and media specialists--all skilled at selecting "reachable" targets, such as the youth or intellectuals of a particular country, and at getting a message through to them. In planning and carrying out its activities, the branch often works closely with other agency officers in the area divisions."<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>And that was written in 1973. Lots of research, infiltration, and centralization has happened since then with a major increase in efforts after the social unrest of the Vietnam-Watergate-Church committee era. Each war increases the efforts to control with media.<br><br>TV and movies are a form of image conditioning and most of what we see in media has an effect on our mirror neurons to induce a tendency towards imitation and, at the very least, acceptance of media-presented norms.<br><br>That's what makes scientific fascism work.<br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>'Our things own us, not the other way around.'</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 10/9/06 12:47 am<br></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Re:Dreams End's comment on intersting stuff

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:28 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It's frustrating because <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>it has so thoroughly sidetracked you </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->that the best stuff you uncover takes second place. I know for a fact that Google manipulation takes place, because I know a guy who does it. You pay him some amount of money and he will see to it that your website is the number one hit on whatever search terms you want. This is far more effective than "keyword" hijacking.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'm interested in exposing how the people NOT using the internet are kept in the dark. Because that is the critical goal of the disinformation industry, to keep the still-recruitables from finding out how they are being played and have been played for decades and guarantee a supply of fodder for the big PNAC push to take the planet and while global warming is shuffling the resource cards wildly at the same time.<br><br>Keeping the Know Somethings from influencing the Know Nothings is an ongoing campaign that I'm watching with the CIA doing little feints and diversions to block their view of the game here and there when the ball goes by them. <br><br>This is what the media mind managers have to do now that so many who do use the internet have so much more knowledge about the history of power and its bloody methods, even to the point of knowing the names of the war gaming excercises that enabled the 9/11 false-flag psy-ops.<br>(Watch this 90 minute lecture by Webster Tarpley from 4/1/06 and you'll know more than most of the compartmentalized NORAD screen jockeys doing those wargames.)-<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://dragonsjaw.blogspot.com/2006/10/911-truth-webster-tarpley-speaks-in.html">dragonsjaw.blogspot.com/2...ks-in.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>So what media do the non-Googling Americans consume and how does it keep them from learning what we know? They eat TV, movies, some newspapers, books from Borders and books seen on Oprah, etc.<br><br>And that's where the hostile activity is. Media mind managers are like great white sharks who feed opportunistically where the seals play. Or like date-rapists, they spike what their targets are drinking in order to have their way with them.<br><br>That's what I'm interested in, DE. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Because we need those people to know what we know to stop this media-lubricated path to destruction and a world described in Orwell's '1984.'</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 10/9/06 12:57 am<br></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Re:Dreams End's comment on intersting stuff

Postby dugoboy » Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:44 pm

bump. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :D --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p>___________________________________________<br><br>"Fascism finds root best in unreality." - Me<br><br>"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act" -George Orwell<br><br>"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always." -Mahatma Gandhi</p><i></i>
dugoboy
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Psyops and Meme Management

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests