edit: CIA+bribe trial+Clark/Perle+ Oil = BORAT!

[professorpan]

Anyway, your nonsensical Zappa spew is a waste of time to read and a slander to a great man who fought fascism all his life. Why bother?

Wow, I didn't know manatees had such thick skulls

I was making a point, Hugh -- that with creative analysis (i.e. confirmation bias coupled with a creative mind such as yours), a narrative can be constructed with ease to depict almost anything. In this case, I was being cheeky -- I admire Zappa. But it's a simple task to turn the tables and cherry-pick data to make him a villain.

In fact, while doing it, I nearly convinced myself that he could be a villain!

But don't dismiss it so readily. All of the facts I presented -- from his father's employment at Edgewood to his dislike of labor unions, to Vaclav Havel's membership in the Committee on the Present Danger -- are all well-documented.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I was making a point, Hugh -- that with creative analysis (i.e. confirmation bias coupled with a creative mind such as yours), a narrative can be constructed with ease to depict almost anything. In this case, I was being cheeky -- I admire Zappa. But it's a simple task to turn the tables and cherry-pick data to make him a villain.

I fully understood your intended point, PP.
Too much negative energy was put in to it was my point.
And I take what is written at RI as too important to load up with intentional lies/satire since some will read it and not know this. Hence my admonition against defaming Zappa to 'make a point.'

Now, PP, it's a bit grating that you've been trying to frame me as "cherry-picking data" with combined "creativity and confirmation bias" for quite a while. Disagreements are inevitable and good for rigorous peer review and all but your dogging me on media manipulation has gotten...kinda weird.

I mean, calling knowing things through research and discovery "confirmation bias" is rather Orwellian. As Ronald Reagan accidentally (?) said, "Facts are dangerous things."


Well, there are such things as facts. Not all is merely in the eye of the beholder.
In fact, discrediting science and evidence by amplifying uncertainty and mystery is an effective infowar tactic.

Seems to me you've been vehemently mirroring me by minimizing the history of psychology-based manipulation of media by
ignoring cited military history,
ignoring cited behavioral science,
ignoring cited neurobiology,
ignoring cited institutions,
ignored rational hypotheses arrived at using 'means-motive-opportunity-precedent, ignored multiple examples with links and excerpts to back up said hypotheses, ignored...
....pretty much everything I've brought to RI on the topic of spooks and media.

And you repeatedly conclude "coincidence, means nothing, you're just paranoid and hampered with confirmation bias."

Or say "why give them power?"
Or say "that stuff has no effect."
Or say "maybe a little but not much."
Or say "get some fresh air."
Or say "why not focus on something we can do something about?"

Now, PP. Who is really "cherry-picking data?"

Care to talk about Kazakhstan and the 'mainstream' media? Or me?
I hardly need ask.
You know, "confirmation bias."

[professorpan]

Now, PP, it's a bit grating that you've been trying to frame me as "cherry-picking data" with combined "creativity and confirmation bias" for quite a while. Disagreements are inevitable and good for rigorous peer review and all but your dogging me on media manipulation has gotten...kinda weird.

I'm not framing you. I'm not dogging you. I'm just answering your theories with information which points out the errors and flaws. This is, after all, a discussion forum. If you want to air your ideas without criticism, start a blog and don't allow comments.

Otherwise, expect me to challenge your pronouncements -- because I think 90% of the time you are totally and completely wrong.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

...my hay fever acting up.

You heard it here on RI first, by way of HMW...satirical 'black humor' is nothing more or less than a psyop, a brainchild of the Masters Of War.

Humor can be used to dispel concern, not just invoke it. This is a psychological subtlety not lost on the 'Masters of War' who have done far more research than any of the (non-government) readers here at RI.

See Christopher Simpson's 1994 book 'Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare 1945-1960.'
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/94BRgl2.html

The MoW know there's a difference between cathartic palliative and inciting activism in the same way that Big Tobacco knows how to make anti-smoking ads that achieve the opposite effect. Decades of research will provide this knowledge and has.

Is that clearer?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Otherwise, expect me to challenge your pronouncements -- because I think 90% of the time you are totally and completely wrong.

OK. Please answer these two questions.

1) What do you think of the cognitive science research on the brain's linguistic 'first come first served' phenomenon called Mutual Exclusivity' which I contend is the motivation for 'keyjacking?'

2) Do you still think it is a coincidence that this oil-war-bribe trial of the dictator of Kazakhstan is preceded by a movie box office hit with 'Kazakhstan' in the title and the protagonist's key identity?

[orz]

I'll answer those too!

1) What do you think of the cognitive science research on the brain's linguistic 'first come first served' phenomenon called Mutual Exclusivity' which I contend is the motivation for 'keyjacking?'

Interesting, but the entire premise of your 'Keyjacking' (wow, abbreviated now... can you make that term any MORE orwellian?) seems to me to RELY on DOUBLE MEANINGS ie things that are NOT mutually exclusive.[/quote]

2) Do you still think it is a coincidence that this oil-war-bribe trial of the dictator of Kazakhstan is preceded by a movie box office hit with 'Kazakhstan' in the title and the protagonist's key identity?

No I don't. A coincidence is when two related things happen at once.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I'll answer those too!

[orz]

Haha sorry, too enthusiastic!

[professorpan]

OK. Please answer these two questions.

1) What do you think of the cognitive science research on the brain's linguistic 'first come first served' phenomenon called Mutual Exclusivity' which I contend is the motivation for 'keyjacking?'

You keep latching on to linguistic phenomena as if they are ironclad rules and humans are robotic mechanisms. I can hold two similar ideas in my head -- that Kazakhstan is a real country, and Borat is an actor who is not from Kazakhstan. Or that the Shaggy D.A. is a Disney movie, while actual D.A.s investigating the JFK and MLK assassinations are not humans who have been magically transformed into dogs.

Have you ever looked at the studies in mutual exclusivity? I doubt it, because they are primarily based upon studies of CHILDREN. Yep, it might be a surprise to you, Hugh, but most adults can hold contradictory data in their heads. At least most adults -- I'm not sure about adult manatees.

2) Do you still think it is a coincidence that this oil-war-bribe trial of the dictator of Kazakhstan is preceded by a movie box office hit with 'Kazakhstan' in the title and the protagonist's key identity?

Kazakhstan, the CIA ties to the country, and the corporate machinations for its oil were in the news long before the Borat phenomenon exploded. But because you are so focused on your narrow theory, Kazakhstan might as well never have existed before you connected Borat to it. But those of us who follow politics have known about the goings-on (including the Giffen trial, which as been in the news since 2004) for some time.

And here's an example of the fatal flaw in your theory that I continue to point out:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?S ... 0535-4602r

Kazakhstan may have the last laugh over "Borat" as interest in visiting the country has increased substantially since the film's release, a report says.

While the popular film has garnered its fair share of criticism for its unflattering portrayal of Kazakhstan, the Eurasian nation's embassy and international travel agents have begun reporting increased interest in tourist activity, The Sunday Times of London reported.

A small portion of Kazakhstan is in easternmost Europe; the rest is in Asia.

To date, Travel.com has reported a 300 percent increase in online searches about the country, while the Kazakhstan Embassy in Washington has received an average of 100 calls a week since the film's Nov. 3 release.

But those officials say they spend much of their time clarifying the truth about the country from the negative image shown in "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan."

"The only fact of the movie is the geographic location of Kazakhstan," said Roman Vassilenk, an official at the Kazakhstan Embassy.

"I have had to tell many Americans that drinking horse urine is not popular in our country," Vassilenk added.

So how about that, Hugh? Borat has not drawn attention away from Kazakhstan -- rather, his film has drawn people to learn more about the country. And since the film came out, people who care about geopolitics are more likely to pay attention to a mention of Kazakhstan -- thanks to Borat's hijacking.

But those ubiquitous, nearly-omnipotent spooks at were probably behind that piece of UPI disinfo, too, right?

[orz]

and Borat is an actor who is not from Kazakhstan.

Totally... indeed this is THE WHOLE JOKE, that he's NOT from Kazakhstan, but fools people into believing he is, and that totally outlandish things happen there.

[robert d reed]

I've made all the points I need to make in this discussion. To say more would be repetitious.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Have you ever looked at the studies in mutual exclusivity? I doubt it, because they are primarily based upon studies of CHILDREN. Yep, it might be a surprise to you, Hugh, but most adults can hold contradictory data in their heads. At least most adults -- I'm not sure about adult manatees.

To qoute one of those children....DUH.

Remember? I'm the one who's been posting about indoctrinating children and innoculating them against 'bad news' and I'm the one who's been posting about Mutual Exclusivity. Of course I've read the studies so don't play the patronizing know-it-all 'professor' with me. (sheesh- I post $10 bucks worth of info and you throw back a wooden nickel in my face as if it's a hand-out. Repeatedly.)

That's quite a bald yet meaningless statement you made after scolding me for actually citing cognitive development studies-
"...most adults can hold contradictory data in their heads."

Um, what the heck does that mean? Is it a good thing? A true thing? Anything?

Anyway, studies on bilinguilism and cognitive development are finding that the mutual exclusivity effect of the brain latching on to the first definition of a word kids are exposed to is about a 50% pre-emptive bias. Pretty good for disinformation.
Many of these studies are about young children because they are the ones learning the most words.

But this is studying the brain and has ramifications for adults, too.
Language is probably the single most characteristic expression of the human brain because we actually think with the vocabulary of meanings we know.

Hence the value of filling a child's head with state-sanctioned definitions which they then use to filter perceptions of the world.

Children are both the easiest and most important to pre-dispose towards loving their flawless virtuous leaders, right? Socialization during childhood is how nationalism and all the -isms of fascist tendencies are embedded.

Kazakhstan, the CIA ties to the country, and the corporate machinations for its oil were in the news long before the Borat phenomenon exploded. But because you are so focused on your narrow theory, Kazakhstan might as well never have existed before you connected Borat to it. But those of us who follow politics have known about the goings-on (including the Giffen trial, which as been in the news since 2004) for some time.

Not the dictator visiting Bush, Blair, and the Queen the last few months.
Not with the trial coming up soon in January, 2007.
Not with the ex-CEO of BAE just signing on with Kazakhstan.

This is higher visibity of a very negative nature during the US-Anglo 'war to spread democracy.
Guess you didn't consider that having this a-brewing for a bit allows a psy-ops campaign to be rolled out for this year. Stuff takes time, happens on schedules, is planned for.

And here's an example of the fatal flaw in your theory that I continue to point out:

The article you link to below need not be true at all, just published.
It's the Sunday London Times, fer cryin' out loud. That's like the Washington Post for anglo-elites! UPI is just parroting the Times.
Remember? The freakin' ex-CEO of BAE, the UK's biggest weapons monolith just got hired by the government of Kazakhstan! Think their spooks would cover for this in the Times?

Just ask a non-mutual exclusivity-conditioned child: "DUH."

And if the Times travel article was true, it would only show I'm right. It says people aren't asking about oil geopolitics, corruption, and the CIA. They allegedly -only allegedly- are asking about the crap Borat peddles about 'drinking horse urine' and more mundane touristy matters. This article might as well be just another trailer for Borat.

Pan's article--
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?S ... 0535-4602r

Kazakhstan may have the last laugh over "Borat" as interest in visiting the country has increased substantially since the film's release, a report says.

While the popular film has garnered its fair share of criticism for its unflattering portrayal of Kazakhstan, the Eurasian nation's embassy and international travel agents have begun reporting increased interest in tourist activity, The Sunday Times of London reported.

A small portion of Kazakhstan is in easternmost Europe; the rest is in Asia.

To date, Travel.com has reported a 300 percent increase in online searches about the country, while the Kazakhstan Embassy in Washington has received an average of 100 calls a week since the film's Nov. 3 release.

But those officials say they spend much of their time clarifying the truth about the country from the negative image shown in "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan."

"The only fact of the movie is the geographic location of Kazakhstan," said Roman Vassilenk, an official at the Kazakhstan Embassy.

"I have had to tell many Americans that drinking horse urine is not popular in our country," Vassilenk added.

Pan continues--

So how about that, Hugh? Borat has not drawn attention away from Kazakhstan -- rather, his film has drawn people to learn more about the country. And since the film came out, people who care about geopolitics are more likely to pay attention to a mention of Kazakhstan -- thanks to Borat's hijacking.

Mutual exlusivity studies suggest that not just kids but even adults will be distracted by the 'first come first served' effect of a word association. And every bit shaved off, like cumulative vote fraud, counts. That's psy-ops culture. Do what you can because that's what you are paid to do. It doesn't have to be totally effective or at all. Even counter-productive things come out of beaurocracies.

Propaganda is for people who are susceptible to it. Kids, teens, college age recruitables, non-readers, the poor tapped into TV world. Even some RI readers! lol.
All the...Recruitables.
Although way too damn many of the 'reading class' who should know better....don't.

So don't try the old 'nothing affects the ignorant and clever folks like us know better' dismissal again.

But those ubiquitous, nearly-omnipotent spooks at were probably behind that piece of UPI disinfo, too, right?

Not UPI, Sunday London Times. And that does increase the liklihood of spooks.
I've made the case for means-motive-opportunity.
But YOU keep saying "nearly-omnipotent." I don't. Own your own words.
Thanks, anyway.

The first part of your username is becoming less and less descriptive as the second part becomes more accurate.

[AlicetheKurious]

I've been carefully following this thought-provoking discussion.

Wonderful, this is the kind of intelligent, informative debate that is so rare outside of RI. I've learned so much, and all kinds of long-buried memories and questions are being dislodged as I read all the contributions. I don't have anything to add to this discussion, except that one of those weird, disinterred memories was the summer of 1980, when everywhere I went, the single question on everybody's lips was: "who shot J.R.?"

I'll go out on a limb here (please, please don't turn your razor-sharp wit on me, PP!!), but for the first time, it occured to me that the more interesting and relevant question would have been, "Who shot Jack and Robert?" But it wasn't. Instead, it was the shooting of a lovable bad guy, unabashedly ruthless and amoral in the pursuit of (oil) wealth and power, portrayed as rather endearing and even sexy qualities in a man...

Interestingly, (coincidentally?), Ronald Reagan, that poster-boy for the Revolution, who ushered in the "Greed is Good" era, was shot himself one year later, by an oddly well-connected "lone nut", whose father was a CIA asset and 'oil industry executive' close to the Bush family, and whose brother was somehow connected to, I believe, Neil Bush. Very interesting facts that were buried beneath the "lone-nut", "Jodie Foster obsession" angle.

The assassination attempt has sent shock waves around the country where memories of the murder of president John F Kennedy remain vivid.

BBC: President Reagan is Shot

People were very effectively diverted from the crucial questions about "who shot Jack and Robert", which I believe were building up new urgency with the 1979 Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the House of Representatives, reigniting popular suspicions about the original Warren Commission.

As a total aside, I happened to stumble across this absolutely fascinating and revealing nugget:

In 1963, Kennedy crossed the Rubicon and actually printed money out of the Treasury, bypassing that crown jewel of Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Board.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Assas ... s_JFK.html

Wowza, another of those incredible coincidences...

Anyway, that's it about those two "shootings" that supplanted the traumatic assassinations of Jack and Robert. It would be interesting to see if the MLK assassination was similarly buried while sparkly fictional objects were waved before people's entranced gaze.

On edit: PP, that stuff about Zappa is true?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I don't have anything to add to this discussion, except that one of those weird, disinterred memories was the summer of 1980, when everywhere I went, the single question on everybody's lips was: "who shot J.R.?"

I'll go out on a limb here (please, please don't turn your razor-sharp wit on me, PP!!), but for the first time, it occured to me that the more interesting and relevant question would have been, "Who shot Jack and Robert?" But it wasn't. Instead, it was the shooting of a lovable bad guy, unabashedly ruthless and amoral in the pursuit of (oil) wealth and power, portrayed as rather endearing and even sexy qualities in a man...

The assassination attempt has sent shock waves around the country where memories of the murder of president John F Kennedy remain vivid.

BBC: President Reagan is Shot

People were very effectively diverted from the crucial questions about "who shot Jack and Robert", which I believe were building up new urgency with the 1979 Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the House of Representatives, reigniting popular suspicions about the original Warren Commission.
....
Anyway, that's it about those two "shootings" that supplanted the traumatic assassinations of Jack and Robert. It would be interesting to see if the MLK assassination was similarly buried while sparkly fictional objects were waved before people's entranced gaze.

On edit: PP, that stuff about Zappa is true?

Ah, AlicetheKurious. BINGO.
You do get how large media events ripple across the choppy sea of public emotion and memory. Guilt and innocence is by association and books are judged by their covers.
I think the basics of word association and using decoys to re-condition has been used long before the studies on Mututal Exclusivity brain function.

The primetime TV soap drama called 'Dallas' was a huge media phenomenon which displaced the previous JFK-shot-in-Dealey-Plaza-based association with that city's name.
And the biggest season ending cliff-hanger was...'Who Shot JR?'
Right on the heels of the House Special Committee on Assassinations revival of interest in those murders with JFK's being the most important to 'launder.'

Just the reinforcement of the 'lone gunman' idea to counter 'conspiracy' would be a motivation for shootings and movies. I've found those movies, too.

(Urgh. Pan's nonsense was really counter-productive. I wish my post hadn't bobbled and Pan spun nonsense in response.
Briefly on Zappa:
Zappa's father was a chemical weapons scientist for the War Department whose job was to study ways to disperse poison gases. Zappa wrote that they lived near a test facility and the family had gas masks hanging in the hallway where other people would have umbrellas. Zappa briefly designed Hallmark-type cards and sold one. His band was racially-integrated back when that was unheard of and was physically threatened for this 'crime.'
He wrote songs about hypocracies of all types - police brutality, fake hippies, the danger of drugs, and even the possibility of AIDS being a CIA-made problem. He wrote about the fascist connections between religious superstition, sexual repression, commercial corruption, and militarism.
He testified in favor of free speech in Congress and was a major inspiration for the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia where the new poet-president Haval trusted anti-fascist Zappa to help open them to US trade without getting looted. James Baker threatened no deals unless Zappa was out and that was that. Zappa also pointed at the US-Nazi history and was warmly applauded in Germany for broaching that painful topic.)

[professorpan]

First, Alice, I have no desire to rip into anyone, most certainly not yourself.

So now Hugh is asserting that the TV show Dallas supplanted the House Committee on Assassinations with its "Who Shot J.R.?" story.

(shakes head wistfully)

And yes, Alice, the facts of my Zappa post are true. Which goes to show how confirmation bias and unchecked extrapolation can turn something 180 degrees if you let it.

Zappa's father did stick radioactive pellets in his nose. Frank was anti-union. Vaclav Havel is a member of the Committee on the Present Danger. I could perform the Zappa experiment on lots of people and situations. It's "nonsense" to Hugh because it clearly shows the flaws in the way he thinks.

But sadly any criticism of Hugh's theories becomes an attack on him personally, which is not my intention. But when someone becomes so emotionally attached to a theory or way of thinking that he/she can't disengage emotionally, the discussion becomes repetitive and unproductive.

I'd rather be in Kazakhstan drinking horse urine than take the time to refute another one of his examples, so I'll just say adios to this thread.