You have spent the bulk of your time on this board pimping your keyword hijacking theory, which posits that everything from DVD placement on store shelves to the pattern of news items on Yahoo's website to a smorgasbord of film titles is controlled by a nebulous "Mockinbird" CIA/Intel elite.
Publishers pay for the featured spots at Borders. Fact. I checked.
CIA has a long history with publishers, influencing and BEING them.
Same with 'mainstream' news outlets. Only a few editors-in-chief can determine headlines. Fact. I checked.
Nothing "nebulous" about Operation Mockinbird which started over 50 years ago.
A CIA director confirmed it to a Senate committee in 1976 and even the NYTimes had to print some of the expose to keep their cover on 12/25/77.
You have been pushing this theory with the evangelistic fervor of someone who has just found Jesus.
I think its important enough and what this board is about, examining our psychological terrain. "Evangelistic fervor" implies 'irrational.' Try 'focused energy' for better framing.
When myself and others ask you for evidence to support your examples, you either suggest the controllers are too savvy to leave clues (i.e. no evidence is evidence) or point to books and documents that have no bearing on your examples. At best, your "evidence" is guilt-by-association and innuendo. At worse, it is cherry-picked data that ignores all contrary evidence.
No, I point to means-motive-opportunity-precedent- as clues and you say "no evidence."
Do covert operations only exist when they are documented over at smokinggun.com?
And how do your respond to criticism? By crying "straw man" until you're blue in the face, by slandering those who ask legitimate questions, and mocking those who base their beliefs on objective, empirical inquiry and not fantastic (albeit clever and creative) confabulations.
Ad hominum attacks are not 'criticism.' More 'you don't like people like me who are reasonable' narrative. I address legitimate questions. Nothing "fantastic" about propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, and social engineering. It's standard procedure by military governments since WWII (called the Revolution in Military Affairs) with texts on the subjects right out in the open. I've read them. And posted them here for as many as possible to see. Thus not "confabulation" either.
You've shown no interest in investigating your own ideas with rigor or objectivity. You know you are right, and have no interest in ferreting out your own biases. Have a bullhorn and step up on the soapbox, but please, don't bitch when those in the audience start shouting questions.
I spend hours a day pouring over every discipline I can think of with "rigor and objectivity." Having learned some things isn't "bias." More 'you don't like people like me who are reasonable' narrative.
If I sound like Barbara Bush, you sound like Dick Cheney insisting that there really was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
There really is a link between CIA/DIA/CFR and media, though. Isn't there, PP?
Or is it just too enigmatic and ineffective and to be ignored?
But let me address one of your points:
The personal motives of Sacha Cohen are irrelevent to use of his product as diversion.
Not if your theory of Borat as geopolitical diversion psyop is to be believed. Cohen says he and his team picked Kazakhstan because most people had no idea it was a real country. Either he is lying, or he has been deviously manipulated by the controllers into picking Kazakhstan years ago when he created the character. So what is it, Hugh?
Another false dichotomy? sigh. ok.
Why Cohen 'picked Kazakhstan' is irrelevant. (sp.) The movie phenomenon exists and has an effect in context. But that is something you don't address, rather like the argument that an arrow keeps halving the distance to a target infinitely and thus can never reach the target.
I see that the Borat arrow has reached the target. Do you? How? Why?
You've never heard of using unwitting assets by greasing the rails for them?
I keep pointing at the top of the food chain where decisions like If-Yes or No-How-When -By Who are made to discern of there is a Why other than mere commerce and you keep pointing at the lowest point in the food chain as if there was no such thing as plausible deniability, patsies, stooges, useful geniuses, useful idiots, useful whatever.
And that's a way to do perception management without just manufacturing events from whole cloth with witting perps which also happens.
Spook media management skill lies in the ability to find, nurture, and disperse Units of Meaning to create psycho-political events that influence perception. There are an awful lot of UM lying around. Like old movies and VHS releases which can be cherry-picked for rerelease with the excuse of a new format, DVD. Hence all the cute dog movies I noted when that Abu Ghraib dog-handler was finally prosecuted, something that took forever to come to trial and thus could easily be accompanied by checking stock for keywords/themes and paying to have it out on the 'Featured' shelves at Borders.
Gee, why go to the bother? Because so many American households have a dog and it would be politically-damaging to have all those people think of Abu Ghraib everytime they looked at Fido.
I also think that preventing possible catchphrases and nicknames with pre-emptive generation of them is used. Like 'Nacho Libre' and 'Backwards Jenny.'
Catch phrases and slogans are a viral marketing tool that works. 'War on Terror.'
'Compassionate Conservative,' 'Star Wars,' etc.
Just today there's a story about 'TV's 100 Greatest Catch Phrases' which is mostly from early TV decades before cable diluted the effect somewhat. A few are political. It's a crap list but demonstrates the effect.
http://www.tvland.com/originals/catchphrases/I have a 1976 book by a former USAID film propagandist who was working for Nixon when he was crucified for Watergate and the author for partisan purposes to defend Nixon explains how the TV network news shows (CIA) skewed their reporting to make Nixon the maximum villain for months. Using catch phrases is one of those tactics.
'The Candor Project' to imply that Nixon's efforts at openness with journalists weere a manipulation, for instance.
Now we have Fox TV and their bogus 'War on Christmas.'
Simple. If I can think of this, professional mass mind managers sure can.
(Hope they aren't checking my hypotheses for 'good ideas.' gulp. nawww...)
That's PR 101, man!
Don't confuse the processes of deduction and reverse-engineering with 'confirmation bias.'
You can take something apart to see how it works and deduce who might have made it without knowing every single detail which you call 'evidence.'
And once again the fatal flaw in your theory rears its insistent head: With all the interest in Borat, wouldn't you think more people would be curious abou the *real* Kazakhstan? I've certainly seen much more information about the country in the media since the Borat film came out. But since that doesn't fit into your theory, just dismiss it like you do all other contradictory evidence.
I've researched, found, and explained several times what linguists and cognitive scientists
call "Mutual Exclusivity" which is the brain's tendency, especially in the young, of applying only one meaning to a word. So if a benign association can be made first, later ones might be ignored or atleast tempered due to the pre-emptive benign association.
Thus not just 'keyword hijacking' but entire 'concept hijacking' might be goal of psy-ops media.
Additionally, I've read how USG advisor Hadley Cantril codified the measurement of stereotypes in the 1930s when social research in the aid of governance through mass psychology was really taking off by using radio.
Cantril learned that people think of entire nationalities as stereotypes, very useful when whipping up a war or a wedge issue distraction while allying with a dictator.
So the strong image of the funny funny outrageous Borat can predispose perceptions of Kazakhstan if not displace them outright.
Don't you think this is rational and applicable. If not , why not?
I hope this addresses some of your concerns, PP.
As I said above, we share goals if not tactics.
on edit: spelling and clarifying Cantril's work.
