'Gremlins' - WWIIDisney/Vietnam/Plum decoy by Spielberg

[tazmic]

Because media propaganda - controlling information to influence attitudes - is its main function, not spying.
This has been exposed by ex-CIA whistleblowers like Ralph McGehee back in 1982.

And by KGB defector Yuri Besmenov

It's a shame the u-tubers mainly take this as starting point for Left/Right debates.

[Penguin]

I'm actually with bph on this one. I find the above beautifully constructed and thought-provoking, in much the way I do movies in which I see truths that couldn't be conveyed in a just-the-facts, conventional narrative.

I also like Hugh personally, as it happens, and respect his intelligence, his dedication, and his equanimity, however misdirected I often believe them to be. What's more, I can't imagine him ever being so small that he'd make a guest appearance in a venue to which he no longer contributed in order to...

Ouch, my ears were burning and now I know why

It's terribly sad that Hugh's schizoid delusions sap so much energy from this forum. I am still amazed that seemingly sane and intelligent people consider his rantings to be deserving of anything more than pity, and serve as enablers of what is clearly delusional ideation.

But so it goes. Carry on.

Chew tobacco, rookie!

...kick someone when that person was down, as he smilingly expressed his belief*** that his target was seriously unwell in a way that most people who aren't sociopaths understand calls for support and tolerance, not gloating and hostility.

Mighty white of you, Pan. Though possibly not very becoming.


***Which I don't share, btw.

Yeah.

[barracuda]

FWIW, I don't think Hugh is mentally ill or down and out. I just think he has occassion, like us all, to be full of shit, and I reserve the right to call him on that, and expect, in return, the tit for the tat.

[Zap]

Gee, I can't understand why on earth PP has made himself scarce from this board ... /sarcasm

Sad.

Hugh's Star Wars thread that he loves to link to is somehow missing the funniest notion (that kicked that all off in the first place) - Hugh, stop trying to hijack our attentions away from it please!

Both the military and big tobacco have researched the psychology of risk-taking in youth and sociologists have found that kids who smoke are more likely to take other risks.
In the south, where 50% of recruits come from, there is a another gateway path, chewing tobacco. Just like all those ballplayers on TV.
So who is the biggest, hairiest, most masculine character in 'Star Wars?'

Chew...bacca...the....wookie. "Chew tobacco, rookie."

I think HMW is either profounded mentally disturbed, or an outright fraud.

And I think option 2 is more likely, the more I pay attention to his dance through this forum.

Anyone prone to hearing or heeding the call of the weepy violin that comes out whenever Hugh is faced with the disgust his ideas absolutely deserve, please take his advice and DO SOME RESEARCH. Read through his post history and watch how he interacts with others. Use some rigorous intuition.

It seems to me that Hugh's evasions, manipulations, and distractions are far too well coordinated and calculated to be the work of a raving nutcase - which he would have to be if he was serious about most of his ideas.

And I don't give a shit how "beautifully constructed" his movie analysis is - it's high-grade bullshit, muddying the waters.

-

-

[IanEye]

Impossible. Nice story, but no freaking way.

Hi Nordic! Sorry this took awhile, I have been busy with other things in my life. Anyway, not sure if you find The SanFran Chronicle a more reliable source than wikipedia, but here goes:

Drugs were everywhere. A room backstage had been painted white and decorated with noses cut off plastic masks while a tape loop of sniffing played in the background. A gauzy haze of cocaine lies over the movie. Never mind the reports that close-ups of Neil Young had to be doctored in post- production to remove incriminating evidence from his nostrils; his jaw- grinding intensity stands in stark contrast to the regal bearing of Muddy Waters.

I thought about posting a clip of Neil Young from the Last Waltz, but since this is Hugh's thread, I think I will post this clip of Neil Diamond instead:

Wipe your nose, Neil Young! Dry your eyes, Neil Diamond!!

Hugh, check out Mr Diamond's Blue/Red color scheme! He's a uniter, not a divider....

[Penguin]

Gee, I can't understand why on earth PP has made himself scarce from this board ... /sarcasm

Chew...bacca...the....wookie. "Chew tobacco, rookie."

And I think option 2 is more likely, the more I pay attention to his dance through this forum.

Anyone prone to hearing or heeding the call of the weepy violin that comes out whenever Hugh is faced with the disgust his ideas absolutely deserve, please take his advice and DO SOME RESEARCH. Read through his post history and watch how he interacts with others. Use some rigorous intuition.

It seems to me that Hugh's evasions, manipulations, and distractions are far too well coordinated and calculated to be the work of a raving nutcase - which he would have to be if he was serious about most of his ideas.

I have noticed that.

And he is a master of ignoring the questions he does not like asked of him, and concentrating instead on the buttons that when pressed, lead with ease into more "interpersonal quibbling" and "loss of precious bandwidth". You know what I mean Hugh, you have done that to me too on more than one occasion. Walking a fine line there.

I still only keep the 2x4 for self defense.

[brainpanhandler]

PP has made himself scarce

[professorpan]

...kick someone when that person was down, as he smilingly expressed his belief*** that his target was seriously unwell in a way that most people who aren't sociopaths understand calls for support and tolerance, not gloating and hostility.

Mighty white of you, Pan. Though possibly not very becoming.

Hey, I long ago spent my reservoir of niceness with Mr. Manatee, as a perusal of the archives will show. I spent far too many keystrokes asking polite, if pointed, questions of him, researching his arguments, and begging him to approach his ideas with skepticism as a test of their validity. All I got in return was ad hominem attacks and questions about my motivations, and, as others have noted, he simply ignored my evidence when it contradicted his keyword-jackoffing.

If you don't believe me, that's fine, but the evidence is there for anyone to see. Start from my earliest replies to Hugh's posts.

I've also watched my posts get Hugh-jacked over and over again. I'm happy to stop replying to Hugh's posts if he promises to stop interjecting his CIA rulez the worldz! into mine.

And yes, I do tend to read Hugh's posts, in the same way people slow down to watch car accidents. My inner sociologist/psychologist is perplexed at the folie a Hugh that has infected seemingly smart, sane people.

But I apologize if I come across as mean. As I have said, repeatedly, I do not *dislike* the person who posts as HMW. If he is genuine in his beliefs (which I must assume is true) then I feel sorry for him, in the same way I feel sorry for anyone caught up in a delusional belief system. That said, if a delusional person treats me like a total prick, I can play that game as well.

[compared2what?]

I apologize for snapping at you, Pan. And also for telling Hugh to fuck himself, his willful misrepresentation of history, his obstruction of productive discussion, etc. and so forth on the Walter Cronkite thread some little while ago -- it was really myself I was rebuking and not you, truth be told.

I'm serious about the politics. And I feel seriously that to concentrate so exclusively on the insidiously evil actions of a single group that's responsible for all the woes of the republic is always a dangerous thing. As I've written to Hugh, in slightly different words: Whether society learns to hate and fear the Demon Jew, The Demon Jihadist, or The Demon CIA, at the end of the day what they learn is to hate and fear as a society.

And that's never been good for anybody except fascists. When push comes to shove, that's to what I feel compelled to object. Factually dubious assertions are a political liability too, of course. But at least they can be corrected; a fear-and-resentment-based culture is pretty much at the mercy of whatever organized force succeeds in pushing the majority's buttons the most effectively ad infinitum. Know what I mean? That's how the terrorists really have won, to whatever extent they have. And I don't just mean the parties responsible for 9/11.

Anyway. I don't want to stamp out Hugh. I actually want him on my team. So I get frustrated. Please accept my apologies for having taken it out on you in this instance. I should have counted to ten and remembered I root for unity.

[justdrew]

here's a site I just ran across that attempts similar deconstruction of pop-culture items, for comparison: http://vigilantcitizen.com/

[Joe Hillshoist]

here's a site I just ran across that attempts similar deconstruction of pop-culture items, for comparison: http://vigilantcitizen.com/

Well to be fair to hugh at least he doesn't imply that muslims worship Satan.

[justdrew]

here's a site I just ran across that attempts similar deconstruction of pop-culture items, for comparison: http://vigilantcitizen.com/

Well to be fair to hugh at least he doesn't imply that muslims worship Satan.

yes, hugh's work is far more reality based than most of the related genre... and it's often lead me to read about things I wouldn't otherwise have come across.

[brainpanhandler]

Hey, I long ago spent my reservoir of niceness with Mr. Manatee, as a perusal of the archives will show.

I have read how patient and reasonable you were, but when does the reservoir of bitterness run out? Strictly speaking niceness is a renewable resource and it costs nothing. I've also read where you explain your animosity and you list among the reasons the fact that Hugh smeared the reputation of a friend of yours. So what if you believe Hugh has so little credibility? You really think your friend was harmed by Hugh? Let it go.

I spent far too many keystrokes asking polite, if pointed, questions of him, researching his arguments, and begging him to approach his ideas with skepticism as a test of their validity.

All of which suggests to me that you found his "delusional ideations" at least somewhat plausible at some point in time, else why waste all those precious calories pressing buttons? As an exercise intended to satisfy my conscience and my curiosity I've imagined myself into Hugh's headspace and I believe his seeming inflexibility is a false front he thinks necessary to fend off his detractors. He apparently believes that he has to present his theories without any equivocation whatsoever. This gives the reader very little credit and suggests a sort of fanaticism that is self defeating. I have managed however, on occasion to get him to alter his views, slightly. As is fair and reasonable he won't do so until he feels you are treating him with respect and are genuinely seeking to understand his point of view.

All I got in return was ad hominem attacks and questions about my motivations,

I find it hard to believe that that is "all" you ever got in return. Hugh has never leveled an ad hominem attack at me nor questioned my motivations and I have pressed him rather hard at times.

and, as others have noted, he simply ignored my evidence when it contradicted his keyword-jackoffing.

Yes, Hugh is very guilty of this. Bad hugh. He's also pretty good at disappearing when thoughtful questions from skeptics are put to him. Makes it seem like he's really only interested in a one way dialogue. For instance, Barracuda can probably wait forever and Hugh is not going to answer his questions about the OP. And BTW, the OP is easily one of the weakest arguments I've seen Hugh make. It's on a par with his most hairbrained ideas. I certainly understand the occasional accusations of disinfo, but I still think they ought to be policed in the same manner. Frankly, I too wish Hugh would just stay the hell out of threads like: Abduction account…from over 300 years ago? I guess he just doesn't understand that the authoritarian tone with which he writes is irritating and stifles discussion.

I wish you would write more about these topics and flesh out the following:

"Just to point out, I am not convinced that aliens from space are abducting people. Nor do I think the experiences are mind control programs run by humans. But I have spoken to too many sincere over the years, and they have convinced me of the validity of their unusual experiences. Something is happening -- something profound and complex. I have my ideas, but I can't say "abductions are X" with any certainty because the data do not reveal a clear answer."

and

" Did you ever read my sleep paralysis incident? I'm pretty sure I posted it here, but it might have been before you joined. I was experimenting with high doses of melatonin, had a horrific episode of sleep paralysis (with attendant "entity" fear -- bad demonic vibe) and woke up with a red, six-fingered handprint on my chest the following morning. The five fingers and thumb were very long, and very distinct.

Melatonin, as you know, is a tryptamine with many interesting properties, including dream intensification. One possibility is that melatonin, like DMT and psilocybin, can produce some sort of contact with the "other." Whether it's a literal doorway or just an imaginal one I can't be sure. But the handprint on my chest was very much objectively "real."

I've had my own sleep paralysis incidents. I was inspired to get out my bottle of sublingual melatonin as a result of this thread being dredged up. Not that I want to wake up to find a six fingered hand print on my chest.

If you don't bring up these topics anymore because of Hugh, that really is somewhat sad, but that's on you. If an unruly, precocious child enters an adult conversation demanding attention and the adults allow that to completely dominate their discussion who is at fault there?

I've also watched my posts get Hugh-jacked over and over again. I'm happy to stop replying to Hugh's posts if he promises to stop interjecting his CIA rulez the worldz! into mine.

Maybe I can broker a cease fire.

My inner sociologist/psychologist is perplexed at the folie a Hugh that has infected seemingly smart, sane people.

I realize I run the risk of being lumped into this category, but really for me, it's not much of a risk. It's all just a giant thought experiment.

I feel sorry for him, in the same way I feel sorry for anyone caught up in a delusional belief system.

The irony here is that so many RI subjects are by mainstream standards kookier than all get out.

[Penguin]

Well put, brainpanhandler.

[Joe Hillshoist]

All I got in return was ad hominem attacks and questions about my motivations,

I find it hard to believe that that is "all" you ever got in return. Hugh has never leveled an ad hominem attack at me nor questioned my motivations and I have pressed him rather hard at times.

In pan's defense thats a fair call he just made.

Hugh rarely responds to pan's questions with straight answers and often resorts to ad hominem attacks when pan calls him on it. Pan has no patience for hugh and assumes that 95% of the time hugh is gonna speak bullshit, because by definition thats what hugh does (according to pan.) I think its just one of those things.

The sad thing about all this is that if hugh took on much of the criticism he gets and actually tried to use it constructively he might make some clear observable comments about trends in media and evn use them to predict media responses etc etc, but he's so wedded to his definition of whats happening that he goes to outrageous and sometimes incredibly foolish lengths to prove his increasingly irrelevent points.

Its such a waste cos there is so much psychological manipulation in the media, and it serves all the things he goes on about - war culture, the disempowerment of women, the way disney is a evil nazi monster, the insane amount of kids cartoons featuring teenage females in roles that invole spying or some spook related activity.

Even the concept of wonder occluding "objectivity" has some merit, tho perhaps objectivity, and occluding for that matter, are the wrong words. It can certainly serve as a distraction.

But time and again hugh ignores constructive criticism, makes dubious claim, and gets narky with some people who then call him a llubtihs artiste because of it. But then he obviously feels what he is saying is valid and we just refuse to see.

Its probably never gonna change, and to be honest the longer I am here the more sympathy I have with pan, and orz and others who criticise hugh.