The Hugh Manatee Challenge

[Occult Means Hidden]

Actually, ignore Sepka's challenge. Hugh, I challenge you to write with humilty. I'll rewrite parts of your recent "War Whores, Spielberg's latest film, opens legs wide..." http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=33779

Please compare and contrast the STYLE of which the original comments are written. You'll notice sarcasm is not lightly used in this style:

HMW wrote:

The CIA"s favorite war propagandist has cleverly pre-empted his eposure as a military-intelligence psyoperator by
co-opting a homonym of what he is along with Lucas and most post-Vietnam film makers, WAR WHORES-

'War Horse'...timed to go with the fake end of the Iraq War plus get a Christmas viewing by potential 'christian soldiers.'
"Gee, if there's no more war, it's safe for me to sign up..."

To which I suggest can be rewritten:

As you know, I presume Spielberg is a propagandist for a fascist element, maybe the CIA. I think his latest movie is purposed to pre-empt his possible exposure as a psycoperator by co-opting a homonym of what he is along with Lucas and most other post-Vietnam film makers.

'War Horse'... timed to go with what is likely a fake ending of the Iraq Ware gets a viewing by those 'Christian soldiers.' I think it's to make the populace think, "Gee, if there's no more war, it's safe for me to sign up..."

HMW wrote:

No coincidence that CIA-Hollywood has a film at #1 right now to support the just-passed legislation allowing ghost prisoners-

Image

No! Do not think of E.Howard Hunt! It's....ETHAN Hunt! Don't think of the International Monetary Fund....it's ....the IMF!
'
Quote:
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol' Cruises to box office win, but holiday ...
New York Daily News - ‎3 hours ago‎

BY Ethan Sacks
Tom Cruise took a giant leap back to the top of Hollywood's most wanted as his 'Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol' beat the competition at the box office this holiday weekend.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/de ... tion-obama

Quote:
Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial
Civil rights groups dismayed as Barack Obama abandons commitment to veto new security law contained in defence bill


Gee, the Tom Cruise movie plot has a guy named "BRANDT" at the center of it.
Know who Daniel Brandt is? Hmm.

Hey - RigorousIntuition is search result #7....my my...
Namebase Brandt - Google Search

To which I partly rewrite:

In that context it's interesting that CIA-Hollywood (as I like to call it) has a film at #1 right now to support the just-passed legislation allowing ghost prisoners. I submit that Ghost Protocal may be a keyword highjack of Ghost Prisoners.

No! Do not think of E.Howard Hunt! It's....ETHAN Hunt! Don't think of the International Monetary Fund....it's ....the IMF!

It's also interesting that Tom Cruise's movie plot has a guy named "BRANDT" at the center of it.
Know who Daniel Brandt is? Hmm.

1. NameBase - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"NameBase is a web-based cross-indexed database of names that focuses on individuals ... At PIR's onset, Brandt was President of the newly formed non-profit ..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NameBase

2. Journalism & the CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer – Daniel Brandt ...
"22 Aug 2010 ... Journalism & the CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer – Daniel Brandt. « Previous. /. Next » ... From NameBase NewsLine, No. 17, April-June 1997 ..."
propagandapress.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/journalism-and-the-cia-the-mighty-wurlitzer-by-daniel-brandt/

3. WS_FTP.LOG
"2004.06.04 13:40 B c:\acorn\jfkplace\06-trade\06-04-Disk\NameBase\.cache ... 206.21.189.8 /jfkplace/06-Trade/06-04-Disk/NameBase brandt 2004.07.17 10:28 ..."
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/06-Trade/06-04-D ... WS_FTP.LOG

etc...

Much easier to read on people's sensibilities. This is the biggest root of your problems here. Biggest message board etiquette recommendation I have is to never come across as the possessor of absolute knowledge. Don't presume you know how the world works. Words like, I think, maybe, may, possibly, perhaps, likely, assume, or, I might be wrong, etc.

[slomo]

Actually, ignore Sepka's challenge.

As I mentioned before, I actually like Sepka's challenge, not as a means for calling Hugh out, but because it has its own merits and could serve as a basis for fruitful discussion about hypotheses (1) and (2) [or even (0)] described in my above post.

However, I agree that a simple change in rhetorical style would greatly benefit Hugh's education/advocacy program.

[barracuda]

Kind of on the subject: here's an interesting recent post from Christopher Knowles, where he demonstrates that in the 1980s, Jack Kirby wrote a comic book series whose major plot elements, as well as several curious details therein, foreshadowed the two Gulf wars in ways too weird and improbable to be consigned to chance.

Kirby was telling a story. He told thousands of them - a lifetime's worth, really. I don't find the implications staggering, I just think Knowles found a convenient hook on which to hang his own story, that of a comic book artist in contact with transmissions from the galactic space-time ether. This cooresponds to the vast majority of Hugh's suggestions: he's telling a story, the narrative is vast governmental control of your thoughts, the plot device is keyword hijacking. An example, from his last post of the "War Whores" thread:

Sorry, Kubrick was a psyoperator hiding things for TPTBe even though he didn't like it.
The 'Mickey Mouse' theme song ending you are citing here was a hijacking of a REAL WORLD event cited by John Pilger in his 1975 book called 'The Last Day: America's Final Hours in Vietnam.'

This book was the inspiration for lots of iconic CIA counter-propaganda.
But what Pilger quoted on page 68 was a 19 year-old Vietnam Vet with no legs named William Wyman at an April 25, 1971 anti-war rally
who said:
" The truth is out! Mickey Mouse is dead! The good guys are really the bad guys in disguise!"

That's why Kubrick gave us the Mickey Mouse theme with two-legged marchers, marching, marching....keyword hijacking + meme-reversal.

Does anyone here honestly buy this? It is patently untrue on the face of it, and somewhat silly to boot. The thought process which arrives at Hugh's conclusion is obvious: Kubrick references Mickey Mouse, so any other Mickey Mouse reference in the proper context is obviously being "meme-reversed" (a piece of KWHJ nomenclature essentially invented to justify the reverse google-search methodology favored by KWHJ enthusiasts).

Remember, Hugh's theory is only viable here on RI - it can exist nowhere else. Ask yourself why you don't come across this information anywhere else. It is because this place has the rarely found confluence of belief systems - massive (and rightward leaning) paranoia of the government, reckless examination of media control, and most importantly, unchecked and pervasive acceptance of sychromysticism - that support his theoretical underpinnings. As well as a devoted group of "supporters" who enjoy reading his story, whether or nnot they take it very seriously. Because ultimately, what is the response to "belief" in the KWHJ religion? There is only one, really - join the hunt.

Obviously the "intelligence community" is deeply invested in Hollywood. Obviously they're working on a very sophisticated level.

I don't find either of these assertions to be particularly obvious, particularly the assertion regarding sophistication. Where's the evidence?

[Occult Means Hidden]

Slomo wrote:

As I mentioned before, I actually like Sepka's challenge, not as a means for calling Hugh out, but because it has its own merits and could serve as a basis for fruitful discussion about hypotheses (1) and (2) [or even (0)] described in my above post.

It's not what Hugh is saying, it's how he's saying it. There have been plenty of challenges to Hugh. Wonder years of 2006 (my emphasis):

Thanks for responding to my challenge Hugh. Even though I feel that you sidestepped most of the issue and don't still have a fair view of what this film is about, you always live up to presenting a stellar amount of information. I'll keep my eyes open for Hedges and Schlain and see if they're worthwhile reading for my own data dump.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=6801&p=64984&hilit=challenge+hugh#p64984

Sepka's challenge falls short i think. When HMW makes a claim that something is highjacking's today's news, he usually cites other news stories or human interests features that were quick to feature. When he references movies doing this role, it's almost always in proper perspective of timelines. Though, his War Horse argument isn't to highjack today's withdraw exactly, but allegedly to counter-propagandize that, this messenger's perspectives can be deceiving. An obscure enough main point that it's hard to debate seriously in any direction with zero data points and anecdotal early review's claiming the opposite effect.

[slomo]

Remember, Hugh's theory is only viable here on RI - it can exist nowhere else. Ask yourself why you don't come across this information anywhere else. It is because this place has the rarely found confluence of belief systems - massive (and rightward leaning) paranoia of the government, reckless examination of media control, and most importantly, unchecked and pervasive acceptance of sychromysticism - that support his theoretical underpinnings. As well as a devoted group of "supporters" who enjoy reading his story, whether or nnot they take it very seriously. Because ultimately, what is the response to "belief" in the KWHJ religion? There is only one, really - join the hunt.

A lot to respond to here. First, your characterization of RI is in broad terms correct, although the words you choose reflect a certain value judgment. Replace "paranoia" with "distrust" and you have an equally valid yet less pejorative characterization. If, in addition, you replace "government" with "government/corporate nexus", then "rightward leaning" no longer applies, and the statement then becomes more actually reflective of the RI ethos. In fact, I would argue that most regulars at RI consider themselves leftward-leaning, with Stephen Morgan and myself (ironically) being the most rightward leaning (which doesn't say much).

As for synchro-mysticism. Well, I agree that it's controversial and difficult to accept without personal corroborating evidence, which can usually be dismissed by others as aphophenia. It's a qualitative experience, and you either have it or you don't. I won't argue with people who haven't had such an experience, as I have no interest in evangelism, and as far as I know they could be right. RI attracts those who have had such an experience because there are so few other places that tolerate its discussion, especially in the wider context of politics. Which is, essentially, to repeat your statement, but with less value-judgment.

As for KWHJ, the strange thing is that Hugh dismisses the synchro-mystical interpretation of his theory, which is essential to its consideration, let alone acceptance. For the record, I don't believe in KWHJ at all, but I think it is interesting enough to be discussed - rigorously, politely, and with humility.

[slomo]

Sepka's challenge falls short i think. When HMW makes a claim that something is highjacking's today's news, he usually cites other news stories or human interests features that were quick to feature. When he references movies doing this role, it's almost always in proper perspective of timelines. Though, his War Horse argument isn't to highjack today's withdraw exactly, but allegedly to counter-propagandize that, this messenger's perspectives can be deceiving. An obscure enough main point that it's hard to debate seriously in any direction with zero data points and anecdotal early review's claiming the opposite effect.

I don't know... I think Sepka's objection is that cinematic productions are very large-scale events that require years of planning, so that a movie constructed solely for the purpose of culture-jamming a future event would require that these events be planned or anticipated years in advance. Others have objected that Sepka does not fully understand KWHJ, and that it's the "halo" of media chatter around the production (which can be manipulated up-to-the-minute) that really matters. I'll concede that both viewpoints have merit. My own interest is independent of Hugh and KWHJ: I actually think it is interesting in and of itself to examine whether cinema can, in some way shape or form and by whatever mechanism, anticipate future events. Of course heeding all of the warnings and cautions about confirmation bias.

It's not what Hugh is saying, it's how he's saying it.

I'll certainly drink to that.

[Sounder]

This all is marvelous validation for Hugh's essentially behaviorist sensibilities, one hundred years past its due date but still effective it seems.

Who wants to be the dog on that leash?

Although I should admit to enjoying the thread as I imagine the possibilities of applying the brainpower displayed here to something more than a null set. That is a joke, not a statement of beliefs. duh, double duh.

[slomo]

I want to raise another issue here, one that is a little more personal and yet more general at the same time. Regulars will note that I claim to be a scientist and at the same time accept a worldview that is decidedly unscientific, which might cause some to pause and wonder about the extent to which I am being truthful. Obviously I'm hiding behind a pseudonym, although anybody who knows me personally would be able to identify me very quickly. Nevertheless, I am aware of a certain ... danger ... in my profession in speaking about topics such as synchro-mysticism, even though privately, one-on-one, I have discussed some of these subjects with a few colleagues who have ranged in their reaction from sympathetic to enthusiastic.

Why is synchro-mysticism so taboo?

For me, science has always been about confonting the wondrous and the mysterious, charting and exploring the unknown. Unfortunately, the institution of Science is fully in service to the other institutional actors we know so well - the MIC, Big Pharma, and Big Agra. In order to obtain grant funding (which is necessary for anything these days, due to costs of instrumentation and logistics of procuring samples or subjects), every hypothesis must be justified in terms of its utility to one or more of those three major institutions. This has a chilling effect on creativity and serverly circumscribes the field of topics that may be examined. Degrees-of-freedom are militantly eliminated, even when they need not be. Why is it so important to eliminate all narratives of individual personal agency, irreducible qualia and subjectivity, affection and devotion on their own terms (rather than as epiphenomena of neural circuitry), and any sense of the eternal/divine, even when these phenonena do not seriously interfere with the serious program of war and profit? (Or do they?) This is a serious question. What is the motivation for the militancy with which these ideas are derided?

American Dream's TIDS thread serves as an important counter-point to the questions I raise here, and I respect the objections his posts imply, even while I try to integrate them into my own worldview.

More simply, to what extent does WOO serve or oppose the goals of MIC, Big Pharma, and Big Agra? Or is it wholly irrelevant, and those of us who take it seriously are just fools?

[slomo]

This all is marvelous validation for Hugh's essentially behaviorist sensibilities, one hundred years past its due date but still effective it seems.

Who wants to be the dog on that leash?

Please explain.

[Nordic]

No, its what he is saying also.

I won't repeat myself except to say that his "theories" are patently absurd and impossible and only "work" in his own mind, and retroactively at that! Which part of him knows, which is why he'll never respind to the OP.

The WAY he says it is what makes him so infuriating, what makes him an intolerable DISRUPTOR, and ultimately a perennial TROLL of this site.

The only reason he's here is because this is probably the only forum in the known universe that will (inexplicably) tolerate him! It's really as simple as that.

[Nordic]

BTW we've already lost one wonderful member of this community over this, someone whp PM'ed me to say that HMW's bullshit was more than they could stand, that the inexplicable tolerance of his disruption was too much, and that they were taking a break. They might be back, they might not.

Yet we're still stuck with HMW?

Hugh needs to go start his own forum rather than ruining this one

[tazmic]

Hugh, if you think the exaggerated Global Warming scare is not being marketed by main stream media to condition the minds of the 90%, then you have fallen for the very thing you warn about,....sorry but they've got to you!

But there are many people who consider that propaganda to be worthy, regardless of it's veracity. In fact, several here have said as much, that whether true or not the cause is a good one, and in terms of re-engineering the world, and the human mind, perhaps the most crucial one.

Unfortunately this means that when such folk argue the cause it is impossible to know if they do so through belief in the claims or belief in the propaganda. (Although for those equating 'questioning the claims' with 'pollution loving' it is easier to guess...)

So, if the path leads true even when the current supporting arguments fail, there are always other arguments after all, we have a scientific rationalization of the best course of action which will morph endlessly to support it's primary purpose. (And of course the propagandists have the same goal in mind as the sympathetic cheerleaders, naturally.)

But, given the essential nature of propaganda to the modern state (according to some), where are the examples of KWH for, you know, good propaganda? Or is it less effective for non-fascist brainwashing?

[Col Quisp]

my earlier reply got lost...

The other night I was watching a retrospective of "Laugh-In" (for all you kiddoes- it was a comedy show in the manner of vaudeville, but updated for the hippie 60's era). They had a segment called "News of the Future," set 20 years in the future. One story was the Berlin wall being torn down in 1989. Another story was about Ronald Reagan becoming President. There were others. So, in response to the original challenge - yes, the CIA knows in advance what the future will be and inserts this knowledge into our media.

And if you believe that, I got a bridge to sell ya...

anyway, it sort of freaked me out, esp. the Berlin Wall thing. And I realized how much that show shaped my world view, and I became very sad.

[Sounder]

slomo you happen to be a person that I consider as an all time favorite, a consistently high level thinker and writer on this board.

However my opinion is that background fabric of our condition can be described in only the minutest measure as being directed by an agency of government.

Its a big world and for instance (to my pea brain at least) it would seem that the structure of concepts and language probably has more to do with our background fabric than do some linguistic tricks cunningly executed by the CIA.

Huh, how about that, there is a thread about just such a thing, but its dead now. Yes, this is so much more exciting.

[slomo]

slomo you happen to be a person that I consider as an all time favorite, a consistently high level thinker and writer on this board.

However my opinion is that background fabric of our condition can be described in only the minutest measure as being directed by an agency of government.

Its a big world and for instance (to my pea brain at least) it would seem that the structure of concepts and language probably has more to do with our background fabric than do some linguistic tricks cunningly executed by the CIA.

Huh, how about that, there is a thread about just such a thing, but its dead now. Yes, this is so much more exciting.

I would agree that the background fabric (which I am calling a "high-order intelligence") explains the phenomena that Hugh seems to describe more plausibly than does CIA manipulation. However, I'm willing to entertain both hypotheses, especially in regards to Knowle's recent post, which I found very eerie. Also Col. Quisp's above post, given that Laugh-In went off the air in the early 70s.

Could you point us to the existing but dead thread? Thanks...