Yesterday, Naomi Klein. Today, Kevin Kline. hmmm.....

[orz]

There are plenty authors to hype - if the producers chose this syrupy little feel-good tome to highlight, I can see how it could be psyops work. (You know, a memo comes down the line - "Talk with this author...")

Sure, but you can also see how it could not be psyops work, right?

I'd go further and say that without very compelling evidence to the contrary, it'd be safe to assume it's not, in this and indeed most/all other cases.

[IanEye]

i gave up on a lot of Hugh's stuff when he brought up some new movie starring the comedian Patton Oswalt and how the CIA was having Mr Oswalt star in a movie just now because it was the anniversary of Lee Harvey Oswald's birthday or some such.

What disappointed me so greatly was that Hugh totally dropped the ball on pointing out an instance of DOUBLE keyword hijacking. Because you see Mr. Oswalts' first name is "Patton" and there are all of these conspiracy theories about how General Patton died and certainly there must be some reason why the CIA would want to have this minor co-star of the TV show "The King of Queens" be named "Patton Oswalt" in the first place. In fact, i imagine our own Antiaristo must have some suspicions about a show called "King of Queens"...... being on the "Tiffany" network [CBS] But of course since my name is "IanEye" and CBS's logo is an eye then "I" must be a disinfo agent and here is another thing that has been on my mind - - - God, i need some more crystal meth - hold on a sec......

[IanEye]

ok, where was eye?

[theeKultleeder]

You know how North End Press started right? I forget what book it was, but Chomsky and (I think) Herman were publishing a book. An order came down the line and the publisher not only stopped the presses, it destroyed the copies that had already been printed.

With that in mind, I'm open to the possibility that the boys at the country club arrange a few things here and there.

This is also why I wish Hugh would present a coherent theory, sans interpretation. And there's things like this:

Institutional agents and government officials operate through high budget organizations designed specifically to influence public opinion and image. For example, "The Pentagon... has a public-information service that involves many thousands of employees, spending hundreds of millions of [our tax] dollars every year" (Chomsky, Herman 19). Alfonso Chardy, of the Miami Herald, exposed the Office of Public Diplomacy, a State Department operation set up 1971 to propagandize the American public. It controlled the terms of the entire debate over Latin America with its "Operation Truth," described as a "spectacular success," and the "kind of operation you'd carry out in enemy territory" by people in the Reagan administration (Chomsky, LP 621).

http://spelunkingtheeideosphere.blogspo ... -ii-q.html

There are certain angles where HMW is making a lot of sense to me - where the entire fabric of our media-fueled culture is soaked in well-developed "scientific" psyops method. As a matter of fact, I rather like HMW's own revelation of the method. Where he misses the mark in interpretation I remain silent.

[orz]

You know how North End Press started right? I forget what book it was, but Chomsky and (I think) Herman were publishing a book. An order came down the line and the publisher not only stopped the presses, it destroyed the copies that had already been printed.

Well yeah. But that's totally blatent and with a specific blunt effect... about as far removed as possible from Hugh's examples which are totally obscure and with no apparent demonstratable effect whatsoever.




Actually forget all my posts in this thread and pretend I got straight in there with "...tomorrow Calvin Klein"

[theeKultleeder]

And how many people, besides fans of ol' Chomsky, know about the Office of Public Diplomacy? It was a State Department operation that used the media to control opinion of Reagan-era shenanigans. If we know about that one, what current operations are we unaware of? Why would the state abandon an obviously effective domestic psychological operations program?

[orz]

If we know about that one, what current operations are we unaware of?

Countless, no doubt.

Why would the state abandon an obviously effective domestic psychological operations program?

They wouldn't. No control system gives up control willingly for no reason.

This does not mean there's any reason to give the time of day to patently absurd ideas on the subject.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

The Bill Bryson book is not a new release. It was released on Oct. 17, 2006. Almost a YEAR ago. And it's Bryson's autobiography.

I don't see how this book could be part of your discussion.

Wait, you don't see any mirroring in KLEIN/KLINE and MK-ULTRA/TRADE? What about that apart from Bryson?

You honestly think, given Naomi Klein's CIA subject matter, that her book wasn't noted in progress and planned for by the CIA?

Gawd, the ignorance on this board of the intentional generation of masking psycho-political events hostile to power going on for decades is really frustrating.

Read the 1988 book about the FBI/CIA surveillance of literary people in 'Dangerous Dossiers: Exposing the Secret War Against America's Greatest Authors' by Herbert Mitgang--

http://www.amazon.ca/Dangerous-Dossiers-Exposing-Americas-Greatest/dp/1556110774

The FBI, CIA and other government agencies have not only spied on civil rights, peace and leftist-liberal political groups; for decades, as this report documents, the government has been compiling extensive secret files on eminent writers, dramatists, artists and journalists. Mitgang, cultural correspondent for the New York Times, obtained thousands of pages of declassified material under the Freedom of Information Act. Hemingway, Faulkner, Steinbeck, Sandburg, Dreiser, Pearl Buck, Dorothy Parker, Thomas Wolfe, Georgia O'Keeffe, Tennessee Williams, Dashiel Hammettthese, and dozens more people, had dossiers maintained on them by an over-zealous FBI. Federal agents penetrated and spied on the Authors Guild and the Dramatists Guild. Living writers kept under surveillance include John Kenneth Galbraith, Norman Mailer and Allen Ginsberg. Initially excerpted in the New Yorker, Mitgang's damning indictment of government interference with freedom of expression is a blockbuster, an important, brave, chilling expose.

To market a counter diversion (or keyword hijacking) frequently it ain't the card dealt that is the perp, it is the dealer meaning publisher or media promoter.
The dealer makes it visible and determines where and when.

Please look up spook 101, 'plausible deniability.
Jackson Pollock wasn't CIA but his career WAS the result of CIA promotion by their front group called the Congress for Cultural Freedom. Hence the recent two video releases on Jackson Pollock to dilute that remarkable and revealing history.
I wrote about those diversions in another thread.

Anything promoted by NPR, TIME, NYTimes should be considered likely a card in a larger poker game which is more and more becoming diversion from other things.

Go look at the recent TIME issue with General Petraeus on the cover and I'll walk you through the counterpropaganda psy-ops devices one by one starting with 'I Love Lucy' in the top corner of the cover.

Now just Bryson....I pointed at his book for supporting THEME, not timing with the Klein/Kline mirror events.

But the timing of October 17, 2006 release in front of Nov. 2006 elections supports the THEME. See below.

Why anyone would suggest that Bryson must be CIA for his book publishing and distribution to be weaponized is beyond me. Anyone remember the renewed visibilty of Johnny Gosch online ever since fake reporter, 'Jeff Gannon,' was outed?
Gosch's mother was used to ramp in internet interest in the story just before simliar moral senstivities were stoked by the renewal of the Jon Benet Ramsey case which was in turn transferred to the outing of a GOPer's interest in male pages as the motivation for changing a few seats in favor of Dems in Congress.

But power does NOT want this use of moral sensitivities around children and sex to track back to Johnny Gosch and the Franklin Cover-up and the 1989 Washington Times cover story which brings it directly into the White House. RIGHT?

That ALONE is a good reason for a publisher to say to Bryson, "really? You grew up in Des Moine? Bet there's a good book there." OR "really? You've got part of an autobiography done? Finish it up and let's publish that next."
etc. etc. etc.

Bryson's book is released October 17, 2006, just in time to be promoted a few weeks BEFORE the elections of November, 2006.

So the perps at National Propaganda Radio (Voice of America for readers fooled by PBS) can be the promoters of Bryson's already written book to guarantee a high readership because the reading class is prone to NYTimes best-sellers lists and NPR recommendations or frikkin' OPRAH!

Those are called "opinion shapers" and even the blue-collar FBI was monitoring all of America's known authors starting in the 1930 because of the effect they had on public opinion. And they weren't even the Ivy League behavioral science experts co-opted by CIA during the 1950s.

Some reading this will get the history, tactics, and players. Some won't.
I hope more of you look into it and see how culture has been run like a psy-ops engine for decades.

Professor Pan, orz, and robertdreed have shown over the last two years that they don't know their history or the science or the players. Count on their hit-and-run scorn.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I'd go further and say that without very compelling evidence to the contrary, it'd be safe to assume it's not, in this and indeed most/all other cases.

This is an extremely unfounded viewpoint illustrating your ignorance on the topic.
Sorry, that's not an insult. Just pointing out an utter lack of knowledge on your part.

The FBI first and then the CIA have been shaping:
>journalism
>academia
>publishing
>movies
>radio
>government
>scientific research
etc etc etc.

The Pentagon uses counterpropaganda tactics to minimize the effect of hostile information and so does the CIA media.

Anyone assuming this isn't so would find more satisfaction at a UFO board where CIA-generated products are revered as religious events.

[Attack Ships on Fire]

The FBI first and then the CIA have been shaping:
>journalism
>academia
>publishing
>movies
>radio
>government
>scientific research
etc etc etc.

I agree with you Hugh but the twin towers of American deception cannot have their hands in the shaping of every single facet of media which is what you have claimed in your arguements. You suggest that actors are given jobs and attention from news media to take the edge off of politically sensitive events, anniversaries and to dilute the public consciousness from others with similar names. There is no discerning between who is and who isn't used as a pawn in your thesis and that is the underlying problem with it. You paint all of the media, every story, every film, every book, as having a secret agenda. That simply cannot be.

Anyone assuming this isn't so would find more satisfaction at a UFO board where CIA-generated products are revered as religious events.

Oh look, another dismissive comment about anyone having an interest in UFOs. Your attitude is that all the answers to the mysteries can be found on the ground Hugh. Why don't you want people looking up and asking questions about what they see flying around up there?

Like I said, it's almost as if you're following the rules from your own disinfo book. I had hoped that my suggesting that you're acting like one of the gatekeepers that you claim to so dislike would have served as a wake-up call for you, Hugh, for that is exactly the way you have been acting. Everyone else is wrong, you're point-of-view is totally correct and who cares if the evidence isn't strong enough to support it? Everything is controlled by the almighty CIA and FBI. Why do you want us to think that they are that all-powerful? Honestly, if you truly do think that all forms of media are controlled to the degree that you are suggesting then there is no point in resisting them for they are indeed all-powerful.

[orz]

This is an extremely unfounded viewpoint illustrating your ignorance on the topic.
Sorry, that's not an insult.

That's OK, it wasn't taken as such. It's not an insult, it's just wrong. What I said makes perfect sense and is right but you can't understand it. Too bad.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

You paint all of the media, every story, every film, every book, as having a secret agenda. That simply cannot be.

No I don't. I'm not a totalist.
You've either misunderstood or mischaracterized the psy-ops culture that has been a work in progress and keeps building on the work of previous efforts.

Why do you want us to think that they are that all-powerful? Honestly, if you truly do think that all forms of media are controlled to the degree that you are suggesting then there is no point in resisting them for they are indeed all-powerful.

Wrong again. I don't claim 'they are all-powerful.'
Others have done what you just did, set-up a totalist straw man to knock down and do a 'more-skeptical-than-thou' dance of self-justification.

I recommend constant resistance in as many ways as possible, the most important being getting the conditioned believers in fake history and news off of their Operation Mockingbird medications.

So I've exposed REPEATEDLY how information hostile to power has been mirrored to create diversions to divert attention and diffuse moral tension into safer channels.
It is as predictable as plumbing.

You and many others who don't see what I see suffer from the microscopic viewpoint that looks closely at a dot in a pointillist painting and say "that's just a dab of paint."
You don't perceive the CONTEXT and KEYWORDS and MORAL THEMES and how the science of placing the safe "dab of paint" in front of the audience to match their gaze is a craft carried out by dedicated psy-ops departments in the alphabet agency infrastructure ever since the Office of War Information was formed in 1942 and the Psychological Strategy Board was formed in 1951.

It is a large and pervasive system that has SOME success. They are not "all powerful."

But consider that 40% of Americans think that Saddam did 9/11 and that far more American men can tell you who won the big game and what's on tv tonight and you see the power they do have.

[professorpan]

Wrong again. I don't claim 'they are all-powerful.'
Others have done what you just did, set-up a totalist straw man to knock down and do a 'more-skeptical-than-thou' dance of self-justification.

You may say that they are not all-powerful, but your examples essentially posit an omnipotent control over the minutiae of all media. So, in fact, you do believe in an all-powerful collaboration of spooks.

So I've exposed REPEATEDLY how information hostile to power has been mirrored to create diversions to divert attention and diffuse moral tension into safer channels.
It is as predictable as plumbing.

You've REPEATEDLY stated your ideas. You are predictable as plumbing. That doesn't mean you are right. Only that you are persistent.

But consider that 40% of Americans think that Saddam did 9/11 and that far more American men can tell you who won the big game and what's on tv tonight and you see the power they do have.

No, in fact it contradicts you. Is shows how little Americans actually pay attention to politics and international news, and how they're swayed by the crudest of propagandizing (i.e. lies repeated ad nauseum). No need to hijack trashy movies or subvert radio shows when 40% of the people pay little attention to anything other than American Idol and Britney Spears' extra pounds, and get maybe ten minutes of their "news" from Entertainment Tonight and the interruptions in the programming on FOX.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

There are so many self-contradictions in your post above, pan, that I'm going to just leave them there.

wow. But thanks for making my point for me even though it was unintended.

[Attack Ships on Fire]

You paint all of the media, every story, every film, every book, as having a secret agenda. That simply cannot be.

No I don't. I'm not a totalist.
You've either misunderstood or mischaracterized the psy-ops culture that has been a work in progress and keeps building on the work of previous efforts.

I've read literature that shows the government manipulation of media and pop culture to its own ends. I'm not misunderstanding that it doesn't exist; it does. I just disagree to the extent that you believe it exists.

Why do you want us to think that they are that all-powerful? Honestly, if you truly do think that all forms of media are controlled to the degree that you are suggesting then there is no point in resisting them for they are indeed all-powerful.

Wrong again. I don't claim 'they are all-powerful.'
Others have done what you just did, set-up a totalist straw man to knock down and do a 'more-skeptical-than-thou' dance of self-justification.

You missed my point: I believe that you are giving too much credit to government control over society/mass media. In this thread you are postulating that there is an agenda to murk up Naomi Klein's recent media appearances with a new Kevin Kline movie. In the past you have also argued that the creation and promotional campaigns of major Hollywood films are part of this secret agenda of psy-op word hijacking. Again, I disagree to the extent that this form of psychological warfare is taking place. Do I think that the government (and its various agencies) use Hollywood and the media to further their agendas? Yes. Do I think that they have the kind of overt control of manipulation that you claim that they do? No.

If you cannot prove which incidences are coincidences and which are legitimate acts of psy-ops then your case becomes weakened. Skeptics attack ufologists all the time by presenting one case of proven hoax and then suggesting that all UFO cases must also be hoaxes. Don't you see that by labeling so many movies, news articles and such as forms of psy-op that you are risking damaging the support for instances where there is good evidence that the government has manipulated entertainment/news? You have to be on as solid ground as possible if you want supporters. I need proof that the conspiracy exists to the extent that you say it does and it has not been forthcoming.

My apologies if my rebuttal came across too much as a straw man arguement.

I recommend constant resistance in as many ways as possible, the most important being getting the conditioned believers in fake history and news off of their Operation Mockingbird medications.

But how is resistance possible if the media is controlled to the extent that you are suggesting? You have claimed that orchestrated widespread media psy-ops are launched multiple times each week and that movies are crafted from their moment on inception to subvert ideas in the popular consciousness that happen years ahead in the future. Precisely how do you take down the monster when it controls all forms of media? Just talking about it? Talking doesn't get change accomplished, as feel-good as it may sound to say change comes from discussion. Discussion didn't stop the Nazis from rounding up the Jews. It didn't stop the wholesale slaughters in Salvador, Timor, Russia, China, the Congo and on. Revolution and action causes change. Action can be tempered with intelligence and compassion but I'm a firm believer that good people die if they believe in solely the power of words.

So again, if this monster is as pervasive as you suggest, you can't combat it. If a filmmaker came into a discussion about a movie that you claim was created to subvert the populace, would you stop and consider their side of the arguement and open your mind that you could be wrong about a specific example? And if you're wrong about one could you be wrong about others?

So I've exposed REPEATEDLY how information hostile to power has been mirrored to create diversions to divert attention and diffuse moral tension into safer channels.
It is as predictable as plumbing.

But you haven't proven it for all the examples that you've suggested. I got involved with you in a discussion a year about the movie "The Fountain" and you were tossing around claims of how it's being used to seed control memes in the public's perception. I recall not being able to sway your mind that you were seeing what you wanted to see, shadows of control where there likely weren't any. If the writer and director of that film were to come here and state that they were the sole creators of the concepts and imagery in that film, would you have recanted your opinion of what the picture was made for?

You and many others who don't see what I see suffer from the microscopic viewpoint that looks closely at a dot in a pointillist painting and say "that's just a dab of paint."
You don't perceive the CONTEXT and KEYWORDS and MORAL THEMES and how the science of placing the safe "dab of paint" in front of the audience to match their gaze is a craft carried out by dedicated psy-ops departments in the alphabet agency infrastructure ever since the Office of War Information was formed in 1942 and the Psychological Strategy Board was formed in 1951.

But just because there has been proven examples of societal control doesn't validate all of the cases that you claim. I'm trying to show you that control does exist, and there are situations when pressure is given to manipulate the message but not to the extent that you claim.

It is a large and pervasive system that has SOME success. They are not "all powerful."

Hearing you say those words is comforting but I still have to push ahead and say that you claim that a lot of the output is controlled/manipulated. I think it's probably coincidence that there is a story about Kevin Kline out today. You don't see it that way. We all look at Rorschach tests and see something different depending on our outlook of the world, don't we?

But consider that 40% of Americans think that Saddam did 9/11 and that far more American men can tell you who won the big game and what's on tv tonight and you see the power they do have.

On that I agree with you; the people in power like us dumb and diverted. I just don't believe that they're smart enough (caveat: most of the time) to use these Kevin Kline opportunities when they come about. Coincidence and serendipity do happen in our world too.