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

[Zap]

I will add to c2w/s astute analysis above a repetition of a point I raised earlier about HMW's bizarre notions - that even if such efforts were taking place, the Law of Unintended Consequences is pretty much guaranteed to ruin the ROI of the incredible amount of time/money the CIA would have spent attempting to subtly sway the nation's minds.

(such as trying to discredit a little known JFK investigator by starting a television show featuring a hoodlum character named "Fonzie" - only to have said character become one of the most beloved characters ever on television ... even if anyone subconsciously made the connection between the names, I think the "loveable rebel with a heart of gold" connotation would work strongly against the CIA's alleged goal ...)

Complex systems are not as easy to predict and control as some believe/fear - and there are more cooks in the kitchen than the CIA!

Regardless of his more lucid and factual posts, I simply cannot find any way to make sense of HMW in a way that leads me to take his posts seriously - even as illustrations of group mind / collective unconscious manifestations (as another poster suggested) - because the "connections" he 'finds' are usually beyond weak, making even Jake Kotze's 'Stargate' stuff seem pretty reasonable by comparison (although just about on par with the theories/connections by people on that synchromystic forum).

(I hate to post about HMW yet again - but it is one area here in which I do feel I have a solid opinion - and not just more questions ... and he does make an effort to keep bringing me up disparagingly, so I guess he wants it!)

[rrapt]

Joining in here in Hugh's defense.

"...because the "connections" he 'finds' are usually beyond weak..."

I'd say sometimes, not usually. One's cognizance has a way of conforming to comfort, so it is natural that you don't agree that certain secrets are being kept from the public, that developed techniques are being used through the media and other channels to guide tastes, beliefs, behaviors in a general way.

Perhaps if you were to spend some time on the inside of the advertising industry you would understand that there are trained personnel, many of them, whose job is to mold perception by way of language, voice, rhythm, imagery. Of course this practice has spilt over into govt too.

The effect is sort of ruined when it is talked about, so they don't.

[Zap]

One's cognizance has a way of conforming to comfort, so it is natural that you don't agree ...

Actually, I am overly prone to paranoia and skepticism, not comfortable illusions. And I believe that many secrets are being kept from the public, and that serious manipulation can and does occur.

I disagree because HWM's examples are largely utter bullshit, and his model is severely flawed - not because I am a sheep.

(I still hope somebody (orz?) can put together a compilation of the most ridiculous examples HMW has proposed over the years, it could really help in laying to rest the endless debate over his sanity/accuracy.)

[Penguin]

Pretty much my sentiments re. what Zap said.
And nobody can say I would have been hostile to Hugh, ever.
Ive taken having my poignant questions ignored rather gentlemanly too.

[barracuda]

Well, rrapt, training for a career in advertising is not exactly an occult mystery school. It is routinely taught at virtually every university in this country, and the methodologies aren't highly guarded secrets. I worked in advertising for about 15 years btw, so I am aware on a professional level of the kinds of tricks that are used to attempt to guide people's eyes and minds and purses where they are desired. And though there is a great deal of cognitive research behind it, beleive me when I tell you that the final execution is an art, not a science. But let's examine one of Hugh's many citations of CIA media within this thread alone:

This is why a warm godly red Santa was pitted against a cold evil blue Jack Frost who is also incompetent. To send the message to little brains that 'Democrats are not human.'

Honestly. Are you buying this particular example? Does his conclusion here logically present? Further, does he offer anything in the way of evidence that this is happening aside from his opinion? I realize he attempts to present that opinion in as expert-looking of a format as he can, when, let's face it, he's got no real expertise in neurolinguistics, advertising, color psychology, or any of the dozens of smart-sounding concept words which he throws at you without integrating them into anything resembling proof of his assertations.

It's not that I don't believe that manipulation of media cues occurs under the auspices of Mockingbird-based propaganda - I do, absolutely. But I require more than Hugh's imprimateur for my devotion to his line of reasoning. I'm through being an unquestioning acolyte, especially when I hear advice such as this in regard to a film such as Mr. Magorium's Magic Emporium:

You have to watch many scenes in super slow-motion to see how subtle the timing is of people flashing in front of the camera with something in their hands timed with keywords in the dialogue. Very subtle stuff.

Watch it with the pause button under your thumb and keep the closed captioning on so you can freeze-frame these hundreds of little psyops cues and rerun them like a football play.

Let me know how that works out for you. Notice that he has recommended this technique, yet offers not a single example of what he discovered by watching the film in frame-by-frame.

[brainpanhandler]

C2W?,

I'll get to a reply to you eventually.

[brainpanhandler]

(such as trying to discredit a little known JFK investigator by starting a television show featuring a hoodlum character named "Fonzie" - only to have said character become one of the most beloved characters ever on television ... even if anyone subconsciously made the connection between the names, I think the "loveable rebel with a heart of gold" connotation would work strongly against the CIA's alleged goal ...)

This betrays a lack of understanding of interference theory. I'm not defending this particular example, but you have to at least first understand what Hugh is asserting before you can hassle him about it.

I hate to post about HMW yet again - but it is one area here in which I do feel I have a solid opinion - and not just more questions

You still need to ask more questions. Not of me though. Hugh has posted tons of information all over the board. Try the Psyops and Meme Management forum or just look up Interference Theory on wikipedia.

[Zap]

I am aware of the theories upon which HMW bases his "work," but I feel on secure ground saying his examples are quite simply weak bullshit free associations.

Besides, your screenname is clearly a CIA keyword highjack of HMW's nemesis, "ProfessorPan."

[Penguin]

Haha, now we are getting somewhere....
Let me get my 2x4 and the popcorn.

[nathan28]

You still need to ask more questions. Not of me though. Hugh has posted tons of information all over the board. Try the Psyops and Meme Management forum or just look up Interference Theory on wikipedia.

HMWs actually has a solid knowledge base--he just rarely draws on it, preferring instead to reference his speculation about TV shows and movie posters. I recommend reading the articles etc. he posts to, but unfortunately the only way I've ever seen him discuss it has either been during non-KWHijacked threads, or after having been challenged.

[brainpanhandler]

I am aware of the theories upon which HMW bases his "work," but I feel on secure ground saying his examples are quite simply weak bullshit free associations.

Besides, your screenname is clearly a CIA keyword highjack of HMW's nemesis, "ProfessorPan."

Free associations... maybe so, but the following is genius even if impossible to prove:

Old psyops movies are a bit obvious so their tracks get brushed out with new decoy movies for a new generation of youth. 'The Patsy' isn't too obvious a movie title in 1964 but it is in 1992.

So the keyword deck gets shuffled to accomodate the new audience's level of awareness.
A keyword in the title gets pushed back to an actor's name, Patsy Kensit.

Here's this example is in this movie list you found.
From the year of Oliver Stone's 'JFK'-

1992

BLAME IT ON THE BELLBOY (Buena Vista) Comic mix ups in a Venice hotel with Patsy Kensit, Dudley Moore, Bronson Pinchot, and Bryan Brown. This forgotten movie (from England) was the last known Silver Screen Management production.

Here's where THAT movie came from and why.

The most dangerous thing Lee Harvey Oswald said before he was rubbed out on 11/24/63 was-
"I'm just a patsy."
Coincidently, Jerry Lewis released a movie just a few months after that called 'The Patsy' which was really just a retooled sequel of his 1960 movie 'The Bellboy.' The movie is ultra-simple and would've been easy to modify for this new purpose.





Jerry Lewis' 1964 movie, The Patsy,' has JFK mirrors in it and appears to be a response to a US government request for 'something therapeutic to help Murica's kidz cope with having their president's head blown off (by the CIA).
But the real motive for getting this movie made is that dangerous keyword.

Jerry Lewis also worked for the US government in 1971 when he helped stage a benefit for the family of rebel-executed Dan Mitrione, the CIA's expert in torture-training for US allies' violence workers in South America.
Mitrione was also boyhood friend of FBI/CIA asset, Reverand Jim Jones.

No, Jerry Lewis didn't know any of this, I'm sure.
No doubt he was given a false justification to keep him thinking he was doing something noble for God's Blessed America.
His charity-pushing personality would've been easy to exploit for this purpose.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=19699

[Zap]

the following is genius

No.

You say genius, I say idiot savant
Let's call the whole thing off

[rrapt]

barracuda: "Honestly. Are you buying this particular example? Does his conclusion here logically present? Further, does he offer anything in the way of evidence that this is happening aside from his opinion? "

I confess I haven't gotten into the nuts n bolts of this stuff like Hugh does. As you said, it is art more than science, so I should be permitted to have an opinion about it sans detailed rationale. In your example with Santa image, I wouldn't normally spend the effort to analyse the images or even the dialog in search of secret keywords; the simple fact that it contains a Disney logo confirms that it is psyops (or whatever mind-guiding term you'd use). If Disney did it, it is definitely propaganda-for-kidz.

So then, just to be fair, I looked back at the image to see what Hugh was referring to in his comment, and sure enough, there is absolutely a visual creation designed to sway the emotions over in favor of a loving bearded ol' sweetie in red, versus a scary, spiky-headed leering dude in blue-green. Now we've all come to accept these ad images as normal. They are ground into our culture. But that doesn't mean they are OK, innocent presentations of an accepted truth.

I agree with Hugh that *almost all of it* (the media stream) is designed to subtly or not-so-subtly control this massive brain of ours, comprised of millions of individual brains. If you doubt the veracity of this "massive-brain" concept, you'll have to explain to me why those millions watch teevee and how the content - censored sculpted news, CSI, selected movies - has negligible effect on their overall brain patterns. Strictly entertainment, right?

[barracuda]

rrapt, you are certainly more than welcome to an opinion. And though I am certain that Disney intends with this particular visual "psyop" to sell movie tickets (The Santa Clause 3 has made $84,500,122 in the US and a worldwide gross of $110,768,122) via the time honored method of displaying within their poster well-known movies stars, I am doubtful that the import of the poster is to convince children that Blue Staters (Democrats) are "inhuman". I think most people, like yourself, make up their own mind about that, and wouldn't be swayed or even remotely effected in their understanding of politics by the (extreme/nonexistent) subtlety of a program such as the one Hugh suggests this image is capable of.

I agree with Hugh that *almost all of it* (the media stream) is designed to subtly or not-so-subtly control this massive brain of ours, comprised of millions of individual brains. If you doubt the veracity of this "massive-brain" concept, you'll have to explain to me why those millions watch teevee and how the content - censored sculpted news, CSI, selected movies - has negligible effect on their overall brain patterns. Strictly entertainment, right?

I think the same could be said of roses, puppet shows, street signs, commedia d'ell arte, Ringling Brothers Circus, restaurant menus, pretty girls, and your mom and dad. They affect your brain, yes. But do they control it? Well, I mean besides pretty girls...



Disclaimer: I don't think Hugh is always wrong. I just don't think he is always right. More importantly, though, I learned in this thread that Hugh is not above lying and misrepresenting opinion as facts in order to get his "message' across.

[brainpanhandler]

renders people neurologically incapable of thinking for themselves.

turn people into zombies by placing subliminally perceived words and symbols in movies or on magazine covers

the masses who consume the offerings of the mass-media can be or have been transformed into a quasi-untermenschen class of witless automatons

Never been asserted to my knowledge.

Not in those terms, no. But if you assert that people can be made to forget whatever doubts and concerns they might have had about the wars, assassinations, and other national traumas they either lived through or learned about simply by showing them a picture, you necessarily also assert that they have very little, if any, integrity of mind or character in their natural state.

And while I certainly wouldn't maintain that people are -- a priori and simply by virtue of being people -- naturally brimming with courage, strength and wisdom, or that most of us aren't highly susceptible to stimuli that work on our fears and our desires, it vastly understates how frightened and needy you have to make people feel before they stop naturally responding to distressing information by being distressed -- and more to the point, how much and what kind of effort it takes to make them feel that way -- to suggest that hidden messages in the cartoons they watched as children have enough power to significantly influence their judgment as adults.

People may be weak, but they're warm and quick with feeling for themselves and for other people by nature, by and large. And they're born with a highly variable complement of native cognitive resources that they either do or don't learn to use well enough to process whatever highly variable individual vicissitudes they encounter while still dependent minors. After which, they either do or don't go on to know and take care of themselves and others with a moderate and episodic degree of success over the rest of the course of their adult lives.

But at every point, unless they're so chronically deprived and oppressed that they have no choices at all, they do have more agency wrt their own judgments than none and they're not uniformly blank slates on whom the CIA can write whatever story-line it wants to. As Hugh takes it for granted that they are. Thereby inadvertently painting a picture of the world in which the only people who have clearly defined and recognizable human attributes are assets of the CIA, relative to whom ordinary citizens come across as having so little distinction and so few sympathetic qualities that they're barely even there. That effectively creates kind of a three-class system, comprised of the CIA and its lackeys at the top; closely followed by their less-well-funded-and-equipped cognitive equals who are, like Hugh, hip to their insidious tricks; and then somewhere way down below the field of action, an undifferentiated crowd of people who have no proactive role to play at all. Sheeple, if you will. And if that's not a classically scape-goatable category of lesser personhood that has no function other than to be the Them to our Us, I don't know what is.

People are more than the sum of their priming.

Children are a particular kind of people.

They are. And a very vulnerable kind, too. But that doesn't make it any more possible to use any kind of environmentally uncontrolled, mass-media-based priming on them to achieve a result that mass-media-based priming simply isn't capable of achieving.

Obviously, if they're in the care of adults who isolate and subject them to sustained and systematic one-on-one priming of some or any kind, they're highly likely to be adversely affected by it. So parents: Don't hand your children over to the CIA for any priming experiments. Also, even if the CIA is permanently dissolved tomorrow, don't skimp on the responsible parenting part of the equation, please. Which includes but isn't limited to setting specific-child-appropriate limits on how much and what kind of age-appropriate media your child has access to, and also monitoring his or her response to it, addressing his or her questions about it, and in general, making sure that neither it or anything else is creating more stress and insecurity than a child can resolve without help and support. I know, right? I have needs of my own, too. But you're obligated to give it your best shot anyway and that's all there is to it. Thanks.

Am I the only one who sees any of that as problematic?

No, but you need to restate your case.

By overrating the power, resources and skills of the CIA and also by focusing so exclusively on them, Hugh unintentionally underrates the power, resources and skills of millions and millions of people. Also, the take-away of his message is a little too close to "Follow me, or you're helpless and doomed" to be very conducive to the conditions necessary for a free and healthy society, imo. Also, in some regards, creative works have a greater potential to convey truths than straight-up, just-the-facts narratives do. Quite apart from which they're a source of both superficial and profound pleasure to many people. Although not always the same works to the same people. Because there's no arguing over taste.

Will that do? And if not, can you give me a hint? Not a big hint. Just a little hint. Because I'd like to rise to the challenge, if I can.

I think if we hashed this out long enough we'd find we pretty much agree and what we don't strictly speaking agree on now we'd find a compromise we could settle on. Unfortunately I have a very busy 4 days ahead of me so I may not find the time to respond as fully as I would like to in the near future, but since I did not want to let too much time pass without responding in some fashion I'm directing you to the following thread. If you find the time please read through the KWH Game thread and I think you'll find quite alot we can agree on and at least some justification for my part on what we might not agree on.

Because covert manipulation is the most effective kind plus national identity (key to military recruiting and social cohesion) includes the myth of a free press and the myth that the social order is natural instead of manufactured and enforced.

No one can argue with this. You don't say it but I presume that you mean that covert manipulation is the most effective kind because children cannot defend themselves against it and even well meaning adults cannot counter it's effects, such as they are, if they are unaware of it. Even at that though the statement that "covert manipulation is the most effective kind" is a comparison and says nothing about it's general effectiveness. I am not arguing that a lack of effectiveness suggests nonexistence; just that effectiveness of psyops has to be measured by actions or inactions and behaviours which result in spite of all the other variables which go into making each of us who we are.

In order to defend oneself against psyops, if one does not simply avoid all media with psyops embedded in them, you need to bring into the conscious mind that which is subconscious. I can easily imagine very powerful techniques for keeping psyops subconscious. We are all of us profoundly motivated to keep certain aspects of our experiences and personalities subconscious. Creating shame and guilt in the human organism just for being human is one of the greatest psyops ever perpetrated on man. It is one of the most effective means of manipulation ever devised. We are crippled by it. It is the root of all our neuroses. Hook a psyops onto that matrix of shame and fear and you can keep subconscious what you want to remain subconscious.

Having said that, IanEye is right when he says that by implication you do not give people enough credit. Generally speaking I am appalled by the idiocy of the human species. Americans are ignorant, spoiled and childish. They've been made to be that way with astonishing effectiveness. And yet, somehow, there are plenty of folks who have been heavily exposed to psyops all their lives and are not drooling zombies with a hidden desire to join the army or hate women or dismiss whistleblowers out of hand. If I am committed to being a compassionate human being is there any psyop that can overcome this exercise of my will?

I have watched countless hours of mainstream media in my lifetime. I lived in front of the TV as a kid. Most of my adult life I have watched TV probably an hour a day at least. I have cable tv. I have therefore, presumably, been heavily exposed to psyops. Let's suppose that one of the psyops I have been exposed to all my life in various forms is "that the social order is natural instead of manufactured and enforced." This is reasonable to assume. How come I understood that the social order is manufactured and enforced rather than natural by the time I was old enough to begin thinking for myself in these terms? Believe me, it wasn't my parents doing. There is a rational argument to be made that we are naturally inclined to be acquisitive and competitive and that it is this paleoneurological artifact which the PTB exploits. Even granting that, it is obvious to me that we can override this baser nature and make choices which are governed by our conscience. So too are we able to override psyops. Our own will is a much greater force than you seem to give it credit for.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... c&start=15