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

[Sounder]

However it is that folk here view Hugh’s work, the mere fact that he has brought some excellent analysis out of others, confirms his value to this board.

Brainpanhandler wrote….

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.

This here is precious, now how about we do more work to create a conscious model that does require that we repress so much sub-conscious material.

[Penguin]

However it is that folk here view Hugh’s work, the mere fact that he has brought some excellent analysis out of others, confirms his value to this board.

Brainpanhandler wrote….

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.

This here is precious, now how about we do more work to create a conscious model that does not require that we repress so much sub-conscious material.

Added the not
I agree with that, and that is how I see psyops / propaganda / advertising.
I have made it a game for myself to try and think / feel of as many things that are value laden or associative of other things when I watch something.
Do not watch TV, anyway, I cannot stand the advertising anymore, at all.
Not that there is much difference between other programming and ads, in any case.

That (shame, guilt) fear / tension strategy is included in almost all tv programming too...
I like to try and stay aware and focused enough to not slip into the unconsciously empathizing mode, or let yourself be pulled by the emotional hooks, or into externalizing yourself into the hero or other characters.

[Sounder]

Yes, thanks for the correction Penguin.

[tazmic]

how about we do more work to create a conscious model that does not require that we repress so much

Agreed. If we find ourselves capable of experiencing shame and guilt, especially just for being human, then that is a problem that needs addressing, regardless of who or what might be trying to make the most of it.

[Penguin]

We had a discussion with a dear friend about this a while back. "This" being "why doesn't telepathy and other assorted esp/transpersonal phenomena get noticed by people correctly more often, when we can subjectively prove it to ourselves?"

We surmised that perhaps it is all the inane chatter we endure / produce privately each day, each hour, each second, and all the "private" shame (of being - being human, being wrong...), guilt, lust, rage et cetera, that we mistake for a personal mire - personal "me", and wish for others not to see?

Whereas, when "you" are dead (death = letting go, understanding all things are transitory, process) ie. when you do not think that your limits are the skin, or that your personal self would be something durable and real instead of a process, when you are not attached to your thoughts, it seems people readily experience the direct consciousness link (and I know it is real, as does my friend, we are beyond the state where one could write things off as "mere coincidence", "wishful thinking" etc).

This also being my major bone with Hugh, ie. his claims (unverified, unverifiable) that everything there is "just woo".
To me, this tangent seems like an important one.

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.

And the root of our separation?

[rrapt]

Incidentally, but not off-topic, Bill Ryan gave a great presentation in Zurich in July, wherein he related a conversation he had with *a knowledgeable person, one whom he respects, etc.* Again, wherein (that referenced conversation) he was assured that PTB (govt) has a fundamental need to prevent humans from realising and using their immense mind-power.

"Fundamental need" means survival; if humans learn to use this mind-power, which is right there tucked away in your brain, there will be no function for the massive (fascist) beaurocracy. Can't have that.

Mr. Ryan is half the staff of Project Camelot, which is three years old and has snowballed, says he. The presentation I refer to above is two hours long and is chopped up with translation, but worth sitting through IMO. It can be found on Project Camelot web home page, a video under August 13 date.

[professorpan]

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!

[Penguin]

Well...
Debating, enabling.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
Chew tobacco, rookie!
.....

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... hp?t=23804
Chewing tobacco increases in boys. A hit, Chewbacca!



http://www.mofo.com/news/pressreleases/15100.html
1/7/09 Soldiers file lawsuit for being medical guinea pigs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-Force_(film)
7/2409 CIA-Disney film about guinea pigs turned into soldiers

Gee, do movies function as advertising on kidz? Yes.
Is there any difference? No. See 'mirror neurons.'

http://www.shoppingblog.com/blog/7220919

Concerns G-Force Film Will Make Kids Want Pet Guinea Pigs
.....
It's happened before. Some call it "101 Dalmations syndrome," after the live-action Disney movie that sent thousands rushing to buy the black-and-white spotted pups. When the dogs failed to act like those in the movie, families gave them up, breeders said.

The popularity of Chihuahuas soared after the movies "Legally Blonde" and [CIA-Disney's] "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" and when Taco Bell featured a talking one in an ad campaign. Ferrets were the animal of choice after "Along Came Polly" and guinea pigs were in demand after [CIA-Disney's] "Bedtime Stories."

[brainpanhandler]

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!

Maybe you can own a little of that too.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
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.

Nonsense. Are you suggesting there's no reason for Voice of America or the advertising industry? Billions are spent to push mere consumer goods. What do you think selling a government or an ideology is worth?

Movies and TV make gobs of profits. Just like other CIA drugs.
So merely writing scripts or finding useful ones to polish up a bit and market is a win-win for propagandists and industry.

There's open source figures from the past on the many millions to billions the CIA spends on media. 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.

This goes back to WWII. If you think there was such thing as WWII and it wasn't just "the universe winking at us."

(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 ...)

Mere fictionalization is enough to displace the real target, Gaeton Fonzi, in the game theory of keyword marketing.
Framing as negative or positive is additional to the main strategy of occlusion.

Back when 'Happy Days' (name of a CIA porn film to smear a target, BTW, a title hijacking) was on the air...everyone knew about-


...and NOBODY, certainly not recruitable kidz, knew how much was known about the inside job murder of their president but they were concerned about 'who shot J.R. in Dallas' -

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiv ... t5833.html

"According to Fonzi, WerBell was already the go-to guy for suppressed firearms in the early to mid-1950s, when his handiwork was already covertly used in what they used to call Indo-China. By WerBell's own admission, he was involved in some capacity in the attempts on Castro's life in the early '60s. "I was sittin' in Miami with a goddamned million dollars in cash for the guy who was gonna take Fidel out," he told Fonzi, who doesn't expound further. However, minimal logic would seem to indicate that if he was already involved in those attempts, even if only as a lowly courier of funds, it would be stupid not to also utilize the expertise he'd already demonstrated by using his weapons for the job of offing Castro. Fonzi seems to give him a pass on personal involvement in the assassination, but when one manufactures assassination-specialized weapons for a living, who knows what happens to those weapons once they've been delivered to the client? Then again, WerBell may have been happy to admit being a mule for the funds, but less sanguine about admitting that he also provided the weaponry for the job. Given the subsequent events in Dallas that Fonzi was pressing him for information on, WerBell may have intuited that any admission to having supplied weapons to kill Castro could implicate him in Dallas too."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_shot_J.R.%3F

[streeb]

But Happy Days debuted in 1974. Gaeton Fonzi began working with the HSCA in 1976. He published The Last Investigation in 1993.

And why did Fonzi get the 'displacement' treatment but not Hardway and Lopez?

[barracuda]

Sorry, streeb:

When "Fonzi" was first a character on 'Happy Days,' he was a minor character.
But as Gaeton Fonzi's role on the Church Committee (under Schweiker) and then House Select Committee on Assassinations developed, 'the Fonz' took over the show. And then he became an expression for 'not credible,' "jumped the shark."

From: http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... 597#230597

I know this routine inside and out. The real question is whether there is any evidence of this Fonzie/Fonzi thing or if it is just Hugh's supposition.

The whole Fonzie thing is off-topic anyways, unless this is to devolve into another all-purpose Hugh-post-anything-but-evidence thread. I still haven't seen an answer regarding any of the issues I've raised about the OP, but on and on it goes, and now it's all the Henry Winkler.

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.

On what basis do you distinguish this diagnosis, my long-lost separated twin?

[streeb]

PostPosted: 13 Aug 2009 18:50 Post subject:
Sorry, streeb:
Hugh wrote:
When "Fonzi" was first a character on 'Happy Days,' he was a minor character.
But as Gaeton Fonzi's role on the Church Committee (under Schweiker) and then House Select Committee on Assassinations developed, 'the Fonz' took over the show. And then he became an expression for 'not credible,' "jumped the shark."


From: http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... 597#230597

I know this routine inside and out. The real question is whether there is any evidence of this Fonzie/Fonzi thing or if it is just Hugh's supposition.

Well fair enough then. I wonder if Hugh can also explain why the Fonz ditched his light blue cotton jacket for the black leather bomber?

[compared2what?]

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

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.



That I'm sometimes thoughtless enough to be no better my own self is not something I'm proud of, which is also what makes it something I'd admit, admission being a necessary condition of penitence and emendation. I don't always recognize it in real time, though. So just in case I've rationalized my way into being an asshole without noticing it, I guess I should say that I hope that's not how my disagreements with Hugh on this thread are coming across, since that's definitely not how they're intended.

And....if it is, I'd be very grateful to the person who lets me know about it. I mean that.

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