Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:If you have no information regarding the op, Project Willow, take your ad hominem attacks elsewhere.
I have a differential experience of your behavior, both publicly and privately, and I will speak my truth about it.
I have told you before and I will tell you again here in this public venue, your posting of your pet theory, which has no basis in reality, in the middle of serious discussions on very real human rights abuses, is inappropriate and harmful to the cause of survivors of those abuses.
Mods? Get Project Willow's derailing into another thread atleast.
PW, you have no concept of mass pysops and mass abuse. Allegedly. If you have ONE THING to add about FM33-1, say it now or scram.
PW, please put my my pm to you in the open thread. I welcome it. I demand it.
I have been exposing the deliberate conditioning of children to be violent. Do you object? I have been exposing the deliberate promotion of misogyny. Do you object? I have been exposing the deliberate desensitization to suffering. Do you object? I have been exposing the deliberate obfuscation of of male domination and abuse. Do you object?
Take this all to another thread.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
Hugh, you're getting kind of agro again. I don't think Willow's trying to bait you. But let's keep it on topic.
Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:It's kinda late in the game for RI usernames to smirkingly assert that:
> There isn't monitoring of the internet for information liabilities > Monitors would take no notice of focus on constant posting about military control of media > Monitors would ignore constant exposure of psyops for kidz > NPR is not a spook outifit > Disney is not a spook outfit
So far so good.
> Spooks don't monitor RigorousIntuition > Spooks don't market counterpropaganda to prevent viral marketing of hostile information > Spooks don't exploit mnemonics that any college marketing major know inside and out etc.
If, by this list, you seek to imply that the NYTimes article you referenced above was in some way directed at you, or the danger your theories present to the military industrial complex, I can only say that I tend to disagree, with all the implications that disagreeing with that supposition entails intact. However, I realize that in the absence of evidence we may have reached an impasse on this. The damage done to the board by the actions of children playing at ARG's, and the dissemination and advocacy of the more typical poisonous conspiracy tropes, is pretty much enough to show me that the spooks can just sit back and laugh if they happen to be watching at all. They really have little need of somehow distorting NYTimes articles about the dangers to the indigenous manatee population as a result of the oil spill catastrophe in order to counter your theories. Here I am, doing their work for them. But since you seem to feel otherwise, let me be the first to congratulate you on making it to the NYTimes. Well done. I guess it's a sign that you've got them worried, which would honestly make me happy to no end.
barracuda, you probably won't find the one-source command to 'go forth and keyword hijack' anymore than you'll find a Republican document to 'go forth and steal yon election.'
The election fraud research of Robert Kennedy Jr. and Vincent Bugliosi, the history of Tammany Hall, and countless other examples seem to speak otherwise. There exists documentation beyond posed possibilities. Election fraud isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a political philosophy and practicality.
To be honest, I'm feeling just about done here. I was curious to see if Hugh was holding any other source material, but it seems that the "Dear Owen" letters are about as close as we get. As much as I enjoy "Fun Trivia", I'd hate to watch this deteriorate into another thread in which we are served up a progression of examples of hypothetical keyword psyops, or devolve into a manatee gang-bang. Guilty pleasure which that may be, I see now that it serves another purpose: to legitimatize his ideas by according them the credence of serious discussion and serious opposition, which is really not my intention. Neither is my desire to be merely denigrative, because there are aspects of these concepts which are worth talking about. Obviously.
The "Dear Owen" letters demonstrate, for me, the very difficulty which governmental interference into the workings of films runs up against - aggressively leftist creative personalities with little reason or inclination to fear the CIA, or to subjugate their vision to the "needs" of propaganda, producing films which must, above all, adhere to the bottom line of entertaining audiences enough to recoup the considerable private monies which afford their making. It is a task which requires skill, finesse, technique and talent, not to mention considerable luck, to succeed at all, none of which can in any way be assisted by the dead weight of some indiscernible bureaucratic intervention on the order of arbitrary keyword placements, color reassignments, synonym interjection, etc. Just watch any number of the ham-handed propaganda films overtly produced by the U.S. government's Bureau of Motion Pictures, or by the studios, to understand what their limitations have been in this realm.
Our Cities Must Fight, for example, is from 1951, and takes on the topic of why civilians should and must remain in the cities if they are under a bombing attack, a fine idea:
Compare this film with an iconic anti-war movie from the same year, The Day the Earth Stood Still.
There must be security for all -- or no one is secure... This does not mean giving up any freedom except the freedom to act irresponsibly. We live in peace, without arms or armies, secure in the knowledge that we are free from aggression and war -- free to pursue more profitable enterprises. We do not pretend to have achieved perfection -- but we do have a system -- and it works. Your choice is simple. Join us and live in peace. Or pursue your present course -- and face obliteration. We will be waiting for your answer. The decision rests with you.
These are cherrypicked examples, I know, but they're fun to look at.
Okay, so I'm a Gort fanboy.
But it seems to me at this point that if the fascists are deflecting keywords in movie scripts and new articles to serve their nefarious purposes, it can't be solidly demonstrated without better source material than I now have. And I think it's dangerous to take on those kinds of beliefs easily, probably in much the same emotional way that Hugh seems to find the study of UFOs or the supernatural dangerous. If you're right, man, your presentation is counter-productive. If you're wrong, it endlessly muddies the water, and works against the premise. And there seems to be almost no concrete evidence that you're right, if this thread is an indication. I think that's partly why people can get frustrated after prolonged exposure. I know it is for me.
Believe it not, I started this thread to look at any historical references, not to get people pissed off. If you do happen to come across some hard evidence, Hugh, keep us informed.
I welcome it. Oh hell, I demand it.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
HMW wrote:It's kinda late in the game for RI usernames to smirkingly assert that:
...
Spooks don't monitor RigorousIntuition
Gaeton Fonzi, er, I mean Henry Winkler has authored a series of children's books about a child with dyslexia, Hank Zipfer, er, I mean Hank Zipzer. Damn this interference theory.
They're on to you Hugh.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Keystroke battles: Are young hackers the future of warfare? By CHARLIE REED Stars and Stripes Published: August 20, 2010 ...... The report included an oft-cited statistic attributed to Jim Gosler, founding director of the CIA’s Clandestine Information Technology Office and an NSA visiting scientist.
“There are about 1,000 security people in the U.S. who have the specialized security skills to operate effectively in cyberspace,” Gosler said in 2008. “We need 10,000 to 30,000.” ......
...as I type CIA-NPR's 'This American Life' show is featuring..."superheroes and CIA recruiting of women"....
It's kinda late in the game for RI usernames to smirkingly assert that:
> There isn't monitoring of the internet for information liabilities > Monitors would take no notice of focus on constant posting about military control of media > Monitors would ignore constant exposure of psyops for kidz > NPR is not a spook outifit > Disney is not a spook outfit > Spooks don't monitor RigorousIntuition > Spooks don't market counterpropaganda to prevent viral marketing of hostile information > Spooks don't exploit mnemonics that any college marketing major know inside and out etc.
Since nobody's asserting those things, smirkingly or otherwise, I encourage you to stop wasting your own time and that of others by compiling lists of non-rebuttal rebuttals to them.
My detractors don't seem to have any grasp of military doctrines, marketing, or cognitive science. I encourage others to do their own research and avoid wasting time on the ad hominem slingers..
I'm not your detractor. But I do have a good grasp of marketing tactics, as well as a good grasp of cognitive science. By which I guess that I mean I have more than casual knowledge wrt both those areas.
So please believe me when I assure you that I don't tell you that you either don't understand or are deliberately misrepresenting the studies you cite wrt the latter in order to detract from anything other than the sum total of wrong information presently in circulation on the internet.
Because it is unequivocally wrong to suggest that any of them demonstrates that encountering a word in a movie or newspaper article that's a homonym or quasi-homonym for a word that's already stored in your memory with some particular set of connotations and associations has any impact whatsoever either on the strength of those associations or on the ease with which you can recall the information connoted by them. There's no science I know of that even comes close to proving otherwise
That very emphatically includes all the science you've cited so far, btw. To the best of my knowledge, according to the scientists who study it, memory just doesn't appear to work in the way you say it does. So unless you can come up with some research that supports your contentions, it would be a little unseemly for you to keep insisting that there's enormous amounts of it. Because there really isn't. You're wrong, in error, and mistaken to say that there is.
Please either ante up with some on-point science or stop saying there's enormous amounts of it, therefore,
The KH strategy is a combination of multiple psyops strategies that ARE in print. Army FM33-1 and FM33-5 repeatedly advise that psyops is usually carried out as a combination of strategies.
> "counterpropaganda" and > "Imitative deception" and > "grey propaganda" and > "black propaganda" and > "conditioning" and > "forestalling"
....are all elements of keyword hijacking
which are clearly spelled out in FM33-1 and FM33-5.
FM3-1 declares that there is not much difference between psyops and advertising.
The techniques of OUT-MARKETING the competition ("subversives") is in any college marketing course. The techniques of designing an ad campaign is in any college marketing course.
My detractors don't seem to have any grasp of military doctrines, marketing, or cognitive science. I encourage others to do their own research and avoid wasting time on the ad hominem slingers..
If I've understood the claim made here correctly, KW-H is the be-all and end-all of psyops: the purpose of psyops strategies is to enabel and support KW-H.
KW-H is basically all-pervading, fundamental, is the WHOLE POINT of psyops, which, says HMW, is Mind Kontrol at its most nefarious, cf. Nacho Libre or whatever.
Now, this is either nuts and worth no more than a shrug of the shoulders, or it is one of the worst examples of "scientific thinking" ever, or it is misguided obfuscation, more commonly known as W.O.O., or wonder occluding objectivity, that is "objectivity" that occludes by way of wonderous claims without backing.
*
on edit: The problem with KW-H as a "theory" is that, as it's presented, no one denies what HMW would class as it's component parts (see above). What makes one incredulous is the rather strong claim that it is all for the sake of KW-H. It's quite a leap of faith HMW asks one to make, basically.
Now, why does he do this? Your guess is as good as mine.
*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
Keyword hijacking is a short hand term for the use of decoys for:
> creating competing associations with keywords, themes, and images that are subversive to social control.
The competing associations can do many things- > confuse fiction and reality > subliminal framing of things as either positive or negative > bolster desired beliefs, values, and attitudes > hide dangerous information or ideologies
...for instance.
Thanks, bph, for the Winkler project. He was steered as a marketing tool-
Until the day that I met Lin Oliver for lunch in 2002, I never thought about being an author for one minute in my whole life.
Look familiar? I've found lots of KH psyops for kidz who are prime targets for Disney, Scholastic, Nickelodeon, etc. Lots of 9/11 psyops for kidz. Go look today at the supermarket for the Highlights puzzles for kids book. It has a similar image.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
Some people seem to miss the comforts of religion.
But to be fair, there are elements in religion that are sublime and Hugh's material does provide plausable examples of methods of psyoperators, even if they may be overestimated in their use or value.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Wait. What? Are you suggesting zipzer's niagara falls project there resembles one of the twin towers collapsing and that the squirting water mimics the squib blasts, cascading debris and the molten steel purported to have poured out the side of the building? Sigh. OK. So what would that accomplish?
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Mods? Get Project Willow's derailing into another thread atleast.
PW, you have no concept of mass pysops and mass abuse. Allegedly. If you have ONE THING to add about FM33-1, say it now or scram.
I am self employed which means I don't take orders from anyone, not even from perps anymore.
Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:PW, please put my my pm to you in the open thread. I welcome it. I demand it.
Be careful what you ask for.
Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Having slung your smear of me, you get your ass back to the thread and respond directly to my post.
I don't know anything about you but I know that spooks are on the board trying to keep people from knowing how psyops media has been run for decades.
Funny, I don' t see any posts by you on mass psyops. Funny, I don't see any posts by you in the Psyops and Meme Management forum which was created by Jeff just for my posts. There's just tumbleweeds there unless I'm posting. And I've posted around 94% of the documentation of psyops on this board.
You may be myopically posting all about your own abuse but that doesn't give you the right to slag off the abuse of millions and billions .
I can make the case that mass child abuse is a national security asset along with misogyny and patriarchy. And I can name the [literal] screen memories designed to project these memes onto the masses of the planet. Can you? No, you can't.
We can be allies or you can sling shit just because you (allegedly) don't get how mass media psyops uses mnemonics, neurolinguistics, and game theory for military doctrines of social control.
Actually, you can't make the cases about child exploitation or screen memories from what I can see, you never had the data. This is lip service, or actually propaganda. I have stated clearly I don't consider you capable of being an ally.
Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:I have been exposing the deliberate conditioning of children to be violent. Do you object? I have been exposing the deliberate promotion of misogyny. Do you object? I have been exposing the deliberate desensitization to suffering. Do you object? I have been exposing the deliberate obfuscation of of male domination and abuse. Do you object?
Take this all to another thread.
1. I disagree, you've been offering up the subject in a way that invites ridicule and disbelief which works directly against exposure. 2. If I had the will to pursue this, I'd say provide me links. 3. See number one. 4. See number one.
I have now said my piece and am done. I care not what you do with it.
"OK. So what would that accomplish?" I second that. Isn't it possible that the image could have the reverse effect, making people think more about the possibility of demolition? Explain the psychology as you see it, Hugh. Because I think your basic premise is right, and the propaganda manipulation is on that level, but some of your examples are a real stretch to me.
But seriously, Hugh... like this: "How could you all have missed- the use of an elevator shaft to wire up a building for remote-controlled demolition? By no coincidence...that's how the real 9/11 was done. There's even a May 2001 movie priming us for it called 'The Shaft' complete with buying short on the stock market. Hmm."
Could you please explain in layman's terms the alleged psychological intention here. Because I really want to be with you completely on this stuff, but I'm missing it sometimes. So the viewer of "Inception" sees the elevator shaft, and, yes, a subliminal effect is achieved, but how does it bring the viewer's psyche *away from* controlled demolition? Such an explanation would mean much more to me than "hard evidence" in an old manual, because I'm sure there are spooks in Hollywood and the media operating on this general level, and involved with very sophisticated linguistics and semantics study and propaganda, surely on a level that we all here can barely fathom. Some of your examples do make total sense to me, in terms of shifting the association of a given important meme from one thing to another, but others of your examples leave me scratching my head.
The CIA is defined by assassination. After Frank Olson died at the hands of the CIA, no one expressed contrition or moral concern. On the contrary, they didn't even want to give each other slaps on the wrists for fear it would hinder 'the spirit of initiative and enthusiasm so necessary in our work.' - John Kelly
It was described by people later as a military ambush. And for the reasons as this: These many people were slaughtered; nobody heard a sound; there were dogs on the grounds that didn't say boo; there was a caretaker in a guest cottage who didn't hear one gun go off, and guns went off; they didn't hear any screaming; nobody saw a getaway car; the place was completely destroyed; there was time to put hoods over the people, ropes on their neck, leave signs and symbols that would come down on a particular group of our society—two groups—and split. And no, not a dog was killed or barked. The fellow that lives on the grounds said he slept through it. And they shimmied up the telephone poles, cut the wires, left all this obvious evidence, and split. And the way the wires and the lines were cut I felt that it had to be a military type ambush.
The total effect was to appear, or wanted to appear, that if they didn't catch the murderers of these people they would come down on the blacks—that was their hope.
It's very interesting in my research on the assassinations that the very first man to publish an article on the Sharon Tate murder in my collection of the murders, before they had a suspect—the murders were in August, and they found the suspects in December—was a man named Ed Butler. In October '69 he wrote an article. The man who publishes the newspaper that he writes for is Patrick Frawley of Schick Razor and Technicolor, who is one of the third largest supporters of Richard Nixon—a far right-wing person. And he hires Ed Butler to write articles for him. Ed is an agent provaceteur who worked with Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans. When Oswald had the cover story that he was a communist, Ed Butler made a record for him. [This was] when Oswald said he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba [Committee]. And he was the only member of the New Orleans area, and Ed Butler knew it. Ed Butler worked with Lee Harvey Oswald, so it's interesting that in 1969 the first person who has an opinion on who murdered these seven people would be Ed Butler; In my collection of articles we have Ed Butler. Now, what is this article called? It says Did Hate Kill Tate? And he goes into the fact that the Black Panthers are tied into the communists, and the evidence is that the Panthers killed these people; they came into middle class America and spread terror.
First, the news media should define the word hippie. Because the hippies that I knew from '67 to '69 didn't mean a military operation in any sense of the word, nor in anybody else's mind in the world. Nor did it to the Rand Corporation, or the President of the United States, or John Mitchell. Hippie did not mean military; it was anti-military; it was anti-war; it was the let's get it together generation.
So when they found the real killer and he has this beard and guitar, we just can't call him an ex-convict. They have to call it a military-style commune. We must have military-style communes in Vietnam if a commune is where people all live together and you are military; it's a military commune. It certainly isn't a hippie commune, but they have to make it a hippie thing. - Mae Brussell
This is the window of the leapt, oldest of all. The dream of flight, a quiver of desire at the edge, the heart like a match struck.
And this, the window of the fallen, easiest to open. The embarrassment of accident, a wedding ring down the dark, mistaken drain.
This is the window of the pushed, The didn’t-know-what-hit-him as he dropped, the feathery nudge of the nation, its high court of necessity.
And this, the window of the overheard, the aftermath in the telephone: “Well, he's gone,” says one end of the wire to the other, which replies, “That's too bad.”
Project Willow wrote:I am self employed which means I don't take orders from anyone, not even from perps anymore.
now this... this is an interesting, and very manipulative, use of language.
After years of presenting art to the public I would tell you that language, like art, is interpreted according to the experiences and biases of the reader/viewer. I would say that you reveal more about yourself with this statement than you do about me.
None of that matters however. It doesn't matter how well or poorly I address what Hugh is doing on the board (except to me, which is none of your business), it doesn't matter how well or poorly it is perceived that I speak on this or any one topic. None of that erases the crimes committed against 5 generations of children and adults, tortured and manipulated in facilities all over the globe in operations and experiments funded by tax money. Whether my behavior in this venue or any other is perceived as good or bad or anywhere in between has no bearing or effect on the reality of these crimes, which I know to the point of bone certainty will one day be exposed.
