Primary sources for the keyword hijacking theory.

[Searcher08]

SHORTER VERSION:

Not so fast, buster.

[Allegro]

.
My response, too!

SHORTER VERSION:

Not so fast, buster.

I'm lovin' this thread !!

To all, and especially compared2what? and brainpanhandler

[brainpanhandler]

But let's continue our consideration of proactive interference just a bit further.

Honey, it's not that I won't but that I just can't. I got nuthin'. But you go ahead. I'll watch.

I know, right. I guess I'm pretty much done as well, for now.

Oh, HELLS to the no.

You couldn't possibly be, absent a kind of unsportsmanslike and insincere intellectual conduct that I know to be far, far beneath you.
And we can't be having that. Because at best, it would be very remiss of me to stand by and allow you to hide your light under a bushel under the circumstances. And at worst -- were I, as it seems I must have been, the wet blanket that extinquished it -- it would be an affirmative sin against honest and searching intellectual inquiry for me to do so.

I just can't wittingly be so lax, nor shall I. Curfew must not ring tonight, I say, though my hands be bloody and battered by the efforts necessary to prevent it. Although happily, nothing that extreme or self-injurious is called for in this case, I don't think. In reality, a short recapitulation of the situation as it presently stands should more than suffice. To wit:

You posed a question that -- however carefully surrounded by thickets of qualification it may be -- wouldn't have had any raison d'etre at all unless you strongly believed that the answer to it was capable of somehow validating the KWH hypothesis as something that had (at least in part) a demonstrably sound empirical and rational basis.

You may be giving me more credit than I deserve and generous as that may seem, I'm onto you ... baby.

Indeed, per your own standards and principles as you freely define them, you're obligated to answer it in the interest of simple fairness. Or, I guess, arguably merely the appearance of the interest of simple fairness. But whatever. It really doesn't matter all that much. Because even if the interest of fairness doesn't demand an answer from you, I sure as hell still do. I positively insist on it, in fact. You have me on the edge of my seat.

Well then, there's a deft turning of the tables. While it's true that I ought to be able to answer my own question and by that standard if requested to do so I'm more or less obligated to, nonetheless... I'm onto you...

So, just to refresh your memory wrt the only points that can accurately be described as "salient," context establishes the question as one that comes as close to being of first-order relevance as it's possible for the powers of impartial reason to conjure wrt reaching a determination on the potential non-bogusness of proactive interference as a practical and operative vehicle via which the CIA-Media can and does exert the influence on young minds that Hugh alleges as fact.

And that question was:

Just to stick with the Rambo example, is it possible that an average citizen of the united states having been almost certainly exposed with a fair amount of frequency to the name Rambo of first blood fame prior to the name Greg Rambo of Kent state fame (as an aside, fame might be too strong a word for Greg rambo as so far as I can tell among all the names related to the kent state massacre Greg's is fairly minor) would be somewhat less likely to explore the history of greg rambo as a result of careless reading and an aversion to the film Rambo, for which there might be many sound reasons?

________________

FWIW, by my lights, a fair consideration is one that adequately accounts for the dismissal of factors and/or evidence that argue against the subject being canvassed as well as those that support it. But I'm kind of old-fashioned that way, I have to admit.

Actually I think that'll be unavoidable if we actually pursue this to it's predictably ridiculous denouement. But we probably don't have to go that far.

Quite apart from which -- and, I hope, needless to say -- I very much look forward to hearing whatever considered response you've got, entirely irrespective of its terms. So please feel free to proceed according to whatever rules and standards strike you as best suited to an effective disposition of the matter at hand.

I'm all ears.

Well, first let me say that I considered the question beyond absurd, but was the only sort of question available after everything else had been so thoroughly dispensed with. I can hardly blame you for dropping this horrid construction back into my lap for deconstruction, but that doesn't mean I won't curse you for it. It took not a lot to formulate it, as is probably apparent to you, but to even try to answer a question packed with so many assumptions and qualifications will require a lot of words. Sigh. Having said that, let's figure out what our target audience for which this technique would actually have some chance of working on is reduced to based on the perameters of the question and keeping in mind that we're only considering proactive interference theory.

1) Exposed to the name John Rambo prior to the name Greg Rambo beginning in childhood, with likely sources to include the novel, the film, movie posters, t-shirts, newspaper advertisements/reviews, conversations/word of mouth, references in other media, and other sources I'm overlooking.

2) Exposed to the name John Rambo some unquantifiable number of times, but at least with a "fair amount of frequency", because really it seems that proactive interference to work at all probably requires some repetition.

3) Not only exposed to the name John Rambo with a fair amount of frequency prior to becoming aware of the name Greg Rambo, but also knowledgeable enough about the plot, subject matter, production value, likely themes and level of acting abilities and also possessing a make up/disposition/aesthetic sensibility such that the target would have an aversion to the film, all of which could have been knowledge acquired in one incident or over a longer span of time, to include childhood, but that would have had to have been acquired prior to encountering the name Greg Rambo. As Sylvester Stalone's career advanced this requirement should have become easier to meet in that the mere mention of his name as the principle actor would be enough to turn off the target audience and create a block to the name Rambo.

4) Having finally come into contact with the name greg rambo target would have to be either as a matter of basic predisposition and/or as a matter of context given to quickly and completely dismissing greg rambo and all the history that may or may not be available at that time or any future time based on the function of the groundwork laid in the above characteristics 1, 2 and 3. The qualification of "somewhat less likely" refers to the average us citizen, which I'm not even going to attempt to define it's such a meaningless term. There are levels of absurdity that not even I am going to attempt to hold my nose and wade through.


There then ... your wild guess really is as good as mine as to how small a number of our fellow citizens would fit within the squeaky confines of those peremeters.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Why is KWH still being used today? I'm guessing it's bureaucratic intertia -- this is a technique that was viable and useful in the 60's and 70's and there's a big department full of people with high clearances nobody wants to fire. There's two problems facing KWH today. One, the internet has created a news cycle that's too fast to "manage" in any traditional OSS/MI6 sense...the managers are just reacting now. Granted, they have unthinkably powerful means at their disposal when they do react, but the point I want to make is that the Rules of Engagement have permanently changed since the JFK coverup was the problem du jour.

Two, after decades of this kind of finger-in-the-dam war of attrition, it's probably obvious to the top brass that there's always going to be more JFKs, more Greg Rambos, more atrocities and deep state crimes, year after year. From a procurement perspective, this is a good business plan because the operation must scale up every year, but I find it hard to believe that the quarterly reviews are going very well these days. The utility of KWH has been slipping every year for decades now...

[brainpanhandler]

I really, really have had enough of this thread, so I'll let someone else ask you how you are defining kwh. As far as I'm concerned there are no primary sources for kwh as "traditionally" defined (or we'd have been given them), as opposed to the goal post moving umbrella term redefinition currently in vogue, and an examination of this thread with the original definition in mind will reveal that kwh bunk. Bunk, bunk, bunko.

Furthermore, keep in mind that the perps are aware of the crimes before they occur and enter the news cycle, obviously.

[Wombaticus Rex]

How I am defining it? Why, as a CIA controlled ongoing perception management program that's a continuation of MOCKINGBIRD and functions exactly as Hugh has explained it. That's the definition, right?

I don't share your belief that the "perps" are a monolith, the history of intel and covert weirdness is full of instances where agencies interfere with each other and a lot of the cover-ups Hugh talks about are not planned ops but heat-of-the-moment military atrocities. Unless Falujah and My Lai type incidents were planned in order to be covered up in order to be discovered.

[brainpanhandler]

I don't share your belief that the "perps" are a monolith

This is an annoying way of communicating and you seem smart enough to know that.

the history of intel and covert weirdness is full of instances where agencies interfere with each other

Agreed, but that's not what you said. What you wrote that I was responding to was, "Two, after decades of this kind of finger-in-the-dam war of attrition, it's probably obvious to the top brass that there's always going to be more JFKs, more Greg Rambos, more atrocities and deep state crimes, year after year.". It seems to me that it is probably fairly often the case that most major media outlets are coordinated and/or manipulated by the same network of perps that commit the atrocities, deep state crimes, ie , jfks and kent states, of which you speak. None of that class is probably more than a few phone calls from each other and they all have common interests, especially as regards the only force that could ever conceivably oppose them, namely, a huge mass of us.

and a lot of the cover-ups Hugh talks about are not planned ops but heat-of-the-moment military atrocities.

That's not what's at issue.

Unless Falujah and My Lai type incidents were planned in order to be covered up in order to be discovered.

I've no doubt fallujah was planned regardless of whether it played out just as planned and that the domestic media coverage was carefully controlled and manipulated by a network of interlinked media/military players.

I doubt mai lai was planned in the way fallujah was. Nor do I think the media was as carefully controlled as it is now. I'm also sure there were lots of other Mai Lai's we were never made aware of.


This thread isn't really about any of that though. It really isn't. Nor is it about, "a CIA controlled ongoing perception management program that's a continuation of MOCKINGBIRD...".

That's the definition, right?

No, it isn't, or wasn't, except in a sense so broad it's meaningless. Key Word Hijacking. Of each particular thing, ask: What is it in itself? What is its nature?

Ask this of Hugh, or easier yet observe as others ask Hugh what is it? Right? right.

I doubt we probably disagree a whole lot on the motive, purposes and means of the propaganda makers.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Interesting sleight of mouth. I feel like I was just reprimanded in a foreign language. You're mocking me, right?

[compared2what?]

Why is KWH still being used today? I'm guessing it's bureaucratic intertia -- this is a technique that was viable and useful in the 60's and 70's...

Hello? ^^Assumes facts not in evidence, including but not limited to:

(1) The ongoing use of KWH;
(2) The use of KWH in the past, specifically the '60s and '70s; and
(3) The inherent viability and usefulness of KWH as an effective means of managing social perception.

May I ask you therefore:

Apart from having been exposed repeatedly to assertions to that effect by Hugh in a venue that's a lifestyle brand from your perspective, psychographically speaking -- by which I mean, to put it very roughly, "exposed to them in the context of a community in which your membership acts as both an individual statement about and a social validation of your identity and values, which is, btw, in full keeping with psy-op 101 standards and practices as they exist in the real world" -- on what (if any) grounds do you base your acceptance of KWH as an established reality, albeit an outmoded one?

And I put the bold part in bold because it's a direct expression of the question implicitly posed by, you know, the topic. Yet here we are on page 8 without so much as a single iota of proof -- or even a single general vague circumstance -- that suggests that believing in KWH as a reality is justified by anything other than the pleasure some derive from it.

Further (and this one goes out to everybody who says they've learned a lot from Hugh, btw), though I hate to put it this baldly:

The functional ability of the originator and leading proponent of the KWH hypothesis (IOW, Hugh) to act as a reliable and/or accurate presenter and propagator of any kind of precis or summary of the information that he's culled from reading, research, et cetera has been repeatedly shown (both on this thread and on many others) to be so severely impaired (or otherwise compromised by unknown and unknowable factors and circumstances) that it would be neither unfair nor unreasonable to regard him as, for all practical purposes, incapacitated for service in that regard.

There are far, far too many posts attesting to the above for me (or probably any forum member besides Googlebot and Yahoobot) to list them all. However, for the sake of example, I refer you to....Hmm. Let me think.

Well. It's an embarrassment of riches, really. But in both of these cases, Hugh is unambiguously mistaken for fairly plain and uncomplicated reasons that can be (and are) fairly clearly stated in the posts that follow his initial iteration of a flatly erroneous assertion. So in the interests of efficiency and concision, I guess that, what the hell, I may as well refer you to:

-- His wildly off-base misreading of the work of Milton Erickson on indirect suggestion here;

-- His repeated and inexplicable failure to grasp what the essential and fundamental purpose of the Smith-Mundt Act was and -- consequently -- why it's not only mistaken to say that Smith-Mundt "banned propagandizing the American audience" but also mistaken not to say that Smith-Mundt actually mandates propagandizing the American audience by omission (by disallowing American access to and therefore knowledge of propagandistic materials disseminated by the State Department in other countries and territories) here.

...and there's a big department full of people with high clearances nobody wants to fire. There's two problems facing KWH today. One, the internet has created a news cycle that's too fast to "manage" in any traditional OSS/MI6 sense...the managers are just reacting now.

Granted, they have unthinkably powerful means at their disposal when they do react, but the point I want to make is that the Rules of Engagement have permanently changed since the JFK coverup was the problem du jour.

Two, after decades of this kind of finger-in-the-dam war of attrition, it's probably obvious to the top brass that there's always going to be more JFKs, more Greg Rambos, more atrocities and deep state crimes, year after year. From a procurement perspective, this is a good business plan because the operation must scale up every year, but I find it hard to believe that the quarterly reviews are going very well these days. The utility of KWH has been slipping every year for decades now...

And I guess that's either speculation based on facts not in evidence or speculation based on facts known to you but not me, news of which I eagerly anticipate. But since I don't know which, I have to punt for the moment. Also, I don't want to overtax you with questions or anything. In fact, I apologize in advance for the prosecutorial tone of the question that I did ask. It's just a stylistic shenanigan that's among the default modes in which I can write with ease, so please don't infer any bad attitude from it, insofar as that's possible. And I can totally guarantee you that I neither feel nor intended to convey any. FWIW. Which isn't a whole hell of a lot, I do realize. But since it's all I have, it's all I can offer.

It would be GREAT if you could take that to mean that I was offering you my all, incidentally. Even though that isn't exactly what I meant. So please feel free to draw as many ordinary and innocent wrong inferences of no great material import and generally benign-to-positive significance as you both can and wish to do.

I strongly encourage that, in fact. It's kind of like a house policy.

[orz]

I think I'm mellowing in my old age, can't even be bothered to read 8 pages of this stuff let alone point out yet again the obvious flaws in Hugh's 99.999% worthless ideas.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Wow orz. I thought you'd disappeared.

Hope you're well.

[barracuda]

I think I'm mellowing in my old age, can't even be bothered to read 8 pages of this stuff let alone point out yet again the obvious flaws in Hugh's 99.999% worthless ideas.

I can't believe it. It looks as if orz just sneakily validated .001% of Hugh's theory. ON WHAT BASIS, I'D LIKE TO KNOW!??!

?

Exactly.

[compared2what?]

I think I'm mellowing in my old age, can't even be bothered to read 8 pages of this stuff let alone point out yet again the obvious flaws in Hugh's 99.999% worthless ideas.

Oh, orz.



Age cannot wither nor custom stale your infinite orz-iety, don't be silly. How very lovely to see you. If I knew you were coming, I'd've baked a cake.

[compared2what?]

I can hardly blame you for dropping this horrid construction back into my lap for deconstruction, but that doesn't mean I won't curse you for it.

Please don't, I beg of you, I cherish you as if you were my very own brainpanhandler and an elusive butterfly of love. Also, there's already more adversity in my life than I have any way of overcoming and I actually have some reason to believe in the efficacy of curses. So have mercy on a sinner if you can and/or will. As [something, I don't know what] is my witness, you'd just be wasting your perfectly good bad wishes anyway, I swear it.
_____________

You may be giving me more credit than I deserve and generous as that may seem, I'm onto you ... baby.

Well then, there's a deft turning of the tables. While it's true that I ought to be able to answer my own question and by that standard if requested to do so I'm more or less obligated to, nonetheless... I'm onto you...

Wait.

What happened during those pauses, exactly?

Because it's kind of like: I feel practically certain that I was there, but I can't for the life of me recall what was going on. Oh, well. Must have inadvertently roofied myself again, I guess. I mean, if it'd been aliens, they'd have left marks, wouldn't they? I bet they would have, and probably in a little pile on the dresser, too, downward life-trends in general being what they are these days. Which is really kind of a cheering thought, in its way. Because I may be down, but as long as the paranormal phenomena aren't disrespecting me yet, at least I can say I'm not out, AMIRITE?

toujours gai, toujours gai,

c2w

[brainpanhandler]

and I actually have some reason to believe in the efficacy of curses.

No worries. I was thinking more along the lines of "damn you c2w", which while it might sound as though I were literally wishing you to be damned (to hell presumably), isn't really in an evil-eyeish vein, in the same way that if I were to say "fuck you c2w" I would not literally mean "coitus you c2w", which really wouldn't be a curse at all I wouldn't think, depending.