Primary sources for the keyword hijacking theory.

[§ê¢rꆧ]

Also, I'm having a hard time believing that you're not just toying with me.

No, no... but I did issue the disclaimer, "Do please keep in mind I'm just playing Hugh's advocate here.", which you might have missed amidst all the hub bub. It's a dirty job and no one really has to do it except Hugh, but in the predictable absence of our sirenian friend and since I have an abundance of free time at the moment I'm filling in.

At the risk of appearing to rest in the shade sipping a cool drink without even the slightest chance of breaking a sweat while I watch you vigorously perform your mental gymnastics let me ask you a simple question:

Have you ever had the experience of trying to recall a name or a word only to confoundingly and repeatedly recall another similar name or word instead?

Well you didn't address the question to me but I will answer: more times than I can count. Also this: many times I have found myself laying out something in the vein of a conspiracy theory to someone, and they'll mention some fictional plot from a movie or television program that it resembles, which effectively a) equates the idea with fiction/fantasy/entertainment and b) frames the discussion in a certain way, as per the plot of the said fiction.

[Elvis]

[MinM]

On The Media: Transcript of "Great Expectorations" (August 27, 2010)

BOB GARFIELD: The New York Times stood by its story. They told us at the time that its reporter witnessed the spitting incident with her own eyes. We took them at their word. After all, haven't we all heard of this kind of thing happening to vets from another unpopular war?

Fifteen years ago, sociologist and Vietnam vet Jerry Lembcke set out to trace the incidents of spitting stories in the media. He delved into press archives from the sixties and seventies, and what he found was very surprising: not a single firsthand account of a vet getting spit on, and close to no published claims by anyone so ignobly victimized.

JERRY LEMBCKE: So it really wasn’t until about 1980 that these stories began to circulate, they sort of began to pop-up like mushrooms in the spring and begin to appear in popular culture. Films like the first Rambo film, make reference to, Rambo says he was spat on when he came home.

[CLIP]:

[SYLVESTER STALLONE AS RAMBO]: It wasn’t my war. You asked me, I didn’t ask you and I did what I had to do to win, but somebody wouldn’t let us win. And I come back to the world and I see maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting, calling me baby-killer and all kinds of vile crap!

[END CLIP]

BOB: So that's what the spitting story sounded like in 1982. Let's take a listen to what it sounded like in 2007. Here's Josh Sparling on Sean Hannity's radio show, describing his alleged spitting incident.

JOSH SPARLING: That was the worst afternoon of being American that I've ever had in my life. And they actually made me feel ashamed to be a soldier, almost. They, they – they kept calling me a baby killer and a murderer, and they said I was a disgrace, and I had blood covering my hands. They don't know how I sleep at night.

SEAN HANNITY: So here you give your leg for your country, here you go off and you put your life at risk for your country for the right for these morons to say whatever they want at their little rally there, and the thanks you get for it is just like a lot of vets after Vietnam – you get spit at.

JOSH SPARLING: You know that, and that's exactly almost how I felt. I, I - I thought back, and I'm sure it wasn't as bad as it was back then, but I just was like, wow, this is - must have been what they felt like.

BOB GARFIELD: Apart from your particular suspicions about this incident, tell me how the story that played out last week resembled the stories that you've been following over the last 35 years.

JERRY LEMBCKE: Well, the veracity of the stories themselves is only part of what I'm interested in. Stories like this may be true or they may not be true. Of course, I can't prove that they're not true. But it's how they play into a kind of betrayal narrative for why we lost the war in Vietnam, and in this case, why it is that we would lose the war in Iraq also, the allegation here being that it's protestors at home that undermine the morale of the troops, and some Bush administration spokespeople saying that is lending aid and comfort to the enemy. And both of these are kind of themes in the spitting stories that followed out of the Vietnam War.

BOB GARFIELD: Why are we so prepared to believe that these were commonplace incidents in the Vietnam era?

JERRY LEMBCKE: Well, it's a face-saving device. It helps construct an alibi, the alibi being that we beat ourselves, that we were defeated on the home front, and that we, the most powerful nation on earth, was not defeated by the small upstart nation of Asian others. It's a dangerous myth because, coming out of Vietnam, it kept alive the idea that we could win wars like Vietnam if we just stuck together as a country, if we just stayed solid behind the war effort.

BOB GARFIELD: I want to ask you about self-fulfilling prophecy, or maybe self-fulfilling mythology. But is it possible that as a society we have so internalized the idea of returning soldiers from unpopular wars being spat upon that it actually becomes something that protestors might do, thinking that's, you know, the thing to do? Could that be going on right about now?

JERRY LEMBCKE: No, I think it's more the opposite. I think the internalization of the myth - I think that's a good insight. But I think it's more likely that people returning from Iraq expect to be spat on, and that what they expect is what they think happened to Vietnam veterans. So they come home looking for this to happen and looking for a chance to tell the story of how they were spat on when they came home from their war...

http://audio.wnyc.org/otm/otm082710e.mp3

[compared2what?]

Have you ever had the experience of trying to recall a name or a word only to confoundingly and repeatedly recall another similar name or word instead?

Well you didn't address the question to me but I will answer: more times than I can count.

That's really a pretty common phenomenon in one form or another and -- assuming that you're not experiencing anything so notable that it amounts to mental impairment (ie, you're not showing signs or symptoms for Alzheimer's/Parkinson's/Pick's/Huntington's/or-some-other-adult-onset-neurodegenerative disorder) -- also a normal one.

By which I mean: Human beings and human brains alike just be that way sometimes, by themselves. Both for any number of reasons or for no reason at all. And thus has it always been, as far as I know.

Although thus has it not always been conceptually represented and explained, needless to say. I mean, I guess that at a stretch you could say that Plato also saw forgetting and memory as two inversely and closely related processes that were universal to the human condition and (as a function of the same eternal and primal forces from which both life and its meaning sprang) original to it.

But, you know. He wasn't really talking about the same things we are. And doubtless his was not the only view. The others have just been forgotten.

Anyway. It's not really clear to me how you're getting from your personal experience of confoundingly and repeatedly recalling one name when you're trying to remember another one to some general point that bears on the existence and validity of KWH. Could you elaborate on the relationship a little?

Also this: many times I have found myself laying out something in the vein of a conspiracy theory to someone, and they'll mention some fictional plot from a movie or television program that it resembles, which effectively a) equates the idea with fiction/fantasy/entertainment and b) frames the discussion in a certain way, as per the plot of the said fiction.

Well, first of all, unless you forgot to mention the keywords, you're talking about narrative (plus, maybe, meta-narrative). And not keywords.

Which is a distinction with a very meaningful difference, because at least on an intra-cultural level, pretty much all narrative of this or that particular time and place resembles all other narrative of the same time and place in broad terms. At a minimum. Because narrative convention is a cultural artifact. If not the cultural artifact. Although it might just look that way from the perspective of contemporary culture, I suppose. I really have no way of knowing, obviously.

In any event. Narrative convention is a cultural artifact with numerous very strong, very durable and very...well, figuratively, very "all-terrain" properties as a proximate occasion for social cohesion. Or, as the case may be, division. It kind of depends on the health of the culture. But either way, on an intra-cultural [WHAT I JUST SAID].

In addition to which -- again, on an intra-cultural [WHAT I JUST SAID] -- much more narrowly speaking, the chances that each narrative resembles an extant body of other narratives in the same or a parallel genre to a pretty fucking significant extent border on 100 per cent. And that's not, like, unique to the media age or anything close to it. In fact, to the best of my ability to speak to subject -- which is obviously limited -- narrative conventions have been a central and defining component of and vehicle for conveying cultural identity in every culture since the dawn of time that's ever had one. Of which some memory has survived to the present. Which it tends to do in a narrative form when it does, almost by definition.

In short:

Keywords? No.

Narrative? Yes, but that's a whole other story. So to speak.

That "resembles" is carrying a lot of weight, basically. What are the cut-off criteria for resemblance, by your standards?
_________________

(Plus, should the answer to that KWH-ize some aspect of the situation that I'm too stupid to see without it):

Effectively for whom?

Do you lose the capacity to distinguish between fiction/fantasy/entertainment on the one hand and a conspiracy theory premised on real events or circumstances on the other as a result? Do they?

Also, how does it frame the discussion in a way that deprives the parties to it of agency wrt their own thoughts and utterances?
__________

I'm very, very sorry to be so very, very uncomprehending. I just really, truly and genuinely don't understand what you're saying. Which is my failure more than it is yours. That doesn't mean I can overcome it without your assistance, though. Life = Very unfair that way.

But examples help. Can you maybe just give me an example or two?

[compared2what?]

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.

On WHAT??????????



??????????
_________________

Jeebus. Do you know NOTHING about women? Drop that shovel and back away from the hole you're digging for yourself before you're in too deep to get out, that's my advice.

[compared2what?]

On The Media: Transcript of "Great Expectorations" (August 27, 2010)

I'm very glad you brought that up and so wanted to thank you now for posting, even though I'm not going to have a chance to do it justice until tomorrow.

[compared2what?]

On The Media: Transcript of "Great Expectorations" (August 27, 2010)

BOB GARFIELD: The New York Times stood by its story. They told us at the time that its reporter witnessed the spitting incident with her own eyes. We took them at their word. After all, haven't we all heard of this kind of thing happening to vets from another unpopular war?

Fifteen years ago, sociologist and Vietnam vet Jerry Lembcke set out to trace the incidents of spitting stories in the media. He delved into press archives from the sixties and seventies, and what he found was very surprising: not a single firsthand account of a vet getting spit on, and close to no published claims by anyone so ignobly victimized.

JERRY LEMBCKE: So it really wasn’t until about 1980 that these stories began to circulate, they sort of began to pop-up like mushrooms in the spring and begin to appear in popular culture. Films like the first Rambo film, make reference to, Rambo says he was spat on when he came home.

[CLIP]:

[SYLVESTER STALLONE AS RAMBO]: It wasn’t my war. You asked me, I didn’t ask you and I did what I had to do to win, but somebody wouldn’t let us win. And I come back to the world and I see maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting, calling me baby-killer and all kinds of vile crap!

[END CLIP]

BOB: So that's what the spitting story sounded like in 1982. Let's take a listen to what it sounded like in 2007. Here's Josh Sparling on Sean Hannity's radio show, describing his alleged spitting incident.

JOSH SPARLING: That was the worst afternoon of being American that I've ever had in my life. And they actually made me feel ashamed to be a soldier, almost. They, they – they kept calling me a baby killer and a murderer, and they said I was a disgrace, and I had blood covering my hands. They don't know how I sleep at night.

SEAN HANNITY: So here you give your leg for your country, here you go off and you put your life at risk for your country for the right for these morons to say whatever they want at their little rally there, and the thanks you get for it is just like a lot of vets after Vietnam – you get spit at.

JOSH SPARLING: You know that, and that's exactly almost how I felt. I, I - I thought back, and I'm sure it wasn't as bad as it was back then, but I just was like, wow, this is - must have been what they felt like.

BOB GARFIELD: Apart from your particular suspicions about this incident, tell me how the story that played out last week resembled the stories that you've been following over the last 35 years.

JERRY LEMBCKE: Well, the veracity of the stories themselves is only part of what I'm interested in. Stories like this may be true or they may not be true. Of course, I can't prove that they're not true. But it's how they play into a kind of betrayal narrative for why we lost the war in Vietnam, and in this case, why it is that we would lose the war in Iraq also, the allegation here being that it's protestors at home that undermine the morale of the troops, and some Bush administration spokespeople saying that is lending aid and comfort to the enemy. And both of these are kind of themes in the spitting stories that followed out of the Vietnam War.

BOB GARFIELD: Why are we so prepared to believe that these were commonplace incidents in the Vietnam era?

JERRY LEMBCKE: Well, it's a face-saving device. It helps construct an alibi, the alibi being that we beat ourselves, that we were defeated on the home front, and that we, the most powerful nation on earth, was not defeated by the small upstart nation of Asian others. It's a dangerous myth because, coming out of Vietnam, it kept alive the idea that we could win wars like Vietnam if we just stuck together as a country, if we just stayed solid behind the war effort.

BOB GARFIELD: I want to ask you about self-fulfilling prophecy, or maybe self-fulfilling mythology. But is it possible that as a society we have so internalized the idea of returning soldiers from unpopular wars being spat upon that it actually becomes something that protestors might do, thinking that's, you know, the thing to do? Could that be going on right about now?

JERRY LEMBCKE: No, I think it's more the opposite. I think the internalization of the myth - I think that's a good insight. But I think it's more likely that people returning from Iraq expect to be spat on, and that what they expect is what they think happened to Vietnam veterans. So they come home looking for this to happen and looking for a chance to tell the story of how they were spat on when they came home from their war...

http://audio.wnyc.org/otm/otm082710e.mp3

On The Media: Transcript of "Great Expectorations" (August 27, 2010)

I'm very glad you brought that up and so wanted to thank you now for posting, even though I'm not going to have a chance to do it justice until tomorrow.

On consideration, I realize that really should have been "I'm not going to have a chance to do it justice until I have enough spare time to write a book-length dissertation on it."

But whatever, I guess I can at least make a toast to a few elementary representations of justice in the interim. So here's lookin' at you, MinM.
___________________

First, I'm happy to stipulate to the premise that clearly fictional narrative representations of history for which there's little or no empirical support frequently exist cheek-by-jowl with functionally identical and apparently non-fictional narrative representations of history.

Second, I'm happy to stipulate to the premise that some, many or maybe all people regularly fail to observe the distinction between an apparently non-fictional representation of history and what I guess I'll deem, for the sake of argument "reliably documented historical fact as that phrase is conventionally understood."

Third, I'm happy to stipulate to the premise that you habitually employ a rhetorical technique that creates a certain amount of ambiguity -- or, if you will, plausible deniability -- wrt to whom, if anyone, the responsibilities of personal authorship properly belong by constructing a narrative assertion entirely out of (typically) one dominant and abrasively in-your-face image, plus a painfully garish assortment of brightly colored quotations and links, the original authorship of which properly belongs to (presumably) others.

Fourth, I'm happy to stipulate to the premise that said technique serves many purposes and that neither I nor any other third party has any way of knowing whether any, all, or none is the purpose you intended for it to serve without (for starters) asking you.

In light of which: What point and/or points did you intend to make by posting the above, MinM?

Thanks in advance for your clarification, which I very much appreciate.

[compared2what?]

In the meantime, though, I'll just proceed according to what I understand in good faith to be the points you intended to make, per the best of my ability to understand them. Ownership of which is a qualification to which I'm happy to stipulate.

'Kay?

Excellent. As I understand it, you intend to suggest that there's a cause-and-effect relationship between a few lines of dialog from a floridly unrealistic Hollywood 1982 movie in which a fictional Vietnam veteran, John Rambo, describes having been spat upon by protesters in an airport and what appears, based on a preponderance of the evidence, to be an urban myth that's regularly validated by the media.

For the record, I base my understanding primarily on what you emphasized. And even more than that, I guess, on what you de-emphasized -- ie, (a) that the currency of that particular urban myth pre-dates First Blood and not the other way around, per Jerry Lembecke's work on the subject; and (b) that it's also an urban myth that's regularly debunked by the media.

Also for the record, while I have absolutely no idea whether (or if) your selective emphasis represents your ignorance or your purpose, it would be a matter of very little significance to me either way. Because it's very, very unlikely to have any functional significance for anyone who knows no more about the subject than what they learned from you, either way. Or, for that matter, in any way.

IOW: Functionally, a partial and misleading account that's presented without qualification and at face value as (apparently) fact acts to shape the perception of anyone who accepts it on the terms of its presentation. Which is at least somewhat and possibly much to the detriment of their capacity for informed understanding. Maybe permanently so.

Which is why it's irresponsible, negligent and, inevitably, to some extent harmful to make a habit out of doing it. And equally so to make a habit out of promoting and/or endorsing the conclusions of those who do, however gratifying you might personally find them.

Please wait one moment. I'll be right back.

[compared2what?]

Sorry. I was having some cognitive dissonance. But maybe you can help me out with that by reconciling what appears to be a contradiction of principle.

On the one hand, you implicitly condemn a clearly fictional work, First Blood, for whatever undetermined share of the responsibility for popularizing an extant urban myth by making it part of its clearly fictional hero's clearly fictional experience it may or may not bear.

Yet on the other, you explicitly accept and promote L. Fletcher Prouty as an unalloyed and sterling source of pure, unadulterated historical truth, despite there being no doubt that he's individually responsible for popularizing the urban myth that holds that a work of fiction -- and one that had been known as such for approximately two decades, give or take a few years -- was an authentic historical document. (Report from Iron Mountain.) First by asserting it on the radio and in print in news media venues -- albeit news venues operated by and for white supremacists -- as fact, in 1989. And then by repeating that myth, causing it to be repeated, and/or defending its validity in a wide variety of media -- both ostensibly fictional and ostensibly non-fictional, both directly and indirectly, and both while acting alone and in conjunction with others -- until, as far as I'm aware, the day he died.

Which was considerably after Leonard C. Lewin, the satirist who'd written it, successfully sued to establish copyright, thereby establishing that whatever else it was, it was not a government document in the process.

For example, lo unto this very day, his prominent and unqualified citation of it as an authentic document in JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy stands uncorrected, apart from the very carefully worded tacit admission of witting deception that's sitting in the middle of a preface written by Oliver Stone. Just kinda being, you know, totally unrecognizable as such to everyone who accepts it on the terms in which it's presented. Exactly as it has been ever since the book was published in 1992. Like this:

The key question of our time, as posed in Colonel Prouty's book, comes from the fabled Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace by Leonard Lewin (based on a study commissioned by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in August 1963 to justify the big, planned changes in defense spending contemplated by Kennedy):


The organizing principle of any society is for war. The basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers.[Et cetera and so forth, if you know the words, I want y'all to sing along, come on!]

Please note the emphasis. And then tell me exactly how you figure that Prouty shits gold and Stallone is in cahoots with the CIA-Media.

And while you're at it, if you've got any primary sources that validate KWH as a past or present reality, you may as well throw them into the mix, too. After all, it's not like that could hurt any. And it'd be a nod in the direction of the topic, too!

[compared2what?]

Just one last thing, after which I'm done for now, though I've got much, much more.

Which not only reveals a shocking lack of awareness on his part of what really went down that day, but also demonstrates little understanding of real history. BTW apparently the star of Iron Man, Robert Downey Jr., is a big time right-winger too.

Got any sources on that Downey rumor you so blithely slipped in there in terms that suggest that you're either not fully read up or don't have access to the good ones that exist?

I mean besides misreading a quote that appeared in The New York Times in a way that not only reveals a shocking lack of awareness on your part about the process that, of a necessity, went down on the days that he very probably spoke some version of the words quoted and those that followed it prior to publication, but also demonstrates little understanding (or for that matter basic common knowledge) of the life, work, experience, and disposition of Robert Downey Jr?

Oh, you know the one I mean. This one, from here:

“I have a really interesting political point of view, and it’s not always something I say too loud at dinner tables here, but you can’t go from a $2,000-a-night suite at La Mirage to a penitentiary and really understand it and come out a liberal. You can’t. I wouldn’t wish that experience on anyone else, but it was very, very, very educational for me and has informed my proclivities and politics every since.”

Because if you don't, that just could be a sign that your habitual standards and practices are irresponsible, negligent, and, inevitably, harmful to others. So please try to show a little fucking consideration for them and respect for yourself, will you?

Thanks.
_____________

PS -- Though on the upside, I guess that it's not totally out of the question that bonus points might be awarded at the house's discretion to anyone who can read the above in way that reveals not only awareness but understanding. But it's not very likely. Too un-Socratic.

Which is not to say that anyone who wants a hint should feel shy about asking for one, of course. Although the first line of recourse that I personally would recommend most highly would simply be reading the article in which it occurs in a state of average mindful alertness wrt emphasis.

It worked for me.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Put down your shovel, c2w. You're derailing the thread with your Sargasso Sea of self-referential syntax and mind-numbing mountains of minimization.
You sound very much like Chip Berlet. And professorpan.

Coincidently, Army Field Manual FM 33-1 includes minimization as a tactic of counterproganda.

No, barracuda, I didn't invent "keyword hijacking."
This is a staple of commerce online involving technical manipulations to achieve more visibility than one's competition.

No, barracuda, I didn't invent "counterpropaganda."
This is a staple of Pentagon Psychological Operations for over sixty years.

No, barracuda, I didn't invent "marketing."
This is a staple of mass media for around one-hundred years.
And FM33-1 declares that psyops is very much like marketing.

No, barracuda, I didn't invent "heuristics" and "mnemonics" and "cognitive science."
These have been a staple of both marketing and psyops for many decades.



Keywords are the atoms of culture, semantics, and psyops.

Keywords are the both the most common and the best way to learn about psyops.
Keyword strategies are used in the CIA-media daily. Just check the front pages of newspapers.
Keyword strategies are used to design CIA-Hollywood scripts.

Thousands and thousands of examples statistically eliminate the possibility of mere coincidence.
Keyword strategies are proven by the scientific method, matching military doctrines, matching mil-intel agendas,
matching names to news psycle, etc.

Funny how DEA agent, Michael Levine's expose of CIA drugs called 'Deep Cover'...got turned into a mirror movie called 'Deep Cover' that leaves out the CIA, ay? And in 1992 when Cocaine Importing Agency head, GHWBush, is running for re-election against Arkansas Governor Bill Cocaine Clinton.

How many examples do you need to eliminate 'coincidence?'
(BTW, the author of the 1972 'Rambo' novel is a member of an intelligence officer's alumni association.)

[barracuda]

No, barracuda, I didn't invent "keyword hijacking."

No, barracuda, I didn't invent "counterpropaganda."

No, barracuda, I didn't invent "marketing."

No, barracuda, I didn't invent "heuristics" and "mnemonics" and "cognitive science."

I'm quite certain, Hugh, that the list of things which you didn't invent is a long and colorful one, of which the four examples given here mark a fine partial grouping. What is your point, though? As I've made clear, what I'm looking for is a primary source for the use of your contended and supposed propaganda deflection strategy by the government.

Just one would do for starters.

Thousands and thousands of examples statistically eliminate the possibility of mere coincidence.

Oh, you have some statistics that bear on the object of this thread? Excellent. Any pertinent metrics would be interesting to look at. Care to share them?

Keyword strategies are proven by the scientific method, matching military doctrines, matching mil-intel agendas, matching names to news psycle, etc.

It's off topic, but I see we're ranging far afield, so can you demonstrate to me how the scientific method can be brought to bear on the subject, particularly with regard to the concept of falsifiability?

How many examples do you need to eliminate 'coincidence?'

I need at least one example of a primary source, as I've said. But as many as you have available would be welcome additions to the discussion. There's probably little end to my desires in this regard. But your suppositions, and you, personally, Hugh, I do not regard as a primary source here, savvy?

Nice reinforcement of the ol' brand there, chief. Is this one of your examples? Why or why not?

Get thee back into the water, aqueous beast!

[compared2what?]

Put down your shovel, c2w. You're derailing the thread with your Sargasso Sea of self-referential syntax and mind-numbing mountains of minimization.
You sound very much like Chip Berlet. And professorpan.

Well, hey. Engage with my refutations of the validity of your hypothesis on their merits and quit shaking your fist at me and it'll be back on track. And yes, it really is that easy!

Coincidently, Army Field Manual FM 33-1 includes minimization as a tactic of counterproganda.

Yes, I know. It's not really coincidental though. Because I haven't actually minimized anything. You know. In the sense that I haven't said that anything was smaller or less significant than reason and/or evidence suggests that it really is. Which kinda leaves you one incident short of a coincidence. I guess that in the final analysis, what I'm saying in a word or two is:

(Other) source?

No, barracuda, I didn't invent "keyword hijacking."
This is a staple of commerce online involving technical manipulations to achieve more visibility than one's competition.

Neither barracuda nor anyone else has posted one word in contradiction of those terms. Apart from that, please allow me to be among the first to second them.

Seconded.

No, barracuda, I didn't invent "counterpropaganda."
This is a staple of Pentagon Psychological Operations for over sixty years.

Ditto.

No, barracuda, I didn't invent "marketing."
This is a staple of mass media for around one-hundred years.

Ditto.

No, barracuda, I didn't invent "heuristics" and "mnemonics."

Honestly, as far as I can tell, you don't even know what heuristics and mnemomics are in more than colloquial terms. So I sure as hell am not going to argue with you on that one.

These have been a staple of both marketing and psyops for many decades.

A staple. Hmm. Judges? Okay. True enough. So. Let's move on to the next round of Jeopardy. We have two Daily Doubles and the categories are...

Pretty!

Keywords are the atoms of culture, semantics, and psyops.
Themes use several keywords and are like molecules.

I don't follow. Examples?

Keywords are the both the most common and the best way to learn about psyops.

Got any sources for that?

Keyword strategies are used in the CIA-media daily. Just check the front pages of newspapers.

For [WHAT], which I will recognize [HOW] and validate [HOW]?

I mean, naturally, I've already noticed that per your account of it, the CIA-Media never hijacks keywords related to events that are personally unknown to you.

And also that it concentrates heavily on events of exceptional and even passionate personal interest to you.

Even when there's no sign they're of any interest -- or, for that matter, that they have any meaning at all -- to the targeted demo.

So I mean: Beside that.

Keyword strategies are used to design CIA-Hollywood scripts.

Sources? That haven't already been called into question on grounds you haven't addressed?

Thousands and thousands of examples statistically eliminate the possibility of mere coincidence.

May I remind you that's not possible, given that you have yet to offer one single validated example of it?

Despite integers and integers of instances in which you post assurances that you'll be back with validation and then disappear from the board for a while and from the thread to which those assurances were posted forever?

Keyword strategies are proven by the scientific method, matching military doctrines, matching mil-intel agendas, etc.

I've heard stories to that effect. But like I've already more or less said: Narrative ain't fact. It's sometimes a representation of fact, granted. But representations are cheap. So you have to consider the source and/or sources.

That's a basic part -- though only one -- of due diligence where I come from. So that's what I've been doing for the greater part of the last nine fucking pages, when I've contributed to them. Like you and everyone don't already know that.

I guess I can't really say "nice try" when you're not even trying. Regrettably.

Cheers, though. And best wishes.

____________

ON EDIT: Removed a double-negative that was there due to my error.

[compared2what?]

Flag on play, dammit. You rewrote while I was replying. Have you considered counting to ten before you post or something? (ON EDIT: I should have taken my own advice on that point, since I doubled up some of what I'd already responded to without noticing it. Good advice goeth before a fall that underlines it, I suppose. Anyway. My apologies for the oversight, and re-edited to remove repetition, although I took a second pass at some stuff inadvertently, which I'm going to let stand as a testament to my shame.)

Keywords are both the most common and the best way to learn about psyops.

That's a vile and destructive rumor to be spreading around just on your say-so, you know. And more than a venial sin, under the circumstances.

Keyword strategies are used in the CIA-media daily. Just check the front pages of newspapers.
Keyword strategies are used to design CIA-Hollywood scripts.

Thousands and thousands of examples statistically eliminate the possibility of mere coincidence.
Keyword strategies are proven by the scientific method, matching military doctrines, matching mil-intel agendas,
matching names to news psycle, etc.

Funny how DEA agent, Michael Levine's expose of CIA drugs called 'Deep Cover'...got turned into a mirror movie called 'Deep Cover' that leaves out the CIA, ay? And in 1992 when Cocaine Importing Agency head, GHWBush, is running for re-election against Arkansas Governor Bill Cocaine Clinton.

How many examples do you need to eliminate 'coincidence?'
(BTW, the author of the 1972 'Rambo' novel is a member of an intelligence officer's alumni association.)

What does the part of the above (that isn't just you shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater) teach anyone about psyops or anything else that they couldn't learn more about or understand more profoundly without ever fucking hearing about KWH?

What? Name one thing about KWH that informs or betters a comprehension of anything apart from KWH. Media psy-ops? Not hardly. Non-media psy-ops? Not hardly to a factor of infinity. Art? Nope. Life. Nope. Cognitive neuroscience? Nope.

You get the picture, I'm sure. What are we learning here, Hugh?
_____________



I AM AN IDIOT.

[compared2what?]

You're derailing the thread with your Sargasso Sea of self-referential syntax and mind-numbing mountains of minimization.

Incidentally, did you get your MA in alliteration from The William "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism" Safire School for Self-Promoting Revisionists?

Because I've heard that their post-graduate placement stats at leftie venues are just phenomenal.