Primary sources for the keyword hijacking theory.

[barracuda]

You have offered no evidence but your own say so on these things, Hugh. Why should I accept that you aren't leading me down some garden path? What are your references? Who are you as an authority here? That is the point of this thread.

I don't find you to be trustworthy. At all. I need more than that.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

barracuda, you're asking how to be a journalist or write a good college thesis. Examine sources and context using social science and history!

That does not explain how to differentiate between a hit and a coincidence.

1) Is the media source a CIA venue, mainstream media especially?
2) Does the byline person have a track record of psyops agenda?
3) Are the keywords, themes, and images related to a controversial news psycle event or imminent exposure such as a book publishing or legal ruling etc.?

I've repeatedly spelled out the basic fingerprint formula of psyops which is most often evident in this culturally complex camouflaged embedded phenomenon-

> Providing relatively more benign associations with keywords, themes, and images that are subversive to power
("Counterpropaganda" as defined by Army Field Manual FM 33-1 Psychological Operations)
> Providing role models and stereotypes that promote the National Security culture of militarism, hierarchy, coercion, and social cohesion within predictable group dynamics.
("Propaganda" as defined by Army Field Manual FM 33-1 Psychological Operations)

> Subliminal negative framing of anti-authoritarians, whistleblowers, egalitarians, democracy, humanitarians,
> Subliminal positive framing of authority, their cover stories hiding abuse, corruption, atrocity, covert operations,

> Subliminal negative framing of females and the social roles associated with them - nurturer, negotiator, life-giver, etc.
> Subliminal positive framing of males and the social roles associated with them - warrior, dominator, killer, etc.

[compared2what?]

Anecdote is not science, my friend. How can I determine a real "hit" in KWH from a coincidence?

What "anecdote?"

I clearly lined out the hypothesis, the primary documents, the (ongoing) experiment, the massive repeated confirmations over decades.

How can that be when you only started looking into it five years ago (plus a year or two since you said that, during which you haven't advanced the ball one inch)?

But never mind. You've been on my conscience because....

Put down your shovel, c2w. You're derailing the thread with your Sargasso Sea of self-referential syntax and mind-numbing mountains of minimization.

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!

...it occurred to me that it wasn't very sporting of me to ask you to address my criticisms when I hadn't fully addressed yours. In that spirit:

You sound very much like Chip Berlet.

I think "sound very much like" is an overstatement, given that I share almost no characteristics with Chip Berlet. Apart from having problem with Fletcher Prouty, of course, although mine is a lot simpler and more direct than his is.

But....I don't really know what to tell you.

In 1991 -- ie, at the same time he was writing his JFK book -- Prouty was one of the illustrious founding names (along with Eustace Mullins) on the advisory committee of a political organization that supported Art Jones, then-Vice-Chair of the American Nazi Party, for President.

Whom I have to assume was the kind of candidate that Prouty can really get behind, since he was still on-board a year or two later, when they plumped for for David Duke. You know who he David Duke is, right? Former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan?

That's all verifiable through avenues that have nothing to do with Chip Berlet. Who really isn't responsible for deciding which political candidates Fletcher Prouty freely and openly supports of his own volition. Obviously.

Anyway. It's not actually a Chip-Berlet-influenced thing. I genuinely don't regard white supremacists, fascists, or their running dogs and lackeys as my political friends or allies. In fact, I absolutely and utterly reject, condemn and oppose them.

Would you want me to do otherwise? I'm a little surprised that you don't have any reservations, given the circumstances. To be honest with you.

And professorpan.

No I don't. Stop being ridiculous.
______________

ON EDIT: Struck-through a superfluous pronoun.

[barracuda]

1) Is the media source a CIA venue, mainstream media especially?

...according to Hugh.

2) Does the byline person have a track record of psyops agenda?

...according to Hugh.

3) Are the keywords, themes, and images related to a controversial news psycle event or imminent exposure such as a book publishing or legal ruling etc.?

...according to Hugh.

So if these three requirements are fulfilled, it's a definite possible, maybe.

This is the scientific method, as you see it?

barracuda, you're asking how to be a journalist or write a good college thesis. Examine sources and context using social science and history!

No, I'm attempting to determine if there is anything about what you say which I should take seriously.

So far, not much.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

c2w, revive a Prouty thread from the past that we've already begun. Not here.

FWIW, Prouty's comments on 'The Report from Iron Mountain' - since you already tossed the grenade of accusation -
exposed it for the psyops piece that it was, not the opposite.

No, he never espoused racism or expressed support for David Duke.

That's the Chip Berlet spin to discredit a whistleblower through associations which are not as simple as portrayed.
Kick up another thread if you want to pursue Prouty, which you obviously do. Fine. The subject is worth the scrutiny.

[compared2what?]

c2w, revive a Prouty thread from the past that we've already begun. Not here.

FWIW, Prouty's comments on 'The Report from Iron Mountain' - since you already tossed the grenade of accusation -
exposed it for the psyops piece that it was, not the opposite.

No, he never espoused racism or expressed support for David Duke.

That's the Chip Berlet spin to discredit a whistleblower through associations which are not as simple as portrayed.
Kick up another thread if you want to pursue Prouty, which you obviously do. Fine. The subject is worth the scrutiny.

You opened the door by responding, you dope. I wouldn't have had a justification for bringing it up again otherwise.

Or for a third time now.

He did not expose "Report from Iron Mountain" as a psyops piece. In fact, he wrote a post-publication essay explaining that his critics were wrong to think he fell for a hoax by treating it as genuine when what they didn't know was (a whole lot of bullshit that for some reason he didn't mention in the first place, all of which is known exclusively and solely to him personally.) I'll try to find you a link.

So. Go check your copy of the book and give me a page cite on where he exposed it if you're so sure that he did.

He sure as hell did express support for David Duke. And here's how:

In 1991 -- along with a bunch of the White Nationalists, Nazis, and other fascists he worked with practically every day at the Spotlight and on Liberty Lobby Radio -- he was a founding member of a political organization that promoted David Duke for president in 1992.

That. Is. Support. Not ambiguous at all.

[brainpanhandler]

Pick a scandal. There's a counterpropaganda campaign to counter it using tv and movies.

Nuclear fallout? Poverty in Appalachia? Civil Rights movement murders? Gang rape by US contractors?
Operation Condor? Agent Orange?

Or a source, Disney-Lucas-Spielbeg.

Pick one. Explore.

Barracuda,

I recommend the second option of hmw style reverse engineering. It's more fun. In fact it's kind of like a game. It's sorta like one of those Highlights Magazine picture puzzles, but for grown ups. The cia website has it's very own picture puzzle page for kids as well. I do love puzzles. I spy... something red.

Coming attractions: Disney is Satanism for Kidz. (no really, I got proof)

[SonicG]

> Providing relatively more benign associations with keywords, themes, and images that are subversive to power
("Counterpropaganda" as defined by Army Field Manual FM 33-1 Psychological Operations)
> Providing role models and stereotypes that promote the National Security culture of militarism, hierarchy, coercion, and social cohesion within predictable group dynamics.
("Propaganda" as defined by Army Field Manual FM 33-1 Psychological Operations)

> Subliminal negative framing of anti-authoritarians, whistleblowers, egalitarians, democracy, humanitarians,
> Subliminal positive framing of authority, their cover stories hiding abuse, corruption, atrocity, covert operations,

> Subliminal negative framing of females and the social roles associated with them - nurturer, negotiator, life-giver, etc.
> Subliminal positive framing of males and the social roles associated with them - warrior, dominator, killer, etc.

I hate to jump in the middle of this here but this certainly goes to the crux of the absurdity of Hugh's fantasy of massive CIA OPs in Hollywood - this negative framing has never been subliminal but is rather quite obvious. There are also areas where the framing is contested and by not critically examining the processes and causes underlying the dominant ideology, as well as the realms of contesting such dominance, it is a disservice to actually finding a way out of the current system...Screaming "fascism in the USSA!! Spy OPs on Happy Days!!" is a distraction from actually enlightening possible allies...

[compared2what?]

Coming attractions: Disney is Satanism for Kidz. (no really, I got proof)

No disrespect intended or anything, but you're kind of splitting hairs there, aren't you? I mean: Satanists, the CIA, whatever.

As long as the Illuminati lose, it's all good.

[brainpanhandler]

Coming attractions: Disney is Satanism for Kidz. (no really, I got proof)

No disrespect intended or anything, but you're kind of splitting hairs there, aren't you? I mean: Satanists, the CIA, whatever.

As long as the Illuminati lose, it's all good.

See this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=22164

...

It seems to me that cartoons being entirely contrived limits the number of explanations for the presence of anything in them. It's all by design. This is especially true in short animated films where the narrative is condensed down into 7 minutes. There can be nothing superfluous. If Runaway Brain is a USG psyops product then it seems to me that it ought not include anything which would interfere with the goals of the psyops content. Chief among the goals of the psyops engineers would be to have their products experienced as often as possible by the target audience.

Disney psyops are largely directed at children. If, as you say, recruiters have their greatest success among family values, patriotic, southern bible belt christians and as you say Disney is just an extension of the USG propaganda machine then why would there be anything in a Disney product that could be construed as satanic? Southern bible belt christians that believe satanic messages are embedded in disney media aggresively shield their children from that media. I had an aunt that would not allow any of her children to view the Star Wars movies because she believed they had satanic messages in them.

A google search for the terms disney and satanic/satanism/satan returns hundreds of results and it's some loony shit.

http://www.google.com/search?gbv=2&hl=e ... tnG=Search

[Sounder]

sonicG wrote….

I hate to jump in the middle of this here but this certainly goes to the crux of the absurdity of Hugh's fantasy of massive CIA OPs in Hollywood - this negative framing has never been subliminal but is rather quite obvious. There are also areas where the framing is contested and by not critically examining the processes and causes underlying the dominant ideology, as well as the realms of contesting such dominance, it is a disservice to actually finding a way out of the current system...Screaming "fascism in the USSA!! Spy OPs on Happy Days!!" is a distraction from actually enlightening possible allies...

That last bit, -many have said this and Hugh has no answer or willingness to consider the point. If anything, that would be the OP, keeping natural allies from getting together.

So Hugh, waddaya say, how about addressing the observations of others, rather than responding with another flood of innuendo.

[compared2what?]

See this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=22164

Thanks. You make some very astute and interesting observations on that thread, I wish I'd seen it when it was live.

Also, I wasn't really criticizing you. Or for that matter really doing much of anything other than pursuing a train of thought positing (for the sake of argument) that the master narrative of western culture is fundamentally eschatological. And that since its first and ultimate object is therefore always and necessarily determining whether and/or how humanity wins, it's not really surprising that the distinctions between any one iteration of it and another are so frequently not only at their most flamboyantly distinct but also their most unyieldingly doctrinaire wrt questions that bear on the identity and nature of exactly which invisible sinister forces are manifest on this terrestrial plane in, among other things, the works and actions of the Walt Disney Company and its affiliated enterprises.

I mean, I've got some pretty strongly held opinions on that score myself, although they're not specific to Disney, per se.

Anyway. I'm still in the process of catechizing and brutally cross-examining myself wrt the conceptual integrity of the hypothesis, so I'm not even sure whether I'm down with it. But I certainly didn't intend to catechize you. The conjunction of satanism and Disney reminded me (by way of narrative analogy) of David Icke...

Reptilians communicate through imagery and symbols just like the Illuminati secret society network as widely detailed in The Biggest Secret and on my website. They have an entire secret language based on symbols. This brings us to the most effective form of human conditioning by the Illuminati movies and television. As Skip Largent says:

"All movies and television are a projection of the reptilian brain. How so? Movies and television (video games etc.) are all undeniably dreamlike, not only in their presentation of symbolic reality, but also in that humans experiencing movies, etc., have the same brain wave patterns as when they are dreaming. And guess where dreaming originates in your head? In the reptilian brain (although other parts of our brain are involved) ... The "language" of the reptilian brain is visual imagery. All communications transferred by reptiles are done so by visual symbolic representations, each having specific meaning."

And this is precisely what the Illuminati do. So how does this relate to human control? The movie and television industries are not only owned and directed by the Illuminati they created them. They understand how visual images can be used to condition the population.

[snip]

You will find that words like imagination, imagine, dream, and such like are used constantly in advertising. They know that if they can use trigger words that encourage a right brain, non conscious, day dream state, they can access your mind with imagery and then tell your left brain how to decode it into conscious language....

Children are most at risk from this and they are being bombarded with fantasy images to this end. In early childhood, the mental state is controlled almost exclusively by the reptilian brain and the purveyors of children's "'entertainment" like Disney exploit this knowledge. Disney is a major Illuminati operation.

....and then I just started idly talking to myself without really thinking about it, I'm sorry to say. Please forgive my bad manners.

Also, I'm not (for emphasis: N-O-T, NOT) trying to insinuate that Hugh is an Icke follower posting under deep cover.

I neither think that at all nor have any reason at all to think it. I really meant what I said about all narratives resembling all other narratives in my response to §ê¢rꆧ, it's not a meaningful similarity in itself. Or not one that means that there's an explicit and direct relationship, anyway. It is culturally meaningful, obviously.

I'm off-topic.

[brainpanhandler]

Please forgive my bad manners.

Nothing to forgive. I understood you perfectly well. I was making a reference that by your response it seemed you did not follow and understandably so. I really have meant to come back to the point I made in that thread wrt presence of repellent to christians content in disney products which would seem to undermine the explicit recruitment intent of the usg psyops Hugh claims disney peddles. He never answered my queries then and so I have no reason to believe he would now, but there are lots of other interesting directions such a thread could take, as evidenced by your own train of thought choo-chooing along, and so I might start it anyway, even if the guest of honor is a predictable no-show.