What happened to Hugh Manatee?

[zangtang]

the implications of HMW's 'stuff' are about as uncomfortable as it gets.

- if he was right.
maybe it was just panopticon schizoid paranoia...............

[Searcher08]

the implications of HMW's 'stuff' are about as uncomfortable as it gets.

- if he was right.
maybe it was just panopticon schizoid paranoia...............

Or some truly baffling bizarre goo of them both?

I seem to remember from years ago, a post on another board from a person who had family at the CIA. They asked the family member how to stay away from the CIA's influence. The CIA person apparently said, with extreme seriousness something like "NEVER EVER EVER WATCH TV" then changed the subject.

[zangtang]

audio-visual programming.

- i was going to write 'cue scary music'.............but
that seems trite and....insufficient

[MinM]

I think we're good.

I hope he is happy and feeling productive in the world.

His theories resonate with me whenever I am in a mall or a theater.


Eye know you're gone
I hope you've got some friends who'll come along

Well put, Mr I

Also in Hugh's defense, and contrary to prevailing opinion, HMW was not an absolutist. Hugh allowed for the possibility that not all Hollywood productions were originally intended as psyops ...

...Remember that the people who call the shots and determine what is in front of your face are honchos in publishing or movie studios and distributors, not the content generator.

I've found instances where the content generator, the name that sells, was steered into a psy-ops device without their knowing it. That's really common and makes for a more secure covert op. Not everyone knows what their product is going to be used for.

So things can be nudged into creation with encouragement or just found and opportunistically promoted and released as a psy-ops device.

If all you're trying to figure out is if Ludlum himself was CIA, yes or no, you really don't know the variables involved and the paths to promotion that decades of CIA infiltration and just plain becoming or buying every useful venue provide for delivering psy-ops.

You think psy-ops movies are the exception? Oh no. Movies are KEY to military recruiting and your megaplex is almost 100% psy-ops. Way over 75% anyway. Easily...

[Wombaticus Rex]

Yes, an eloquent variation on Jamie Enyart's Lament.

Or perhaps just a restated version of D'Aubuisson - "You can be a Communist even if you personally don't believe you are a Communist."

[slimmouse]

I admired Hugh's dedication and vision. He saw it everywhere.

Would that truly include within himself?

[coffin_dodger]

Would that truly include within himself?

Can't speak for HMW, but it's terribly difficult to truly know thyself. God knows, I've been looking for my self for the greater part of adulthood. A slow grind and not always happy with what I find.

[slimmouse]

Can't speak for HMW, but it's terribly difficult to truly know thyself. God knows, I've been looking for my self for the greater part of adulthood. A slow grind and not always happy with what I find. :shock

Well aint that just the truth

For my own part, still clinging on to the personal sense, or should that be illusion, that we are all in fact a work in progress?

[Iamwhomiam]

Just wondering: If it were me, I wouldn't appreciate someone publishing my personal information on a forum where I came to participate anonymously. Worse, it appears the "info" is wrong, identifies the wrong person. Should we be publishing people's real name here just because we can figure out who they are?

And if we get it wrong, is some guy in Massachussets going to start getting weird messages or worse because someone incorrectly identified him on the Web?

Should the "information" be deleted?

I was wondering about this too in retrospect. He was posting under his own name on Amazon the exact same information from RI. I suppose it could be someone else being associated with HMW (this is too convoluted for my head) If anyone thinks my post would be better removed, please ask a mod to delete (and cheers Elvis - I don't often get second thoughts about posting but I'm veering towards that)
FWIW I though HMW had been on the East Coast but was more an archivist / historical researcher with music on the side then moved to San Francisco. Certainly JW is making no effort to be anonymous, which *really* doesnt sound like HMW given the research he was doing.

Well let me say that I do not know Hugh's real name, but you're right about not publishing some stranger's name.

But I should also say I've used my real name many times here and have never once been bothered by anyone for having done so. I know I felt hurt to read on another blog a past poster believed me to be a very bad person among others here, but only used my screen name to identify me.

Thank you for mentioning this. It is something we must rigorously avoid doing in future.

[Iamwhomiam]

Everyone is going to have their own definition, and putting aside for a moment, the general definition of New Age fluffy thinking that throws out any logical or even rational analysis I'd say, for me, for this particular forum, "woo" is any cherished and beloved topic that causes someone to suffer duress and regress when it is put under any rigorous examination.

We all have our woo centers and one man's woo can be another man's hard science, but the woo is out there, because its inside all of us. Dosage will vary of course.

Thank you for that well thought-out answer, it is a bit of a relief to read actually. I associate that word with more mainstream debunkers, and it generally refers to anything paranormal or without a conventional scientific explanation. That word woo is specifically intended to shame and silence people who aren't following the mainstream party line, so when I see such a term being repeated I sometimes instinctively ask myself if I'm in the right place.

I've experienced some very strange things, and I give those experiences serious consideration rather than disregard. Which makes me "woo" from the typical perspective. I'm sure many of us here are like that, actually.

So then, where is the line drawn? Absolutely everyone here is woo from the perspective of the evening news anchor. From where I stand, I find it difficult to draw a hard line between exactly what is "woo" and what is not, because that line presupposes that all the facts are in, that right now at this moment in time we know precisely how physics and time and consciousness and all the rest of it works. Which to me is beyond absurd.

Critical examination is a very enjoyable process, my feeling of objection is more directed towards the attitude that creates terms like "woo" in the first place. People who entertain unconventional ideas are not in any way less stable or less intelligent than the general population. It is in fact a mark of intelligence, as well as courage, to intentionally depart from convention.

Those who unintentionally depart from convention, well, they might lie in another category altogether.

Long ago I offered an accurate definition of woo, which is a term I've been familiar with since the 1950s. I said it meant "Way Out Observation," "Far out" being a more modern derivation.

Now whether it's something my father shared with me from his reading Amazing Stories, I cannot recall, but this was its original meaning afaik.

[Nordic]

Well, that's what was so frustrating about him. He was on the right track. For the first few feet. Then for miles, he went wayyyy off the track. Into a realm of the impossible. Like the CIA was God, or had superpowers.

I mean, they're powerful, but they're not ALL powerful.

Someone else mentioned the word: monomania.

[Iamwhomiam]

Ah, to be condemned and then praised long after one's time has passed!
The tragic but commonly shared fate of many deep thinkers and deep stinkers alike.

[Project Willow]

He is a living, breathing human being, his time has not passed, so again I make an appeal to stop this, as none of us knows whether this is causing pain or pleasure or something in between.

Just let it go, okay?

Thanks.

[lucky]

Jonathan Kwitny, the Wall Street Journal reporter, his book Endless Enemies (CIA shenanigans) ...

Joshua switky

close but do i get the lollypop

[brekin]

MinM wrote:

Also in Hugh's defense, and contrary to prevailing opinion, HMW was not an absolutist. Hugh allowed for the possibility that not all Hollywood productions were originally intended as psyops ...

Hugh Manatee Wins » Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:11 am wrote:...Remember that the people who call the shots and determine what is in front of your face are honchos in publishing or movie studios and distributors, not the content generator.
I've found instances where the content generator, the name that sells, was steered into a psy-ops device without their knowing it. That's really common and makes for a more secure covert op. Not everyone knows what their product is going to be used for.

So things can be nudged into creation with encouragement or just found and opportunistically promoted and released as a psy-ops device. If all you're trying to figure out is if Ludlum himself was CIA, yes or no, you really don't know the variables involved and the paths to promotion that decades of CIA infiltration and just plain becoming or buying every useful venue provide for delivering psy-ops.

You think psy-ops movies are the exception? Oh no. Movies are KEY to military recruiting and your megaplex is almost 100% psy-ops. Way over 75% anyway. Easily...

I think this shows that Hugh was an absolutist regarding his theory. He's saying basically all publicly distributed films are "100% psy-ops", or "Way over 75% anyway", (So I think we are safe in saying he thought 90% were.) Now if 90% of films were either The Interview or American Sniper then yeah he'd have a point. But a lot of stuff is just inert crap or such a niche attempt to make money off of a certain demographic. I mean the apparatus to make sure that 90% of all mass market films were psyops would require Stalin like control. You can't have that without the populace knowing basically that all films are propaganda, and so there really isn't any conspiracy if everyone knows. Hugh wanted it both ways. He wanted a Matrix like system of brain washing where all entertainment had a state agenda (do you know how many times he was pressed to name literature or films that weren't psy-ops?) but he also wanted the majority of the populace to be unaware to the subterfuge which he was exposing. Most readers here on RI aren't Pollyannish either regarding the military and intelligence communities influence on the media either. But as Orwell said, "All art is propaganda." Every film has an agenda and wants to dramatize some conflict that isn't really resolved in the culture and fill theatre seats. That's why a film like American Sniper gets play, I imagine, because you get people actually arguing whether it is a pro-war or anti-war film. And I'm sure say with a pop corn franchise like The Hunger Games, it is rife with opportunities to seed memes relating to military recruitment and there is room for unawares content producers and handlers to not see that their anti-conformity, anti-spartan, coming of age flick is really a stealth recruitment vehicle. The wheels usually always came off with is theory because of major scope creep. Because, let's be honest, Hugh would probably spend more time trying to prove that a recent film like Paddington the Bear is a psy-op instead of The Hunger Games.

Hugh's theories also operate and spring out of a WWII and post mind set when most films were propaganda based because a war was on or the threat of Communist infiltration was rampant. But if you look at a lot of the themes he hammered about, they are timeless, and exist in a lot of cultures that have warrior ethos without mass media either. People like to believe they are the "special chosen one" that will be selected by an "elite mysterious group" that will train them to become an "unstoppable warrior" against the "forces of darkness", but lo and behold, they will have to discover that the "elite mysterious group" is also part of the force of darkness, as elements of them self are to. You don't need someone in a CIA office cooking up a xenophobic and tribalistic screenplay that celebrates militarism and selling the CIA as basically the X-Men. There are scores of people willing to do that, and are doing that for free. There are even scores of people who wish they were a CIA project gone wrong. (Again, not to say the examples of American Sniper and The Interview weren't, or didn't have advising from such sources, its just that Paddington the Bear and a lot of others most likely didn't.)

And today with the proliferation of the internet there is so much film and television and in between that it would be impossible to exercise the soft and hard control that happened in previous decades. Not to say that there aren't obviously attempts by the ptb to inculcate certain beliefs in films and other, but often, money wins out over ideology, (or becomes the ideology). An obvious example is the play for the international market that runs counter to militaristic goals. How many big budget films actually have sub plots now that cater to foreign markets that could be played up as possible or real enemies? When Red Dawn was recently remade, they changed the invading army from China to N. Korea because they didn't want to lose the Chinese market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn_%282012_film%29
Why would you go with a less impressive military threat if your main goal was to froth up recruitment and xenophobia?