Keyword Hijacking Smackdown! Challenge for HMW (and poll)

[brekin]

Hugh's "general theory of keyword hijacking" seems to me that it could have some validity, I just find I disagree with 95% of his analysis on specific examples. But again, I haven't made a detailed study of it.

I think it would be worthwhile if he really focused in on one or two current or upcoming examples and went to town on them, find the "smoking gun" keyword trail, that would make a reasonable person see how it could happen. And show that it had the effect "they" intended.

This to me is better then putting the keyword hijack template to every form of entertainment that comes down the pike.

[IanEye]

well, i guess that is the danger of piggybacking on someones request, which i did.

I am not Pan and i don't dimiss you totally Hugh.

But I would like to see your attempt to prove the "Kirk is covering up LIHOP/Pearl Harbor" thingie.

The stuff about the Church Committee is very informative in general and I have no problem with it, the same way I have no problem with Polka as a musical form. But it wasn't what you were asked to provide for the class.

[barracuda]

prof pan said:

In your example, what were the media supposed to when Joe Kennedy (the pitcher) died? NOT report on it? Of course they are going to report it -- it is news when a professional sports figure dies.

Of course, taken to its extreme, one could suggest that the pitcher was murdered to hijack the anniversary of Kennedy's death... Sigh.

Really, your example in no way verifies any sort of predictability of "keyword hijacking."

Really, I was not attempting to verify anything, simply to discuss the topic.

Guess I should change my vote to number 3... Sigh.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Hugh wrote:

The Nazis taped FDR's radio broadcasts and edited them to change their meaning for rebroadcast in Europe.

The Nazis could do this and the Allies couldn't. because the Nazis had figured out recording on magnetic tape.

The value of 'imitative deception' is that propaganda messages can be stuck in people's minds without them knowing it came from a propagandist.
That's the same principle in covert psy-ops through keyword hijacking.
Subliminal psy-ops is extremely effective, the equivalent of product-placement only the product is word-definition.

Alex Constantine has a great piece on this and ties in Bing Crosby, Hogan's Heroes and a whole lot of other stuff.

Alex is sharp and I share his focus on spook psy-ops.
I've written about 'Hogan's Heroes' myself and related it to both selling Vietnam as WWII and de-sensitizing kids to Nazis in case the Auschwitz trials in W. Germany led to an exposure of the Gehlen Organization or the Project Paperclip's darkest side.

Also, did i see that you had rented "Gus", that awful Disney movie about a football playing donkey? What did you think of Bob Crane's performance in that as the sports commentator?

I've written an analysis of the embedded psy-ops in Disney's 1976 'Gus.'
Some key elements are:
>discrediting the 1976 campaign of Democrat Jimmy Carter
>a main character named "Kovac," keyword hijacking of an MI6 whistleblowing book called 'I, Kovac.'
>the theme-hijacking of Yugoslavia due to a Yugoslav politico making speeches about fascists in the US.

All standard fare for Disney, propaganda and counter-propaganda for kids to keep them from getting wary of the adult world they might overhear.

[professorpan]

Okay, let me ask one more time.

Please, Hugh, provide us with your best example of a "keyword hijacking" so we, as a collective, may discuss it.

[CouldBe]

I voted that Pan should stop attacking Hugh. I think his ideas are profound. They cannot even be generalized into one phrase called keyword hijacking.

It is admirable that Hugh has shown such grace where others might have exploded back.

It feels like efforts are being made to get him banned. I will probably catch flack for supporting him. I'll probably get banned for simply wondering why a moderator is allowed to hound him so much.

I think more would speak out in favor of Hugh, but perhaps they are afraid of a backlash. Others will probably say this Jeff's website and he should be able to run it the way he sees fit.

I think Hugh should be banned outright, or people should stop hounding him. He really can't be banned. That wouldn't look good for this forum.

So I will probably get banned. Other new posters will get the message that this is what happens if one supports Hugh's ideas about psycological operations.

It appears there is a concerted effort to minimize the profound nature of his findings. Since he has done nothing wrong to be banned, all others can do is throw out ad hominems that he is a paranoid schizophrenic. I have seen this happen at other forums.

So I guess this is probably my last post here before being banned. I hope not. But it appears that as soon as Hugh gets any support, the attacks get louder and more frequent.

[IanEye]

Hugh wrote:

I've written an analysis of the embedded psy-ops in Disney's 1976 'Gus.'
Some key elements are:
>discrediting the 1976 campaign of Democrat Jimmy Carter
>a main character named "Kovac," keyword hijacking of an MI6 whistleblowing book called 'I, Kovac.'
>the theme-hijacking of Yugoslavia due to a Yugoslav politico making speeches about fascists in the US.

But in the movie "Gus" the viewer is supposed to root for the donkey!

Donkey=Dem=Carter

(the Donkey's uniform is red by the way....)

can you explain what you mean by discrediting?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Okay, let me ask one more time.

Please, Hugh, provide us with your best example of a "keyword hijacking" so we, as a collective, may discuss it.

No, thank you.

I'm trying to do more research and and even do other things than duel endlessly with you at RI.

You go right ahead and 'vote' on keyword hijacking so you can for the umpteenth time say "we've totally debunked that so stop pestering us with your paranoid" etc. etc.

You go right ahead and posit that the use of media linguistics in the interest of national security objectives simply isn't done.

[professorpan]

Question I have been meaning to ask Prof Pan for awhile, are you the same PP that was on Educate Yourself forum a few years back?

Nope. Never posted there.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

...

It feels like efforts are being made to get him banned. I will probably catch flack for supporting him. I'll probably get banned for simply wondering why a moderator is allowed to hound him so much.

I think more would speak out in favor of Hugh, but perhaps they are afraid of a backlash. Others will probably say this Jeff's website and he should be able to run it the way he sees fit.

I think Hugh should be banned outright, or people should stop hounding him. He really can't be banned. That wouldn't look good for this forum.

Calm down there, couldbe. Stick to the ideas and let's not make this a war, ok?
I don't want to be the topic. I want the topic to be social control through media.

This is just another anonymous forum for ideas where we can all be anybody and accept that. I think some here are very inconsistent in their logic and some think I am.

Fair enough. Ideas stand or fall on their own merits and shouldn't be personality based.

[orz]

I voted 3. And Jeff I thought your rule about calling people disinfo applied to everyone? You have effectively called hugh a disinfo agent ...wtf?

No he didn't by any stretch of the imagination. He pointed out the irony that hugh's "theories" actually unintentionally work in the same way as disinformation.

[professorpan]

No, thank you.

I'm trying to do more research and and even do other things than duel endlessly with you at RI.

Well, when you have challenged me in the past, I was kind enough to accept.

But I'm not surprised -- you usually do slink away when you're confronted with evidence you don't want to see.

To those of you who see this as a vendetta, especially the newer people on this board, I suggest you go back through the archives to see how patient I and others have been.

[CouldBe]

...

It feels like efforts are being made to get him banned. I will probably catch flack for supporting him. I'll probably get banned for simply wondering why a moderator is allowed to hound him so much.

I think more would speak out in favor of Hugh, but perhaps they are afraid of a backlash. Others will probably say this Jeff's website and he should be able to run it the way he sees fit.

I think Hugh should be banned outright, or people should stop hounding him. He really can't be banned. That wouldn't look good for this forum.

Calm down there, couldbe. Stick to the ideas and let's not make this a war, ok?
I don't want to be the topic. I want the topic to be social control through media.

This is just another anonymous forum for ideas where we can all be anybody and accept that. I think some here are very inconsistent in their logic and some think I am.

Fair enough. Ideas stand or fall on their own merits and shouldn't be personality based.

Sorry. You are correct. It's the ideas that matter, not our forum names.

[Et in Arcadia ego]

I voted 3. And Jeff I thought your rule about calling people disinfo applied to everyone? You have effectively called hugh a disinfo agent ...wtf?

No he didn't by any stretch of the imagination. He pointed out the irony that hugh's "theories" actually unintentionally work in the same way as disinformation.

As has been pointed out many times by others.

The best servants are those who accomplish through a veil of ignorance.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

No, thank you.

I'm trying to do more research and and even do other things than duel endlessly with you at RI.

Well, when you have challenged me in the past, I was kind enough to accept.

But I'm not surprised -- you usually do slink away when you're confronted with evidence you don't want to see.

To those of you who see this as a vendetta, especially the newer people on this board, I suggest you go back through the archives to see how patient I and others have been.

Covert psy-ops is not discussed as a pro-wrestling 'smackdown' with winner-take-all.
That you framed this thread that way shows your misunderstanding of the topic.
It also shows how obsessed you are with knocking it down.

Your characterization of my debating is highly inaccurate.
I've debated you relentlessly for over two years and often you huffed off with 'sour grapes' comments.

We've been over that thread before. I had offline trauma in the middle of something I started and have been reluctant to revisit it due to the associations. That's personal.

I made the case that Ward Churchill was crucified by reich-wing media for using the expression "little Eichmanns" four years previously just to create a decoy, a keyword hijacking, to obscure release of CIA documents to the National Security Archive a few days later showing they hired five of Eichmann's staff after WWII.

You tried to suggest that it was 'old news,' the CIA does not bother to minimize knowledge of its Nazi history, and even suggested that 'nobody cares anyway.'
Whew. Amazing.

But since you keep trying to use that wooden nickel to buy back a Fort Knox of history and science and psy-ops examples, you will be answered in that unfinished thread
On my own time.

Don't spend your wooden nickel all in one place, Pan.