McCain was called "Hamlet." Movie now...'Hamlet 2'

[orz]

Star Wars

You just
BLEW
MY
MIND

[thegovernmentflu]

Only brainpanhandler actually cited neuroscience related to psyops. This board can still scarcely approach the topic.

Crikey, I've got a publishing deadline and I can't believe what I see here including the bizarre idea that I "runaway" when I have over 6000 posts and Jeff wrote a rule just to stop me from debating with the honestly interested and the professional trolls!

Exactly what do you mean by "professional trolls"?

And yes, you ran away from the question posed by Fourthbase in your very own Keyword Hijacking for kidz section of this board. It was posted on August 18th, and you have yet to reply. It was a two-line message that succinctly pointed out a huge flaw in your theories. If you can't address it directly, just keep in mind that what's left of your credibility will be flushed straight down the toilet.

Just answer the question, please.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

So wait... let me get this straight, Hugh.

You can't answer the question "Why don't keywords enhance memorability" because ....
.....

I've pointed at the neuroscience of brain bias and memory and sociology of cultural transmission about a zillion times.
But repetition connects the neural paths so once again-

Keywords always enhance memorability.
The psyops strategy is to bias what is remembered in favor of what power wants remembered and not anything that impedes their goals.

This is the whole point of using inoculation and interference theories to JAM social transmission of subversive information by affecting our memory's ability to recognize things, achieve insight about them, and them remember them well enough to pass it on to someone else.

And this applies to the pre-internet human animal before the internet's search engine culture added even more advantage to competing for visibility and memory in a sea of stimuli.

There is a strategic advantage to multiplying the associations with a dangerous keyword AND to exposing the other definitions to the brain FIRST because-

1) No keywords can be completely suppressed.

2) It is always advantageous for keywords from scandals to have competing definitions in the culture at large. This mulitplicity creates the possibility of being diverted by the safe definition.
See 'interference theory.'

3) Young brains are extremely susceptible to a phenonemon called Mutual Exclusivity which is the tendency to become strongly biased towards the FIRST learned definition of a word EVEN when later exposed to another definition.
See 'inoculation theory.'

4) The brain has a number of 'path-of-least-resistance' dynamics including biasing towards pleasurable and coherent associations instead of disturbing and not well-understood ones.

So psyops culture makes sure there are always pleasurable, coherent, idealized packagings of SAFE definitions for keywords that could trigger subversive associations.
Like "Fonzie."

And these power-sanctioned versions of keywords are viral marketed in pop culture and given heavy social affirmations, often falsely created such as rigged 'best seller lists' or 'Top 10 Searches' or Hollywood movie awards.

Certain words have been tested for evoking responses in the audience in very predictable ways. This is how memetic-engineering works, carefully chosen linguistics.

This is why during the Gulf War I years of 1990-91 the Oscars for Best Picture went to
'Dances With Wolves' - 1990
'Silence of the Lambs' - 1991

You can read some interesting psyops history just by reading the titles of the Oscar winners. Because CIA-Hollywood is perhaps the most effective psyops institution on the planet. Can you think of how a movie titled 'GIGI' serves military recruiting?

So anything put in movies, which are largely attended by 14-24 year olds, serves to provide these FIRST power-sanctioned word definitions to an important demographic finalizing their sense of 'how things are' and whether or not to join the military.

Or whether to vote for Flyboy Buck McCain because he isn't "Hamlet 2," that movie hippie is.

CIA-Disney does this neural priming to really young kids. It is criminal.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Star Wars

You just
BLEW
MY
MIND

Adults have been de-sensitized to the basic meaning of words but children are being programmed with them right under their parents noses.

Like thinking that "the Force" is just religious virtue and God and nothing to do with blowing stuff up.

[jingofever]

You may have just missed my qualification since it is subtle. No biggie.
Some people hate my fonts and colors but maybe I just need to put them other places.


All the psyops crap in 'Wall*E' is multi-level and very real, including rinsing one of Gen. Clark's biggest keyword liabilities which, for some of us, makes us think of IranContra felon Poindexter at DARPA and Total Information Awareness.

I think you can understand why having Clark's every appearance or mention evoking those things is undesireable to the Warfare State.

I got the qualification but don't think it amounts to much. The way I read it is that you regretted not posting because you felt that the next day's news validated your prediction. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but that is not your only prediction.

A while back you predicted that The Kovak Box would get a lot of promotion when it was released in the UK: "Bet it gets more visibility in the UK where David Kelly's death and Lord Hutton's inquiry were a huge media event, unlike the US."
This may still happen -- as far as I can tell that movie has not had UK distribution yet.

Another prediction: "Keep an eye peeled for Clark. If he isn't actually a VP, he's going to be a very active talking head on MSM for (s)election 2008. Count on it."
Note that he wasn't even at the Democratic convention but there is still a lot of election to go. Also note how vague your prediction is. How do we decide if he is "very active?"

Clearly you believe that with your theory you can predict future events. And if those future events do not occur then you should think that is a problem.

I am still curious: How would an independent researcher decide whether Hamlet 2 is neutral, is aimed at McCain or aimed at Obama? You pretend that there is only one correct solution. How did you test that solution? How did you rule out other solutions?

[thegovernmentflu]

So anything put in movies, which are largely attended by 14-24 year olds, serves to provide these FIRST competing definitions to an important demographic finalizing their sense of 'how things are' and whether or not to join the military.

Yeah, but doesn't this also make them far more likely to stumble upon the "competing definition" than someone who was never exposed to the word in the first place?

If the Google results are rigged to put fluff pieces at the top of the results, what would be stopping "them" from finding a way to shove the legitimate results at least a few pages back? Why does the pertinent info almost always still show up on the first page of results?

It seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through, just to shove some website down five or six spots on the Google list. Not only that, but the people behind this psyop would be absolutely COUNTING ON kids to look for these keywords on the internet, so it makes even less sense that they'd micromanage the operation to such an insane degree but not even bother making sure that the "suppressed info" is taken off the same exact Google page that they know the kids will eventually be looking at.

If everything is as rigidly controlled as you say it is, then why couldn't "they" just skip a lot of trouble and bad moviemaking and just have their minions at Google push certain websites down on the search results?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
A while back you predicted that The Kovak Box would get a lot of promotion when it was released in the UK: "Bet it gets more visibility in the UK where David Kelly's death and Lord Hutton's inquiry were a huge media event, unlike the US."
This may still happen -- as far as I can tell that movie has not had UK distribution yet.

Guess I was wrong about the level of promotion. So?
The movie is still what it is, a hijacking of the David Kelly murder and the whistleblowing spook who exposed MI6 complicity in terrorism.

Another prediction: "Keep an eye peeled for Clark. If he isn't actually a VP, he's going to be a very active talking head on MSM for (s)election 2008. Count on it."
Note that he wasn't even at the Democratic convention but there is still a lot of election to go. Also note how vague your prediction is. How do we decide if he is "very active?"

Militarism is the Dems Achilles heel with conditioned American voters.
So they stayed away from the topic, mostly, for the convention.

Clearly you believe that with your theory you can predict future events. And if those future events do not occur then you should think that is a problem.

I've probably voiced an opinion as a prediction four times on this board in 6000-something posts and you've put all of them up in this thread.

My focus is 99.999999999% on the past history of psyops and the present state of it.

I am still curious: How would an independent researcher decide whether Hamlet 2 is neutral, is aimed at McCain or aimed at Obama?

Using context and precedent.
McCain has a big scandal in his past with criticism of him as "Hamlet."
Obama doesn't.

You pretend that there is only one correct solution.

I didn't say there is "one correct solution."
I wrote that I definitely think that is what it is based on my studying just such media strategies and there is a strong case to be made for it, not "none" or "everything is subjective."

Your making it sound like nothing should be asserted that isn't 120% proven with a jury ruling for conviction and physical evidence behind bullet-proof glass at the Smithsonian and that making any assertion short of that level of certainty is just talking out one's ass.

How did you test that solution?

What I am asserting, pre-emtively co-opting catch-phrases...has been done before. It's easy to do. The whole movie looks like agit-prop designed for election season just to piss of Republican fundies.

TIMING. Plus the entire 9/1/08 issue of Time Magazine was designed, every damn page, as negative framing of Obama and outright racism.
Because CIA media is carefully planned and constructed.

How does one test the "solution" that the White House spokesmodel gets up and lies every day about war crimes and corruption?
Context and precedent. It has been done a zillion times and will be done again.

How did you rule out other solutions?

I don't totally rule them out. I strongly believe this is a typical case of pre-empting a catch-phrase liability during an election season with huge stakes involved.[/quote]

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
It seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through, just to shove some website down five or six spots on the Google list. Not only that, but the people behind this psyop would be absolutely COUNTING ON kids to look for these keywords on the internet.....
.....

You skipped that the primary goal is about blood'n'guts brain memory and pre-biasing and mutual exclusivity and interference theory and inoculution theory.

It ain't all about search engines.

Cultural memory and info tramsmission is more diverse than just search engines.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
Exactly what do you mean by "professional trolls"?
.....

I strongly believe, based on precedent, that there are professional trolls whose job it is to create friction on the topic of CIA media and psyops.

Their operations at DemocraticUnderground.com are notorious and this board is a prime target for the same.

That's all. I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with me or doesn't understand or whatever is a troll. Just that they exist and this board has experienced them and the topic I focus on is blood in the water to sharks.

See "Finding Meme-O."

[Wombaticus Rex]

If the Google results are rigged to put fluff pieces at the top of the results, what would be stopping "them" from finding a way to shove the legitimate results at least a few pages back? Why does the pertinent info almost always still show up on the first page of results?

It seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through, just to shove some website down five or six spots on the Google list.

This remains the biggest internal contradiction I have a problem with.

http://www.google.com/search?q=operation+paperclip

That movie still doesn't even break the first five pages yet.

Another question: why not just buy/intimidate Google into doing what they want? Why are they competing against 100,000 amateur and professional SEO hackers?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

If the Google results are rigged to put fluff pieces at the top of the results, what would be stopping "them" from finding a way to shove the legitimate results at least a few pages back? Why does the pertinent info almost always still show up on the first page of results?

It seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through, just to shove some website down five or six spots on the Google list.

This remains the biggest internal contradiction I have a problem with.

http://www.google.com/search?q=operation+paperclip

That movie still doesn't even break the first five pages yet.

The decoy movie, 'Paperclips,' was being marketed to U.S. public schools as a history lesson. I wonder how many schools bit on that bait.
Imagine the extra value of having your school teacher affirming that thing at you.

Lather-rinse-repeat:

The primary goal of psyops is to pre-bias young brains and at the very least provide pleasant competing associations with keywords that can lead to dangerous associations.

I've memorized the Pentagon's definition of COUNTERPROPAGANDA and it might help to see the big picture-
"Counterpropaganda is any action taken to minimize the effect of hostile information."

According the Pentagon psyops manual I've acquired, there are these techniques of counterpropaganda:
> Direct refutation
> Indirect refutation
> Diversionary appeals
> Silence
> Forestalling
> Conditioning
> Restrictive measures
> Minimization
> Imitative deception

Another question: why not just buy/intimidate Google into doing what they want? Why are they competing against 100,000 amateur and professional SEO hackers?

Google is screwing with results for the spooks.
JFK researchers have called them on it many times.

...btw...I dig your "Rigorous Optimism" moniker. I'm optimistic about overcoming psyops' role in programming young minds and getting out from under fascism or atleast making it sweat and worry.

[Wombaticus Rex]

So you're saying none of this is aimed at us -- it's aimed at kids who don't know this yet.

If that's what you're saying, I wish you'd make that caveat a lot more clear -- it'd save a lot of misunderstanding in the future.

Almost all of us have been baffled for months if not years as to how this theory could possibly apply to grown adults like ourselves and our friends and family.

[thegovernmentflu]

.....
Exactly what do you mean by "professional trolls"?
.....

I strongly believe, based on precedent, that there are professional trolls whose job it is to create friction on the topic of CIA media and psyops.

Their operations at DemocraticUnderground.com are notorious and this board is a prime target for the same.

That's all. I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with me or doesn't understand or whatever is a troll. Just that they exist and this board has experienced them and the topic I focus on is blood in the water to sharks.

See "Finding Meme-O."

Ok. I now fully condone people picking on you.

I can't believe you actually whipped out that trite "they disagree with me, therefore they are CIA" bullshit. Why would anyone want to engage in any sort of legitimate discussion with you on this board when you impy that a significant portion of us are government agents because we disagree with 911 Controlled Demolition theories and Keyword Hijacking?

If anything, the opposite is true. It's ironic that the critical thinkers who are trying to point out the flaws of the government-spawned 911 Truth Cult are condemned by Truthers as "government agents". Especially considering that Truthers have proven themselves to be extremely susceptible to fourth-grade-level psychological manipulation by that very same government.

911 Truth people seriously have no idea how cultlike it makes them appear when they condemn all their legitimate critics as government operatives. I can't believe that the people who claim to be the most tuned in to detecting sophisticated government propaganda are also the ones who are buying into an obvious government-spawned cult. It's the classic Dale Gribble syndrome.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
Ok. I now fully condone people picking on you.

I can't believe you actually whipped out that trite "they disagree with me, therefore they are CIA" bullshit.
.....

Did you miss that I specifically said that's not what I'm asserting and you just quoted me -ahem- saying I wasn't saying that?

Again, with Font Power!

I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with me or doesn't understand or whatever is a troll.

Hope that helped. Maybe try "ctrl" and "+".

[thegovernmentflu]

So you're saying none of this is aimed at us -- it's aimed at kids who don't know this yet.

If that's what you're saying, I wish you'd make that caveat a lot more clear -- it'd save a lot of misunderstanding in the future.

Almost all of us have been baffled for months if not years as to how this theory could possibly apply to grown adults like ourselves and our friends and family.

Also, shouldn't Hugh's tactic have been rendered unfeasible by the internet? I can understand how someone might think this sort of thing could occur before the age of the internet, when the options to obtain information were much narrower than they are now. It would be also harder for kids to accidentally stumble on the suppressed definition of the word, since nobody would look up keywords from their favorite movies in an encyclopedia. So at least the KWH theory applied to a pre-internet society would SORT of make sense, though the logistics of it would still be difficult to imagine.

But with the existence of the internet, it would make absolutely no sense to implement this KWH tactic. What would the end result of this intricate psychological technique really be, now that the internet exists? Through the government's KWH propaganda, kids they're trying to "inoculate" are ultimately directed to a Google search results page that contains links to the very information that they don't want them to have in the first place. Can't they do better than that?

Hugh can claim that the inoculation and KWH Google trickery will ensure that they never even scroll to the bottom of the page to see the real results, but even so- why even risk it? Is this the best they could do?