rigorousintuition.ca

Hugh, I just can't buy your arguments about Bill Bryson, of all people. He's just a big, lovable story teller, and my family dearly love his books. It's one of the few things we know we can read and not get nightmares over.

Go read "A Walk in the Woods" and chill out.

Hugh, I just can't buy your arguments about Bill Bryson, of all people. He's just a big, lovable story teller, and my family dearly love his books. It's one of the few things we know we can read and not get nightmares over.

Go read "A Walk in the Woods" and chill out.

Sorry for the double post, my first "submit" sat there for 5 minutes.

Clean up on Aisle One!

Worth saying twice anyway!

It's another problem with Hugh's theories... he's too willing to blindly slander good people creating good art who in real life clearly have no connection to the perverse CIA schemes he imagines...

On that I agree with you; the people in power like us dumb and diverted. I just don't believe that they're smart enough (caveat: most of the time) to use these Kevin Kline opportunities when they come about. Coincidence and serendipity do happen in our world too.

I do believe they're smart enough to take opportunities to use coincidental pop culture happenings for propaganda purposes, but also believe they're not stupid enough to go to the extreme lengths hugh describes for so little practical gain!

It's absurd to suggest that anything really is taken away from this new book just because an actor has a similar name. A very very tiny amount of confusion would NOT warrent a massive, years long scheme of covertly controlling, by means never satisfactorally explained, a mindboggling number of highly uncontrollable details in order to make this 'coincidence' happen on purpose.

Asta wrote:Hugh, I just can't buy your arguments about Bill Bryson, of all people. He's just a big, lovable story teller, and my family dearly love his books. It's one of the few things we know we can read and not get nightmares over.

"It's one of the few things we know we can read and not get nightmares over."

Gee, you don't say? He's all fuzzy wuzzy wonderful, hunh?
Asta, that's exactly my point.

And he even mentions the CIA on some pages. Did you miss that?
Seems the loveableness distracted you.

And that, again, is exactly my point.

orz wrote: It's another problem with Hugh's theories... he's too willing to blindly slander good people creating good art who in real life clearly have no connection to the perverse CIA schemes he imagines...

Did you write that with a straight face? "Slander good people?" "Clearly no connection?"

Gawd, orz. You just make stuff up.
I put context and history and reasoning and motivation and mechanisms to make a feint possible.

I just don't believe that they're smart enough (caveat: most of the time) to use these Kevin Kline opportunities when they come about. Coincidence and serendipity do happen in our world too.

"When they come about?" What makes you think Naomi Kline wasn't on their radar long ago (look at the work) and Kevin Kline was dialed into a movie project specifically for the NPR radio homynym value?

You don't show any sign of understanding what demographic is exposed to what info.

I do believe they're smart enough to take opportunities to use coincidental pop culture happenings for propaganda purposes, but also believe they're not stupid enough to go to the extreme lengths hugh describes for so little practical gain!

"little practical gain?"
Like election theft in this country, attention span and comprehension is shaved away using every conceivable tactic including a constant barrage of seemingly trivial linguistic substitions and decoys and distractions with a HEAVY emphasis on putting a screen between the audience and whistleblowers like Naomi Kline and Sibel Edmonds etc.

Like jets that deter missiles by spewing a cloud of metal chaff, this is how the attention span of Americans is kept from reaching the targets that we here at RI take for granted because we've seen them for a long time. Once you see them, they are obvious.
Try telling that to someone busy watching Disney and Tom Hanks and South Park and football and Oprah and any Hollywood movie.

Bourne. 'The Bourne Ultimatum.' So why is that particular name, Bourne, being put in the faces of American youth with a spy movie, orz?
Can you figure that out?

It's absurd to suggest that anything really is taken away from this new book just because an actor has a similar name. A very very tiny amount of confusion would NOT warrent a massive, years long scheme of covertly controlling, by means never satisfactorally explained, a mindboggling number of highly uncontrollable details in order to make this 'coincidence' happen on purpose.

You're wrong, orz. It's been going on for sixty years by spreading and displacing truth and refining the art of seeming genuine and seeming to allow various viewpoints and all the while using every perceptual trick in the book, like "mutual exclusivity."

This isn't a "very very timy amount of confusion." It is a significant amount. And it got there through the kind of vigilance that puts the name 'Bourne' in a spy movie for the kids.

Got that name figured out yet? Were you too conditioned to have thought of it before I asked?

slow_dazzle wrote:dunno why because I tend to read everything on RI.

Thanks for the collection of links on the other thread. Necessary reading and deeply depressing at the same time.

The question of where all the missing children go is one I don't like to think about. But the phenomenon of missing children is just so pervasive I suppose we should do our best to highlight anything that might lead to some answers.

Thank you.

I understand. I think a lot of people want to think its just Ted Gunderson on prophecy club videos spouting off conspiracy theories and "Satanic panic", but no...the serious truth is most of the kids that are missing end up in global government ran sex trade and some...well pretty much Satanic ritual torture and sacrifice.

There's a famous case in late 90's Belgium of politicians and elite
torturing and sacrificing kids at castles and mansions, possibly even in the Netherlands and England as well. The same shit a lot believe Benjamin Franklin was into.

Again, its like the "where does all the drugs come from, and whose behind all the Islamic terror"?

The answers, are very...troubling.

I think the powers that be are WAY more scared when people go out of their way to expose child sex kidnapping by the elites than they are with people "exposing 9/11"

I mean, how many investigators, officials, etc have been "suicided" or offed from exposing this stuff? A lot

How many for exposing 9/11? Not many

I think theres a REASON all this started around 1981/1982

So what is being implied is that the powers that be have someone with a dualistic name to counter a big whistleblowing story or event with disinformation.

Like, if a CIA whistblower named James Sonnenfeld came out and
said the government was funding al Qaeda in Iraq secretly...

but at around the same time an actor named Sonny James pops up out of nowhere claiming to be a 9/11 truther and anti war activist, and gets arrested for attacking people at an Oscar ceremony...

and then on the anniversary of 9/11, the history channel devotes a lot of time to covering chemtrails and UFO's or something?

Now I agree that the occult elite love subliminal inferences, hidden meanings and sigils, and dualistic dates(11/22, 4/4, 6/6) as well as mirror events(involving 13/31) or 7/11...but

I'd like to see some clear cut examples of this sort of template used.

As for the latin American attrocities in the 70's-90's someone mentioned, you can thank Kissinger, Big Agri, the CIA and the new world order for all that.

Yup, Kline's movie on human trafficking where he's the US sherrif good guy IS anti-Klein.

Here's yet more misdirection.
Just when Naomi Klein's book, 'The Shock Doctrine,' rips open the CIA's MK-ULTRA mind control history we are treated to a story that reads like a rerun of 'The Manchurian Candidate' or something by Ian Fleming.

This 9/20/07 Wired article hypes evil Russian mind control and suggests they couldn't get Americans interested until the 1990s. Now they market through a CANADIAN company, just like the CIA using Dr. Ewan Cameron.
The reference to the sound of squealing pigs mirrors the story of use of that sound in the movie 'The Exorcist' as CIA subliminal tactics. Whether true or not, that story can lead people to the idea that many movies are psy-ops, something to discourage because it is very true.
HA. THIS is some anti-Klein propaganda--

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/ ... nd_reading


The Weird Russian Mind-Control Research Behind a DHS Contract
By Sharon Weinberger Email 09.20.07 | 2:00 AM

MOSCOW -- The future of U.S. anti-terrorism technology could lie near the end of a Moscow subway line in a circular dungeon-like room with a single door and no windows. Here, at the Psychotechnology Research Institute, human subjects submit to experiments aimed at manipulating their subconscious minds.

Elena Rusalkina, the silver-haired woman who runs the institute, gestured to the center of the claustrophobic room, where what looked like a dentist's chair sits in front of a glowing computer monitor. "We've had volunteers, a lot of them," she said, the thick concrete walls muffling the noise from the college campus outside. "We worked out a program with (a psychiatric facility) to study criminals. There's no way to falsify the results. There's no subjectivism."

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has gone to many strange places in its search for ways to identify terrorists before they attack, but perhaps none stranger than this lab on the outskirts of Russia's capital. The institute has for years served as the center of an obscure field of human behavior study -- dubbed psychoecology -- that traces it roots back to Soviet-era mind control research.
.....
Rusalkina markets the technology as a program called Mindreader 2.0. To sell Mindreader to the West, she's teamed up with a Canadian firm, which is now working with a U.S. defense contractor called SRS Technologies.
.....
All of the technology at the institute is based on the work of Rusalkina's late husband, Igor Smirnov, a controversial Russian scientist whose incredible tales of mind control attracted frequent press attention before his death several years ago.

Smirnov was a Rasputin-like character often portrayed in the media as having almost mystical powers of persuasion. Today, first-time visitors to the institute -- housed in a drab concrete building at the Peoples Friendship University of Russia -- are asked to watch a half-hour television program dedicated to Smirnov, who is called the father of "psychotronic weapons," the Russian term for mind control weapons. Bearded and confident, Smirnov in the video explains how subliminal sounds could alter a person's behavior. To the untrained ear, the demonstration sounds like squealing pigs.

Do you know what the Pentagon views as their two greatest adversaries?
According to psy-ops experts advising the State department who have put papers online they are:
>Islamic Extremism
>Anti-globalization

Anti-globalization? Yes, resistance to the USA, Inc. hostile take over of the planet.

And Naomi Klein is an anti-globalization academic literary activist superstar who was already being smeared in The Economist in 2002. So she, like Carol Gilligan in 1963, is a name that the CFR-CIA wishes people didn't know.

Read this fascist crap if you can stand it from The Economist five years ago
and see why, yes, 'they' would try and upstage her with Mr. Kline and that Wired article that reads like a feature on Boris and Natasha vs Moose and Squirrel--

http://web.archive.org/web/200211131455 ... ID=1429429

Why Naomi Klein needs to grow up
Nov 7th 2002
From The Economist print edition
.....
In training her guns on free trade and big multinationals, Ms Klein is attacking the best means for reducing poverty and, for that matter, extending justice and a political voice to the world's poorest people.
.....
Ms Klein's harshest critics must allow that, for an angry adolescent, she writes rather well. It takes journalistic skill of a high order to write page after page of engaging blather, so totally devoid of substance. What a pity she has turned her talents as a writer to a cause that can only harm the people she claims to care most about. But perhaps it is just a phase.

And now, five years later and after even more stellar work on her part, Naomi Klein is creating a firestorm of comprehension about a system that Wall Street, Nazis, spooks, behavioral scientists, and media lackeys have created which is destroying the planet and which is now turning its iron gaze on the US population which is realizing there's something big and bad going on.

We were slowed down from hearing Carol Gilligan when they socked us with 'Gilligan's Island' but we are hearing Naomi Klein loud and clear.

Spooks, you are busted. We know how you do it now. Many more of us will know soon.
You can't win, spooks. Join us.

Somebody get this guy a microphone

"When they come about?" What makes you think Naomi Kline wasn't on their radar long ago (look at the work)

Of course she would be.

and Kevin Kline was dialed into a movie project specifically for the NPR radio homynym value?

That's totally stupid. You are insane.

We were slowed down from hearing Carol Gilligan when they socked us with 'Gilligan's Island'

HOW!?!?!?

How how how how?

What evidence do you have that Gilligan's Island had ANY impact on people hearing about Carol Gilligan?

ARGH you are infuriating. Not insightful enough for the few good parts of your theories to be any real use, and not nutty enough to be funny or poetic like Timecube etc. Just a bore.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:
Bourne. 'The Bourne Ultimatum.' So why is that particular name, Bourne, being put in the faces of American youth with a spy movie, orz?
Can you figure that out?

Because Robert Ludlum picked it as the name of the spy-with-amnesia in his series of books 30-odd years ago.

There is nothing else to it Hugh. Freud's analysis "Sometimes a cigar is a cigar" is accurate some of the time.