NY Times Story on Keyword Hijacking

by **nomorefascizm** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:04 am

Now that the "mainstream" media is writing about keywork hijacking ( or Google bombing for you neophytes) maybe you'll believe HughManateeWins, or at the least begin to understand the concept. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us/politics/26googlebomb.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin">www.nytimes.com/2006/10/2...ref=slogin</a> I bet once the boob tube networks pick up this story you'll believe it even more. Many of you people deride the "sheeple" out there for following the msm, but yet when the msm publishes a story about 911 truth or they actually get off their asses and do their jobs you salivate as if what they did was so important and validates your beliefs. The fact is, this has been going on for a while. I posted the link a few weeks back for the keyword "santorum" and from what I could tell nobody on the board understood the meaning. Senator Rick Santorum was the "victim" of keyword hijacking. Do any of you doubters actually understand the concept of keywords and search engines? Do any of you use the practice of keyword linking in your daily jobs? Do you bother reseraching the topic? Its so obvious to those of us in the industry who analyze log data and make a practice of word associations for our own websites. I've researched and purchased highly sophisticated software for the media company I work for that allows us to burrow deeply in what people do on our sites, what they search for and how keywords drive traffic to specific pages and topics. So here you go, a Real story in the mother of all corporate media newspapers: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us/politics/26googlebomb.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin">www.nytimes.com/2006/10/2...ref=slogin</a>

by **professorpan** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:29 pm

This is nothing new. The mainstream media has reported on it in the past (the googling of "failure" linking to a bio of George Bush is several years old at this point). And it has nothing to do with Hugh's use of keyword hijacking. His examples are not supported by evidence or reason, so no need to suggest those of us critical of Hugh's ideas "don't get it."

by **Dreams End** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:45 pm

thanks for pointing out the actual definition of "keyword hijacking". This is, as Pan says, nothing new. Googling "miserable failure" will be enough to show that. This is not the same as naming a movie with the word "paperclip" in it in order to draw attention away from "paperclip" in the name of the project to import Nazis. As I pointed out, you'd have to be aware of that use of the term paperclip to be searching for it in the first place, and therefore would not likely be fooled by sites about the movie or the celebrated object itself. IN FACT, by naming a movie Paperclip, you'd get people searching on that term looking for the movie who might stumble on the Nazi importation project. Anyway, you and Hugh both have this weird habit of providing evidence for one thing in order to support your argument about a different thing. Hugh has done the same thing. You call into question his "paperclip" hypothesis and he returns with evidence of Google bombing or whatever, which is not what his original theory was talking about at all.

by **robotilt** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:52 pm

Now they've hijacked the term "keyword hijacking." How insidious is that?? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **orz** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:41 pm

cart before horse... Hugh's 'theories' are BASED on the prexisting use of Keyword Hijacking/google-bombing as an IT industry/hacking jargon with a different, tho similar, meaning to Hugh's. So as I've said before, it's Hugh who's hijacking the phrase! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek">

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Hugh's 'theories' are BASED on the prexisting use of Keyword Hijacking/google-bombing as an IT industry/hacking jargon<hr></blockquote> Wrong. I saw KH of EICHMANN used to hide the US-Nazi connection first back in 2/05 long before I heard of IT industry shenanigans. The first time I saw this decoy tactic used I went ahead and coined the term 'keyword hijacking' in my own mind before I read about manipulating search engine results or 'Google bombing.' I first noticed the use of decoys when EICHMANNS was keyword hijacked in February, 2005 and used to beat up Ward Churchill who had written back on 9/12/01 that not all the WTC victims were innocent since some were CIA working like "little Eichmann's" to devastate other countries. Fox TV and all the reich-wing outlets spent weeks beating up Ward Churchill for words he'd written 41 months previously. His words were horribly distorted as the Mighty Wurlitzer is prone to doing. Churchill was used as a scapegoat to recharge post-9/11 militant vindictiveness, demonize college professors, demonize critics of US policy, and chill campuses to prevent an anti-war movement from forming. Pretty good choice of targets if you're a reich-wing media mind manager. But why then? Why him? Yes, he'd helped write book about COINTELPRO and was now a teacher at Colorado University outing US imperialism but others were just as critical of US history and policies so why was Ward Churchill the poster boy for 'hate America first lefties' all of a sudden on February 1, 2005? <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146120,00.html">www.foxnews.com/story/0,2...20,00.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Univ. of Colo. Faculty Backs 9/11 Slur Prof Wednesday, February 02, 2005 DENVER — As pressure mounts on a University of Colorado professor who ignited a furor by comparing the World Trade Center victims to Nazis, colleagues have come to his defense — on free speech grounds.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146127,00.html">www.foxnews.com/story/0,2...27,00.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," Feb. 1, 2005, that has been edited for clarity. ..... BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Continuing now with our "Top Story," the controversy over anti-American Professor Ward Churchill (search). As we mentioned, Governor Owens of Colorado wants him fired from the university and the Board of Regents there meets Thursday night on this matter. .....<hr></blockquote> Aha. The topic of Nazis is the key to this media lynching, I realized. I knew instantly when I saw the keyword EICHMANN that this was a decoy tactic being deployed by the CIA Operation Mockingbird media to keep the US's darkest secret, being a major backer of the Nazis, out of the limelight. The same thing happened again with Project Paperclip. (See a pattern yet? What is the topic? Yes, US assissting Nazis. Very bad PR problem when you are 'bombing for democracy.') I'd read that the CIA was stonewalling a House panel on releasing papers showing their complicity with Nazi war criminals and who should be on this panel publicly urging the CIA to come clean? Richard Ben Veniste of the 9/11 Omission Panel. Hmm. A member of the new Warren Commission protecting the White House over 9/11 who has something on the CIA. Now there's an interesting situation to follow up on. The panel on Nazi and Japanese War Crimes had been meant to expire in 2004 but since the CIA had stonewalled it, the panel lived into 2005 with Ben Veniste going public against CIA stonewalling. When the CIA's papers on EICHMANN were finally released there had already been a few days of whipped up media outrage over Churchill's use of the expression "like little EICHMANNs." This is typical Magician's Other Hand-y work in creating distractions to both diffuse criticism of one's self and target one's political enemies at the same time. Very professional job. When I saw the video for the Johnson Group's and Peter Schroeder's 'Paperclip Project' I smelled another KH and I was right. The US-Nazi connection is the single most dangerous fact roaming the internet as it goes to the Bush Crime Family and the true nature of US-backed fascism for the last 80 years. So expect more haystack to be pile around that needle to keep it from popping national myths used for recruiting cannon fodder. <a href="http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB146/index.htm">www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NS.../index.htm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>National Security Archive Posts Secret CIA History Released Under Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 146 Edited by Tamara Feinstein February 4, 2005 .... Washington D.C., February 4, 2005 - Today the National Security Archive posted the CIA's secret documentary history of the U.S government's relationship with General Reinhard Gehlen, the German army's intelligence chief for the Eastern Front during World War II. At the end of the war, Gehlen established a close relationship with the U.S. and successfully maintained his intelligence network (it ultimately became the West German BND) even though he employed numerous former Nazis and known war criminals. The use of Gehlen's group, according to the CIA history, Forging an Intelligence Partnership: CIA and the Origins of the BND, 1945-49, was a "double edged sword" that "boosted the Warsaw Pact's propaganda efforts" and "suffered devastating penetrations by the KGB." [See Volume 1: Introduction, p. xxix] The declassified "SECRET RelGER" two-volume history was compiled by CIA historian Kevin Ruffner and presented in 1999 by CIA Deputy Director for Operations Jack Downing to the German intelligence service (Bundesnachrichtendienst) in remembrance of "the new and close ties" formed during post-war Germany to mark the fiftieth year of CIA-West German cooperation. This history was declassified in 2002 as a result of the work of The Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group (IWG) and contains 97 key documents from various agencies. This posting comes in the wake of public grievances lodged by members of the IWG that the CIA has not fully complied with the mandate of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act and is continuing to withhold hundreds of thousands of pages of documentation related to their work. (Note 1) In interviews with the New York Times, three public members of the IWG said: * "I think that the CIA has defied the law, and in so doing has also trivialized the Holocaust, thumbed its nose at the survivors of the Holocaust and also at the Americans who gave their lives in the effort to defeat the Nazis in World War II." - Former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman * "I can only say that the posture the CIA has taken differs from all the other agencies that have been involved, and that's not a position we can accept." - Washington lawyer Richard Ben-Veniste * "Too much has been secret for too long. The CIA has not complied with the statute." - Former federal prosecutor Thomas H. Baer The IWG was established in January 11, 1999 and has overseen the declassification of about eight million pages of documents from multiple government agencies. Its mandate expires at the end of March 2005. The documentation unearthed by the IWG reveals extensive relationships between former Nazi war criminals and American intelligence organizations, including the CIA. For example, current records show that at least five associates of the notorious Nazi Adolf Eichmann worked for the CIA, 23 other Nazis were approached by the CIA for recruitment, and at least 100 officers within the Gehlen organization were former SD or Gestapo officers. (Note 2)<hr></blockquote> <img src="http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB146/gehlenmug.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:51 pm

Prof Pan? orz? Dreams End? Robert Reed? Anyone care to comment on "Eichmanns" being KH on 2/1/05 just before CIA-damning documents were released on 2/4/05? Or am I still a bright paranoid wasting my time on the edge of insanity? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

by **professorpan** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Or am I still a bright paranoid wasting my time on the edge of insanity?<hr></blockquote> Yes. :-)

by **professorpan** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:04 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The US-Nazi connection is the single most dangerous fact roaming the internet as it goes to the Bush Crime Family and the true nature of US-backed fascism for the last 80 years<hr></blockquote> No, it's not. It's historically documented, widely available online, and very few people care. Sorry, but that is pretty clear. And re: your theory-that-won't-die: Once again, I will ask you point-blank -- would you even consider contacting the teachers who started the Paper Clip Project to ask them if the official story is true -- that they came up with the idea themselves? If they stood by the story, would you then call them liars because their statements don't fit into your keyword hijacking grand theory? Why do you never answer that question?

by **orz** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:34 pm

so..... Hugh. just so i know i've got this right........ They used a mention of the word "Eichmann", in the context of a reference to the famous Nazi of that name....... to........ distract people from thinking about the famous Nazi called Eichmann.......... ? ?? ?????? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/indifferent.gif ALT=":|"> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Once again, I will ask you point-blank -- would you even consider contacting the teachers who started the Paper Clip Project to ask them if the official story is true -- that they came up with the idea themselves?<hr></blockquote> My god... i totally second that. What do you say Hugh? I mean, they're not inaccessable I'm sure. What do you think they'd make of your theory?

by **Dreams End** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:25 pm

I don't know Hugh...somehow Churchill talking about Eichman's would make me more inclined to notice the word, not less. If they are going to the trouble of "keyword hijacking" why not be safer and not release the documents in the first place? Seems easier to me.

by **orz** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:28 pm

Is it really even 'Keyword Hijacking' if the new keyword is the same as the target!? The mind boggles. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek">

by **professorpan** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:24 pm

Bump -- I'd really like Hugh to answer my question about the Paper Clip Project. Pretty please?

by **orz** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:05 pm

Likewise! Feel free to ignore whatever rambling arguments i posted <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> , but please answer that one point!

by **professorpan** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:46 pm

bump bump... Hugh, I'll even do the legwork to help you find the teachers who started the Paper Clip Project. Surely, if you are so convinced that the film was a PSYOP, you should be willing to *test* the theory. . . right? You know, like fact checking and stuff? So whaddya say, chappie?

NY Times Story on Keyword Hijacking

NY Times Story on Keyword Hijacking

Re: NY Times Story on Keyword Hijacking

Re: NY Times Story on Keyword Hijacking

Re: NY Times Story on Keyword Hijacking

no

Re: orz comment. Wrong. Eichmann KH came before Paperclip

Re: orz comment. Wrong. Eichmann KH came before Paperclip

Re: orz comment. Wrong. Eichmann KH came before Paperclip

Re: orz comment. Wrong. Eichmann KH came before Paperclip

ok...

Re: ok...

yea

Re: yea

...

Paging HMW

Who is online