Keyword Hijacking Smackdown! Challenge for HMW (and poll)

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Hugh, there is a great gulf you never bridge between your broadly-shared general statements of media manipulation and your contentious and bizarre examples of "keyword hijacking."

So people believe in 'nutrition' and even 'meals' but not 'bread and cheese.'

There's more to psy-ops than general. There's specific.

Brand names and copyright laws are specifically to prevent...keyword hijacking.
So I can't make a doll and market it as 'Disney' just because I put that label on.

I can't bottle some juice and market it as 'Coca-Cola.'

And the long-time practice of creating linguistic decoys for people's eyes and memories has been given even more value on the very risky-to-power internet with search engines.

And professionals who do KH work for commerce have posted that this is S.O.P.
Think the psy-ops culture started in WWI isn't in on this, too?

The interaction of previously carved out cultural definitions and the internet is perfect for relying more and more on linguistic tricks like keyword hijacking.

[vigilant]

Hugh even when you start your own threads Pan and Orz and crew follow you around...Ever noticed that? They bitch that you muck up their threads, but they follow you to your own threads....they ain't got nothin better to do...

Hugh if you would start your "own threads" that are related to current threads then you would be "set" brother....you could post your psy-ops observations right along "with" the other threads instead of "in" other threads. Your fans will follow you.....

[jingofever]

And I backed that up, too.
I put in material from Webb's speeches and footnoted his book and tied it to stuff he didn't.
I personally interviewed Parry to back up my statements.
I showed that Terry Reed's book and video on Nella Airport was trashed by the Washington Post so it was a high-visibility problem.

That's not "nonsense." I take this stuff very seriously. I'm surprise others don't.

Nell was in production by at least November 2nd, 1993, Reed's book wasn't out until February of 1994. But I'm sure your theory can accommodate this inconsistency.

That 1962 Operation Vulcan [sic] limpet mine disaster

I have mentioned this before, wasn't the operation code named Wise Tiger? According to the web page, which is titled Operation Vulcan, there were five teams code named Vulcan, Cancer, Neptune, Charon and Zeus. Maybe a minor point, but it merits a sic. I also asked what hijacked Wise Tiger, but I'm not sure if you responded, even though I offered suggestions.

Even the project that later became 'Yours, Mine, Ours' was started right after Operation Vulcan [sic] blew up.

You know what else happened in 1962 besides the Operation Vulcan [sic] disaster?

Wouldn't whatever mechanism is at work with keyword hijacking apply to "yours" and "ours" in addition to "mine?" What happens with these null hijackings, I should say, these floating signifiers?

[DrVolin]

There are a few things that keep me coming back to this board. One is the generally civil, illuminating, and erudite discussion of conspiracy related topics. Hugh's posts are another. Whether or not I agree with his specific statements about instances of KWH, his contributions are always highly thought provoking, and I usually learn some new and interesting facts.

I am not sure how anyone can deny that there are organized, government run attempts at manipulating public opinion. I don't know how anyone can think that television advertising and films are not used for that purpose. They are the most potent cultural diffusion media ever devised. If Coca Cola uses them, I am quite sure that the Pentagon and several factions in the White House do so as well. It isn't as if they don't have the means, opportunity, and motive.

Orwell was mentioned earlier in the thread. Reading his BBC wartime commentaries, one realizes that he was one of those pioneers of post-war propaganda techniques who realised that effective propaganda did not involve control of the information to which receptors (people) are exposed. Rather, it involves the conditioning of those receptors to react to information in a certain way. If the public massively rejects a certain piece of information, it doesn't really matter how often it is "revealed".

That is how the allies won the propaganda war. The Germans and Japanese were building mobile huffduff stations and prowling sleepy neighbourhoods for illicit radio noises, attempting the impossible task of controlling what people's eyes and ears were exposed to. Meanwhile the allies, and Orwell first among them, sat back and used information to prepare people's brains to interpret in predictable ways what their senses perceived.

Can anyone deny that this is precisely what has happened to the concept of conspiracy since 9/11? Thanks to countless repetitions and scripted "debates" on Wolf Blitzer and co, what are the first conditioned reactions of the average westerner to the word "conspiracy"?
1. don't blame conspiracy when incompetence could do the job
2. this conspiracy would have to be hugely massive so
3. someone would have talked
4. the government can't order toilet seats for the Pentagon without screwing up and you think they did what?
Try it. You'll be amazed at the consistency of the results.

If Orwell and the British Foreign Office could engage in effective conditioning propaganda in 1942 with short wave radio and punch cards, what can the State Department accomplish now with supercomputers, the internet, and the Hollywood and Madison avenue machines?

As for examples, I think Hugh has quite convincingly reiterated one of his best ones in this very thread. The Patsy is quite an incredible constellation of coincidences. And no, the idea that The Patsy is a KWH op related to the JFK assassination does not require Jerry Lewis to have had advanced knowledge of the events. It does require someone to have had advanced knowledge of some of the events, though. Or more likely, it requires a number of people to have had partial knowledge of some of the events, probably not realizing what would actually happen, or how it would be related to The Patsy. Only one or two individuals, probably far removed from Mr. Lewis and his direct handlers would have needed to see the complete picture. That one, the Bolsheviks invented way back around 1905 or so.

I would be a regular reader of Hugh's forum, but I would find it unfortunate to separate his contributions from the rest of the board. I don't see his interventions, even the cleary nutty ones, as disrupting or derailing threads. After all, one is not obliged to read them, and one is perfectly free not to respond to them.

[chiggerbit]

The problem is, DrViolin, that Hugh is so danged persistent in inserting his KH theory everywhere. This board is like one huge cooking extravaganza, with dozens of cooks. When it's soup cook-off, everyone has their own recipe. But there's a cook who persists in moving around and sprinkling in his own spice to everybody's soup when they're not looking. Hugh is VERY stubborn and insists on adding a big dash of cumin to all soups at will. Sorry, I don't want cumin in my chicken and rice soup. Chili, yes, very good in it, but not in my chicken and rice.

[FourthBase]

I am not sure how anyone can deny that there are organized, government run attempts at manipulating public opinion. I don't know how anyone can think that television advertising and films are not used for that purpose. They are the most potent cultural diffusion media ever devised. If Coca Cola uses them, I am quite sure that the Pentagon and several factions in the White House do so as well. It isn't as if they don't have the means, opportunity, and motive.

I'd be interested to see who would possibly deny that.

Orwell was mentioned earlier in the thread. Reading his BBC wartime commentaries, one realizes that he was one of those pioneers of post-war propaganda techniques who realised that effective propaganda did not involve control of the information to which receptors (people) are exposed. Rather, it involves the conditioning of those receptors to react to information in a certain way. If the public massively rejects a certain piece of information, it doesn't really matter how often it is "revealed".

That is how the allies won the propaganda war. The Germans and Japanese were building mobile huffduff stations and prowling sleepy neighbourhoods for illicit radio noises, attempting the impossible task of controlling what people's eyes and ears were exposed to. Meanwhile the allies, and Orwell first among them, sat back and used information to prepare people's brains to interpret in predictable ways what their senses perceived.

EX-ACT-LY.

Can anyone deny that this is precisely what has happened to the concept of conspiracy since 9/11? Thanks to countless repetitions and scripted "debates" on Wolf Blitzer and co, what are the first conditioned reactions of the average westerner to the word "conspiracy"?
1. don't blame conspiracy when incompetence could do the job
2. this conspiracy would have to be hugely massive so
3. someone would have talked
4. the government can't order toilet seats for the Pentagon without screwing up and you think they did what?
Try it. You'll be amazed at the consistency of the results.

EX-ACT-LY.

Basically, #3 and #4 sum it up.
They are the two prime myths of coincidence theory.

One of the flaws (from their POV) with massaging the receptors instead of brute information flow control, might seem to be: what to do with the receptors which resist conditioning and interject facts. But the beauty of it (from their POV) is that those receptors are handled by the masses with the same conditioned response the inconvenient information gets. So there's practically no way to get through. Unconditioned receptors which become unwanted transmitters don't get heard anyway.

If Orwell and the British Foreign Office could engage in effective conditioning propaganda in 1942 with short wave radio and punch cards, what can the State Department accomplish now with supercomputers, the internet, and the Hollywood and Madison avenue machines?

Exactly.

As for examples, I think Hugh has quite convincingly reiterated one of his best ones in this very thread. The Patsy is quite an incredible constellation of coincidences. And no, the idea that The Patsy is a KWH op related to the JFK assassination does not require Jerry Lewis to have had advanced knowledge of the events. It does require someone to have had advanced knowledge of some of the events, though. Or more likely, it requires a number of people to have had partial knowledge of some of the events, probably not realizing what would actually happen, or how it would be related to The Patsy. Only one or two individuals, probably far removed from Mr. Lewis and his direct handlers would have needed to see the complete picture. That one, the Bolsheviks invented way back around 1905 or so.

That reminds me of that classic coincidence theorist tactic:
"Do you realize which/how many people would have to be involved?!"

I would be a regular reader of Hugh's forum, but I would find it unfortunate to separate his contributions from the rest of the board. I don't see his interventions, even the cleary nutty ones, as disrupting or derailing threads. After all, one is not obliged to read them, and one is perfectly free not to respond to them.

Hugh should have created a megathread for himself a long time ago.[/url]

[Attack Ships on Fire]

I promised a while back that I wouldn't wade into another discussion about KWH and HMW because of my earlier discussions with him, my differences in opinion and his dismissal of some of the information that I brought to the discussion (what stands out the best in my recollection is our talk about "The Fountain" and the ideas/images contained in that film.) I'm going to break my promise here and now.

I don't believe that KWH exists the way that Hugh likes to conceive of it. I have never seen any indication of a wide and secret conspiracy to overt names, subjects, titles and such in mainstream movies to redirect the public's attention away from controversial parapolitical subjects, and I think that by now if such an attempt were alive and kicking as HMW likes to believe there is, I would have seen it. My career places me in a position to see evidence of that kind of manipulation and I would like to think that my questioning, paranoid mind would have picked up on it too. So far, nothing.

For every "Mr. Limpet" or "300" that Hugh uses to back his theory I can point to another Hollywood movie that would seem to violate his theory. If such a shadowy group controlled the minutiae of Hollywood to the extent that Hugh believes it does how can films like "Fight Club", "Three Kings", "Network", "Three Days of the Condor", "Silkwood", "JFK", "The Parallax View" and numerous other examples be made, given wide release and promotion? How would any of these films served to keep the populace dumb and not be skeptical of their role in modern society? Upon closer examination all of the examples Hugh has given fall apart.

But I'll share with you what I do believe exists and it's far, far more insidious than KWH: the proliferation of gossip, tabloid style entertainment reporting and low-brow movies. Those two forms of entertainment easily comprise the overwhelming majority of media consumed by the average western mind each day. We live in a world where I doubt any of us on here don't know who the Spice Girls are or Paris Hilton is but do we stop ourselves and question why is it that we are bombarded with this information? In short, why do we care?

We care because these subjects are constantly repeated to us multiple times a day via radio, television, print and the internet. We're supposed to give a shit that an actress gets pregnant, loses weight, is seen at a nightclub, wins "Dancing With the Stars". We're supposed to go out and see whatever new movie is playing in theaters when most films are the same three act story structure where the hero/ine wins in the end, there's some laughter, some tears, some action and some nudity. You want to see what pop culture mind control looks like? Watch "They Live" when Roddy Piper puts on his eyeglasses for the first time. Sleep, consume, obey. And they don't even need aliens beaming subconscious messages to do it.

You want proof of how docile we have become as a society? 30 years ago Richard Nixon is caught lying to the American public and the press and public go crazy. Today the same blatant lying is being perpetrated by a different administration and instead of the heat intensifying and uncomfortable questions being asked by average citizens of their leaders, today you wait three weeks and it all gets blown over. Where is the mass disgust? Who is leading the charge for honor and truth? Lies are now given a whitewash by partisan rhetoric. You can actually pick your sanitized form of news, the one that best fits with the way you *want to see the world* and you can subscribe to listen/read/watch it. We witness slow motion social car crashes like the ongoing destruction of Britney Spears, shake our heads and tomorrow we'll digest the next new story in her flameout. And calls for change have become neutered perpetual movements where no change ever takes place; the problem persists in an indefinite state of never being solved. "The X-Files" is the cherry on the top of this 1984 sundae of societal control; conspiracy entertainment sold en masse with commercial breaks.

You think that the powers that be need to micromanage Hollywood films? Wake the fuck up people: we're doing it ourselves. The slaves are also the guards of the prison. They've conditioned society to the point where we can discuss proof of complicity out in the open and it's never going to be a threat to them, ever, because not enough of us care to wake up or risk something to see the change necessary to take place. Witness Oliver Stone's "JFK" more than a decade ago, and what legacy has it given us? Nothing and all of us know it.

The real game isn't keyword hijacking, it's reality hijacking, and it's bigger, badder and scarier than any keyword hijacking scenario that Hugh has dreamed up. And the scariest part is the proof is everywhere around us yet here we are debating about whether Don Knotts and Jerry Lewis are somehow in on it.

[brekin]

Tootsie Roll Hi-Jacking

Oh, the world looks mighty good to me,
'Cause Tootsie Rolls are all I see.
Whatever it is
I think I see
It becomes a Tootsie Roll to me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qayjR8Qbyfc&feature=related

This insidious hi jack was run repeatedly throughout the 70's and the 80's into lulling children into thinking that benign cyndrical tar candies were the invisible hand that ran the world.

This laid the groundwork for the movie "Tootsie" starring Dustin Hoffman which capitalized on all the Tootsie Roll goodwill, causing millions of people to equate cross dressing as a comical, but necessary, way to make it professionally in the new global work place.

I don't think it could be any more clearer.

[Jeff]

The real game isn't keyword hijacking, it's reality hijacking, and it's bigger, badder and scarier than any keyword hijacking scenario that Hugh has dreamed up. And the scariest part is the proof is everywhere around us yet here we are debating about whether Don Knotts and Jerry Lewis are somehow in on it.

Damn, that's good. Thanks.

[FourthBase]

I promised a while back that I wouldn't wade into another discussion about KWH and HMW because of my earlier discussions with him, my differences in opinion and his dismissal of some of the information that I brought to the discussion (what stands out the best in my recollection is our talk about "The Fountain" and the ideas/images contained in that film.) I'm going to break my promise here and now.

I don't believe that KWH exists the way that Hugh likes to conceive of it. I have never seen any indication of a wide and secret conspiracy to overt names, subjects, titles and such in mainstream movies to redirect the public's attention away from controversial parapolitical subjects, and I think that by now if such an attempt were alive and kicking as HMW likes to believe there is, I would have seen it. My career places me in a position to see evidence of that kind of manipulation and I would like to think that my questioning, paranoid mind would have picked up on it too. So far, nothing.

For every "Mr. Limpet" or "300" that Hugh uses to back his theory I can point to another Hollywood movie that would seem to violate his theory. If such a shadowy group controlled the minutiae of Hollywood to the extent that Hugh believes it does how can films like "Fight Club", "Three Kings", "Network", "Three Days of the Condor", "Silkwood", "JFK", "The Parallax View" and numerous other examples be made, given wide release and promotion? How would any of these films served to keep the populace dumb and not be skeptical of their role in modern society? Upon closer examination all of the examples Hugh has given fall apart.

But I'll share with you what I do believe exists and it's far, far more insidious than KWH: the proliferation of gossip, tabloid style entertainment reporting and low-brow movies. Those two forms of entertainment easily comprise the overwhelming majority of media consumed by the average western mind each day. We live in a world where I doubt any of us on here don't know who the Spice Girls are or Paris Hilton is but do we stop ourselves and question why is it that we are bombarded with this information? In short, why do we care?

We care because these subjects are constantly repeated to us multiple times a day via radio, television, print and the internet. We're supposed to give a shit that an actress gets pregnant, loses weight, is seen at a nightclub, wins "Dancing With the Stars". We're supposed to go out and see whatever new movie is playing in theaters when most films are the same three act story structure where the hero/ine wins in the end, there's some laughter, some tears, some action and some nudity. You want to see what pop culture mind control looks like? Watch "They Live" when Roddy Piper puts on his eyeglasses for the first time. Sleep, consume, obey. And they don't even need aliens beaming subconscious messages to do it.

You want proof of how docile we have become as a society? 30 years ago Richard Nixon is caught lying to the American public and the press and public go crazy. Today the same blatant lying is being perpetrated by a different administration and instead of the heat intensifying and uncomfortable questions being asked by average citizens of their leaders, today you wait three weeks and it all gets blown over. Where is the mass disgust? Who is leading the charge for honor and truth? Lies are now given a whitewash by partisan rhetoric. You can actually pick your sanitized form of news, the one that best fits with the way you *want to see the world* and you can subscribe to listen/read/watch it. We witness slow motion social car crashes like the ongoing destruction of Britney Spears, shake our heads and tomorrow we'll digest the next new story in her flameout. And calls for change have become neutered perpetual movements where no change ever takes place; the problem persists in an indefinite state of never being solved. "The X-Files" is the cherry on the top of this 1984 sundae of societal control; conspiracy entertainment sold en masse with commercial breaks.

You think that the powers that be need to micromanage Hollywood films? Wake the fuck up people: we're doing it ourselves. The slaves are also the guards of the prison. They've conditioned society to the point where we can discuss proof of complicity out in the open and it's never going to be a threat to them, ever, because not enough of us care to wake up or risk something to see the change necessary to take place. Witness Oliver Stone's "JFK" more than a decade ago, and what legacy has it given us? Nothing and all of us know it.

The real game isn't keyword hijacking, it's reality hijacking, and it's bigger, badder and scarier than any keyword hijacking scenario that Hugh has dreamed up. And the scariest part is the proof is everywhere around us yet here we are debating about whether Don Knotts and Jerry Lewis are somehow in on it.

If there were a RI Hall of Fame, that should be in it.

[chlamor]

But I'll share with you what I do believe exists and it's far, far more insidious than KWH: the proliferation of gossip, tabloid style entertainment reporting and low-brow movies.

Good post.

Should I feel so good about not knowing who The Spice Girls are?

I highlight the bit above from your comment as I used to live next door to a very bizarre couple in SE AZ. The guy worked for Army Intel at Fort Huachuca, I can't imagine it was anything important as he exuded incompetence like Flagg on M*A*S*H*. The wife of this guy, who was always in bathrobes and huge sunglasses, was rumored to have worked as an Itel Operative for The National Enquirer. I'm not as much of a conspiracist as y'all but I looked into this and she did indeed work for the tabloid and did indeed at one time work for US Army Intelligence. I have no idea about the correlative nature of any of this but that's the case. Do the Intel PsyOps have dalliances in mass distraction media?

What a couple. She "disappeared" for a time and it was found out later that she headed to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale(?) due to some nervous breakdown or some such thing. I suspect she was a pharma junkie.

[DrVolin]

AttackShips,

First, you hit two of my favourite films: Three Days of the Condor, and the Parallax view. Add to that the Domino Principle, the Manchurian Candidate and Seven Days in May, I am ready for my desert Island.

Second, I agree with you that Hollywood is not being micro-managed. It is clear that some productions are being engineered to condition receptors, while others are merely used for that purpose post-hoc. The former is represented, at the low end of the subtely specturm, by the Golan-Globus production of the 80s, and the latter by the sudden banning of Rambo III from American television after 9/11. That film was on the USA channel basically once a month for a long time. It no longer exists, and will now be provided with an engineered replacement.

The high end of the subtelty spectrum is perhaps to be found somewhere in the far reaches of Hugh's paranoid but ever-useful insights. Some of his Disney material, for example, has merit.

But generally speaking, the dumbing down of our media experience is certainly part of what I see as conditioning. As I see it, we agree.

[FourthBase]

But I'll share with you what I do believe exists and it's far, far more insidious than KWH: the proliferation of gossip, tabloid style entertainment reporting and low-brow movies.

Good post.

Should I feel so good about not knowing who The Spice Girls are?

I highlight the bit above from your comment as I used to live next door to a very bizarre couple in SE AZ. The guy worked for Army Intel at Fort Huachuca, I can't imagine it was anything important as he exuded incompetence like Flagg on M*A*S*H*. The wife of this guy, who was always in bathrobes and huge sunglasses, was rumored to have worked as an Itel Operative for The National Enquirer. I'm not as much of a conspiracist as y'all but I looked into this and she did indeed work for the tabloid and did indeed at one time work for US Army Intelligence. I have no idea about the correlative nature of any of this but that's the case. Do the Intel PsyOps have dalliances in mass distraction media?

What a couple. She "disappeared" for a time and it was found out later that she headed to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale(?) due to some nervous breakdown or some such thing. I suspect she was a pharma junkie.

YOU NEED TO MAKE A NEW THREAD ABOUT THIS ASAP.

[populistindependent]

To let you know I almost started a thread on specifically Walt Disney last night after having read the thread you refer to here. I got sidetracked and did not want to pursue it at the time with the usual zeal.

There is quite a bit out there on Walt, quite an unsavory uber right-wing zealot.

I stumbled on some stuff today that I didn't know. Perhaps the Disney connections to the intelligence agencies has been discussed here already? The Disney organization was engaged in full time psyops for the government during WWII.

Are we to suppose that any self-respecting intelligence agency would steer clear of the entertainment industry for fear that this would create conspiracy theorists some day in the future? Do you think they tell themselves "oh that is just entertainment, benign and neutral and it has no effect. Don't read too much into things?"

[marmot]

Here's another idea. It looks like there are at least 35 people interested in what Hugh has to say. If each of those people chipped in a buck/ year, Hugh could have his own board and complete control over its comings and goings.

He's got by buck!