The Hugh Manatee Challenge

[brainpanhandler]

Most of the keyword adjustments are innoculative, not predictive: they focus upon persons or events of historical interest to the agency, and swarm the search function retrospectively.

And so, for instance, this one is in the (edit) pipeline:

Mockingjay
Concept: No reported activity; release likely many years away (if ever) as of June 1, 2011.

Synopsis: The final book of the trilogy although Lionsgate has the rights for four movie and will likely extend the franchise if successful at the box office. Since it is early in the development process, unknown how the script will differ from the book.


http://www.movieinsider.com/m9160/mockingjay/

Mockingjay is a 2010 young adult dystopian novel by American author Suzanne Collins. It is the third installment of The Hunger Games trilogy, following 2008's The Hunger Games and 2009's Catching Fire, and continues the story of Katniss Everdeen, who agrees to lead the rebellion against the rulers of the futuristic society of Panem. The series was inspired by the Greek myth of Theseus and the Minotaur and the Roman Gladiator games. Reviewers have noted that it tackles issues such as loyalty, war, and poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mockingjay

Details of Operation Mockingbird was revealed as a result of the Frank Church investigations (Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) in 1975. I received a copy of this report this morning. It makes interesting reading.

Here is one passage from the report that relates to Operation Mockingbird:

The Covert Use of Books and Publishing Houses

The Committee has found that the Central Intelligence Agency attaches a particular importance to book publishing activities as a form of covert propaganda. A former officer in the Clandestine Service stated that books are "the most important weapon of strategic (long-range) propaganda." Prior to 1967, the Central Intelligence Agency sponsored, subsidized, or produced over 1,000 books; approximately 25 percent of them in English. In 1967 alone, the CIA published or subsidized over 200 books, ranging from books on African safaris and wildlife to translations of Machiavelli's The Prince into Swahili and works of T. S. Eliot into Russian, to a competitor to Mao's little red book, which was entitled Quotations from Chairman Liu.

The Committee found that an important number of the books actually produced by the Central Intelligence Agency were reviewed and marketed in the United States:

* A book about a young student from a developing country who had studied in a communist country was described by the CIA as "developed by (two areas divisions) and, produced by the Domestic Operations Division... and has had a high impact in the United States as well as in the (foreign area) market." This book, which was produced by the European outlet of a United States publishing house was published in condensed form in two major U.S. magazines."

* Another CIA book, The Penkorsky Papers, was published in United States in 1965. The book was prepared and written by omitting agency assets who drew on actual case materials and publication rights to the manuscript were sold to the publisher through a trust fund which was established for the purpose. The publisher was unaware of any US Government interest.

In 1967, the CIA stopped publishing within the United States. Since then, the Agency has published some 250 books abroad, most of them in foreign languages. The CIA has given special attention to publication and circulation abroad of books about conditions in the Soviet Bloc. Of those targeted at audiences outside the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, a large number has also been available in English.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... topic=5142

[kelley]

this may or not be off-topic given hugh's interests, but seems related to the spirit of his arguments if not following them to the letter:

http://epic.org/2011/12/epic-sues-dhs-o ... -surv.html

[slomo]

this may or not be off-topic given hugh's interests, but seems related to the spirit of his arguments if not following them to the letter:

http://epic.org/2011/12/epic-sues-dhs-o ... -surv.html

I don't think so. It's pretty well-established that alphabet agencies are doing everything they can to monitor activity that they perceive as threatening. This latest installment is so obvious that I kind of assumed they were doing it already. Hugh's theories revolve around injecting keywords into the collective unconscious in order to actively modulate public opinion and its consequent actions.

In thinking more deeply about what rubs me the wrong way, it's a combination of factors that have mostly to do with personality (sorry, mods). Hugh completely pees on what he calles "W.O.O.", yet woo is the only mechanism by which his claims actually could be remotely true. If the patterns he sees are real (i.e. more common than what could be expected by pure chance), and if those patterns are the result of human agency and not a higher-order intelligence (=angelic/spiritual entities = woo), then the only mechanistic explanation that would justify the expenditure of vast resources to effect precision injection of key phrases and images is the mechanism by which most modern magickians claim their art and science operates (again, woo). Rather than dancing with the rest of us folks here, engaging in true debate over the workings of his theories, Hugh issues condescension with an almost authoritarian character (which is kind of ironic). I'm sorry, but it really bugs me. There is something compelling about his theories, even if they are wrong, but the delivery is really off-putting. If Hugh instead could concede some points, offer evidence when possible, and be a better sport about the fact that his claims are ... not mainstream ... then I personally would be more inclined to take him seriously, and I think others would as well. People treat Hugh poorly because, I think, he kind of treats us poorly.

[brainpanhandler]

Hugh...

Can you ever just use the subjunctive when the declarative is as of yet unwarranted? Why do you always switch from one premature declarative pronouncement to the next? Is it an aesthetic style, like we're supposed to imagine your declarations as might-as-well-be hypotheticals?

Well put. I'm doing deciphering and detecting and take an aggressive approach to problems. "This is what they've hidden!"

It focuses others on either confirming or debunking without waffling.

If others aren't interested or know better, that is indicated.

Errr...you might want to consider that strategy. I think it is backfiring, it has turned off most of the people who find you unbearable and has sometimes made you sound...well, insane. You're, um, sabotaging yourself and your theories with that approach.

You should try what I do and couch your statements in modifiers as precisely as you can to avoid understatements, overstatements, and misstatements. And use the freaking subjunctive, because that's all intuition and speculation gives you the intellectual right to use.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... &start=225

Oy. Thanks, brainpanhandler!
Out of 6600+ posts there's one I posted in ultra-haste and never got back to correct but gets resurrected here.

'Splainin'-
I had almost finished a lengthy and more coherent reply to FB's encouragement to just say "maybe" and not freak people out...when a car ride pulled up to take me somewhere and I was making us late. I had to leave pronto and I was frantic. Caught in the vortex of RI, again, instead of out in meat world like responsible primates.

So I deleted my much more coherent but unfinished reply and just slammed down that rather simplistic and glib substitute reply so I could shut down my computer and leave.

But the quote about Cheetos marketing which bph pulled out is pretty good.
"I'm HMW and I approve of that message."

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=20355&start=30



Hugh actually goes outside sometimes, with people.

[Occult Means Hidden]

It's been like this for years. No poster has generated more amount of discussion than HMW. Still, it seems like a broken record. He has also been "warned" dozens of times. I was a supporter of his posts, but now I'm feeling it's a major distraction.

[undead]

he can cite chapter and verse of psychological warfare manuals

No shit, and what should that tell you? What the fuck is the point? Definitely not educating the public. Not even educating the people here. Does he ever talk about actions? Strategy for actions? Tactics? No, no, and no. Bitching and dragging down conversations, yes. What is the utility? People here know the government controls the media. It's just an excuse to hate on ideas that he disagrees with, and for him to feel superior to other people. What a sad existence, trying to impress people in a place like this. No offense to all the real people here of course, but you know what I mean.

At this point the government control of the media is old news. It's like the nuclear problem - is the best way to fix the problem to teach everyone on the planet nuclear physics in detail? No. Same thing with the CIA. And it is good to inform people of the details and mechanics of government media control, but it is NOT good to spread bullshit disinformation theories like Alex Jones and David Icke, which is what that screen name called Hugh Manatee Wins does. I'm not making accusations - I don't think this place is important enough to warrant dedicated agents - I'm just calling his bullshit what it is. Unproductive garbage.

I suggest a HMW boycott. Ignore function. Use it. This is the last time I'm spending any energy on this subject. Peace.

[slomo]

OK, I'm hearing that people are tired of any subject that has to do with Hugh and the disruptive effects his missives cause.

I still like the idea of a laboratory for prospective analysis.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

[he can cite chapter and verse of psychological warfare manuals

No shit, and what should that tell you?

I wanted to know how fascism tricks people into war, poverty, hatred, and ignorance.
So I did the research.

What the fuck is the point? Definitely not educating the public. Not even educating the people here.

Totally educating the public as to how their media is used for social control from subtle conditioning to full-blown lying.

Does he ever talk about actions? Strategy for actions? Tactics? No, no, and no.

Yes, yes, yes. Seems you don' t get it.

Bitching and dragging down conversations, yes. What is the utility? People here know the government controls the media.

Nope. Usernames deny a psyops culture here all the time. Call me a schizophrenic, a wacko.

I

t's just an excuse to hate on ideas that he disagrees with, and for him to feel superior to other people. What a sad existence, trying to impress people in a place like this. No offense to all the real people here of course, but you know what I mean.

This is barely worth a response.
I work research military history and science, not "ideas" based on "agreeing." If your ego is like the skin of a hemophiliac, don't discuss factual history and science.

At this point the government control of the media is old news.

Maybe to you. And to me. Not to many people. So don't blow them off. Now that's dismissive of other people's right to autonomy.

It's like the nuclear problem - is the best way to fix the problem to teach everyone on the planet nuclear physics in detail? No. Same thing with the CIA.

Interesting analogy. Let's use it.
If people don't know that radiation exposure, being invisible and undetectable, will still kill them over time, they won't get the nuclear problem, will they?

Same thing with psyops.

And it is good to inform people of the details and mechanics of government media control, but it is NOT good to spread bullshit disinformation theories like Alex Jones and David Icke, which is what that screen name called Hugh Manatee Wins does. I

What specifically are you denying from me? The use of language and memory and marketing and military doctrines?????
I call Icke a spook psyoperator and Jones a right-winger who denies important stuff, like Global Warming.

'm not making accusations - I don't think this place is important enough to warrant dedicated agents

-
Wrong. The internet, and everything else, is datamined to see who knows anything subversive so it can be countered.
Whether intended or not, every internet discussion board serves as a honeypot tripwire of open-source intelligence.
Your sense of "importance" don't enter into it one damn bit.

I'm just calling his bullshit what it is. Unproductive garbage.

Actually, many people have written me to say they now see media and social control tactics in a whole new light since I put the relentless spotlight on the subject.

I suggest a HMW boycott. Ignore function. Use it. This is the last time I'm spending any energy on this subject. Peace.[

[/quote]
If you don't Get It, you'll encourage other people to not understand social control.
So it's best for everyone if you stay out of the way of other people's learning curves.

Peace.

[Ben D]

Hugh, if you think the exaggerated Global Warming scare is not being marketed by main stream media to condition the minds of the 90%, then you have fallen for the very thing you warn about,....sorry but they've got to you!

[wordspeak2]

Obviously the "intelligence community" is deeply invested in Hollywood. Obviously they're working on a very sophisticated level. Equally obviously, they're also "just making money." Not every single movie or every scene is meta-propaganda for the Empire. I think this is a very important and interesting topic for intelligent people to discuss.

I think Hugh is clearly right some of the time on the specifics. Yet some of his theories are so patently absurd, as 99.9% of conscious human beings would concur, and he's so machine-like in his handling of it, never admitting even the tiniest bit of wrong even in the most extreme circumstances... that the whole thing has its own bizarre parapolitical feel to it. Naturally, people here are going to be intrigued by this enigma (if they're not just appalled).

Hugh, don't stop- do your thing, man. But maybe you could show a little more humanness and admit fault sometimes, or at the very least suggest a casual theory as just that, a theory, not your geometric-proof thesis. The vast majority of RI'ers are not trolls, as you've suggested. Know your friends, not just your enemies.

I wish we could continue to discuss CIA et al influence in the media- complete with speculation, a necessary tool, as there's only so much one can prove- but with less emphasis on the very specific style and theories of one poster.

[crikkett]

I, on the other hand, am convinced of the 'reality' of much "woo" (but not "W.O.O."), and suggest that, if anything, CIA/shadow-government controllers would, for many reasons, want to hide woo.

I think I could easily, using the same, er, logic, used by Hugh, find several examples of movies, TV shows, NPR segments, etc., that could be interpreted as deliberate efforts to divert thoughts away from, or heap ridicule upon, supernatural ideas that could be dangerous to TPTB.

This is a very interesting hypothesis.

[slomo]

Kind of on the subject: here's an interesting recent post from Christopher Knowles, where he demonstrates that in the 1980s, Jack Kirby wrote a comic book series whose major plot elements, as well as several curious details therein, foreshadowed the two Gulf wars in ways too weird and improbable to be consigned to chance.

There are three interpretations: (0) a null hypothesis of apophenia, i.e. "meaningless coincidence"; (1) high-order organization of the universe manifesting as synchronicity (Knowle's interpretation); or (2) psy-ops semiotic priming years, if not decades, in advance of planned operations (consistent with Hugh's hypotheses). Knowles lays out a pretty convincing case against (0), although I don't have any personal experience of Kirby's work to know if Knowles is just bullshitting (but I doubt it, as I have found his past work to be trustworthy). That leaves (1) and (2).

Thoughts?

[slomo]

What the fuck is the point? Definitely not educating the public. Not even educating the people here.

Totally educating the public as to how their media is used for social control from subtle conditioning to full-blown lying.

Does he ever talk about actions? Strategy for actions? Tactics? No, no, and no.

Yes, yes, yes. Seems you don' t get it.

I undertake the Sisyphusian task of commenting with some trepidation.

Hugh, no, you are not educating anybody at all. RI is hardly the "public", and I'd wager that no more than 10% of the RI regulars take you seriously. In addition, nobody in RI objects to the relatively weak statement that media is used for social control, nor would they object to the idea that alphabet agencies interfere occasionally, if not often, in the workings of mass media. The major objection is the specific, strong hypothesis of Keyword Hijacking (KWH), whose major thesis is that alphabet agencies exert fine control over media by injecting certain key words, phrases, or images at key points in time in order to obstruct public awareness of government shenanigans (military operations and the like) that are themselves reported in detail (if not in full depth with 100% accuracy and adequate context for interpretation) by the very same media outlets you claim are on a short leash. KWH is where people here would like to see evidence, which you persistently and obstinately fail to provide.

[Occult Means Hidden]

wordspeak2 wrote:

Hugh, don't stop- do your thing, man. But maybe you could show a little more humanness and admit fault sometimes, or at the very least suggest a casual theory as just that, a theory, not your geometric-proof thesis. The vast majority of RI'ers are not trolls, as you've suggested. Know your friends, not just your enemies.

From the 2008 thread, "Beat up on Hugh thread, get it OUT of other threads" (a thread that lasted nearly 9 pages):

I wrote:

So how about it Hugh?

Will you admit sometimes you can be wrong?

and

Will you admit an idea of yours is possibly subjective with each idea's introduction (and with each post)?

In short, a spot of humility?

What rubs me the wrong way is saying, "this is the way the world works." Instead of saying, "yeah, maybe it might work like this, in order to reach this possible objective...". It's been like this for years. Complete lack of humility and perspective. Ignore function won't help as the HMW effect isn't HMW, it's the people who respond to him.

[slomo]

What rubs me the wrong way is saying, "this is the way the world works." Instead of saying, "yeah, maybe it might work like this, in order to reach this possible objective...". It's been like this for years. Complete lack of humility and perspective. Ignore function won't help as the HMW effect isn't HMW, it's the people who respond to him.

Fair enough. But the greater subject of media as a form of social control is hugely relevant to RI. In addition, its details are interesting and bear heavily on the kinds of claims Hugh makes. I think that's why Hugh is so controversial here - his theories hit a nerve, although they are just weird enough to be considered insane, and they are attached to a pugnacious and condescending online persona.

I'm agnostic on the subject of intent, but the effect is disruptive, in particular to the discussion of media. I find it a bit ironic that this is the one indisputable accomplishment of someone whose major thesis is the obstruction of public awareness achieved by meme-contamination.