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

[Cosmic Cowbell]

I think everyone who thinks Hugh is prone to severe lapses of logic should agree to completely ignore him for at least a month. If you truly want to find out whether or not he's a troll, ignoring him will probably reveal the true nature of the beast.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

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!

compared2what?...you really turn simple memes in political theater into frikkin' rocket science and people who believe MSNBC and Time Magazine DON'T.
Cliches, catchphrases, stereotypes and other forms of keywords rule.

You utterly miss CONTEXT. You almost try to assert that a politician would embrace the motto, "Vote For Me. I'm Hamlet." yikes. Another reason why I'm spending my bandwith elsewhere. But here goes-

What about addressing my concerns, which are threefold:

(1) Being known as "Hamlet" has a fairly well established meaning in the context of political campaign coverage, and it doesn't connote wishy-washy indecision, but rather thinking-about-it-too-seriously indecision, which is not nearly as damaging,

Wrong. Simplify. That's political theater. SIMPLE HOOKS.
Hamlet is a troubled kid acting weird freaking everyone out while pondering "to be or not to be." HE CONSIDERS SUICIDE. THAT'S NOT A DECIDER, IS IT?

(In fact, as I read it, that's how and why the writer of the 1999 article was using it. Because there are several points at which he alleges that McCain had serious reservations about his actions wrt Keating, was misled by lying Democrats, put his foot down when serious impropriety was suggested, and so forth. It's a little bit of a theme in that series that McCain is a kind of like a man with a conscience, trapped in a corrupt world, destined to make tragic errors from time to time. Which is highly compatible with both the character and the plot of Hamlet).

Simplify. Keating Five was A SCANDAL.
No matter how you parse it, it was the first big crack in McCain's Sacred Warrior Straight Talking image.

(2) In a generalized, apolitical mass-cultural context, Hamlet is known to be a sexy deep thinker, not a wimp or flip-flooper, insofar as the character is known at all.

Wrong. "To be or not to be." Which is contemplating SUICIDE.
This is the ONLY line most Americans know from Hamlet.
How frikkin' obvious is that?

(3) The article with the quote in it isn't at all threatening, or at least not any more threatening than the re-hash of the Keating Five scandal that ends with McCain having learned his lesson and become a man of honor that's already being served. As are all the oppo protestations that in fact he was and is totally owned by his big donors on policy issues. Both parts of which have already had the usual non-impact.

You just don't get that the Keating Five = SCANDAL and CORRUPTION, do you?

Owing to those things, I believe your premise is flawed. Which happens to everyone. What's your response?

I'm not surprised at your parsing. When you declared there was "no proof" of controlled demolition at Architects and Engineers for Truth, I realized I shouldn't spend my bandwith on you if you couldn't see the obvious.

Good to know. So I'm respectfully moving on to my publishing deadline.
I can't let RI be the energy sink for me it has been.
But I will still post things I know despite the trolls discussing my "mental health."

[waugs]

my biggest problem with Hugh (granted, i've only been a lurker here for years), is his total belief in all of his theories...that everything he espouses is FACT.

i don't think anyone on this planet has the correct answers--has it all figured out. and anyone who believes that they do are deluding themselves.

[Penguin]

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... hp?t=20081

Check out my thread on Battlestar Galactica / John McCain...

Comments please! Wtf is that about...

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

my biggest problem with Hugh (granted, i've only been a lurker here for years), is his total belief in all of his theories...that everything he espouses is FACT.

That statement is the result of your next one.

i don't think anyone on this planet has the correct answers--has it all figured out. and anyone who believes that they do are deluding themselves.

Spooks are trying hard to promote the idea that anyone who is certain is a kook, that everything is subjective, that we couldn't possibly figure out what spooks do and why.
"Leave it alone and just enjoy yourself."

Wrong.
I've written this before so I'll repeat it-

The psyops tactic of keyword hijacking and meme-reversal as counterpropaganda is based on neuroscience and is SO predictable that...
I can take the lead character names (or other keywords) in a movie or television show and reverse-engineer them to find the scandal they were meant to inoculate us against.

This is the scientific method in action. Repeatable results confirming a hypothesis.
And the hypothesis is supported by science and history, not just the found results.

If that doesn't mean anything to you, then the scientific method might not be part of your own reasoning and research methods.

Unfortunately, many people don't know what it is to look for, find, and analyze evidence. And that's how spooks and other criminals like it.

[waugs]

but everything IS subjective!

do you stand outside of and have a complete map of reality? does anyone? no.

i'm sure that the intelligence community does employ some of the tactics you've written about here, but the idea that EVERY SINGLE thing that comes out of hollywood is part of their plan is ludicrous, not to mention impossible.

did you ever stop to think that maybe your own thoughts are planted there by spooks?

my biggest problem with Hugh (granted, i've only been a lurker here for years), is his total belief in all of his theories...that everything he espouses is FACT.

That statement is the result of your next one.

i don't think anyone on this planet has the correct answers--has it all figured out. and anyone who believes that they do are deluding themselves.

Spooks are trying hard to promote the idea that anyone who is certain is a kook, that everything is subjective, that we couldn't possibly figure out what spooks do and why.
"Leave it alone and just enjoy yourself."

Wrong.
I've written this before so I'll repeat it-

The psyops tactic of keyword hijacking and meme-reversal as counterpropaganda is based on neuroscience and is SO predictable that...
I can take the lead character names (or other keywords) in a movie or television show and reverse-engineer them to find the scandal they were meant to inoculate us against.

This is the scientific method in action. Repeatable results confirming a hypothesis.
And the hypothesis is supported by science and history, not just the found results.

If that doesn't mean anything to you, then the scientific method might not be part of your own reasoning and research methods.

Unfortunately, many people don't know what it is to look for, find, and analyze evidence. And that's how spooks and other criminals like it.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Yikes. Only because you're kind a newbie to this. Then I'm back to my publishing deadline.

but everything IS subjective!

Then you won't mind if I torture you because who's to say it's even happening?

do you stand outside of and have a complete map of reality? does anyone? no.

Uh oh. Here's that totalism straw man again.
One doesn't need a COMPLETE map of "reality" to discern things that are really happening.

i'm sure that the intelligence community does employ some of the tactics you've written about here, but the idea that EVERY SINGLE thing that comes out of hollywood is part of their plan is ludicrous, not to mention impossible.

I've said that since WWII the level of control has gone up based on military need, especially recruiting and counterpropaganda - which is to protect things that enable recruiting. Because this is National inSecurity State media, not just commerce.

And now virtually ALL the movies at the mall megaplex are psyops.
I stand by that. Yes, indeed.

And I keep finding more television shows that are psyops going back to the 1950s.
No surprise since the Office of War Information and Office of Special Services propaganda boys from WWII then went into television the rest of media.

did you ever stop to think that maybe your own thoughts are planted there by spooks?

When I was a tiny child, some were. In church I said outloud that Jesus was "just like Superman." True. And Superman is a surrogate for America.

But I grew out of that, unlike many other Americans who love Buck McCain since he dropped American bombs on bad guys.

[/quote]

[Fresno_Layshaft]

Good to know. So I'm respectfully moving on to my publishing deadline.
I can't let RI be the energy sink for me it has been.
But I will still post things I know despite the trolls discussing my "mental health."

Congrats on your book deal!

But Hugh, how did you ever find a publisher that isn't waist-deep in Mockingbird disinfo propaganda?

[waugs]

oh gee, thanks. no need to be condescending, jackass.

your use of the torture metaphor is WAY off. i never said that things that happen to you aren't real. it's your DESCRIPTION of things, that you are so CERTAIN of aren't NECCESSARILY the way things happen.

i actually have done my own research about what the intelligence community has been involved in since its inception. i have a good grasp of what has been happening, but i am not so arrogant as to think that i have all the answers.

Yikes. Only because you're kind a newbie to this. Then I'm back to my publishing deadline.

[/quote]

[jingofever]

The psyops tactic of keyword hijacking and meme-reversal as counterpropaganda is based on neuroscience and is SO predictable that...
I can take the lead character names (or other keywords) in a movie or television show and reverse-engineer them to find the scandal they were meant to inoculate us against.

No, to borrow an internet meme, you're doing it wrong. That isn't prediction, it is hindsight. A prediction is when you thought Wesley Clark was going to be the Democratic VP nominee because of the name of a spaceship in Wall-E and the title of a surf gang documentary. It was an incorrect prediction because your theory has no predictive power.

This is the scientific method in action. Repeatable results confirming a hypothesis.
And the hypothesis is supported by science and history, not just the found results.

Science would only enter into this if other people, using the same methods you use, came up with the same conclusions. 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?

[compared2what?]

Hugh, I'd just like to say for the record that I didn't arbitrarily and randomly declare there was no proof at the A and E site. I personally don't reject the possibility of CD, as I've said several times. I'm agnostic, interested, and not qualified to say what does or doesn't constitute proof in forensic scientific terms. That's my full, uncomplicated, non-hostile position on the issue.

What I said was that the A and E site does not maintain that CD has been proven. I base that statement on having read the site to the best of my ability pretty much in its entirety at your suggestion, and perceiving that they don't. Which is really not any reflection on me, one way or the other. Because they don't. And it's their website, not mine. As I just said, it's not a point I'm equipped to address. But they are. So if you have a problem with their not considering the issue settled, address it to them, not me.

On the Hamlet thing, let's just drop it. Our interpretations differ.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

The psyops tactic of keyword hijacking and meme-reversal as counterpropaganda is based on neuroscience and is SO predictable that...
I can take the lead character names (or other keywords) in a movie or television show and reverse-engineer them to find the scandal they were meant to inoculate us against.

No, to borrow an internet meme, you're doing it wrong. That isn't prediction, it is hindsight.

??? I'm not making predictions. I meant that the tactic is a consistent formula.
So when I analyze decoy movies using keywords and the date and basic themes, the scandal comes right up. Bing.

It is the same formula every damn time.

A prediction is when you thought Wesley Clark was going to be the Democratic VP nominee because of the name of a spaceship in Wall-E and the title of a surf gang documentary. It was an incorrect prediction because your theory has no predictive power.

I'm not making predictions. I'm looking at movies from the last fifty years and finding what they were generated to inoculate us against. It is an amazing way to dig up suppressed, marginalized, and forgotten history, all of it stuff that power doesn't want in the daylight.

On General Clark-
1) I noted that both "Axiom" and "Bra-Boys" were keywords that were info-liabilities for General Wesley Clark. I only said that this could mean cleaning him up for a VP spot OR for him to be a talking head during the campaign.
So you are wrong to say I was making a hard prediction of him as VP or that this makes or breaks the counterpropaganda tactic and infrastructure I've discovered.

2) You just cited (incorrectly) a SINGLE example meaning to debunk me.
Now THAT is not the way to use the scientific method.
I've found ....HUNDREDS....of examples of what I'm referring to going back to the 1950s.

And I'm not spending my entire life posting them all at RI.

You really think it was a coincidence that when Fonzie ("Ayyy!")was sweeping the nation that the lead investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK+MLK) was Gaeton Fonzi?
Or that a TV show called 'Dallas' was hijacking the nation into wondering "who shot JR?" You know who else was "J.R. Ewing?"
You know who the opening sequence of 'Get Smart' is hijacking?
Do you know what 'Day of the Dolphin' foreshadowed and inoculated?
Do you know whose name and actions brought about 'Hogan's Heroes?'
Do you know who Captain Kirk really was?
Do you know who Major John Picard was?
Do you know what the OODA loop is and now every kid knows?
Do you know why Robin Williams started out on 'Happy Days' in 1978?
Do you know why the same reason first resulted in a 1973 movie?
Do you know how many black law officers Denzel Washington discredits in 'Deja Vu?'
Do you know why 'Deja Vu' was released on 11/22/2006?
Do you know what decoy it shares with 'The Dark Knight?'
How many Dealey Plaza decoy movies have come out this year alone?

Kind of more than one example.

[brainpanhandler]

oh gee, thanks. no need to be condescending, jackass.

your use of the torture metaphor is WAY off. i never said that things that happen to you aren't real. it's your DESCRIPTION of things, that you are so CERTAIN of aren't NECCESSARILY the way things happen.

i actually have done my own research about what the intelligence community has been involved in since its inception. i have a good grasp of what has been happening, but i am not so arrogant as to think that i have all the answers.

Yikes. Only because you're kind a newbie to this. Then I'm back to my publishing deadline.

Hugh can very definitely be a condescending jackass, but after a time it's not all that abrasive. Hugh is constantly attacked and harassed and so is understandably overly defensive. For Hugh KWH is as plain as day.

I actually found Hugh's use of the torture example appopriate and it certainly forced you to alter your statement after the fact. Even with your qualification you're still not making sense.

Who cares if my necessarily subjective impression of drowning while being waterboarded is an accurate representation of reality or not? It's still fucking torture. That sets a baseline.

To follow the analogy- the baseline for KWH is, USG intel agencies understand interference and inocculation theories and have discovered how to use this information to fuck with the hive mind.

I agree that Hugh way too often is way too certain of his conclusions in their particulars, but I have learned to look past that. Who cares? Big effin deal. I'd rather argue with that persona than a fucking sophist who carefully builds equivocations into everything they tentatively assert (although he is capable of that as well, as am I). Several posters come to mind but I'll refrain from naiming names.

[mentalgongfu2]

You really think it was a coincidence that when Fonzie ("Ayyy!")was sweeping the nation that the lead investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK+MLK) was Gaeton Fonzi?
Or that a TV show called 'Dallas' was hijacking the nation into wondering "who shot JR?" You know who else was "J.R. Ewing?"
You know who the opening sequence of 'Get Smart' is hijacking?
Do you know what 'Day of the Dolphin' foreshadowed and inoculated?
Do you know whose name and actions brought about 'Hogan's Heroes?'
Do you know who Captain Kirk really was?
Do you know who Major John Picard was?
Do you know what the OODA loop is and now every kid knows?
Do you know why Robin Williams started out on 'Happy Days' in 1978?
Do you know why the same reason first resulted in a 1973 movie?
Do you know how many black law officers Denzel Washington discredits in 'Deja Vu?'
Do you know why 'Deja Vu' was released on 11/22/2006?
Do you know what decoy it shares with 'The Dark Knight?'
How many Dealey Plaza decoy movies have come out this year alone?

Is it coincidence that whenever your theory is challenged you descend into a litany of questions no reasonable person would be expected to respond to? And refer often to your own authority, as in "have you spent X years of your life researching the use of psyops since WWII?"

[Wombaticus Rex]

Hugh, where has John Boyd and OODA been Hollywooded?