Yahoo steers towards 'Buffy' conf. to upstage Media confer.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Kids and teenagers can be steered towards mind candy quite easily.

But they can't be made to like it, Hugh. They can't be made to understand it in a uniform way. And they certainly can't be made to buy or internalize it.

I will never stop strongly objecting to this part of your premise. With the exception of kids and teenagers who have never known anything other than the most extreme abuse, neglect, rejection, and isolation, kids and teenagers as a class are just not that easily defeated. They are smarter than you give them credit for, and they are very highly motivated to do whatever they have to do in order to fight their way into adulthood with some part of the core integrity of their identities intact. Human beings are very easily swayed, but not fundamentally so malleable that you can shape them via embedded messaging. You might be able to bend them, for a limited period of time, but that's about it.

This is and always has been the inherent and natural existential lot of kids and teenagers, however lonely and bereft of care and feeding they may be, however damaged, desperate, and lost they are, and however limited their options. Consciously or unconsciously, they will be attracted to stuff that they understand to be speaking a truth and/or addressing a need that they themselves would speak or address if they were consciously aware of it and empowered to do so. What they will do or be able to do with whatever degree of independence and power they attain in adulthood is dependent on so many internal and external factors, it's impossible to predict or meaningfully influence via media messaging during their formative years.

I'm not suggesting that it's not totally possible to form or deform the individual identities of both children and adults to predetermined specs. Because it oh so totally is. But it takes a much more concentrated, coordinated and controlled effort, as well as a much higher degree of emotional pressure than mass-media can command.

Countless applicable examples drawn from the last four decades of youth culture in support of the above statements are available on request Speaking strictly for myself, if it weren't for the unconditional love I received from crappy propagandistic pop media and quality pop media alike as a kid and teenager, by the simple expedient of unconsciously investing it with the power to give it to me, thus managing to give myself something I didn't think I deserved to get behind my own back, I wouldn't have gotten any at all. That's obviously not an ideal method of child-raising, but it wasn't an uncommon one forty years ago and it still isn't.

So I respectfully but strongly request that you stop telling kids and teenagers what shit means to them. They probably aren't at all affected by it. But I'm not the kid I used to be, so I am. Show some respect for my heritage!

You assigned a bunch of views to me I don't hold. But I think I know what you were saying anyway.

I agree that teenagers have that idealism, resilience, and rebellion that is dangerous to power which tries to blunt it or atleast channel it into the military or else other safe harbors.

You and I were obviously not average kids and I've never been susceptible to being drawn over to the superstitious or militarist or authoritarian side of things.

But spooks really do use media to:
>try to prevent kids from learning dangerous truths that would make them distrustful of authority and the US government
>condition them with myths to inoculate them against believing those truths should they run into them
>provide safe harbors and diversions at key times when dangerous truths are about.
>indoctrinate kids with the values of militarism
>attempt to impede critical thinking just like one of the descriptions of MKULTRA's goals.

Some kids will be pickled in psy-ops and some of us won't.
All the more reason to make it as pervasive and varied as possible to get a critical threshold of human tools needed for the fascist social engine.

[professorpan]

Yahoo/CIA
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Keywords have been jacked!

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I think I prefer Pan in a wry creative mood than otherwise.

[compared2what?]

But spooks really do use media to:
>try to prevent kids from learning dangerous truths that would make them distrustful of authority and the US government
>condition them with myths to inoculate them against believing those truths should they run into them
>provide safe harbors and diversions at key times when dangerous truths are about.
>indoctrinate kids with the values of militarism
>attempt to impede critical thinking just like one of the descriptions of MKULTRA's goals.

No argument here on any of the above. But unless they have succeeded on the last point on that list, you cannot take it for granted that the message the spooks are sending is, a priori, the message the kid or teenager is receiving. So I still object to the unqualified classification of Buffy (or in fact any kid-teen-demo entertainment) as mind candy. And I also still object to the assertion that kids and teenagers are easily steered toward the intended messages of the spooks.

I'd also say that calling the fave raves of the kidz "mind candy" is probably not very likely to encourage their critical thinking skills, insofar as it demands that they do their critical thinking on your terms rather than theirs. For all you know, they have perfectly good reasons of their own for liking what they like.

[brainpanhandler]

But spooks really do use media to:
>try to prevent kids from learning dangerous truths that would make them distrustful of authority and the US government
>condition them with myths to inoculate them against believing those truths should they run into them
>provide safe harbors and diversions at key times when dangerous truths are about.
>indoctrinate kids with the values of militarism
>attempt to impede critical thinking just like one of the descriptions of MKULTRA's goals.

No argument here on any of the above. But unless they have succeeded on the last point on that list, you cannot take it for granted that the message the spooks are sending is, a priori, the message the kid or teenager is receiving. So I still object to the unqualified classification of Buffy (or in fact any kid-teen-demo entertainment) as mind candy. And I also still object to the assertion that kids and teenagers are easily steered toward the intended messages of the spooks.

I'd also say that calling the fave raves of the kidz "mind candy" is probably not very likely to encourage their critical thinking skills, insofar as it demands that they do their critical thinking on your terms rather than theirs. For all you know, they have perfectly good reasons of their own for liking what they like.

Seein' as I am really just a big kid I figure I'm entitled to butt in here...

C2W,

Do you get much chance these days to hang out with a variety of kids and get to know them?

Regardless, at what age do you estimate that the avarage kids' critical faculties mature enough that they can defend themselves against all of the deluge of psyops and ad campaigns and cultural conditioning that they are swamped by? (I know for me it was a sixth grade Engish teacher that opened my eyes).

Do you believe that human beings experience periods of "imprint vulnerability", à la Wilson and Lorenz?

[compared2what?]

But spooks really do use media to:
>try to prevent kids from learning dangerous truths that would make them distrustful of authority and the US government
>condition them with myths to inoculate them against believing those truths should they run into them
>provide safe harbors and diversions at key times when dangerous truths are about.
>indoctrinate kids with the values of militarism
>attempt to impede critical thinking just like one of the descriptions of MKULTRA's goals.

No argument here on any of the above. But unless they have succeeded on the last point on that list, you cannot take it for granted that the message the spooks are sending is, a priori, the message the kid or teenager is receiving. So I still object to the unqualified classification of Buffy (or in fact any kid-teen-demo entertainment) as mind candy. And I also still object to the assertion that kids and teenagers are easily steered toward the intended messages of the spooks.

I'd also say that calling the fave raves of the kidz "mind candy" is probably not very likely to encourage their critical thinking skills, insofar as it demands that they do their critical thinking on your terms rather than theirs. For all you know, they have perfectly good reasons of their own for liking what they like.

Seein' as I am really just a big kid I figure I'm entitled to butt in here...

C2W,

Do you get much chance these days to hang out with a variety of kids and get to know them?

Yes, I do.

Regardless, at what age do you estimate that the avarage kids' critical faculties mature enough that they can defend themselves against all of the deluge of psyops and ad campaigns and cultural conditioning that they are swamped by? (I know for me it was a sixth grade English teacher that opened my eyes).

I don't know. One of the two kids with whom I have had a quasi-parental relationship for pretty much their entire lives, though they are unrelated to and barely know each other, is now 18. If she weren't a child I loved, I would have to admit that she is as capable of defending herself against the scary, dangerous world as anyone is, and much more capable of it than I was when I was 18. In some regards, somewhat more capable of it than I am now, which makes me very happy. Nevertheless, even considering your question sends me into such an extreme state of panic that it could only actively be addressed by keeping her under constant surveillance until she's at least 40. That's strictly between you and me, though, since rigorously repressing and even forcing yourself to act against that emotional instinct kind of goes with the territory of having a quasi-parental relationship with a teenager.

And seriously, I don't know. The external and internal resources of individual kids are too variable to say. I guess that the average kid is probably developmentally capable of exercising his or her critical faculties more or less independently at some point in the ten-to-twelve-year-old age range. But ideally, someone should have been taking care of them since birth with the general aim of teaching them to take care of themselves. And I personally estimate that to be a 22 to 25 year job, although any guidance that's not invisible is not good guidance after a certain point. Because otherwise, it's not actually guidance. It's just interference.

I'm stumped. It depends on the kid.

Do you believe that human beings experience periods of "imprint vulnerability", à la Wilson and Lorenz?

Maybe not a la Wilson and Lorenz, strictly speaking, but, loosely speaking, yes. On and off from cradle to grave. And some more than others.

[Telexx]

Answer spelled out (I didn't realize this is that difficult) :

1) Information that a spook deems 'hostile information' and therefore warrants a counterpropaganda device ( counterpropaganda = "Any action taken to minimize the effect of hostile information" per Pentagon lit.)...often is SCHEDULED and can be planned for many months ahead of time with a diversion, a Magician's Other Hand effort at just the right time.

2) This Media Reform Conference has been going on for several years and growing.
Every year now the keynote is by Bill Moyers and his speech is hyped by Amy Goodman and Truthout.org etc. SO it has a growing internet footprint that is totally predictable and a threat to spook/corporate mainstream media. This means it is a threat to profits AND social control at the same time. That makes for a strong motive to deploy counterpropaganda at just the right time.

3) Planners can look around for months before the dreaded Moyers speech to find some other conference to promote but not want to make it too obvious that they are doing this since they are already guilty of a blackout on covering the Media Reform Conference.

4) IF there is no spook hand in actually making sure that there's a sexy alternative conference, an easy possibility...

5) ...then just manipulating TWO Yahoo front page elements as binary mnemonic weapons to channel readers into safe harbors can be done-
- faking a Today's Top Searches listing - EASY to do
- making the lead of the Featured Four stories be all 'vampire' images and keywords.

6) I'm going to guess that ONE person has responsibility for choosing content for the Featured Four stories box and writing the few lines of copy.
They may be perps or just a dupe who takes orders from time to time from a perp.

7) And someone else can fake/hack the Today's Top Searches listing.
I know this is done just as best-selling book lists and movie awards are managed for political reasons. The illusion of 'popularity winners' in culture is as important as fake elections because SOCIAL AFFIRMATION is a near magical ingredient in propaganda science, very important to creating the illusion of consensus.

That's TWO PEOPLE carrying out the plan that maybe ONE or TWO probably planned.

That's THREE or FOUR people who can make one of the biggest portals to the internet with a readership of millions into a psyops weapon simply be deploying little tricks now and then.

It's not difficult, I wanted your thoughts on the mechanisms behind your ideas for a change (in general terms, your posts are always "this exists and here's why" and never "this exists and here's how it was done". At last, we have a "how".

Points 1 - 4. Is it not possible, Hugh, that the news regarding Buffy just fits the profile of 'a typical Yahoo! reader' more than the news regarding the Media Reform Conference? You know, like sex sells. Celebrities sell. Sexy Celebrities really sell.

Could that be why the Buffy was given prominence over Bill Moyers?

Yahoo! is more tabloid than broadsheet, no? Was the prominence of Buffy for social control, or a reflection of social interest? (Or, as I happen to think, a bit of both). You always scream the former; it seems everything to you is a psy-op.

Points 5 - 7. Okay, so lets imagine every news outlet has a spook-journalist or two manipulating output, perhaps liaising with a spook-editor. Given the size of the mainstream media, that's an awful lot of spook-journalists working around the clock in (at least semi-coordinated) teams to make little adjustments here, little adjustments there.

And you say that this isn't an over-arching conspiracy... You say this isn't spook micro-management of the media...



I can see that, if Yahoo! were to run a disparaging piece on, say, the US Military, then it would be put under external (or even internal) pressure.

I can see that some some high ranking (or even middle ranking) spook-journalists could work in such an organisation, embedding favorable propaganda on behalf of their spook masters.

I just can't see that the output of an organisation like Yahoo! (or an equivalent print/TV/radio based media outlet) would be micromanaged by spooks in such a way, for (seemingly) such little gain. I know the Media Reform Conference is a big deal to you, but to your average 18 - 24 y.o. - it simply ain't.

Kthx,

Telexx

[professorpan]

It amuses me -- saddens me, really -- that so much time is expended on debating Hugh's utterly nonsensical, unsupportable, illogical ideas. I feel like I'm on a flat Earther forum.

[barracuda]

It amuses me -- saddens me, really -- that so much time is expended on debating Hugh's utterly nonsensical, unsupportable, illogical ideas. I feel like I'm on a flat Earther forum.

And I understand and empathize with your feelings. But it seems the reason Hugh's theories create so much talk is because we at this forum still don't have a better one to describe the workings of Operation Mockingbird and related black media propaganda programs. The quote from Bush 41:

In February 1976, George H. W. Bush, the recently appointed Director of the CIA announced a new policy: "Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station." However, he added that the CIA would continue to "welcome" the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists.[22]

is so disingenuous as to engender well founded suspicion. There simply must be a systematic methodology to the control and disemmination of talking points and - for lack of a better word - keywords which are intensely influential throughout our culture and which underpin vernacular political discussion in this country. The Church Committtee estimated in the mid-seventies that undercover propaganda via the CIA was costing $265 million per year. Imagine what that budget must be today! In strictly inflation adjusted dollars, that is now well over a billion dollars, and I think we all know the budget has grown far beyond that. Where, then, is that money being spent? For spent it is, every day. The answer must be right in front of us.

The media and our analysis of it form a crucial, functional part of viewing the political landscape. We are most certainly looking directly at the end result of a wide-ranging effort by our governnment's intelligence services to actively influence that media and the analysis of it. Are we, then, looking at it and not seeing it, being so steeped in it as to be blind to it? Hugh's theories do not satisfy. They epitomize, in many ways, the most typical stereotype of a "conspiracy nut". And that too is a point of view which readers of this site empathize with and identify with. His views are illogical and nonsensical. But isn't it possible that we rmay read them as koans and yet find within them essences to take us toward understanding?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Crikey, barracuda, you wrote some bizarre smears of me.
So my posting on the cognitive and social science and history and motives, means, opportunity of psyops

epitomize, in many ways, the most typical stereotype of a "conspiracy nut"

WTF? Your credibility just went out the window. Or you haven't read much of what I've written. Hell, I've researched linguistics and media back to the 1930s and posted it here.

I have no idea how you could write-

Where, then, is that money being spent? For spent it is, every day. The answer must be right in front of us.

The media and our analysis of it form a crucial, functional part of viewing the political landscape. We are most certainly looking directly at the end result of a wide-ranging effort by our governnment's intelligence services to actively influence that media and the analysis of it. Are we, then, looking at it and not seeing it, being so steeped in it as to be blind to it?

...and then write this nonsense-

Hugh's theories do not satisfy. They epitomize, in many ways, the most typical stereotype of a "conspiracy nut". And that too is a point of view which readers of this site empathize with and identify with. His views are illogical and nonsensical. But isn't it possible that we rmay read them as koans and yet find within them essences to take us toward understanding?

YOU REALLY CLAIM that viral marketing specific language and images in mainstream media, especially at critical times....is something thought up by a "conspiracy nut?" !!!!!!!!!!

OMFG. You make a Truly Bizarre Claim!

[barracuda]

Hugh, I read what you write and I personally research most of your posts with great interest. And what you have pointed out is a vast conspiracy involving large numbers of individuals and well-funded, nefarious organizations within the U.S. government utilizing systematc cognitive control techniques throughout the history of the media of film, television and web (and more) to control the base assumptions and channel the actions of the citizenry of this country in order to kneecap social change away from the direction of social human betterment - all for the gain of the elites' goals of subjugation, militarism, facism, and totalitarianism. Is this a fair synopsis?

A conspiracy theorist: "alleges a coordinated group is and/or was secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including hiding the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts what was or is represented as the mainstream explanation for historical or current events. The phrase is also used dismissively to label hypothetical speculation as being untrue or outlandish."

A conspiracy nut: "believes in the scope and effectiveness of a particular (posited) conspiracy to an irrational degree."

Now, whether you are right or wrong does not alter the perception, which does exist, of your theories as being irrational (particularly among those who would not share your consistent belief). I do not think it is insulting, or beyond the pale to say that you do epitomize in your writings an intense (but well founded, at least in my opinion) paranoia regarding the workings of the state, and this attitude is aptly characterized in the public mind as that of a "conspiracy theorist" or, further, a "conspiracy nut". Clearly professorpan thinks so. This characterization is the stereotype which keeps certain people on this board (whom, within many realms of the paranormal or "deep political schemes of thought would, themselves be seen as "nuts" by non-believers) from honestly assessing your claims as you make them. What I am saying here is hardly a smear, particularly in the context of the conspiracy forum we are having this conversation on. And yet, this essential illogic and counterintuitiveness of the techniques of keyword highjacking and viral meme blocking is what makes its very possibility, its very existence, so insidious.

Your theories often do not satisfy, but part of that is your insistence upon a dogmatic and dismissive regard of your critics, who are not beneath (successfully) taunting you into large fonts and anger. I cannot tell you how many times I hjave publicly agreed with you and then have had to read through your next post as you get mad about what I have said. Essentially what I was saying to professorpan was,"Do you have a better theory than Hugh's about Mockingbird as it functions today?" So far there has been no reply, and in all my reading of the posters on this website, many who openly deride you, I have yet to read one theory which approaches your "General Field Theory" of media manipulation in its umbrealla-like, overarching ability to encapsulate large aspects of confusing issues within the realm of CIA (etc.) media propaganda and meme spread. Are you happy now?

All that being said, I still have it within myself, as a visual artist, to enjoy the products churned out by Hollywood. Many of my favorite movies are those which most obviously fit within the scope of clearly militarized propaganda, such as science-fiction epics, and westerns. And just as I can enjoy those films while suffering an awareness of the manipulation inherent within their viewing, so too can I regard your posts, especially the less obvious examples, as zen-like springboards which may take me to an understanding both within and without the context of your own very clear-cut and sometimes dogmatic explanation of the state propaganda psyops technique. That is the nature of having one's own point of view. If you object to that, then I apologize for hurting or confusing you. I never meant to, brother. I am only an egg.

[compared2what?]

What Barracuda said, except that I'm not a visual artist.

[IanEye]

What Barracuda said, except that I'm not a visual artist.

Indeed, what Barracuda said.

Also, I'd like to take this moment to point out that Hannah Montana and Alexis Texas are the same person.....




The original idea for this show was based on the That's So Raven episode "Goin' Hollywood", which was supposed to be the pilot episode for a sitcom called Better Days, in which a child star of a popular TV show of the same name was to try her hand at going to a normal school. The episode "New Kid in School" has the basic premise as that aforementioned episode. Other names considered for the title were The Secret Life of Zoe Stewart (discarded as too similar to Zoey 101 on Nickelodeon), The Popstar Life!, and Alexis Texas. Former American Juniors finalist Jordan McCoy and pop and R&B singer JoJo (who rejected the role)[4] were considered for the role of Zoe Stewart. Miley Cyrus originally auditioned for the role of the "best friend"[5] Lilly Romero, later changed to Lilly Truscott, but they thought she would be better for the main character, so she tried out for Zoe Stewart/Hannah Montana. Zoe Stewart was later changed to Chloe Stewart, which was eventually changed to Miley when she got the part. The names of Hannah Montana were changed a few times. Three of the previous names were Anna Cabana, Samantha York, and Alexis Texas.

[Occult Means Hidden]

And the 'Favorite Searches'-

Today's Top Searches

1. Kate Middleton
2. Lucy Liu
3. Jenna Fischer
4. Kung Fu Panda
5. MLB Draft 2008

6. Buffy the Vampire...
7. Dry Drowning
8. Naked Brothers Band
9. Evander Holyfield
10. Jodie Sweetin

I always found the "popular" searches part to be very suspicious. They always reaked of bullshit to me.

Here's the current popular search on yahoo:

Today's Top Searches
Danielle Peck
Christa Miller
Joanne Woodward
David Archuleta
2008 Hybrid Cars
Hulk Hogan
Mark Wahlberg
Celebrity Circus
NASCAR 09
U.S. Open Golf

its a who's who of the distraction business. Sports, CELEBRITIES!!OMGS!, and movies.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
I always found the "popular" searches part to be very suspicious. They always reaked of bullshit to me.

They can be just outright lies or massaged by what stories are featured, too.

Last year the day before McCain's campaign staff all quit, the search list had "Resignation letters."
Now you know DAMN WELL that teenage America was not all searching up resignation letters instead of hot actresses and new movies.

SO this was what is called "preparation propaganda" and it was used to subliminally foreshadow what was about to be announced as a way to make it not seem like Such A Big Deal. This was done because McCain is the Pentagon's new Bush and he is getting the Reagan Teflon Treatment to preserve him as long as possible in the eyes of the public.

Next, the 10 "Today's Top Searches" items are actually listed as two adjacent columns of five so that #6 is actually the most visible spot being at top right.

That's why I even noticed the Buffy search at all, it was at #6.
And this made me look at the Featured box and notice all the Vampire themes telling me to go back and click on that Buffy search, subliminal reinforcement.

This same visibility device is used in the lists of news headlines to hide things.
Or juxtaposing bad words in one headline directly above one with the word "Hilary," for instance, can be subliminal negative framing.

This EXACT device was exposed in Congressional hearings into the CIA's role in the 1973 coup against Allende in Chile. It was revealed that in CIA newspapers awful images or words were juxtaposed with targeted people for subliminal discrediting.
This is more KEYWORD manipulation.

Bad news is often not even on the Yahoo front page. It is hidden on the next page.

When you click on your email you first get yet another page with news headlines that is usually identical to the front page list EXCEPT for one story which is often listed at #4 in a column of six which hides it from the eye since the top and bottom of the list look like the SAME list as on the front page.

I've seen this hide-the-bad-news device used many times.
All lay-out steering is towards entertainment and consumption and away from bad news.

AOL is even worse. You wouldn't even know there WAS news.

Web pages can exploit parafoveal priming which is the tendency of things outside the center of your vision to get into your mind unfiltered by critical thought, like product placement in a movie.

So...YET another trick is using banner ads as subliminal message reinforcement.
The ads can even be fakes, no real business, just a graphic masquerading as an ad.

Yahoo has a banner ad for a hair tonic that shows a Muslim/Arab-looking man (light brown skin, kind of Moroccan ?) in a Gitmo Orange shirt showing us his head down (before) and head up (after).
Ah! Just like...a police mug shot! Ahhh....subliminal negative framing again.

Now advertising models, especially for cosmetics, try to mirror the intended market and DON'T usually try to show you someone from another continent altogether.

Yahoo's domestic internet users don't often look like this man.
HMMM.
THIS banner ad routinely shows up alongside DHS stories and terrorism stories.
HMMM.

Here's the current popular search on yahoo:

I reformatted it to show how the #6 position is the most visible one and here leads you to Hulk Hogan over the other nine.

Today's Top Searches

1)Danielle Peck..........6)Hulk Hogan
2)Christa Miller..........7)Mark Wahlberg
3)Joanne Woodward....Celebrity Circus
4)David Archuleta.......9)NASCAR 09
5)2008 Hybrid Cars.....10)U.S. Open Golf

its a who's who of the distraction business. Sports, CELEBRITIES!!OMGS!, and movies.

Constant perception management, manufacturing consensus with the ILLUSION of social affirmation, marketing, and diversions.

Yahoo!