Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:A real person named Atwater was suprised to find things in his luggage he didn't expect to be there. A news article was thus viral marketed with specific keywords and themes.
I don't see any more reason to believe that T.S. Atwater is a real person than I do to think that the article might have some relationship to Lee Atwater. As far as I can tell, the only information we have about him comes from miltary spokesman and the FBI, two of the least reliable sources I can imagine, and the only information we have that Lee Atwater's name is involved comes from you, someone whose reliability is unquestioned, sort of. Can you explain to me why one is more or less believable than the other? Do you know Trey Scott Atwater personally?
But okay, if you want to take the position that a real Atwater was framed rather than invented to KWHJ Lee Atwater, I'm good with that. Evidence?
I've been outing Wired articles as psyops for years at this very board. So not the first time. Rather, s.o.p.
It seems to me that you've been doing for years here is positing demonstrable disinformation which functions as a distraction from the understanding of actual mil-intel psyops and corporate conditioning as it operates in the real world. This is the accomplishment of your standard operating procedure whether it's been your intention or not.
The research in the Wired article is not only a very real scientific pursuit which some of us on this forum have been following for years, but it also has absolutely nothing to do with masking the exposure of psyops in the twisted manner that you infer it might. Zero.
Demonstration of proof of concept is the point of this thread. Not "faith in Hugh", I'm afraid.
Yes, an "unlikely title" with specific themes. Which a follow-up examination-ahem- would reveal to be a mirror of the contest for leadership which I previously explicated and you conveniently ignored. Oh, the value of the 'ignore' function.
I didn't ignore it. I actually researched it before I posted. I simply found it to be implausible to the point of which I could only question your motives for even suggesting it. Which I do.
The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse was in production from
late February to early April 1938 at Warner Bros. studios in Burbank.
http://streitcouncil.org/uploads/PDF/As ... 0Arndt.pdfThe Division of Cultural Relations, led by Hull ‟s friend the Colorado internationalist Ben
Cherrington, began in May 1938 with a budget of $27,000 and moved slowly upwards, within
the benign and cooperative framework established by Welles. Its operative verbs were facilitate,
coordinate and supplement. Welles proclaimed proudly, to a meeting of American intellectual
leaders in May 1938, that the office would do no more than 5% of the work, leaving the brunt of
efforts to the private world. Welles and the Division studied various models; Cherrington
quickly set off for a three-month journey through Latin America , about which he knew next to
nothing.
Foreign cultural practices were well known to experienced US diplomats like Welles. Less
universalist than the French model, formalized in 1923 and heavily funded, the more modest
British version translated the educational practices of empire into more benign global terms with
the creation of the British Council in 1934. The three Allies agreed that to fight the lies of the
Axis they needed only to tell the truth. There was to be neither propaganda nor counterpropaganda,
in the areas spared from hot war; the truth was enough. A more tenacious model in
the U.S. was CPI‟s work in World War I—CPI had built on the military model, its titles, and its
naval communications system; USIS posts in the field were led by a Public Affairs Officer, who
commanded an Information Officer and a Cultural Affairs Officer. CPI‟s program was an
amiable jumble of journalists, PR men, and intellectuals. Everywhere its cultural offices were
staffed, by agreement of all agencies in Washington , with energetic young academics from the
universities, for the most part regional specialists.
Into this mix in 1940 the impatient FDR, seeing war as the only priority, injected the
irrepressible young Nelson Rockefeller, with the broadest of mandates. Rockefeller promptly
...
SNIP
So Cherrington became the head of The Division of Cultural Relations in May of 1938 and Rockefeller entered the scene in 1940 as
Coordinator of Commercial and Cultural Affairs for the American Republics.His service with Creole Petroleum led to his deep, life-long interest in Latin America. He became fluent in Spanish. In 1940, after he expressed his concern to President Franklin D. Roosevelt over Nazi influence in Latin America, the President appointed him to the new position of Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (CIAA) in the Office of Inter-American Affairs (OIAA).[1] Rockefeller was charged with overseeing a program of US cooperation with the nations of Latin America to help raise the standard of living, to achieve better relations among the nations of the western hemisphere, and to counter rising Nazi influence in the region.[2] His efforts included spreading anti-Axis propaganda to head off Nazi fifth column activity, which was subsequently laughed at and booed by the Latin American population resulting in pro-Axis riots. The movie Down Argentina Way had to be refilmed because it was actually considered offensive, while The Great Dictator was banned in several countries.[3]
It seems to me that the time frames don't match very well here. In fact, they don't really match at all. Disinformation.
Now, let's look at the relationship between the slang term
"cherry" presented in a slightly alter homonymic form in the name "Cherrington" and the name of the film's protagonist,
Clitterhouse. Meaning "maidenhead, virginity" is from 1889, U.S. slang, from supposed resemblance to the hymen, but perhaps also from the long-time use of cherries as a symbol of the fleeting quality of life's pleasures.
Clitter as a Noun
Clitter is thought to be derived from an old Celtic word of the Brythonic language that means 'craggy' and specifically refers the the granite littered debris fields around many tor rock outcrops and hills . There are many mentions of the clitter stones and masses in the geological descriptions of the Dartmoor moorland area in the county of Devon, the Leskernick Hill in Bodmin Moor, Cornwall, and the rocky coastline tors in the southern part of Glamorgan, Wales. The Wikipedia online history of Clitterhouse states that the name was first applied to a 1321 estate, which was later used as farms and hospitals (Dr. Clitterhouse?). Today it is the name of a school. This discussion also suggests that Clitterhouse possibly comes from the word "clite" or clay, but the Celtic derivation seems more likely. Other uses of clitter in place names include Clitterbecks, Clittertind, and the village of Clitters, and Clitters Wood and Mine in Callington, Cornwall.
Even colloquially, I doubt there are any individuals with fluency in American slang who would mistake a cherry for a clitoris, or find the two to have sufficient congruence in meaning for the big-time psyop you suggest to occur at all. Wait, amend that: I don't just doubt it, I know it. It would never happen. A clitoris is not a cherry, never has been.
And I'm not even going to get into a discussion of exactly why you think a coverup would be necessary in the case of Cherrington/Rockefeller's activities in South America, or who would have created this fanciful diversion, or by what mechanism. I have no doubt in your powers of simply making things up and presenting them as what you think of as truth, having witnessed their boring awesomeness often.
Liar.
Really? You protest too much and too quickly, I think, for an earnest and forthright person. Your slur on me feels toothless in this context though, Hugh, because
this entire thread is sort of about determining if
you are in fact a fabulist, a disinformationalist, or some other, wildly improbable third thing. Nice try at the ol' meme-reversal, though.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
