Keyword Hijacking

by **km artlu** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:29 am

Wednesday night Disney/ABC premiered a pre-critically acclaimed new drama series. Are you ready, Hugh? The Nine I'm by no means up to speed on all the details of the debate/discussion/speculation presented here. But I wonder if I'd have made any association consciously without having followed it somewhat. My not so rigorous intuition really got a tug from this one though. I think the series concerns nine people held hostage together in a bank robbery, and how their entwined lives subsequently play out. My whiff of suspicion is less related to keyword highjacking and more about how curious it is that such a potent occult phrase (see Levenda, Jeff, and others) will now be in much more mundane circulation than ever before.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:42 am

The title 'The Nine' doesn't ring any bells with me or Mr. and Mrs. couch potato. Yeah, vaguely occultish but no keyword hijacking.. But I'll bet that the show will be a parable about the War on Terra and domestic divisions.  I think the plot device of a hostage drama is more the 'message' with the intention to both create anxiety and, just guessing, having the hostages experience stress differently and bicker as if the bank robbers were the 'al-Queda' threat that Homeland inSecurity wants us to think about. I foresee some hostages doing the sympathetic Stockholm Syndrome thing with the terrorists - I mean - bank robbers and thus 'endangering all the hostage's lives.' Y'know. Like those 'capitulating hate-America-first liberals' who criticise the neocons and their GOP henchmen for illegal wars and torture.

by **terryintacoma** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:27 am

I was giving my friend one of Peter Levenda's books in a parking lot near the mall and was blown away when I noticed the billboard over us, looming from behind the Taco Bell. It read: THE NINE and there were nine sets of eyes staring down at us. O.o Advertising for the television series. Levenda's first book in his series entitled Sinister Forces is called "The Nine" Of course, we laughed it off...heh...(gulp) Hello to you NMFascism I picked up Wilhelm Reich's "The Mass Psychology of Fascism". (I don't think this is going to be easy to fix.) Anyone know what Reich thought of Jung, or Jung thought of Reich? Eternally Yours, Terry

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:12 am

i think I remember something about Reich thinking jung was too abstract with his concept of archetypes. Dunno what jung thought about him tho. I think i read that in a cartoon biography intro to Reich many years ago so I could be getting wires crossed.

by **rain** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>nine sets of eyes staring down at us<hr></blockquote> LOL. very funny Terry. wait.... I'm rifling through my notes for a quote from Gelli, I think, that says that 'bank vault doors always open to the right'. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> or should that be <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)">

by **Byrne** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:01 am

staroute metions Ground Zero. Another story that would have been buried by the use of Ground Zero to describe the WTC location, after 911, was the Ground Zero firearms training camp outside Marion, Alabama, used to train British Muslims prior to Sept. 2001. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>From Synthetic Terror by WG Tarpley BRITISH TERROR SCOOLS FOR PATSIES A window into the London state-sponsored synthetic terror milieu came in December 2001, when British authorities were forced to arrest and question Mark Yates, a selfstyled security expert who ran a firearms training camp in Alabama. Yates was suspected of helping Islamic terrorist patsies from Britain who were to hone their marksmanship skills on American soil before going off to fight for Islamic causes around the globe. Yates, a British bodyguard and firearms trainer who had operations in both the United Kingdom and the United States, allegedly offered “live fire” weapons training in America for aspiring holy warriors. British police thought that Yates was involved on the US end of the “Ultimate Jihad Challenge” training program offered on the London market by the Sakina Security Services company, owned by Suleiman Bilal Zain-ul-abidin. Yates, who was also the operations and training director at the Ground Zero firearms training camp outside Marion, Alabama, denied everything. “Ultimate Jihad Challenge” included instruction in “art of bone breaking,” and learning to “improvise explosive devices.”<hr></blockquote>Google any of the bolded terms for an intriguing look at the logistical early planning for Finsbury Park Mosque connected terrorism & the recruitment of Muslim patsies. (Oh, & Suleiman Bilal Zain-ul-abidi/Frank Etim is now dead). It is not just Tarpley who wrote about this - check the article <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/28/nsec28.xml" target="top">here</a> from the UK Daily Telegraph. Xymphora also had an <a href="http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2003/01/sulayman-balal-zainulabidin-is-dead.html" target="top">article</a> on the background to Yates, Ground Zero etc., back in the days when his blog was worth reading. So yeas, I believe that Keyword Hi-jacking happens. Another technique is mispelling terms (in particular Muslim names) to confuse searches for information and connecting dots........ Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=byrne@rigorousintuition>Byrne</A> at: 10/5/06 7:04 am

by **orz** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:36 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Probably my best case at RI so far<hr></blockquote> - I won't even go there... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The documentary has almost the exact same name <hr></blockquote> Almost exactly the same name = A DIFFERENT NAME. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> 'Paperclip' means something warm and fuzzy about the US instead of something bloody and atrocious.<hr></blockquote> But wait.. paperclips are neither warm nor fuzzy?! (sorry! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> ) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Orwell would say "I told you so."<hr></blockquote> Orwell would give you a slap and tell you to read <a href="http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit">Politics and the English Language</a>! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>We've been through this before, PP. Who makes decisions that get 'product' on the shelf and determines when and where? Editors, moguls, honchos. *Elites.* Not us.<hr></blockquote> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> the idea that editors are 'elites' is the funniest thing you've posted yet! Haha come on, you could at least put 'directors'... I'd tell the next editor i work with, if was willing to admit to spending time arguing conspiricies on the internet; i'm sure they'd be pleasantly surprised to discover they're part of the Elite! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> They'd probably demand a raise. Guess what... film editors and everyone else in the film industry are normal working guys who are not part of this supposed conspiricy. Sure some of the most powerful super-famous directors and producers of course may have powerful connections, but the rest of the TV and film industry is FAR from being some mysterious elite. Move to Hollywood or london and hang around the right part of town and you could chat to any number of film people... let them know about your theories + see what response you get! :-D Who makes decisions that get 'product' on the shelf and determines when and where? - I'll tell you who... A whole load of different people! Sure a hollywood head honcho can decide he'd like to make such and such a piece of propaganda, but it's ACTUAL WORKING PEOPLE who have to make this happen... THe hordes of people on a film set and then in postproduction, and even more so the beaurocrats and accountants that closely manage the budget, are a filter thru which the original idea of any film passes... changes from all sides are inevitable and expected, how could 'messages' as specific as you propose survive the process unscathed?... It's commitees, market forces and arbitary pressures of getting the project done in time and under budget that determine when and where it hits the shelf. It's overpaid cynical ad agencies operating more or less totally seperately from the filmmakers that decide when where posters go up, and what goes on them... The correct question is "Who ACTUALLY GETS THE PRODUCT MADE?" and the answer debunks the more outlandish and specific of your theories. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=orz@rigorousintuition>orz</A> at: 10/5/06 1:46 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:29 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Quote:Probably my best case at RI so far - I won't even go there... :) Quote:The documentary has almost the exact same name Almost exactly the same name = A DIFFERENT NAME.<hr></blockquote> Oh, you won't go there. Well that's that. The Johnson Group and Peter Schroeder just don't exist to you because you "won't even go there." Head, meet sand. The Paperclip Project vs. Project Paperclip.  Why do you say this is "a different name"? Not good analysis, orz. And, like Professor Pan, you want to look at the low-level minions because perhaps that's who you know. That would be like saying "its the everyday worker making shells and uniforms who caused the invasion of Iraq." No, it wasn't. A few people got the ball rolling and towed everyone else in that direction. People like those staffing the Pentagon's secret cell called the Office of Special Plans who employed John Rendon of the Rendon Group and Judy Miller and whoever else at the NYTimes let her peddle her WMD lies. So don't look at the soldiers. Look at the planners and their elite henchmen and henchwomen. How many mega-media corporatations determine almost everything Americans see and hear? (And this is the overt front office for the back office of covert generation and distribution of elite-sanctioned psycho-political events like propaganda, psychological warfare, and social engineering.) Just six. JUST SIX, orz. 1) AOL Time Warner. Look up the history of Henry Luce's Time/Life empire and CIA. Luce was a key player in US state-controlled press by media moguls working with their OSS-CIA buddies before and after WWII. AOL filters out many url links in emails that are 'subversive' to the power it protects. I know from experience. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ope...ockingbird</a> <a href="http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Wurlitzer_CIAHits.ht">www.thirdworldtraveler.co...CIAHits.ht</a> <a href="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html">www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html</a> 2) Disney ABC.  Look up the history of ABC, Cap Cities, and CIA's William Casey. <a href="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-libmedia.htm">www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-libmedia.htm</a> Look up Disney's work with Project Paperclip Nazi Scientist Heinz Haber who made V2 rockets for Hitler. Disney is used to indoctrinate American children with militarism, male dominance, and racism. Now who would do that? Think...remember the 1951 Psychological Strategy Board's mandate which I keep posting here? <a href="http://www.conelrad.com/atomicsecrets/secrets.php?secrets=01">www.conelrad.com/atomicse...secrets=01</a> 3) Bertellsman AG.  The world's biggest publisher whose 1921 head was a sponsor of the Nazi SS and printed up Nazi propaganda. 4) Viacom CBS. Controls CBS TV plus movie studios and the Blockbuster Video chain where I saw the Johnson Group's 'Paperclip Project' warm fuzzy Holocaust documentary. 5) News Corporation. Owned by Rubert Murdoch. Gives us Fox TV lies and so much more in the the US, UK, and Australia along with HarperCollins publishing. 6) Vivendi Universal. Music, movie and TV studios, publishing, and even privatized water companies. Think this isn't also touched by media mind managing spooks who work for elite dominance? Think again. Here, this might help you see this and I apologize for spreading the page out to accomodate it- <a href="http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml">www.mediachannel.org/owne...hart.shtml</a> (on edit: I'm removing this image and leaving the url because the screen stretches out so I can't even read it. Go here and learn something about centralized ownership of a media matrix- <a href="http://www.mediachannel.org/images/media-moguls-1200X849.jpg">www.mediachannel.org/imag...00X849.jpg</a> ) <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=13808&st=Psychological&st1=Strategy">www.presidency.ucsb.edu/w...1=Strategy</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>There is hereby established a Psychological Strategy Board responsible, within the purposes and terms of this directive, for the formulation and promulgation, as guidance to the departments and agencies responsible for psychological operations, of over-all national psychological objectives, policies and programs, and for the coordination and evaluation of the national psychological effort.<hr></blockquote> Here's some recent evidence of Disney's military-recruiting role of programming American children with male-dominance and role models who fight. Many of the movies listed below are Disney or other companies doing what Disney does- <a href="http://www.boston.com/yourlife/family/articles/2006/02/08/101_g_rated_movies/">www.boston.com/yourlife/f...ed_movies/</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>101 G-rated movies By Barbara Meltz | February 8, 2006 A study of the most popular G-rated movies of the past 15 years has found that three-quarters of the characters are male, raising concerns that Hollywood is inadvertently telling children that women are less important than men. The survey, which will be unveiled tonight in Los Angeles by actress Geena Davis, analyzed the 101 top-grossing G-rated movies released between 1990 and 2004, and found that 75 percent of all characters were male, 72 percent of the speaking roles were male, and 83 percent of the characters in crowd scenes were male. The study, titled "Where the Girls Aren't," analyzed 4,249 speaking characters in live-action and animated films made for children under the age of 11. Here are the movies studied for the purposes of the survey: 101 Dalmatians (Live Action) 101 Dalmatians (Animated Re-release) 102 Dalmatians A Bug's Life Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland Adventures of Milo & Otis Adventures of Pinocchio Air Bud: Golden Receiver Aladdin All Dogs Go to Heaven 2 All I Want for Christmas American Tail 2 Anastasia Babe Babe: Pig in the City Balto Barney's Great Adventure Beauty and the Beast Beauty and the Beast (Special Edition) Black Beauty Brother Bear Cats Don't Dance Chicken Run Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man Clifford's Really Big Movie Country Bears Doug's 1st Movie Ducktales: The Movie Emperor's New Groove Fantasia Fantasia 2000 Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest Finding Nemo Gone with the Wind Goofy Movie Gordy Great Mouse Detective Happily Ever After Hercules Homeward Bound Homeward Bound 2 Hunchback of Notre Dame Jetsons: The Movie Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius Jonah: A Veggie Tales Movie Jungle Book Jungle Book 2 King and I Lion King Lion King (LSF) Little Mermaid Little Princess Monsters, Inc. Mulan Muppet Christmas Carol Muppet Treasure Island Muppets from Space Nutcracker Nutcracker Prince Oliver & Company Once Upon a Forest Pagemaster Pebble and the Penguin Piglet's Big Movie Pinocchio (Animated Re-release) Pocahontas Pokemon 2000:The Movie Pokemon 3: The Movie Pokemon: The First Movie Polar Express Princess and the Goblin Princess Diaries Princess Diaries 2 Quest for Camelot Recess: School's Out Rescuers Down Under Return to Neverland Roberto Benigni's Pinocchio Rock-a-Doodle Rugrats in Paris: The Movie Santa Clause 2 Secret Garden Snow White Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron Straight Story Swan Princess Tarzan The Rookie The Rugrats Movie Thomas & the Magic Railroad Thumbelina Tigger Movie Tom & Jerry: The Movie Toy Story Toy Story 2 We're Back: A Dinosaur's Story Wild Hearts Can't be Broken Wings of Courage Winslow Boy Wizard of Oz Young Black Stallion<hr></blockquote> Let's put a face on the class of people who help determine what we see and hear. Here is an example of the Ivy League Cold War media elite, Richard D. Heffner who has been generating the Disnoid media version of America for decades. I found Richard Heffner's name in an interview with the maker of the movie 'The Excorcist,' William Friedkin. Friedkin's movies look like a rich source of propaganda to me. Like 'The French Connection' just at a time when the CIA is taking over the heroin traffic in Southeast Asia from the French. Anyway, Friedkin said he had been edited by Heffner who censored things for the ratings board. So there's more centralized control of movies which goes back to the Hays Board of the 1930s. This interview will show you the top down influence on film. <a href="http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,446917,00.html">film.guardian.co.uk/inter...17,00.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Q: Are we going to see the proper version of Cruising and is it substantially darker than the film you made originally? William Friedkin: Very much so. The film was really heavily edited by the man who was head of the ratings board at that time. He was a very uptight guy. He had a television programme on public broadcasting that was called the Open Mind that we all referred to as The Empty Head. His name was Richard Heffner and he was a very starched guy. But the fellow who produced Cruising was a rock and roll concert producer named Jerry Weintraub and he had produced concerts of Bob Dylan, Neil Diamond, Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra and many others. And he produced the film Cruising and he's a typical American out-going guy. So he invited Richard Heffner to come to his house to see the film at his house, which is never done. The head of the ratings board at your house! I mean, we don't even know who is on the ratings board. There's seven or eight people that are chosen, somehow... I think they're members of the parent teacher association or something! Literally. And we don't know who they are or how they come to their decisions. But there is a head guy who can influence these decisions. Jerry called this guy Richard Heffner, who we didn't know, said: "Hey Dick. Why don't you come to my house and watch the picture? I've got a beautiful house at the beach." Sure enough, Heffner turned up at the house for dinner to see Cruising before it had been rated, to give it a rating. And we sat around at dinner watching the ocean waves and the moon. Jerry had several wines and it was sensational. Finally we left the dinner table. Jerry and Mrs Weintraub and myself and Heffner to go into Jerry's screening room and he was going to see Cruising. And the film comes up and - I was sitting behind him - and every two minutes or so I hear him sigh and groan. And pretty soon the jacket came off and then the tie came off and then the collar. And I can hear him screaming. And then the lights come up, and he's just sitting there. Jerry and I look at each other and then Jerry says: "Well Dick, what did you think?" And Heffner says: "What did I think? What did I think! Jerry, this is the worst movie ever made. This is awful." And I'm sitting there. And he says: "God, this is terrible. How could you do this! How could you make this film!" And Jerry says: "But what's the rating?" And he said: "Rating! There are not enough Xs in the alphabet! I would have to go and find Xs from some other alphabet. This is a 59,000 X rating is what the rating is!" And Jerry said - and Jerry was a marvellous actor in his own way - "Dick, you can't do this to me. My life is on that screen. Do you understand that, my whole life is up there. If this film doesn't make money I'm broke. This house goes. My kids." He was virtually on his knees pleading with this guy. And at the end of this, at about 3 o'clock in the morning, Heffner was all red, red and sweating. He couldn't look at me because I had perpetrated this deed and ruined his dinner. But in the end he said: "Look there's a guy in New York who is my predecessor. He's the guy who started the ratings board. His name is Aaron Stern and he is a psychiatrist in a private practice. Very often we use him now to consult with difficult films. Why don't you go talk to him and see if he can help you." I knew Aaron Stern because he had formulated the code for the ratings board and he gave The Exorcist an R rating with no cuts. (R of course meant that children under 16 years of age were restricted from going unless accompanied by a parent.) And he gave the film an R rating without a single frame cut. So I was delighted. So I called Aron and I told him that Heffner said he could help, maybe. And he said, "Yeah, I'd be happy to help you guys. My fee is £1,000 dollars a day." About 50 days later we had a film that had been cut and messed around. The reason people say that they don't know what happens at the end of this film is because it's all been cut out. I started to play games with these guys. While they were making me take out first shots and then whole scenes I decided to insert various material. Two or three frames of things that I knew they wouldn't see that are in the film to this day. For example, I had shots of male homosexuality, openly, in the film. You know, men being intimate with men. And I cut two or three frames of this into portions of the film and they're still there to this day and the ratings board would never see it. In the end, I sat down with Stern and Heffner and ran the picture for them in a screening room and I ran it right through and asked them if they saw anything else I should take out and said it was fine, great. MK: Aron Stern was the person who got The Exorcist through. It's a particularly moot point at the moment because 25 years later the film is just about to be re-released. When it first came out to the American censors they saw that it was clearly a film which depicts a struggle between good and evil and that the material in it which is graphic is there for a purpose. I remember reading a statement from Jack Valenti who said he had no problem with an R rating because, if you looked at the film, there was nothing in it that was not crucial to the way the drama worked. There was nothing in it that could be considered salacious. Now we have a strange position, which is that 25 years later, the British Board of Film Classification think that that film cannot be allowed on video in England because somehow, if it's available on video, it will destroy their word - even though nobody's really sure how. You made that film back in '73, and I think it still plays exactly the same now, the effect of it is still as uplifting and I defy anyone - love it or hate it - not to be moved by it in some way.<hr></blockquote> So Hollywood films are rated and end up censoriously edited by people like Richard D. Heffner. Here's a bio on Heffner to see how he ricochets between media, academia, and politics as a media mind manager- <a href="http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/facstaff/profile/?netid=heffner">www.scils.rutgers.edu/fac...id=heffner</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Richard D. Heffner has been University Professor of Communications and Public Policy at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, since 1964. He commutes there from New York City, where he produces and moderates The Open Mind, his more than four decade-old, prize-winning television program seen each week on public broadcasting stations around the country. For twenty years Mr. Heffner commuted even further ... to Hollywood, where from 1974 to 1994 he served as Chairman of the Board and Administrator of the motion picture industry's voluntary film classification and rating system. He recently completed a lengthy narrative of his Hollywood years for Columbia University's distinguished Oral History Project, and his A Conversational History of Modern America, a book derived from his broadcast interviews over the past half-century, was published by Carroll & Graf late in 2003. Trained as an American historian, Mr. Heffner is also the author of A Documentary History of the United States, which recently appeared in a Fiftieth Anniversary expanded and revised Seventh Edition, and the editor of Alexis de Tocqueville's classic Democracy In America, both published by Penguin Putnam and both widely available in America's key bookstores. Additionally, Mr. Heffner's collaboration entitled Conversations With Elie Wiesel, was published in 2001 by Random House's Schocken Books. A Phi Beta Kappa honors graduate of Columbia (A.B., 1946; M.A., 1947), Mr. Heffner has taught history and political science at the University of California at Berkeley, Rutgers, Columbia, Sarah Lawrence, and the New School for Social Research. He holds honorary doctorates from the State University of New York and from Long Island University. In 1964, after a parallel career in the media, Mr. Heffner moved his academic focus from Americana to communications and public policy, continuing to write in both fields, with articles, book reviews and other commentary in such publications as The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Saturday Review, the American Historical Review, etc. His lectures and seminars -- particularly overseas for the State Department in such countries as the former USSR, Israel, Germany, Greece, Japan, and Italy -- also range from historical to media matters. Mr. Heffner began his broadcasting career in radio (1953) with History In The News on WMCA, New York, and as a radio news reporter at ABC, moving to NBC (1954-59) as Producer-Writer-Moderator of such television series as Man Of The Year, Princeton '56, All About Men -- All About Women and The Open Mind. He also served as Director of Public Affairs Programs at WNBC-TV. In 1959 he went to CBS, first as Editorial Consultant to the CBS, Inc. Editorial Board, then as Director of Special Projects for the CBS Television Network. In 1961, on leave from CBS, Mr. Heffner played a leading role in the acquisition and activation of Channel 13 as New York's first public broadcasting station: WNET. He was Channel 13's General Manager until 1963, when he established Richard Heffner Associates, Inc., a broadly-based communications consulting firm that has served such clients as IBM, TIME, Inc., The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, AT&T, American Airlines, Pfizer, Inc., and Sears, Roebuck & Company. He has also directed such foundation projects as the Twentieth Century Fund's Commission on Campaign Costs in the Electronic Era (1968-69), and the Ford Foundation's study of American television's environmental content (1970-72). He is Vice-Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the New York City Police Foundation. In 1986, he served as Chairman of Liberty Conference during America's Statue of Liberty Centennial. Mr. Heffner was born in New York City on August 5, 1925. His wife, Dr. Elaine Heffner, serves as Senior Lecturer of Education in Psychiatry at Cornell University Medical College and was for many years Program Supervisor of the Nursery School Treatment Center at the Payne-Whitney Clinic of New York Hospital. She is also in private practice. The Heffners have two sons -- Daniel, a film producer in California, and Andrew, an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan -- and four grandchildren. The Heffners have homes in New YorkCity; Putnam Valley, New York; and Palm Springs, California. <hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 10/6/06 2:37 pm

by **professorpan** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:58 pm

Whole lotta nothing, Hugh. I've already discussed your Paperclip theory so I don't feel the need to address it again. The previous thread is there for anyone to check out. Your armchair theorizing about how films and other media are managed is contradicted by those of us who know people inside the industry or have worked in it. You are wrong, as has been pointed out by multiple posters, yet you hold onto your harebrained examples (Paperclip, Nacho Libre) like a drowning man clinging to a life preserver. Can you even contemplate the possibility that you are incorrect? What would it take for you to even consider that? Have you ever been wrong? And your example about the ratings board is supposed to illustrate what... that they can be a buch of censorious pricks? Who isn't aware of that? It does nothing to prop up your examples -- nothing. Different issue completely. And your bold method of unmasking elites -- finding biographies and putting any mention of an education, military service, or medical affiliation in bold type -- illustrates your over-the-top tendency to jump to conclusions. "My god, he wrote for the New York Times? Must be a Mockingbird! And look at this -- his wife was a psychiatrist! How much more evidence do you people need?!" For what it's worth, dear Hugh, not everyone who has an education and runs in hoity-toity circles is a fucking Satan worshipping Illuminati elitist. How tiresome this has become.

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:01 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, HMW, but this is the gist of what I'm getting from your overweening interest in deconstructing the entertainment media for subliminal political messages serving a unified ulterior agenda of control: "The owners of Big Media have a meeting 2-3 weeks devoted to the topic of how to craft symbolism in order to keep their viewers- especially the American ones- enslaved to False Consciousness. They they often practice their craft with intricate attention to minute details, such as the exact wording of film titles. They factor everything from breaking news events to trends in keyword searches into determining the most effective specific emotional triggers to maintain their psychological control over modern society through manipulating the mediasphere. They then commit the time and energy required to ensure that their guidelines are carried out all the way from the top down, with no protest or whistleblowing from anyone down the chain of command in the military-industrial-entertainment complex over which they preside. With this task attended to on a routine and ongoing basis, they then turn their attention to the less pressing business matters requiring their attention." If that isn't your implicit thesis- well, then, what is it? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/5/06 5:56 pm

by **orz** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:17 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Oh, you won't go there. Well that's that. The Johnson Group and Peter Schroeder just don't exist to you because you "won't even go there." Head, meet sand.<hr></blockquote> No, not at all... when i said 'I won't go there' I meant I'll spare you the sarcastic comments to the effect that I consider this your worst case at RI so far. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":b"> Once again Hugh, thanks for the interesting bits of research. Now, how about we go back to the totally unrelated matter of your specific claims...? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> The ratings/censorship thing is interesting, because I'd say rather than helping your case it's actually one more stumbling block in the way of anyone planting the kind of subliminal messages you propose...! Censors can only remove things from films, not add or control the content. And of course the main thing they censor is violent and disturbing content such as you imply is harmful to the viewers, so surely they're on your side? So... Freidkin's movies are a rich source of propaganda.... and the Censor is clearly part of the Elite... so they both want to poison our minds via movies... But... But... YOUR OWN COPY AND PASTE "EVIDENCE" DESCRIBES HOW THEY WERE TOTALLY AT LOGGERHEADS! Also the BBFC's position on this particular film seem strangely familiar compared to your theories here: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>the British Board of Film Classification think that that film cannot be allowed on video in England because somehow, if it's available on video, it will destroy their word - even though nobody's really sure how.<hr></blockquote> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> Incidentally, here in the UK i believe it was (still is maybe?) forbidden by the BBFC to have a movie poster with a gun pointing outwards in case it frightened women on lonely train station platforms!? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> Anyway, I digress - Hugh, you have once more changed the subject via a load of very interesting copy + paste gumph with bold type moments.... Please go back and just address this one point: TELL ME AGAIN HOW FILM EDITORS ARE PART OF THE 'ELITE' <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=orz@rigorousintuition>orz</A> at: 10/5/06 5:53 pm

by **orz** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:35 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Paperclip Project vs. Project Paperclip. Why do you say this is "a different name"?<hr></blockquote> mmm.... because it is?? "Project Paperclip" or "Operation Paperclip" are different KEYWORDS than "The Paper Clips Project" or "Paper Clips". Googling them will yield different results, NONE OF WHICH support your thesis particuarly. Anyway, you keep disingenuously referring to the movie as "The Paperclip Project" and the operation as 'Project Paperclip" wheras the correct names are "Paper Clips" and "Operation Paperclip" respectively. When your theory is about specific 'keywords' and you need to stretch the facts like this to make them fit better then surely that's a sign that the whole thing's tenuous to say the least. And for all the talk of 'oh don't look at the people lower down the chain, they're just following orders from above' - your paperclip example COULD NOT be the case without the teachers who came up with the Paper Clips Project (the actual activity, not the film) being "in on it"! I can accept that to the ignorant casual observer it may seem like the producers, directors or even writers (ha! they wish) of a movie dictate the total end result, but please explain what's the chain of command for some ordinary small town teachers to recieve orders from the CIA to start a school activity, and then a smalltime production company to come along and release a documentary about it five years later!? And last of all for now... remind me why we're supposed to take seriously theories on the movie business from someone who DOESN'T WATCH MOVIES?

by **orz** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:39 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>They factor everything from breaking news events to trends in keyword searches into determining the most effective specific emotional triggers to maintain their psychological control over modern society through manipulating the mediasphere. <hr></blockquote> You forgot to mention that they plan all this sometimes many years before the events/trends even happen!

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:37 pm

To refer back to another of your "instructuve examples", Manatee: In the case of both the book published with the title "3 Days Of The Condor", and the film subsequently released carrying the title of that name, there was no public awareness that an international right-wing death squad operation, dubbed by its planners with the code name "Operation Condor", even existed. By the late 1970s, a few intrepid journalists, including National Catholic Reporter Latin American correspondent Penny Lernoux, had managed to unearth some of the details of a multinational campaign of State terror, directed most prominently by the leaders of juntas in the South American Southern Cone- Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay (with some help from Licio Gelli and his loyal minons in the neo-fascist underworld, and the CIA then directed by DCI George Bush and Gen. Vernon Walters- and it's perhaps also worthy of note that it was the Israeli government of that era who sold the Argentine junta an early computerized system to collate their surveillance and intelligence activities, as well as selling the regime a lot of weapons.) But the name known to Lernoux wasn't "Operation Condor", it was "The Banzer Plan"- after the name of its principal articulator, Hugo Banzer Suarez, then military dictator of Bolivia. And it wasn't until quite quite a while after the Letelier-Moffitt murders on Embassy Row on September 21, 1976, that any press scrutiny in the English-speaking media was brought to bear on the possibility of right-wing assassination squads involved in carrying out an "official mission" of international scope. The American media was originally fed a false trail of evidence, and CIA Director George H. W. Bush was directly involved in enabling this misdirection. And, with a very few exceptions- Robert Parry, Norman Solomon, Donald Freed in his book A Death In Washington- no one in American journalism has ever called Bush on this, and the American public is unaware of the details. And that presently obscured history comprises a real, authentic American media scandal- as distinguished from some flypaper theory of everything attempting to project the supposed evidence of a "ruling class plot" onto every semiotic correspondence of perception and language found anywhere within the offerings of popular entertainment or news journalism. Oh, the Hugh Manatee...you don't by any chance know somebody named 'emad', do you? This guy 'emad', who used to post around here a lot, then one day he stopped. You have some stylistic similarities- the Bold Assertion and the Grandiloquent Flights of High Dudgeon, for instance... you both have a habit of sort of Going Off a bit here and there, too. Another viewpoint on Emad: "There are a series of rather long posts over at rigorousintuition, by Emad I think, which relate well to jonku's post above. They go into, in some detail, some of the shenanigans we've seen in the last half century, connecting them to Italy and the Vatican. Like Iluminati taking over the Catholic Church etc etc. Very interesting, especially the contention that the Bushes, I and II were whacked earlier in life and replaced by body doubles, two cousins from the Italian Gelli family. I would not be so gullible as to recommend this except for the rather obvious but totally unremarked substitution of one of Saddam's doubles for the character who is awaiting trial. Anyway, take a look and see if it doesn't make some sense in context. This guy Emad seems to have some credibility. Later I might paste a piece of it here but for now scoot on over and see for yourself. Plenty of details on who did what and when. "<a href="http://p097.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=22"">p097.ezboard.com/frigorou...opicID=22"</a> From <a href="http://www.moonofalabama.org/2005/07/another_open_on.html">www.moonofalabama.org/200...en_on.html</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/5/06 7:46 pm

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:55 pm

Licio: "Giorgio, my compatriots are willing and able to help you out. Their special talents, expertise, and unwavering commitment to the execution of their designated tasks is beyond dispute. But surely you must recognize the risks that I would assume if I were to agree to your proposition...the possibility of discovery, exposure...criminal liability..." To be clear- that scrap of dialogue doesn't resemble anything emad cooked up in his tenure here. It's merely an idle speculation of my own... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/5/06 7:57 pm

Keyword Hijacking

A Nominee

Re: A Nominee

Re: A Nominee

Re: A Nominee

Re: A Nominee

Re: An example

...

http://www.mediachannel.org/images/media-moguls-1200X849.jpg

Re: ...

The Manatee Thesis

yes

oh and...

you forgot....

A case in point...

off-topic movie script fantasy aside...

Who is online