edit: CIA+bribe trial+Clark/Perle+ Oil = BORAT!

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby orz » Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:54 am

Strange how I can do a couple of weeks freelance work for a company and then maybe never have any contact with them again, but once someone's done some work for any branch of the US government their entire life before and after is clearly CIA-directed and sponsored. :roll:
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

wintler

Postby professorpan » Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:00 pm

Professor Pan, if you want to disprove HMWs argument, address his/her ideas and links. HMW has repeatedly responded to your scepticism with argument and evidence, and you repeatedly quit the specific issue and fly on to the next thing you doubt (but don't support with evidence). Its probably impossible to prove HMWs is completely wrong (cos who knows where all intel money goes), but you might want to work on making a dent somewhere.


That's untrue. I have offered long, detailed, comprehensive refutations of Hugh's keyword hijacking idea. Go through the archives if you don't believe me.

It's not my obligation to disprove every harebrained example he concocts. I've done plenty of that, and it bores me to tears.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "keyword hijacking IDEA" ??!! Not mine. I just

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:03 am

[quote="professorpan" I have offered long, detailed, comprehensive refutations of Hugh's keyword hijacking idea.[/quote]

Pan, tell that to the Chinese government. I didn't make it up. I just discovered it on my own and found that not just search engines but also human brains can be manipulated with keyword hijacking due to the mutual exclusivity effect of pre-emptive decoys.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c7dc5460-48bf-11d9-9162-00000e2511c8.html

Police blocks on the information highway

By Scott Morrison and Chris Nuttall
Published: December 8 2004 02:00 | Last updated: December 8 2004 02:00
....
Freedom of speech advocates point out that even western governments try to exercise a degree of control.
.....
Amnesty International estimates that up to 30,000 internet police work at internet service providers (ISPs) around China. These officials have access to sophisticated software enabling them to detect "subversive" key words in e-mails and downloads, as well as trace computers from which messages are sent.
.....
A more sophisticated censoring tactic is known as TCP hijacking, used to block certain keywords included in the results provided by search engines. The Chinese authorities also practice DNS hijacking, in which surfers trying to connect to a site are redirected to another site or an invalid address.


Pan, tell that to GOOGLE:

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/2/emw204535.htm

Online Advertisers with Google Adwords Campaigns may be Affected by Keyword Hijacking

(PRWEB) February 3, 2005 -- Clickrisk has identified a critical flaw in Google Adwords that allows an attacker to disable campaign keywords and adopt higher ad positions at reduced costs.

Adam Sculthorpe, security specialist and CEO of Clickrisk.com, and his team of 19 researchers have discovered through extensive forensic testing and analysis of Google Adwords, a new type of click fraud—Keyword Hijacking. Keyword Hijacking is where an attacker disables campaign keywords to secure a higher ad position. Sculthorpe explains, “this is achieved by disabling targeted keywords across many advertisers’ campaigns simultaneously by artificially inflating the number of times an ad is displayed.”

Sculthorpe is concerned that “the business impact of keyword hijacking can be very high—cost-per-click (CPC) advertisers may suffer disabled keywords for extended periods of time”. This compromises return-on-investment (ROI) for online ad campaigns, where symptoms of an attack include a sudden drop in click-through rates and disabled keywords.

A leading security expert, Sculthorpe has more than 18 years of combined security intelligence and technology industry experience, including providing consulting services for Fortune-500 organizations. His expertise helped to protect the integrity of daily banking transactions in excess of US$350 billion for leading Swiss and U.S. investment banks.

The incidence of click fraud risk exposure is on the rise. According to Clickrisk’s Chief Risk Officer, Jack Bensimon, “our clients have experienced substantial losses ranging from 20 – 65% of their total click costs.” Bensimon believes that “managing business risk is a critical component of online advertising” and further recommends that “online marketers should be vigilant and regularly monitor keywords”.

Clickrisk security analysts believe the keyword hijacking vulnerability may be widely exploited.

Clickrisk is the leading provider of click fraud prevention software and professional consulting services to manage integrity issues for online advertisers. For more information about keyword hijacking and other types of click fraud, please visit http://www.clickrisk.com/ or call 416-850-2091 for additional information.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: wintler

Postby wintler2 » Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:41 am

professorpan wrote: I have offered long, detailed, comprehensive refutations of Hugh's keyword hijacking idea. Go through the archives if you don't believe me.
'The archives' is a big place, could you name what or where are your strongest examples?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby orz » Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:11 am

TCP hijacking, used to block certain keywords included in the results provided by search engines. The Chinese authorities also practice DNS hijacking,


I find it interesting that you keep finding 'examples' of keyword hijacking that contradict your use of the term and ironically mean that YOU are keyword hijacking the term 'keyword hijacking' to mean something it doesn't.

This example is simply describing censorship of the web... if the chinese servers find a bad word on a site then it can't be accessed any more. This bears no relation to your idea of using the same word in a different context to somehow confuse people...
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Mutual Exclusivity is Decoy Attachment. Simple.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:12 pm

orz wrote:This bears no relation to your idea of using the same word in a different context to somehow confuse people...


What, like-
Patriot Act?
Clean Skies Initiative?
No Child Left Behind?
Help America Vote Act?
Marriage Protection Act?
Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Have you never heard of false advertising before?
Every single one of these Orwellian names applies to legislation that is the OPPOSITE of its name. C'mon, orz. It is so common and obvious that you don't see it.

Have you never heard of using DECOYS before?
Have you never heard of using Honey Traps before?

Do you not understand the 'first come first served' linguistic neuroscience of Mutual Exclusivity, the brain's tendency to latch onto the first definition of a word it runs across?

Is that too technical for you? Search it up.

Pan quit discussion after saying (erroneously) that Mutual Exclusivity just applies to children. Wrong. It applies to the human brain.
It is studied in children while they are learning vocabulary and children are the most important demographic to innoculate against subversive truths, aren't they?
Children are the most susceptible to advertising and influences of all kinds.

Mutual Exclusivity must occur in adults, too, even if to a lesser degree.
Brain development in childhood is carried over into adulthood.
And any effect even merely hoped for would certainly validate efforts to exploit it by people paid to do just that.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Another Keyword Hijacking example: 'D.A.' and 'Garrison.'

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:21 pm

(I'm cross-posting this from the thread about Peter Dale Scott's examining similarities between JFK's murder and 9/11.)

Despite the uproar over Oliver Stone's movie 'JFK' back in 1991 and all the research we can read on the internet there is still a cover-up being maintained around the high-level US government murder of President Kennedy.

And movies are used with keyword hijacking to pre-emptively redefine words and thus innoculate the audience against the truth of the matter.


One target is the reputation of New Orleans Distict Attorney, orD.A., Jim Garrison who prosecuted (unsuccessfully) one of the JFK plotters by the name of Clay Shaw in 1967. The CIA-controlled Operation Mockingbird press made Garrison out to be a politically-ambitious paranoid kook and even mocked his physical height like schoolyard bullies by calling him 'the Jolly Green Giant.' NBC did a primetime hit piece on Garrison which was so lopsided that Garrison was later allowed a half-hour primetime rebuttal. Even Johnny Carson was somehow made to prevent Garrison from showing a photo of the three tramps arrested in Dealey Plaza by moving his hand so the camera couldn't focus on the photo as he held it up.

All a very malevalently-orchestrated smear against a D. A on the track of JFK's killers.

Here are two movies used against Jim Garrison, one in 1977 and one in 2006.
One hijacks the keyword 'D. A.' and the other hijacks the keyword 'Garrison.'

1) When the House Special Committee on Assassinations was preparing yet another whitewash of the JFK conspiracy in 1976, Disney released 'The Shaggy D.A' as a sequel to their 1959 kiddie flick, 'The Shaggy Dog.'
If you know what a 'shaggy dog story' is, a long rambling pointless tale, you know how this movie discredited the keyword 'D.A.' It was quite unusual for Disney to use a word in the title that kids wouldn't even understand, wasn't it? I thought so at the time.

Image

2) 'The Sentinel' was released in 2006 with this blurb on the cineplex posters and now the DVD:
"There's never been a traitor in the United States Secret Service...until now.
And the evidence point to Pete Garrison, one of the most trusted agents on the force."

So this 2006 'Garrison' is an insider suspect instead of pursuing the insider suspects as the real 1967 DA Jim Garrison did. And the Secret Service DID have traitors who helped kill JFK.

Image

This is rewriting history to achieve Orwellification using keyword hijacking. And this keyword hijacking takes advantage of the brain's tendency to hang on to the first definition of a word it knows, a phenomenon called by cognitive scientists 'mutual exclusivity.'

The brain is designed to hang on to information on a first-come-first-served basis, kind of like the mythic potion that makes a person fall in love with the first person they see.
(This is also why so many people are still stuck believing that bin Laden did 9/11 since that was the first explanation they heard.)

If you know anything about the JFK hit, you know that the Secret Service was in on it.
JFK was 'security-stripped' by having the usual additional military support replaced with a casual, untrained, hostile, and even complicit Dallas police force.

The Pentagon's liason with CIA from 1955-1963 was L. Fletcher Prouty who would've coordinated the additional security for JFK's visit to a very hostile Dallas where Adlai Stevenson had just been accosted by a crowd but Prouty was sent on a wild goose chase to the South Pole to get him out of the way. Prouty identified men he knew in photos of the Dallas crowd like General Lansdale and ambush assassination expert Lucien Conein who was probably the lead planner of the public execution of our President.

JFK was then set-up to be hit by triangulated fire at low speed after a hairpin turn that never should've been taken. JFK's Secret Service driver even came to a totally forbidden dead stop while his boss was killed.

So the publicity for 'The Sentinel' movie is lying when it says "There's never been a traitor in the United States Secret Service...until now."
And that could just be a mistake except for the Orwellification of the keyword 'Garrison.'
THAT helps give away the intended purpose of this lousy movie, to rewrite the history of DA Jim Garrison's pursuit of JFK's killers in the minds of young movie-going Americans who might eventually stumble on the truth.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby judasdisney » Sun Dec 24, 2006 3:03 am

In reply to HMW's post on the Orwellian choice of "Garrison" as a character name:

In February 1974, Operation Condor was hatched as a plan to coordinate South American intelligence agencies of Right-Wing Dictatorships, with the purpose of exterminating "Leftist Subversives," including non-violent political activists.

Three months later, in the U.S., author James Grady published the spy novel "Six Days of the Condor" in May 1974.

The character "Condor" was the "good guy" in this espionage thriller, which became the famous movie "Three Days of the Condor" one year later.

In the novel, the hero's CIA "codename" is "Condor," but this name is arbitrary, as no specific reason is given for the name Condor.

Some here may mock HMW for some perceived overzealous leaps of conclusion on the basis of non-evidentiary intuition... but I think that there is a lot of ominous evidence (including the example cited by HMW with the "Garrison" character name) that HMW is onto something.

Perhaps the answer is a systematic analysis of multiple examples of seemingly-arbitrary pop cultural artifacts which, in seemingly innocuous fashion, confuse or cloud geopolitical issues... issues that might require manufacturing public consent and therefore a direct benefit might be gained by clouding those issues.

(Referring to HMW's earlier "Borat" example/discussion): If Kazakhstan is any relevant geopolitical theatre, and some benefit is to be gained by clouding the public perception of Kazakhstan, then perhaps "Borat"'s full title and description does bear some relevance. I believe that the greater relevance would be political subtext and not simply peripheral titles/character names/etc., but if a long-term historical pattern can be established (and I believe that it can) of systematic name-confusion (etc.), then perhaps we have enough goods to declare a neologism.

I must ask if anyone can easily dismiss the "Condor" example as mere happenstance. The U.S. author "James Grady" is the credited author of several novels, but no information is easily available about "JG" (and I confess I'd be skeptical about any public information on this author regardless).

Perhaps another viewing of "The Quiet American" is also in order for those who doubt the efficacy of CIA management of public debate via Issue Clouding.
judasdisney
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mutual Exclusivity is Decoy Attachment. Simple.

Postby orz » Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:53 am

What, like-
Patriot Act?
Clean Skies Initiative?
No Child Left Behind?
Help America Vote Act?
Marriage Protection Act?
Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Websites with those keywords are banned in china!?:? Can you at least read my responses before copy + pasting a long list of unrelated things half of which I haven't even disagreed with!? :roll:


block certain keywords


orz wrote:This bears no relation to your idea of using the same word in a different context to somehow confuse people...


All i was saying is that an article describing blocking of websites in china has no relation to your claims and does not prove them. You surely must agree that a computer automatically blocking a website if it features certain words, is a totally different issue than giving a movie a name which has loaded political double meanings?

They both involve the word "keyword" but I don't see how one is supposed to support the other? When it comes to this word it seems to be you who's suffering from 'mutual exclusivity.'


P.S. Orwell would slap you for "Orwellification" :-S
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby orz » Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:22 am

speaking of which:
Every single one of these Orwellian names applies to legislation that is the OPPOSITE of its name. C'mon, orz. It is so common and obvious that you don't see it.

Except I DO see it so you're FACTUALLY WRONG yet again, and just attacking a totally imaginary idea of what I believe.

Yes of course the Patriot Act etc etc are totally 'orwellian' in the most obvious way, the sort of thing that any fool can throw the word 'orwellian' about over without even having actually read 1984... (Not saying you haven't)

But strangely enough, these dishonest and clearly manipulative names have nothing to do with the technical workings of internet censorship by the Chinese government, or techniques of google ad fraud, or insertion (by unspecifiied and unfeasible means) of subliminal political messages in movie ad campaigns, or any of the other interesting unrelated issues you start changing the subject to whenever I point out that part of one of your previous rants seems to make no sense.

One of my main problems with your posts at the moment is that you seem to think you can "prove" your point by simply googling "keyword hijacking" and triumphantly presenting me with any web page or news article that contains both those two words regardless of the context!?

Have you read Orwell'sPolitics and the English Language? If not you certainly should. I'm guessing you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be able to shamelessly write horrible sentances like "This is rewriting history to achieve Orwellification using keyword hijacking." :roll:
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Keyword Hijacking is real. Mutual Exclusivity is real.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:37 am

This isn't as complicated as you make it, orz. Reading you is like reading 'Who's on First.'


orz wrote:Yes of course the Patriot Act etc etc are totally 'orwellian' in the most obvious way


Thanks for admitting that using keywords to pre-emptively lie is real. whew.

But strangely enough, these dishonest and clearly manipulative names have nothing to do with the technical workings of internet censorship by the Chinese government,


Yes they do. They rely on KEWORDS as tools of infowar. So does Echelon and more modern data-mining. You know that.

or techniques of google ad fraud,


The article on google ad fraud uses the phrase 'keyword hijacking' SIX TIMES.

or insertion (by unspecifiied and unfeasible means) of subliminal political messages in movie ad campaigns,


Like the 100 year history of doing exactly that? Yeah, right.

or any of the other interesting unrelated issues you start changing the subject to whenever I point out that part of one of your previous rants seems to make no sense.


Infowar tactics like disinformation and social engineering is related to every important subject.

One of my main problems with your posts at the moment is that you seem to think you can "prove" your point by simply googling "keyword hijacking" and triumphantly presenting me with any web page or news article that contains both those two words regardless of the context!?


I proved keyword shenanigans AND keyword hijacking are real infowar phenomenon and I'm not the only one saying so.

Have you read Orwell'sPolitics and the English Language? If not you certainly should. I'm guessing you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be able to shamelessly write horrible sentances like "This is rewriting history to achieve Orwellification using keyword hijacking." :roll:


Point? None. Right. Next.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby robert d reed » Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:39 pm

Hugh, the propaganda tactic used in labels like "USA-PATRIOT" and "Clear Skies" is a classic rhetorical device known as euphemism.

You've repeatedly confused and conflated it with your own idiosyncratic take on what you view as the all-pervasive use of "keyword hijacking" in seemingly every form of mass media available to the public.

Yes, people manipulate language to mislead. And the consequences of such deception are most severe in the arena of politics. That much is clear.

But even at your most coherent, all you're doing in this thread is re-phrasing some of the more practical insights of Alfred Korzybski's General Semantics, and he got there around 70 years before you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski

At your least coherent, you sound (to me) like a raving paranoid. And lemme tell you, having spent 10 or so years behind the wheel of a cab, I'm not completely unqualified to offer that observation.
formerly robertdreed...
robert d reed
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:14 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Robin Moore?

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:59 am

robert d reed wrote:At your least coherent, you sound (to me) like a raving paranoid.


What about the rest of the time? lol.

I expected you to continue discussing Robin Moore and the history of spook pop culture.
But ho-hum this is just all old news?
Maybe that's why you dropped Moore when he proved my point.

Oh well. Sorry to bore you.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby orz » Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:10 pm

Yes they do. They rely on KEWORDS as tools of infowar.

ARGHH!!! This is EXACTLY MY POINT.... Please THINK about what you just wrote! What is a "keyword"? You might as well group a load of things together because they use words! Totally meaningless.

The article on google ad fraud uses the phrase 'keyword hijacking' SIX TIMES.

The article on google ad fraud is an article on google ad fraud!!!!! NOT an article on china censoring the internet, or the CIA putting subliminal messages in movie posters!!!

Aside from involving the vague newspeak term "keyword hijacking", they are unrelated. THIS IS MY POINT. Thanks.
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby robert d reed » Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:59 am

I expected you to continue discussing Robin Moore and the history of spook pop culture.
But ho-hum this is just all old news?
Maybe that's why you dropped Moore when he proved my point.


Feck off, man. I've been busy.

Looks like you've been busy too- busy confirming my diagnosis of your unhealthy paranoid tendencies.

I'll get around to the Moore material when I'm good and ready. Which will be some time in the next week, notwithstanding your baiting.
Last edited by robert d reed on Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
formerly robertdreed...
robert d reed
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:14 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Psyops and Meme Management

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests