rigorousintuition.ca

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:But my hands are tied by Jeff Wells who threatens me for positing while allowing anyone who negates and attacks.
Go...figure.

Oh, that bad, bad man...

Facts are facts, simulist. On the table.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Facts are facts, simulist. On the table.

Nah. It's chopped liver that's on the table, and some people just got tired of eating it.

Elvis wrote:

LilyPatToo wrote:I have a writing teacher who worked undercover for the CIA in Hollywood as a writer and producer, so I know there's an intel presence there.

Now this is something, LilyPat---any more details you can share as to his undercover function? And what he might have actually accomplished in that capacity to influence media? Was he with CIA before working in Hollywood?

It's a she, Elvis. She teaches online, so I've never met her face-to-face, but one of these days our paths will cross at a writers' convention, I expect. She said that when she was younger she worked undercover in Europe for quite a while, doing standard spy stuff, before the agency decided to exploit her writing talent and established her in Hollywood. She's mentioned writing scripts and producing films that won a few Oscars, but said the job was primarily cover for the real work she did, which involved keeping an eye on a network of foreign spies operating on the West Coast. And she also said that several chairmen of Hollywood's most powerful studios were "friendly assets."

I've taken a couple of classes from her and taken one of them twice--it's college-level in its complexity, compared to most of the online study I've done. And I'm on an active Yahoo list she's created for her former students. She's very upfront about her past--I learned about it in the bio she furnishes on the first day of her classes. Kind of freaked me out at first, due to my own connections with intel types, but she in no way comes across as sinister or fishing for personal info...not that a seasoned spy would She's also worked as a journalist and written poetry.

LilyPat

---

Thanks, LilyPat. Funny how I assumed a CIA agent would be male.

No big surprises there in your post, I guess. I wonder how open she'd be to commenting on HMW's 'KWH' theses and the general extent of psyops-type manipulation discussed here. (hint hint)

I know a guy who's a right-wing Cuban who used to write for the Miami Herald. He seems to be in the business to manage certain films that also involve certain right wing Cubans. That's all I'm gonna say. But yeah, the stuff is out there, it's just not in the infuriatingly STUPID way that Hugh claims.

In fact, that's why it bugs me so much. Because quite possibly the biggest problem facing the United States today is the mind control that most of the people are under. It needs to be studied seriously and addressed.

I imagine TPTB have someone stationed at every moral decision point to gently remind the wannabees with the stock quote: U know What We Want or some derivation of that. As the pyramid to power can only be climbed in one direction, those closer to power or in this case closer to the art of propagandizing for the rewards of pleasing power, are self regulated by the history of their journey. I doubt that anyone needs specific instruction. I also doubt that in terms of the entertainment industry, time sensitive, specific outcomes are required, unlike in the political realm. In general, in the cultural vortex, random and/or chaotic results are encouraged, much like tying branches to the back of your horse to confuse any trackers, or just for fun. I think people are put off by HMW's earnestness. The rabbit hole holds the same power over the envious and the outraged.

Victor Hugo-
"Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come."

^^ Hugo, was there ever a more obvious KWH? Glad I didn't waste time seeing it because if its wiki description is any guide it turned out to be just what the trailer looked like, a big boring spyops fest adding up to nothing. Evidently it's based on a 2007 Scholastic children's story by a Brian Selznik from New Jersey which doesn't lend much authenticity. I'll let Hugh analyze the about-the-movies plot but I notice Sacha Baron Cohen in the cast which pretty much nails it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_(film)


p.s. this guy isn't in it

bardobailey wrote:I imagine TPTB have someone stationed at every moral decision point to gently remind the wannabees with the stock quote: U know What We Want or some derivation of that. As the pyramid to power can only be climbed in one direction, those closer to power or in this case closer to the art of propagandizing for the rewards of pleasing power, are self regulated by the history of their journey. I doubt that anyone needs specific instruction.

Okay getting back to the thread topic, I don't think there's any doubt that what you're describing occurs, and helps to establish a generally pro-Pentagon, pro-LEO-spook-big-business tone, but what Hugh is pointing out is not accidental or coincidental. For one thing it wasn't always so covert. Take the Bikini Atoll, ground zero of the Marshall Islands "proving grounds" that blew up no less than 66 H-bombs and A-bombs in the Pacific between 1946 and 1958, 66 that they admit to anyway. Does the word "bikini" bring to mind gratuitous nuclear contamination of the entire planet? No, it brings to mind a sexy two-piece swimsuit that was named in 1946, the same summer the Marshall Island tests began, in fact was named after them:

• While two-piece bathing suits had been worn on the beach before, the modern bikini was invented by French engineer Louis Réard in 1946. He named it after Bikini Atoll in the Pacific, the site of the Operation Crossroads nuclear weapon tests in July that year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini

Leaving aside the question of why an engineer would be naming a swimsuit, what would possess him to name it after a US nuke test? But he did and the rest is history. So when the same thing happens with Rango / Rongelap it's hard to write it off to the universe tying branches to the tail of its metaphorical horse, paper trail or not. From a 1990 DOE "Marshall Islands Chronology":

31 Oct 1953 - WEAPONS TESTING

In its preliminary radiological safety plan for the Castle series the joint task force does not expect to evacuate native populations before the Castle Series. The rationale for not conducting such evacuations is based on February 1953 discussions between cognizant headquarters sections, radiological documentation from Ivy, "apparent unrealism in the assumption of health hazards of a magnitude conjectured for Ivy" a policy of financial austerity for FY 1954, and the unavailability of task force equipment for evacuations. The plan states, "However, consideration of populated islands will be one of the major factors influencing the decision to shoot."

http://www.hss.doe.gov/Healthsafety/IHS ... ron/#chron

"Financial austerity," that's rich. Basically they turned an entire island into a human monkey cage. Pretty sick.

Well the bikini example is totally believable to me. Compelling, even. Very bizarre otherwise. Plus, you're naming the engineer. Hugh's Rango/Rongelap makes no sense, and "Castle" is just a joke because it's a very generic word. And these are so many years later, when no one in the supposed target demo would even know or care, no matter what current stories may be digging it up again.

lupercal wrote:

bardobailey wrote:I imagine TPTB have someone stationed at every moral decision point to gently remind the wannabees with the stock quote: U know What We Want or some derivation of that. As the pyramid to power can only be climbed in one direction, those closer to power or in this case closer to the art of propagandizing for the rewards of pleasing power, are self regulated by the history of their journey. I doubt that anyone needs specific instruction.

Okay getting back to the thread topic, I don't think there's any doubt that what you're describing occurs, and helps to establish a generally pro-Pentagon, pro-LEO-spook-big-business tone, but what Hugh is pointing out is not accidental or coincidental. For one thing it wasn't always so covert. Take the Bikini Atoll, ground zero of the Marshall Islands "proving grounds" that blew up no less than 66 H-bombs and A-bombs in the Pacific between 1946 and 1958, 66 that they admit to anyway. Does the word "bikini" bring to mind gratuitous nuclear contamination of the entire planet? No, it brings to mind a sexy two-piece swimsuit that was named in 1946, the same summer the Marshall Island tests began, in fact was named after them:

• While two-piece bathing suits had been worn on the beach before, the modern bikini was invented by French engineer Louis Réard in 1946. He named it after Bikini Atoll in the Pacific, the site of the Operation Crossroads nuclear weapon tests in July that year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini

Leaving aside the question of why an engineer would be naming a swimsuit, what would possess him to name it after a US nuke test? But he did and the rest is history. So when the same thing happens with Rango / Rongelap it's hard to write it off to the universe tying branches to the tail of its metaphorical horse, paper trail or not. From a 1990 DOE "Marshall Islands Chronology":

31 Oct 1953 - WEAPONS TESTING

In its preliminary radiological safety plan for the Castle series the joint task force does not expect to evacuate native populations before the Castle Series. The rationale for not conducting such evacuations is based on February 1953 discussions between cognizant headquarters sections, radiological documentation from Ivy, "apparent unrealism in the assumption of health hazards of a magnitude conjectured for Ivy" a policy of financial austerity for FY 1954, and the unavailability of task force equipment for evacuations. The plan states, "However, consideration of populated islands will be one of the major factors influencing the decision to shoot."

http://www.hss.doe.gov/Healthsafety/IHS ... ron/#chron

"Financial austerity," that's rich. Basically they turned an entire island into a human monkey cage. Pretty sick.

There has been of late a general decrying of a lack of intuition around here, with a concurrent and presumably deleterious emphasis upon the rigorous end of the equation. Nothing against you specifically, lupercal, but I would submit that it is posts such as this one which are at least partly to blame.

I guess most people, or at least most men, wouldn't have enough interest in the subject of woman's bathing attire that they'd be aware of the sheer complexity in evidence in the design of the brassieres and swimsuit tops of the 1940's, but just for example, since you were wondering why an engineer - an automobile engineer, to be precise - might be naming a swimsuit, here's a Maidenform patent design from 1938. You will notice the garment is rather heavily over-constructed, involving numerous iterations of some twenty-nine discreet parts. A photograph of M. Réard's 1946 swimsuit reveals a similarly complex upper. Engineers of the caliber of Howard Hughes - one of the greatest aeronautical engineers of the twentieth century - have been known to try their mettle against the gordian problem of sheathing women's breasts in supportive fabric structures.

Bra designers liken designing a bra to building a bridge, because similar forces are at work. Just as a bridge is affected vertically by gravity and horizontally by earth movement and wind, forces affecting a bra's design include gravity and sometimes tangential forces created when a woman runs or turns her body.[32] "In many respects, the challenge of enclosing and supporting a semi-solid mass of variable volume and shape, plus its adjacent mirror image—together they equal the female bosom—involves a design effort comparable to that of building a bridge or a cantilevered skyscraper."

Of course it just so happened that M. Réard's mother ran a well-known lingerie shop in Paris where he found employment as a designer, perhaps because designing automobiles in early post-occupation Paris was a bit of a non-starter, or perhaps - just perhaps - because he was a damned good designer of women's foundations, which, in fact, he certainly turned out to be.


M. Réard, hard at work.

Now as to the naming of the famous creation: on July 5, 1946, French designer Louis Réard unveils a daring two-piece swimsuit at the Piscine Molitor, a swanky Parisian swimming pool. The swimsuit itself was at first deemed so scandalous that he had to hire a stripper to model it, as no respectable mannequin would consent to the job. Guess what had happened earlier that week, an event which had made headlines across the planet? That's right, Operations Crossroads detonation Able was exploded on July 1, and Mr. Réard availed himself of the publicity associated with the name in competition with another designer who just that week had unveiled his version of the world's smallest two-piece dubbed "the Atom" (it's small, get it?), and advertised the unveiling with an aerial banner over Paris announcing the bikini as even smaller than the world's smallest swimsuit.

If, for some reason, it surprises you that the swimsuit would come to overshadow it's namesake, I ask you to examine mayonnaise, badminton, magnesium, wieners, or any of hundreds of other items which share a similar preeminence over the venue of the origins of their name. The fact of the matter is that the bikini swimsuit is far more interesting than the Bikini Atoll will ever be, unless you happen to be a former resident of the islands themselves, in my honest opinion.


Let's face it, it's interesting.

But beyond that, the detonations at Bikini Atoll and the fascination of the public at large with any news associated with atomic energy would give rise to an entire generation of products the world over named and designed to capitalize on the fame and wonder of the harnessing of the atom, the so-called Atomic Style.

So... in order to have a conversation about this topic, first we have to basically attempt to debug a highly conjectural fabrication - in this case, the idea that there is something sinister about the popular sobriquet of the two-piece swimsuit - before we can move to any more intuitive possibilities that may ripen into fruitful areas of discussion. It's little wonder that we seem to go around and around on these discussions. I realize not everyone has looked into the history of clothing, or swimsuit design, or even women's foundations in such a way that might make such an assertion seem a bit absurd on the face of it, and I don't really want to denigrate your idea as a complete waste of time, but to put such an idea forth as an obviously overt example of keyword hijacking, or interference theory, or whatever we're calling it this week, and on the basis of an implication that an engineer has no real business designing women's clothing in the first place, shows a lack of regard for the difficulties of an art form and the history of post-war design, as well as a staggeringly misplaced sense of the way the world works. In my opinion.

I'm all for the intuitive leap that takes you to a more profound understanding of the mechanics of control and the mysteries of the world. I'm all for diving into the woo. All I ask is a little looking around along with the jumping part, because often the thing in question in a purely prosaic sense is infinitely more strange and wonderful than the intuitive material one might try to hang it with.

Wow, JR. Recency effect?

You just totally blew off the long history of managing the public's ultra-flinchiness about nuclear radiation with that one.
And a dozen other things but Jeff has tied my hands.

But, as usual, not other people's.

WTF? A discussion is underway but I''m under a Sword of Damned-a-cles.

Try this tack-
Since WWI there has been a national security emphasis on preventing a return to pacificsm and isolationism. That's why Pearl Harbor was cooked up and LIHOP.
Not only was WWII a good reason to go back to 'p and i,' but the NUCLEAR age brought an even more totalist viewpoint that outstripped reactions against the WWI slaughter by machine guns, conventional bombs, and poison gases.
The psyops challenge is outlined in the July 1959 ‘Special Warfare Newsletter: Concepts, Developments, and Activities in
Psychological Warfare and Unconventional Warfare.’ The fear of the unknown figures heavily in official psyops planning regarding nuclear weapons.

Then there's the 'fallout' of the widespread delayed medical horrors of CANCER, birth defects, and infant mortality resulting from domestic nuke fallout.
This has all been psyoped very very heavily to keep the American public on a war footing. Know how people react against cancer? right.

So the news cycle visibility of the Castle-Bravo clean-up/relocation at Rongelap is only one of many many media products designed to give Muricans
*something else to think about.* (That toss-off that "castle" is a common word is exactly why psyoperators don't want it triggering a Pentagon horror story.
This is so basic to understanding the word-association trigger-economy that I will pm it to you again if Jeff drops the cone of silence again.
Think about it JR. Words are triggers. The more common, the more dangerous. Not what you said.)

Even Philip K. Dick was working for the spooks in the early 60s to hide the military abuse of civilian health as the test ban was imminent and underscored
just WHY there was a test ban.

Don't believe me about PKDick?
See this thread-
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... 51#p462251

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Don't believe me about PKDick?
See this thread-
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... 51#p462251

I looked at that thread and I still don't believe you. I actually thought there might be some evidence of him being the CIA's favorite novelist, but no. Turns out you are just trolling, lying about him because you know a lot of posters here are fans of his work.

jingofever wrote: .....
Turns out you are just trolling, lying about him because you know a lot of posters here are fans of his work.

Goad much? What part of "no personal atttacks" that Jeff just posted don't you understand?
That doesn't even make sense, "because you know a lot of posters here are fans of his work."

Ok, I'll put even more info in the thread you are trying to negate. But do behave.