rigorousintuition.ca

Interesting shift in the criticisms of Hugh.

Previous to this afternoon, it was "no one else is interested in your nutty whacked out conspiracy theories Hugh, and we are all getting tired of it."

Now it goes more like this: "So what if the majority are interested in your theories? It must be some sort of groupthink or hive-mind phenomenon. The majority of Americans think Saddam was behind 911 - so much for the value of majorities!"

populistindependent wrote:Interesting shift in the criticisms of Hugh.

Huh? I've been critical-slash-accepting of Hugh since I got here. And if you look at this whole thread, most people are (have been) the same. And the voting proves that out.

I have to agree with pan, if only because letting Hugh rant lets others try to claim the same legitimacy for their own rants.

Hugh is much cleverer that others.

-

professorpan wrote:.....
I have no animosity to Hugh, who I find to be oddly endearing in his singular brand of zealous evangelizing. His threadjacking drives men nuts, but this wasn't supposed to be about that, either. Really -- I'm not into character assassination. But fallacy assassination? Sign me up.

My goal is not to flagellate a manatee -- it's to address an idea that the manatee pimps with wild abandon. Not the control of media. Not Walt Disney's alliance with the military. Not obscure linguistic theories, or how words or phrases can be used to obscure or persuade.

That's all good stuff, and Hugh has an impressive and wide knowledge of propaganda and covert history.

That's not what this thread was about. It was an exasperated attempt to discuss an idea. To take one example and hold it up to the light.

But never mind.

Hey, Pan. I empathize with your discomfort when things don't make sense and I wish this made total sense to you.

I, too, need a damn coherent narrative to not just itch all over and I dig and dig until things make sense. Not that they always do or can. But plenty does and with an accumulation of science, history, and correlative events to be logically proven as much as can be without invoices. Certainly more substantive than warrants your inclination to outright dismissal.

You'll see from the text on memory and rumor/narrative I just typed above (whew) that there is, as you probably know, a very clear research-supported science of how to make a story stick to the memory and even continue on in social transmission.
This is why writers and intelligence agencies have been inter-married for so long and I'm not just referring to Ian Fleming and E. Howard Hunt.

There are Americans whose language is mostly from the Bible and others whose language is mostly from 'Star Wars' or '24.'

The US government does try to make sure their language isn't mostly from
Randolph Bourne, Carol Gilligan, John Judge, and Robert Stinnett.

Doesn't that make sense?

A pictogram subliminal message is designed for you to say in words in your mind what it is you see. It only takes a few keywords.

Can you spot the 9/11 disinfo pictogram?

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote: If you're wondering if Don Knotts and Jerry Lewis are 'in on it' then you REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION.

sorry to shout.

Actors don't make the decisions that put 'Borat' or 'The Golden Compass' or 'Star Wars' on the side of my city's buses.

Movies are like wars, they are started and financed and given greenlights for release dates WAY UP THE FOOD CHAIN.

They are wars in the way that they are products being used to grab the public's attention and thus their dollars. Some may be beneficial to American alphabet agencies, both the public and shadowy ones. The production of the majority of movies are not manufactured in micro-detail. I won't say "every movie" because that would be silly. I don't know the production history of every movie and neither do you, based on the general assumptions you make. And I have proven a couple of your assumptions wrong in the past in debates similar to this one.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:
sorry again.

Pat Tillman didn't start the invasion of Afghanistan but he was a very useful unwitting asset. GET IT?

damn. And you wonder why I repeat myself!

You are absolutely correct about 'reality-jacking.' We are drowing in fiction and it is laced with psy-ops, too! That's what I'm pointing at! If everyone is drinking out of the fiction river, don't you think it has been spiked upstream?

I agree that there is "reality jacking" going on and in a huge way. That doesn't mean your theories about movies are right. Even the existence of social consciousness shaping by clandestine organizations does not mean "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" is propaganda product for these people.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:
Hey, quick! What kind of guy does the word 'Mulder' mean to you?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

A hopelessly searching 'conspiracy theorist' who belongs in the National Enquirer?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
What? Not that the South African military tried to buy a Washington DC newpaper to do pro-apartheid propaganda? Connie Mulder? 'Muldergate?' 'The Information Scandal?'
Gosh, why didn't you immediately think that?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Think audiences were just clamoring to see a TV series about military courts? No.
But they got conditioned by J.A.G. long before the Military Commissions Act of 2006 eliminated habeus corpus and the Enlightenment.

I remember when "The X-Files" was on TV and that was before it had even become a hit series. I also remember the series creator discussing why he chose the names Mulder and Scully for the show's two main characters. I did some quick searching and found this answer given on the Wikipedia page for Fox Mulder's name:

"He is possibly of partial Dutch heritage, as Mulder is a Dutch surname meaning Miller. Chris Carter has said that he named Mulder after his mother's maiden name. His first name, Fox, was actually not a tribute to the FOX network which aired The X-Files, as often assumed. Carter said he had a childhood friend named Fox."

So for your theory to be valid Hugh we would have to believe that a nobody special television producer either selected the name "Mulder", or was instructed to use the name, in his conspiracy/UFO TV show "The X-Files" sometime in 1990 when Chris Carter developed and wrote the idea down. The show gets picked up by Fox and an initial order of 13 episodes are given. It has weak ratings but is kept on the air on Friday nights. The 13 episodes become a full season's worth of episodes, followed by a second season before the show starts to see crossover results into the mainstream. And then when Carter is asked where he dreamt up the name he would have to give this pre-prgreammed answer.

So for the name hijacking of Connie Mulder to have been a planned, deliberate thing all of those factors must have occurred.

Tell me Hugh, don't you think that is incredibly far fetched thing to have happened, especially given that the series we're talking about is supposed to have a meme where the government cannot be trusted and is covering up assassinations and your disliked "woo-woo" subjects?

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote: Parents don't even know how their children's minds are shaped and when.
I see hippie-looking young women dressing their cute little girls up in military camo and I stop them and ask them what they think about this and they say, "oh, it's just cute."

No concept of conditioning, normalization, de-sensitization....none.

That is a separate topic and I agree with you that desensitization is prevalent everywhere now but it's far, far more bigger and probably less insidious than you fear. Kids playing violent video games doesn't mean that they grow up to become killers, or kids listening to death metal don't mean that they grow up to become serial killers. You keep mentioning the camo clothing as an example of desensitization but if you want to pull no punches, why not point to the average grocery store and the butcher section? 100 years ago kids would see a lot more death firsthand, real death, not computer characters or nicely cleaned butchered meat products. Kids 100 years ago and further back got to witness hangings, see dead bodies bloat up, help participate in the slaughter of animals if they lived on a farm and so on. My Grandmother is made of heavier stuff than I am in a lot of ways because she grew up on a farm, helped raise and then kill animals. I grew up playing video games where I murdered millions and I cry whenever I see an animal die. I and a lot of people in my generation are still children when it comes to the concept of real death while people born 80 years ago aren't. Your theory doesn't make any sense to me because I believe that we as a society are being protected from dark discussions about things like death, not just from the outcomes of war but in just about every facet. And that has nothing to do with making little girls want to dress up in cameoflage clothing.

And Hugh, you completely dismissed all of my examples of counter-programming films that have been made and released by major movie companies. How do these films fit into your KWH theories? Have you watched them? Are you aware of them? Why don't you want to include for discussion these examples which I think blast holes in your idea of Hollywood being so extensively controlled by KWH?

Saying the name Mulder in "X-Files" was used as KWH by proving that it's a shared surname to someone involved in parapolitical field isn't good science.

...

ASoF, I appreciate your thoughtful answers. It's stupid late in my time zone but quickly-

Attack Ships on Fire wrote: I did some quick searching and found this answer given on the Wikipedia page for Fox Mulder's name:

I wouldn't count on getting the straight answer on how things happened from the suspects, no way.

Here's what I found on Mr. Chris X-Files Carter and two red flags hit me in the face-
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004810/bio

...Carter began his career as a screenwriter in 1985 at The Walt Disney Studios.
...
Brother Craig is a Full Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT.

Tell me Hugh, don't you think that is incredibly far fetched thing to have happened, especially given that the series we're talking about is supposed to have a meme where the government cannot be trusted and is covering up assassinations and your disliked "woo-woo" subjects?

Turning outrageous criminial realities into really witty entertainment innoculates people against acting to change the status quo. When spook culture started to poke out from behind the covert curtain in the early 1960s it was just turned into a cool guitar riff.
The 'X-Files' did the same thing right after Oliver Stone reopened the nation's JFK psychic wound and the internet was up and coming. Good timing.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote: Parents don't even know how their children's minds are shaped and when.
I see hippie-looking young women dressing their cute little girls up in military camo and I stop them and ask them what they think about this and they say, "oh, it's just cute."

No concept of conditioning, normalization, de-sensitization....none.

That is a separate topic and I agree with you that desensitization is prevalent everywhere now but it's far, far more bigger and probably less insidious than you fear. Kids playing violent video games doesn't mean that they grow up to become killers, or kids listening to death metal don't mean that they grow up to become serial killers.

Sure. The effect isn't just about active killing. It is also about getting them to not react socially or politically against it. Or just neutralizing their language with entertainment associations instead of reality associations when they share their notes on 'first shooter' games.

You keep mentioning the camo clothing as an example of desensitization but if you want to pull no punches, why not point to the average grocery store and the butcher section? 100 years ago kids would see a lot more death firsthand, real death, not computer characters or nicely cleaned butchered meat products. Kids 100 years ago and further back got to witness hangings, see dead bodies bloat up, help participate in the slaughter of animals if they lived on a farm and so on.

Sure. But socially, animals are seen differently from people. Today a kid sees people attacked, hurt, killed on TV and movies almost non-stop. That's different psychologically than barnyard eating.

My Grandmother is made of heavier stuff than I am in a lot of ways because she grew up on a farm, helped raise and then kill animals. I grew up playing video games where I murdered millions and I cry whenever I see an animal die. I and a lot of people in my generation are still children when it comes to the concept of real death while people born 80 years ago aren't.

I agree with you about relatives dying. That was much more real in the home in olden days.

Your theory doesn't make any sense to me because I believe that we as a society are being protected from dark discussions about things like death, not just from the outcomes of war but in just about every facet.

Partly right. I put up a thread with info from a US State Department website warning us about how those angry youngsters 'over there' are likely to become terrorists.
But the social process described is exactly what psy-ops media does, create-
"Moral Disengagement."

That's how the consequences of killing are socially distanced to allow it.
THAT'S what we are being shielded from.

And Hugh, you completely dismissed all of my examples of counter-programming films that have been made and released by major movie companies. How do these films fit into your KWH theories? Have you watched them? Are you aware of them? Why don't you want to include for discussion these examples which I think blast holes in your idea of Hollywood being so extensively controlled by KWH?

Those movies were all stunning examples of psy-ops and I've previously written up almost all of them. That's why I haven't addressed them for you yet. They are juicy.
You picked some doozies! 'Network?' Woa. In the very year that Carl Bernstein wrote 'The CIA and the Media' the concept was turned into an over the top almost sci-fi movie. There's lots of mirroring of CIA ops, too. Like the SLA and COINTELPRO against the Black Panthers. And it includes the evil woman who corrupts the grey suited family men, the Mom-Churian Candidate. Whew.

It's late. I'll get back to those hot movies, ASoF. Thanks for your input.

Saying the name Mulder in "X-Files" was used as KWH by proving that it's a shared surname to someone involved in parapolitical field isn't good science.

Used with intent or not, I think it perfectly illustrates the effect of keyword hijacking.

The keywords from 'The X-Files' are used to invoke 'kooky conspiracy theorist.'
That's a perfect counter-propaganda meme-reversal from 'Muldergate.'

And seeing that Chris Carter is a Disney dude with a bro' at MIT and his show kicked in right after Oliver Stone was badjacketed with 'conspiracy theorist' discrediting, I smell spook intent, not coincidence.

Don't forget that this was also the beginning of the Clinton years and his assoCIAtions with Mena Airport, Nella Airport, IranContra cocaine and arms smuggling, training of mujahadeen...all could have tumbled out from behind the curtain.
And eventually some of it did in 1994 when Terry Reed talked and then 1996 when Gary Webb did.

In 1997 a new trial had a jury declare that Martin Luther King was killed by a government conspiracy! There was a new witness, a black FBI agent named Don Wilson.
Sure enough, TV gave us 'Spawn,' about a dead, black, former CIA assassin sent back to Earth from Hell to blah blah....subliminal negative framing of black FBI agent Don Wilson.

So those were really good years to have the 'X-Files' woo-woo working overtime.

That is a separate topic and I agree with you that desensitization is prevalent everywhere now but it's far, far more bigger and probably less insidious than you fear. Kids playing violent video games doesn't mean that they grow up to become killers, or kids listening to death metal don't mean that they grow up to become serial killers. You keep mentioning the camo clothing as an example of desensitization but if you want to pull no punches, why not point to the average grocery store and the butcher section? 100 years ago kids would see a lot more death firsthand, real death, not computer characters or nicely cleaned butchered meat products. Kids 100 years ago and further back got to witness hangings, see dead bodies bloat up, help participate in the slaughter of animals if they lived on a farm and so on. My Grandmother is made of heavier stuff than I am in a lot of ways because she grew up on a farm, helped raise and then kill animals. I grew up playing video games where I murdered millions and I cry whenever I see an animal die. I and a lot of people in my generation are still children when it comes to the concept of real death while people born 80 years ago aren't. Your theory doesn't make any sense to me because I believe that we as a society are being protected from dark discussions about things like death, not just from the outcomes of war but in just about every facet. And that has nothing to do with making little girls want to dress up in cameoflage clothing.

That's another one for the HOF.

But I don't completely agree with it. We as a society are being protected from dark discussions about death? You're in the industry, man, and you don't see that the television shows and movies and video games are literally swimming in more and more realistic simulations of gore?

The effect isn't just about active killing. It is also about getting them to not react socially or politically against it.

Hugh's right.

Hugh I need to get back to your post later today when I have more time.

FourthBase wrote:
But I don't completely agree with it. We as a society are being protected from dark discussions about death? You're in the industry, man, and you don't see that the television shows and movies and video games are literally swimming in more and more realistic simulations of gore?

Oh they are absolutely more realistic about showing murder and mutilation. If you look at 2007 as compared to 1977, today we have far more processing power for the video game consoles so that makes sense why we see blood sprays and dismemberment done in detail in modern games as opposed to something like Atari's "Combat" with its crude block graphics and 4 colors. Television is another prime example; we now live in a 500 channel universe and we're getting more graphic (sexual and violent) content available for viewing as opposed to 1977's 3 channel universe. Movies started to show more graphic violence beginning in the 1960s and we now have more classification for shows to better inform people of what to expect. Pushing the boundaries does mean that the next filmmaker to do it will have to go that one step further. Romero showed us dead cannibals in "Night of the Living Dead" in 1968 but if you compare it to "Dawn of the Dead" in 1979, the latter is far more graphic than its predecessor. I believe that is a result of the advancement of culture, for better or worse, and letting filmmakers have more freedom and sales outlets to market more extreme films.

But again, look back to a time before TV and radio and even magazines. Chances are if you lived pre 1900 you would have seen a lot more death firsthand than we do today. Children were exposed to it at an earlier age. People didn't give sympathy cards when someone's loved one died. Burials and preparation of the body were more hands on for the surviving relatives of the deceased whereas today it's taken care of by anonymous strangers. I think that a valid argument could be made for children being more desensitized to death and violence pre Industrial Revolution than today. For every news report or video game showing a violent act there are also positive reinforcements of entertainment, cartoons and movies providing basic moral lessons to young minds. Would these positive reinforcements have vectors of transmissions to such a wide body of children 100 years ago? Would a child of a day laborer be exposed to the concepts that racism, sexism and bullying are bad things to do? I don't want to argue that we have a perfect society but I do think that too much negativity is placed on facets of modern life that can be used as scapegoats for the role of violence in society.

The effect isn't just about active killing. It is also about getting them to not react socially or politically against it.

Hugh's right.[/quote]

And again, how is today any different than 100, 200, 400 or more years ago? You did your job, maybe as a blacksmith or a farmer or a laborer for a company. 400 years ago when the king or lord needed men to go to war, you were drafted. Your neighbors around you talked about the evil Indians or British or French or Scottish and off you or someone you know went to fight and die. Who wins? The leaders and not you.

The same sort of thing took place throughout the 20th century except that instead of fighting and dying for the political machinations of feudal lords or kings it was for nation states and their ideology. You don't want your populace to think too much about dying because you want more land or resources so you dress it up with dying because your leader is a blessed man by God or your beliefs are just and your enemy is evil. Any way that you slice it it's still propaganda and social control. Rarely does a just cause line up with the sacrifice of individuals when it comes to war.

TV and popular entertainment can be used as a form of societal control and in many different ways. Filmmakers may make a TV show or movie solely for good reasons and no malicious or duplicitous intent was behind it but the end product can still be used in nefarious ways. So can books. So can ideas. This isn't a new thing under the sun.

4,000 years ago the Egyptian lords got their slaves to build pyramids. They worked 6 or even 7 days a week, likely in 10 to 14 hour shists, and what did they get for their effort? Fermented brew to get drunk on every night and the ability to start a family/procreate. Maybe they also believed in what they were doing because of religious reasons. So what's the difference between those people and the wage slave of today worried about making their mortgage payments and to their kid's ballgame? Not a lot if you ask me.

The meme at work in the X Files is not merely that the government can't be trusted. That is presented as a self-evident fact that the audience is assumed to accept prior to watching. The real message in the X Files is that there's nothing you can do about it, and that if you don't worry about it, it won't affect you negatively. Bad things (really bad things) happen only to people who ask questions. Those who accept the fiction and obediently wear their blinders are just fine.

This message starts to appear in the early 70s. It replaces the previous one that was disseminated in the highly engineered Jack Webb productions such as Dragnet (can anyone deny THAT one?). In a typical 60s police procedural, the message is that there is due process, and that because the government is made up of people like you and me, it can be trusted to look after our best interests. Even if in the short term it looks bad, we can trust that in the end, due process will see us through.

There is a sudden shift, in the early 70s, to a different sort of message. It starts with Dirty Harry. In Dirty Harry, John Milius asks us whether we are really confident that due process always works for us in the end. The answer he wants us to come up with is of course "no". 24 has nothing on the torture scene in Dirty Harry.

There follows a string of film and television productions in which the protagonists are increasingly helpless to control their own destiny, and who suffer only because they try to. This is a far cry from the message of the 50s and 60s that, despite all appearances to the contrary, despite what you may be feeling, you are in fact in control of your destiny, in a system designed to protect your ability to control your destiny. The object is the same (social control), but the strategy is different.

The culmination so far of this shift in message is CSI. Now, because of the X Files, we know that we'll only get in trouble if we ask questions. Because of CSI we know that we can run, but we can't possibly hide. They WILL get us if we misbehave, because they have the voodoo and we don't. So why don't we just recline in our vat of goop and let the wires pipe-in our pleasant artificial reality through our wide open ports? Orwell warned us, but we didn't listen. Now it must be too late to do anything but give in.

Whether this shift merely reflects changing societal attitudes, or whether it is partly or wholly engineered, it is real. Hugh's contributions help me reflect on the extent to which there is engineering.

I voted for the second choice. It just occurred to me, is the band U2 the ultimate keyword hijacker...

"I love you dear."

"I love U2"

They hijack all that emotion just by playing with semantics a bit!!! It's insane!

People hardly ever say "Fuck U2", so they don't get all that much negative energy from it. Bono Vox is probably an alien that feeds off of people's thought energy. His (or rather it's) name itself is a 'KWHJ'!!! He's probably the Beast as foretold in the book of Revulations. A lizard to be sure. That's why he's so interested in helping the Africans, they're it's favorite foodsource next to hijacked emotions and distorted intentionality. They hijacked the Beatles rooftop/get busted video too - damn them!

The Edge... k w h j.

Larry Mullen Jr. - an anagram for 'aliens rule us'

And the other guy... shadow dude. Proabaly the most dangerous one, the fourth horseman whose name cannot be uttered.

I'm not even gonna get in to the subliminals in their music, I don't think the public is ready for that yet. But they know we're on to them, that's what that song 'With or Without Hugh' was all about.

above post hall of fame 4 sure

Easy on the HOF nominations, didn't mean to start a flood.

But again, look back to a time before TV and radio and even magazines. Chances are if you lived pre 1900 you would have seen a lot more death firsthand than we do today. Children were exposed to it at an earlier age. People didn't give sympathy cards when someone's loved one died. Burials and preparation of the body were more hands on for the surviving relatives of the deceased whereas today it's taken care of by anonymous strangers. I think that a valid argument could be made for children being more desensitized to death and violence pre Industrial Revolution than today. For every news report or video game showing a violent act there are also positive reinforcements of entertainment, cartoons and movies providing basic moral lessons to young minds. Would these positive reinforcements have vectors of transmissions to such a wide body of children 100 years ago? Would a child of a day laborer be exposed to the concepts that racism, sexism and bullying are bad things to do? I don't want to argue that we have a perfect society but I do think that too much negativity is placed on facets of modern life that can be used as scapegoats for the role of violence in society.

Even if people saw more death firsthand, they surely saw far far far far far less death overall (firsthand and secondhand combined, real and simulated combined). And if we want to talk about the degree to which pre-Industrial children were desensitized, then we probably ought to define which children we're talking about. Just the poor urban working class?

Oh they are absolutely more realistic about showing murder and mutilation. If you look at 2007 as compared to 1977, today we have far more processing power for the video game consoles so that makes sense why we see blood sprays and dismemberment done in detail in modern games as opposed to something like Atari's "Combat" with its crude block graphics and 4 colors. Television is another prime example; we now live in a 500 channel universe and we're getting more graphic (sexual and violent) content available for viewing as opposed to 1977's 3 channel universe. Movies started to show more graphic violence beginning in the 1960s and we now have more classification for shows to better inform people of what to expect. Pushing the boundaries does mean that the next filmmaker to do it will have to go that one step further. Romero showed us dead cannibals in "Night of the Living Dead" in 1968 but if you compare it to "Dawn of the Dead" in 1979, the latter is far more graphic than its predecessor. I believe that is a result of the advancement of culture, for better or worse, and letting filmmakers have more freedom and sales outlets to market more extreme films.

Whatever the reason, the violence simulated has become as realistic as you can get, and it's not just a fringe niche market, it's primetime television. And it's not just the realism in the depiction, it's the constant deluge. Every fucking show is about murder, basically. Not just murder...gruesome, twisted murder.

I think Hugh is trying to promote a certain catalytic reaction among the members here.

DrVolin wrote:Whether this shift merely reflects changing societal attitudes, or whether it is partly or wholly engineered, it is real. Hugh's contributions help me reflect on the extent to which there is engineering.

Good statement there. That is how I see it, as well.