HMW, what's your take on this?

by **professorpan** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:28 am

I presented a fairly long, extensive refutation of your Nacho Libre theory, including interviews with the writers and a detailed example of how many people would have to be in collusion or outright lying in order to support such a massive PSYOP. I also pointed out how much manpower, time, and money would have to go into producing something that would have very little effect on public consciousness and how little average U.S. moviegoers care about Mexican campesino politics in the first place. I went to considerable lengths to point out the improbability of such a gargantuan effort that would have minimal impact on the 18-34 moviegoing demographic, most of whom wouldn't give a rat's ass about some guy fighting for peasant rights in Mexico. Yet you cling to that crumbling cornchip as if it is the lynchpin of your entire theory, refusing to acknowledge that -- just maybe -- Nacho Libre might be what it appears to be on the surface: a comedy, starring Jack Black, with no agenda beyond making people laugh and bringing in the summer movie bucks. In your world of omnipotent media control there is no room for an agenda-free comedy, so you seek out confirmation of a hidden agenda. That's not rigorous research -- that's confirmation bias. I also posted an interview with the director of "March of the Penguins." He describes, quite clearly, the genesis of the film. You refused to accept his story. I suppose all of the writers, directors, and producers who talk about how their films are conceived are in cahoots or blatant liars? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm done with being patronized and razzed with nothing coming from you except that you claim to know writers and low-level technicians in the movie industry as if that were even relevant. <hr></blockquote> It is relevant that I know people who work day to day in the industry that you've continually portrayed as one vast PSYOP factory. You've demonstrated an ignorance of the basic motivator of the capitalist media system: money. You've also demonstrated that you don't know how the industry works, over and over again, positing things like DVDs with dog themes appearing in stores to coincide with the obscure trial of an Abu Ghraib guard -- something that would take an extraordinary amount of planning and money and accomplish nothing. But the main problem with your theory is that it so all-encompassing that stretches probability to the breaking point. It turns tens of thousands of people into baldfaced liars or ignorant pawns. There's no room for "some, but not all" (or sumbunall, as Robert Anton Wilson posits). Obvious pieces of propaganda, such as Annapolis, are mixed up with non-propaganda, like Nacho Libre. Like most grand theories of conspiracy, you overreach -- there's no allowance for the complex and muddled motivations of a giant industry, no possibility that there are some instances of controlled propaganda, but also instances of films made solely to entertain and make money for the studios. And, most importantly, there is no room for doubt -- you, Hugh Manatee Wins, have the final and incontrovertible say about what is or isn't a crafted psyop. Contrary opinions and sincere questions only make you dig your heels in deeper. That's not how you find the truth, which is often complex, multilayered, and doesn't easily fit into neat little categories or simplistic theories. If you showed a little more openness to criticism it would be easier to discuss the merits of your theories. As it stands, you paint anyone who doesn't accept your ideas as debunkers, lacking sufficient education, or emotionally unable to handle the harsh reality of "how it really works." That's why I seem to be dogging you. But I'm only trying to suggest alternatives to your grand theory, and to point out that some collusion and media manipulation certainly exists, but that doesn't mean every example of film and tv entertainment is part of a vast, coordinated propaganda effort.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:30 pm

Ah. PP, this is a useful substantive post and I appreciate your articulating a counter-summary of your views on the topic and our interaction. You're right. The issue of Necessary Proportion of Infrastructure matched to Target Audience Predispositionn and Behavior is an important relationship to discern and a good place to focus. Though I did respond to you that writers and directors need not be overtly complicit in movie industry social engineering for the government. Both compartmentalization and plausible deniability rely on exploiting genuine and sincere agents as assets in schemes they don't know about. Like the relationship between the National inSecurity Council and the soldiers who do their messy work for them. Which cards are played at what point in the game is how psychic poker works.  Who did Karl Rove meet with after 9/11? Un-named studio executives. More after coffee. lol. Catch ya soon. p.s. Readers, for text book psy-ops, rent the 2004 movie 'The Terminal' starring Tom Hanksand Catherine Zeta Jones directed by Steven Spielberg. Look at the news cycle at the time. Count the many CFR/CIA mind viruses embedded in that 'romantic comedy.'

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:08 pm

Still on Fight Club Perhaps Rove was saying something along the lines of movies where people demolish sky scrapers using charges in an attempt to destroy the opressive power of global capitalist soul eating scumfucks are no longer acceptable. Especially when they look so like the twin towers. further baseless speculation: Why would he want to do that? He could well be just doing his job, and thinking that the official line was true. in which case the offense he feels is obvious. He could be a hapless soldier doing some messy work. He could be in on it. And not real happy about seeing those towers fall. Cos its a bit better organised in that film and if someone really wanted to bring down the world of global capital they probably could. "Which cards are played at what point in the game is how psychic poker works." There's a bit more to it than that, poker's a funny game. That psychic poker idea kind of implies that there is another agenda at work too, one that is competing with the spooks in memetic warfare.

by **professorpan** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Though I did respond to you that writers and directors need not be overtly complicit in movie industry social engineering for the government. <hr></blockquote> Let's take the Nacho Libre bit, then. The writers of the movie have stated the way the movie took shape -- not in a smoky basement room in Langley, but out of Jared Hess's fascination with Lucha Libre (Mexican wrestling) and a article he saw about a Mexican priest who wrestled to make money to support orphans. <a href="http://movies.radiofree.com/interviews/nacholib_jared_hess.shtml">movies.radiofree.com/inte...hess.shtml</a> And co-writer Mike White and Jack Black were in on the planning from the beginning: <a href="http://movies.radiofree.com/interviews/nacholib_jack_black.shtml">movies.radiofree.com/inte...lack.shtml</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>JACK: Mainly it was wanting to work with Jared Hess. Great director. Loved Napoleon Dynamite. And I wanted me some of that Dynamite action--some of that sweet Nappy D! Good stuff. So me and my partner Mike White--we got a movie company now, called Black and White--called him up and said, "Hey, let's party." And he said, "It's a coincidence. I wanted to party with you guys because I liked School of Rock." So we hung out and tried to think of something to do, and he was like, "You know, I've always been really obsessed with Mexican wrestling, with Lucha Libre. Would you want to be in a movie where you were a Mexican wrestler?" And I was like, "Well, if you're at the helm, my friend, then I will go with you!"<hr></blockquote> The simplest explanation, which would not require an immense amount of orchestration and coverup, is that Hess, White, and Jack Black are telling the truth, and that the movie is as it seems -- goofy entertainment. Your theory requires that they are all lying. It also requires many other very improbable things: that Mockingbird psyops planners (unidentified,as always) feared a minor, scarcely reported campesino uprising would case ripples in the 18-34 moviegoing demographic (good luck there!); that planning for such an unlikely event would be undertaken far in advance of Nacho del Valle's arrest (the first and only mention of him in the U.S. alternative media); and that the psyops team felt so strongly about the potential for Nacho del Valle to become an icon of resistance that they were willling to put millions of dollars into an elaborate ruse to what boils down to thwarting the google searches of a tiny fraction of the U.S. public who might hear about an obscure activist in Mexico and hit the web for more information. Okay, which is more likely, Hugh? Honestly? Can you, for even a moment, consider you are wrong about this flick being a piece of propaganda?

by **johnny nemo** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:57 pm

I thought that the movie "Fight Club" was little more than your average Hollywood fair, i.e. stories ripped off piecemeal, retold and resold. The soap-making from human fat and multiple personality vehicle seemed to me to be from Leonard Cohen's book Beautiful Losers. The sparring, quest for enlightenment and in particular the scene where people stand outside a house for 3 days with no food or water awaiting permission to be trained, reminded me of the movie Kung Fu I asked this over in the Veronica Mars thread and will do so again. What about the movie "Heathers"? The plotline is : A guy in a black trenchcoat wanders around school, killing off the popular people. He plants explosives and plans to blow up the school, but the bombs don't detonate and he commits suicide. Just like Columbine. Maybe the kids watched the movie and were "inspired" or maybe there was something else going on? I still remember the reports of a 3rd shooter who was never found. I will add the very pertinent links that NewKid provided. <a href="http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/littleton.htm" target="top">www.davesweb.cnchost.com/littleton.htm</a> <a href="http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr8.html" target="top">www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr8.html </a> While I think that movies like "Heathers" could be used as a PSYOP tool, I certainly don't think that every Hollywood movie is PSYOP motivated, because, frankly, most of the crap that the studios puts out is as deep as a petri dish. A movie like "How to Lose A Guy in 10 Days" is just escapist pap served to the masses in order to rid them of cash. In the movie Tomb Raider, the heroine fights the Illuminati and wins. How can that be used to foment despondency?

by **professorpan** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:47 pm

The movie Fight Club was based (quite faithfully) on a novel by Chuck Palahniuk. <a href="http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/books/fightclub/">www.chuckpalahniuk.net/books/fightclub/</a> I thought the film and book were both very clever and stylish. A ripoff? Well, ultimately, every story contains elements from other stories. I found Fight Club to be original and refreshing, especially when compared to most Hollywood pablum. Palahniuk's latest novel, Ghost, was pretty insipid. Buckets of gore and little else. The chapter about the guy in the pool, however, is one of the most stomach-curdling things I've ever read. Some people have been known to vomit or pass out when he reads it at book signings -- it's that nauseating. As far as "Heathers" is concerned, it's quite probably that the Dylan and Klebold (and whoever else was involved in Columbine) were acquainted with the film. There's no need for HMW-style extrapolation that the film was a psyop -- but it's easy to believe the Columbine shooters had seen the film and gravitated toward the message of alienated kids plotting to blow up their school. Hell, the Ramones did it (in Rock and Roll High School), and Stephen King wrote a short story that had eerie resonance with the Columbine massacre. Only the most literal minded theorists would suggest that The Ramones and Stephen King were co-conspirators to prep the masses for a wave of school violence. Animosity between marginalized kids and their taunting schoolmates is as old as the hills, and one can find many examples of stories of schoohouse revenge in books and films.

by **johnny nemo** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:12 pm

I loved Fight Club and thought it was quite a departure from the usual Hollywood pablum, as well. It was because the other material I checked out by the author was such sh*te that I became convinced that he had borrowed from Kung Fu and Beautiful Losers. I know for a fact that the "dream teams" in Hollywood plagiarize and pirate, as I was involved in a film, once upon a time, where the producer stole a line of my dialogue and then cut my appearance out of the film. I'm not bitter, just stating a fact. It is eerie how closely the Columbine massacre followed the movie Heathers, especially the failed detonations of explosives and the "suicide" of some of the shooters. I'm not claiming PSYOP. I'm thinking more along the lines of a tulpa, i.e. a thought form created that then comes to life. Not sure if I believe that per se, but that's where my mind wanders to when such things occur.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:49 pm

I don't care how derivative FC was, I agree with pro pan. But I don't really go to movies either, or watch them on video or dvd. So I can't really compare it to other Hollywood pap. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Animosity between marginalized kids and their taunting schoolmates is as old as the hills, and one can find many examples of stories of schoohouse revenge in books and films.<hr></blockquote> I saw Heathers 15 years ago, or there abouts. at the time Christinan Slater (is that that the hero?) was a biggish star. I know a lot of people that loved that film. Mostly girls in the 15 - 20 age bracket, who were alternative, you know like Daria (the animation that has MTV in the credits, tho I am sure they will market anything. Actually one of the girls who was most into Heathers was named Daria. I can't remember the film that well, but I seem to remember Christian Slater's character just losing the plot, becoming an eog tripping nut. Thats why he finally blew the joint up. I actually new a guy who tried to blow his school up, but thats another story. There was a lot of movies at that time, sort of alternative, trying to be shocking, aimed at yoof, especially 18 to 20 year old girls into alternative "culture"... This was pre Nirvana if I remember rightly. One point about black leather overcoats. They look cool on a screen. But people have been hiding shotguns under overcoats for a long time, and not just cos of some movies they saw. Ok on another level a figure in black dispensing death. Its as old as the hills, and waiting for all of us, that archetype. In a society where arbitrary death and power seem so inextricably tangled up, do you need a mind control progrom to inspire kids to go crazy. I remember what I was like in my teens and we did some dodgy things. To get a bit of our own power. Perhaps Columbine was all it seemed from the outside (p'raps not). Maybe those kids just got so pissed off that they lost it. After feeling so powerless in their lives they invoked that archetype of ultimate power, and couldn't handle it (who can?). They didn't fit in, saw america worked a certain way and tried to let some of that into their soul, so they could actually fit into adult society in some way, and not end up under some rail bridge somewhere. You don't need a black ops mind control program to create this situation. And Columbine... Nobody noticed that sort of thing in "black" schools in the 10 or more years leading up to it. Is it only shocking when white middle class kids kill? What sort mind control agenda does that reflect.

by **NavnDansk** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 8:24 am

Thank you for your work Hugh. I think again and again of Huxley's suggestion in Brave New World REVISITED that to prevent another hitler and people "wearing homburgs to work on the trains who showed a savageness worse than the worst savages." that propaganda analysis should be taught in the schools. Of course it never will be but much of what is only left blogosphere messageboards is very hands on analysis of propaganda as it happens and is good training. I have learned a lot and trust my own instincts more about stories coming out of the MSM. I think it is so important to talk about dissecting propaganda whether it is paid for by Mockingbird or is unconcious on the part of the perpetrators. It is all good. Keep at it. I have learned a lot from your posts on what is being sold in the "entertainment" industry. There is a phrase - Don't feed You Know Who which might be pertinent to more productive conversations.

by **professorpan** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:38 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>There is a phrase - Don't feed You Know Who which might be pertinent to more productive conversations.<hr></blockquote> And who, if I may ask, are you calling a troll?

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:44 am

Hey, ProfP- I think you just disagree with me for your stated reasons and I will continue the discussion of what is possible because that certainly counts in determining what is therefore probable. As long as we can stay amicable and try not to be insulting we can have a grand ole chew on things. But be warned, I'm right and you're wrong. lol.

by **Attack Ships on Fire** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:07 am

I'd just like to commend Professor Pan for writing his/her first post on the first page in this thread. It summed up all of my thoughts on this subject and the Prof did it better than I could have done. There might be some psyop Hollywood stuff out there, but I don't believe for a second that the majority of mainstream film has embedded psyop memes. The biggest overriding concern for Hollywood people is to make money; in this area they are shameless. They're not bad people. They know that most average citizens want to spend 2 hours zoned out, living life through the eyes of some make believe hero/heroine. I honestly believe it is as simple as that. Hugh, have you considered that you are focusing so much on wanting to see something that you are interpreting with a bias? It's easy to get lost amongst the trees in the forest of mysteries.

by **NavnDansk** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:36 am

Wrote some notes that might be useful for SERIOUS discussion of the topic which is one of the most important - influencing public opinion which has allowed so much horror to be perpetrated without the kind of protest that would have stopped it reaching this point and the point they intend: Hugh, I’m not much of a writer but may find some of answers to Pan’s questions on how the PTBs convince so many people to join them in their conspiracy to influence public opinion in very complex ways in Aldous Huxley’s experiences. Also in addition to the horror of the MK-ULTRA human experimentation the types of experiments which are used on a wider societal bases are interesting in learning how they find the “buttons” to press in directing or creating mass movements. THE MYTHING LINK - Myth to explain stages of life Jean Houston Gina to her Italian grandmother and other relatives, not much on her mother who maybe wasn’t as much of a character as her joke writing comedian Swedish father and his relatives and her very tough funny little grandmother. THE MYTHING LINK - Funniest book I ever read about important subjects. Houston’s autobiography. First read her LIFEFORCE which is more serious and very interesting in the use of myth and the spiral stages of life and her healing workshops. Lorelei The author of GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES wrote also BUT THEY MARRY BRUNETTES, a sort of impressionist autobiography. She was friends with Huxley and when Huxley told her he turned down a screenwriting job he was interested in because they were going to pay him an obscene amount of money to do it and with all the suffering and poverty, he didn’t think it was right to be paid that much, the writer said “Well, Aldous, why don’t you keep the amount of money you think is fair for the job and give the rest to charity.” Which he did, “sometime intellectuals are so stupid.” RINF website, section on Huxley that stated he, as a member of the elite class (his scientist father and grandfather) was involved in think tanks, never came across this fact when I used to read about Huxley, and the article seems to call Huxley both a useful idiot/genius, which I can believe and also complicit with the PTBs, which I am more skeptical about, because the ultimate message of Brave New World is that this terrible social engineering was going to take place and there was nothing we could do about it. Jean Houston wrote of meeting Huxley when he was in Hollywood and asking him why the ending of his novel ISLAND (AH’s utopia that is destroyed by British oil companies using false flags and all the other tricks we are growing used to reading about) was so depressing and implying a failure of any attempt to fight the PTBs. Huxley told her that when his California house burned down the only copy of Island manuscript was destroyed and he had to write from memory and maybe a few notes and the book was due at the publisher. I guess he was tired of working on it and it must be discouraging to lose your work that way so he never got back to it but Houston seemed happy that Huxley had intended a more hopeful ending. I don’t know a lot about the work of Think Tanks but though their representatives are working more directly at shaping public opinion by going on news talk shows, it sounds like they have been social engineering below the radar for quite a while and that the use of intellectuals and popular authors by inviting them to think tank meetings and convincing them of the necessity and usefulness (and morality - for their own good type of con) of manipulating public opinion through creative work sound very, very plausible and has been going on a long time. Huxley, in his early work was very satirical but also obviously haunted by pain and human suffering. His wife was a Buddhist and found help with that philosophy in dealing with fear of death and the suffering of her cancer and a lot of ISLAND is about hypnosis, healing and pain control. In DH Lawrence Review a writer said that Huxley was basically a scientific rationalist who had a brief mystical period under the influence of DHL. Huxley’s legal experimentations with LSD, which is a horribly destructive drug, I think, and his book THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION which just preceded and influenced the 60’s “Drug Culture” I think was an example of Huxley being manipulated and in turn manipulating public opinion for something Huxley thought was the greater good since he was very interested in spiritual experiences esp. to put against the pain and suffering and injustice of this world and that was misused the PTBs in their think tanks and other ways of “influencing” and social engineering. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=navndansk>NavnDansk</A> at: 6/21/06 3:45 am

by **NavnDansk** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:55 am

There are interesting sections in the book DOCTOR ZHIVAGO about the changing belief systems of the communists after they 'won'. The main way of influencing public opinion was through professional meetings. Zhivago got sick of having to attend so many meetings on "the right communist style of thought" esp. when it changed so often. He just wanted to do his work as a doctor and was willing to agree to any political and moral philosphy because he was sick of all the talk and the death and suffering caused by it but THE POLITICALLY CORRECT THOUGHT ON WHICH YOUR PROFESSION AND YOUR LIFE DEPENDED KEPT CHANGING. Rod Steiger's Komarovsky in the movie had an interesting line, very passionately delivered, in warning summing up this deadly version of social control: "Yuri Andreavitch, there is a certain communist style, which few people live up, to but no one flouts as you do and you are endangering not only yourself but also Larrisa Antipova and the child." (Sounds like religious standards or a cocktail party in the way it is phrased.) His half brother in the book and the movie also pretend not to like his poetry because it is not politically correct, and therefore dangeous enough to cost Yuri's life and his family. Though Zhivago just thinks of it as his personal point of view on personal matters but "The personal life in Russia is dead." Yuri Zhivago really believes the then current meme that trying to retain private property is "Like trying to forget the alphabet or running around without your clothes." Society had evolved beyond privatism in any capacity. Everybody knows and even Zhivago takes as an established fact of the Revolution that personal property is a primitive idea which no one believes in anymore when he and his wife try to eke out a living gardening in the remote dacha which once belonged to her family and which even Zhivago "sees" as stealing since the fact that it belonged to his wife's family before the Revolution is irrelevant. When I first read Zhivago, I could not understand why it was banned by the Soviets and only after a number of readings did I see what a profoundly anti-Communist book it is. As Helen Muchnic wrote in her wonderful article on Pasternak that "The Revolution is one of Doctor Zhivago's great themes but the book is really about how and why poetry is written." I don't think Pasternak knew and I am just finding out about how the PTB's manipulated and maybe caused 'The Revolution' and one of the first things I read on this was - Skull and Bones: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know But Were Afraid to Ask - online and there is almost a throwaway line in that very long article "the Bushs and the McBundys took Germany and the Harrimans took Russia". The reason why this SB article was so believable to me after Kerry took a dive in 2004 was that the Washington Post has been hinting about this things for decades in mentioning the Northwoods papers and the horrors done in South America by the CIA, sometimes in article in the Style section on different topics, and some of the pieces of the puzzle that I had not thought of being such fit into the information in this article and others like it on a "Hidden Hand" influencing events. WaPo would often mention in a variety of articles, sometimes on just a personality who happened to be Russian, also that in Soviet Russia and China people knew (mysteriously?) that they had to read in between the lines in the coverage of political events since the State would never allow the unvarnished truth to be published. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=navndansk>NavnDansk</A> at: 6/21/06 5:04 am

by **NavnDansk** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:29 am

Rain, perfect reference for the way the PTBs are not even trying to hide what they are doing as in Grover Norquest's response to a question on why he was being so upfront in his "reality" comment was that the conservative "revolution" had gone so far and was so established that he did not think it needed to be kept hidden any longer. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will," Cheney added. "We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world." "A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful," Cheney continued. "That's the world these folks operate in, and so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective...'<hr></blockquote> There was an interesting thread in the archives which I cannot find with a URL link to the OSS group that George Orwell worked for during the war and where he got many of the facts behind the fiction of BRAVE NEW WORLD. He was not psychic but knew what the end game was from having been a part of the "official" psyops. The URL was to a site which had an article and copies of the work of the Ministry of Propaganda on "How to Start A Rumor" taking into account the vulnerabilites of the working and life conditions of the targets and thier educational level and apparent these rumors and "wheels within wheels" were put into effect during the war and is "proof" of the immense power grab of government psyops. Daily Kos had a very strange link to and official site of UK Psyops for sale in Asia and photos of people in large, dark rooms looking into computers much like smaller versions of NASA which seemed to be a real site. Have the link somewhere and will try to find since it seemed amazing that the UK would advertise such services on the Internet.

HMW, what's your take on this?

Evidence

Re: Evidence

Re: That Rove meeting

Re: Evidence

Re: Evidence

Fight Club

Re: Fight Club

Re: Fight Club

Re: ProfPan: "John Hughes a tool of the illuminati.&

Re: ProfPan: "John Hughes a tool of the illuminati.&

Re: ProfPan: "John Hughes a tool of the illuminati.&

Re: ProfPan: "John Hughes a tool of the illuminati.&

Re: SERIOUS discussion of the topic

Re: Serious Discussion of Topic

Re: Serious Discussion of Topic

Who is online