Dollhouse - MC based series on fox.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Hysterical.

An anonymous username claims to represent All of Hollywood Writers and dismisses psyops history since WWII with a minimizing characterization -

"throw the odd bonus bone to the agencies and agents with a social or propaganda agenda."

So it must be truuuueee!

Oh, but then he throws in the Chip CIA Berlet line about "paranoia." Perfect.

[peartreed]

Au contraire.

Psyops history since WW2 is very real. What isn't real is the claim by some old goats that "The Men Who Stare At Goats" -aka the CIA - are everywhere and orchestrating everything in the mass media. Paranoia simply distorts a proper perspective on the relative impact of psyops in the mix of media influences, and an insular focus on American media and culture can not derive and apply findings to the entire world of film and television entertainment. The distinction is in discernment of the degree of distortion involved in paranoid delusion.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Clarification - my previous criticism was of Simulist for attempting to scornfully place your anonymous online unproven denials as 'obviously' displacing mine, which are extensive for almost 7 years now and practically fill the "Psyops' forum at this site.

What isn't real is the claim.......the CIA - are everywhere and orchestrating everything in the mass media.

Only what gets on the air and in theaters and on VHS/DVD and newstands and magazines and children's stories and....

Wrong. Decades of media conglomeration to a few monopolies has allowed a near total control of publicly visible media by government intelligence agencies around the world. CIA competes with MI6 and Mossad and KGB etc. but....

The more times you use the word "paranoid" with no information, the less credible your denials are.
on edit: Yikes.
Especially given your post about your working with Whitley Strieber and finding out that the Pentagon was monitoring his followers to exploit 'the fringe'-
But controlling media wouldn't be a priority? C'mon. Get real.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32384&start=30

As a former regular participant who was also banned from Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country for criticizing some of his claims and overreactions online, I can endorse many of LilyPat's observations and speculations about the man and his site. Her analysis of the possibility of WS being a survivor of trauma, apparently dissociative and highly suggestive, even of being unconsciously manipulated by mind control experimenters, is borne out in my own observations from interactions with him. Since I've also worked with Whitley Strieber in a forerunner forum during the nineties, one that he abandoned but used as a template for his UC site, CompuServe's UFO Forum, I was able to study his online and offline interactions with his co-workers and followers over a number of years. To say that his writings over time are as inconsistent, contradictory and confusing as his behavior is an understatement.

Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) could explain some of it, particularly the frequent self-contradictory versions of his changing stories in his writings and broadcasts. His blending of his highly creative imaginal realm with his writings and broadcasts may also illustrate a very thin veil in his perceptive partitions of realities. But the most undermining aspect of his credibility is his seemingly very fragile form of magalomania, the supersensitive ego positioning itself to be the ultimate intermediary between mankind, the aliens and our collectively chaotic future.

Years ago, when we found the Pentagon's "Weird Desk" under Dr. Roland Pandolphi in the Directorate of Science and Technology was monitoring CompuServe's UFO Forum in part to track UFO sightings as they might correspond with avionic or black ops weapons testing, there were also some engaging exchanges and jocular shots between the intel agents and the self-described ufologists reporting the phenomena. Whitley's "Communion" was then a popular target, as was he as its author, but the government interest was intense regarding the influence he was having on the "lunatic fringe" - as they viewed us. We suspected some of that "harassment" may have unhinged him into setting up his own online site where he could exert better control of culling experimenters from experiencers and spooks from kooks.

The main point I wanted to make was that Whitley Strieber epitomizes a continuing, monitored social experiment in the peripheries of the paranormal.

Peartreed

[peartreed]

It's hard to keep up with your constant editing of your posts while I try to reply. The WS example you cited was about intel monitoring of UFO reports on an obscure forum that might be misidentifying black ops weaponry testing. It was not supportive of your claim of CIA orchestrating all mass media.

It’s too tiresome to try to dislodge you from your delusions, but suffice it to say that even the dozen or so multimedia global conglomerates currently dominating the delivery of news and entertainment are not a singular CIA-controlled cabal of content and censorship conspiracy, nor are all international cultures today a result of CIA spook scripting, shaping or , I suppose, shape-shifting psyop semantics.

Believe it or not, the world is full of talented originators of writing and reporting as well as highly-trained and experienced producers, performers and production personnel that work individually, and mostly independently, to make the multimedia messages that you are attributing to anonymous alphabet-soup agents who never appear on the editorial pages nor on the rolling credits.

If your claims were true we’d have wasted billions in incomes, revenues and residual payments to a plethora of paid shills serving only as a false front for hidden hacks. And the mass audiences of their work have been moved to vicariously absorb all the stories, adventures, performances, passions and sublime sensory experiences simply through CIA underling con-artistry and semantical special effects.

Your world view does not fit the real world I have intimately worked in.

I repeat, the distinction is in the discernment of the degree of distortion involved in both your psyops premise of complete media control, and in your paranoid delusion.

[Simulist]

Clarification - my previous criticism was of Simulist for attempting to scornfully place your anonymous online unproven denials as 'obviously' displacing mine, which are extensive for almost 7 years now and practically fill the "Psyops' forum at this site.

Oh, Hugh... About the only thing there that isn't questionable is the scorn from me that you were perceiving — none of it being directed at Peartreed of course, because he's both admirable and brilliant. (And also appears to be quite sane. Which, um... is a big plus.)

Have a nice day.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Re: the original post-

You can't miss the reference to 'Valley of the Dolls' film released in December 1967, again in 1969, and on television in 1981.



The theme of women hurting themselves on pills and booze served perfectly to reinforce the cover story of the murder of journo Dorothy Kilgallen who told friends she was going to bust the JFK murder wide open.



A JFK-plot perp, Clay Shaw, was on trial from 1967-1969 and then there was the truth hang-over after
the 1976-1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations.

The 1981 Committee on Ballistic Acoustics was charged with reviewing the HSCA’s acoustic evidence...,

Then there's the decades of MKULTRA decoys as fictional scripts....

A Congressional hearing report from 1965 on behavioral science and national security actually listed research grants on hypnosis for the Navy and Air Force. 'The Control of Candy Jones' (1976 about Jessica Wilcox) is a must read before you watch reruns of 'Three's Company.'

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

And to bring violence against women up to today's news cycle....as Obama was bragging from Afghanistan on the first anniversary of the 'neutralization of bin Laden,' National Propaganda Radio gave us a story about an Afghan woman protected by US troops so she wouldn't be killed by her brothers for an honor crime.
This was only broadcast to portray the US military as Defenders of Womanity ( a lie to counter all the war 'collateral damage').

Entire nations of women and children live under traumatic violence-enforced mind-control by patriarchal social orders of violent men fueled by 'magic books.'
This is not a rare status for certain internet posters to dominate as their own so they can shout down people who expose mass mind control.

This is the way of the military man's world of psyops and conditioning for the masses.

[jlaw172364]

I think there are merits to both sides of the argument.

We know, thanks to that Stonor Saunders book, that the CIA promoted the financing of "modern" or abstract art during the Cold War to demoralize the Soviet intelligensia by showing that more artistic freedom was allowed in the United States. Artists who might have languished in obscurity for want of an audience were promoted as being geniuses, and their work was studied, talked about, written up, and many of them amassed fortunes. But it was all largely due to with a psychological warfare operation. What if the rich people who joined the CIA had decided that wasn't necessary? We might never have heard of Jackson Pollock.

So don't think that Hugh is completely off his rocker.

Where I think he goes wrong, at least in this case, is his seeming absolute certainty that he knows the motives behind the release of every movie, as if it were tied to some event surrounding obscure persons within the countercultural movement. Like that Catlett woman. The vast majority of the U.S. would never have heard of her because they're too busy working their dull jobs, taking mind-altering substances, and then watching baseball.

And Hugh would also be on sounder footing if he alleged that the CIA funds images of self-destruction to encourage people to self-destruct, as a form of population control, than say, to cover up the alleged killing of one individual. That's too much energy and effort directed at just one person that isn't in keeping with the subtlety and economy of an actual COINTELPRO program.

For example, it wouldn't be a good allocation of COINTELPRO resources to make a multi-million dollar movie production SOLELY for the purposes of obfuscating the facts surrounding a political assassination. But it might be one of many reasons.

For example, honest people like peartreed describes, get together and write a movie script about something political. The CIA bureau gets wind of it, reads the script, and if they see something they don't like, they make a few phone calls and agitate to get changes made. Many times they succeed. Sometimes they fail. The changes are usually subtle and innocuous.

For example, when I saw that Three Days of the Condor movie, I thought that the *** SPOILER *** lines where the "rogue" agent is allowed to give a speech justifying his actions without much of a rebuttal from Redford's character, smacked of something a CIA official might have wanted written in.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Have to be grateful to a thoughtful response from "jlaw172364" that makes an effort at logically reasoning out motives and operandi.

Where I think he goes wrong, at least in this case, is his seeming absolute certainty that he knows the motives behind the release of every movie,...

I actually analyzed many many hundreds of scripts, tv and movies, from the early 1930s to today....and found that Hollywood is occupied as a military high ground of visibility. That kind of database reveals the agenda, tactics, and dynamic adaptation to events-on-the-ground....that reveal a covert culture.

The agendas spelled out in years of Army Field Manual 33-1 and 33-5, "Psychological Operations" plus some other doctrines like "Internal Defense" and "Stability Operations" and "Military Leadership" are clearly evident in the video scripts and in the everyday editing of newspapers, magazines, comic books, and internet ISP front doors.

What a surprise. Welcome to 1942 Expanded Version.

it wouldn't be a good allocation of COINTELPRO resources to make a multi-million dollar movie production SOLELY for the purposes of obfuscating the facts surrounding a political assassination

Movies make a TON of money and besides, the spooks have PLANET SYSTEMS of black budgets to mess with our minds.
See 'drug economy.' The control system not only pays for itself, it makes the controllers RICH beyond belief.

Then, the STAKES involved in covering up an inside-job coup???? C'mon!!
How are young recruitable Americans going to see the police-state job offers dangled if they know that these are the people who killed Kennedy to give us the lost Vietnam War of massacres and torture and baby beheadings and napalm oh my?!

[jlaw172364]

Hugh, we are probably in violent agreement on the general premises of government / entertainment nexus. I merely doubted that they cared enough about the Catlett woman to name the heroinne of the Hunger Games to divert non-existent public attention from her.

I think the primary purposes of Hollywood are as follows:

1. Circuses for the public, meaning an attractive opiate diversion to waste public time otherwise spent agitating for a larger share of the wealth pie; instead of a Soviet style forced propaganda, the propaganda is sold itself as being a "fun" "cool" thing to do with "free" time. The primary purpose is attract an audience, one that will pay. Rather than the state subsidizing the propaganda, the audience is swindled into paying for its own drugging;

Actually, I think of all of those are tied together. I think the demoralization and degradation through the exhibition of self-destructive behaviors is a side-effect. People, in aggregate, are attracted to sex and death.

But the biggest thing that Hollywood does is waste people's time and colonize the public discourse. People can't talk about how they are being enslaved if they're too busy talking about some celeb, UNLESS their enslavement is so painful and obvious that they can no longer ignore it.

I mean, there are plenty of movies that are actually subversive, aside from those that are billed as subversive, but the point is, the audience is still sitting there stupified, watching. It's really about making people addicted to being spectators.

Real life is risky. Getting involved is risky. And look what happens every time someone protests? They get arrested or worse. Better to stay on the sidelines, accept your lot, and occupy your free time with fun and games. Life is too short to risk premature death trying to obtain something you may think you actually deserve.

I don't think the CIA exercises monolithic, micromanaging control over the industry. I think they are embedded in it, and they try to influence where they feel it would be a worthwhile effort, but I think they are mostly content that the vast majority of the public spends the vast majority of its free time merely spectating.

I also think that what you might assume is CIA control, is actually right-wing Hollywood executives (and they're all right-wing) toadying up to the people who actual do all the unsavory killing and black ops that allow them to make their profits. The executives know they wouldn't be multi-millionaires without continuous black ops, so they make a lot of movies that are basically love letters to the black ops community, which in turn makes for easier recruitment, as bright young men see black ops operatives repeatedly being rewarded with sex with beautiful women, an initiation into a world of secrets, having an endless expense account, etc.

And of course, society (independent of the CIA) has always conditioned men to want to be warriors. That's as old as time. Men are expendable because a handful will suffice to reproduce the population, and so the rest must be occupied or disposed of somehow.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Again, the response from "jlaw172364" was waaaay more logical than the troll attacks I endure on this board.
Not entirely correct, as I see things from studying psyops for 7 years but....

Hugh, we are probably in violent agreement on the general premises of government / entertainment nexus. I merely doubted that they cared enough about the Catlett woman to name the heroinne of the Hunger Games to divert non-existent public attention from her.

Psyoperator culture is pre-emptive, pro-active, and projects their worst-case fears of 'instability' on to their careerist work which mandates that NO subversive keyword/theme gets traction among the plebes and takes off to be yet another ongoing problem to be masked with decoys.

So, yes, they "care enough about the Catlett woman's" imminent demise and epitaph effect of reviving Cold War suppression of female activists which can interfere with female recruiting, the Holy Grail since the 1990s confirmation of the superior female brain for intelligence amplified by the now-permanent global war for oil.
But there are multiple reasons for the keyword name with "Cat." Obviously.
There's the sexy image imposed on female military recruits to assuage their egos.
There's the meme of the quiet graceful feline stalker of prey.
There's the past media portrayals of 'Batman's' female alter-ego, 'Cat Woman', operating in 'The Dark.'
etc.

Your assertion that Hollywood's primary goal is to consume attentional bandwith is correct.
But there's much more going on in these time-wasting scripts than just running down the leisure-time clock!
Conditioning, indoctrination, mnemonic direction and misdirection.

I think the primary purposes of Hollywood are as follows:

1. Circuses for the public, meaning an attractive opiate diversion to waste public time otherwise spent agitating for a larger share of the wealth pie; instead of a Soviet style forced propaganda, the propaganda is sold itself as being a "fun" "cool" thing to do with "free" time. The primary purpose is attract an audience, one that will pay. Rather than the state subsidizing the propaganda, the audience is swindled into paying for its own drugging;

Actually, I think of all of those are tied together. I think the demoralization and degradation through the exhibition of self-destructive behaviors is a side-effect. People, in aggregate, are attracted to sex and death.

But the biggest thing that Hollywood does is waste people's time and colonize the public discourse. People can't talk about how they are being enslaved if they're too busy talking about some celeb, UNLESS their enslavement is so painful and obvious that they can no longer ignore it.

The fictionalization of Everything Important to Know serves to muddle the mass mind like nothing else. And there are FEW movies, if any, that are really "subversive."

I mean, there are plenty of movies that are actually subversive, aside from those that are billed as subversive, but the point is, the audience is still sitting there stupified, watching. It's really about making people addicted to being spectators.

Deterring shows of force and psyops of the "inevitability" type promote Learned Helplessness to prevent what Duesenberry taught about visibility as a force magnifier called "The Demonstration Principle"...back during the 1960s um demonstrations. You know the decoy as 'Doonesbury.'

Real life is risky. Getting involved is risky. And look what happens every time someone protests? They get arrested or worse. Better to stay on the sidelines, accept your lot, and occupy your free time with fun and games. Life is too short to risk premature death trying to obtain something you may think you actually deserve.

I don't think the CIA exercises monolithic, micromanaging control over the industry[./quote]
Bottom line control-
What gets released and when. That's what They control.

And this system has been in place for many many decades. So you get people indoctrinated and easily complicit to serve as agenda conduits-

I also think that what you might assume is CIA control, is actually right-wing Hollywood executives (and they're all right-wing) toadying up to the people who actual do all the unsavory killing and black ops that allow them to make their profits. The executives know they wouldn't be multi-millionaires without continuous black ops, so they make a lot of movies that are basically love letters to the black ops community, which in turn makes for easier recruitment, as bright young men see black ops operatives repeatedly being rewarded with sex with beautiful women, an initiation into a world of secrets, having an endless expense account, etc.

But the scientific socialization towards armed warfare and class warfare are recent modifications of what preceded in history-

And of course, society (independent of the CIA) has always conditioned men to want to be warriors. That's as old as time. Men are expendable because a handful will suffice to reproduce the population, and so the rest must be occupied or disposed of somehow.

Much agreement here but a distinction as to 'agency'....

[Nordic]

jlaw, trying to talk any kind of sense, or reason, with Hugh is a complete waste of time.

Any discourse with him is a waste of time.

Don't even bother.

[jlaw172364]

@Nordic. Maybe I don't read enough forum posts, but every time Hugh posts something that others find to have questionable premises, they usually just behave dismissively.

@Hugh.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you meant about the programming vis a vis Catlett.

In my opinion, the most powerful media strategies with regard to anti-establishment activists are as follows:

1. Don't mention them. This means like-minded individuals think they are all alone in their thinking. A very effective strategy.
2. If you must mention them, says as little as possible.
3. If you must say more, trivialize them. Put them out as just one of many opinions. Have someone attack their position with no opportunity for a rebuttal. However, this is overkill, and can actually create publicity. For example, Media Matters creates publicity for Fox by obsessing about everything they say, and the Fox creates publicity for Media Matters by actually mentioning them on their show. In reality, these groups are just wasting time on nonsense discourse.
4. Alternative strategies: mischaracterize their agenda, oversimplify it, make it seem like they accomplished their goal, make their goals seem irrelevant or impractical, etc. etc. etc.

Some other things to bear in mind.

The stuff you seem to be describing appears way too abstruse and esoteric in terms of programming goals.

In films, if the military is portrayed positively, it encourages people to want to join. This means the soldiers are good looking, athletic, wear snappy uniforms, perform acts of heroism, win medals, and most importantly survive, to then get the girl, preferably an attractive one. People identify with heroes that survive, I think, and not the side characters who get killed off, since everyone is the hero in their own mind, the star of their own personal drama.

With regard to programming for women, it's about making the woman strong, independent, standing on her own two feet. I'm sure you saw the Katie Perry video where she joins the military. Why does she join? Because her boyfriend cheated on her. This is a common enough situation that the military recruiters are trying to exploit. Such situations cause severe emotional pain, it becomes difficult to think clearly, and snap decisions can be made in such states. I guarantee you a bunch of women watched the video, had boyfriends who cheated on them, and then wound up joining the military. Of course, they were also probably in economically vulnerable demographic to begin with. They were probably relying on the boyfriend for some financial support. Cheating implies withdrawal of support, and the military can then step in to fill the role of provider. Plus, it will make the person strong, since physical strength translates to emotional strength. Therefore, the woman who joins the military won't suffer the severe pain she felt when she discovered here boyfriend's philandering.

I thought Hunger Games was more of a V for Vendetta, subversion as entertainment because the authorities are portrayed as corrupt, venal, wicked, and the culture is portrayed as bankrupt. It seemed pretty clear-cut. The heroine is connected to the natural world and is a provider for her family. She possesses the most useful skill of all, the ability to live off the land and feed herself, whereas her antagonists are all addicted to consumer products provided for by the corrupt civilization, hence their willingness to kill to obtain them, and then guard them, and their rage at the destruction of them. They represent an easy, but morally bankrupt way of life, since they are the fruits of oppression. That's why Katniss targets them.

I think people go see these things so they can empathize with the hero against the corrupt establishment, the corrupt establishment that almost everyone hates, including people who are pillars in it, because to them, its a giant burden and responsibility. It discharges seditious feelings in the ether. Seeing them is a form of action for some people, albeit a completely risk-free and ultimately pointless one, unless you want to view them as some sort of instruction manual, which some hysterical right-wingers will argue.

I know a lot of people I went to college with loved Fight Club. But they only followed the Fight Club example far enough to get into destructive brawls with each other, and some wound up having to go to the hospital for injuries sustained. Its not like they saw Fight Club and said, lets start a massive anti-government conspiracy.

[winston smith]

Thanks Peartread. Interesting insight into your industry. Its such a shame that every time i visit this board i find so many interesting threads derailed into the same discussion.

Can I suggest a maximum post limit of 10,000 justified on the basis that anybody capable of reaching that figure needs a little help with learning how to listen?

[peartreed]

Thanks, Winston.

I’ve learned to accept and respect the fact that people develop convictions that they won’t compromise even in the face of facts that fracture their foundational beliefs.

We are all a product of our perceptions and victims, especially victims of abuse and trauma, are going to be fearful of further persecution – even to the point of paranoia.

When those fears stem from authority figures in their lives, particularly parents or preachers, tyrants as teachers, or sadistic superiors in military or business, that formulates a world view where the omnipotent masters and most everyone else is united in opposition to the victim and their thwarted desire for security and safety, not to mention success in life. They thus see conspiracy patterns everywhere.

Compound that by the fact that conspiracies exist, as do predators, psychopaths and perverts in positions of power. When perceptions are processed through a filter of fear there is no discerning objectively or even rationally. The fear forms fanaticism.

So, in an attempt to return to the topic of this thread, extreme abuse sufferers sometimes split protectively under traumatic pressure into dissociated identities that Hollywood portrays as multiple personalities, secret selves of the victim, giving the character fascinating dimensions of inner and outer conflict and tension – the key ingredients of dramatic story-telling. It’s an irresistible protagonist package.

So is an antagonist so consumed by corrupted conviction that they are relentless and unreasonable in their radical but wrongful self-righteousness.

Putting the two together in a dramatic story, show or discussion forum thread will be quite lethal. The danger is in the lack of any hope of resolution before expiry.

peartreed