we basically have arrived at a very interesting debate with two discernible sides: on the one hand we have Mackruiseen, who argues that when an agency tries to associate a politician with a tragic figure, they overshoot their goal of co-optation and land in the zone of detournement. that is to say, rather than neautralize the topic, they actually energize the whole field. on the other hand we have Mr. Manatee, who argues that no matter what the deep potential of such associations may be, that simply by associating the debate topic with an assanine meme the whole field is neatralized. basically, Hamlet=HA HA, Whatever. obviously, depending on your level of cultural awareness, such an association may lead to deeper thinking or alternatively you may be locked into storing the assanine association and nothing more. it's an unsolvable question, actually--regardless of whether some agency thinks they've solved it. to test the theory would involve such intrusive measures as to corrupt the entire social process of meme ingestion itself.
now we come to the issue of Mr. Manatee's methodology. this movie IS obscure. moreover, that interview is more obscure. how were they associated? Mr. Manatee did an internet search. he is a crank or a very young person who thinks that googling this and that is the equivalent of real research, and further that said method, by way of cybernetics, is indicative of objective human thought. the obvious fact is that these theories are contestable on the grounds of detournement brought up by Mr. Mackruiseen, and further that even in their best light, their relevance is strictly limited to digitally based inquiries. the key word is "keyword," a telltale sign of the canalized thinking of the internet generation.
no need to be condescending, jackass.