Cloverfield

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

..... He was a neo nazi skin, but he's Jewish and from a family that survived the holocaust. We all do dumb things when we are young tho.
.....

There is one thing about Cloverfield I've wondered about, that has nothing to do with the politics. There is a bit of controversy about the film, about the refs to 911 (ok blatent cashing in on its images then) but considering the trauma the event itself sparked does anyone think the film, instead of making that worse, is actually a way of dealing with it and "moving on"?

Re-stimulating the 9/11 PTSD, I'm sure, not "moving on."
Even without any previous 9/11 experience, the adrenalin format of stress, horror, and violence serves to heighten sensitivity to fear-mongering news and mis-State of the Union Addresses.

Research has proven this even as we are inclined to think, "Ah, just a flick. So what?"

That biological reaction to video 'excitement' is what allows any video that causes it to assist militarist psy-ops campaigns. Excitement, aggression, and frustration obtained in one place is usually spent somewhere else like a communicable disease or...viral marketing.

Quite a fluid, portable, and plausibly-deniable emotional economic system.
Bloody brilliantly exploited.

[Joe Hillshoist]

My mate is now a greenie left wing hippie. We still play footy tho.

He still has a skinhead tho. Cool tatts too.

Fair enough about what you say re the movie, but reliving trauma is a central part of dealing with it. Thats where my line of thought was going.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

....
Fair enough about what you say re the movie, but reliving trauma is a central part of dealing with it. Thats where my line of thought was going.

Ah, gotcha.
Reliving trauma with a therapist guiding and using critical thought to consciously 'show' your brain that the trauma is past and no longer a threat is an effective way to shut off the stuck alarm in the amygdala.

But just going on a 'horror-coaster ride' in a dark theater while totally, even eagerly, receptive to the intense imagery repeating the original trauma is just an injection of adrenalin, fuel on the fire.

Hell, I just watched a video called 'The Garrison Tapes' about D.A. Jim Garrison's attempt to prosecute some of the JFK murder perps in 1967. I've seen it a few times but it got my heart racing and my emotions up yet again. "Bastards."
Pissed me off for the entire day. grrr....

[FourthBase]

Re-stimulating the 9/11 PTSD, I'm sure, not "moving on."
Even without any previous 9/11 experience, the adrenalin format of stress, horror, and violence serves to heighten sensitivity to fear-mongering news and mis-State of the Union Addresses.

Research has proven this even as we are inclined to think, "Ah, just a flick. So what?"

That biological reaction to video 'excitement' is what allows any video that causes it to assist militarist psy-ops campaigns. Excitement, aggression, and frustration obtained in one place is usually spent somewhere else like a communicable disease or...viral marketing.

Quite a fluid, portable, and plausibly-deniable emotional economic system.
Bloody brilliantly exploited.

Hugh, you're on a roll.
I totally agree.

Research has proven this even as we are inclined to think, "Ah, just a flick. So what?"

It amuses me how many people on this board cling to that stance. Despite the research showing that pop culture isn't as innocuous and non-controlling as we'd all like (because, fuck! that would spoil the fun of watching TV and going to the movies and reading magazines!), despite it being documented that the people behind the purveyors of the pop culture are well aware of its manipulative powers, and in positions to use them.

[professorpan]

Re-stimulating the 9/11 PTSD, I'm sure, not "moving on."
Even without any previous 9/11 experience, the adrenalin format of stress, horror, and violence serves to heighten sensitivity to fear-mongering news and mis-State of the Union Addresses.

Research has proven this even as we are inclined to think, "Ah, just a flick. So what?"

Plenty of films have shown the destruction of cities, including NYC. That does not mean there is any ulterior design to "heighten sensitivity to fear-mongering news."

Could the movie heighten people's fears of another terrorist attack? Of course it could. Does that mean the movie is written, financed, directed, and marketed to do so? Pending a shred of proof, which you (as usual) fail to present, the answer is no.

For instance, someone could watch King Kong (the Peter Jackson remake) and have terrible flashbacks to 9/11 as Kong hurls trains, smashes cars, and runs amok -- just like the Cloverfield monster. Your "logic" would suggest that Jackson is another psyop auteur cleverly priming the popular imagination for the fascists that you believe control all media.

It's just as possible -- indeed, much more likely -- that a director chooses to use imagery suggestive of 9/11 to enhance the movie's horror. That is, if a movie is supposed to SCARE people, then why not evoke the destructive, horrifying imagery already present in their consciousnesses?

And to FourthBase, who said:

It amuses me how many people on this board cling to that stance. Despite the research showing that pop culture isn't as innocuous and non-controlling as we'd all like (because, fuck! that would spoil the fun of watching TV and going to the movies and reading magazines!), despite it being documented that the people behind the purveyors of the pop culture are well aware of its manipulative powers, and in positions to use them.

It amuses me (actually, it saddens me) how many people on this board assume that any possible interpretation of a movie's content that suggests psychopolitical manipulation MUST be true. And that those who are most vehement in pushing those interpretations are unwilling to do any real research to back them up. And when evidence contradicts their assertions -- say, an interview with a writer or director -- the HughManateeWinsians just say, "It's all lies."

Because they KNOW the TRUTH.

Hugh and his disciples portray human beings as robotic, slobbering Pavlov's dogs and creative artists as fascist enablers. It's a silly, cartoonish, and utterly unrealistic view of popular culture and the entertainment industry. And, as IanEye pointed out, it's also ugly and dehumanizing.

There are plenty of real, verifiable examples of military/intelligence manipulation of media content to be pissed off about. Manufacturing blatant nonsense based upon creative fantasy and half-baked theorizing is an utter waste of time and energy. It has certainly sapped a lot of juice from this board.

[FourthBase]

Hugh and his disciples portray human beings as robotic, slobbering Pavlov's dogs and creative artists as fascist enablers. It's a silly, cartoonish, and utterly unrealistic view of popular culture and the entertainment industry. And, as IanEye pointed out, it's also ugly and dehumanizing.

Which is a silly, cartoonish, and utterly unrealistic view of the portrayal.

We are ruled by people who use dehumanizing tactics. We ourselves are just human beings, partially vulnerable to dehumanizing psychological manipulation. It shouldn't make you indignant if it turns out that some unsuspected (or suspected-only-by-the-"loons"-like Hugh) sources of dehumanizing propaganda warfare exist, like many of our pop culture's most reknowned and mainstream artifacts. It shouldn't make you indignant at people like Hugh, if it turns out that what's being done to us is, in fact, dehumanizing. There are good instincts behind the suspicions, plenty of reasons not to think that anything close to the full extent of the MIC's guiding hand has been publicized. Hugh is often guilty of barking up the wrong tree, but as that A-Z thread shows, there IS something to what Hugh is saying, something more than you are willing to concede as plausible.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

For over two years now Pan has been poo-pooing almost ANY example of psy-ops in media and barely admitting to the most obvious. Attacking HMW is his usual pattern of denying that psy-ops culture is generated by an institutionalized beaurocracy developed since WWII deployed in news and entertainment products that few suspect using sophisticated neuroscience-based mnemonic strategies that even fewer understand.

His post here can illustrate techniques of arguing on a discussion board that don't actually present information so much as use framing devices, something I like to point at as prevalent in media so let's take a look, shall we?

Notice Pan's methodical progression from fabricating a 'more rational than thou' approach to the message to outright demonization of the messenger, HMW.
Highly educational if anlayzed.

....
Plenty of films have shown the destruction of cities, including NYC. That does not mean there is any ulterior design to "heighten sensitivity to fear-mongering news."

Pan first sterilizes the topic with decontextualization and a flat unsupported denial.

Could the movie heighten people's fears of another terrorist attack? Of course it could. Does that mean the movie is written, financed, directed, and marketed to do so? Pending a shred of proof, which you (as usual) fail to present, the answer is no.

Pan then asserts that barring "proof" from HMW that Pan's flat denial is proven.

For instance, someone could watch King Kong (the Peter Jackson remake) and have terrible flashbacks to 9/11 as Kong hurls trains, smashes cars, and runs amok -- just like the Cloverfield monster. Your "logic" would suggest that Jackson is another psyop auteur cleverly priming the popular imagination for the fascists that you believe control all media.

Pan then sets up a false 'if-then' linked to a totalism projected on HMW as a strawman to knock down.

It's just as possible -- indeed, much more likely -- that a director chooses to use imagery suggestive of 9/11 to enhance the movie's horror. That is, if a movie is supposed to SCARE people, then why not evoke the destructive, horrifying imagery already present in their consciousnesses?

Pan then suggests that all motives are benign and merely opportunistic or financial.

It amuses me (actually, it saddens me) how many people on this board assume that any possible interpretation of a movie's content that suggests psychopolitical manipulation MUST be true.

Pan declares that people who examine, suspect, or even see psy-ops are irrational knee-jerk paranoids.

And that those who are most vehement in pushing those interpretations are unwilling to do any real research to back them up.

Pan uses framing words to declare that no "real" or "honest" research has been done despite much research having been done on my part and despite his truly having no way to establish this. He just repeats this negative framing, another bald assertion used as negative framing of his target.

And when evidence contradicts their assertions -- say, an interview with a writer or director -- the HughManateeWinsians just say, "It's all lies."

Pan encourages us to take the publicity spewed from the mouths of potential suspects at face value and thereby shows either his inability to investigate or his bias towards the potential suspects.

Hugh and his disciples portray human beings as robotic, slobbering Pavlov's dogs and creative artists as fascist enablers.

Pan falsely ascribes views to HMW to portray HMW as antagonistic to people instead of as antagonistic to media manipulators, propandists, and disinformationists.

Pan lumps all people in TV and movies into his positive framing halo of "creative artists" to frame HMW as hostile to 'good people.' This is akin to Fox TV's warnings about the 'liberal war on Christmas.'

There are plenty of real, verifiable examples of military/intelligence manipulation of media content to be pissed off about.

Pan will give no examples of "real, verifiable examples" nor explain how these alleged better examples that HMW is allegedly occluding are "proven" and all while Pan denies that any psy-ops CAN be proven.
What a mess of contradictions and double-binds coming from Pan. Standard, though.

Manufacturing blatant nonsense based upon creative fantasy and half-baked theorizing is an utter waste of time and energy. It has certainly sapped a lot of juice from this board.

Pan favors strings of negative framing words that repeat his unsupported flat denials to close his anti-HMW posts and declare that HMW is a detriment to the users of RigorousIntuition.

Very illustrative, Pan. Thanks for the help.

on edit: Wish someone would fix my spelling, not my thinking.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Another psycho-political event besides 'Cloverfield' to prep potential recruits/GOP voters for the mis-State of the Union Address just popped up only 6 days before the day of the next USG Big Lie on 1/28-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080122/ap_on_re_us/padilla_terror_charges

Jose Padilla is sentenced to 17 years

By Curt Anderson, Associated Press Writer

MIAMI - Jose Padilla, once accused of plotting with al-Qaida to blow up a radioactive "dirty bomb," was sentenced Tuesday to 17 years and four months on terrorism conspiracy charges that don't mention those initial allegations.
ADVERTISEMENT [sic]

The sentence imposed by U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke marks another step in the extraordinary personal and legal odyssey for the 37-year-old Muslim convert, a U.S. citizen who was held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant after his 2002 arrest amid the "dirty bomb" allegations.

Prosecutors had sought a life sentence, but Cook said she arrived at the 17-year sentence after considering the "harsh conditions" during Padilla's lengthy military detention at a Navy brig in South Carolina.

"I do find that the conditions were so harsh for Mr. Padilla ... they warrant consideration in the sentencing in this case," the judge said. However, he did not get credit for time served.

Padilla's lawyers claimed his treatment amounted to torture, which U.S. officials have repeatedly denied. His attorneys say he was forced to stand in painful stress positions, given LSD or other drugs as "truth serum," deprived of sleep and even a mattress for extended periods and subjected to loud noises, extreme heat and cold and noxious odors.

Cooke also imposed prison terms on two other men of Middle Eastern origin who were convicted of conspiracy and material support charges along with Padilla in August. The three were part of a North American support cell for al-Qaida and other Islamic extremists around the world, prosecutors said.

The jury was told that Padilla was recruited by Islamic extremists in the U.S. and filled out an application.

[elfismiles]

Saw CLOVERFIELD last night ... there was at least one reference to the "September 11th" terrorist attacks in the background of voices during the initial all hell breaking loose scenes, inside the stairwells of the apartment complex I think. I think they said "September 11th" and not "911".

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Saw CLOVERFIELD last night ... there was at least one reference to the "September 11th" terrorist attacks in the background of voices during the initial all hell breaking loose scenes, inside the stairwells of the apartment complex I think. I think they said "September 11th" and not "911".

Subliminal embed? Wouldn't be surprised. The poster's theme has to be invoked early for the subsequent viewing.

In the 2004 remake of 'The Manchurian Candidate' lots of the scene transitions have news radio in the background. I remember some fear-mongering over immigrants getting punched up in volume for a flash.
That movie was totally campaign 2004 psy-ops, no wonder.

[Attack Ships on Fire]

A broken watch tells the correct time twice a day. The trouble comes when someone asks you what the time is and you tell them what your watch reads.

[FourthBase]

A broken watch tells the correct time twice a day. The trouble comes when someone asks you what the time is and you tell them what your watch reads.

(A watch that's working but operating too fast or too slow can't be relied upon for "the correct time" at any given moment either. The too fast clock could be right dozens of times during a day, depending on how much faster. The too slow clock could be right once every 100 years, depending on how slow. Of course, if one's entire clock paradigm doesn't satisfactorily correlate to reality, then it might be worth considering adjusting to a faster/slower clock in order to more accurately depict reality, like generations of clockwatchers/clockmakers have had to do before, in the face of resistance from people who're still acclimated to the old clock and protest that the new clock is never "right". Just saying, there's more than one way to analogize a clock.)

[orz]

Subliminal embed?

Not exactly 'subliminal' to have someone mention 9/11 in a film which is overtly and admittedly influenced by the coverage of 9/11 now, is it?

[Joe Hillshoist]

A broken watch tells the correct time twice a day. The trouble comes when someone asks you what the time is and you tell them what your watch reads.

(A watch that's working but operating too fast or too slow can't be relied upon for "the correct time" at any given moment either. The too fast clock could be right dozens of times during a day, depending on how much faster. The too slow clock could be right once every 100 years, depending on how slow. Of course, if one's entire clock paradigm doesn't satisfactorily correlate to reality, then it might be worth considering adjusting to a faster/slower clock in order to more accurately depict reality, like generations of clockwatchers/clockmakers have had to do before, in the face of resistance from people who're still acclimated to the old clock and protest that the new clock is never "right". Just saying, there's more than one way to analogize a clock.)

Ever seen that video of the US army testing acid on soldiers.

Specifically the one where there is a guy in a booth tripping off his head and looking highl;y stressed.

A guy in a white coat (Oh I'm not a doctor) asks him:"What time is it?"

The poor soldier loses it.

"What time is it?

WHAT TIME IS IT?"

"Arghhhh"

No clock tells the right time. It only becomes the right time, when people agree to use that particular time as a reference. You know they "synchronise watches".

[professorpan]

Pan will give no examples of "real, verifiable examples" nor explain how these alleged better examples that HMW is allegedly occluding are "proven" and all while Pan denies that any psy-ops CAN be proven.
What a mess of contradictions and double-binds coming from Pan. Standard, though.

Well stick these in your pipe and smoke them.

--

Government influencing TV content in the War on (some) Drugs
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2 ... print.html

--

Jane Mayer's excellent exposé of "24" producer Joel Surnow:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007 ... fact_mayer

"...the conservative writers at “24” have become “like a Hollywood television annex to the White House. It’s like an auxiliary wing.”

--

Pentagon influence on Hollywood scripts (with list of films that received cooperation)
http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/G ... 21,00.html

--

Operation Hollywood documentary (I think FourthBase posted this already, but it's factual and based in reality, not speculative fantasy):

http://conspiracyrealitytv.com/operatio ... ie-making/

--

So there are a few examples, Mr. Manatee. Just the tip of the iceberg, for those who take a few minutes to look for the information.

Evidence shows quite clearly that the government tries to influence the content of popular media, and frequently succeeds. And sometimes it doesn't -- many films of the past several decades demonize the U.S. government, the military, and the CIA.

I could gather piles of documentation similar to the sources above: documents, interviews, film documentaries, etc. The evidence leads to a very clear conclusion: Sometimes the military/industrial complex influences the content of popular media. It is indisputable.

There is zero evidence -- nada -- supporting the extent of control that you posit. Not an iota of documentation, not even another writer, scholar, or commentator, supporting the existence of "keyword hijacking," to take your most fanciful idea.

Isn't that surprising? That out of all the critics of media, all the progressive experts on psychology and persuasion and propaganda -- NONE of them have ever discovered "keyword hijacking," or the placement of doggie-themed films on store shelves to distract from an Abu Ghraib dog trainer's trial, or how a guy's face on a stack of pancakes is used as a WTC7 metaphor, or the paper trail linking R.J. Reynolds to George Lucas for the Chewbacca/chew tobacco linguistic psyop?

Think about this, Hugh (and Hugh's fans/believers): Either the Manatee is a groundbreaking, visionary genius who has uncovered the largest, most intricate conspiracy of all time, with tens of thousands of complicit co-conspirators and a magnitude more who are unknowing duped into complicity, all craftily and secretively orchestrating billions of dollars in film, tv, print, retail, and radio dollars to accomplish its plans....

And only HE, and he alone, has discovered the truth about how it all works....

Or...

Hugh is wrong. The conspiracy is not nearly as vast, omniscient, effective, or controlling as he suggests. "Keyword hijacking," while amusing and intellectually entertaining, isn't real. And some monster movies are just that -- movies about giant, scary monsters, with zero funding or control or political motivation beyond the desire of the producers for box office lucre.

Seriously, folks -- if you believe Hugh is correct, then you are suggesting that we have, in our midst, the guy who has solved the biggest, most complex conspiracy ever foisted upon the weary, bleating mass of humanity. The RI board has produced the only political researcher who has discovered, and documented, the biggest story of all time -- the complete and utter control of popular audiovisual entertainment down to the minutiae of names, keywords, and retail product placement.

So... What is it, RIers?