End of the World Movies: Does the PTB Know Something?

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Well, being that I've earned Wilderness Survival merit badge as a Boy Scout [albeit many moons ago], I believe I'm ready.

http://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php/Wi ... s_Survival



Wilderness Survival Requirements


1. Show that you know first aid for, and how to prevent injuries or illnesses that could occur in backcountry settings, including hypothermia, heat reactions, frostbite, dehydration, blisters, insect stings, tick bites, and snakebites.
2. From memory, list the seven priorities for survival in a backcountry or wilderness location. Explain the importance of each one with your councelor.
3. Discuss ways to avoid panic and maintain a high level of morale when lost, and explain why this is important.
4. Describe the steps you would take to survive in the following conditions:

a. Cold and snowy
b. Wet (forest)
c. Hot and dry (desert)
d. Windy (mountains or plains)
e. Water (ocean, lake, or river)

5. Put together a personal survival kit and explain how each item in it could be useful
6. Using three different methods (other than matches), build and light three fires.
7. Do the following:

a. Show five different ways to attract attention when lost.
b. Demonstrate how to use a signal mirror.
c. Describe from memory five ground-to-air signals and tell what they mean.

8. Improvise a natural shelter. For the purpose of this demonstration, use techniques that have little negative impact on the environment. Spend a night in your shelter.
9. Explain how to protect yourself from insects, reptiles, and bears.
10. Demonstrate three ways to treat water found in the outdoors to prepare it for drinking.
11. Show that you know the proper clothing to wear in your area on an overnight in extremely hot weather and in extremely cold weather.
12. Explain why it usually not wise to eat edible wild plants or wildlife in a wilderness survival situation.

http://bcadventure.com/adventure/wilderness/survival/

[slomo]

Long-term wilderness survival is different than short-term survival. Can you hunt and fish using traps, weapons, and lures that you make yourself? Can you identify a sufficient number of edible plants in every season? Can you tan a hide (necessary both for clothing and for food preservation)?

I can't. I'm can't even start a fire using anything other than matches or butane lighters. But at least I know this about myself, having been somewhat humiliated in a wilderness survival training course.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

My post was in jest, FYI.

That being said, I have done those things, to various degrees of success, both in organized excursions [as a Boy Scout and later, "Explorer" Scout as a pre-to-early teen], and also more recently, with fellow adventurous cohorts attempting to remove ourselves from the trappings of modern man for a few days or so, once or twice a year [though it's been at least a few years since our last 'excursion' took place -- many of us are too 'domesticated' to find time for such departures]. We also traveled with survival 'guide books' in our inventory, offering tips on which plants/berries are edible, as well as other useful gems.

Of course, cell phones [when within reception areas] and our parked cars were never too far away, and we had the luxury of not concerning ourselves with hiding from The Man, or any other real risk, other than an accidental fall off a cliff or an encounter with a "wild animal" [invariably a field mouse].

Does any of that mean I [or my pals] would be able to survive any true length of time in the Wilderness? Not at all -- I can very well smite myself inadvertently within a day by any number of calamities -- but perhaps I'd give myself a percentage or 2 of an increased likelihood of extended survival than say, the average contemporary American male, who may be utterly lost within seconds in any given suburban intersection w/out their trusty iPhone..

[slomo]

.

My post was in jest, FYI.

That being said, I have done those things, to various degrees of success, both in organized excursions [as a Boy Scout and later, "Explorer" Scout as a pre-to-early teen], and also more recently, with fellow adventurous cohorts attempting to remove ourselves from the trappings of modern man for a few days or so, once or twice a year [though it's been at least a few years since our last 'excursion' took place -- many of us are too 'domesticated' to find time for such departures]. We also traveled with survival 'guide books' in our inventory, offering tips on which plants/berries are edible, as well as other useful gems.

Of course, cell phones [when within reception areas] and our parked cars were never too far away, and we had the luxury of not concerning ourselves with hiding from The Man, or any other real risk, other than an accidental fall off a cliff or an encounter with a "wild animal" [invariably a field mouse].

Does any of that mean I [or my pals] would be able to survive any true length of time in the Wilderness? Not at all -- I can very well smite myself inadvertently within a day by any number of calamities -- but perhaps I'd give myself a percentage or 2 of an increased likelihood of extended survival than say, the average contemporary American male, who may be utterly lost within seconds in any given suburban intersection w/out their trusty iPhone..

I rate myself 1% increased likelihood. I know what to do conceptually, but don't have any practice doing it (beyond camping or backpacking, using tents, store-bought food, and knives purchased at outdoor stores). Like you, I don't have much time to go out and practice.

[82_28]

Hugh, have you seen this?

http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/up ... htm#063010

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Hugh, have you seen this?

http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/up ... htm#063010

Ech. A CIA disinfo site meant to use nonsense-as-discrediting against the exposure of Psyops as marketing subliminal mnemonic associations.

The disinfoteers just string unrelated events together with mystical W.O.O. to imbue them with pseudo-profundity meant to smother your intellect under their eye-candy quilt made out of garbage.

We'll see more and more of this and it shows us what the spooks don't want us to know.
8bitagent loves this stuff.

[82_28]

I don't think so at all dude. Could very well be as you say it is. I don't think so though. There are a number of humans I know who frequent the site, and if I have my scruples about me, I would say there's not much different from Goro Adachi than some of the things you say. As I have said in the past, I generally rely on the skepticism of a figure like Sagan. However, if there is a glimpse to be had of all of the "multicontextual" bullshit, Goro Adachi provides that glimpse. I don't believe jack shit about what he says and I also don't believe jack shit about what you say. I consider it and plug it in when necessary and enjoy reading, as in, no, it does not piss me off. Goro calls out the same shit you do holmes and I do not believe that he "believes" it -- he's called all sorts of shit in the past as he watches the trends. He points it out, as you do. Only to be considered. So I consider it.

So, patiently, I do consider what I read, no matter the source. You're one of them and so is Goro. If he's CIA, then what am I to think of you or you of me? C'mon. It just is what it is. Skepticism in all things is the key. Run with it and have fun.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I
.....
I would say there's not much different from Goro Adachi than some of the things you say.
.....
I don't believe jack shit about what he says and I also don't believe jack shit about what you say.
.....

That's sad and I won't waste much of our bandwith pursuing these uninformed comments.

Because you don't "believe" in:

>Office of War Information/Bureau of Motion Pictures,
>Psychological Strategy Board
>CIA media/Operation Mockingbird
>Army Field Manual FM 33-1/33-5 Psychological Operations
>semantic priming
>masked priming
>parafoveal priming
>semantic differential
>mutual exclusivity
>inoculation theory
>interference theory
>parasocial interaction
>mere exposure effect
>conditioning
>desensitization
>source amnesia
>subliminal framing
etc.

...which you find equivalent to the random W.O.O. nonsense on that site.
Moving on.

[82_28]

Hahaha. Wtf dude? What is it with this place? I've been talking about your ideas for over 5 years Hugh -- to all kinds of people. "See, there's this dude on this conspiracy site I read who says X". I can't even begin to tell you how many times. No need to be a dick. I think many of us were circling the blogging drain at the same time and some of us landed in the same place -- one of these places was here. You're wrong Hugh. You're also right. Jesus H Christ. I think you're single minded and I don't mind reading anything you write, why can't you consider that other's aren't as up to speed as you are. Hahaha. I always thought you would be fun to have a conversation with. I can be a dick too. You're not all that. You merely transcribe your thoughts on the webs as others do. Even if this is the end of the world, it doesn't have to be with some.

Again, no need to be a dick.

[anothershamus]

This is an interesting tie in to a conversation that I had with my wife about lots of billionaires giving away their fortunes. Do they know something we don't? Do they just feel guilty?

‘Ace Ventura’ director Tom Shadyac gives away his fortune, produces new documentary


And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.—Matthew 19:24

I must say, the more I read about director Tom Shadyac’s new documentary I Am—which will be released in February of 2011—the more intrigued I am to see it.

The back story to I Am is just so oddly unexpected in our culture: In 2007, Shaydyac, the extremely successful director of hit Hollywood comedies like Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, Liar Liar, The Nutty Professor and Bruce Almighty, decided to sell his multi-million dollar mansion in Pasadena and hired someone to work for him to give away all of his money to the needy. Shadyac, 51, moved into mobile home in a trailer park. What rich person does something like that in today’s America? Shadyac, a devout Catholic, did. (Contemplate how difficult it would be for at least ten seconds before you continue reading, won’t you?)

But it still didn’t make him happy. Then Shadyac had a bad accident on his bike, causing a broken hand and a concussion. He suffered from “post-concussion syndrome,” which can bring on severe depression, even suicide. Months later, when he recovered he set out to make I Am, which explores why our culture is so competitive instead of cooperative. He flew around the world (coach!) to record interviews with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Noam Chomsky, the late Howard Zinn and many others.

[barracuda]

This is an interesting tie in to a conversation that I had with my wife about lots of billionaires giving away their fortunes. Do they know something we don't? Do they just feel guilty?

I don't think so, especially if you are referring to the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett campaign known as "The Giving Pledge", which may give the appearance of philanthropy but is probably something else. Because first off, "The Giving Pledge" is just that, a non-binding promise rather than an actual gift, and secondly, the result of any real-world gifts which may come along in fulfillment of those promises will almost certainly be in the form of foundations or estate investment vehicles which allow the donors and their representatives to retain control of that wealth while avoiding various taxes such as the estate tax, which would have eventually returned much of this money to the circulating economy. Instead, it will be boxed up in investments, with the only requirement being that five percent of the principle be used to fund whatever charity the foundation sees fit.

So just in case you feel you're watching some amazing end-times cathartic and altruistic moment in the history of the super-rich... you're not. But in answer to your question about them knowing something we don't, I would say, "Yes, they do! The intricacies of tax code and non-profit law loopholes!", and leave it at that.

[JackRiddler]

.

No doubt we're closer to the "End of the World" today than yesterday.

However. Is it a sound empirical claim that Hollywood and its counterparts in other countries are making more apocalypse movies today than in any other period since the 1950s, when the genre got going? Numerically, perhaps, but proportionately? "I am Legend" is the third filming of the same story going back to the early 1960s. How big is the audience for world-ending now compared to then, and to what extent is production meant to meet demand, rather than vice-versa? Which types of movies qualify? Zombies? Alien invasions? Epidemics, nuclear war, Christian revelation, environmental disasters... I think the way in which world-ending visions have evolved is potentially very interesting. Does Harry Potter count? Because the whole world is at stake in the final battle with Voldemard, see?


Furthemore "Nowhere is Safe," action has shifted to modern London with glass towers and nuke plants, release date is 9111 backwards, the HP looks like 911 in a mirror, and the HP7 looks like two towers, an offset P (for Plane?!) and a SEVEN! -- hard to believe that hasn't been noted on the RI board yet, you guys must be slacking if it's me who brings it up. These kids were so cute in the harmless-seeming original, now look at'em.

Does Lord of the Rings count? Same thing there, only it's Middle Earth. What about Star Trek? Almost every one of those at some point has a world-ending threat to Earth itself. Shall we distinguish between guaranteed world-saving franchises (because Kirk and Potter and Superman and other Trademarked Heroes are guaranteed to rescue the earth in the end) and ones where the world actually does blow up? Does the world have to actually end, or merely be threatened? Shall we distinguish between realistic and fantasy scenarios? Does the destruction of Tokyo or New York City count (probably the two cities most often blown up) or does it have to be the whole world? What about light-hearted apocalypse comedies, like "Evolution"? What about post-apocalypse far-futures, like "AI" or Mad Max?

Brief brainstorm - fifties to seventies:

nukes
On the Beach
Dr Strangelove
Fail-Safe

monsters
Gojira/Godzilla
The Blob (only swallowed a town before it was stopped, yes)

good aliens
Day the Earth Stood Still

bad aliens
War of the Worlds (first movie, 1953)
Day of the Triffids

got what we deserved/our mirror images
Planet of the Apes (world blows up already in the 2nd of 5-part series!)
Night of the Living Dead (spawns 650 progeny)

ecocide
Soylent Green
Quartet

christian hysteria/devil
Omen
Rosemary's Baby

All only scratching the surface.

This is a perennial theme of the post-WWII era, based in anxieties about: the bomb + genocides + mass society + standardized man (alienation, loss of identity) + technology out of control + complex system + superpowers + daily war + global media (all disasters instantly known to world) + faster and faster pace + convergence of all media and art forms + governance by perpetual crisis + science unlocking more keys to bio/neuro/psycho/sociological control of humans + religionist reaction to all that.

.

[Nordic]

Modern Hollywood is always telling their scriptwriters to "raise the stakes". (I know this from personal experience). Raise the stakes.

Saving the entire world from destruction, or saving yourself and your loved ones from the destruction of the world, well those are pretty high stakes, so that appeals to the suits.

Movies prey on so many emotions. Fear, desire for revenge, desire to win, desire to get rich and/or famous, fear, desire to get laid out of your class, fear .....

[anothershamus]

Modern Hollywood is always telling their scriptwriters to "raise the stakes". (I know this from personal experience). Raise the stakes.

Saving the entire world from destruction, or saving yourself and your loved ones from the destruction of the world, well those are pretty high stakes, so that appeals to the suits.

Movies prey on so many emotions. Fear, desire for revenge, desire to win, desire to get rich and/or famous, fear, desire to get laid out of your class, fear .....

That is so funny, because I always wondered how the Stargate folks came up with the destruction designs, first the 'personal' destruction, then the 'local' destruction, and then 'regional' destruction, and 'national' destruction, and then 'global' destruction, and 'solar system' destruction, then 'galactic' destruction, and finally 'universal' destruction, and now they may go with 'multi-dimensional' destruction! Just keep raising the stakes, don't worry about a good story but 'raise the stakes'. Awesome!