Borat, the media diversion Kazakh clown hiding torture

by **orz** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:19 am

Hugh, seems you back down somewhat every time... If you meant that about NPR etc in the first place why didn't you say so. Your original post strongly implied that the purpose of Borat was to distract from these issues. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Media mind management is opportunistic and uses either available distractions or generates them from scratch, both tactics.<hr></blockquote> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> talk about having it both ways! In other words anything & everything you feel like can be part of your theory, and if someone calls you on it you get to change it while still pretending that's what you ment all along. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes">

by **erosoplier** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:48 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>In other words anything & everything you feel like can be part of your theory, and if someone calls you on it you get to change it while still pretending that's what you ment all along.<hr></blockquote> Not that I'm thinking Hugh needs help in his defence, but he didn't ever claim that SBC was "in" on it - just that 'Borat' was being utilised in the manner that he outlines. I'm of the belief that the world is currently being run roughshod by crooks, and if Hugh believes that "anything and everything" is used by the crook's regime to support said regime, I'd be inclined to agree with him.

by **professorpan** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:59 am

Hugh, you may have trumped your Nacho Libre lunacy. Congratulations! As others have pointed out, Borat/Ali G/Cohen has been playing this character for a long time. He's promoting his upcoming film with very clever stunts -- including trying to visit the White House. He was followed around by a gaggle of reporters. It was a superb media prank of the finest calibre. The stunts were covered by the MSM, including NPR, because they were funny. And the ever-present, glaring flaw in your metaconspiracy must be addressed: Wouldn't a funny movie about Kazakhstan make people more inclined to think about the real Kazakhstan? Borat's film has already caused the Kazakhstan government to place full-page ads in the NYT to offset what they believe are his slights against their country. That's your continuing problem, Hugh. You have a preconceived idea about how things work, and you seek confirmation. Your blindness to your confirmation bias undoes your theorizing. It ain't rigorous in the slightest, m'boy.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:31 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And the ever-present, glaring flaw in your metaconspiracy must be addressed: Wouldn't a funny movie about Kazakhstan make people more inclined to think about the real Kazakhstan?<hr></blockquote> Check your own consistency, Prof Pan. Did a funny movie about a Mexican priest 'fighting for kids' starring Jack Black and called 'Nacho Libre' make the movie-attending youth demographic think about the stolen Mexican elections, near civil war, and dirty war against social activists? Exactly the opposite. It was a comedic diversion diluting the psychic horror of reality.  You went to great lengths to tell me I was crazy to think that it was a keyword hijacking of an imprisoned social activist's name (Nacho del Valle with a daughter named America-really!) and a psychic sugaring of the very idea of Mexico plus a recruiting model for young American hispanics who'd sign up to get money for their kids. "Free Huey," "Free Leonard," "Free Nacho." And Free Nacho would in Spanish would be "Nacho Libre," I believe. Now that can't happen amongst Mexican-American youths who the Pentagon wants guarding the green zone. So Borat is British, ay? How about analyzing the competition between the MI-6 and CIA in the oil regions for the last 80 years? Borat has been doing his shtick since the mid-90s, right? The move towards Caspian Sea oil and gas is atleast that old. How about an examination of the effect on American's perceptions of the Cold War due to the comedian Yakof Smirnoff doing US vs USSR humor? "What a country!" Comedy is a morale-sustaining device used in very calculated ways since the Cold War when the Pentagon was concerned that Americans would be so horrified by the prospect of nuclear annihilation that they would demand....peace! And that is a Pentagon nightmare. Recall the subtitle of Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film, 'Dr. Strangelove,' which came out inbetween the Cuban missile crisis and the long-planned ramping up of the Vietnam War, "or how I learned to stop worrying and learned to love the bomb." Not very subtle, is it? And the film starts with a text message that the Pentagon has assured us that the events portrayed in the film couldn't happen due to failsafe measures. How about an examination of the effect of stereotypes in international relations using the 1930s work of Hadley Cantril who discovered that's how people think of each other just as WWII was being prepared for an isolationist public to carry out? How is this related to the fact that (as I just heard on an NPR interview) the former US soldier who was the radio DJ model for Robin Williams in 'Good Morning Vietnam' has been given a Pentagon deal to begin broadcasting from...Baghdad? Morale is a funny thing, isn't it? How does exposing America's youth to 'humorous' commentary on politics on Letterman/Leno, Jon Stewart, Saturday Night Live, and Doonesbury actually sustain the status quo by allowing ventilation of angst as is done on the frontlines with our PTSD soldiers so they can return to work? Well, I can assure you that the Pentagon knows. Why are even people posting at RI so darn myopic about media? (Sorry, Prof Pan, I know that people who disagree aren't just myopic but it seems that way online.) Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 10/2/06 11:08 am

by **professorpan** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:19 pm

I didn't mean to digress back into the Nacho Libre argument -- sorry that has happened. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>So Borat is British, ay? How about analyzing the competition between the MI-6 and CIA in the oil regions for the last 80 years? Borat has been doing his shtick since the mid-90s, right? The move towards Caspian Sea oil and gas is atleast that old.<hr></blockquote> So what exactly are you saying? That Sacha Baron Cohen is part of your metaconspiracy? Instead of just tossing around hints and accusations, why not just come out and be specific -- is the actor/comedian part of an orchestrated effort to divert attention from Kazakhstan and a U.S. oil grab? Yes or no?

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I didn't mean to digress back into the Nacho Libre argument -- sorry that has happened. <hr></blockquote> Yes, because it illustrated my point and your own inconsistency. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Instead of just tossing around hints and accusations, why not just come out and be specific -- is the actor/comedian part of an orchestrated effort to divert attention from Kazakhstan and a U.S. oil grab? Yes or no?<hr></blockquote> No matter what Borat's personal motivations are, he is being used for media mind management on the tortured bloody topic of Caspian Sea oil and gas which is key to US economics and fascist National inSecurity State wars. Is that a wild and crazy "metaconspiracy"? Yes or no?

by **professorpan** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>No matter what Borat's personal motivations are, he is being used for media mind management on the tortured bloody topic of Caspian Sea oil and gas which is key to US economics and fascist National inSecurity State wars.<hr></blockquote> Thanks. Who is using him? How, precisely, are they "using" him? Was his character, Borat, a creation of the CIA? Is he "in on it"? Did an NPR producer decide to do the story -- i.e. follow Borat around on his movie tour stunt -- to divert attention from the Caspian Sea oil? In other words, who is using Cohen, and how? Specifics. And though you loathe the request, can you point to a single, miniscule speck of evidence* that backs up any of this theory? *Evidence, in this case, excluding declassified documents from the past 3 decades. Evidence, in this case, meaning documented, objectively verifiable data that Sacha Cohen is being used by some entity to pursue a particular agenda.

by **orz** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:26 pm

Ok Hugh... I'll spare you a rant about your totally moronic comments on Strangelove... Instead let's get down to the crux of the matter: Forget my requests for evidence for the cause of Keyword Hijacking. SHOW ME EVIDENCE FOR THE EFFECT.

by **erosoplier** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:06 pm

Professor Pan, intuited relationships aren't, by definition, necessarily associated with paper trails. Open conspiracies don't, as a rule, involve secret documents. Do the cast and crew of American Idol know they're part of a plot to keep the citizens of the US distracted so that matters of civic interest are left unexamined? What would it matter if they did? Do the producers of American Idol know this? I think the question is lardely academic. When media organisations hire an entertainment-focused journalist to cover an issue, rather than a politics-focused journalist (such as they are), little may they know it, but they are contributing further to the problem of matters of civic interest being left unexamined. They may be doing nothing more than chasing profits, but most of us accept that the best interests of the majority aren't best served by media organisations devoting themselves solely to the chasing of profits. And everywhere, politicians keep rabbiting on about things that are in "our best interests" being on the top of their mind. So what's gonna give? Nothing, I'd say, if we don't wise up. Late capitalism/early fascism is an open conspiracy. It rewards behaviours which bolster it, and discourages behaviours which threaten to undermine it. If you want proof, all you have to do is consistently ask questions like, "What would the world be like if it was fair?" or, "What would the likely outcome (of a given situation) be if we were living in a democracy?" and compare the results with what actually occurs in the world.

by **orz** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:30 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Do the cast and crew of American Idol know they're part of a plot to keep the citizens of the US distracted so that matters of civic interest are left unexamined? What would it matter if they did? Do the producers of American Idol know this? I think the question is lardely academic.<hr></blockquote> When you get cornered into a theory where noone in the media knows they're part of the 'plot' then you no longer actually have a conspiricy. You might even end up having to actually read and understand Chomsky rather than brushing him off with 'left gatekeeper lol <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> ' I'll agree that often the finer points are academic next to the reality of what is done. Certainly trash TV culture keeps people 'off the streets'... regardless of whether it's a deliberate 'plot' or not, the result is still evil. in the same way that it doesn't matter who did 9/11 anywhere near as much as what the governments of the world were able to do thanks to the attacks.

by **professorpan** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:43 am

Apples and oranges, Ero, though I agree with your summary. Hugh believes the entire entertainment industry is managed to a level that I (and man others) find utterly implausible. A theory as grandiose as he pushes -- the HMW Theory of Everything -- requires some basic grounding in fact. But when scrutinized, it falls to pieces. And his emotional attachment to his grand, unified theory causes him to paint his critics (such as myself) as unhinged, un- and misinformed, or worse. The key to being rigorous -- especially in dealing with parapolitical topics -- is to question one's own beliefs constantly. If Hugh could do that, he might refine his ideas and admit that much of what he has pushed is very likely incorrect. But what he would be left with would be that much stronger and coherent -- and valuable.

by **orz** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:36 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>But what he would be left with would be that much stronger and coherent -- and valuable.<hr></blockquote> I sincerely hope this happens some day...

Borat, the media diversion Kazakh clown hiding torture

hmm..

Re: hmm..

There he goes again

Re: Prof Pan's comment

Re: Prof Pan's comment

Re: Prof Pan's comment

Re: Prof Pan's comment

RIGHT

Re: The origins of the 'Borat' conspiracy

well..

Re: The origins of the 'Borat' conspiracy

Re: The origins of the 'Borat' conspiracy

Who is online