Cloverfield

[FourthBase]

Hugh, if you could just refrain from that kind of shitty leap, that'd be great.
It doth truly suck, because it distracts/detracts from stuff like this:

Edward R. Morrow pointed out in 1958 that TV had become just a big western shoot-em-up and it horrified him.

Guess he was left out of the social engineering loop and kept on as a WWII news credibility prop and, therefore, a psy-ops device himself.
Even the sacred Edward R. Murrow was made head of the U.S.Information Agency by JFK to exploit his 'virtue branding' for Cold War purposes.

Morrow in his controversial 1958 speech at the Radio and Television News Directors Association-
"If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition."

Now the movie is 'Cowboys and Arabs.'

Take a hiatus from example-fishing, and finger-pointing, and focus on stuff like the above. Please? Deal of the Century was a compelling example, how about you focus on building as solid a case for that one example as you can. Exegize it. I think it's more effective to state a case for one thing 95-100% than 1000 things 1-5%. It looks ripe. Go for it.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

....Leonard is an excellent crime fiction writer -- suggesting he is a propagandist is fucking asinine.

Guess you really don't read what I write.
People whose work fits the psy-ops bill will get the rails greased for them, like Jackson Pollock and the CIA's Congress for Cultural Freedom.

Some are complicit, like Robin Moore and Robert Condon.

...Because that's what someone who slanders strangers via the Internet really is -- a coward.

Endless ad hominum attacks. "HWM, why do you hate all that is good?"
You've called me a Stalinist and a coward for detailing decades of psy-ops media methods and examples.

The 1950s are back in swing to head off a return of the 1960s.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

There's a huge difference between using critical thinking and not in the general population.
Psy-ops is designed for both brain modes, autopilot and manual driving.

.....Deepening and deepening cynicism among the "thinking set", even a knee-jerk unlearned cynicism (consumer saavy!) in the "unthinking set". The angles of psychological appeals advertisers have had to take in a multitude of (maybe most) ads has become ree-donkously oblique. .....

Anyhow...what is implied in Hugh's pleas to see it his way is that these seemingly retarded tactics like KH (or even the phonetical crap) are so stupid they disarm the discerning, who can no longer fathom that such retarded tactics would ever be on the table and are on the lookout (thoughtfully or unthoughtfully) for a minimum of cleverness, so the retarded tactics, if used, are virtually invisible. And possibly the only remaining effective tool to pierce the thoughtful cynic's defenses. Wouldn't that be ironic? Again: Not necessarily buying it. But it's plausible, in my opinion.

Pretty good summary.

People's brains functioning ranges from totally automatic instinctive thought-
HEURISTIC
to scrutinizing critical thought-
SYSTEMATIC
as normal running mode and even both at the same time or switch from one to the other.

So psy-ops media is designed on both of these levels to influence both brain gears.

With the massive increase in media channels and messaging there is a tendency for more people to operate heuristically and so all those sneaky little subliminal devices are being strewn throughout the disinfotainment products.

This dual-level approach to psy-ops can be illustrated with two recent videos with American modern artist, Jackson Pollock.

The CIA does not want people to know that it uses art and entertainment for memetic engineering or influences anything you see and hear, for that matter.

Starting in the 1950s the CIA set-up a front called the Congress for Cultural Freedom to promote 'safe' kinda leftie intellectuals and artists to mainly influence post-WWII rebuilding European culture. Showing those European snobs that the US wasn't a buncha hicks was part of this strategy and the Boston Symphony Orchestra did demonstration tours for this purpose.

Abstract art was financially promoted and hyped with the help of mega-spook, Nelson Rockefeller, and the Modern Museum of Art in order to represent the meme of Total Freedom as a contrast with Soviet culture and art styles like 'realism' which showed noble workers doing what they were supposed to for the state.

So macho drinking American splatter painter, Jackson Pollock, became the CIA's poster boy for the abstract art end of their front, the Congress for Cultural Freedom.

That's why we know who the hell Jackson Pollock is. Because of the CIA.

So now that the CIA is reburying their dirty laundry dug up on the internet bit by bit, we were recently given 2 (two) rental video decoys about Jackson Pollock that don't mention any CIA connection.

Why 2 (two) video decoys at the same time?

One movie was 'high-brow' or systematic-
'Who Gets to Call it Art?'

One movie was 'low-brow' or heuristic-
'Who the @#%& is Jackson Pollock?'

But notice that the TITLES both begin with "who" and so the two decoy videos about Jackson Pollock end up right alphabetically filed right next to each other on the video store's shelf thereby making it easier for them to be found by the two different brain models and tastes in film and thus reinforce each other.

Many psy-ops movies are designed to both appeals to the high-brow Systematics and low-brow Heuristics built into the one product. 'Oh, Brother Where Art Thou' is a good example.
It was the most cliched southern prison film ever but with a hyped whiff of Homer's Ulysses. "Two taste treats in one." But the mnemonic devices were actually about something altogether other, gender-based military recruiting and covering up an outbreak of MKULTRA scandal.

Now that media analysts online are catcing on, the levels of psy-ops are getting deeper and more sophisticated but still have to use basic cognitive science that is a topic which is easy to find and learn.

"Two taste treats in one."

on edit: stupid blue page CPU overload message

[professorpan]

I read what you write very closely:

A writer who generates useful devices will be given a career by "THEM."
That is, both people making money on product and people promoting psy-ops in product, two distasteful treats in one.

You not only suggest that Elmore Leonard's career was not earned by his excellent and popular writing, but that it his writing is "distasteful." I'm willing to bet you have never opened one of his books. I'm quite sure of that.

I've called you a Stalinist because your attitude towards art is Stalinist -- that art must follow the dictates of your beliefs or it is "bad." And you are indeed a coward because you slander people -- human beings you've never met -- repeatedly. You called the director of Cloverfield a liar in this thread, for just one example.

You are a petty, ignorant, mean-spirited fantasist and you've once again turned a thread into a discussion of YOU. Congratulations.

[orz]

retarded

Pretty good summary.

I concur.

[FourthBase]

retarded

Pretty good summary.

I concur.

Look, mock Hugh all you want.
Don't fucking "Hugh" me, though.
Don't shoot me in your drive-by snarking.

[FourthBase]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

[Attack Ships on Fire]

I read what you write very closely:

A writer who generates useful devices will be given a career by "THEM."
That is, both people making money on product and people promoting psy-ops in product, two distasteful treats in one.

You not only suggest that Elmore Leonard's career was not earned by his excellent and popular writing, but that it his writing is "distasteful."

And Professor gets right to the heart of what pisses me off about Hugh. HMW thinks that it is acceptable to do character assassination drive-bys via the internet concerning the true motives of directors, producers, writers and studio executives responsible for making movies. If someone anonymous accused me of being in league with a shadowy cabal that uses mind control over the general populace I would write them off as a kook. If it comes from someone like HMW, who I have spent my time and effort reading his words and I respect, I would take it personally and be offended.

Just because these people are highly paid in their profession and have a certain level of glamour assigned to their jobs doesn't mean that they aren't human beings and shouldn't be given the same level of respect that any other individual should automatically be given. If Hugh called me a liar and my work a sham you damn well right I would be offended. Call my work boring, say that you didn't like it but to accuse me of being in league with some dastardly mean shit committed against other human beings, those are fighting words.

If Hugh has indeed called Matt Reeves, the director of Cloverfield, a liar he better have the evidence to back it up.

[orz]

Don't shoot me in your drive-by snarking.

It's not drive-by, more like parallel parking.

I totally didn't intend to diss you there, I was just condensing your summery to the bit I agreed with.... not calling you retarded!

Yet.

ANYWAY it's an interesting idea, that what Hugh suggests sounds totally stupid and ineffective ...therefore it must be true?!

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
You not only suggest that Elmore Leonard's career was not earned by his excellent and popular writing, but that it his writing is "distasteful." I'm willing to bet you have never opened one of his books. I'm quite sure of that.

I haven't read his books. But neither have the kids who will go see the shoot-em-up western called '3:10 to Yuma.'

So his books aren't relevant to that movie-viewing demographic.
Readers and viewers are completely different groups getting a completely different neurological socio-cultural experience.

And that's a growing problem.

I've called you a Stalinist because your attitude towards art is Stalinist -- that art must follow the dictates of your beliefs or it is "bad."

I see art as expression of human values and also, more often than is thought, inhumane values used for military and social control purposes.

Damn right I see promoting consumerism, militarism, racism, sexism, and using violence desensitization as BAD.

Damn...right. Print it.

And you are indeed a coward because you slander people -- human beings you've never met -- repeatedly. You called the director of Cloverfield a liar in this thread, for just one example.

I did call him a liar. So what? Nothing cowardly about criticism. Quite the opposite.

You are a petty, ignorant, mean-spirited fantasist and you've once again turned a thread into a discussion of YOU. Congratulations.

Pan's meme-reversal factory in high gear. I point out that you keep derailing thread's by attacking me and you reverse this into me...? Oy.

Very illustrative, Pan. Thanks again.

[FourthBase]

Agreed. Hugh should cease that shit, unless there's real substance to it.
Real substance being more than the quick speculation Hugh relies on now.

[orz]

Readers and viewers are completely different groups getting a completely differnet neurological socio-cultural experience.

And that's a growing problem.

Totally agree. But that does not mean that the name of a film has a certain significance just because you decide it does. Don't forget that the title in question you've dodged and backpedalled on once already.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

....
And Professor gets right to the heart of what pisses me off about Hugh. HMW thinks that it is acceptable to do character assassination drive-bys via the internet concerning the true motives of directors, producers, writers and studio executives responsible for making movies......

You can't differentiate between "true motives" of numerous people and that fact that there ARE intentional mind-farkers doing USG psy-ops along with recognizing how MOST movies marketed through the megaplex cinema-rental factory are TRULY affecting both children and our general culture since the 1920s.

If Hugh has indeed called Matt Reeves, the director of Cloverfield, a liar he better have the evidence to back it up.

If this is really what makes you mad, I suggest a shift in priorities.

How's this?
"I apologize to Matt Reeves and his dog and kids for calling him a liar.
But his work is detrimental to American culture and I don't trust him one inch."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Reeves

.....Reeves cowrote a script that was sold to Warner Bros. Studios and eventually became "Under Siege II: Dark Territory."

Ah, a crappy violent vehicle for spooky Steven Seigal during the OMG-I-Can't-Believe-It's-Terrorism-Again 1990s.



Reeves makes money off militarist psy-ops like this and 'Cloverfield.'
APOLOGY WITHDRAWN.

"Steven Seagal returns as former Navy SEAL and skilled chef Casey Ryback, who's trying to spend quality time with his niece on a cross-country train trip. But as luck and action-movie formulas would have it, the train has been hijacked by a demented genius (Eric Bogosian) who is using the train as a moving platform to seize computerized control of a top-secret U.S. satellite that is capable of causing earthquakes from space."

review-
"Steven Seagal reprises his rule as the Navy cook/martial arts champion serving knuckle sandwiches to hijackers who take over a train. Seagal's in top John Wayne form, speaking slowly and softly and not saying too much. And as in the first film, he's at times funny, with one wisecrack you won't forget. ...

Eric Bogosian adds flavor as a slimey villain, another reason UNDER SIEGE 2 rises above the average sequel. Bogosian matches the high-energy performance he gave several years ago in the movie TALK RADIO.

Is it a Hollywood law to cast women as only sex objects or victims? Katherine Heigl fills the role of the latter in UNDER SIEGE 2. Despite her good looks, she plays Steven Seagal's niece - not his love interest. I suppose that's something you would not predict. But sure enough, the villains capture Ms. Heigl and it's up to Uncle Steve to save her pretty little head."

OMG. Sound familiar? This is why Reeves' 'Cloverfield' is prepping kids for the 1/28/08 mis-State of the Union Address with a 9/11-and-you-are-there YouTube-style rerun.

He should bloody well apologize to us.

[orz]

If this is really what makes you mad, I suggest a shift in priorities.

Speaking only for myself, I'd say that, when making wild accusations, then having some evidence that you're not talking total rubbish and slander should be pretty much #1 priority if you wanna be taken seriously.

[Attack Ships on Fire]

....
And Professor gets right to the heart of what pisses me off about Hugh. HMW thinks that it is acceptable to do character assassination drive-bys via the internet concerning the true motives of directors, producers, writers and studio executives responsible for making movies......

You can't differentiate between "true motives" of numerous people and that fact that there ARE intentional mind-farkers doing USG psy-ops along with recognizing how MOST movies marketed through the megaplex cinema-rental factory are TRULY affecting both children and our general culture since the 1920s.

Either use specific examples of films or individuals and have some evidence to back up your claims or talk about your theory in general terms. You use specific examples of movies in your defense of your theory and are now including individuals as suspects without compelling evidence. That is character assassination.

If Hugh has indeed called Matt Reeves, the director of Cloverfield, a liar he better have the evidence to back it up.

If this is really what makes you mad, I suggest a shift in priorities.

Why? Should it only matter to you if I were Matt Reeves or if I knew him personally? What kind of logic is that? I could easily say to you that if watching movies and seeing dark shadows behind their creation makes you mad, go find a different hobby.