Seinfeld's DreamWashers = MKULTRA?

[IanEye]

ok, so I was flipping through the channels just now and landed on NBC and there was a commercial for Bee Movie and Seinfeld kindly told me that tonight's topic was Mind Control.

Then Jerry showed me that the way they utilise Mind Control is through a process called Dream Washing.

to find out more they flashed a number on the screen:

1-800-555-0199

obviously if you are sensitive to the concept of "triggering" you might not care to call this number.

The thing is, the show they were having a commercial break for is called "Chuck" and it is a pretty bad show that nevertheless deals with stuff like Mind Control and alphabet agencies and various X-Files types of things in a smug winking fashion. Ha ha ha not to worry ha ha ha and all that.

Nevertheless, the Bee Movie Mind Control ad was pretty fucked up.


http://www.nbc.com/beemovie/video/#mea=163760

So, cheers to you Hugh (':shock:')

[theeKultleeder]

HA hA..

"Getting punched out by some guy named 'Andy' not to be confused with anal leakage"

Maybe Jerry reads rigint? I know I've started to develop a really bizarre sense of humor.

I called the "555" number - now I'm signed up for an American Express card!

[IanEye]

I called the "555" number - now I'm signed up for an American Express card!

what did i say about "triggering"?!?!?-!?!?!?does anyone get this RAW reference?

[yesferatu]

Seinfeld was a show "about nothing".
Remember that? Nothing. No Thing. Nihilism.
The Fulillment of the Consumerist Vision. Hypercapitalist nothingness.

Ah, you think I am being silly....ribbing HMW?

Well aaaaactually, no I'm not. To vindicate the general premise of HMW:

As Baudrillard writes, "we are in a hypercapitalist mode...the purest and most illegible form of social domination, like surplus value but without reference...and absorbed without a trace of blood into the signs that surround us...operational in the code by which capital has finally obtained its purest discourse...a symbolic violence everywhere inscribed in signs."

HMW, if you have not read Baudrillard, then you really need to.

[Occult Means Hidden]

If we are admitting that the PTB are using Seinfeld to somehow allude to MKULTRA, then we have to admit HMW's position that the PTB are using keywords in media for association (false assoc., or as revealing)

[IanEye]

a symbolic violence everywhere inscribed in signs.

again, in terms of "everywhere", all i was really trying to get across last week was that the "symbolic violence" inscribed everywhere includes soma tha' pr0n.

Nachos?!? We don' need no stinkin' Nachos!?! - a direct reference to Nesmith's "Elephant Parts".

http://www.darryl.com/badges/mov.php?mov=nachos.mov

[yesferatu]

HMW, if you have not read Baudrillard, then you really need to.

Just to clear that up,
I meant that Baudrillard might resonate with you...not that you need to read him, as in a negative admonishment.

[chillin]

!?!?!?does anyone get this RAW reference?

[FourthBase]

Wow.

A lesson in "humorology" I guess.

[yesferatu]

Wow.

A lesson in "humorology" I guess.

well, Baudrillard is sometimes called "the Walt Disney of metaphysics".

"His provocative writing style would make it in any case hard to take him literally."


<<Consumption, for Baudrillard, has assumed the guises of
creativity and fulfillment (or by contrast vacuity and alienation)
formerly ascribed only to labor (Baudrillard, 1988: 21). In so
doing, consumption has exposed a significant tendency of
modernity: the circulation of images as true value. (Baudrillard,
1988: 11)

As images shift and dissemble among themselves, they pursue
their own strategies which displace ordinary human agency" (Frank,
1992: 96). Consumers of these signs must constantly reposition
their sense of self in an arena of instability and quest for
satiation; yet always there are more images to be consumed and
more desires to be attended to (Baudrillard, 1981: 56).
The consequence, inevitable if it is understood from Baudrillard's
perspective, is that in modernity we do not engage ourselves with
the real, but with the pretense that has everywhere supplanted it.
(Baudrillard, 1988: 135).

In modernity, the play of images is prevalent in mass-
mediated discourses.

2. The play of images in mass-mediated discourses increasingly
supplements real experience by its simulations, to the extent
that it becomes difficult to distinguish between them. Our
personal experience becomes intertextual, real experience confused
with mass-mediated images.

3. Our intertextuality responds to the "fatal" strategies of
the consumption of images. These strategies may evade and even
negate personal intervention. As a result, human subjectivity
becomes a task, not a given. Human thoughts and feelings mingle
with the desire induced by images, which indefinitely postpone
fulfillment by sliding to other images, and yet others.

4. Our subjectivity is therefore that of the play of images
experienced in virtuality. This virtuality is not only the
movement of images in cyberspace, but also the intensification of
the autonomous mobility of images in everyday life, images without
a stable reference to "reality." In effect, virtuality has
become our mode of personal experience in modernity.>>

cyber.eserver.org/baudrill.txt

[theeKultleeder]

Consumption, for Baudrillard, has assumed the guises of
creativity and fulfillment (or by contrast vacuity and alienation)

Sounds like FourthBase!

[FourthBase]

Eh?

[theeKultleeder]

Consumption, for Baudrillard, has assumed the guises of
creativity and fulfillment (or by contrast vacuity and alienation)

[FourthBase]

Consumption, for Baudrillard, has assumed the guises of
creativity and fulfillment (or by contrast vacuity and alienation)

And praytell, is this another swipe?