LilyPatToo wrote:
......
I just wish that the concepts didn't always have to be wrapped up in high-tech sci-fi window dressing...
This is part of the psyops of desensitization, inoculation, etc.
This is how the topic is made safe for the audience, with production sugar and extreme displacement from reality precisely to prevent outrage and horror at the government, an emotional imprint hard to overcome later.
Knowledge of how to program a mind (especially a young, traumatized mind) has probably existed for thousands of years, albeit within secretive groups.
Secretive groups like USG social engineers and CIA-Hollywood who know how to handle ignorant young minds who might learn about reality and stay thereby becoming antagonistic to authority.
After reading the interview linked to above, I'm pretty sure that Whedon knows more than a little about the covert mind control programs and has read some survivor bios. He uses the terms "handler" and "programmer" correctly
He says in that interview EXACTLY what I'm trying to tell y'all about what media spooks do with PARASOCIAL INTERACTION, SUBLIMINAL PRIMING, INOCULATION, DESENSITIZATION, JUSTIFICATION ON dangerous topics that damns military-intelligence culture and holds huge learning potential-
Whedon wrote:Part of the mandate of the show is to make people nervous. It’s to make them identify with people they don’t like and get into situations that they don’t approve of, and also look at some of the heroic side of things and wonder if maybe they were wrong about what motivated those as well.
So we’re out to make people uncomfortable, but not maybe so much our bosses.
"...the HEROIC side of things?" What a perp. He's a Them. All the way.
and makes a brief reference to "the most dangerous game" (talked about by Cathy O'Brien) as the plot of a future show.
Hate to tell you that Cathy O'Brien is shoveling some brown stuff, maybe programmed into her to doubly victimize her and provide more cloak for the Candy Jones story and a CIA project to discredit a foreign leader...but brown stuff none the less.
So while it's possible to argue that Whedon is "part of the system" and therefore "part of the problem" it's also true that millions of viewers who've never heard of the historical programs before will obtain at least a superficial knowledge of the concept and some of the terms.
That's how spooks get there first to pre-bias brains with worse than superficial versions of keywords. These early safe emotional associations are a very valuable counterpropaganda strategy used for decades.
The show will never be as tawdry as the reality of sexual slavery, but I doubt if most people are anywhere near ready to discover how many ordinary little American girls and boys have been sold into it since the 50's.
Exactly. Reality would MEAN something significant.
If this show's sci-fi-ed version of that ugly reality does nothing else, it might prepare minds to learn about the real thing.
BUT first by desensitizing minds to the ugly reality and having safe entertainment images and and "heroic" justificiations evoked to temper more morally appropriate outrage at the reality.
Just my current thoughts--I hope the show continues to be discussed here, since it's one of the few places online where a significant proportion of posters and lurkers are at least somewhat aware of MKULTRA history.
LilyPat
Please keep the topic alive with reality.
The CIA decoy factory is trying to stay ahead of the learning curve with safe entertaining versions of things.
Even confusing programming of one individual with mass propaganda is at play here. The microcosm is a good learning template for the macrocosm version but can serve as "extreme science fiction singularity" to prevent learning of the bigger picture.
As with a lot of O'Brien's memories, proof of their factual truth will probably always prove to be elusive. But some are definitely more easily believable than others and for me this is one of them.