Dollhouse - MC based series on fox.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Caution! Alliteration masquerading as wizzdumb.

.....
...people develop convictions that they won’t compromise even in the face of facts that fracture their foundational beliefs.

WHAT FACTS? You make an anonymous claim to represent all of Hollywood and 'there's no CIA here' so HMW must be a paranoid wacko.'
That's psyops, pure and simple. Already been done here by username "professorpan." You sound exactly like him.

We are all a product of our perceptions [bluh bluh bluh]....paranoia.

You really are Chip Berlet, aren't you? C'mon. Fessup.

When those fears stem from authority figures [bluh bluh bluh]... omnipotent masters [bluh bluh bluh]...They thus see conspiracy patterns everywhere.

CHIP CIA BERLET LIVES!

[pfffhhh cred prop nonsense to induce rapport in the naive].... no discerning objectively or even rationally. The fear forms fanaticism.

.....

... so consumed by corrupted conviction that they are relentless and unreasonable in their radical but wrongful self-righteousness.

Oh, certainty about psyops mindfuckery is a sign of kooky wacko aggression....you are classic. Seen you so so many times before.

Putting the two together in a dramatic story, show or discussion forum thread will be quite lethal. The danger is in the lack of any hope of resolution before expiry.

"lethal, danger, expiry"
My my. A 'kooky paranoid' could accidentally come to the conclusion that you are trying to cast a threatening chill on exposers of psyops.
Tsk tsk. Now does that make you look good to the readers?
I'm sure you didn't mean such a terrible misunderstanding.

You might like to read up on the 25 Rules of Disinformation-
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... =8&t=34613

[peartreed]

Your desperately defensive declarations display the delusions you have developed about your detractors, demonstrating the degree of distortion you draw upon to dramatize your own, sad self-deception.

As an illustration, regarding Hollywood, I didn’t say nor imply, “No CIA here”. If you were to reread my posts calmly and objectively you might comprehend my discussion of corruption and acknowledgement of intel agent influence in film-making. I also discuss the obvious validity of intel psyops and conspiracy.

In many of my posts here I have discussed my own encounters with exactly that. I participate here because I have had a lifetime connection to subjects RI discusses.

Where we separate is in your exaggerated attribution of the CIA authorship of not only ALL media scripts but also in your claim of CIA control of ALL modern culture.

Such patently hysterical hype and histrionics render the rest of your reasoning as ribald. Your word-association assertions also strain sanity into the Twilight Zone.

So do your schoolyard-level taunts and imaginatively inaccurate assumptions about my identity and purposes in posting. I won’t bother to even address that excess drivel except to say that there are participants here who know enough about me to realize your impotent raging is almost as baseless as your bizarre beliefs.

Why don’t you instead expend your anxiety and ire by haunting and stalking the actual CIA spooks of your surreal and sensationalized subversions and subterfuge? The rest of us can then return to a more rational discourse about credible conspiracy.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

peartreed, now tell us all about a CIA media psyops campaign. and the cognitive science plus marketing strategies utilized.

go.

[Simulist]

peartreed, now tell us all about a CIA media psyops campaign. and the cognitive science plus marketing strategies utilized.

go.

Criminy... It is a baseless arrogance that appears to possess you, Hugh. Usually one must manage to find (and then tune-in to) something like a debate between a creation "scientist" and a real scientist to witness your level of meshugana know-nothingness as it is pitted against experience, intellect, and actual knowledge, but here you've showcased it for us — without anyone here even having to pay for basic cable.

You should be horribly, horribly embarrassed by this (especially this latest retort of yours) but, as it happens, you're not aware-enough even to know that.

[jingofever]

peartreed, now tell us all about a CIA media psyops campaign. and the cognitive science plus marketing strategies utilized.

go.

This challenge you always throw out when people make too much sense would carry more weight if you could pass it. You think you know what the CIA is afraid of and how they work, but you don't really know. Some people think the CIA reads their minds, you think you can read the CIA's mind. Well bully for you. By your theory of complete control over Hollywood they are not afraid of the public learning about Jim Garrison, in fact want the public to know about him. But you believe in Garrison so ignore your theory when it comes to JFK. It was a clear psyop. According to Wikipedia the studio spent fifteen million dollars marketing a three hour long film. It had a forty millon dollar budget. It was nominated for eight Oscars, including best picture. The CIA wanted people to see this film. And you are constantly promoting it. Curious. Exactly when were you recruited by the CIA and how much do they pay you?

[peartreed]

Thanks, Simulist and Jingofever. Your reactions and others assure me I am not overreacting to Hugh's nonsense. I'm also not interested in writing essays at the direction of a demented denier delegating his due diligence to imagined underlings, but I'll give him a case outline to sink his scrambled synapses into, if only to keep him distracted while we return this thread to its original topic. This is "off the top of my head" as I write but it will check out if anyone cares to follow it up:

Operative USAF Sgt. Richard Doty (later “code-named Falcon) destroying respected researcher Dr. Paul Bennewitz with a disinformation campaign concerning UFO sightings and an alien presence at Kirkland AFB, feeding further “MJ12” disinfo to ufologists Shandera, (confessed CIA agent) Moore, Randle, Moulton-Howe, Friedman and Strieber which then led to their writing articles and books and extensive lecture circuit reporting, leading up to and culminating in the widely publicized television program, “UFO Cover Up Live!” where Agent Doty appeared disguised as one of two “Aviary” agents (Falcon & Condor) revealing, amongst other world-shattering claims, that aliens like strawberry ice cream. The resulting ridicule and ongoing rumors of official alien denial, cover-up and pending disclosure continue to confound and confuse followers of the phenomena and divert attention from black project tests. Which was the ultimate objective at hand. Much like exaggerations of CIA roles bring distain on us here.

[jlaw172364]

Well, Hugh didn't address anything I wrote in my most recent post. He just makes a bunch assertions, but offers no actual evidence for ALL of them, only a few of them. CIA influence is one thing. Absolute monolithic control over every detail of every production is another, and highly unlikely.

The genius of the U.S. control system is that it doesn't micromanage everything. It allows a lot of "freedom," as long as said freedom is directed at not disturbing the power status quo. Since art remains a passive experience for most people involved, namely the audience, who in aggregate, consume art like they consume candy, that is thoughtless as to where it comes from what's in it, and only that it makes them feel good, I submit that the intelligence agencies are mostly content to sit back and offer up their influence every now and then as icing on the cake. In any case, the film industry executives are mostly right-wing, so they've internalized the mindset of the government. The so-called liberals still want to make their money, so they're not going to stir the pot too much.

Another example of actual influence: Ayn Rand gave a speech to film producers and told them not to make film noir, or films critical of capitalism. There was a period where Hollywood made a lot of hard-hitting films that criticized the actual practice of business as a sophisticated form of criminal activity. Occasionally, films are made that are hard-hitting, but mostly, it's pap, in part because the film producers don't want to incite the population to revolt, because then they wouldn't get rich selling them movie tickets and overpriced popcorn.

Why would the CIA want to waste energy actually creating, when it can play the role of covert editor and influencer? It seems to be an utter waste of energy. Philip K. Dick alleges they came to him and wanted to insert coded messages into his works, which when you think about it, seems like a clever strategy of passing messages, in fact, I think, one that has been used by those conducting clandestine activity. But notice, he never alleged that they wanted to write his books for him. Now, there are stables of authors that write books with certain themes for political purposes under a pseudonym. I give you the Hardy Boys, and the Ghetto Lit genre as two examples. Franklin W. Dixon, if he ever existed, is surely dead by now, yet his pseudonym lives on, or lived for a quite awhile. The same goes for Carolyn Keene, because the two became a brand.

Actually, a quick trip to wikipedia reveals it's worse than I thought:

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

It turns out, the series were created by one person who wrote under a pseudonym, and then hired a bunch of ghost writers to make them assembly line.

[peartreed]

Thanks for the interesting recap, jlaw. Those latter examples of Ayn Rand and Hardy Boys books are cases where I was unaware of any active intel involvement, but I agree with your overall perspective putting parameters on the espionage editing efforts.

When I was in Hollywood or at home base negotiating contracts with producers of the AMPTP (Motion Picture & Televisions Producers association) the actual negotiators were most often in-house hired Ivy League trained lawyers, but the production company executives were most often present and fully involved “hands on” in setting terms & conditions, scale rates, residuals and benefits, etc.

Of course the executives were capitalists as captains of the industry and tended to keep their political affiliations private, although I’d agree most were most likely Republican, despite finding out over lunch that some actually voted Democratic. I know of a couple progressives too who crusaded for social change and liberal causes that often were reflected in their films. While they were still united across the table in opposition to the film unions, they were accepting of collective bargaining rights and the need for a civil process of compromise to reach essential agreements.

What did emerge in our exchanges was fierce patriotism in terms of pride in the country and their ability to succeed in commercially producing popular product under a system that gave them ultimate creative control and authority. Yet they were equally dependent on the creative screenwriters, performers, directors and production crew specialists to provide the quality of the competitive projects. They were also united in opposing whatever they considered interference with their mandate and the studio’s freedom to call the shots. Government censorship and its industry regulatory bodies were tolerated but quite resented, as were lobbyists.

My impression was that influence from the military and intel agencies was routinely resisted, except in cases, for example, where the content of a scrutinized script under production seemed in some form to be potentially undermining of national security, or facilitating an enemy agenda in a current military or propaganda campaign. Even then the studio executives more often than not asserted their independent rights and freedoms, agreeing only to minor accommodations if a confrontation ensued. Content later labeled psyops and cointelpro by critics was usually integral to the original scriptwriter’s story and was valid in that context.

Obvious exceptions to this were the propaganda war films and cartoons, such as those Disney produced in full cooperation with the mis-named military intelligence of the time. Internationally-produced films also often reflect the agenda of their country’s political regimes, mostly as an accurate reflection of their society’s aims.

But the main influence of the government-military-industrial complex in film is its role and reflection in the captured stories simply as it is, and a dramatized film presentation of how it usually operates, including the nefarious spy agency actions. The Bond and Bourne films also illustrate its feature as scintillating subject matter.

Or t.v. shows like the topic Doll House employ a premise where the fictionalized story of MK Ultra-style mind control victim is trapped with inner multiples in a dramatic and sensationalized series that caters to prurient interest, all likely based upon actual MC research by the originating writers.
Many other shows have grown out of covert government activity as the seed idea.

But the bottom line is that most feature films are fiction, and are viewed as such. Sophisticated spooks realize that too and tend to focus their efforts on real life instead. They certainly don’t run the Writers Guild, or have Hollywood under harness to orchestrate all aspects of our cultural lives and entertainment.

If they were that omnipresent and omnipotent and omniscient, we’d all be as spooked as our more paranoid peers who connect random dots and bots compulsively into inner utter chaos.

Thankfully we still clearly see the screen.

[IanEye]

Caution! Alliteration masquerading as wizzdumb.

*


Yo he aprendido precaucion.




Esto viene de la wizzdumb.

*