In response to the YouTube plugs. There are two ways to stop the truth. The first is to simply ban it - censor and burn books that are forbidden. If this approach is not politically feasible, the second way is to flood the market with trash. Trash music, trash books, trash movies, trash "documentaries" (look at the "History" channel's constant flood of Monsters, UFOs and Aliens). YouTube is a media landfill. The few bits of good content are usually illegal and aren't supposed to be posted anyway. And, yes, once in a while there is a true diamond in the mountain of trash. But unless someone points you to the link, good luck finding it. The vast, vast majority of what is on YouTube is worse than the worst crap available on cable TV. YouTube is no beacon of media freedom.
Clayton -
Caley McKibbin:The difference is competence and motivation.
EDIT: Ok, to be fair, competence and motivation do play a limited role. But then, it would make sense that Hollywood has a very real actual impact on, and a perfect incentive to directly influence the competence and motivation of people through propaganda.
Clayton:In response to the YouTube plugs. There are two ways to stop the truth. The first is to simply ban it - censor and burn books that are forbidden. If this approach is not politically feasible, the second way is to flood the market with trash. Trash music, trash books, trash movies, trash "documentaries" (look at the "History" channel's constant flood of Monsters, UFOs and Aliens). YouTube is a media landfill. The few bits of good content are usually illegal and aren't supposed to be posted anyway. And, yes, once in a while there is a true diamond in the mountain of trash. But unless someone points you to the link, good luck finding it. The vast, vast majority of what is on YouTube is worse than the worst crap available on cable TV. YouTube is no beacon of media freedom. Clayton -
I'm trying to recall the name for the type of fallacy Clayton is exhibiting, perhaps the community can help me identify it by name. It has to do with ignoring A (A being that Hollywood has never delivered because it is designed to block delivery), and then ignoring B (B being that Youtube has delivered because it isn't designed to block delivery), and then making an irrelevant point, X (X being that the amount of trash on youtube is high relative to the amount of delivered goods).
EDIT: It seems there are anarchist materials in every medium except on the big screen. So maybe if we consider hollywood to be those people who work for or hope to work for those who make movies which make it to major theaters and television, as well as the actual content, then we may define "Hollywood" as: an organization designed and maintained to spread propaganda. Interesting notes: It's interesting you would cite The History Channel for distributing propaganda, when The History Channel is owned by Disney! Remeber earlier? I was arguing that Disney produces propaganda, and now you're using The History Channel as an example of propaganda. I'm sure if I look, Lionsgate (the biggest and most successful distributor of propaganda in world history...?) has made plenty of the "Monsters, UFOs, and Aliens" propaganda you also mention. Also, something else that I can't remember right now :(
Hashem: I'm trying to recall the name for the type of fallacy Clayton is exhibiting, perhaps the community can help me identify it by name.
I'm trying to recall the name for the type of fallacy Clayton is exhibiting, perhaps the community can help me identify it by name.
It's called the "Hashem is full of shit" fallacy.
It has to do with ignoring A (A being that Hollywood has never delivered because it is designed to block delivery)
False. I will direct you here to see a short list of libertarian movies. There is a longer list elsewhere but I can't be bothered to go find it. I was quite surprised to see that V for Vendetta was not on the linked list.
and then ignoring B (B being that Youtube has delivered because it isn't designed to block delivery)
False. Clayton acknowledged that youtube does in fact deliver, it just also has a lot of trash.
and then making an irrelevant point, X (X being that the amount of trash on youtube is high relative to the amount of delivered goods).
It's amazing how you completely contradict yourself within the same sentence. First you say that Clayton claims youtube doesn't deliver, but in the same breath you then say that Clayton does say that youtube delivers. Anyway, it's not an irrelevant point. It is in fact quite an interesting point.
Go troll somewhere else.
The whole "YouTube represents media freedom!" meme goes back to the old, old myth of democracy originating at least since the French revolution. Bastiat points out the illogical nature of political populism:
What is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion? How does he regard the people when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the finest perception; their will is always right; the general will cannot err; voting cannot be too universal. When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is best for themselves? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so. But when the legislator is finally elected — ah! then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into degradation.
When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is best for themselves? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.
But when the legislator is finally elected — ah! then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into degradation.
On the one hand, hashem would have us believe that "the people" are a great source of valuable media and that "Hollywood" or the "Establishment" are responsible for suppressing this great well of beauty and wisdom from being widely accessible. On the other hand, he would have us believe that "the people" are so tender and helpless as to be unable to produce, find and distribute media without the help of either Hollywood or YouTube (Google, clearly an Establishment corporation).
The fact is that the independent media industry has long been producing and consuming its own media irrespective of what Hollywood does. Hollywood is, in fact, the very same model as YouTube: make tons of trash media cheaply and widely available. Nothing is censored! Everything is permitted! Yet, amazingly, we can find little of value in it. I think that the libertarian zeitgeist that says that YouTube is some kind of beacon of freedom is gravely mistaken. YouTube is the pilot model for a media takeover of the Internet. I personally believe it's doomed to failure in the long-run but in the short-run they're doing a pretty good job corralling almost all the video content on the Web into one, central location.
[INSULTS DELETED]
Clayton:The whole "YouTube represents media freedom!" meme goes back to the old
I never argued that youtube is a bastion of freedom, and obviously I'm right in agreeing with you that Google would love to—and I'm sure they have every intention to and plans coming down the pipes to—dominate internet video content.
But your point that Hollywood has, at least in some cases, produced valid anarchist content by way of libertarian content is no objection. There has never been honest anarchist material out of hollywood because it is an objective, empirical fact that it is designed to block honest anarchist content. Whereas, you can go on youtube and find honest anarchist content right away because youtube isn't designed to block legit content, like hollywood demonstrably, empirically, is.
Let me repeat that so you can't twist my words again:
A) Hollywood has never delivered anarchist content because (aka therefore we know) it is designed expressly to deliver propaganda and prevent delivery of anarchist content. B) Youtube has delivered anarchist content because (aka therefore we know) it isn't designed expressly to prevent delivery of anarchist content. X) Your fallacies. Irrelevant.
Hashem: A) Hollywood has never delivered anarchist content because (aka therefore we know) it is designed expressly to deliver propaganda and prevent delivery of anarchist content.
A) Hollywood has never delivered anarchist content because (aka therefore we know) it is designed expressly to deliver propaganda and prevent delivery of anarchist content.
False. Previously addressed.
Hashem: B) Youtube has delivered anarchist content because (aka therefore we know) it isn't designed expressly to prevent delivery of anarchist content.
B) Youtube has delivered anarchist content because (aka therefore we know) it isn't designed expressly to prevent delivery of anarchist content.
This is different from what you claimed Clayton was saying, as you were contradicting yourself. However, as it is stated now, I can agree to this.
Hashem: X) Your fallacies. Irrelevant.
X) Your fallacies. Irrelevant.
You have yet to actually demonstrate that Clayton has used any logical fallacies...that is, if you were to accurately represent Clayton's statements.
Keep it up!
This is a movie made for tweens, fellas. Congratulations on stooping to the level of the average sheep. They didn't get you with Harry Potter, or Twilight, but boy did you tke the hook, line, and sinker on this one.
Because movies meant for teens can't possibly have any sort of message in it whatsoever.
Way to miss the point, guy.
Spell it out for me, fella.
Thought it was pretty clear, friend.
Perhaps not, on second read. Quite simply, look at this entire page worth of posts, and even a few on the previous. Compare that to how adults, normally act.
Way to dodge. Keep it up.
Edited and thanks for proving my point.
Oh really? Because adults never act petty or rude? Do you have anything that you would actually like to contribute to the thread?
I think you've said all that needs to be said.
Thank you for your thoughts and observations. They were truly appreciated and this thread is better for them.
Diddo. This thread died a while ago.
gotlucky and hashem, you both need to stop with the insults.
*This post contains spoilers*
I just saw the movie tonight and thought about writing my thoughts down. I definitely see how The Hunger Games can be viewed as an anti-state movie if it is viewed from a political perspective.
The beginning starts with a script that states that the games were established as a consequence for some "uprising" that took place before the film's start. These games were originally started as a means of quashing rebellion, but, long after they have served that purpose (the film acknowledges this point, if I recall correctly) the games are kept as tradition. The people in this territory, called Panem, have limited means; interestingly, as a post noted above, this name may come from the Latin phrase panem et circenses which translates to "bread and circuses" (the staple food for many in the dystopia Panem is bread, noting multiple flashbacks Katniss has regarding an instance of charity from Peeta). Many have to hunt in order to have food including the heroine Katniss who is angered when her deer, the first one she had seen in a year, is scared away from her by a friend; she is immediately concerned as to what she and her sister will eat.
After chatting with her friend for a bit, she tells him that she had been bribing the "Peace Keepers" (the term reminds me of the role NATO in Rwanda in 1994; if these authorities in the movie are district authorities, they could be seen as ineffective 'peace keepers' from the conscription and genocide committed on the people of their respective districts by the Panem state), for reasons I forget, with squirrels she had killed. The Peace Keepers are the ones who are constantly present at the district level and maintain a heavy, and implicitly violent, watch on the citizens.
Shortly thereafter, the Katniss and her sister dress as well as they can for selection of the "Tributes." The ceremony, called the Reaping, is a lottery for two people and the woman in charge of the drawing is giddy in anticipation in juxtaposition to the dumbstruck children. Before the drawing takes place, she shows a brief propagandistic clip that displays the honor bestowed on the victors of the Hunger Games and how the Hunger Games are a tradition. In order to spare her sister who is drawn, Katniss "volunteers" herself to fight in lieu of her sister. The Peace Keepers -clad with white jumpsuits, helmets and night sticks- march Katniss forward to the stage with her arms held tightly as if she were a danger to someone.
After a pageant-like entry of the Tributes to the ominous Capitol -which, unlike the districts insofar as they are presented in the movie, seems very large and modern with skyscrapers and advanced computer technology- and a greeting from the President who cheers the Tributes with a familiar "May the odds ever be in your favor" (as is mocked by Katniss and Peeta, the other Tribute from her district), the Tributes are provided with a week of battle training.
Skipping ahead to where the Tributes are actually participating in The Hunger Games, various characters form bands to survive. As the OP notes, the best hunter of the games is immediately surrounded with others forming a strong retinue including Peeta, who admitted a few days before that he was in love with Katniss on national television, but this is not known until the group is hunting for Katniss in particular. Katniss is isolated from everyone until she finds a girl named Rue who helps her out in a pinch. These associations may fly in the face of Hobbes' prediction of a war of all against all in the absence of government- this state literally being the one in which all Tributes are placed; what instead happened were groups of hunters voluntarily grouped together and defended each other in the interest of survival and of killing others outside the group. Of course, this interpretation is somewhat a refutation of Hobbes' theory of the origin of the state and is somewhat grasping for a support of Oppenheimer's account of the origins of such (the idea he advances being that states were originally groups of criminals who settled in lands of wealth for continuous plunder); understandably, this latter part of Oppenheimer's theory does not come into fruition given the limited timeframe of the movie and of the lives of the members.
While the Tributes are killing each other, they are being actively watched by the Panem nation. There are constant conferences between the president and the man who is actively running the plot of the games. The conversation that the president has with this man that stands out is one in which he states the following with regards to the people of Panem:
The only thing that motivates people more than fear is hope. But too much hope is a dangerous thing. A little hope provides a spark that keeps people going, striving.
Indeed, it seems that the games are used as a ploy of control on the people rather than as the innocuous tradition that the state would have the people believe. The districts compete against each other -for honor and favor- much like political factions do (apart from the slaughtering each other in the wilderness part). In line with the divide et impera strategy used by states regarding political factions, these games benefit the image of the Panem state: The focus of the games shifts from whether such "games" or the sate are legitimate to a my district is better than yours! mentality as the constant mention of district honor of within the film implies.
Towards the end of the movie, the Tributes are promised that rather than having a single victor there may be two victors if both are from the same district (in the politics at the Capitol, this is to prevent potential uprisings if the apparent love story between Katniss and Peeta is ended by one's untimely death; the citizens of Panem are already rioting due to the murder of Rue earlier in the film- to preserve the legitimacy of the games, the Panem state has no option, but to preserve the love story between Katniss and Peeta for as long as possible). Finally, Peeta and Katniss are the last two standing and are waiting to be brought home as victors of the Hunger Games.
Unfortunately, an announcement is made that the rules have been changed again such that there may be only one victor. After a brief pause -and many gasps in the theater I might add- there is a change in plans. Peeta says something to the effect of, "Go ahead and kill me. The Capitol needs a victor." Katniss reaches in her pocket for poisonous berries and says something like, "No, they don't." The two are about to kill themselves together when an embarrassing announcement comes on saying, "STOP! STOP! Ladies and gentlemen, we have our victors." Understandably the Capitol fears that uprisings will occur if the two are not prevented from killing themselves (out of love). The state has to preserve its supposed legitimacy.
I'd recommend the film for anyone to see. I'm going to have to read the series now, as I've read that the movie doesn't capture the entirety of the book from which it is based- supposedly, it cuts out a lot.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
+1 ThatOldGuy, you have stated it better than I could
This thread is full of people obsessed with the story of Hunger Games, and me talking about propaganda.
Thanks for the compliment, Clayton. I appreciate it.
@hashem: You don't get it. Obama announced fairly significant budget cuts earlier this year. Why? Well, I believe it is indirectly due to the success of Ron Paul - Obama's handlers are worried enough about the remote possibility that Ron Paul could really skyrocket in the polls that they felt compelled to start laying the groundwork for damage control - Ron Paul wants to cut the budget? Well so does Obama! Etc.
Are Obama's budget cut promises in the slightest sincere? Of course not. But it doesn't matter to me. The fact he had to even make a verbal concession to budget cuts tells me that Ron Paul matters.
The same is true of Hollywood. Does HG have subtle programming cues? Possibly. The likelihood of rape also popped into my mind in the underground scene with Cinna and Katniss and the pack of Tributes wandering around with the giggling girls also subtly suggested "the alpha male gets the girl". But so what? Every movie has that crap in it.
But the plots of those movies are also propaganda, most movies out of Hollywood are either pure propaganda, pure trash or both. The point is that HG has a plot that clearly is not propagandist, in fact, quite the opposite. Just like Obama's half-hearted concession to make budget cuts, motivated by his handlers' concerns about damage control, HG is a concession and there are others like it. You keep laughing at A Bug's Life - go watch it and then come back and laugh at the claim it's anti-state. Seriously, it's just Rothbard's Anatomy of the State translated to an ant colony and animated.
Another one is The Matrix (only the first one, the other two are just standard Hollywood fare). The anti-State message of The Matrix is profound and not even very subtle.
MORPHEUS: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. NEO: What truth? MORPHEUS: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.
NEO: What truth?
MORPHEUS: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.
Please explain to me how Morpheus saying that "paying taxes makes you feel the truth that you are a slave in a prison for your mind" is a subtle form of pro-state propaganda or programming. The fact is that there are some good guys out there and I'm fairly convinced that the Wachowski brothers are among them.
Clayton:Obama...Ron Paul...The same is true of Hollywood.
Clayton:Does HG have subtle programming cues? Possibly.
Clayton:Does X have subtle programming cues? Possibly. The likelihood of X also popped into my mind in the X scene with X and X wandering around with the X.
On a related note but off topic, I learned at a young age that the government (really just anyone intelligent, but the government is condensed population of intelligent sociopaths) never does anything for one purpose. This is similar to the principle that they never waste a crisis, in that they prefer to take advantage of as many possibilities as possible, and they will capitalize further on the problems they cause. So they don't just control our water supply for profit, but also as a means of direct control, as a means of institutionalizing the state, as a means of poisoning us, as an excuse to appoint powerful people, as a means of disposing of industrial waste (flouride), etc etc. They don't just regulate and control media outlets for profit and power, but they control them for propaganda as well. Everyone knows of the government's old school (successful) plans to infiltrate and own all the news outlets. Well, there's a reason you've never seen anarchist content out of Hollywood, and the vast majority of society will go out of their way to avoid talking about government or anything besides sex the weather and the local team.
Clayton:But so what? Every movie has that crap in it[....oh, wait...........]
Clayton:You keep laughing at A Bug's Life
Clayton:You don't get it.
Clayton:The anti-State message of The Matrix is profound and not even very subtle.
No, you.
hashem: This thread is full of people obsessed with the story of Hunger Games, and me talking about propaganda.
hashem, the only way we can make the case for either side in this thread -whether the movie is pro-war or anti-war- is by referring to the story of the movie to make our respective arguments. You did the same for your argument in the OP.
Fair enough, the story isn't entirely unimportant. I guess the function of propaganda has more to do with the cummulative effects of the things you don't think about though. This was just a single movie—granted its part of a series. As long as they can saturate our minds with propaganda for years and years through hundreds of thousands if not millions of scenes that are generally socially accepted, then only a small fraction of the actual content needs to be effective. The best part is that the machine, the system, essentially determines what is socially acceptable.
If nothing else, it could be argued that a role of this movie was to keep people comfortable with Hollywood, that monstrous propaganda machine, because after all, they produce real content sometimes.
So we have a movie the perfect child of a propaganda machine, distributed by the most successful distributer of propaganda in world history, and everyone on an anarchist board jumps to its defense. That's what I'm seeing.
@hashem: It appears to me that you're generating a lot of heat but not a lot of light - rather than repeatedly asserting that HG is a "propaganda movie", why not analyze the specific elements that you found to be propagandistic and place them in the wider context of State propaganda?
Propaganda is real, programming is also real (though programming in movies and television is, I believe, one of the lesser threats). So why not drop the unprovable totalistic assertions and talk about the nitty-gritty details?
hashem:So you have a movie made by a propaganda machine distributed by the most successful distributer of propaganda in world history, and everyone on an anarchist board jumps to its defense. That's what I'm seeing.
To this end, I think it speaks volumes that the movie has been interpreted as representing a message sympathetic to most political perspectives: conservative, liberal, and libertarian; pro-war, anti-war, and a toss-up. I don't know whether the movie had the intent of delivering any particular viewpoint or if the producers and writers had it in mind to propagandize a certain message. I haven't read the books -although, after having seen it the other night, I'm planning on it- but others have said that there are poltical messages within the books as well.
From one of the critical blog posts That Old Guy posted:
There is something so deeply, horribly, obviously-and-yet-subtly wrong about this. In a situation in which kids are placed down in a game/war-zone, given weapons and told to kill, there are no good guys and bad guys. If this were to have been a real critique of violence, Katniss should have killed Rue, and the bad guy kid should have broke down sobbing and vomiting after stabbing the curly hard blond boy. Enemies also have younger siblings and are scared of spiders and like to play with lint and sing in the shower. The kids on the other side like to play soccer also, like in the devastating story of the “Christmas Truce” between German and Allied soldier-kids during World War I, in which the kids on both sides called off killing for a day to play soccer with each other.
I sense where the author is going with this - black vs. white, good vs. evil serve the militaristic narrative of xenophobia. However, I think he's missing the point that all these characters are automatically morally exonerated by the audience that is following the Games from the perspective of only one character (Katniss). I think he's over-interpreting the movie's portrayal of the more adept killers as being "bad guys". They are not "bad guys" so much as characters to whom we are not emotionally attached and whose deaths we will regret less than the sympathetic characters like Rue, Katniss and Peeta. Even the curly-haired blond boy is a sympathetic character and it takes a toll on the audience when he is killed. The audience can only sympathize with so many deaths without becoming demoralized.
And yes, someone needs to make a movie about the Christmas Truce.
Let's go back to the points I made earlier. The country in which this is occurring is called Panem - short for panem et circenses, "bread and circuses", as pointed out by another poster. So, the author is clearly identifying that this story is to be interpreted in light of Roman gladiatorial combat. Author Suzanne Collins says she got the idea from this story when flipping channels on the television and she saw a reality Survivor-style show on one channel and then on another channel news footage of the US wars.
The message could not be clearer - Hunger Games is a deconstruction of the media's presentation of war as a game, reinforced by "reality" programming such as Survivor and its spawn. Like the Hunger Games, war and reality-TV (propaganda/programming-in-general) are a "no expenses spared" production. War is presented as a game and, to an extent, war is a game, that is, it is staged. The purpose of invading other countries may not have anything to do with natural resources or petrodollars or anything like that... if nothing else, it keeps us in line. It keeps the districts in line - not just people in the US, people in other countries are intimidated by the display of force, as well.
And the foremost "message" that anyone with a pulse will take away from the movie if they take away any message at all is "the draft is murder." That's a pretty noble message, particularly in a time when the Pentagon is saber-rattling against Syria and Iran, apparently itching to ignite WW3.
@hashem, the mods are MIA but I think you are a decent person, so I kindly request that you change the title of the thread to "Hunger Games: War Propaganda?" - I'm all for vigorous discussion but you must agree that the title you've chosen is very prejudicial.
I have a lot to say but I'm way tired and I'll respond later, but a few things come to mind right away:
1. It was an action movie. A lot of the subtle stuff just went completely over most people's heads as scenes cut and more trauma happened. That's what I felt at the time, watching it with a very young kid whom I have responsibility over, and so I was concerned with how the traumatic scenes would affect fragile naive minds, and with the fact that for such people there wasn't enough time to process much of it rationally because scenes switched and stuff progressed so fast. I felt constantly compelled to explain things because the movie failed to...how can I put this...put anything in any sort of a realistic context. And of course I couldn't explain everything (for example the likelyhood of rape and the causes and implications of that reality), and that's how propaganda works.
2. I talked about as much of the "nitty gritty" as I could remember immediately after the fact in the OP. If you want me to elaborate on a particular part maybe I can.
3. Can we agree that the movie is de facto propaganda, and begin to analyze it from that perspective?
"And yes, someone needs to make a movie about the Christmas Truce."
It's been done
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424205/
http://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hunger-games-a-glimpse-at-the-new-world-order/
So, so, so off the point. This film/book is in no way "pure war propaganda". However, among the several "themes" or ideas in the story: patriotism, war, hunger, family, propaganda plays a huge role. Everywhere in the book you read of propaganda being used via several different means: television, education, pomp and panolply in an effort to control the society. And most storngly, one comes across understanding the danger and "wrongness" of war, not with a craving for war.
I just watched the movie again and thought of something else while watching. I never really considered the team of people controlling the Games as they were played out. I feel like this could be related to various groups that supposedly control, if not have some influence, in worldly affairs (Corporations in general, Bilderberg Group, Illuminati, Free Masons et al). Perhaps someone who has knowledge of these groups can elaborate as all I am capable of doing stating my familiarity with their reputations.
Relevant scenes from the movie:
As I mentioned above, I have almost no knowledge of controlling groups like the above-mentioned and what parts they play in war. When Bin Laden was killed (if he was killed) it always felt so sudden; it was as if someone just pushed a "kill Osama" button. During the raid, OBL supposedly hid behind his wife (false), was armed (false), was killed rather than kept for interrogation and gaining information about terrorist networks and was buried at sea in accordance with Islamic tradition (false). IIRC, Obama wasn't doing too well in the polls at the time and he received a nice bump when he announced the man's death. Are we really meant to believe that this man has been hiding from the world in the capitol of a US ally, and was on dialysis (then again, was he?) since before the 9/11 attacks?
What a benefit it must be for a state to have a boogeyman to lean back on to justify its expansion of powers and plunder for a decade. Give the public a newly released video of (a younger?) Bin Laden once in a while and see how much one can do with a monopoly on aggression. Maybe officials did a cost/benefit analysis of keeping Bin Laden alive and decided that it wasn't worth it to keep him alive. No, it would be much more exciting to the public if he were found and killed out of nowhere. For weeks after, a lot of people I knew, at least, openly stated how they believe that OBL's death will surely grant Obama a second term because he killed OBL (even Obama says that that's not the case; he probably had a teacher somewhere in life or had, at one point, driven on a public road).
In relation to The Hunger Games, the manipulation of The Games also has its benefits. As the President of Panem said in the movie: The only thing that motivates people more than fear is hope. But too much hope is a dangerous thing. A little hope provides a spark that keeps people going, striving.
In relation to OBL: give the people hope that Bin Laden is out there and "we" will find him and "bring him to justice." Show the troops shooting and marching, release a video every so often and talk about him on prime time news. Keep him on the "public's" mind to justify government growth in this "post 9/11 world."
It's stuff like this that leads to seek out the opinions of "conspiracy nuts."
I have almost no knowledge of controlling groups like the above-mentioned
Disinfo, disinfo everywhere.
The DoD/CIA doubtless encourage UFO mania. Why? Well, if you're in the business of flying concept craft (unidentified aircraft) it helps to marginalize real sightings of these craft by encouraging people to go over the cliff into the fantastical. "I saw a UFO!" is much less believable than "I saw a very oddly shaped aircraft flying in very strange patterns not too far from the Air Force's secret aircraft testing base." It serves other purposes as well, though I won't go into those. This is just one example of zillions of disinfo/propaganda tricks.
The whole idea of "secret societies" is, to some extent, disinfo. It's not that secret societies don't exist - they do. It's just that they're not pulling the strings that people are encouraged to believe they are pulling. Anyone can join the Freemasons and promote within its ranks. Do you really think the Freemasons have more power than, say, this organization? Just read the membership list. Yet we are encouraged to believe that the former is a sinister, world-controlling organization conspiring for world domination and the latter is just, you know, basically a bridge club for Kings and Queens.
Doubtless, the Freemasons, Illuminati, etc. are networked in with real power but they are not root sources of power. Their power is derivative, it comes from somewhere else. Which brings me back to the central dogma of Power Elite analysis: all power is ultimately private. This means that all power is something that is owned by someone in particular and that the modern conception of power as this amorphous "thing" that's just "out there" and not attached to any particular individual is an illusion, it's disinfo. The entire structure of modern, "democratic" government is part of the facade. Even the structure of the corporate world is itself part of the facade. We have these supposedly disembodied legal entities owned by no one in particular supposedly going around "doing stuff". Nonsense. The world of corporate structure is just a facade covering over the private wealth and power which resides behind it.
So, you need to take a step back and really see the Matrix for what it is... it is the legitimate world as you see it in broad daylight which is the control construct, the "limits" imposed by the game's controllers, to use the Hunger Games metaphor. When you wrap your head around that, then you will truly have understood the Game.
Sorry if this is unrelated to the Hunger Games, but I felt this was interesting and wanted to respond.
"Disinfo, disinfo everywhere."
Whats scarier is realizing that you were foolled/manipulated by the disinfo. When the disinfo starts to get high, it becomes very hard to seperate info from disinfo, which can be pretty scary for figuring out what to believe.
"The DoD/CIA doubtless encourage UFO mania. Why? Well, if you're in the business of flying concept craft (unidentified aircraft) it helps to marginalize real sightings of these craft by encouraging people to go over the cliff into the fantastical. "I saw a UFO!" is much less believable than "I saw a very oddly shaped aircraft flying in very strange patterns not too far from the Air Force's secret aircraft testing base." It serves other purposes as well, though I won't go into those. This is just one example of zillions of disinfo/propaganda tricks."
I should admit that I am interested in the possibility of extraterrestrials. I reject the UFO stories as false, but I heard related stories about this. Of the U.S. government suddenly shutting down investigation of an air force crash site or the like. Could an aura of secrecy be (perhaps as a desirable side effect) fuel for disinfo campaigns, distracting people with the rampant speculation?
Now its starting to sound like an actual extraterrestrial contact (not those BS UFO stories) could spark a mountain of disinfo, especially if these aliens so much as dared to question the system. I mean, its happened with big events in the past.
Clayton, it always feels that there is a mountain of information that you only scratch the surface with in each post, and you are bringing back the surface to lead people to get further to this mountain.
"The whole idea of "secret societies" is, to some extent, disinfo."
Is the idea of secret societies in real life related to masquarades in fiction? In fiction, some secret society of beings wielding supernatral powers keeps their identities and what they do secret, to avoid possible panic and such if the mask was removed. Harry Potter is a great example of this, as wizards hide themselves (and are forced to do so by a Ministry) from Muggles.
Keep this up Clayton!
Schools are labour camps.
I think we can divide the public into three major groups, from the point of view of the Elites. Actually, it's two groups, but one can be futher divided naturally. The first group is those who obey the State out of love. These might be dupes or those on the dole but it makes no difference - they love the State either way. The second group is those who obey the State out of fear. This group can be further divided into two groups - those who fear the government ignorantly (supposing its powers to be much greater than they are) and those who fear it knowingly (likely having experienced the bottom-side of the jackboot or knowing someone who has).
e oderint dum metuant ("let them hate, so long as they fear") - purportedly, a motto of Caligula
Of course, there are those who disobey the State. They are either criminals (in prison) or "pirates" (not yet caught). Aye matey!
I am beginning to explore some of Velikovsky's and Walt Thornhill's ideas and I'm wondering if, perhaps, the Solar System (including the Earth) is actually a designed system. But even if this is the case, I don't think the Designers visit us. To beings powerful enough to control an entire Solar System, we are the equivalent of barnacles on the bottom side of a ship's hull. This thought is inspired by the Kardashev Scale, though Michio Kaku has ruined it for me by espousing it. He's a NWO blowhard pile of crap if ever there was one. Yuck.
Life evolved on this planet but no one knows where it came from. More importantly, though, there are massive, gaping holes in modern cosmology and astrophysics.
I've been wondering why they are suppressing plasma physics. I wish I had the time to write because I have some great fiction ideas based on this.
I wish I had more information. Unfortunately, the "secret" in "secret society" is the operative word. *sigh
It's like that George Carlin quote, "It's a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the Big Club."
Is the idea of secret societies in real life related to masquarades in fiction? In fiction, some secret society of beings wielding supernatral powers keeps their identities and what they do secret, to avoid possible panic and such if the mask was removed.
I don't believe the Elites have access to any technologies or powers that we don't have access to - else why would they need to lie, steal and cheat all the time? Does the rancher "trick" the cows into doing what he wants? No, he ropes, prods and corrals them regardless of what they think about it. While it is true that the Elites do this to us in some allegorical sense, it's a slight overstatement of the case to make it out like they are literally able to treat the public like cattle. They do so but only as part of a very delicately balanced equation that, when tipped against them, becomes very dangerous for them (cf Louis XVI's head).
Harry Potter is a great example of this, as wizards hide themselves (and are forced to do so by a Ministry) from Muggles.
Yeah, I think that HP and related stories are subliminal programming along these lines. Basically, we are being informed that there are powerful people who exist in a world that is entirely separate from our own and, while some of them can move between their world and ours (some never leave their world), we (muggles) can never see their world, even when it affects in some way that we can't understand. Very creepy, subversive stuff.
To reiterate, I don't think this is because they actually have any advanced technologies or superphysical powers but things go much smoother for them if the public simply behaved as if they do. Of course, not everyone needs this programming, it's only people who might be smart enough to perceive the mask/curtain and to wonder what's behind it - HP appeals primarily to nerds/smart-people and it does so by constantly flattering their mental superiority (Hermione/Potter vs. Ron Weasly, all magicians/half-bloods vs. muggles, etc.) But in the end, a truly smart person knows that it's all make-believe. See?