Social Engineering

[Gracist]

I thought it might be nice to have a thread to show various examples we find of the different ways the social engineers are trying to mold us.

To begin:

Parents to be given five-a-day checklist on how to raise children
Parents will be given a five-a-day checklist detailing how they should bring up their children under a plan which is winning ministerial support.

Television and radio advertisements and posters in nurseries and on buses would spell out how parents should play, read, talk, praise, and feed their children every day, under the proposed drive.


But poorer parents need to be “incentivised” to attend courses to help them complete the “five-a-day” essential actions. They could be rewarded for attending classes with higher child benefit payments or annual bonuses, the study suggested.

Baby shops and supermarkets could even offer “loyalty points” under the scheme.

The report acknowledges recommendations are “potentially controversial” and that “interfering” in how parents bring up their children leaves the proposals open to accusations of a “nanny state” mentality.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... ldren.html

Its weird to me they say the recommendations are "potentially controversial" but don't really list what any of their "recommendations" are so it makes me wonder what kind of stuff they want to "incentivise" parents to do. I also found the pedo bear looking stuffed toy the little boy has kind of creepy.

[Gracist]

I seriously can't (well I guess I can because I have been telling people this was going to happen for years now...) believe I can post this but here it is:

August 24, 2011
Conference aims to normalize pedophilia

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/confe ... z1VxdPogQY


If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s bible of mental illnesses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), set to undergo a significant revision by 2013. Critics warn that their success could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia.

According to the conference brochure, the event will examine “ways in which minor-attracted persons [pedophiles] can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process” and how the popular perceptions of pedophiles can be reframed to encourage tolerance. (Sound familiar?)

Child advocate Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting professor at Liberty University’s School of Law, said the conference is part of a strategy to condition people into accepting pedophiles.

“The first thing they do is to get the public to divest from thinking of what the offender does criminally, to thinking of the offender’s emotional state, to think of him as thinking of his emotional state, [and] to empathize and sympathize,” Reisman said. “You don’t change the nation in one fell swoop; you have to change it by conditioning. The aim is to get them [pedophiles] out of prison.”

Berlin has similarly compared society’s reaction to pedophilia to that of homosexuality prior to the landmark 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision that decriminalized sodomy.

B4U-ACT’s own website puts Berlin’s views front and center. “Just as has been the case historically with homosexuality,” he writes, “society is currently addressing the matter of pedophilia with a balance that is far more heavily weighted on the side of criminal justice solutions than on the side of mental health solutions.”

Berlin’s opposition to, and even noncompliance with, Maryland’s sex offender notification law drew scrutiny from former Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran in the early 1990s.

In 1990 The Baltimore Sun reported that Berlin refused to report pedophiles under his care who were actively molesting children.


I have seen this agenda in popular culture too especially with the show Family Guy. They have that pedophile character. When I try to explain to people that that is an example of desensitizing society to pedophiles they say things like, "Oh well the old pedo isn't shown as a good guy in the show" or "its just a cartoon" but they don't see how just introducing it at all is part of the whole process. Just the very fact of the existence of that character has a purpose. Same with how the baby character is shown a sometimes in hotel rooms or other implicit situations with grown men. Also, you can see how society has been programmed some already when there are videos like this one that shows how people are already taking horrific crimes against children lightly and seeing it now as "just comedy" because of the social programming. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9JcOZlMlLY

[grav]

Figure I'll just put this speculation here...

I was thinking about Cellphones today, and how they have become so thoroughly saturated in our society in a matter of years.

I personally can't stand the things and get on my friends' cases whenever they attach phones to their hips and respond to the little beeps and vibrations like trained animals in the middle of a face-to-face conversation or some other activity. They seem to be designed to keep people distracted and entertained, and another device to keep us hooked on corporate-run technology and serve as a permanent replacement for quiet time in which we may actually THINK about things. Does anyone ever think about stuff anymore without being provoked by media?

So I doubt it is happenstance that celphones have become so popular in the manner and speed that we've experienced.

I haven't been able to find any real data on this, but the general consensus is that Cellphones started to become mainstream in the late 90's, and became very common in the early 2000's. From a brief search of "Get an Answer" type sites, most comments stated that they began seeing everyone in the USA using cellphones around 2001-2002. I guess the first 3G network was started in the USA in 2001.

I will just throw this out there, might there be any correlation to a massive traumatic disaster (9/11), and a major influx of new social technology? "Make sure everyone in your family is connected in-case terror strikes" That sort of deal. Or a collective sense of picking ourselves up out of the ashes and moving forward into the future... I've heard many comments about Trauma being used to make us susceptible to new ideas. This kind of correlates to the rise of Internet culture as well.

I dunno, people would have flocked to these devices no matter what as the drive of convenience, and of getting the next new gadget has been around for quite awhile, but is it too far-fetched to speculate that there are precise multi-pronged media campaigns out there to speed things along like this?

[Dcopymope]

Figure I'll just put this speculation here...

I was thinking about Cellphones today, and how they have become so thoroughly saturated in our society in a matter of years.

I personally can't stand the things and get on my friends' cases whenever they attach phones to their hips and respond to the little beeps and vibrations like trained animals in the middle of a face-to-face conversation or some other activity. They seem to be designed to keep people distracted and entertained, and another device to keep us hooked on corporate-run technology and serve as a permanent replacement for quiet time in which we may actually THINK about things. Does anyone ever think about stuff anymore without being provoked by media?

So I doubt it is happenstance that celphones have become so popular in the manner and speed that we've experienced.

I haven't been able to find any real data on this, but the general consensus is that Cellphones started to become mainstream in the late 90's, and became very common in the early 2000's. From a brief search of "Get an Answer" type sites, most comments stated that they began seeing everyone in the USA using cellphones around 2001-2002. I guess the first 3G network was started in the USA in 2001.

I will just throw this out there, might there be any correlation to a massive traumatic disaster (9/11), and a major influx of new social technology? "Make sure everyone in your family is connected in-case terror strikes" That sort of deal. Or a collective sense of picking ourselves up out of the ashes and moving forward into the future... I've heard many comments about Trauma being used to make us susceptible to new ideas. This kind of correlates to the rise of Internet culture as well.

I dunno, people would have flocked to these devices no matter what as the drive of convenience, and of getting the next new gadget has been around for quite awhile, but is it too far-fetched to speculate that there are precise multi-pronged media campaigns out there to speed things along like this?

I see it as a simple case of first baiting everyone into using their products and getting them dependent on them and then implementing all the control measures once everyone is using it. Now cellphones are used to track us everywhere we go, and on top of that it has been linked to brain tumors as a result of increased exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Of course, I agree that everything within this system is geared towards you not hearing your own thoughts and actually thinking, that's why its called entertainment, endless diversions to keep you from using your brain.

[lux]

I've made a hobby of studying Hollywood's social engineering efforts for some years. I used to work in the TV/movie business and quit some years ago when I realized that the business really had nothing to do with entertainment and everything to do with social engineering. It isn't just a recent development either -- it's been going on since movies began and probably since radio began and... well, since show business began I suppose.

Many "sub-agendas" can be seen in the crap that comes from Hollywood. They are molding public opinion in many key areas as well as providing tons of false information about a variety of subjects. All of it seems to point toward a degradation of society, of morals, of common sense.

Sadly, these days many people "think with" movies and TV shows without realizing it. For example, they automatically believe what government and the news media tell them because their perception of these sources is that they are trustworthy and that misunderstanding came primarily from movies and TV. They don't see politicians or the press or the intelligence community as they really are. They see Henry Fonda and Morgan Freeman and Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis, etc, etc.

[grav]

I've made a hobby of studying Hollywood's social engineering efforts for some years. I used to work in the TV/movie business and quit some years ago when I realized that the business really had nothing to do with entertainment and everything to do with social engineering. It isn't just a recent development either -- it's been going on since movies began and probably since radio began and... well, since show business began I suppose.

Many "sub-agendas" can be seen in the crap that comes from Hollywood. They are molding public opinion in many key areas as well as providing tons of false information about a variety of subjects. All of it seems to point toward a degradation of society, of morals, of common sense.

Sadly, these days many people "think with" movies and TV shows without realizing it. For example, they automatically believe what government and the news media tell them because their perception of these sources is that they are trustworthy and that misunderstanding came primarily from movies and TV. They don't see politicians or the press or the intelligence community as they really are. They see Henry Fonda and Morgan Freeman and Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis, etc, etc.

Yes, there are so many movies that depict an honest eager-for-the-truth media desperately trying to get the word out to the public about some great evil. And some cult-classic films that star a reporter as the hero role.

I think one of the best examples of propaganda through entertainment are all the Apollo movies/documentaries. There have been so many of them, and even more as many references to them in other movies, constantly reinforcing the same ideas over and over again. We went to the Moon repeated on infinite. And 9/11 is becoming a close runner-up. I'm sure they'll still be making 9/11 movies for the next decade at least.

And so much entertainment just features people acting stupid and saying stupid things that have zero care of right or wrong. Basically just celebrating laziness and mean-spiritedness.

Lux, I would be very interested in any more of your insights about the psy-tainment industry. Do you have any idea the specifics of how these entertainment sub-agendas are organized?

[lux]

Lux, I would be very interested in any more of your insights about the psy-tainment industry. Do you have any idea the specifics of how these entertainment sub-agendas are organized?

Well, let me give a little disclaimer first: It's an enormous subject and my study of it is definitely a work in progress. Though I can't give you the hidden intent of every movie/TV show, I have become personally convinced that there probably is one in most everything that comes out of Hollywood and it has probably always been that way.

The "sub-agendas" I mentioned earlier that are being pushed by Hollywood are numerous and complex but I think they can be categorized. Types of social engineering/propaganda that I have observed include (using my own invented terms):

- "attitude evolution" which brings about changes in attitudes towards a wide variety of topics and behaviors
- "set-ups" which help prepare the public for various future psy-ops and planned societal or political changes
- "false history"
- "false science"
- "paranormal scams"

The first category above seems to be the most common. Movies & TV shows which gradually, over a period of decades, change the way the masses view certain activities, behaviors or subjects. These include various sexual activities, marriage, gender issues, crime, violence, justice and many, many other topics. One currently visible example involves changing the public's attitudes towards pedophilia from one of revulsion to one of acceptance and "tolerance." Comedy, by the way, plays a big part in this process of changing attitudes.

An example of the "set-up" category would be the many movies/shows which depicted elements of the 9/11 psy-op beginning years or even decades before the actual event. Motion pictures give viewers false memories and emotions that can be mistakenly interpreted as real experience (see the book Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander for more info). I believe this was used to enhance the "shock & awe" aspect of 9/11 by providing false experience via motion pictures prior to the event. The movies include Towering Inferno, Diehard, Airport, Backdraft, Con Air, Passenger 57 and many other films and shows about terrorists, airplane hijacking & crashes, skyscraper fires, heroic firemen , etc, etc. Each contain elements of the 9/11 psy-op and appear to have been created to enhance the shock effect of 9/11 well in advance of the actual event.

The "false history" category is just that. One recent example would include the numerous movies & shows about infamous "serial killers" which give a false history about how these purposely-manufactured events came about (see the book Programmed to Kill by David McGowan for a much truer picture). In this example the news media propaganda was used in combination with Hollywood movies & television, a frequently seen combination. Of course, there are many other examples of false history shows probably going back to the stone age and beyond. And, most any movie labeled as "based on a true story" or one that purports to tell the life story of a particular person is likely to be in this category.

The "false science" category of propaganda topics include evolution, space exploration, causes & cures of disease and many others. The purpose, of course, is to keep the public in the dark on these topics so they can be endlessly duped and controlled.

The purpose of the "paranormal scams" category seems to be to provide false information about such things as UFOs, ghosts, strange beings & creatures and so on. It's a very sneaky agenda that allows "establishment science" to deny it all while still imparting the false information to the public in a believable way.

Anyway, that's a brief summation of my views. It's a huge topic with many twists & turns and I'm glad a thread was started on it.

[grav]

That is a great overview, Lux.

Yes comedy seems quite effective because when you're laughing, your defenses, or your ability to evaluate ideas, are disabled. Goes the same for all drama, I suppose, but comedy in particular requires no attention span. As opposed to having to engage yourself in long drawn-out dramatic or suspenseful story arcs and character roles, comedy invites you into a new joke or gag every few seconds.

The "set-ups" to 9/11 are mind-boggling in their abundance. I am finding new subtle ones all the time. Some of them could be coincidence but not all. Two recent ones I found:

Meet the Parents (2000 October) In the opening theme song they are showing home videos of the girlfriend character who lives in New York City. The lyrics are about how Love overcomes you, and the last verse ends with the words "... Explode across the sky" precisely as the frame cuts to an image of the iconic NYC cityscape.

Battlefield Earth (2000 May) This is a pretty crappy movie based on scientology I guess... It's about aliens enslaving humans on Earth to do mining for them. At one point the humans are walking down a city street and for no apparent reason one of the alien aircraft ships accidentally rams into a large cylindrical tower beside them. The next shots are of people screaming as piles of rubble from the tower fall down onto them.


Do you have any information, or even guesses, about how this process works? Obviously the directors must have a heavy hand at getting these elements in. I am curious how formal or informal it is... In what way do these culture-creators discuss and organize their agendas?

[simonshack]

- "attitude evolution" which brings about changes in attitudes towards a wide variety of topics and behaviors
- "set-ups" which help prepare the public for various future psy-ops and planned societal or political changes
- "false history"
- "false science"
- "paranormal scams"

Just a small reminder...

How about this top-down collapse (from "Independence Day"- 1996)?
Does anyone think this sort of physically impossible Hollywood imagery is purely casual/coincidental?



Where have we seen such a ravingly absurd top-down collapse before - I mean - AFTER that movie?

[lux]

^ Yes, that building collapse scene is exactly what I mean and an excellent example -- thanks.

Do you have any information, or even guesses, about how this process works? Obviously the directors must have a heavy hand at getting these elements in. I am curious how formal or informal it is... In what way do these culture-creators discuss and organize their agendas?

My guess is that, yes, established directors and producers and certainly studio heads are knowingly and directly involved. Some writers too as well as certain key technical and art dept people such as animators, art directors, and even costume designers and others. They would have to be. But, these people are still few in number compared to the whole. That's not to say that all the rest are angels though.

[hoi.polloi]

The first category above seems to be the most common. Movies & TV shows which gradually, over a period of decades, change the way the masses view certain activities

Yes but I think sometimes we forget that the people who make movies are the masses too.

What we should really be considering is that there is a hypnotic skill that some people have to convince others of an idea without their knowing it. And we all have this skill somewhat but some people can really do it quite well.

People are not equipped to reject ideas as much they are equipped to accept them and then hold them on a back burner "just in case". Especially at a young age when kids' brains are like sponges, copying everything they see.

When we are simply reminded "This idea!" over and over (e.g.; of Apollo program or 9/11 or other major stories) it re-emphasizes that entire story and gives us reason to buy into it: to act as if it were real. This includes people who make movies and have come to accept the impossible behavior of the 9/11 simulated airplanes as physically possible, even though it isn't. It isn't that they all collaboratively set out specifically to reinforce the 9/11 agenda. It's that someone gave them the idea that making it is relevant to our present human life and everyone could get excited about it in that way.

The criminal behavior - if you want to identify it as spreading falseness - is the person giving the crew the idea. Such as the producer or the production company. But even then you have to wonder: what ideas do we all hold true that we are complicit in spreading even though they aren't true?

I am not saying we are all as awful as those people who want to take us to war. I just want us to keep in mind how it works. People are really convinced of what they are saying. And if they aren't convinced, they mostly say it because they wish it were true. People who want to spare the Middle East all the trauma and death inflicted on it by a slaughter of their authority figures and millions of innocent lives wouldn't spread rumors that Islam is an evil Religion that is better off not existing.

Even the people who spread the lies partially or subconsciously believe what they are saying.

There is a point where we roll over and take a lie - and spread it. We do it because we hope to make reality in the way we imagine it should be. Some accept/enjoy that war is a necessary inescapable human activity. Those who have actually experienced war usually think otherwise. But the young idealistic trainees don't usually see real war now. They are playing "video games" in which real people die. "But don't worry - they're not really people. They're just Arabs." etc.

[lux]

The "set-ups" to 9/11 are mind-boggling in their abundance. I am finding new subtle ones all the time. Some of them could be coincidence but not all. Two recent ones I found:

Yes, there were a zillion set-ups for 9/11. Another was that the movie "Pearl Harbor" opened in theaters in 2001, only a few months before 9/11 and was still playing in theaters on the big day.

[Dcopymope]

I've made a hobby of studying Hollywood's social engineering efforts for some years. I used to work in the TV/movie business and quit some years ago when I realized that the business really had nothing to do with entertainment and everything to do with social engineering. It isn't just a recent development either -- it's been going on since movies began and probably since radio began and... well, since show business began I suppose.

Many "sub-agendas" can be seen in the crap that comes from Hollywood. They are molding public opinion in many key areas as well as providing tons of false information about a variety of subjects. All of it seems to point toward a degradation of society, of morals, of common sense.

Sadly, these days many people "think with" movies and TV shows without realizing it. For example, they automatically believe what government and the news media tell them because their perception of these sources is that they are trustworthy and that misunderstanding came primarily from movies and TV. They don't see politicians or the press or the intelligence community as they really are. They see Henry Fonda and Morgan Freeman and Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis, etc, etc.

As Bertrand Russell said as far back as 1931 in his book titled "The Scientific Outlook", the most important modern agent of propaganda is the cinema.

“But perhaps the most important of all the modern agents of propaganda is the cinema. Where the cinema is concerned, the technical reasons for large-scale organizations leading to almost world-wide uniformity are over-whelming. The costs of a good production are colossal, but are no less if it is exhibited seldom than if it is exhibited often and everywhere. The Germans and the Russians have their own productions, and those of the Russians are, of course, an important part of the Soviet Government’s propaganda. In the rest of the civilized world the products of Hollywood preponderate. The great majority of young people in almost all civilized countries derive their ideas of love, of honour, of the way to make money, and of the importance of good clothes, from the evenings spent in seeing what Hollywood thinks good for them. I doubt whether all the schools and churches combined have as much influence as the cinema upon the opinions of the young in regard to such intimate matters as love and marriage and money-making. The producers of Hollywood are the high-priests of a new religion. Let us be thankful for the lofty purity of their sentiments. We learn from them that sin is always punished, and virtue is always rewarded. True, the reward is rather gross, and such as a more old-fashioned virtue might not wholly appreciate. But what of that? We know from the cinema that wealth comes to the virtuous, and from real life that old So-and-so has wealth. It follows that old So-and-so is virtuous, and that the people who say he exploits his employees are slanderers and trouble-makers. The cinema therefore plays a useful part in safeguarding the rich from the envy of the poor.

It is undoubtedly an important fact in the modern world that almost all the pleasures of the poor can only be provided by men possessed of vast capital or by Governments. The reasons for this, as we have seen, are technical, but the result is that any defects in the status quo become known only to those who are willing to spend their leisure time otherwise than in amusement; these are, of course, a small minority, and from a political point of view they are at most times negligible. There is, however, a certain instability about the whole system. In the event of unsuccessful war it might break down, and the population, which had grown accustomed to amusements, might be driven by boredom into serious thought. The Russians, when deprived of vodka by war-time prohibition, made the Russian Revolution. What would Western Europeans do if deprived of their nightly drug from Hollywood? The moral of this for Western European Governments is that they must keep on good terms with America. In the American imperialism of the future it may turn out that the producers of cinemas have been the pioneers.” – Pgs. 142-143 of "The Scientific Outlook"

Continuing on, I just started reading this book a few days ago titled “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes” by Jacques Elull and so far I can say that this is the premier book on the nature of propaganda. It’s like taking a full course on how propaganda worked in the past versus how it works today in the technological society of mass media communication, “education” included. Ellul says that there are two types of propaganda: integration & agitation. These two types of propaganda embrace the following areas:

1. Psychological action
2. Psychological warfare
3. Re-education and brainwashing
4. Public and Human Relations

The use of the cinema and video games would fall under the distinction of integration propaganda, or pre-propaganda (hence predictive programming), since it aims at making the masses adjust to a desired pattern of behavior, as Ellul describes it. He explains in extreme detail why Bertrand Russell believes the Cinema to be the most important modern agent of propaganda.

"Thus all modern propaganda profits from the structure of the mass, but exploits the individuals need for self-affirmation; and the two actions must be conducted jointly, simultaneously. Of course this operation is greatly facilitated by the existence of the modern mass media of communication, which have precisely this remarkable effect of reaching the whole all at once, and yet reaching each one in that crowd. Readers of the evening paper, radio listeners, movie or TV viewers certainly constitute a mass assembled at one point. These individuals are moved by the same motives, receive the same impulses and impressions, find themselves focused on the same centers of interests, experience the same feelings, have generally the same order of reactions and ideas, participate in the same myths-and all this at the same time: what we have is really a psychological, if not a biological mass. And the individuals in it are modified by this existence, even if they do not know it. Yet each one is alone-the newspaper reader, the radio listener. He therefore feels himself individually concerned as a person, as a participant. The movie spectator also is alone, though elbow to elbow with his neighbors; he still is, because of the darkness and the hypnotic attraction of the screen, perfectly alone. This is the situation of the "lonely crowd", or of isolation in the mass, which is a natural product of present-day society and which is both used and deepened by the mass media. The most favorable moment to seize a man and influence him is when he is alone in the mass: it is at this point that propaganda can be most effective.” – Pgs. 8-9

”Finally, the propagandist must use not only all of the instruments, but also different forms of propaganda, though there is a present tendency to combine them. Direct propaganda, aimed at modifying opinions and attitudes, must be preceded by propaganda that is sociological in character, slow, general, seeking to create a climate, an attitude of favorable preliminary actions. No direct propaganda can be effective without pre-propaganda, which, without direct or noticeable aggression, is limited to creating ambiguities, reducing prejudices, and spreading images, apparently without purpose. The spectator will be much more disposed to believe in the grandeur of France when he has seen a dozen films on French petroleum, railroads, or jetliners. The ground must be sociologically prepared before one can proceed to direct propaganda. Sociological propaganda can be compared to plowing, direct propaganda to sowing; you cannot do the one without doing the other first. Both techniques must be used. For sociological propaganda alone will never induce an individual to change his actions. It leaves him at the level of his everyday actions, and will not lead him to make decisions. Propaganda of the word and propaganda of the dead are complementary. Talk must correspond to something visible; the visible, active element must be explained by talk. Oral or written propaganda, which plays on opinions and sentiments, must be reinforced by propaganda of action, which produces new attitudes and thus joins the individual firmly to a certain movement. Here again, you cannot have one without the other.”- Pg.15

Contrary to what lux says about the use of movies to mold people’s opinions, Ellul explains later on in the book that pre-propaganda actually has little to nothing to do with molding opinions, or "a precise ideological objective". The main purpose of pre-propaganda is to create conditioned reflexes within the masses sub-conscious by repetition so that "certain words, signs, or symbols, even certain persons or facts, provoke unfailing reactions”.

[lux]

Contrary to what lux says about the use of movies to mold people’s opinions, Ellul explains later on in the book that pre-propaganda actually has little to nothing to do with molding opinions, or "a precise ideological objective". The main purpose of pre-propaganda is to create conditioned reflexes within the masses sub-conscious by repetition so that "certain words, signs, or symbols, even certain persons or facts, provoke unfailing reactions”.

I don't see Ellul's statement as "contrary" to anything I said and I don't disagree with it. He's talking specifically about "pre-propaganda" here and I agree with his assessment. In fact I think his point about "provoking unfailing reactions" is very good and I couldn't agree more. It's a form of mind control which is what they are all about.

[Dcopymope]

Contrary to what lux says about the use of movies to mold people’s opinions, Ellul explains later on in the book that pre-propaganda actually has little to nothing to do with molding opinions, or "a precise ideological objective". The main purpose of pre-propaganda is to create conditioned reflexes within the masses sub-conscious by repetition so that "certain words, signs, or symbols, even certain persons or facts, provoke unfailing reactions”.

I don't see Ellul's statement as "contrary" to anything I said and I don't disagree with it. He's talking specifically about "pre-propaganda" here and I agree with his assessment. In fact I think his point about "provoking unfailing reactions" is very good and I couldn't agree more. It's a form of mind control which is what they are all about.

The main difference is what form of propaganda is used to mold opinions versus what is used to condition the public to react to certain stimuli or events, by creating the psychological climate for it. The latter is Hollywood's job, the former comes after the pre-propaganda phase which is direct propaganda or direct action. Basically, Hollywood's job is not necessarily to mold peoples opinions on anything.