[Morgoth]

Nicodimas, on 21 June 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

some more focuses on monthly MK ultra pics in magazines
http://vigilantcitiz...the-month-0612/

Seeing how the world of insurance seems to stumble to a stop during summer, I had a look at this link. All I have to say is: Really?

Really?

Nico, I know you've always been a little alternative in how you view the world, and there's nothing wrong with that. I used to quite enjoy your contributions to threads about politics, history and so on. Since your return to the forum you seem to have gone several steps further onto the path of crazy paranoia.

These pictures do not mean anything. Unless you desperatly try to find a specific kind of meaning and adapt whatever symbolism you need to fit with that search. I'm sure I can take any picture from any source and create a narrative that will present the picture as some sort of sign from the Illuminati. We're perfectly able to find patterns in anything, but that doesnt mean the patterns are real, or placed there with some sort of intent.

[HiddenOne]

IGMEOY

This post has been edited by HiddenOne: 22 June 2012 - 09:52 PM

[Nicodimas]

I don't know.. All I'm asking for a open mind.

I am glad you checked it out at least. No really! I have zero problem with people not believing, everyone should believe in something for sure, apathy is the worst possible imo. If MK ultra exists we are all being given it in small dose, so the natural thing is to run away. Call it their form of social programming..You are being socially programmed it just matters on the intent and the will the person enforces.

I have been doing a ton of studying on this the last six months and the more you look at it, the more its real. You say its completely random i disagree..

The use of pedophile, upside-down crosses, siruius/nimrod/baphoment objects seems evil to me. I think the wrong messages are being peddled to people is what it ultimately comes down to. As a culture we are being destroyed intellectually over the last 30-40 years. To me this makes the programming easier.. I don't know something about this just feels wrong about all that!. I realize not everyone is religious in nature and the goal is to never control what people like so its a tough one for sure. Its weird I was raised religious, didn't really buy into it..but as I grow older I am definitely realizing Evil exists. The tough part is I think it controls the world, which sucks.

Ultimately imo the message in the above media is really messed up..peddling pictures of torture really? This is a part of normal media culture now in a major magazines. Ok a normal magazine everyday magazine has a girl squatting in a cage or being tortured, what type of message is this, how does this alter people? I guess something is really wrong with this. As you review this you really begin to wonder.

Its very interesting to me..I don't think its paranoid at all to wonder what message is being sold. Our culture is broke on so many levels..maybe that is why we are a prescription based society. Ultimately have we advanced as a species at all or am I asking to much ? lol

Otherwise some of the stuff in fashion modeling is messed up stuff if you review it. I don't want a real life barbie doll walking the cat walk. I want a real women..and the message that this is hot is not. Women that are fake in nature need to go. This sends the wrong message to men and women in terms of sexualization. I also don't want my models having no affect..people are meant to animated. I would prefer no pre-18 girls being so freaking sexualized either..some day i will be a dad and I would hate for my daughter to do that <thinking thats how boys like you>.. Guess I'm just getting older. more conservative as you grow up is the thing.

[Tapper]

cerveza_fiesta, on 20 June 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

Maia Irraz, on 19 June 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

UseOfWeapons, on 19 June 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

Maia Irraz, on 19 June 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

Oh, I understood the point of the study but I personally don't think there's anything really new about it, other than the fact that he's quantified things that had before only been vaguely discussed. At the same time, though, I think that we all like to see relateable people in advertising, no matter what the product. Fashion is a bit of a special case IMHO because a lot of what they sell is the fantasy of the brand..."buy Louis Vuitton because Kanye West carries an LV bag and he's cool" and so on, whereas you don't see that being referenced too much for other, more mundane, products like dish soap or cat litter, lol.

I actually do agree with the author's point but I don't think the fashion industry is going to change much. If it does, it's going to take a looooong time and as UseOfWeapons said, they'll probably need to see some serious correlations before they start that kind of shift.

The point of the study is that the precise opposite of the underlined is actually true -- that's what the major finding of the study is.

Sigh...okay, I am going to be uber duber specific here so that I can get my point across : a lot of what the fashion industry does / how it positions itself is as an object of fantasy and that's why their tendency to use unrealistic images is so ingrained (as opposed to dish soap where you'll see the everyday man or woman). I know that the study proves the opposite to be effective and more desirable from the POV of the average person but obv that's not how fashion operates / sees itself at this point in time. If it were, there wouldn't have been a need for the study in the first place.

Heck, the study itself also references this: Robert Kolker, a media-studies professor at the University of Maryland, argues that Dove's strategy is unlikely to translate to fashion brands because selling fashion is about illusion: "The ideal is too lovely a fantasy to give up.... Fairy tales are more potent than reality."

And now I'm done with this topic.

I see what you're saying Maia, and it does make sense. Fashion might be too set in its ways to change its ideology, but if anything is going to change it, it's going to be the money argument.

That's why I made the distinction between the "industry" and "high fashion" in my last post. The latter will do whatever it wants regardless of what anyone thinks. The former is very motivated by the bottom line, and I dont' think for a second they would let a competitive advantage pass them by just because of some "selling the fantasy" ideal. Not that it won't take some convincing on Barry's part, but it does seem he's gone about it in the right way to construct an effective argument.

I dunno, whatever change he can manage to effect won't happen overnight but once his concepts are demonstrated by a few open-minded early adopters I can see the idea of diversity in fashion modeling really taking off. Again, modeling for the "industry"...not for the catwalks in France and Italy.

Regarding the underlined: I think you may underestimate the connection between the two, in the way of how fashion is being made/determined. Take your average H&M/ retail clothing store: they analyse what is on the catwalks, what the big brands are going to do, and reinterprete that to their own confection styles. It is not for nothing that harem pants were being sold everywhere a couple of years ago and were completely gone the year after, or that summer dresses have a high cleavage line and a low back or are just past or just above or below the knee in one season and the other way around in the next, or that skinny jeans are hot to trod for men one season and a straight cut the next, or even that the colours yellow and blue are the spring colours this season. It is about adopting trends and the trends are being set by the designers of the big brands. There is a massive top-down influence, and a lot of what models do, isn't just advertising shoots or catwalk stuff.

Also, I doubt it is just one man (the researcher) making a change, nor do I think he is the only one who has seen the light. If that's what you think, well... Barry's sold you a fantasy

Finally, it is funny you mention France and Italy. They're hotbeds of fashion, most definately, and yes, a great many of the designers who are so adamant on using stick thin underaged girls (Lagerfeld, I'm looking at you) are Euro-born or Euro companies. But both of those named countries have codified law (France already in 2008) against using overly skinny models or promoting anorexia (fine line there) which are outside influences on the world of modelling in places that can make a change. Similarly, the London Fashion Week was told by the City of London over four years ago (Livingstone was still mayor) to be sensible about the size of models or lose the city's contribution to the cost of organising it, and Victoria Beckham (herself not always the example of a well-fed woman) used sizes 4-6 only instead of the dreaded size 2. It is still nowhere near the size 14 which according to the OP article is standard, but it is an improvement. The fashion world itself is already moving. They know it is an issue, as Maia said. It isn't new, it is just quantification that's being added (and that makes it a more visible and a more dire issue, perhaps).

Finally, as a note on something else completely: Nic, I have no problem with you seeing conspiracies behind everything, nor with posting about it. But the only thing that often relates your posts to the OP is a google search term, in this case, modelling or fashion (probably followed by mind control). Your post has nothing to do with weight/age distribution/ representation or model health, which is what the other 17 posts before your first post were about, and this is not the only topic where you do this, only the most recent (probably until I check the Syria thread).

In the future, when a conspiracy-brain wave comes to you while reading an existing topic, could you be a nice guy and start a new one instead, calling it for example US Government Brainwashes us through Fashion Advertisement?