Will the financial loss actually incentivize a change in the behavior of those who made the movie, or are they sufficiently insulated from the fallout of their propaganda piece not recouping its production costs?
I've maintained for a while now that these financial failures don't actually matter the way people think they do because the goal isn't actually to make money but to disseminate the ideological propaganda. Flushing 180 million dollars down the drain is just the accepted cost of enacting more brainwashing that keeps women antagonistic and grinds down the morale of the men. This isn't a business, this is psychological warfare. No one expects to get their money back from the bombs they dropped on the enemy's city. The goal was destruction.
This isn't a business, this is psychological warfare.
THIS is the kind of brevity I need to start employing in normie spaces.
You've summed up this pipeline of agitprop succinctly here, and I'll be using that line next time to explain why they do what they do, because trying to bring awareness to people using multiple paragraphs, ties back to Critical Theory and examples of financial losses over the last two decades just loses the average normie, but this line best explains what's actually happening without having to do a deep dive into the topic matter.
I remember Mike Cernovich talking about this problem on the "right" a few years back. When he was trying to get funding for his hoaxed doco he went to a bunch of "based" or "right wing" rich people for funding and said the overwhelming mentality was one of "that's a great idea but where's the return on investment for me"
The great thing about the truth being quite simple is that you can present it to the smooth brained normie as is and they'll be able to digest it quite easily.
Correct. That subversive movies are a sink for the studio's money does not mean they don't still need a money source. The studio as a whole still has to be sustainable, so the worse the bad movies do the less bad movies they can make.
It's not about the money, it's about sending a message. Namely, propaganda and social engineering.
Secondly, they haven't lost any money. The money was already made. These movies are financed by the CIA on the backend through shell corporations. The money was already looted from the taxpayers and created out of thin air by fed and funneled into black projects by the congress.
But does it matter?
Will the financial loss actually incentivize a change in the behavior of those who made the movie, or are they sufficiently insulated from the fallout of their propaganda piece not recouping its production costs?
I've maintained for a while now that these financial failures don't actually matter the way people think they do because the goal isn't actually to make money but to disseminate the ideological propaganda. Flushing 180 million dollars down the drain is just the accepted cost of enacting more brainwashing that keeps women antagonistic and grinds down the morale of the men. This isn't a business, this is psychological warfare. No one expects to get their money back from the bombs they dropped on the enemy's city. The goal was destruction.
THIS is the kind of brevity I need to start employing in normie spaces.
You've summed up this pipeline of agitprop succinctly here, and I'll be using that line next time to explain why they do what they do, because trying to bring awareness to people using multiple paragraphs, ties back to Critical Theory and examples of financial losses over the last two decades just loses the average normie, but this line best explains what's actually happening without having to do a deep dive into the topic matter.
I remember Mike Cernovich talking about this problem on the "right" a few years back. When he was trying to get funding for his hoaxed doco he went to a bunch of "based" or "right wing" rich people for funding and said the overwhelming mentality was one of "that's a great idea but where's the return on investment for me"
The great thing about the truth being quite simple is that you can present it to the smooth brained normie as is and they'll be able to digest it quite easily.
Twitter sold for $44B. That money could buy a lot of agitprop movies.
Agreed.
#Minab #168
It's better than the alternative. Imagine living in a world where supergirl makes a billion dollars.
Where people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people
Correct. That subversive movies are a sink for the studio's money does not mean they don't still need a money source. The studio as a whole still has to be sustainable, so the worse the bad movies do the less bad movies they can make.
It's not about the money, it's about sending a message. Namely, propaganda and social engineering.
Secondly, they haven't lost any money. The money was already made. These movies are financed by the CIA on the backend through shell corporations. The money was already looted from the taxpayers and created out of thin air by fed and funneled into black projects by the congress.
That plus all of our money is fake and gay to begin with. If they ever run out they just print more.
So the Producers meets Stalin