The dark relationship between Hollywood and the US Army (the military mental control of cinema)

Hollywood and the Pentagon have copulated in the dark since the beginning of the film industry and in passing have copulated with your mind an incessant - sometimes subtle, sometimes explicit - propaganda, which is what sustains the planetary dementia that allows Let's live in war.

A fundamental part of entertainment is that the final product does not reveal what is behind it: this is what has been called "the magic of cinema". We do not see the monumental sets (models, digital animations or cardboard); we don't see the hundreds of people who participate to get a shot; We do not see, at all, the cameras, lights, microphones and all the technology that allows the image with all its brightness and power to enter your mind. But neither do we see, unless we are very attentive, the ideology and propaganda that motivates, at the root, the "mere entertainment" programs and movies that millions of people watch every day.

As we will expose here, based on verifiable data, we are all subject to a propaganda operation of mind control, which has one of its clearest and mentally more invasive fronts in the relationship between the United States Army and Hollywood, so much so that it is appropriate to speak of these industries as a single Military-Entertainment (or Military-Entertainment Complex, as it is called in English).

This close relationship is based on a convenient dependence between both industries. On the one hand Hollywood needs the "toys" of the Army to film any war scene or even the futuristic genre (using technology that gives credibility); on the other hand, the Pentagon needs dissemination, Hollywood marketing to promote a perennial state of war, convince citizens to enlist in the militia or be complacent with a state that tolerates their contributions to be used to finance the monstrous machine war. Direct publicity, the Army has noticed, is not as effective as the glorification of war and empathy that achieve, with all the dramatic art, the magicians of show business, the dream-makers of the sacred forest of Hollywood. In addition there is a deep bond between the great Hollywood studios, their owners and the owners of large companies such as General Electric, NBC and Universal, which also have a stake in the military industry. A round business.

When we might think that society is tired of war, it is necessary to dynamize this neuropolitical economy, a large litter of ribbons that exalt the spirit of war and embed it in the depths of the psyche of citizens - that finally Accounts are the ones that pay, the same for movie tickets as missiles and warplanes.

David Sirota, whose work we commend for making known in the mainstream the collusion between Hollywood and the Pentagon, warns that a series of films are approaching whose objective is to praise the Navy Seals and, of course, strengthen the pro-war ideology. Director Peter Berg even accepts that in his next film tribute to the Seals he had the approval of the Pentagon. "The idea of ​​an old combat tape, in which the policy is very clear - we support these men - was more attractive to them, " Berg said, noting that the film will be "an uninhibited tribute to the courage of the Seals. ". Take out the violins, the pearly drops of your sweat in close-up, the nightvision lenses and the latest artillery bursts.

Renowned director Kathryn Bigelow (first woman to win the Oscar for best director and wife of the military industry agent, James Cameron) is chosen to direct the film ode to the capture of Osama bin Laden. The film will make use of classified information provided by the CIA and will obviously tell a story for the Pentagon to gloat. "The mission was an American triumph, both heroic and partisan, and there is no basis to argue that our film will represent this huge victory in another way, " Bigelow said, sweetening the mustaches of the Pentagon's big fish.

Now let's see that this collusion, as an propaganda arm, is as old as the film industry and much more subtle and powerful than what Goebbels did.


David L. Robb documents in his book Operation Hollywood the huge amount of films that have been subsidized and endorsed by the military industry. This society, which ultimately makes its merchandising on the minds of the masses, is sealed when the United States entered World War I, establishing in parallel the Public Information Committee that sets the guidelines to be followed to promote domestic support. In 1917 the film industry newspaper, Motion Pictures News, proclaimed: "Every individual working in the industry has promised to provide posters, movies, trailers and negatives to spread the propaganda necessary for the immediate mobilization of the nation's great resources." .

The winner of the first Academy Award for Best Film, Wings (a kind of Proto Top Gun from 1927), had the full support of the Pentagon.

With the entry of the United States into World War II, collaboration expanded unprecedented levels. The Hollywood studios produced, at the speed of popcorn, a series of war dramas to exalt the heroism of the American effort in combat. Numerous films were produced, but perhaps the best known is the documentary Why We Fight, presented in seven installments (1942-1945), the work of the brilliant director Frank Capra (Italian of origin), who to some extent played the same role as Leni Riefenstahl in Nazi Germany.

In the 50s the militia worked with Lassie to showcase new military technology and produced "Mouse Reels" for the Mickey Mouse Club : one of the programs showed some children visiting the first nuclear submarine (that's what is called forming futures). In this regard, journalist David Robb discovered a memo from the Pentagon, from that same time, in which it was noted that media production focused on children "is an excellent opportunity to introduce a new generation to the nuclear Navy."

Children remain the target of the Pentagon. As David Sirota states in his new book Back to Our Future, a good part of the video game industry was initially subsidized by military contractors, from which it is understood why most of the first games had a martial inclination ( Atari Combat, Missile Command, Contra, etc.) And while this is something that still prevails, it will be the subject of an upcoming article.

However, the Pentagon's influence is not limited to war movies or video games. The crazy comedy Stripes, with Bill Murray, was drastically altered in its preproduction, avoiding mentioning the military bases and the influence of the United States Army in Latin America.

Jurassic Park III (2001) received two Seahawk helicopters, four amphibious assault vehicles and eighty members of the naval force to rent a beach at the end of the film (because in addition, in case the above is not enough, in the new range of films of Navy Seals forces soldiers to be actors). This was given under the agreement to make military "product placement". A beauty shot shows the logo of the Naval Force during the peak of the rescue of the protagonists and a line of dialogue was included where the Marines are thanked (those heroes of the forced imaginary pop).

It is well known that movies like Rambo and Top Gun increase military recruitment. According to the Naval Force, the premiere of Top Gun caused the number of young people who enlisted for naval aviation to increase up to 400%. The Army was so enthusiastic about such a film that they even organized recruitment events in movie theaters — voraciously trying to channel the fresh pro-military inspiration of the film. "The boys left the room with eyes as big as cymbals and said 'Where do I sign?" Said Marshal David Georgi ("Hey! You can be the next Maverick!"). Even today, as part of that dark feedback, military missions are named with characters and codes from the movie Top Gun and other military fantasies of the eighties, implanting these memes in the psyches of "The Wolverines that have grown and gone to Iraq ", as the Army refers to that generation.

Special military advisers receive a special appointment to ensure that directors do not attempt to introduce innovations outside the script that depart from the Pentagon guidelines. Marshal David Georgi, advisor to the movie Clear and Present Danger, told Robb: "It is always in the minds of the producers to try to turn the film in the original direction they had presented us [...]. My job as a technical advisor ensures that the film does not deviate substantially from the approved version "( Operation Hollywood, p. 38).

This interference is such that today they don't even try to hide it. The Air Force Training Office even has its own Wings over Hollywood website and in 2001 the CIA appointed its official advisor for the film industry.

After September 11, George W. Bush's chief political advisor, Karl Rove, met with the heads of the big producing houses to gain their support in the war on terror.

In June of this year, Michelle Obama brought together 500 producers, writers and actors in Los Angeles to ask them to incorporate more family military stories into entertainment as part of the White House initiative "Joining Forces."

Among the most recent films that have been supported by military equipment are the blockbusters Trasnformers 3 and Battle of Los Angeles (a film in which the Army fights against UFOs, something that could be part of the new great programming agenda Pentagon predictive: aliens and transhumanism).

In contrast, we must highlight the films that did not receive support from the military industry because their directors refused to modify the story: The Last Detail (1973), Apocalypse Now (1979), An Officer and a Gentleman (1982), Born on the Fourth of the July (1989) and Forrest Gump (1994).

On the other hand, as David Robb points out, the preferential way in which the Pentagon supports certain films and others is not a violation of the First Amendment of the United States, in which not only the right to free expression is manifested, but also that the government should not favor one expression over another. The military infrastructure of the United States belongs to the citizens, therefore, in theory, it should not behave like a private corporation in which one can arbitrarily choose which company one works with. In any case, the use of its technology should be tendered to any film and not only to those that accept to glorify their interests.

Today a bunch of companies control the cinema in the United States, mainly Disney, AOL-Time Warner, Sony, General Electric, News Corporation and Seagram. The interests of these companies are generally aligned with those of the military industry and its contractors, as part of a great (bloody) work of planetary fiction. As Rupert Murdoch said in 2003, after the invasion of Iraq, a successful occupation would lower oil prices and benefit the economy: "This would be greater than any tax reduction in any country."

What we see, and we must call it by its name, is a semi-secret society, halfway between the political-military power and the entertainment-economic power, interspersing positions until merging into a single control device. The society of the spectacle in which we live is not only the chance of the free market and of human nature to seek entertainment or to consume stories. The great Greek politicians knew it: theater is the perfect indoctrination scenario precisely because citizens do not reject it repackaged, glamorized and supposedly free of official political ideology. Cinema is the most powerful indoctrination apparatus invented to date because it simulates reality by incorporating all the arts in the same flow, becoming an extension of our dreams, of our mental images and, therefore, penetrates the unconscious, where It implants its seeds. This phrase by F. Scott Fitzgerald (quoted by Jason Horsley) contains the magnitude of this witchcraft:

"The movies have stolen our dreams. Of all the betrayals this is the worst."

Mined dreams, militarized minds. In order for the world to allow the war industry to be healthy and sound (something totally insane), an imperceptible lobotomy of the global mind is needed. How else would a young man accept going to die in a distant land just so that the CEOs of the big oil companies, the banks, the big producers, swell the zeros in their checks at the end of the year? How else would we hate the inhabitants of a country that we do not know and have not done anything to us (they have only attacked an ideal assumption), who live thousands of kilometers away, if we are not mentally bombarded to achieve the effect that we perceive to these people as evil and think we should destroy them for freedom or some other abstraction?

So if you've ever wondered why they include shootings and unjustified persecutions in almost every Hollywood movie, there's your answer. Now ask, between the popcorn and your big Coca, a little peace for your brain.