The advancement of all civilization has been the free exchange of ideas and information. Humans by design are copying machines; we start with only the minimal of instinct and learn everything through repetition and exposure. The new found intellectual property protections fly in the face of thousands of years of human evolution. It will fail, and rightfully so; there is little as subversive as ownership of ideas.

I actually liked it. It's a tremendously complex video that rewards watching it several times and expending effort interpreting it. The man with the gun--did he shoot Gaga, or is planning to shoot himself? Perhaps he--Alejandro, apparently--is meant to signify a gay man trapped in a straight marriage. Note that in the bedroom, he and Gaga are both constrained by cables from the ceiling, as if they are marionette puppets. Perhaps he killed himself, and is thus the man buried by Gaga in the funeral procession.

What's the with the man wearing the Star of David with a cage around his head, and the man nearby wearing a stylized pyramid? Is Gaga just throwing a bone to the conspiracy theorists, or do they play a more significant role in the video? I am tempted to say that they do. They are presented with the lockstep march of the soldiers, offering commentary on the way they are closely regimented and controlled.

Just a few points: Every costume Gaga wears appears to symbolize some means of control or liberation. Nazi Dictator Gaga, as I have dubbed her, in the black outfit with the goggles, is a symbol of externalized, nefarious control. Cabaret Gaga, in the underwear, seems to represent purely carnal sexual liberation--just plain sex--which is outside her system of control, but does not seem to seriously subvert it. Machine Gun Madonna Gaga might is a woman who--like Dictator Gaga--has seized masculine, phallic power to herself, but in a rather dangerous way. Following the appearance of the M-16 bra, we see that the soldiers are led to violence and domination. Red Latex Nun Gaga symbolizes is like Dictator Gaga in that she represents control--but passive, internalized control, rather than external control--but is nonetheless just as controlling; she has, by accepting the system of control into herself, enslaved a man into a desperate, entirely inappropriate heterosexual marriage. The flip side is Anti-Christ Gaga, who, like Cabaret Gaga, symbolizes sexual liberation from control--but in a spiritualized, highly subversive form--though the flash of an appearance of Dictator Gaga may indicate that this, too, is part of the machinations of the system of control.

There's plenty more one can say. A number of narrative threads, occurring simultaneously, can be teased out of the video.

Also, lots of man-candy. Yay!

I think you hit a lot of nails on their heads. I'm thinking follow the money and power. That's the endpoint that can't be hidden easily...because the purpose of power is influence. Where and how is that coming from. Who's benefiting. In the US I'm sure you'll see that easily. Just look at who's gotten money and what policies have been pushed and who benefits from them. For Obama for the most part it's investment banks and insurance companys so far(so far). Actually the same constituency as Bush but by other means and words.
The major foreign policy push under Bush 2 was supposed to be an adrenalin like shot to your countries dominance in the world but it didn't work easily. But empires can't change their trajectory on a dime. Countries investments are set and wars are in play. So Obama, carries out the same basic policies under a new PR campaign, with well worded adjustments but in the same trajectory. >> ^enoch:

i had some people ask me about "seeing the farm" concerning this video.
while i will not attribute a draconian "they" to these ephemeral owners nor will i ascribe a universal intent to dominate but i also will not close my eyes to the indoctrination and subversion of my fellow citizens.
i really feel this is a worthy conversation and one where a better vehicle than comments should be used but that is all i have at the moment.that being said i shall attempt..feebly most likely..to convey how i see things in the most simplest of terms:
financiers,corporations and governments are in the business of expansion.over the centuries these names were different but with the same goal.over the past two hundred years these systems have increasingly grown....cozy.
how and what tools do these institutions employ to gain their objective?
people,workers and their ability to produce and in the past 50 years here in america..consume.
how do they get these people to throw themselves into huge debt?
or think that working three jobs is normal?
how do they get a country to stop producing its own food and import?
how do they get an entire country to agree that mass slaughter is in the best interest of the nation?
an over-simplified answer:
control the media and control the message.
control the education and indoctrinate children to not only hear that message but find it reasonable as they join the workforce.
keep the citizenry barely cognizent of current events and distract them with cheap and tawdry entertainment.
over the past 4000 years wars were fought over religion but in the last 100 they have mainly been fought over nationalism but BOTH forms had the same goal in mind....expansion and the aquisition of resources.
the vehicle may have changed but the goal was the same.
and WHO do YOU think fight these wars?not those who wish to prosper from the spoils but rather the most poor and ill-educated from that society.
does this mean there is some secret cabal of bildebergers planning the future of their utopian society?
i dont know..but i dont think so.things are just as they were centuries ago..those few who wield power wield it for their own interests..not yours.
they throw scraps and larder in the general publics direction to keep things relatively stable and keep production going.
they need you to buy the product.
they need you to find it good.
they need you to go fight and die in their war campaigns so they can aquire more resources.
they need you to not think too hard or look too closely.
because if you did think and look closely you may find that there is a hand in your back pocket and it has been stealing not only your future but your childrens.
that you are free is only an illusion.
and if you realized that..well.."they" would become very anxious.
because "they" need you.
WHO are "they"?
goldman sachs,the fed,walmart,the federal government...the list is not too long and all the players know each other but are they all in cahoots?
meh../shrugs..maybe i am being naive but i dont think so.i think they all have the same agenda which is the accumulation of wealth and power.
it is a small club..
and you and i ain't in it.

i had some people ask me about "seeing the farm" concerning this video.
while i will not attribute a draconian "they" to these ephemeral owners nor will i ascribe a universal intent to dominate but i also will not close my eyes to the indoctrination and subversion of my fellow citizens.

i really feel this is a worthy conversation and one where a better vehicle than comments should be used but that is all i have at the moment.that being said i shall attempt..feebly most likely..to convey how i see things in the most simplest of terms:

financiers,corporations and governments are in the business of expansion.over the centuries these names were different but with the same goal.over the past two hundred years these systems have increasingly grown....cozy.
how and what tools do these institutions employ to gain their objective?
people,workers and their ability to produce and in the past 50 years here in america..consume.
how do they get these people to throw themselves into huge debt?
or think that working three jobs is normal?
how do they get a country to stop producing its own food and import?
how do they get an entire country to agree that mass slaughter is in the best interest of the nation?

an over-simplified answer:
control the media and control the message.
control the education and indoctrinate children to not only hear that message but find it reasonable as they join the workforce.
keep the citizenry barely cognizent of current events and distract them with cheap and tawdry entertainment.

over the past 4000 years wars were fought over religion but in the last 100 they have mainly been fought over nationalism but BOTH forms had the same goal in mind....expansion and the aquisition of resources.
the vehicle may have changed but the goal was the same.
and WHO do YOU think fight these wars?not those who wish to prosper from the spoils but rather the most poor and ill-educated from that society.

does this mean there is some secret cabal of bildebergers planning the future of their utopian society?
i dont know..but i dont think so.things are just as they were centuries ago..those few who wield power wield it for their own interests..not yours.
they throw scraps and larder in the general publics direction to keep things relatively stable and keep production going.
they need you to buy the product.
they need you to find it good.
they need you to go fight and die in their war campaigns so they can aquire more resources.
they need you to not think too hard or look too closely.
because if you did think and look closely you may find that there is a hand in your back pocket and it has been stealing not only your future but your childrens.
that you are free is only an illusion.
and if you realized that..well.."they" would become very anxious.
because "they" need you.

WHO are "they"?
goldman sachs,the fed,walmart,the federal government...the list is not too long and all the players know each other but are they all in cahoots?
meh../shrugs..maybe i am being naive but i dont think so.i think they all have the same agenda which is the accumulation of wealth and power.
it is a small club..
and you and i ain't in it.

It's amazing to me how ensconsed in the bubble the right is these days.

Let's break it down:

1. Ideological subversion propagation - Radical conservatives begin pushing their ideology to all members of society through churches, schools, and supposedly independent policy research "think tanks". This begins in the early 30's, and is a systematic campaign aimed at chipping away at the credibility of embedded liberalism, America's original ideology. The "threat of communism" is conflated with traditional American values like empathy, solidarity, and equality.
   
   
2. Destabilization - The 1960's reads literally like a textbook example of a country in crisis. A presidential assassination, two proxy wars, a mexican standoff with nuclear weapons, a counterculture protest movement, race relations getting strained with protests and violence, and the then-dominant Democratic party coming apart at its seams over disagreements about the war and civil rights.
   
   
3. Crisis - This one is clear. The oil crisis of the 1970's was our key takeover crisis moment. It basically ushered in an end to embedded liberalism as the American way of life. So many aspects of our political life and the way our economy was run was radically changed in the aftermath of that crisis, even though it was a walk in the park compared to today's economic problems.
   
   
4. Normalization - Conservative Republicans won 3 terms in a row, from 1980 until 1992, followed by a conservative, Southern Democrat who won in part because a third party candidate split Republican support. Party-line economists have treated the works of John Maynard Keynes the way their forebears treated the work of Karl Heinrich Marx -- they pretended it had nothing worthwhile to say, and tried their best to erase it from academic discourse. The Democrats of today consider reforms Republicans proposed in 1992 massive ideological win for the left.
   

Take the bananas out of your ears, morons.

Anyways, this is actually a pretty astute observation about how radical political and economic change happens. It's not necessarily planned like our conservative takeover was, but the framework for all ideological revolutions start with an ideology becoming commonly known, then during a period of destabilization and crisis, people may turn to the new ideology.

This is literally what more than a few libertarian bloggers say is their raison d'etre -- to make sure the ideology is lying around for when a crisis hits.

However, anyone who thinks some Russian-led infiltration of "Marxist-Lenninist" ideology happened or is happening is fucking deluded. It would've been a real trick considering your average American doesn't have a fucking clue what Marxism is...because the right stigmatized knowledge of it!

He's actually not that difficult to understand. But a savvy editor could mash this up with some funny subtitles.. like "On the 'morrow, good sir, you'll be surprised by the compensation given to little league coaches." or some such...

I actually think it's subversive for this kind of video to make it to youtube. It's not every day you get a glimpse of one result of the dark economy.

"greafer's" video sickly attempts to defend Obama !....the video is trash , but should merit a few small donations from subversive elements ( is this bozo actually a US citizen ? )

downvote for waking up my housemates NOT to mention I downvoted the non-dubstepped version of this video for it's subversive animal cruelty qualites THAT combined with fucking awful dubstep "music" ARGHHH I wish I had 2 downvotes for this video

If this is subversive comedy, she is as brilliant as Andy Kaufman!

I do have a subversive streak in me.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

She's an epic subversive, deep-cover troll fighting for the forces of good and Progressivism.

I hope to god you're right. Whatever medication she's on is making her cross-eyed. And fat.>> ^Kevlar:

This is a hoax, right? After all those years of a humorless SNL stint, Victoria Jackson finally struck some real subversive parody and is taking these hosts on a ride, right?

This is a hoax, right? After all those years of a humorless SNL stint, Victoria Jackson finally struck some real subversive parody and is taking these hosts on a ride, right?

But I'm not sure the cartoon is saying that anyone should abandon their individuality, that the good of the many always outweigh the good of the few or that being an individual is reckless and selfish. That's just one person's interpretation, namely the writer of the article's. I'm not sure that the cartoon was meant to politically manipulate children, that's also just the interpretation of the writer and inflammatory rethoric. Such wording is more likely to make me think the writer has some axe to grind with the production company than to expose the cartoon as maliciously subversive. To me it reads as if he's simply taken the positive messages the cartoon tried to promote, like the importance of friendship and working together, and just spun it to show it in a negative light. I'm sure there's just as much of a case to be made there about how each of the characters is uniquely individual in the series and how you can be different from everyone and still get along. After all, being an individual doesn't mean one has to forfeit all forms of cooperation with others.

You can spin just about anything negatively, but that doesn't mean that children will pick up on it and lose their sense of self-worth. More likely than not, they'll pick up on the larger, highlighted and predominant themes of the show. Like you said, He-man had to take time out of the cartoon to sit down and really illustrate why smoking was bad, and that didn't make you avoid the cigs.
The guilt you felt from starting to smoke, however, could have come from a hundred different places, and probably did. I don't think the only reason for those feelings was from the ending of a cartoon episode you saw as a child, and I don't think you do either. Smoking has been somewhat of a social taboo for a long time, and even people who do it know that it's bad for them and that they'd be better off quitting. That's something kids are much more likely to pick up on.

@NetRunner. Does the Watchmen even have a moral to teach? Sure, it's political, but a moral? Who cares either way, I suppose.

The fundamental difference is within the agenda of an interest group aimed at social engineering children vs. an author writing a political narrative. You seem to think somehow I'm trying to censor people or trying to enact a law to combat them, which is simply not the case, and quite frankly a pedestrian effort at a smear. I thought Mark Evanier's blog entry above was interesting and worth continuing the exposition, so I did because the nature of interest groups trying to secretly influence children is insidious and worthy of note, in my opinion.

It's not that it's solely aimed at kids; it's because of the hidden agenda to socially engineer us through repetitive indoctrination. Repetition is how children learn, and it's irresponsible of them to decide what subversive lesson to secretly teach children. If every Saturday morning cartoon taught children to go with the pack, be sheep and not question voices of concert, then think about the indoctrination they then reap upon their minds when they go to public school. We were taught American history as a historical triumph with clinical distance to the shameful parts of it. We were told to stand and cover our hearts for the pledge of allegiance. The presidents of the US were shown to us as nearly godlike champions in which we were to enshrine with our craft paper and glue. I still remember my President Lincoln log cabin I made from paper that had a silhouette of him in the door. We were all forced to make that, by the way. That wasn't something I chose.

That's the issue I take. The one-size-fits-all indoctrination of how to be an uber-citizen by doing what the group tells you is right. This is a horrible message to teach children. This has nothing to do with harmless teamwork and trying to be social and getting along with others. It's about being a cog. That's the issue I take. Clear enough?