And just what exactly is the meaning of this?

And just what exactly is the meaning of this?

Also I'm pretty sure that some of the conclusions he draws are a pretty big stretch.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

wow
society is fugged
going to stroke my benis now
wow

Curtis doesn't make documentaries, he makes highly one-sided political essays.
youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg

>youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg

kek

I didn't see what was so eye-opening about this docu either

why are brits such sad depressed pathetic creatures? are they just bitter they're not relevant anymore?

Curtis is a self-hating anti-white Sjew.

The meaning of Hypernormalisation is to show how Donald Trump is uniquely qualified to be United States President.

I can't remember much but it seemed he was saying something like the government use TV and internet to manipulate people and Trump took advantage that. Didn't seem that profound at the time but that could be cos I'm a brainlet.

Also in interviews Curtis comes across as very arrogant and rigid in his thinking. And when he talks about cooperating with young musicians you get an image in your head of some older guy trying to fit in with a young crowd by blowing their stoned minds with your deep theories about how the world works.

Britain and the bbc dindu nuthin, the documental

I love and hate his aesthetic

I feel exactly the same way. Sometimes it's genuinely eerie and impactful, and sometimes it's just pretentious

World governments are no longer driven by political ideology, but by business. Western governments want the world to be run with as much stability and with as little disruption as possible, to the exclusion of any other priorities. Unfortunately, the world keeps throwing curveballs, like 9/11 and (to a lesser extent) the successful election of Donald Trump. Reality and the world as the governments would like it to be, and the world as they try to get people to perceive it as, are divergent, and people are starting to realize it.

>the world keeps throwing curveballs, like 9/11

9/11 was an inside job you fucking retard.

why did he cuck out of calling the election for trump? it would have made his arguments much stronger

The gist of it is the government (or some other authority figure) tells you things are okay when anyone with half a brain can tell otherwise, but you and everyone else just go about your lives anyway because the problems you're facing are too big and too complicated to face.

Example: one of the primary causes of the recent Opioid abuse epidemic goes back to injuries relating to motor vehicle accidents. When authorities say they are looking into fighting back against this problem you know in your heart whatever they have planned isn't going to do diddly squat because cars are part of the backbone of society. What are you going to do? Ban driving?

No, you'll just go about your life and live with the risks. Driving is actually one of the most dangerous things people can do, but they have been hypernormalized to disregard that danger.

Or if you want to take a little simpler explanation, you can simply say it's when someone in power says "This is fine. This is a great country. This is the land of the free. Greatest country on Earth." but you can look around and see that is nowhere near the case. This happened to people living in the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The government pretended everything was fine while everyone could see the country was crumbling. The politicians were blatantly lying. Did people care? Not really. They had become used to it. The idea that politicians were always full of shit was normal.

WHEN I SEE YOU ALONE I SEE WHAT"S IN YOUR MIND

All documentaries are one-sided political essays.
It's literally impossible to release a totally unbiased documentary.

>Western governments want the world to be run with as much stability and with as little disruption as possible, to the exclusion of any other priorities. Unfortunately, the world keeps throwing curveballs, like 9/11
That makes no sense. If that was so then why did they invade an actor completely unrelated to 9/11 (Iraq).

that we live in a bizarro world and everyone acts as if everything is perfectly normal

if im going to watch a 3 hour video its going to be about the holohoax

He explains how it's related, but you have to watch the 9 hours documentary for that.

It's more than that, even if you tackle the larger issues you can be completely misdirected as scientist were by following game theory, game theory it's also the base for our current ai overlord, making us all consume machines de facto.

The best kind of fascism.

>even if you tackle the larger issues you can be completely misdirected as scientist were by following game theory,
Well, that's part of it. Nobody wants to try to solve the bigger problems because they are just too overwhelming at this point. It's someone living in a house full of roaches, rats, bed bugs, and mold. Maybe some point in the past the person living there would have tried to fix the problem but now things have gotten to the point where probably the best thing to do would be just burn the whole thing down because you'll probably never be rid of all the above. But you only have one house to live in so you can't. You end up frozen to inaction because it's too much to deal with at once. You know it will probably get even worse and maybe kill you some day down the road, but you still do nothing because you don't know what to do. Doing something may make it worse.

Millions and millions of people are waiting for something to force them to do something.

Yeah but the inaction isn't absolute, people solve things on a daily basis, minimal issues, but they got solved, you don't need a final overreaching solution, you just need to fix problems when they arise.

You don't have to kill all cockroaches, just the ones that enter your kitchen.

Well, there are two reasons. One was that the administration needed a big response, which they initially had and then blundered in Afghanistan by letting Osama escape into Pakistan (which is conventionally off-limits to America since it's supposed to be our friend). Actually, this particular reason is a perfect example of this principle at work; if the American government's top priority was to kill Osama and destroy Al Qaeda, they would have told Pakistan to go fuck itself (which Obama eventually did after Osama had used up his usefulness as an American political boogeyman). But in the interest of keeping the global system secure, they went after Iraq instead, which was a "less complicated" target.

The second reason for the Iraq War was that Bush's neocon cabal saw an opportunity to both begin their Middle Eastern expansionist dreams and exert more influence over the American people through constant fear. Also, and this is very important, Republican presidents need to have a strong military image, because that's the only way their voters will accept increased government power. The American left accepts a bigger government as a matter of policy, but because the right is supposed to oppose it, they need an excuse that the right-wing voter base will accept, and military action is exactly that excuse. Trump's coincidentally isolationist standpoint might prevent him from having to resort to this, but we'll see.