Power over the world around you, but with basic principle that the world around you is influenced, and even defined, by the collective opinion of the people in the world.
Also, the main reason for this particular question was to determine areas/departments for the organization that is behind Creation, and is actively fighting a war to make it happen. Think of it like a modern war: there'd be the front line that does the actual physical fighting, but then there's also a whole group devoted to Intelligence, and another that would be shaping popular opinion with Propganda, and yet another that is the R&D dept developing the tools of the others. Those are more real-world examples than what I have in mind, as the war is being fought on completely different principles, but you get the idea. Also, they don't have to be hard and fast categories with obvious boudaries; there can and will be areas and situations of overlap.
That clear it up at all, or did i just make it worse? :P
Crystal. Sort of. I think I've got a good handle on the subject but let's see if I'm a blind man who only comprehends a piece of the elephant or the whole thing.
I have an alternate perception on the previous argument for emotional control. It could possibly go hand in hand with the social/information department of thought non-metaphysical idea. Art is created to alter perceptions, propaganda, things like that. Music, art, entertainment, etc. Art's at least what I interpret from your statement as the primary vehicle for control of opinion.
It is difficult to listen to "Farewell of Slavianka" and not get swept up in it, even if it is a Russian patriotic song. Popular music is a way of doing so as well. A lot of rap songs are about clubbing and so what is popular? When you hear the theme from Jaws don't you think it was meant to get a response from you? Action movies wouldn't be the same without those fast and intense musical numbers.
There are all kinds of arts that are made to evoke a response from the audience without being focused on an idea. Dadaism is a decent example of this at least in what they did with films. It doesn't have to be propaganda about information but just a pattern of thinking. Certain pieces of art make you "feel" a certain way.
Here's an example.
Read this spoiler after you've seen a snippet of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeosT_6vG7g&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeosT_6vG7g&feature=related). You don't have to watch the whole thing (it is pretty strange), but do see up until the man with the gun. Look at the spoiler early if you want but the effect is better if you don't.
Let's say you pay to go to a gallery and see this, or one of the films. There's all this buildup of how the man is going to fire the gun but that tension goes nowhere. If you get irritated because nothing ever really happens that's good. That's typically what they're trying to do. They want you frustrated from so much bullshit that you are sick of it. The emotional response is like a primer for the idea.
Another example comes from the Romans during their "panem et circenses" era. You make entertainment and food the extent of moral dilemmas and you have apathetic and shallow citizens who don't give a toss about much else.
Really my point is that creation and emotional control is what it sounds like you're focusing on in the whole Hollywood consensus thing and I think there's some merit to acknowledging the difference between that and just pure information. Watch a movie, even a romantic comedy and try to focus on what's going on around the camera's focus.
Here's another example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZUOnCbKc8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZUOnCbKc8) This is a film starring Paul Newman called The Verdict. This is just the opening, but this shows exactly what I'm talking about. You're introduced to this character and just from a short section you know a great deal more about him than you would think. Here's another spoiler and I suggest you watch before reading.
Watch the yellow and follow it around. Time after time Paul's character is blocking the red and showing off the yellow. This leads you to immediately regard him as a drunk who is hiding his true feelings. Whatever he drinks has the same color, always yellow they're making a direct connection between this color, alcohol and a sort of stagnation. Blue and red are both seen as being somewhere around him but not ON him. He has some pretty shaky morals and little to no passion. When he goes to the first funeral we see him with a black and white color scheme next to the stairs and he enters the room and there's this great shot of the red carpet and slowly it pulls in and people walk across until only the black and yellow of the room remain. He drags down the emotional weight of the scene and we know why when he opens his mouth but we KNEW that something was wrong before. When he kneels down next to the widow our perception of the flowers is blocked by two women in black talking. There's yellow everywhere and the woman does nothing.
Remember what the man says to him before he's thrown out of the second funeral? The shot has him facing Paul with all these flowers and bouquets behind him but the one on the left side in front of his face is a brilliant red and white ensemble. When he's looking at the obituaries there's a what color donut? WHITE and it is broken and the inner color is yellow, the beer is yellow and the big black pen points to the obituaries. In the next shot he's obscured by the smoke from his own cigarette. None of this is coincidence but I think I've made my point. Not a word was spoken but you already know a lot about this character. The information you got about this character was felt more than overtly acknowledged. Here's another thing, no music until the VERY end of that snippet and what music plays is important as well. The scene would have a very different feeling if the song were from an action film.
The difference between emotional control and informational control is a somewhat gray area, but my point is that emotional control has a hell of a lot more subtlety and when getting to a person it is hard to have one without the other. Emotion comes first, information second.
The basic idea was mentioned earlier and danced around but I didn't feel like it got the representation it deserved.
TL:DR
Propaganda is emotional control as well as informational control.
I do have some other concerns though. Isn't Deceit just an offshoot of information? I mean if you control what information people have, then deceit is just one of the options you have in exerting that power. For that matter, creation and destruction seem to refer to ideals rather than a form all their own. All the powers listed can swing either way on that scale so adding destruction to the list but not creation seems a little odd (you create a lie, you destroy a lie, etc.). Neither one feels inherently good or evil either.
Metaphysically and spiritually I agree with you, but Im not sure how it would be an avenue to imposing will/change on the world around you, at least in any way that wouldn't qualify as a family version of Social, Technological, or maybe Informational Power. Deceit works as all versions of The Con; Destruction works mostly through the threat (ie the man who can destroy the world rules the world). But the act of creation does not in and of itself gain you anything; rather its what you create that can gain you power, depending on what it is.
The destruction of the world example seems a tad funky. Sure there's the threat but carrying it out is really the equivalent of taking your ball and going home. You aren't playing the game anymore, you broke it. That and doesn't what you destroy affect what you control? The same works with creation anyway. Sure you can destroy the world, but I CAN MAKE ANOTHER ONE! The man who can make another world isn't exactly exerting the same sort of control as destruction, but they're still playing on the same field.
The act of destruction in itself gets you no more than creation does. If no one is around and you destroy something then threats be damned. For that matter I don't see how a threat is that much different than an offer. Offering to make a house for a man and threatening to destroy a man's house could both get you the same basic result of that man's cooperation. Besides, there's all this emphasis in your examples of very straightforward brutish uses of that power and I think that mindset is sort of putting you in a pair of blinders in regards to this subject. It doesn't feel like this is all about threats from your other posts but there's always the possibility of me having the wrong idea on this.
Finance seems a bit muddled because having that means you have access to all the others because you can always buy them. Still, I like the concept of money so I say keep it.
Hopefully that's helpful in some way shape or form or at least keeps the ball rolling in a good direction.