Three Days of the Condor [1975)

I’m not a spy.

I just read books.

Like Michael Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil.

Page 49.

And the reason I got an MBA.

Page 53.

When last I wrote.

The power had gone off.

And we went days.

Freezing in a house with no heat.

Eventually our water went off.

Not enough electricity to run the pumping stations.

In a major American city.

San Antonio.

Steve Pieczenik did not work for the CIA.

Read his book.

Buy it.

It is the most important book of the 21st century so far.

Comb through his interviews.

“I have worked with and against the CIA.”

But who was to lead the coup?

The military.

I don’t know.

The CIA.

We are getting deep into machinations which are currently tweaking the world.

The gears spin.

Some free-floating doodads.

Slowed down by the friction of a finger.

Trying to find leaks for Huber.

Trying to find plot devices for the artist formerly know as Special Activities Division.

Planning.

Directorate.

Q branch attempted to bring in Snowden for the NSA.

Look it up.

Who is sent to bring in Joe Turner?

The analogous.

17.

What was Epstein’s townhouse?

The Herbert N. Straus mansion.

Wexner.

As it turns out, Bill Gates and (a) John Roberts did indeed ride on Lolita Express.

Lin Wood was right.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7377133/Bill-Gates-REFUSES-reveal-flew-Lolita-Express-Jeffrey-Epstein-prison-release.html

Take a look at the EXIM.

It is true that the CIA devours spy novels.

This has been admitted by the Agency.

But Sydney Pollack’s film gives this a very unique twist.

https://www.martingeddes.com/how-the-bidan-show-is-saving-america-and-the-world/

Key points:

  • The corrupt mass media that is under CCP control cannot accuse Trump of being a military dictator when the US military overtly becomes in control.
  • You can do military operations that otherwise would be politically unacceptable (think Iran, Syria).
  • avoids confusion for the public of which Presidency they are endorsing”

I have reordered these.

And trimmed a bit on the final one.

Because I do not believe the Organic Act bullshit about Trump being the 19th real President on March 4.

Read the Organic Act.

Unless I have shirked my duty as a researcher, there is nothing in this legislation which even hints at an untoward redirection of power.

Indeed, it is one of the most mundane pieces of legislation I have ever seen.

Judge for yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871

Sure.

The actual Act is many pages long.

All of which are reiterations of the same inane bullshit.

Which is to say, this act did nothing (as far as I can tell) to change the organization or legal status of the United States.

The United States of America.

Another fallacy (I think).

While I am open minded on this point (that a word has been removed somewhere and, thus, we are on a different timeline [so to speak…in the legal sense] as a result), I do not think that there has been a word removed or added TO THE NAME OF OUR FUCKING COUNTRY and that it has gone unnoticed by all legal minds of good will.

Even the worst legal minds (acting in bad faith) are, by definition, legalistic.

Do you think someone wouldn’t have taken the opportunity before now to point out a glaring error which fundamentally changes the legal status of our country?

So, I am not a big fan of this theory.

But I am a fan of Martin Geddes’s writing (to which I have just recently been made aware).

While I do not necessarily concur with all the points he makes in his article (particularly, about Joe Biden being on a movie set, yada yada [sure…it’s possible]), I do agree with some very salient points he makes.

To restate his points from a different angle, there has already been a military coup.

Pieczenik was right.

It was a hard coup.

But it was also (it seems) an invisible coup.

How is that possible?

It does start to strain credibility.

But it is possible.

And I would go far beyond that.

I would say it is likely.

A key part of this coup may be the fact that JOE BIDEN DOES NOT KNOW A COUP HAS TAKEN PLACE.

Indeed, neither does Nancy Pelosi.

This is a secret coup.

So who is running the country?

The military.

Wizards and warlocks.

Robert Redford identifies “a CIA within the CIA”.

Yes.

That is the group that destroyed the Twin Towers (which play such a prominent role in this film).

Lucky break.

Better off dead.

NXNW.

Gunnery sergeant mailman.

Ugly motherfucker.

Same bloke dressed as a broad from Thunderball ?

Maybe not.

Stay calm.

Think.

Don’t leave me hanging on the telephone.

Do not hang up.

The is The Major.

Patriot.

A brutal game.

Yes, keep the heat on.

But drain the fucking swamp, for crying out loud.

Take your god damned time.

But please get the job done.

No country left.

Unless you act.

We are speaking to the counterweight.

Those who are currently running the country.

God bless you.

Let us delineate again.

We can bomb Iran.

Biden will take the heat.

We can fuck up.

Biden will be blamed.

And the most important part.

The country will come to be less confused.

It is the Pepsi challenge.

Coke wants you to be less white.

Coke is Joe Biden.

Crack is Hunter Biden.

Obi Don Kenobi is Pepsi.

The country is getting a free trial of Chinese-style communism.

When the time is right, the covert will become overt.

And it will be done in the way most beneficial to the country.

That is the ethos of those running the country.

And they are the authors of the fucking brilliant Q PSYOP.

As Tucker Carlson was having a hard time locating the QAnon website, let’s help him out:

https://qposts.online

or

https://qalerts.app

There is, of course, no one Q website.

They are all aggregator sites.

They aggregate posts made on 4chan and 8chan/8kun respectively.

Some aggregators have been doxxed.

Other sites have gone tits-up for unknown reasons.

But these two links work as of now.

Like Buffalo ’66.

Or The Tiger Makes Out.

Max von Sydow is excellent here.

An assassin.

Like Locque in For Your Eyes Only.

But more Godard.

Studious.

Professor.

Older now.

Brown frames.

Alpine.

How to evade.

Stay in the light.

How to confuse.

How to keep it up.

How to devise a long-term strategy for survival.

How to become impervious to psywar.

Know yourself.

Know your enemy.

Devise tactics.

To beat the devil.

Identify mechanism for delivery.

Thwart demoralization.

Force brute.

David Icke model.

Warm goo phase.

Working for and against.

At various times.

You must understand Pieczenik in Panama.

With Noriega.

Why did the United States send this man?

You must understand Pieczenik in Syria.

In Southeast Asia.

Trace the network.

Pieczenik has come out for decades.

He has truly defected to the people.

He has given away no tradecraft.

He is not a Snowden.

He is a rock and roller.

And he is not full of shit.

What we are seeing currently is the greatest military operation in America’s history.

Either that, or we are fucked.

Why Spanish, Dutch, and Arabic?

Oil.

Venezuela.

Royal Dutch Shell.

OPEC.

Creative communication.

Hidden in plain sight.

Steganography.

Of a sort.

Repurposed.

Spartacus.

Vendetta.

Anonymous.

Swarming.

I take a different approach.

I appreciate Thomas Jefferson.

Cutting up his Bible.

But not for me.

Because the word of God is holy.

Yet my tattered volume.

Illuminated by colored pencils.

God has tested my faith.

I am weak.

But strong in my core.

And I give my full future to Jesus Christ.

May I bring glory to God.

Even if I curse like Lenny Bruce.

May God work through me as he has worked through Trump.

Rock and rollers.

Similarities to another masterpiece.

The Conversation. (1974)

Of Francis Ford Coppola.

Condor (1975).

No such agency.

Existence of which declassified when?

Current state of affairs.

Space Force.

17th to accede to IC.

Community.

Such a fucking stupid descriptor.

Ostensibly headed by Bill Gates’s bitch Avril Haines (Event 201).

Both beholden to China.

Can’t spell China without ChInA.

The entity which gave us COVID-19.

I am going to enjoy this.

Dr. Kaufman in Tomorrow Never Dies.

Bill Barr.

The worst kind of traitor.

In the same category as Dick Cheney and Mike Pence.

And John Roberts.

Never trust The New York Times.

-PD

Stieg Larssons Millennium: Del 5 [2010)

Compartmented information.

Special access.

A dream within a dream.

SÄPO [Swedish analog to FBI].

Let me illustrate by extrapolation.

Watergate was an FBI (Alfred C. Baldwin III)/CIA (E. Howard Hunt) operation…in some ways.

Once upon a time, the FBI was filled with “conservatives” who were worried about socialism/communism.

Guy Banister [FBI].

How do actual criminal conspiracies work?

Jim Garrison [hero] also found an FBI/CIA link in Banister.

“Right wing activists”, they were called.

http://www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html

Another time, another place.

Josh Campbell [FBI].

Analyst at CNN.

Author of Crossfire Hurricane: Inside Donald Trump’s War on the FBI.

Overseas assignments include those in which he was embedded with CIA.

Was a Special Assistant to former FBI Director James Comey.

Has been published by New York Times and Washington Post.

Member of Council on Foreign Relations [CFR].

Frank Figliuzzi [Clinesmith].

Brian Fitzpatrick [FBI].

“Republican”.

Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District.

Louis Freeh [FBI director].

Bandar “Bush”.

Michael Grimm [FBI].

U.S. Congressman from New York (2011-2015).

“Republican”?

Convicted felon.

Ted Gunderson [hero].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Gunderson

When you get the information, what do you do with it?

How hard do you push?

How much do we value our lives (at the expense of innocents)?

William King Harvey [FBI/CIA].

Kevin Hogg?

Robert Levinson [FBI/CIA].

Robert Maheu [FBI/CIA].

John McClurg [FBI/CIA].

Epstein [cash/diamonds].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_O%27Neill

Nada Nadim Prouty [FBI/CIA].

Asha Rangappa [FBI].

Commentator on CNN.

Has been published in New York Times and Washington Post.

Sometimes it’s right under your nose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micki_Pistorius

Mark Rossini [FBI/CIA~].

Winston Scott [FBI/CIA].

[Strzok].

-PD

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy [2004)

The world is fucked up.

This is probably the craziest year most of us have ever lived through.

When has the world, in its entirety, faced such chaos in recent memory?

9/11 brought us terror on a horrific, spectacular* level.

Guy Debord predicted this in 1967 with his seminal book La société du spectacle.

No, he did not pull a Nostradamus (who happens to share my birthday).

He did not predict the three towers (including the 47-story WTC7) falling into their own footprints.

But he predicted something much more useful, or at least applicable, to our present times.

The “locus of illusion” that Debord talked about remains (though it be besieged on all sides) television.

For our purposes, we shall call it “video”.

Moving pictures.

Debord also predicted our current age of social-media dominance.

Though he could not name it then, he described it perfectly as, “a social relationship between people…mediated by images.”

What does the word “Facebook” evoke when you hear it?

Does it sound a bit like a dating site?

What role do memes (manipulated images) play in our social discourse?

“The spectacle”, Debord told us, “…turns reality on its head.”

How much of what you hear “on the news” (whether that be television, radio, Internet, social media) do you trust?

Because you are smart, dear reader, you consider the source.

And so do I.

Debord wanted to say something about fakes.

The epigrammatic beginning to the first chapter of The Society of the Spectacle gets right to this point.

It was the philosopher Feuerbach who said that in, “…the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, the appearance to essence…illusion only is sacred, truth profane.”

Ludwig Feuerbach wrote those words in the 1800s.

But the Irish rock band U2 would come to a similar epiphany in their song “Even Better Than the Real Thing”.

Debord wanted to talk about fake-ness.

But he also wanted to qualify his description of “the spectacle”.

For Debord, “reality erupts within the spectacle, and the spectacle is real”.

To translate (from French to English to philosophy to layman’s terms), there are some aspects of our image-driven information culture that are real (though a good deal of fake news exists).  But owing to the lack of a competing narrative to the overwhelming chorus of voices in agreement (corporate news), “the spectacle” (whatever the talking heads tell you) is, de facto, real.  Never mind that it might all be rubbish.  The sheer repetition of certain truths–day after day, hour after hour (from all the many “options” [ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post])–renders those “truths” the currency of “factual” discourse.  Without an independent, competing narrative from alternative news sources (which currently lack the scale and reach to pose a symmetric threat to “legacy media”), whatever the aforementioned “usual suspects” (ABCBSNBC…) tell you is TRUE becomes “truth” the moment they report it.  The national news coverage of American current events is indistinguishable whether one has ABC, CBS, or NBC dialed up on the tele.

But the times, they are a-changin’.

Donald Trump’s 3+ years in office have been “a moment of falsehood”, which is to say, truth.

As Debord wrote, “In a world that really has been turned on its head, truth is a moment of falsehood.”

Debord seemed to be describing the “legacy media” when he wrote of an entity “out of reach and beyond all dispute”.

Of particular concern in this current situation (which already existed in Debord’s day) is the role that vision plays in our mediated understanding of the world.

As Debord wrote, “…it is inevitable that it should elevate the human sense of sight to the special place once occupied by touch…”.

He goes on to describe “sight” as, “…the most abstract of the senses, and the most easily deceived…”.

Think about a painting by Monet.

Waterlilies.

What are you seeing?

You are seeing the work of someone [Monet] whose eyesight was impaired.  Literally.  But though it be impaired, he still painted wonderful, huge canvases which EVOKED the atmosphere of a pond with waterlilies.

You are seeing blurry images.

Your brain has to fill in the details.

You are not seeing a high-definition photograph.

Furthermore, you are seeing oil paints which have been applied to a cloth canvas.

You are seeing a depiction.

This takes us all the way back to Plato’s “cave”, but I digress…

What happens when the big three TV networks in the U.S. get something wrong?

What about the New York Times and Washington Post (to just name the two most widely-distributed offenders)?

Do any of these entities make a concerted, SINCERE effort arising from true integrity to correct their previous, faulty coverage on events?

Debord could answer before the question was asked…because he knew the nature of these organizations (even in his native France).

He wrote, “The spectacle is by definition immune from human activity, inaccessible to any projected review or correction.  It is the opposite of dialogue.”

Social media changed this briefly.

But now, Twitter is acting like the generalissimo of a banana republic by banning accounts which “promote” the “conspiracy theory” known as QAnon.

This is just one example–from one social media platform–where the fleeting dialogue which threatened (?) “the spectacle” has been shut down.

Google, working closely with the communist Chinese government, is all too happy to facilitate similar totalitarian censorship in China…all for a buck (or yuan).

So let’s talk about vision/sight for a moment.

Did George Floyd die under the knee of Derek Chauvin?

All of the “usual suspects” (ABCBSNBC) tell me he did.

And there’s video!

Video never lies, does it?

I mean…movies are all true, right?

Is the video that Darnella Frazier ostensibly shot on her cell phone “documentary” footage?

It may be more than one thing.

It is possible to honestly document fake-ness (without knowing you are filming a pageant).

Have you ever seen an actress cry on command?

I have.

It is quite an astounding thing.

I have a friend who is a major motion-picture actress.

She once burst out in tears…right next to me.

I started to offer my condolences.

I was generally concerned.

I almost started crying.

Then she abruptly jumped out of character with a smile…to let me know she was just pranking me.

It was VERY convincing.

She had never done that to me before.

It was novel.

I had no experience against which to measure her crying fit.

I thought of her as a friend first and as an actress second.

I forgot, temporarily, that she was unequivocally a professional faker.

But Guy Debord saw more to “the spectacle” than just a stream of fake-ness.

Debord seemed to also sense an approaching hour when human relations would become totally stifled.

To hear Debord tell it, “Separation is the alpha and omega of the spectacle.”

Both its goal and its essence.

While mass media seems to bring us together (shared touchstones, talismans…), in actuality, it separates us more from one another.

We are always obliged to mention what “the news” says about a certain topic.

It is rare (almost impossible) that two people have a conversation where they each give their opinion of a recent event and “the spectacle” (a mass, homogenized media) is not invoked (in deferential terms) at some stage as a reference point.

Debord describes the “weapons of that system” as ranging “from cars to television”:  all meant to “reinforce the isolation of ‘the lonely crowd'”.

But Guy Debord was not merely taking aim at television and mass media.  He saw further.  He seems to have, though writing in 1967, seen the inevitably of the Internet.

As he describes it, “The spectacle is a map of this new world–a map drawn to the scale of the territory itself.”

While this is indeed a reference to a story by Borges (the world=the map), Debord’s insight in applying this to mass communication and information dissemination is extraordinarily prescient.

Guy Debord, it must be said, was not without fault.

Most importantly, he was an avowed Marxist.

So his perspicacity ended where mass media stops and economics begins.

Which brings us to the film Anchorman…

Will Ferrell is awkward here.

And gloriously so!

We get gender division.

1970s.

As today we continue to get race divisions.

Who is driving this?

Cui bono?

The British were quite good at “divide and conquer”.

In the Indian subcontinent, Hindus and Muslims had lived relatively peaceably together…until the British decided to stoke this latent division for cynical ends.

“If the Hindus and Muslims are fighting each other, they can’t pose a unitary threat to us.”

That is what I can imagine British military strategists saying at the time when India was under their occupation.

And it worked.

It was brilliant.

Evil, but brilliant.

Ask yourself a question:  who benefits (cui bono) from blacks and whites and Hispanics and Asians and police and civilians in America being divided and at each other’s throats?

What series of events led to the isolation (frustration) needed to create the current powder keg that went up in smoke with the George Floyd event?

Ron Burgundy will read anything that is put in front of him on a Tele-Promp-Ter.

…as evidenced by his most unfortunate sign-off, “Go fuck yourself, San Diego!”

Which brings us to Joe Biden.

FDR managed to keep it a secret that he was stricken with polio.

He was carted around in a wheelchair during his Presidency.

He had the Resolute desk in the Oval Office modified so that a panel on the front obscured the prying eyes of news cameras.

You could not see his legs fastened to his wheelchair.

And the press obliged.

They loved FDR.

Good old liberal, Democrat FDR.

Elected to the Presidency FOUR times (an American record).

In the White House for over 12 (!) years.

Our Constitution was amended to make this impossible from there on out.

Now the limit is eight years (two terms).

All that notwithstanding, FDR never lost his mental faculties to any significant degree.

He had a physical disability which prevented him from ambulating fully.

Joe Biden can walk fairly well.

Sadly, there is no desk panel that can hide his mental deterioration.

It is there.  It will be there.  And it will get worse.

Which makes Joe Biden a FAR MORE RIDICULOUS candidate than Donald Trump.

And again, “the spectacle” is running defense for Biden.

Making excuses.

Tossing softball questions (if any at all).

The best thing that vicious, Marxist Democrats in the United States can come up with is a dud missile named Joe Biden.

He is harmless (to extend the missile metaphor), and in that he is very harmful.

He is, as regards the responsibilities of the Chief of the Executive Branch, useless.

Which gives us just one more example of how fakes are being foisted upon us.

Never has there been such a poor candidate for the American Presidency as Joe Biden.

It is becoming apparent to all that, if elected, he would not run his own government.

What a sham!

Why didn’t the Democrats have the foresight to nominate Cory Booker or Kamala Harris?

It couldn’t be because they are RACIST, could it?

Remember, Donald Trump is such a horrible misogynist.

How was it that the Democrats failed to nominate Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar?

Democrats REALLY care about Latinos in the U.S.

That’s why they failed to nominate a guy named Castro.

Democrats are so diverse!

That’s why they passed on nominating a guy named Yang.

And what did the Democrats end up with?

A halfwit, old, white man named Joe Biden.

Halfwit is really too kind a descriptor here.

The mobs wanted Ron Burgundy’s head.

Because he told them to “go fuck themselves”.

But it was a false-flag.

Did Ron Burgundy write the line, “Go fuck yourself, San Diego!” on the Tele-Promp-Ter?

No.

Veronica Corningstone did.

Did the truth about who REALLY wrote it come out?

No.

Not even from a news organization.

Burgundy was summarily fired and his life went to shit.

He ended up wandering the streets like a cross between fat Jim Morrison (Val Kilmer-influenced) and Brian Wilson.

Bathrobe and cheeseburgers.

Nilsson Schmilsson.

Drinking milk in the…hot sun!

But what goes around comes around.

Ms. Corningstone is pushed into a bear pit at the zoo.

An unenviable position, that.

And it takes a little dog to diffuse the situation.

A mob of bears.

A proud species.

Wronged by this intrusion into their hibernation.

But Baxter, the little dog, has a message.

“These are not the droids you are looking for.”

The bears consider the source.

They will not take Ron Burgundy’s word for it.

They will not take Veronica Corningstone’s word for it.

But they will listen to a fellow creature from the animal kingdom.

“I know your cousin,” Baxter says (and I paraphrase).

Baxter’s message rings true.

The bears reconsider.

They are able to retreat gracefully.

Baxter has just acted as crisis negotiator.

A feel-good movie ends with former enemies expressing respect for one another.

Respect.

Not total reconciliation.

But a cessation of the mad chaos.

Brick Tamland (played brilliantly by Steve Carell) ends up (we are told) becoming a “top political advisor” to the Bush administration.

Mass media.

The spectacle.

Hollywood could not help taking a pot shot at a Republican President (even in a light-hearted comedy [and even though the bastard Bush deserved it]).

Why?

Because Bush was a (shitty) Republican (and a war criminal).

But for the eight years of Obama’s Presidency (and the eight years of Bill Clinton’s Presidency), you never saw Hollywood comment (on film) about the merits of these two Democrats.

Why?

Because the Democrat Party is inseparable from the mass media in the United States.

So let me ask you one final question:

do you think you are getting the truth about President Trump, coronavirus, George Floyd, or anything else from this tight-knit cabal of fakers?

Stay classy!

 

-PD

Transylvania 6-5000 [1985)

5’40”

“Loretta Lynch:

–indicted

—3 counts, conspiracy to overthrow the government

–2 counts of obstruction of justice

—3 counts of lying to Congress

Sally Yates:

—3 counts, conspiracy to overthrow the government

—3 counts, obstruction of justice

John Brennan:

—3 counts, conspiracy to overthrow the government

—3 counts of lying to Congress

–2 counts of lying to investigators

-1 count of conspiracy to commit treason

—3 counts of obstruction of justice

James Clapper:

—3 counts, conspiracy to overthrow the government

–2 counts of lying to Congress

Four CIA operatives:

–indicted

–no charges listed

[…]

James Comey:

—3 counts, conspiracy to overthrow the government

——6 counts of perjury

—-4 counts of obstruction of justice

—-4 counts of falsifying government documents

Andrew McCabe:

—3 counts, conspiracy to overthrow the government

–2 counts of perjury

—3 counts of lying to Congress

-1 count of falsifying documents

Bruce Ohr:

—3 counts conspiracy […]

-1 count of falsifying documents

Baker:

–indictment

–charges unknown

Strzok:

—3 counts, conspiracy to overthrow the government

—-4 counts of perjury

—3 counts of falsifying documents

[…]

Page:

—3 counts, conspiracy to overthrow the government

—3 counts of perjury

-1 count of obstruction of justice

Rod Rosenstein:

—–5 various charges

–exact unknown at this time

Susan Rice:

–illegal use of government systems

—3 counts of perjury

-1 count of obstruction”

Let’s recap, shall we?

First, lets group those who (if the information in the link I provided above [and here ] is correct) are rumored to have been indicted for CONSPIRACY TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT of the United States of America:

–Loretta Lynch [former Attorney General of the U.S., 2015-2017]

–Sally Yates [former Deputy Attorney General of the U.S., 2015-2017]

–John Brennan [former Director of the CIA, 2013-2017]

–James Clapper [former Director of National Intelligence, 2010-2017]

–James Comey [former Director of the FBI, 2013-2017]

–Andrew McCabe [former Deputy Director of the FBI, 2016-2018]

–Peter Strzok [former Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI (Counterintelligence Division)]

–Lisa Page [former FBI attorney]

Could this list, ostensibly leaked to a radio show run by “James R” (who goes by realpersonpltcs [sic] on Twitter) by an anonymous U.S. Department of Justice source, be true?

It sounds like the stuff of tabloid journalism, doesn’t it?

Except for one thing:

it’s completely plausible.

Tabloids are curious.

And that’s where this hidden gem of a movie comes in.

Because, after all, this is a film review.

What if tabloid journalists (who usually cover sensational, “engineered” stories) ACCIDENTALLY came across the real thing?

In other words, what if they actually found a real-life Bat Boy?

It bears mentioning at this point that Avril Haines, one of the “players” in Bill Gates’ amazingly-prescient bat coronavirus simulation Event 201 which was held in NYC on 10/18/19, worked for one of the aforementioned conspirators listed above:  John Brennan.

Screen Shot 2020-04-27 at 5.59.58 AM

 

Jeffrey Jones [Ferris Bueller] plays the corrupt mayor.

Laughing with incredulity.

Michael Richards is absolutely genius here.

And the head of the local police is in on the corrupt conspiracy with the mayor.

Geena Davis looks stunning!

Joseph Bologna plays the mad scientist.

He laments that his father’s reputation was maligned for injecting viruses into animals in his lifelong quest to cure the common cold.

Human experiments.

A “monster” fleeing from a laboratory.

There is even a delineation of evil (in the sense of “demonic possession”) which mirrors the tone of David Lynch’s television masterpiece Twin Peaks.

The evil is in a place.

Enter that place and you may become possessed.

This happens to Bologna’s character in textbook “Jekyll and Hyde” fashion.

The missing child is a trope from Frankenstein.

Those who are trying to tell the truth are arrested.

Because the truth, if told, would reveal the criminality of this particular police force.

So what, I ask you, will happen when Frankenstein enters the American psyche from stage left?

What will the shock be like?

How will CNN and MSNBC (and ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post…) attempt to spin it?

Jeff Goldblum is excellent here.

Ed Begley, Jr. does a great job.

Carol Kane is as hilarious and adorable as she was on Taxi.

And Rudy De Luca, against all odds, created a minor masterpiece with this film.

There are two lit lamps in the window of the Old North Church.

 

-PD

A King in New York [1957)

I once went to rather extraordinary lengths to see this film.

Doing such a thing often makes one appreciate the rarity of the moment.

But now I revisit this testament for the purpose of placing the film in my own history of the cinematic medium.

As you might know, I don’t often review new films.

For what is important to me is not the hackneyed novelty of Hollywood today, but rather the breadth of motion pictures down through time as an art form.

What is attractive about the movies is that they are barely 100 years old.

It is not much of a stretch to say that the seventh art (as Ricciotto Canudo eventually called it) was short of being a mature mode of creation in 1916.

For though Charlie Chaplin was already making important contributions, his first feature as a director and actor wouldn’t come till 1921’s The Kid.

In many ways A King in New York was Chaplin’s last film.  Namely, it was the last in which he both starred and directed.  [He would direct one final effort:  1967’s A Countess from Hong Kong starring Marlon Brando and Sophia Loren.]

And so it was that with A King in New York Chaplin returned in some ways to the themes of The Kid.

Michael Chaplin (his son) is brilliant as “the kid” Rupert here in the film under consideration.

And Charles (Charlie) is equally timeless as the foil to Rupert’s Marxism.

Yes.

This was a brave film to make.

It was a humane film to make.

And it is insightful even today.

We may no longer have the communist witch hunts of the McCarthy era, but we still have the same brain-dead stupidity (as exemplified by Fox News).

It is quite easy to draw that particular parallel when viewing the newscast which comes on King Shahdov’s hotel television periodically throughout this movie.

And while the hysteria of anti-communist “vigilance” has largely faded into history, another equally virulent strain of bigoted ignorance has taken its place.

Terrorism as religion.

That phrase may sound weird, but let me explain.

When you pick up The Wall Street Journal, you are viewing a religious newspaper.

And the religion?

Terrorism.

When you watch Fox News you are entering an alternate universe in thrall to terrorism.

Terrorism is the manna from heaven for the neoconservative global elites.

They are a one-trick pony (terrorism being their only trick).

But let me illuminate my point.

NONE of the other major American news outlets (print or televised) are any better.

CNN ABC CBS NBC…all worthless.  And let’s not forget the woeful New York Times.

Which brings me to a very important point.

This past week, a PhD professor at Florida Atlantic University in the United States was dismissed from his tenured position for questioning the very suspicious “mass shooting” supposed to have occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012.

I have not read every bit of critique which Dr. James Tracy (the unfortunate professor) has written concerning this “massacre”, but what I have read harmonizes with my own take on the event (namely, that it was a staged, false-flag type psychological operation).

And so Dr. Tracy has become a parallel to all of those poor souls who had to suffer the ignominy of the House Committee on Un-American Activities in May 1960.

Why do I focus on this particular hearing?  Because it was released as an LP album in 1962 by the invaluable Folkways Records (today Smithsonian Folkways).

Find this record.

Listen particularly to Witness #5.

Spotify lists each track as being by the artist “Unspecified”.

This is the same type of recognition which would have accrued to topless mothers in the Sahara singing their babies to sleep (while the tape recorder preserved their performance for all time).

Americans had become nameless.

And so next time someone asks you about your favorite musical artists you can refer to the Folkways catalog and answer, “Well, I’m a big fan of ‘A young girl singing’, but I also like ‘A young woman’.  But then, not much beats ‘Aboriginal Songman’.  In fact, I met him once and I was quite nervous.  I said, ‘Mr. Songman.  Can I call you Aboriginal?  Al???  I would really appreciate an autograph!'”

But I digress…

Dear friends, we can rescue the names from history.  Witness #5 is actually still alive.  He is and always will be William Mandel.

Mr. Mandel took the stand and railed against the bigots in San Francisco on that Folkways LP of the “Un-American” hearings.

In the estimable Mr. Mandel we have a parallel to Mr. Macabee (Rupert’s father) from A King in New York.

The trials which inspired Chaplin were to continue (1957 film, 1960 LP).

The trials continue today.  Dr. James Tracy is now a “conspiracy theorist”.  If the New York Times says it’s so, then it must be so.

No.

Until we drop like flies, we will continue to speak out like Rupert.

We will continue to combine art and politics like Charlie Chaplin.

No profession gives one a free pass to opt out of engagement.  Disengagement is a decision.

Chaplin fought back.  The world’s greatest funnyman felt compelled to speak up.

Perhaps Rupert is really 6079 Smith W.

Perhaps Room 101 is betraying oneself.  Being eaten alive.  By cowardice.  Until death.

Occasionally pop art transcends.  Witness Radiohead’s “2 + 2 = 5” from the perfect album Hail to the Thief.  At the height of the Bush junta this British avant-pop band had the stones to dish out a God-save-the-Queen to the slimy bastards dragging the world down.

The late David Bowie made a valiant effort on his best album Diamond Dogs.

We speak, of course, about 1984 and the protagonist Winston Smith.

Orwell’s novel was a mere eight years old in 1957.

Perhaps little Rupert is an evocation of Winston Smith.  And we know that Rupert’s fortitude lived on in the aforementioned William Mandel.

But now we come to a new era.  A new era which is so old.

The lamentable treatment of Dr. James Tracy.

The enshrinement of Terrorism as the new state religion of the United States.

Even for a non-communist such as myself, it is apparent that capitalism must always expand.

When it comes to terrorism (both “foreign” and “domestic”), the Ministry of Truth has spoken.

Our only hope is the voice of opposition.  It is therefore quite apt indeed that Dr. Tracy’s excellent blog (which incidentally led to his thoughtcrime conviction by FAU) should be named Memory Hole… (http://memoryholeblog.com/).

And it is hopeful that said blog has more hits than the Wikipedia page for “Memory hole”.

 

-PD

Čovek nije ptica [1965)

It makes sense that Man Is Not a Bird was Dušan Makavejev’s first film.  It has that first-film “breadth” to it.

Where Ljubavni slučaj ili tragedija službenice P.T.T. (Love Affair, or the Case of the Missing Switchboard Operator) struck with absolute precision, Čovek nije ptica meanders about a bit in search of the appropriate film language. 

[N.B.  Wikipedia spells “bird” in Serbo-Croat for this film as “tica”.  I’m not sure why that is as “tica” seems to mean nothing (whereas “ptica” means “bird”).]

Though our film is set in a strange, backwards town, the narrative is considerably sprawled.

Eva Ras (the star of Love Affair…) is here as a more minor character.  However, she is the one who most lives out the message of the title.

This film has a strange obsession with hypnosis.  There is a hypnotist, but the film starts off with a scientific denunciation of superstition.  Through hypnosis (we are told), a distressed person can be made to abandon the grip of superstition.

Back to our hypnotist in the middle of the film…he is more of an entertainer than anything.  I am not entirely sure, but I believe the initial “legitimate” hypnotist (psychologist) and the later “entertainer” hypnotist are played by the same actor.

If that is the case, then Makavejev’s later metaphor (the circus) makes more sense.  But what is really complex about this film is the layering of metaphors upon one another.  It makes finding meaning very difficult.

One “reading” would be that life is a circus.  Another reading would be that “cinema” is a circus which purports to present a more truthful version of life than what we know.

But what does that mean?

Every day we experience life is some respect.  What could be “more truthful” than our daily experience?  Is Makavejev implying that we lie to ourselves?  Quite possibly.

As film viewers (spectators), we may become immersed in a particular movie and identify with characters and stories.  In a way, WE are the fourth wall.  The fourth wall is our temporary reality.  We enter into the false reality of film.

But, film gives us a chance to observe “ourselves”.  When we heavily identify with a particular character, we are having a sort of “out of body experience”.

And this brings us back to hypnosis.

Man Is Not a Bird is a very beautiful film (in a grimy, socialist, factory soot kind of way), but it is (perhaps not surprisingly) a dark film as well.

Shot, like Love Affair…, in black and white there is something more sinister about this film than the more gentle and humorous Love Affair…  But who are we kidding?  Love Affair… is inextricably wound up with death.  What could be darker than that?

Answer:  life without life.

It is what Eva Ras experiences as she is emotionally abused and disrespected by her husband.  Her husband, as it turns out, is working a job which is so hazardous to his health that the position is being eliminated ASAP.  And that’s in communist Yugoslavia!  All through this film we see a sort of poverty which separates East from West.  The poor Eastern Europeans.  What the West would come to realize (like New York Times film critic Vincent Canby) was that the East had something of immense wealth.  If pressed, I would call it soul.

Man is not a bird (even if, under hypnosis, he believes this to be the case).  Man is also no angel.  Janez Vrhovec plays a sort of martyr in this film.  Another more light-hearted character prods him as to whether he can feel the tingling of his burgeoning angel wings (the prodding is actually quite sardonic).

Man is not a machine.  But Jan Rudinski (Janez Vrhovec), the deft Slovenian machinist/engineer, has become a slave to his job.  From Pakistan to Dar es Salaam:  Rudinski makes his comrades proud with his exceptional efficiency.

But let us return to Eva Ras.

To turn Godard on his head, A Woman Is Not A Woman.

Why do I say that?

Because the French word for wife (femme) is the same as the French word for woman (femme).

And so a whole new world of wordplay opens up for us concerning TWO Godard films (namely):

Une Femme est une femme

and

Une Femme mariée.

In the first, we could potentially have the proto-syllogisms:

A woman is a wife.

Or, conversely:

A wife is a woman.

Furthermore, we could have:

A woman is a woman (the accepted translation in the English-speaking world).

Or, on the contrary:

A wife is a wife.

It gets to be such that we assume there is some sort of “boys will be boys” idiomatic phrase in operation.  Not being a native French speaker, I cannot confirm or deny that.  But I do know that Godard loves word play.  And therefore, the simple answer may not be the intended answer.

To illustrate further we have,

Une Femme mariée.

The accepted English translation is A Married Woman, but could it not be the more perverse and thought-provoking A Married Wife?

One thing is certain:

Man Is Not a Bird will have you under its spell whether you understand it or not.  At least, that’s the experience I had.

I would add one final bit of exegesis (extra Jesus).

It may very well be that Makavejev was making a disparaging statement about the communist Yugoslavian state with his first film.  It would be like the secret messages which Shostakovich managed to work into his music (particularly the string quartets) while living in Soviet Russia.

In the hands of communist governments, art (and particularly film…after Lenin’s admiration of the medium for its uniqueness) had to represent the people.  On one side (with communist eyes) this is admirable.  From the other (with capitalist eyes) this is seen as propaganda.

Any astute capitalist would have realized that (particularly in times of war) there was not much difference from communist and capitalist propaganda.  Both economic systems availed themselves of the practice of propagandizing.

But my guess, regarding the film in question, is that Makavejev recognized his own role as a propagandist (he had no choice in the matter…either please the censors or leave the profession) and likewise saw film as a double-edged sword of hypnosis.

And so his first film is really a realization…of that power in film…that power that can drive the masses to love…or to kill.

 

-PD

 

 

 

Roma città aperta [1945)

When I was younger I could take the easy way.

But as I have grown older I have found that increasingly impossible.

In moments of weakness I think of money.  A job.  Adventure.

But none of that really matters.

What matters is our fellow human beings.

Dear friends, this film (Rome, Open City) is an extremely moving experience.

What I try to bring to you as an amateur film critic are the words of a man immersed in the film…baptized…in the experience of each film.

Most pieces of cinema are not worth this effort, but occasionally a film is worth every minute…every second…every tear shed.

Roma città aperta is a masterpiece from director Roberto Rossellini.  This is a very famous film because of the milieu in which it was made.

WWII was not even over.  You can imagine how hard it must have been to get film stock (film for the camera) while Europe was in flames and Italy was a defeated country occupied by the Allies.

But this film tells of Italy occupied by the Nazis (and, indeed, Rome was occupied by the Nazis prior to American occupation).

But all of these descriptions I’m giving you…they mean nothing.

What you must understand about this film is that it did something which no film before it had done.

This film was infused with the sorrow of the World Wars, but was presented as one would present a documentary.

Hence the name neorealism.

Anna Magnani is so beautiful, but not glamorous.  She is beautiful because she is believable.  It takes a philosophical film director to deliver such a performance.  It also takes a hell of an actress!

Roma città aperta is like an opera by Mascagni or Leoncavallo.  Verismo!

Act I ends with Magnani running after her fiancé.  The SS have literally come to take him away.  And her weaving, desperate run became an iconic film moment which wouldn’t be adequately interpolated back into the cinematic discussion till Jean-Paul Belmondo took the entire Rue Campagne-Première to die in À Bout de souffle. 

Godard was young.  À Bout de souffle was his first film.

Godard took the easy way.  Postmodernism.

A bit from here and a bit from there.  Voila!

But later Godard grew a conscience.  And his conscience helped him find himself kicked to the curb of the film industry.

In our film, Aldo Fabrizi is the voice of conscience.

He plays the priest don Pietro.

He’s not your average priest.

This is a guy who stands against the Nazis.

Don Pietro helps the resistance.

Don Pietro gives and gives and gives and asks nothing.

He is a true man of God…a true humanitarian.

He helps anyone in need…atheists, communists, it doesn’t matter.

But one thing is important.

Don Pietro has made a value judgment concerning the Nazis.

He has discerned who the enemy is.

That is a large step.

Today, we are told every day who our enemy is supposed to be.

The worst offender is Fox News, but the other networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC) are all equally devoid of journalistic merit.

As for the print media, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post are completely worthless.

If you lived in Nazi Germany, you would have been bombarded with propaganda about how the Jews were the enemy and how the Jews were responsible for every conceivable ill in society.

That was, of course, untrue.

In America today, we are told (particularly by the infantile Fox News) that Islam and Muslims are the enemy and that every conceivable problem in the world today relates back to this group.

This is, obviously, untrue.

The other three/five networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC) are more eager to push gun control (something which Hitler would no doubt have applauded).

And so, I propose to you, dear readers that what we are seeing in the world today is an array of psychological operations which mirror something about which Italy knows only too well:  Operation Gladio.

But I propose to you that what we are seeing nowadays are multiple Gladios run by gently-warring factions of the New World Order.

The biggest Gladio in operation (a series of false-flag attacks accompanied by fake wars) is the one being run by the neoconservative faction of the New World Order (including several prominent Zionists who, despite holding high U.S. government offices [and Top Secret clearances], held dual citizenship during their terms of service to the U.S. with Israel and the U.S.).  This Gladio brought you the Paris attacks.  This Gladio is responsible for the War “on” Terror (including the synthetic Arab army/marketing confection known as ISIS).  And finally, this Gladio almost certainly brought you the San Bernardino shooting as well.

The main goal of the neoconservative Gladio is endless war.  It is a macro operation.  It operates on the level of geopolitics.  War profiteering, oil, drugs…  The neoconservative Gladio brought you the mother of all false-flags:  9/11.

On the other hand is the liberal Gladio.  The liberal Gladio brought you Sandy Hook (their masterpiece).  Their other suspected jobs are Aurora (the Batman shooter) and Umpqua.  It wouldn’t be a stretch to also include the OKC bombing and the Waco massacre of the Branch Davidians.  But focusing on the first three cases alone (Sandy Hook, Aurora, Umpqua), it is very clear that the liberal Gladio has as its main goal gun control.

The liberal Gladio is operating on a micro (or domestic) level.  The San Bernardino shooting was meant to make Obama look soft on crime.  The neocon gang which engineered the shooting exhibited perfect timing as Obama had recently announced an initiative to reclaim MRAPs from local law enforcement across the country (in response to police abuse of power).  The neocons took a page out of the liberal false-flags-for-gun-control playbook on this one, but the main goal was endless war.  [This, of course, didn’t prevent Obama from trying to leverage the event to prop up HIS faction’s agenda.]

The unfortunate equation is that neither side can expose the deeds of the opposing side because they are both dealing in untruths.  Obama has, up until now, squandered his opportunity to bring the neocons of the Bush administration to task for 9/11 and the fraudulent War “on” Terror.  Indeed, Obama has only proven that he himself is a fraud down to his very core.

The layers-upon-layers of lies in the United States cannot hold.  Snowden pierced the veil.  Only those with a conscience can save us now.

 

-PD