|
1:22 PM (7 hours ago)
 | | ||
| ||||
Dear Mr. Villacorta:
Recently, the Academy’s Grants Committee met to
select the recipients of the Academy Film Scholars Grants. Out of 95
applications received, the Committee members were pleased and excited to
discover a number of exceptional proposals.
After a great deal of discussion including praise for a number of the
proposals, the committee ultimately selected two. Regrettably, your
proposal was not selected.
The recipients of this year’s Academy Film Scholars
Grants are Christopher Beach for his proposal "The Image on the
Screen: Directors, Cinematographers, and the Collaborative Process" and
Thomas Schatz for his proposal "Hollywood in the
Conglomerate Age".
The committee asked me to inform the applicants how
much they enjoyed reading the proposals and how worthy many of them
seemed. They anticipate that a good number of the proposals will come
to fruition.
Best of luck in all your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Shawn Guthrie
Grants Coordinator
Shawn Guthrie
Grants Coordinator
Academy of Motion Picture
8949 Wilshire Boulevard • Beverly Hills, CA 90211
310-247-3031 office • 310-247-3610 fax
sguthrie@oscars.org
-----------------------
|
10/1/12
| | ||
| ||||
------------------------------
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
-------
---------------
HOLLYWOOD: PSYOP,
811 & HORUS. Project Statement
The objective of this project is to write a
book that will analyze the development of long term PSYOP in the cinema of the
United States. The findings of the research will be detailed in the following
five chapters:
Table of Contents:
1. Masonic America And Long Term PSYOP.
2. Demonizing Iraq: “The Exorcist”
& “Dune.”
3. 911 & Horus in Hollywood
movies.
4. 811 & Horus in Hollywood
movies.
5. Peru: Covert psychological warfare
in Hollywood movies.
Perception depends on political interest. As a
consequence, the methodology is an analysis of American movies from a political
perspective paying attention to the details that are related to our research.
For example, it is not possible to notice the word “sex” embedded in the poster
of “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” if we are not looking for it:
From a marxist perspective class struggle is
the engine of history. This assertion means that, because the movies are only a
hundred years old, they are an aspect of the contemporary conflict between the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat and they are used to reduce the workers’ class
conciousness. In “Ideology And The Ideological State Apparatuses” (1970), Louis
Althuser pointed out that:
I shall call
Ideological State Apparatuses a certain number of realities which present
themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized
institutions. I propose an empirical list of these which will obviously have to
be examined in detail, tested, corrected and re-organized. With all the
reservations implied by this requirement, we can for the moment regard the
following institutions as Ideological State Apparatuses (the order in which I
have listed them has no particular significance):
● the religious
ISA (the system of the different churches),
● the educational
ISA (the system of the different public and private ‘schools’),
● the family ISA,
● the legal ISA,
● the political
ISA (the political system, including the different parties),
● the trade-union
ISA,
● the
communications ISA (press, radio and television, etc.),
● the cultural ISA
(literature, the arts, sports, etc.).
I have said that
the ISAs must not be confused with the (Repressive) State Apparatus. What
constitutes the difference?
As a
first moment, it is clear that while there is one (Repressive) State Apparatus,
there is a plurality of
Ideological State Apparatuses. Even presupposing that it exists, the unity that
constitutes this plurality of ISAs as a body is not immediately visible.
As a
second moment, it is clear that whereas the unified – (Repressive) State
Apparatus belongs entirely to the public domain, much the larger part of the
Ideological State Apparatuses (in their apparent dispersion) are part, on the
contrary, of the private domain. Churches, Parties, Trade Unions,
families, some schools, most newspapers, cultural ventures, etc., etc., are
private.
We can ignore the first observation for the moment. But someone is bound
to question the second, asking me by what right I regard as Ideological State Apparatuses, institutions which for the
most part do not possess public status, but are quite simply private institutions. As a conscious Marxist,
Gramsci already forestalled this objection in one sentence. The distinction
between the public and the private is a distinction internal to bourgeois law,
and valid in the (subordinate) domains in which bourgeois law exercises its
‘authority’. The domain of the State escapes it because the latter is ‘above
the law’: the State, which is the State of the
ruling class, is neither public nor private; on the contrary, it is the
precondition for any distinction between public and private. The same thing can
be said from the starting-point of our State Ideological Apparatuses. It is
unimportant whether the institutions in which they are realized are ‘public’ or
‘private’. What matters is how they function. Private institutions can
perfectly well ‘function’ as Ideological State Apparatuses. A reasonably
thorough analysis of any one of the ISAs proves it.
But now for what
is essential. What distinguishes the ISAs from the (Repressive) State Apparatus
is the following basic difference: the Repressive State Apparatus functions ‘by
violence’, whereas the Ideological State Apparatuses function ‘by ideology’.
I can clarify
matters by correcting this distinction. I shall say rather that every State
Apparatus, whether Repressive or Ideological, ‘functions’ both by violence and
by ideology, but with one very important distinction which makes it imperative
not to confuse the Ideological State Apparatuses with the (Repressive) State
Apparatus.[1]
Thus, the same interest is behind the public
and the private Ideological State Apparatuses. So, censorship is common in the
public institutions as James William Fulbright, a United States Senator who
represented Arkansas from 1945 to 1975, noticed. He wrote in “The Pentagon
Propaganda Machine” (1970):
The
Department of Defense likes to dabble in filmmaking. Besides propagandizing the
American people with television films produced expressly to show the positive
side of the war in Vietnam, the military to a considerable degree also ensures
that the presentation of military themes in commercial motion pictures and
documentaries "will benefit the DoD or otherwise be in the national
interest."
The
quoted phrase is from Department of Defense Instruction 5410.15,
"Delineation of DoD Audio-Visual Public Affairs Responsibilities and
Policies," a document that gives the requirements a commercial film
producer must meet to get assistance from the military for his production. At
first glance, these requirements seem sensible enough. When you consider some
of these scenes purpoted to represent men of the armed services in action, in camp,
and on the town that have been shown in motion pictures and on television over
the years, to ask for "authenticity of the portrayal of military
operations or historical incidents, persons or places" does not seem to be
asking to much. Nor do other requirements set forth in the instruction seem
unwarranted. These include "compliance with accepted standards of dignity
and propriety," noninterference with the "operational readiness"
of the military services, restriction of filming to "normal military activities"
to the largest extent possible, and payment to the government for the use of
military equipment and facilities.
However,
another document, Instruction 5410.16, which spells out the procedures that
must be followed by a producer who wants military assistance, when added to by
the Department of Defense's use of these procedures, results in something
resembling censorship.[2]
This censorship have been studied by David L.
Robb in “Operation Hollywood: How The Pentagon Shapes and Censors The Movies.”[3]
The members of U.S. Intelligence Community[4]
actively coordinate with the producers of mainstream films, as can be seen
through their websites:
1) Department of Defense
2) Air Force
3) Army
4) Navy
5) Marine Corps
6) Coast Guard
7) Federal Bureau of Investigation
8) Central Intelligence Agency
9) Department of Homeland Security
The American movies are propaganda, tools of
psychological warfare[5]
that are weaponized by a relatively low number of people who understand this
function. Due to the nature of their work this people constitute an
organization similar to a secret society[6]
and, because of the characteristics of human nature, we can expect that they
sign their masterworks as a proud craftsman would feel tempted to do. In any
case, if they resist this temptation, we can recognize their modus operandi. An
occult way of identifying themselves would be what I call “The Cult Of Horus”
that is expressed in the movies through situations, gestures and objects of
ritual significance.[7]
I am a marketing and event manager and I
understand that in order to sell the product its promotion is required. These
long term PSYOP are marketing tools of a model of society. Because of my
professional experience I can follow the logic behind PSYOP, the movie
business, the secret societies and the importance of rituals. Also, I am an actor
who has worked as assistant director and film editor and through these
experiences I am aware of the rol of appearances and illusions.
This project is important because the
information will help to improve the way PSYOP is developed through movies around
the world. Due to cultural and historical differences, it is difficult to
achieve the global goals behind these PSYOP with the movies made in Hollywood
by “The “Cult Of Horus.” In my opinion, local movies adapted to specific needs
should carry these PYSOP but, because “The Cult Of Horus” works as a secret
society, the members feel threaten by what might seem to be a reduction of
their power because the production of local movies means interference with local
markets (that should be monopolized by American movies.) In my experience this
is not the case.
As Media and Image
Consultant for the Peruvian filmmaker Leonidas Zegarra, I decided in 2010 that
his film project of that year should support the Catholic Church. The editing
of that movie was sponsored by my blog perucine.blogspot.com. Thanks to that
movie, the following film was supported financially by the Catholic Church.
This year 2012 the movie was released. Today, the official dvd copies of the
movie are being sold legally in the streets of Bolivia by the same street
vendors who sell pirated dvds of American films and the filmmaker is writing
the script of his next project, that will be supported financially by the
Catholic Church, too. If we think in long terms, we can imagine that someday
the Catholic ideology could force the banning of the American movies in Bolivia
due to their “satanic” content, specially if the prohibition contributes to
consolidate the movie monopoly of the Catholic Church. This is speculation
based on how the events are developing and we can see that not making local
movies that would carry the PSYOP of “The Cult Of Horus” could be a (financial
and ideological) mistake but only time will tell.
The book “HOLLYWOOD: PSYOP, 811
& HORUS”[8]
could be a guide for local producers who want to support the PSYOP designed by
“The Cult Of Horus.”
[2] Fulbright, James William (1970), The Pentagon
Propaganda Machine, New York: Liveright. Pages 110-111.
[3] Robb, David L. (2004), Operation
Hollywood: How The Pentagon Shapes And Censors The Movies, New York: Prometheus
Books.
[5]
This function is recognized by authors like:
- Saunders, Frances
Stonor (2001), The Cultural
Cold War: The CIA And The Worlds Of Arts And Letters, New York: The New
Press.
- Jenkins, Tricia Anne (2012), The CIA In Hollywood: How The
Agency Shapes Film And Television, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press
- Hoffman
II, Michael A. (2001), Secret Societies And Psychological
Warfare, Coeur d’Alene, ID: Independent History And Research.
In “Lethal Weapon” (1987), directed
by Richard Donner, as viewers we can ask ourselves why Martin Riggs / Mel
Gibson is wearing huge glasses. This would be a refence to Horus / Ra by
emphasizing the “big eyes.” If this statement might seem outlandish, we can see
that previously in the same scene Roger Murtaugh / Danny Glover has shown the
“sign of silence” becoming a ‘living’ Harpocrates who, according to wikipedia
“was adapted by the Greeks from the Egyptian child god Horus”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpocrates. The whole scene of the explosion
can be as a PSYOP when we notice that in the street signs are written two
sentences: “NO PARKING ANY TIME” “EXCEPT 9 – 11 AM WEDNESDAY” . The word NO has
white letters and it is inside a red square. The shape of the letters of the
word NO is the same that the word OZ has when the O is above the Z, like this:
O
Z
In the film “The Wizard Of OZ”
(1939) the wizard is an ordinary man who depends on illusions to frighten Dorothy
and her companions. We can see that when Murtaugh and Riggs walk toward the
house there is an airplane behind the snowman situated at the top of the house.
The entrance of the house resembles the Eye of Providence (the all-seeing eye
of God) because the main lines that define the entrance are those of a triangle
and a circle. After the explosion of the house, when the airplane is leaving
the frame, a second airplane enters into the frame. So, we have two airplanes,
an explosion that demolished a house, 911, the Eye of Providence, Horus,
Harpocrates and OZ in a scene that belongs to a movie from Hollywood.
Evidently, the scene was designed to indicate the relation between Hollywood,
PSYOP, 911 and “The Cult of Horus” in advance to the “attack” in New York the
year 2001.
Richard Donner, director and
producer of the movie was interviewed by the Archive Of American Television on
June 22, 2006
In the interview Mr. Donner explained that he
usually introduces subtle visual messages in the movies he directs and produces
(he has final cut.) Also, he indicated that he was in a U.S. Navy Photographic
Unit for one year.
Joel Silver is the other producer of “Lethal
Weapon.” Mr. Silver has produced movies like “Die Hard” (1988), “Die Hard 2”
(1990), “The Last Boy Scout” (1991), “Assassins” (1995), “Conspiracy Theory”
(1997), “Swordfish” (2001) and “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” (2005), movies that deal
with conspiracies, the Intelligence Community and terrorist attacks.
[8] 811 as an “attack” has not happened yet but, after
analyzing the data, I deduce that it is already planned.
---------------
http://leonidaszegarra.blogspot.com/2012/02/la-virgen-de-copacabana-en-ejutv.html
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario