RIP Sydney Pollack

[MacCruiskeen]

Higgins: Hey, Turner! How do you know they'll print it? You can take a walk. But how far if they don't print it?

Joe Turner: They'll print it.

Higgins: How do you know?

Pollack asks each and every viewer in the 1975 movie theater audience to consider the presence of the Mockingbird in their Media. a full two years before Bernstein does. It is just a simple fact.

That too. Very good point.

[professorpan]

For me, this is a different story. I am really sorry (and fucked-off, to be honest) to hear that. I like and respect Doug Rushkoff's work and would have been really delighted to have him at R.I. I am also a passionate advocate for Open Source.

Let me clear up something: Rushkoff, a friend of mine, was smeared by Hugh, but the guy who registered here and posted (before being driven away) had a website about synchronicity and urban exploration. Hugh branded his site "woo" and said it was disinfo, and the guy quickly decamped -- and I don't blame him. Sorry I wasn't clear about that.

I have never invited Douglas R. here because I know he doesn't have a lot of time to spend on message boards, and because the signal to noise ration keeps decreasing.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Pollack's movies? Oh, Pan chewing on me again...sigh...

For me, this is a different story.

I am really sorry (and fucked-off, to be honest) to hear that. I like and respect Doug Rushkoff's work and would have been really delighted to have him at R.I. I am also a passionate advocate for Open Source.

Let me clear up something: Rushkoff, a friend of mine, was smeared by Hugh,

Wrong. I LOVED Rushkoff's work until he posted intentional disinformation about 9/11.
You can search up my posts promoting his book about coercion. I even found one of my posts promoting Rushkoff's book on someone else's website.

I criticized Rushkoff for calling 9/11 Truthers racists and I showed that he had suddenly turned disinfoteer on THAT topic after he'd previously enthused over Kevin Barrett's use of Rushkoff's 'Coercion' book to explain 9/11 as a psy-ops. What happened to change Rushkoff's attitude and make him post an essay that could've been written by Chip Berlet?

I suggested that somebody got to Rushkoff and let him know that his work and name must not be an anchor in Barrett's promoting 9/11 Truth or Rushkoff would lose both.
So Rushkoff purposely did a 180 and distanced himself from this truth by calling us "hegemonists," when this is what 9/11 Truthers oppose, a meme-reversal tactic of counterpropaganda by Rushkoff to save his own ass.

This was in a thread where I also outed Penn and Teller for peddling the same anti-conspiracist crap-
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=17286&start=0

but the guy who registered here and posted (before being driven away) had a website about synchronicity and urban exploration. Hugh branded his site "woo" and said it was disinfo, and the guy quickly decamped -- and I don't blame him. Sorry I wasn't clear about that.

Your pal posted a series of teapot discovery photos claiming a wild synchronicity that looked faked to me. And if not faked, so what?

I see promoting acausality as a misdirection tactic being ramped up to cover-up covert causality or psy-ops, like Dean Radin's ESP nonsense.

Then, no surprise, your pal posted that 'we can't possible know about 9/11 so let's forget it.' And I chewed him up for that, too.

I have never invited Douglas R. here because I know he doesn't have a lot of time to spend on message boards, and because the signal to noise ration keeps decreasing.

Please do invite Rushkoff. Ask him how he can include the documentary 'The Power of Nightmares' in his own college teaching and then write what he did about the 9/11 Truth movement.

I''ve repeatedly told others the CIA formula for coercion he lined out in his 'Coercion' book before Rushkoff 'changed' -
Dissociation
Regression
Transference
Compliance

Ask him to talk about this formula in movies. Pollack's movies.

[MacCruiskeen]

Pollack's movies.

IanEye and I have never stopped talking about them, in some detail. You never start, Hugh.

[professorpan]

I'll keep checking out this board from time to time. But if Jeff and his cadre of "moderators" don't clean it up then all the hate being spewed isn't worth the knowledge gained.

I'll happily forgo the moderator status, if the consensus is that I haven't done a proper job.

Since I'm beginning work on a new novel, I will have very little time to follow the conversations here anyway. Which is probably best, as the things I like to discuss -- the arts, UFOs, synchronicity, psi, forteana -- generate a lot of animosity and are almost impossible to keep on track.

But that's cool -- all things change and all things must pass.

I'm also really tired of the crap thrown at Jeff. It never ceases to amaze me that the guy who started this little community, and who has done a remarkable job keeping it going, catches so much flack. But having just experienced the house guests from hell in real life, I realize that a lack of appreciation and respect is often the result of opening one's doors. C'est la vie.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Higgins: Hey, Turner! How do you know they'll print it? You can take a walk. But how far if they don't print it?

Joe Turner: They'll print it.

Higgins: How do you know?

Pollack asks each and every viewer in the 1975 movie theater audience to consider the presence of the Mockingbird in their Media. a full two years before Bernstein does. It is just a simple fact.

That too. Very good point.

You're missing the power of fictionalization. Especially the year that Philip Agee's first whistleblowing book is published, 'Inside the Company: CIA Diary.'
(Hey, know who William Turner is and why he's dangerous to power? Or what the name 'Turner' implies?)

And missing the value of forestalling.
And and the value of limited hang-out.

And the basic message in the movie that you want Good Guy CIA Redford ("I just read") to survive the Rogue Cell of Bad Guy CIA.

And the introduction of CIA justifications about doing the hard work for the public's survival they don't even want to think about.

And the timing of exposure of CIA media started some years before Bernstein's article and was the reason that CIA Director William Colby outed a few journos himself as a shot across the bow to anyone who got 'off the reservation.'

The topic of CIA media was poking out into the public and William Colby did some forestalling and purity theater long before dumping the 'Family Jewels' to the Church Commiteee in 1975 and this being leaked to Bernstein who wrote it up in 1977.

In 1971 it finally became public knowledge that Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe were CIA media.

In summer 1973 Jack Anderson wrote in his column that Hearst journalist Seymour Freidin was a CIA agent. This was probably part of the sandbagging of Nixon since Freidin was also outed as working for the Republican Party along with allegedly independent journo Lucy Goldberg, later of Monicagate infamy.

In late 1973 NYTimes and Washington Star-News officials started huddling with CIA Director Colby to 'find out if they had any agents onboard.' Oh, pure fellows!

In 1974 Professor Loory published an article in Columbia Journalism Review about the CIA's use of journalists.

The author of the 1974 novel, 'Six Days of the Condor,' James Grady, ended up on Jack Anderson's staff and now is linked to disinfo author Dan Moldea and two more spook propagandists at his own site-
http://www.jamesgrady.net/links/

I've already written on all this, the author, the plot, the history...and this is only one Pollack movie...

We haven't even gotten to the real Operation Condor.
And there were two of them, one covering for the other.

Or the pathetic Disney (CIA for kidz!) 'Condor Man' about a mild-mannered guy working for the CIA who...oh never mind.

Or Viacom whitewashing Operation Condor in their 'Dora the Explorer' series used for recruting Latin American kids.

If this topic is new to you, look into it.
I've been doing so for a few years and am tired of "no sir" coming from people who have barely looked at the topic of CIA media history.

And this is still just one Pollack movie I redlined.

[Jeff]

Wake up people, everybody who visits this site is a "conspiracy nut" who loves drama and intrigue and are probably pissed off with various forms of ruling elite.

Which reminds me: I'm fed up with the "here we are now, entertain us" aspect of this fucked-up subculture and want no part of it.

Carry on.

[professorpan]

Your pal posted a series of teapot discovery photos claiming a wild synchronicity that looked faked to me. And if not faked, so what?

I see promoting acausality as a misdirection tactic being ramped up to cover-up covert causality or psy-ops, like Dean Radin's ESP nonsense.

Then, no surprise, your pal posted that 'we can't possible know about 9/11 so let's forget it.' And I chewed him up for that, too.

For anyone interested in seeing what really happened, here's the thread:

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=9960

After I pointed to a very interesting synchronicity story (well, interesting to me and many others who commented), Hugh jumped in with his usual tact:

I hate "woo woo" stories like this.
Because they are meaningless, just as the webpage says it is.
Worse than meaningless, actually, because they diffuse rationality and deter critical thinking.

I think that website is psy-ops for youth.

And, amusingly in light of this thread (and which I'd forgotten about) Hugh puts in a good word for Rushkoff:

Promoting the idea of coincidence (which of course does happen) is something cults do to separate cult members from their autonomy and critical thinking about cause and effect.

Douglas Rushkoff outlines this very well in his 1999 book 'Coercion: Why We Listen to What 'They' Say.' He lost a girlfriend to a cult and used his advertising and media savvy to examine how cults work but no publisher would publish his proposed book so he included a chapter on cults in his 'Coercion' book.

I recommend Rushkoff's book to everyone.

But really -- go read the thread and see how Hugh treated someone (zap) who tried to join and contribute to our community. That thread is iconic in some ways, and also makes me realize how much time and energy I've been wasting.

Hugh unleashed more vitriolic accusations at zap in this thread:

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=9991

And Hugh requests:

Please do invite Rushkoff. Ask him how he can include the documentary 'The Power of Nightmares' in his own college teaching and then write what he did about the 9/11 Truth movement.

No fucking way José. Why invite a friend to waste his time and have mud slung at him? He's a writer and a speaker and has a real professional life -- the last thing he needs is to subject himself to delusional, ad hominem-flinging cranks. I told you how to find his email address, or I'll send it to you via PM, and you can ask him any questions you'd like. But you won't.

Such are the ways of the manatee

[MacCruiskeen]

Very interesting interview with Sidney Pollack about the film. From the year 1976.

SP: I was always nervous about the New York Times ending; so was Bob. We all were. But under the circumstances, it seemed the most truthful one, albeit corny. I mean, how would a guy get himself out of a situation like that? The only way I know is to write a book about it, to go on television and say, “Hey look, these guys are after me and here’s the proof.” I mean, somehow, when you become a large public figure, it’s hands off. It’s like the CIA wouldn't dare to try to make a move to stop this movie. We have too high a profile. It’s like the Russians not killing Solzhenitsyn. If he were less famous, they'd do something to him. But notoriety is his only protection; he has too high a profile. What would happen to world opinion if something did happen to Solzhenitsyn.

PM: I understood the ending differently. Isn't there a strong implication that the CIA also controls the New York Times?

SP: There is. We are saying, god help you all if we can't keep this pipeline open. What if. That’s why he says, suppose they don't. That’s all I really meant—not that they will or they won't. There is that slight bit of doubt, and that’s what I wanted. That’s why I froze the frame, with Redford looking like he might be hunted—because, you know, there was a real attempt to suppress The Pentagon Papers. We're taking all of this very for granted now, all this freedom of the press. ...

The little essay by Patrick McGilligan that precedes it makes some interesting points about the limitations of Pollack's (strong) liberal critique. (In 1976, SP still thinks the CIA is necessary and reformable.) One reason McGilligan's criticims are interesting: they don't involve HMW's ridiculous claim that Pollack is a CIA shill and a sinister "keyword-hijacker".

http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlines ... ligan.html

[Searcher08]

Wake up people, everybody who visits this site is a "conspiracy nut" who loves drama and intrigue and are probably pissed off with various forms of ruling elite.

Which reminds me: I'm fed up with the "here we are now, entertain us" aspect of this fucked-up subculture and want no part of it.

Carry on.

I heard that last line delivered in the style of Rowan Atkinson's acerbic schoolteacher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiWJWLCoH2M

[MacCruiskeen]

"KarmaMatters" was sent here from Hollywood to hijack the thread.

[IanEye]

it is somewhat ironic that when Stephen King releases his book "Firestarter" the only place the protagonist feels safe bringing her story of secret Government black book projects is the offices of Rolling Stone. But that book came out in 1980....

[orz]

We haven't even gotten to the real Operation Condor.

Well, typically you don't get to a specific place by setting of in random unrelated directions.

[IanEye]

perhaps Hugh is simply confusing Sydney Pollack with Sidney Pollack:

http://www.ascendantimage.com/sidney_pollack.htm

You know, it's funny how things never turn out the way you had 'em planned.
The only thing we knew for sure about Henry Porter is that his name wasn't Henry Porter.....

[MacCruiskeen]

We haven't even gotten to the real Operation Condor.

Well, typically you don't get to a specific place by setting of in random unrelated directions.

English motorist, lost in rural Ireland, hails down one of the locals:

"I say, my good chap! How do I get to Dublin?"

"Well, I wouldn't start from here."