Dreams End wrote:Hey Hugh, here's a keyword hijacking I was wondering about. It's a movie called JFK. Evidently it's about...well, it's not important what it's about, but it's called JFK. Clearly this is designed to divert us from thinking about JFK.
By the way, JFK utilizes information that came from Fletcher Prouty. So here we have a massive budget Hollywood production calling attention TO the JFK assassination using information from someone you find reliable. Why, after all the carefully laid "limpet mines" and other subtle PAINE games, would they allow this?
Seems counterproductive to me.
The JFK story does not go away, does it? It rises and falls like a tide as events trigger waves of critical awareness slowly eliminating the sand castle cover story.
When it inevitably flares up, as it did when Oliver Stone poked the wound with material provided by 'Fletch' Prouty after the Clinton administration mandated release of documents, the counter-memes are reinforced of paranoid 'conspiracy theorists' and any perp but CIA being responsible.
A strong principle of psychological warfare is that hostile information is suppressed but not so hard that it both draws more attention to the info and validates its threat to power.
This is how the JFK and 9/11 topics are handled, with character assassination and developing a strong counterpropaganda program of disinfoteers.
Oliver Stone's movie was trashed for months before it was even completed nevermind seen. And his name was made synonymous with 'paranoid opportunistic kook.'
Exactly the same thing was done to suppress 'Shaggy D.A.' Jim Garrison when he went after Clay Shaw. Every CIA media asset was used and that infamous memo went out on how to suggest any JFK investigator is a kook in love with his theories and who could hide such a thing etc. Vincent Bugliosi is doing the same thing now.
After the shoot down of TWA800 was being vigorously suppressed and non-cooperative journos like Kristina Borjesson (editor of 'Into the Buzzsaw') were getting fired from CBS for telling the truth, the discredited Oliver Stone was briefly used as a discrediting tool.
Stone was briefly given the idea that he could do a sort of '60 Minutes'-style conspiracy show which was meant to reinforce the image of 'The Shaggy Director.' (You know, the path that Giraldo went down. And look at his reputation.)
Out of work and desperate Kristina Borjesson was offered a chance to work with Stone on a show about TWA800 much to her disbelief but she went for it. After much publicity about Stone's association with the topic it was canned.
Read pages 311-316 of Borjesson's account in 'Into the Buzzsaw' of how she was lured to the studios to make the proposal to Stone who wasn't interested in TWA800 himself and had documents stolen from her car.
Then CIA's Time Magazine and Newsweek did hit pieces on the idea of that kook Oliver Stone doing the story instead of the oh-so-trustworthy ABC News.
And Stone realized he was now a weapon due to the stereotype his name had been turned into for doing 'JFK.' Disinfoteer Chip Berlet works the anti-conspiricist meme by attributing it to dangerous right-wingers who hate everybody and their government.
Same tactic. Conspiracy theory = dangerous kook.
And that's why Stone's own 9/11 movie steered clear of the Inside Job, because he realizes he will do more harm to the truth movement then good, a realization that Jane Fonda grappled with for years until her recent re-emergence against the Iraq War. She has said so in recent interviews.
But like Emilio Estevez putting only three seconds of The Polka Dot Dress in his 'Bobby' as a hint he knew the real story, Oliver Stone put just a quick mention of bombs in the WTC and molten metal to give a clue to his followers that He Knew but was not going to harm the truth movement with his weaponized reputation the way he had been used for this purpose with TWA800.
Does this answer your question, DE?