"How to insert a Negro" - CIA in Hollywood, 1953 d

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:36 pm

'Dear Owen': The CIA, Luigi Luraschi and Hollywood, 1953
http://www.iamhist.org/journal/eldridge.pdf

The use of negroes in the background of movie scenes was stipulated, among other details, by the CIA division called the Psychological Strategy Board to one of their moles in Hollywood, Luigi Luraschi, who worked at Paramount Studios.

Lurashi, a long-time Paramount insider, was able to affect casting, scripts, choice of director, etc. Very nuts and bolts details.

Letters from Luschari back to the PSB from 1953 were declassified, perhaps by accident, in 1995 and written up in a 2000 issue of the Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television by David N. Eldridge of the University of Hull, UK.

Eldridge makes statements about this CIA influence being perhaps temporary that don't stand up to what I've found from research which suggests that this micro-managing of film grew exponentially as domestic need dictated (Bay of Pigs, Missiles of October, Vietnam) until the product now coming out of Hollywood is almost all psy-ops from psy-ops factories and fronts.

Read for yourself the reports from one compartmentalized CIA asset in 1953 Hollywood who doesn't know the other CIA assets in Hollywood doing exactly what he is-
http://www.iamhist.org/journal/eldridge.pdf

During WWII the Office of War Information took over Hollywood, chose and actually wrote scripts to boost morale and support the war effort. IT NEVER STOPPED.

by **robert d reed** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:44 pm

I just read that doc. Jeez, what a period piece...how 50s Cold War can you get?

from page 7 of the .pdf (page 154 of the doc, paragraph 3)

"..as an exercise in damage limitation, [Luraschi] sought to edit out instances in which Americans were shown as brash, drunk, sexually immoral, violent or 'trigger-happy'."

And we all know about the success rate they've had with that program over the years, right?

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:34 am

robert d reed wrote:I just read that doc. Jeez, what a period piece...how 50s Cold War can you get?

Still think such things aren't done today to the unth degree? Those were comparitively tame times before damage control was as necessary.

Have you seen 'The Shooter?'
Title plus poster: Basic message framing re: JFK.

"ex-Marine"
"plot against the president"
"Bob Lee Swagger"
"second shooter does what he is hired for but won't do"
"Officer Tibbins"

You will see a complete mirror of the Lee Harvey Oswald story
>BUT also watch the 'good guy' sniper turn people's heads into a spray of red mist around twenty times from as far as a mile away. Knifings, too. Gurgle...It was nauseatingly real to watch. ech.

Mixed message leaning strongly towards the idea he is "the shooter who could."
Recruiting, framing keywords, desensitization for seeing the Zapruder film and war.

That's Hollywood.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:40 am

I can't believe I'm offering a serious response to this b.s.

The documents are b.s.? No, they are real and just a peek at a 1953 spook relationship.

robert d reed wrote:from page 7 of the .pdf (page 154 of the doc, paragraph 3)

"..as an exercise in damage limitation, [Luraschi] sought to edit out instances in which Americans were shown as brash, drunk, sexually immoral, violent or 'trigger-happy'."

And we all know about the success rate they've had with that program over the years, right?

The directions given to the mole were probably to protect the image of the US for foreign audiences.

This was practically still WWII tactics and goals although the mole would not be told everything desired, probably just enough to evoke his patriotic response. He doesn't know who else is doing what he's doing.

Compartmentalism.

This is the tip of the planet-sized iceberg.

by **bean fidhleir** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:23 pm

During that time, there were censors all over the place, often self-appointed. Their goal was to make sure everyone lived inside a fairytale with no annoying reality disturbing their "beautiful minds".

Tom Paxton's "What Did You Learn In School Today?" reflects the work of the censors frighteningly well:

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that Washington never told a lie
I learned that soldiers seldom die
I learned that everybody's free
That's what the teacher said to me
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that policemen are my friends
I learned that justice never ends
I learned that murderers die for their crimes
Even if we make a mistake sometimes
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that war is not so bad
I learned about the great ones we have had
We fought in Germany and in France
And someday I might get my chance
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that our government must be strong
It's always right and never wrong
Our leaders are the finest men
So we elect them again and again
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

by **orz** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:30 pm

This is the tip of the planet-sized iceberg.

Nice mixed metaphor.

Physician, heal thyself

by **Sweet Tooth** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:53 pm

To the "unth" degree, indeed, HMW.

Huzzah!

by **professorpan** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:13 pm

And if you actually read the report, instead of just cherry-picking tidbits out of the full context, you'll see that the Cold War-era efforts to shape films were ham-handed, clunky, and largely ineffectual.

But why read the whole thing with an open mind?

This paper serves as further evidence that your vast, nearly-omnipotent and micromanaged meta-conspiracy is ludicrous.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:41 am

professorpan wrote:And if you actually read the report, instead of just cherry-picking tidbits out of the full context, you'll see that the Cold War-era efforts to shape films were ham-handed, clunky, and largely ineffectual.

But why read the whole thing with an open mind?

Back up your claim that it was "ham-handed, clunky, and largely ineffectual."

lol. I expected ho-hum comment from you on this, pan.

It's only 14 letters from 55 years ago but very telling letters from a CIA mole at Paramount back to his handler at the Psychological Strategy Board boss.

This is at the crack of dawn in the Total Warfare Doctrine psy-ops
offensive against the world and, as need dictated, against US citizens.

The ONE mole is able to influence scripts, writers, casting, directors, etc.
And this is just ONE man in 1953 when Allen Dulles, who really cranked up Operation Mockingbird, was just becoming the CIA director who became our government.

If a studio now IS the CIA instead of just a mole in a studio, the sky's the limit.

This paper serves as further evidence that your vast, nearly-omnipotent and micromanaged meta-conspiracy is ludicrous.

Exactly the opposite, pan. This is a fraction of a system that grew for decades and became what we see coming out of Hollywood. Goebbels would be jealous.

But that's your game for the last year and a half.
"Hollywood just CAN'T do psy-ops. I know, so don't be a kook."

What is "nearly-omnipotent?" The disinfotainment industry throws out non-stop propaganda and some of it sticks. And how does this obviate its existence?
IT DOESN'T. Right. sheesh.

Pan would say that the White House didn't invade Iraq for oil like this:

"I suppose the dish washers and supply officers in the US military are all CIA agents trying to shift the energy markets in competition with China.
Well, they aren't!
So the invasion of Iraq was not some vast, nearly-omnipotent and micromanaged meta-conspiracy just to control oil. You're mentally unbalanced and don't do honest research or accept honest criticism after I utterly refute everything you've ever written."

by **Occult Means Hidden** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:39 am

professorpan wrote:And if you actually read the report, instead of just cherry-picking tidbits out of the full context, you'll see that the Cold War-era efforts to shape films were ham-handed, clunky, and largely ineffectual.

But why read the whole thing with an open mind?

.

Consider the "family jewels" that were released by the CIA. The CIA claims that those documents represent all the bad things the CIA did until modern times. But the primary source of these documents is the CIA itself. The CIA itself also chose which documents to declassify. As a result, only part of the picture, we must presume, is exposed. Now take the documents HMW has us review. Notice, the documents were declassified by who? The CIA and in 1992. Mostly refering to Cold War themes only (no big deal). Meaning that "tip of the iceberg" isn't necessarily a rash generalization. Ya know, having an open mind and all, i'm sure you realize that dismissing anything is fucking stupid.

from page 23:

wrote:Letter 8: 9 February 1953
Dear Owen,
Here’s another we have to watch. A novel called the Giant [sic] by Edna Ferber. In case
you missed the reviews it’s a long involved novel on life in Texas, and touches upon the
following three problems:
1. Unflattering portrayal of rich, uncouth, ruthless Americans. (Texans)
2. Racial denigration of Mexicans in Texas.
3. Implication wealth of Anglo-Texans built by exploiting Mexican labor.
Doran asked me to read it as a possibility for Gregory Peck or Kirk Douglas [84].

I read it. Story could be told and above problems avoided by very careful handling and sincere effort of Producer and Director. A lot depends on the latter point. I asked D.A. how it came on the lot. Had he dug it up personally. He answered Charlie Vidor was interested in doing it either for MGM or Paramount, and it was Vidor who had brought it to his attention [81].
I killed it then and there and told D.A. bluntly we couldn’t possibly take a chance with Vidor, after 'Thunder in the East'. He said forget it. I’ll see to it that it is killed each time someone tries to reactivate it at Paramount; but what happens if Vidor doesn’t lose
interest and tries to take it elsewhere? That’s why the sooner we can get general industry help, the happier I will feel [82].
Regards,

Yeah, no big deal...

by **orz** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:31 am

1. Unflattering portrayal of rich, uncouth, ruthless Americans. (Texans)
2. Racial denigration of Mexicans in Texas.
3. Implication wealth of Anglo-Texans built by exploiting Mexican labor.

Note that the content and themes of the work are important to them, not meaningless wordplay on the title.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:36 am

orz wrote:
1. Unflattering portrayal of rich, uncouth, ruthless Americans. (Texans)
2. Racial denigration of Mexicans in Texas.
3. Implication wealth of Anglo-Texans built by exploiting Mexican labor.

Note that the content and themes of the work are important to them, not meaningless wordplay on the title.

Yeah i agree with that orz.

I think the content and themes are far more important cos they create more "ripples" thru a society than a title would.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:45 am

orz wrote:Note that the content and themes of the work are important to them, not meaningless wordplay on the title.

Those letters are from 1953, fifty-five years ago.

Everything about media has changed.
Everything about Americans has changed.
There's SOOOOooooo much more to hide.
Behavioral science is eons ahead of where it was.
The population rebelled over the Vietnam War.
USG death squads roamed and stomped.
Cable TV brought a couple hundred channels
Video rentals.
The internet.

Are there any adults on the forum? Aw, it's late. Nevermind.

by **orz** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:51 am

Those letters are from 1953, fifty-five years ago.

Everything about media has changed.
Everything about Americans has changed.
There's SOOOOooooo much more to hide.
Behavioral science is eons ahead of where it was.
The population rebelled over the Vietnam War.
USG death squads roamed and stomped.
Cable TV brought a couple hundred channels
Video rentals.
The internet.

I don't disagree with any of that, but it doesn't change the fact that posting some letters from 1953 does not prove your specific absurd claims.

Please consider your logic here: You claim certain movie's names etc were chosen to keyword hijack certain things. To back this up you show old CIA documents from the 50's. When we point out they don't prove your claims and refer to a very different and real sort of propaganda, you say "oh well things are very different now"

Can you not see what's wrong with this logic?

Have you read The Trial yet? If not don't reply to this post.

by **Occult Means Hidden** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:17 am

orz wrote:
I don't disagree with any of that, but it doesn't change the fact that posting some letters from 1953 does not prove your specific absurd claims.

Please consider your logic here: You claim certain movie's names etc were chosen to keyword hijack certain things. To back this up you show old CIA documents from the 50's. When we point out they don't prove your claims and refer to a very different and real sort of propaganda, you say "oh well things are very different now"

Can you not see what's wrong with this logic?
.

HMW doesn't claim this proves keyword highjacking. He said its just another set of documents that show collusion between the media and the CIA. In his first post, he didn't insist this proved keyword highjacking.

"logic?" Yeah right.

Its nearly impossible to prove keyword highjacking in my opinion. Doesn't mean it can't be disproven either. Instead it's a structural theory. If it can be assumed that the CIA or other such interests have active influence in the media then it can be assumed that the influence they wish to wield pops-up in an effort to affect not only our "enemies" consciousness but the domestic's as well - in one way or another. HMW contends that one of the ways this occurs is by keyword highjacking.

Take apart that logic.