Universal developing Gary Webb film

[timetunneler]

Oh, brother. ..you do know who Sibel...nevermind.
Nothing to see here. Everything just as it seems.
Hollywood will show our kids the dangerous truths and the world will be a better place.

Dude....

2006 has a book title-hijacking just before the Sibel Edmonds documentary movie opens in France.
>September 8 'Kill the Messenger' about Gary Webb by Nick Schou published by evil Nation Books.
>September 19 'Kill the Messenger' documentary movie about Sibel airs in France.

What possible real-world consequence would there be if that book about Gary Webb is published 11 days before the Sibel movie is first shown in France? How many people do you suppose would be subliminally affected? The absolute maximum would be 100% of the number of people who had heard/read about the Webb book. And how exactly would the Gary Webb book be negatively predisposing them toward or distracting them from the Sibel movie? Explain that process, and use specifics for this particular example, don't generalize. What goes through the affected's head when the Sibel movie is pre-empted and "upstaged" by a Gary Webb book. Exactly how would that person be less likely to take the Sibel movie seriously after having been "diverted" by the Webb book. Explain away.

Got to agree with Fourthbase on this. If you go to youtube or google and type in Kill the Messenger you go straight to links about Sibel Edmonds. Not this movie. And for this movie to totally hijack search engines it is going to have to be a blockbuster to do that. I don't see a movie about Gary Webb doing that.

I do agree though that sometimes keyword hijacking is used. There are a couple of books at least called Programmed to Kill, one is by McGowan which goes after the U.S. powers that be and another is written by a guy writing on Oswald and the Soviet Union. But I don't really know for sure if this was intentional.

There is this thing out there called synchronicity which some of you should really take a look at. it is a weird coincidence that the USA's mortal enemy is named Osama at the same time a presidential candidate running for office is named Obama. Is it possible that someone behind the scenes is manipulating things for some unknown reason? Possibly.. it is also possible that this is a synchronicity... a lark from the universe, something bubbling up to the surface from the collective. I don't know the answer to that.

But weird shit happens in the world. It is a weird coincidence that the moon is precisely the right size and distance from the earth to be almost the same size as the sun during an eclipse... What are the odds of that? And I have had a enough extremely odd synchronities in my life to be a believer that there are invisible stings that pull us all. Doesn't mean you don't have freewill... but going back to a topic on another thread... IMHO there are higher dimensional aspects of ourselves guiding us that we are not totally aware of. And synchronicities are the things in our lives that reveal that influence.

So Hugh, keyword hijacking is real... and coincidence and synchronicity is real. Which is which and who is who is not always clear. But take a chill pill man. People are awake to that stuff, but not every single coincidence of words and phrases is proof of keyword hijacking by the illuminati. People need to be more rational about that shit. You can't just say it, you need to show some connections to prove it. Sure you can bring it to people's attention, but don't go forcing it down everyone's throat unless you've got some behind the scenes connections to help tie up some dots. Otherwise we're all just barking at the moon sounding a bit crazed.

[IanEye]

So Hugh, keyword hijacking is real... and coincidence and synchronicity is real. Which is which and who is who is not always clear.

But take a chill pill man. People are awake to that stuff, but not every single coincidence of words and phrases is proof of keyword hijacking by the illuminati. People need to be more rational about that shit. You can't just say it, you need to show some connections to prove it. Sure you can bring it to people's attention, but don't go forcing it down everyone's throat unless you've got some behind the scenes connections to help tie up some dots. Otherwise we're all just barking at the moon sounding a bit crazed.

in deed.

[compared2what?]

A scenic route is always pleasant. However, if you're suspicious of this movie, you could just remind yourself that Universal is a subsidiary of NBC-Universal, which is jointly owned in an 80/20 split by General Electic and Vivendi.

You can go stroll through all PTB co-chairs of various parts of this mammoth global financial services/health care/power/aviation/etcetera conglomerate in any number of SEC filings.

As I said earlier, there is almost no chance that the net outcome will be positive. Exactly how that will happen is beyond any person's power to predict. And you don't actually have to know. The thing to bear in mind is that it is not a free endeavor, because this is not a free society. It is controlled by, among other things, the many, many faces of GE and Vivendi.

One movie means nothing to them. They rely on you to think it means something. Who do you think has the more accurate view?

[streeb]

A scenic route is always pleasant. However, if you're suspicious of this movie, you could just remind yourself that Universal is a subsidiary of NBC-Universal, which is jointly owned in an 80/20 split by General Electic and Vivendi.

You can go stroll through all PTB co-chairs of various parts of this mammoth global financial services/health care/power/aviation/etcetera conglomerate in any number of SEC filings.

As I said earlier, there is almost no chance that the net outcome will be positive. Exactly how that will happen is beyond any person's power to predict. And you don't actually have to know. The thing to bear in mind is that it is not a free endeavor, because this is not a free society. It is controlled by, among other things, the many, many faces of GE and Vivendi.

One movie means nothing to them. They rely on you to think it means something. Who do you think has the more accurate view?

My God, that was well put.

[Nordic]

I just have one thing to add.

The movie hasn't been made (i.e. financed) yet.

Sure, somebody is writing a script. The script got the green light and announced.

But wake me up when they actually spend $120 million on this and promote it world-wide.

I kinda doubt that's ever gonna happen.

[compared2what?]

I just have one thing to add.

The movie hasn't been made (i.e. financed) yet.

Sure, somebody is writing a script. The script got the green light and announced.

But wake me up when they actually spend $120 million on this and promote it world-wide.

I kinda doubt that's ever gonna happen.

That crossed my mind also, just because the odds are what they are. But it seemed like the topic was: Is the intention here truth-telling or manipulation or both or neither?

And there is a definitive answer to that: Yes.

But it doesn't matter which one.

I think that principle applies whether it gets produced or not, doesn't it?

[Nordic]

That crossed my mind also, just because the odds are what they are. But it seemed like the topic was: Is the intention here truth-telling or manipulation or both or neither?

And there is a definitive answer to that: Yes.

But it doesn't matter which one.

I think that principle applies whether it gets produced or not, doesn't it?

Well, a lot of people can greenlight a script being made. It doesn't "go public" per se. Plenty of production companies are given pretty much carte blanche to finance script development.

But when it's time to actually finance a movie, that's a completely different story. Then it becomes the studio's money, and it's gotta pass their "smell test" as well as being packaged with a high profile cast and director and the rest of it. At that point, the "suits" decide what gets made and what does not and I'm pretty sure at that level this film has almost zero chance of getting made.

That's all, just being realistic based on my own experiences in the industry. I don't see a big studio like Universal making this. Maybe somebody else will, either through foreign money or an indie producer with a lot of financial backing.

I hope it does.

[FourthBase]

Hugh, still waiting for explanations.

[Nordic]

Well!!

http://m.deadline.com/2013/01/jeremy-re ... gary-webb/

Jeremy Renner Ready To ‘Kill The Messenger’ In Berlin-Bound Film Package About CIA-Smeared Journo Gary Webb
BY MIKE FLEMING JR | Thursday January 31, 2013 @ 5:22pm EST
Email This
BREAKING: The movie packages are coming together on the eve of next week’s Berlin film market. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters star Jeremy Renner has been set to star in Kill The Messenger, a thriller that Michael Cuesta will direct that is based on the tragic tale of a journalist who committed suicide after being smeared by the CIA. The script was written by Peter Landesman. Cuesta seems perfect for this; he’s an exec producer and has directed numerous episodes of Homeland and has been integral in establishing the visual look of that show. He also helmed the pilots for Dexter and Elementary.
Scott Stuber, who set up this project eight years ago as producer at Universal, will be joined by Renner and Don Handfield, and it will be a co-production between Stuber’s Bluegrass and Renner’s The Combine. Naomi Despres is also producing. The film begins production in the summer.
This is a project that has been in the works for several years, and most recently it had been at Universal with Stuber. If the CIA mostly wears a white hat in Zero Dark Thirty for its dogged efforts to track and kill Osama bin Laden, the agency wears a decidedly black lid here. Kill The Messenger is based on the true story of Gary Webb, a San Jose Mercury News reporter who committed suicide after being the target of a smear campaign when he linked the CIA to a scheme to arm Contra rebels in Nicaragua and import cocaine into California.
Landesman (who is right now making his directorial debut on the JFK assassination pic Parkland) put the script together with source material from two books: Dark Alliance: The CIA, The Contras, And The Crack Cocaine Explosion, by Webb, and Nick Schou’s Kill The Messenger: How The CIA’s Crack-Cocaine Controversy Destroyed Journalist Gary Webb.
After he published his 1996 three-part series Dark Alliance, and implied that the CIA was a catalyst for the crack cocaine scourge in California, Webb was excoriated by colleagues in the press. The film will posit that Webb was mostly right, and that the CIA sought to smear him to conceal a scandal. The agency, in essence, concealed a deal with the devil that it made for what was believed at the time to be for the greater good. As a result of the smear campaign, Webb was destroyed; what should have been a careermaking expose turned out to be a career-ending debacle. Webb was jobless and in a spiral of depression when he ended his life in 2004.
CAA, which represents Renner and Stuber, will co-represent the film’s domestic distribution rights with WME, which represents Cuesta. The agencies will bring the project to Berlin. Renner is managed by Untitled’s Beth Holden.
Renner next stars in the Abscam drama that David O Russell is directing with Christian Bale and Bradley Cooper.
Email This

[82_28]

Why We Took Cocaine Out of Soda

When cocaine and alcohol meet inside a person, they create a third unique drug called cocaethylene. Cocaethylene works like cocaine, but with more euphoria.

So in 1863, when Parisian chemist Angelo Mariani combined coca and wine and started selling it, a butterfly did flap its wings. His Vin Marian became extremely popular. Jules Verne, Alexander Dumas, and Arthur Conan Doyle were among literary figures said to have used it, and the chief rabbi of France said, "Praise be to Mariani's wine!"

Pope Leo XIII reportedly carried a flask of it regularly and gave Mariani a medal.

Seeing this commercial success, Dr. John Stith Pemberton in Atlanta -- himself a morphine addict following an injury in the Civil War -- set out to make his own version. He called it Pemberton's French Wine Coca and marketed it as a panacea. Among many fantastic claims, he called it "a most wonderful invigorator of sexual organs."

But as Pemberton's business started to take off, a prohibition was passed in his county in Georgia (a local one that predated the 18th Amendment by 34 years). Soon French Wine Coca was illegal -- because of the alcohol, not the cocaine.

Pemberton remained a step ahead, though. He replaced the wine in the formula with (healthier?) sugar syrup. His new product debuted in 1886: "Coca-Cola: The temperance drink."

After that, as Grace Elizabeth Hale recounted recently in the The New York Times, Coca-Cola "quickly caught on as an 'intellectual beverage' among well-off whites." But when the company started selling it in bottles in 1899, minorities who couldn't get into the segregated soda fountains suddenly had access to it.

Hale explains:

Anyone with a nickel, black or white, could now drink the cocaine-infused beverage. Middle-class whites worried that soft drinks were contributing to what they saw as exploding cocaine use among African-Americans. Southern newspapers reported that "negro cocaine fiends" were raping white women, the police powerless to stop them. By 1903, [then-manager of Coca-Cola Asa Griggs] Candler had bowed to white fears (and a wave of anti-narcotics legislation), removing the cocaine and adding more sugar and caffeine.

Hale's account of the role of racism and social injustice in Coca-Cola's removal of coca is corroborated by the attitudes that the shaped subsequent U.S. cocaine regulation movement. Cocaine wasn't even illegal until 1914 -- 11 years after Coca-Cola's change -- but a massive surge in cocaine use was at its peak at the turn of the century. Recreational use increased five-fold in a period of less than two decades. During that time, racially oriented arguments about rape and other violence, and social effects more so than physical health concerns, came to shape the discussion. The same hypersexuality that was touted as a selling point during the short-lived glory days of Vin Mariani was now a crux of cocaine's bigoted indictment. U.S. State Department official Dr. Hamilton Wright said in 1910, "The use of cocaine by the negroes of the South is one of the most elusive and troublesome questions which confront the enforcement of the law ... often the direct incentive to the crime of rape by the negroes." Dr. Edward Williams described in the Medical Standard in 1914, "The negro who has become a cocaine-doper is a constant menace to his community. His whole nature is changed for the worse ... timid negroes develop a degree of 'Dutch courage' which is sometimes almost incredible."

Yes, even the Dutch were not spared from the racism.

The Coca-Cola we know today still contains coca -- but the ecgonine alkaloid is removed from it. Perfecting that extraction took until 1929, so before that there were still trace amounts of coca's psychoactive elements in Coca-Cola. As Dominic Streatfield describes in Cocaine: An Unauthorized Biography, the extraction is now done at a New Jersey chemical processing facility by a company called Stepan. In 2003, Stepan imported 175,000 kilograms of coca for Coca-Cola. That's enough to make more than $200 million worth of cocaine. They refer to the coca leaf extract simply as "Merchandise No. 5."

The facility is guarded.

Merchandise No. 5

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... da/272694/

[RocketMan]

Peter Landesman is the guy behind the upcoming Lee Harvey Oswald did it extravaganza Parkland.

[8bitagent]

So Hollywood made a film based off the UN/Dyncorp child prostitution rings in Bosnia, the BCCI scandal, now Gary Webb uncovering the CIA Crack scandal.

What's next, a movie based on Franklin? Seriously surprised Hollywood hasn't mined more of these sordid little events for good film plots.