KATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATN

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: KATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlett

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:25 pm

"Mockingjay" vs the 'evil Capitol.'
:coolshades

Spooks now have to be soooo obvious to hold down just a few of the info-challenged recruitables.
Like going back to 1964 when there were 3 TV channels and nobody knew anything about spooks.
Image

Didja see today's BBC story that Robert CIA Redford is gonna make a Watergate documentary?
That 1977 Carl Bernstein story called 'CIA and the Media' is just cryptonite to those wannabe uber-menn behind the photon curtain.

And today is the 44th anniversary of the US police-state murder of Martin Luther King, Jr.
How fitting. Please strap on your thought-control helmet.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: KATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlett

Postby Nordic » Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:36 pm

I have to say, for a good time, put Huge on "ignore" and then read one of these threads. I couldn't even read the OP but can read all the responses. It's so funny because I don't even need to read the OP, its quite easy to guess what I says and is utterly irrelevant anyway.

Sadly, a few quotes from his posts come through, diminishing the fun to a slight extent.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: KATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlett

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:39 pm

Nordic, ever heard of Operation Mockingbird?

The American version of Goebbels Rules of Propaganda are NOT....."fun."
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: KATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlett

Postby jlaw172364 » Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:20 am

People who go looking for "Catlett" on Google will find it. People who go looking for "Katniss" on google will find it.

My first google result for "Catlett" was Catlett Virginia, followed by:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Catlett

I actually saw The Hunger Games in the theatres. In my opinion, it's marketing to anti-authoritarians, similar to V for Vendetta. If people are watching movies about rebellions, they aren't rebelling. Is there a corellation between people who watch these films, and then later go on to rebel? Only the intelligence agencies, assuming they collect data, would know for sure.

As for the Mockingjays, *** SPOILER ALERT *** according to the wikipedia page, they were genetically engineered as Jabberyjays, who eavesdropped on the population, and then reported back any plans for rebellion to the authorities. However, the rebels got wind of this, and fed disinformation to the Jabberjays, which then allowed them a modicum of success before they lost. The ruling authorities then abandoned the Jabberjays to the wild, hoping they would die off as they were all engineered to be males, but they then cross-bred with Mockingbirds, and produced Mockingjays, who, while incapable of mimicking human speech, could still mimic the whistling as seen in the movie.

The Mockingjay is a subversive symbol designed to infuriate the authorities by proving to them that they cannot control everything, as they could not completely contain the Jabberjay species. This is only hinted at in the movie when Sutherland comments on Katniss' pin.

Frankly, I think the strategy of bombarding people with myriad choices of mindless entertainment and infotainment, followed by studiously denying publicity to anything or anyone seriously devoted to human rights, unless its too ridicule them or paint them as hypocrites, is effective enough, without this supposed keyword hijacking, which does happen, but I don't think it would happen in this case, and not with someone like Catlett vis-a-vis Katniss Everdeen. Had she been named Catlett Everdeen, you might have a case.

Usually, wealthy interests will hire PR teams to spam positive stories about them, and then push them to the top of search results, and then find more quite ways to deal with websites that are considered defamatory.
jlaw172364
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: KATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlett

Postby crikkett » Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:29 am

One very disturbing aspect of this story is how Catliss' citizenship was seemingly revoked:
http://www.freep.com/article/20120405/N ... xico-at-96
The collective's left-leaning political affiliations partly led the U.S. government to declare Catlett an "undesirable alien" in 1959. Throughout the 1960s, she was denied a U.S. visa, a development that -- combined with her race -- made her a relatively obscure figure in mainstream American art.

The granddaughter of freed slaves, Catlett was born April 15, 1915, in Washington, D.C., and was a graduate of Howard University. She is survived by three sons, 10 grandchildren and six great-grandchildren.


That's not supposed to happen, is it?
crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: KATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlett

Postby semiconscious » Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:46 am

jlaw172364 wrote:I actually saw The Hunger Games in the theatres. In my opinion, it's marketing to anti-authoritarians, similar to V for Vendetta. If people are watching movies about rebellions, they aren't rebelling. Is there a corellation between people who watch these films, and then later go on to rebel? Only the intelligence agencies, assuming they collect data, would know for sure...


well, basically, if people are doing anything other than 'rebelling' at any given moment, up to & including hanging out on the ri board, they aren't 'rebelling'. which's why this 'counter-subversive subversion' thing, taken to its inevitable conclusion, would seem to indicate that we're all stuck with either actively 'rebelling' in some manner, or simply bullshitting ourselves by allowing ourselves to be be distracted by whatever it might be (reading marx, posting in a ri thread) into passivity...

if i attempt to educate myself about, say, the whole mers/mortgage scam by reading multiple posts about it on naked capitalism, am i 'rebelling', or am i being distracted into passivity? & if it's the latter case, does it really matter, at that point, whether the articles are genuine or counter-subversive plants, to the extent that, fundamentally, i'm being distracted in either case, which would supposedly be 'mission accomplished'?...

which's to say that the whole 'keyword hijack' wormhole is every bit as much a 'distraction', by its own definition, as what it purports to document. unless, of course, we're picking & choosing particular types of intellectual masturbation, & equating those with 'rebellion' :) ...
User avatar
semiconscious
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Robert Redford

Postby MinM » Wed May 09, 2012 10:09 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Didja see today's BBC story that Robert CIA Redford is gonna make a Watergate documentary?

That 1977 Carl Bernstein story called 'CIA and the Media' is just cryptonite to those wannabe uber-menn behind the photon curtain.

And today is the 44th anniversary of the US police-state murder of Martin Luther King, Jr.
How fitting. Please strap on your thought-control helmet.

Joseph Cannon is right...


The Watergate burglary happened 40 years ago -- yet, all of sudden, everyone seems to want to talk about that scandal. The most substantive retrospective piece out right now is Jefferson Morley's Salon article on the CIA's role, which you can find here.

Did the CIA engineer Watergate? Did ousted CIA head Richard Helms out-trick the Trickster? ...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34651

Image
Saturday, May 5, 2012 1:00 PM UTC
Watergate’s final mystery
Underneath the media's obsession with the scandal lies the neglected story of the CIA's role
By Jefferson Morley

Journalists are obsessing over Watergate again. Debate exploded this week over a new biography of Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee, excerpted in New York magazine. It suggests the legendary editor privately doubted aspects of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s reporting that helped bring about the resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974.

The story prompted a strong denial from Woodward, a demurral from Bradlee, an online chat at Poynter and a Daily Beast story by independent scholar Max Holland, who argues Woodward and Bernstein’s book about the scandal, “All the President’s Men,” is “a fairly tale, albeit a compelling one.” After hyping the story for a couple of days, Politico then dismissed it as “a storm in a Washington teacup.” ...

The question, Woodward wrote in 2007, was, “What could have Helms known?”

One possibility, he said, was that he knew Howard Hunt was carrying out burglaries for the president. Another document made public in 2007 showed that Hunt had sent a memo to the CIA two months before the Watergate burglary seeking to hire a former CIA employee “accomplished at picking locks.” Helms, Woodward suggested, might have gotten wind of what Hunt was doing.

The question of what Helms knew about Watergate still matters because, amazingly enough, after 40 years later, we still don’t know who ordered the burglary or why. As Shafer told the Poynter discussion, “I’ve read all the books, listened to all the lectures, and even eaten dinner in the Watergate and I don’t know why Nixon’s people broke into the DNC twice and bugged it.”

What is certain is that Helms knew Hunt was working for the White House as early as April 1971. In response to Nixon’s pestering, Helms had offered the president two CIA reports on the failed Bay of Pigs operation in 1961 and a report about the assassination of South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963. Nixon was looking for facts that would impugn the reputation of President John F. Kennedy and thus harm the presidential ambitions of the martyred president’s younger brother, Sen. Edward Kennedy who was expected to run for president in 1972.

“Obviously, I’m going to hand this stuff over to the President,” Helms told Nixon aide John Ehrlichman, “but I’d be terribly glad if you would get his backing not to share it with a lot of the staff of there. For example, I know that Howard Hunt has been doing some work. There’s nothing he’d like better than, as an old Agency hand to run around in some of the soiled linen there is around here, in the garbage cans and so forth.”

Here you can almost hear the clench-jawed East Coast mandarin that Helms was — “terribly glad” and “soiled linen” and all that — doing his damnedest to suck up to the president. The Nixon-Helms collaboration deepened in October 1971 when Nixon summoned the CIA director to the White House. Before the meeting, Ehrlichman briefed Nixon why Helms’ was visiting: He had “dirty line” to share. He said the CIA director had told him

that his relationship with past presidents had been such that he would not feel comfortable about releasing some of this very, very dirty linen to anyone without first talking it through with you because he was sure that when you became a former president you would want to feel that whoever was at the Agency was protecting your interest in a similar fashion.

Ehrlichman also reminded Nixon of Helms’ concerns about Howard Hunt, the White House “consultant.”

“Helms is scared to death of this guy Hunt that we got working for us because he knows where a lot of the bodies are buried,” he said.

When Helms arrived in the Oval Office, Nixon wasted no time in assuring him that he would keep the secrets of the CIA, which he called without irony, the “Dirty Tricks Department.” Nixon said:

“I know what happened in Iran [CIA-sponsored coup in 1953] and I also know what happened in Guatemala [CIA-sponsored coup in 1954] and I totally approve of both. I also know what happened at the Bay of Pigs [the failed invasion to overthrow socialist Fidel Castro in 1961], which was planned under Eisenhower. I totally approved of it. The problem was not the CIA. …

Nixon wanted it to be known that he could be trusted to defend the agency.

My interest there is solely to know the facts in the event that as time goes on here, things heat up, and this becomes an issue. That is what I want you to understand regarding any information.I need it for a defensive reason … “

Then, in his abrupt, awkward way, Nixon launched into a soliloquy about what political controversies the documents might shed light on:

Who shot John? Is Eisenhower to blame? Is Johnson to blame? Is Kennedy to blame? Is Nixon to blame?

In the context of a negotiation over sensitive government records from the early 1960s, Nixon’s aside — “Who shot John?” — could only have been a reference to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas in 1963. But if Nixon was implying that the CIA might have something to hide on the question of who ambushed the liberal president in Dealey Plaza, he was also assuring Helms he would keep the Agency’s secrets.

“I need to know what is necessary to protect frankly, the intelligence gathering and the Dirty Tricks Department and I will protect it,” Nixon said. “I have done more than my share of protection, and I think it’s totally right to do it.

Helms sensed his opportunity and spoke for the first time. He had an offering.

“Sir, as a matter of fact the reason that I want to speak …” he began. Helms said he had found a previously unknown document about the assassination of Diem in South Vietnam in 1963.

“When I saw this document I thought to myself, ‘This is the kind of document that I would be rather irresponsible if I didn’t go to the president and tell him what this document was,’” Helms explained. “I’ve got it right here. It’s got extracts from State Department cables, Defense Department cables …”

Helms passed the documents to Nixon. Nixon didn’t get anything with “who shot John” but he get a lot of who shot Diem (rival generals) and he might be able to use that against the hated Teddy Kennedy. The meeting ending on a satisfactory note for both men.

Nixon then passed the Diem cables to aide Chuck Colson (whose recent death was another blast from the Watergate past) who gave them to none other than Howard Hunt. A veteran undercover officer and dirty tricks specialist who loathed President Kennedy, Hunt doctored the cables to create the impression that JFK was complicit in the assassination of Diem, a pro-American despot. The forged documents were then shown to a Life magazine writer in the hopes of creating problems for Ted Kennedy’s expected presidential candidacy. Life magazine turned down the story, perhaps because the animus behind the story was so transparent. Hunt moved on to other missions for the White House. The story of the doctored Diem cables was later uncovered by Watergate investigators but Helms’ supporting role remained obscure.

Helms and Nixon had forged an effective partnership. They spoke at least five more times in the coming months. On June 16, 1972, Nixon called him to tell about certain secret CIA operations involving Mexican President Luis Echeverria, the details of which are still secret. So when Hunt and other former CIA men were arrested at the Watergate the next day, Nixon simply assumed the CIA director would help him stonewall the investigation.

“We’ve protected Helms from a hell of a lot of things,” Nixon told his chief of staff H.R. Haldeman on June 23, 1972. He wanted to remind Helms that the investigation might lead to Cuba-related revelations that would harm the CIA.

“You open that scab and there’s a hell of a lot of things,” Nixon went on, “and we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have things go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves.”

Nixon could be sure Helms would know what he was talking about. He had been seeking sensitive CIA reports about the Bay of Pigs operations for more than a year; Hunt was a leading figure in that operation. In his 1979 memoir, Haldeman speculated that Nixon was tacitly reminding Helms of two extraordinarily sensitive issues: the CIA’s plots to kill Fidel Castro and the assassination of JFK. The Oct. 8, 1971, tape lends credence to the notion. If Nixon had offered to protect the Agency’s interests on “who shot John” then surely Helms would cooperate with the White House in smoothing over what his press secretary described as a “third rate burglary.”

Nixon assumed wrong. “This has nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs,” the normally calm Helms shouted at Haldeman, who was surprised as his rage. Helms was a canny bureaucratic operator who was sensitive about Cuba and assassinations. He knew he could not block the FBI’s investigation without risk to his own position and he saw no reason why he should. Hunt was a useful scoundrel whose screw-ups were legendary but whose loyalty to the Agency was assured. Publicly and privately, Helms maintained the fiction that the Agency knew nothing of Hunt’s proclivities — and he kept very quiet about his own back channel to McCord. As Nixon and his aides scrambled to cover up the White House’s “dirty tricks,” the FBI — and the young reporters at the Washington Post — began to unravel the story, albeit without much insight into Helms’ role as enabler.

The secrets that Nixon and Helms shared exerted invisible gravitational force on the unfolding scandal. From his jail cell, Hunt let it be known that he would talk about his knowledge of “highly illegal conspiracies” at the CIA unless he was paid off. To underscore his point, he then published a memoir of the Bay of Pigs operation, “Give Us This Day,” which opened with a denunciation of President Kennedy for his “shameful” failure to support the Agency’s anti-Castro rebels. His point was blunt and subtly ominous: if JFK had backed the CIA venture, he might not have been killed by an allegedly pro-Castro gunman in Dallas. Hunt was not one to get sentimental about the playboy president’s bloody end in Dallas. Like others in the CIA, he thought JFK was a contemptible weakling who had it coming. The “whole Bay of Pigs thing” was fraught indeed.

Amid such black intrigue, the spymaster proved more agile than the president. Helms avoided talking about what he knew of Hunt’s service to the White House while Nixon succumbed to the burglar’s blackmail, ordering aides to raise money to pay off Hunt for his silence. The CIA man cultivated Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham as a social friend. Nixon enmeshed himself further in the scandal.

Nixon and Helms parted ways in December 1972. Nixon forced the CIA director to resign; Helms extracted an ambassadorship so that his exit from Washington would not be tainted with Watergate or presidential disfavor. Besieged by investigators and the press, Nixon resigned 20 months later. Helms had to plead guilty to charges of lying to Congress about a CIA assassination conspiracy in Chile. But admiring colleagues rallied to his defense and, he was never held accountable for the Agency’s deeply suspicious role in the intelligence failure that culminated in the crime of Dallas. Thanks to the forgiving culture of Washington, both men outlasted their notoriety in the 1970s and lived out their lives as controversial but ultimately respectable statesmen.

The Shakespearean struggle of Richard Nixon and Dick Helms is central to the Watergate story. It speaks a volume about the covert workings of power in Washington and is still shrouded in official secrecy 40 years later. (For example, the JFK Assassination Records Collection at the National Archives contains 366 pages of CIA documents on Howard Hunt that have never been made public.) But the unfinished story of the CIA and Watergate fits awkwardly in the annals of the scandal. Its implications eluded the best journalists of a generation and its legacy is not reassuring to readers.



Read: “The Keeper of Secrets Earns His Reputation,” by Bob Woodward, Washington Post, June 27, 2007.

Listen: “Who shot John?” Richard Nixon and Dick Helms’ discuss CIA dirty tricks on Oct. 8, 1971; read a summary here. Courtesy of Nixontapes.org.)

viewtopic.php?p=460386#p460386

Image
From Watergate to Wikileaks

FBI agent takes down Nixon

What about Watergate?
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: KATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlett

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Thu May 10, 2012 1:03 am

Why the saturation of the girl-archer image, the Huntress...oh.

Anything that would dissuade females from joining CIA or other alphabet gestapos must be masked.
Dorothy HUNT, a CIA agent married to infamous E. Howard Hunt....was murdered-by-plane-crash. December 8, 1972.

To compound the subversive association to be blocked with pre-biasing decoys,
air traffic-control codename for NORAD monitoring all the same plane traffic (cough9/11ahem) is....Huntress.
You can find this in the transcripts of the last words from Egypt Air 990 before it *crashed*.

Charlie Weaver to block and X marks the secret square.
Now a word from our sponsors. Stay tuned.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: KATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlett

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Thu May 10, 2012 1:09 am

ech. All the pro gatekeepers are grabbing the historical flags to mislead the curious internet readers away from electric fences and reinforce the myth that tthey are the watchdogs.

Watch out for these lapdogs-
Jefferson Morley, Steve Coll, Tim Weiner. Jane Mayer, Bill Moyers, John Prados, Thom Hartmann.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: KATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlett

Postby surfaceskimmer » Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:45 pm

Interesting discussion... I am now mid-way through the third book in the trilogy and recently saw the movie of the first volume and the first time I heard about this, I asked the question "Why is this topic intended for fifth grade girls?"

HughMWins, do you have a verification for the fact that the Scholastic publishing house is a CIA tool and that it published indoctrination pamphlets?

What struck me about the movie (it's in the book too) is the use of injected holograms and genetic mutations at a time when these technologies and their development is florid. What also struck me was the fact, as per Wikipedia, that the author's father was a USAF officer in Vietnam, interesting if one knows about Lansdale's use of the cultural mythologies and superstitious beliefs, the weaponization of anthropology and culture...

‘…the combined role of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology in accelerating advancement of mental, physical, and overall human performance.”

“Changing the societal “fabric” towards a new structure”....

And one can read about the development and activities of the Psychological Strategy Board in Truman's era, or the activities of C. D. Jackson in Europe and thereafter in the US.
User avatar
surfaceskimmer
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 6:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: KATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlett

Postby Jeff » Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:49 pm

surfaceskimmer wrote:HughMWins, do you have a verification for the fact that the Scholastic publishing house is a CIA tool and that it published indoctrination pamphlets?


Hugh was banned for trolling several months ago, surfaceskimmer.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: KATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlett

Postby surfaceskimmer » Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:19 pm

Oh, dear. Well, it seems he was good at making people think. Clearly certain perspectives suggesting sanity and a clear mind are unwelcome in this crazy world of assassination without judicial cause, mind control, "propos", and the infiltration, coups d'etat, menticide, humanitarian warfare, Pussy Riots, Raelian topless protests, ecological destruction by oil and radioactivity, and the politicization and weaponization of nearly all science, especially the soft ones of culture, society, psychology, http://www.killology.com/ and the cognitive sciences. I guess if we have to be sheep, we ought to know who the shepherd is.
User avatar
surfaceskimmer
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 6:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: KATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlett

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:38 pm

^^"The Law of Unintended Consequences"
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: KATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlett

Postby MinM » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:44 pm

surfaceskimmer wrote:Interesting discussion... I am now mid-way through the third book in the trilogy and recently saw the movie of the first volume and the first time I heard about this, I asked the question "Why is this topic intended for fifth grade girls?"

HughMWins, do you have a verification for the fact that the Scholastic publishing house is a CIA tool and that it published indoctrination pamphlets?

What struck me about the movie (it's in the book too) is the use of injected holograms and genetic mutations at a time when these technologies and their development is florid. What also struck me was the fact, as per Wikipedia, that the author's father was a USAF officer in Vietnam, interesting if one knows about Lansdale's use of the cultural mythologies and superstitious beliefs, the weaponization of anthropology and culture...

‘…the combined role of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology in accelerating advancement of mental, physical, and overall human performance.”

“Changing the societal “fabric” towards a new structure”....

And one can read about the development and activities of the Psychological Strategy Board in Truman's era, or the activities of C. D. Jackson in Europe and thereafter in the US.

From: Jimmy Savile...
Image
To: Justin and Jessica Timberlake

WTF ... we're already living in Panem.
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: KATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlettKATNISScatlett

Postby MinM » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:08 am

Jennifer Lawrence & Her 13 Disney Doppelgangers

J-Law & Disney, what more do you need in life?!

Image
Image
http://www.buzzfeed.com/torriehardcastl ... m=buzzfeed

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Image

Why the current hyping of 'The Hunger Games'
lead character girl soldier..."Katniss?" Merely to connote cat-like stealth ala 'Cat Woman?' No.
Because Elizabeth Catlett, age 96, was about to die and just did.

Catlett's wikipedia entry is sanitized - no mention of this -
"She was arrested during a railroad workers' protest in Mexico City in 1958 and in 1962 the U.S. State Department banned her from returning to the United States for nearly a decade because of her political affiliations."

Catlettt is a reminder that the US military government oppresses poor hungry women.
Bad for recruiting them.
So the two keywords share the same news cycle as interference theory counterpropaganda
to support nationalism and military recruiting of females.

What do you expect from the author of 'Mockingjay,' a decoy of CIA media called Operation Mockingbird?

katniss catlett - Google search

'The Hunger Games' vs. 'Twilight': Is Katniss A Stronger Character ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../the-h ... 87718....6 days ago – When we asked our Twitter followers whether Katniss or Bella was the stronger character and ..... Elizabeth Catlett Dead: Sculptor Dies At 96 ...

Jody He: A Defense of Katniss
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jody.../a ... 693.ht...6 days ago – Much like Harry Potter, Katniss is modest because of her desire to keep those whom she loves ... Elizabeth Catlett Dead: Sculptor Dies At 96 ...

Quora: Does Katniss Truly Love Peeta?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../does- ... 0.ht...One interesting aspect of Peeta and Katniss' relationship is the evolution. The two start off as virtual ... Elizabeth Catlett Dead: Sculptor Dies At 96 · Obituaries ...

Michele Velazquez: Why Peeta And Katniss From 'The Hunger ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../why-p ... 240....Mar 26, 2012 – ... all men mention six things. I saw these six things with Peeta and Katniss. ... Business. Elizabeth Catlett Dead: Sculptor Dies At 96. Obituaries ...

Katniss Everdeen: Jennifer Lawrence Never Pictured Herself As ...
news.moviefone.com/.../katniss-everdeen-jennifer-lawrence_n_1369...Mar 21, 2012 – Jennifer Lawrence, Katniss Everdeen In 'The Hunger Games'. So, when Jennifer ..... Elizabeth Catlett Dead: Sculptor Dies At 96. Obituaries ...

'Hunger Games': Katniss & Peeta Nicknames From Jennifer ...
news.moviefone.com/.../hunger-games-katniss-and-peeta-nicknames...Mar 19, 2012 – ... blockbuster immediately addressed our nation's most pressing concern: Katniss Everdeen and ... Elizabeth Catlett Dead: Sculptor Dies At 96 ...

Film review: Consider skipping 'The Hunger Games' | Deseret News
http://www.deseretnews.com/.../Film-rev ... -Hunge...4 days ago – The film is a futuristic dystopic that follows Katniss Everdeen, who is called ... Sculptor Elizabeth Catlett dies in Mexico · Deseret Book Top 10 for ...
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest