What's Happening? It? (TRIGGERS UPON TRIGGERS)

[General Patton]

p.s. How much do you envy my post count opportunities on the horizon?

Your 6622 numbers check out just fine, but looking forward to the quints.

[kelley]

Can you you think of a reason that isn't at least tangentially related to this topic that the HRC has abandoned her life long dream so quietly when it was tampered with and/or stolen so obviously? (she's otherwise so powerful)

(Because that's what makes me look at this twice)

fly meets ointment

super

[NaturalMystik]

Totally off-topic, but in response to some earlier posts in this thread:

That's funny. I meant literally mocking, in that I get spreads that appear to reflect me asking something.

As far as divining, I don't mess with that much nowadays unless as a favor to someone else and that's easy enough to use even regular playing cards.

I don't even know how many decks I own now, I sort of collect them, so there are many. If I want perspective on a personal issue that suggests divination I usually just threaten Ouija.
Much more direct. Continual use seems to have the opposite effect on the board.

I've been wanting to get the Thoth deck, but for now I have Gilded Tarot, which seems pretty good for meditations and personal reflection.

As far as that dang Ouija goes... Do you take any precautions? I had a pretty frightening experience with my board when I was young, but I guess that's what happens when you hand a kid matches, gasoline, with no safety manual or fire extinguisher... I've always been a bit scared to use it again but still curious about it. Would definitely do things differently.

[kelley]

if clinton were chief executive, what could possibly occur that she might have have found objectionable, abhorrent, repulsive, unsuitable, or, um, 'deplorable'?

if she's thus so compromised, then perhaps she was also considered something of an obstacle, given that to come? what 'that' is could be anyone's guess.

[kelley]

[dubz]

[dada]

continuing off-topic.

I don't even know how many decks I own now, I sort of collect them, so there are many.

Then you may enjoy these. Not tarot, the attributes are all different. I jokingly call it my 'Bavarian Illuminati' deck.

1215161.jpg

1215162.jpg

Although I don't use cards anymore. I find they make my prescience foggy.

You ever wonder, if you immerse a society in a great deal of what we call fortune telling, that you could cloud the whole process? I wonder that sometimes.

And you ever get the feeling, it's all like working the well-worn paths of a tourist trap? I get that feeling sometimes. I say go with the ouija. Or even better, the automatic writing. 'Free' hand.

Here's one from the instruction manual

1215163.jpg

[divideandconquer]

I've read the John Jay report on the pedophilia scandal and when you break it down, it turns out that a little over 1% of priests are actual pedophiles, with maybe 5-10% of the priests being pederasts...that is, priests engaged in sexual relationships with male teenagers over the age of 14, some consensual, some not. I'm certainly not defending the behavior of these priests, especially the behavior of those who covered it up, but the numbers do not reflect the "reality" created by the media.

In other words, the media has made it seem as if the majority of all priests are pedophiles when that is just not true.

You're going to have to cite a lot more sources to make a claim of this kind. A "cover-up" that entails concealing non-pedophilia in positions of power, hmmm. Sorry, not buying it.

It's certainly true that the Catholic priest-as-pedophile meme blew far & wide and spread its seeds everywhere. But if you want to argue that this was a "psyop," I'm going to need more of the how, when, who and why than you've provided here.

The notion that only 1% of parents are pedophiles (committing child incest) would be wildly understated. Do you honestly believe that priests are less guilty than parents of abusing children under their power?

I don't think the pedophile priest scandal was a psyop insofar as it was created out of thin air. The sickening fact is that high ranking Catholic officials covered up the crimes of pedophile and pederast priests (whether it's 1%, 10%, or 30%) for decades. However, the question remains, why the decade long non-stop media coverage that made the word "pedophile" and "Catholic priest" practically synonymous? Is it because the Catholic Church is the only powerful institution with this hideous problem? I doubt it. Therefore, there must be a reason for the widespread media exposure, and that was my point.

[divideandconquer]

At what point does knowledge of what's behind the "art" or inside the artist start to become more important than one's enjoyment of it? I haven't stopped enjoying movies & TV shows (just rewatched True Detective season one, enjoyed it a lot), but I've become a lot more consciously on the look out for manipulations, dissembling, concealment, cultural toxins which the work itself may be just a delivery device for, like cigarettes & nicotine.

I just finished watching the 1946 Frank Capra classic, It's A Wonderful Life, for the first time. It inspires. It uplifts. It encourages. It instills faith. It promotes good as more powerful than evil and hope over despair, and despite its lack of culturally debasing content, or because of the lack, I sort of enjoyed it. But I feel like I'm missing something. Aside from the underlying or even blatant racism in every film of that era, I failed to see the "manipulations, dissembling, concealment, cultural toxins", etc." that must be present. Or is it possible that such a mainstay of wholesome family viewing is just that, a mainstay of wholesome family viewing and I should shut down and watch it like everyone else? I really wish I could.

[MacCruiskeen]

Breaking News: The body of Christ is contaminated.

The contaminants have not yet been named, but are petroleum-based.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38320675

Signs and wonders.

[seemslikeadream]

if anyone is interested in new 20-year toll: alleged sexual exploitation it's here

Report: At least 368 youth gymnasts abused over last 20 years

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... &start=945

[American Dream]

Maybe somebody somewhere wants to distract us from something?





Trump surrounds himself with powerful men who treat women badly...

[guruilla]

At what point does knowledge of what's behind the "art" or inside the artist start to become more important than one's enjoyment of it? I haven't stopped enjoying movies & TV shows (just rewatched True Detective season one, enjoyed it a lot), but I've become a lot more consciously on the look out for manipulations, dissembling, concealment, cultural toxins which the work itself may be just a delivery device for, like cigarettes & nicotine.

I just finished watching the 1946 Frank Capra classic, It's A Wonderful Life, for the first time. It inspires. It uplifts. It encourages. It instills faith. It promotes good as more powerful than evil and hope over despair, and despite its lack of culturally debasing content, or because of the lack, I sort of enjoyed it. But I feel like I'm missing something. Aside from the underlying or even blatant racism in every film of that era, I failed to see the "manipulations, dissembling, concealment, cultural toxins", etc." that must be present. Or is it possible that such a mainstay of wholesome family viewing is just that, a mainstay of wholesome family viewing and I should shut down and watch it like everyone else? I really wish I could.

Cringe.

The idea that IAWL might be cultural propaganda is confirmed by the fact that the NY Times ran a piece mocking the very idea:

http://nypost.com/2015/12/24/its-a-wond ... ropaganda/

More seriously:

a group convened by J. Edgard Hoover's Los Angeles FBI field office found it to be dangerous propaganda, according to media blog Aphelis.
The anonymous circle of screenwriters targeted both the writers and the film itself. 'It's a Wonderful Life' and other films were targeted under a film regime designed by Ayn Rand, the 'Atlas Shrugged' writer who has become an icon for some libertarian conservatives in recent years, according to Aphelis.
'According to [source name redacted] the writers Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett were very close to known Communists and on one occasion in the recent past... practically lived with known Communists and were observed eating luncheon daily with such Communists as Lester Cole, screenwriter, and Early Robinson, screenwriter,' the FBI document says.
The FBI file also claims that the bureau's screenwriter sources said the film 'deliberately maligned the upper classes, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4Swgz2l4U

(Also Did the FBI Believe That It’s a Wonderful Life Was Communist Propaganda?)

I don't know if Hoover & Rand were onto something, but my impression of the film based on memory is that it is first and foremost an affirmation of American values. It's what's called restorative fiction, Capra was the master-peddler of it back then like Spielberg was in the 80s: the guy to make Americans feel good about themselves. If that isn't propaganda, I don't know what is.

As Pauline Kael wrote: “If there is any test that can be applied to movies, it’s that the good ones never make you feel virtuous.”

Kael on the film: "No one else can balance the ups and downs of wistful sentiment and corny humor the way Capra can -- but if anyone else should learn to, kill him."

[FourthBase]

p.s. How much do you envy my post count opportunities on the horizon?

Your 6622 numbers check out just fine, but looking forward to the quints.

If you count Bill, I am already starting every post this post count centuriad with 666, kek, trips, etc. I foresee (6)6666 being a doozy. Imagine if that were my final post here pre-RI-retirement, off to enjoy a long, lustrous life away from tinfoil swamps and swamp nemeses, et al. How awesome would that be? Now imagine if I legally changed my name to Paul Paul Chandler Chandler Chandler Chandler, lmfao.

[divideandconquer]

At what point does knowledge of what's behind the "art" or inside the artist start to become more important than one's enjoyment of it? I haven't stopped enjoying movies & TV shows (just rewatched True Detective season one, enjoyed it a lot), but I've become a lot more consciously on the look out for manipulations, dissembling, concealment, cultural toxins which the work itself may be just a delivery device for, like cigarettes & nicotine.

I just finished watching the 1946 Frank Capra classic, It's A Wonderful Life, for the first time. It inspires. It uplifts. It encourages. It instills faith. It promotes good as more powerful than evil and hope over despair, and despite its lack of culturally debasing content, or because of the lack, I sort of enjoyed it. But I feel like I'm missing something. Aside from the underlying or even blatant racism in every film of that era, I failed to see the "manipulations, dissembling, concealment, cultural toxins", etc." that must be present. Or is it possible that such a mainstay of wholesome family viewing is just that, a mainstay of wholesome family viewing and I should shut down and watch it like everyone else? I really wish I could.

Cringe.

The idea that IAWL might be cultural propaganda is confirmed by the fact that the NY Times ran a piece mocking the very idea:

http://nypost.com/2015/12/24/its-a-wond ... ropaganda/

More seriously:

a group convened by J. Edgard Hoover's Los Angeles FBI field office found it to be dangerous propaganda, according to media blog Aphelis.
The anonymous circle of screenwriters targeted both the writers and the film itself. 'It's a Wonderful Life' and other films were targeted under a film regime designed by Ayn Rand, the 'Atlas Shrugged' writer who has become an icon for some libertarian conservatives in recent years, according to Aphelis.
'According to [source name redacted] the writers Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett were very close to known Communists and on one occasion in the recent past... practically lived with known Communists and were observed eating luncheon daily with such Communists as Lester Cole, screenwriter, and Early Robinson, screenwriter,' the FBI document says.
The FBI file also claims that the bureau's screenwriter sources said the film 'deliberately maligned the upper classes, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4Swgz2l4U

(Also Did the FBI Believe That It’s a Wonderful Life Was Communist Propaganda?)

I don't know if Hoover & Rand were onto something, but my impression of the film based on memory is that it is first and foremost an affirmation of American values. It's what's called restorative fiction, Capra was the master-peddler of it back then like Spielberg was in the 80s: the guy to make Americans feel good about themselves. If that isn't propaganda, I don't know what is.

As Pauline Kael wrote: “If there is any test that can be applied to movies, it’s that the good ones never make you feel virtuous.”

Kael on the film: "No one else can balance the ups and downs of wistful sentiment and corny humor the way Capra can -- but if anyone else should learn to, kill him."

I avoided watching It's a Wonderful Life all these years simply because I was sure it was going to be sentimental hogwash, however, I was pleasantly surprised.... it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought. The following is an interesting article where the author critiques this "perfect feel-good holiday vehicle" I'm sure most here will disagree with his take, but....

Sentimental Hogwash? On Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life

"...Plato’s description of life in a democratic regime illustrates not only how easily vice can dominate virtue, but how such an ethical inversion comes to be accepted as the norm rather than the aberration....Such is the extent to which .American popular culture lionizes the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain,. adopting Hobbes’s sensual calculus in place of the classical and Christian pursuit of the good for its own sake:

One thinker who devoted systematic study to the manifestation in art of man’s ethical condition was Irving Babbitt, and his scholarship offers an insightful and erudite guide to discerning how artistic—and, indeed, all—human activities affect the ethical order. “Life,” he posited, “is a dream that needs to be managed with the utmost discretion, if it is not to turn into a nightmare.” For Babbitt, as Claes Ryn has noted, “the foundation and center of all genuinely civilized life is personal moral character and effort.” A person’s access to the true meaning of life and its attendant happiness is a function of determined moral striving of which aesthetic activity is necessarily a part. “[A]rt,” therefore, “achieves greatness in proportion as it expresses the ethical essence of human existence.”

[norton ash]

My most meaningful memory of IAWL was the look of scorn I got from a hardcore Marxist friend during a film class because I was crying. (First time I'd seen it.) I recall it was introduced by the professor as an example of the 'necessary lie' movie, the kind of thing America had to tell itself in order to feel exceptionally good and just. Although it really is quite an anti-capitalist film.

It still makes me cry, though not as hard as the 'Marseillaise' in Casablanca.