If North Korea Could Please Stay Out Of This, Thank You

Disclaimer
You are not allowed to do any kind of interconnecting between any matters relating to the Iranian president found in the following (which I describe as being in relation to my “theory” in order to lessen the possibility that I will be sent to the loony bin for taking it as fact and not just theory) and matters one may have read about regarding Iran receiving from North Korea assistance towards achieving its nuclear weapons capability ambitions (especially at this point in time when North Korea is about to blow up the world again, South Korea first perhaps, I want to stay away from all that, being shy).

Eleventh Hour Make-Believe Diplomacy
Whether you agree with a theory, disagree with a theory, feel a slightly involuntary urge to laugh in the face of someone because of their theory, or want to go out and kill cats because of a theory (whatever): if the theory results in strange predictions that nevertheless come to pass in spite of how unlikely they may seem…. well, a rational person should certainly take notice of such developments, or at least stop feeling a slightly involuntary urge to laugh in my face, that is, not laugh in the face of a person because of their theory, if such developments occur after they are predicted by a theory.

In my August 28, 2010 blog article (copyrighted Sept. 2010, when I published it at Archive.Org in the fourth volume of my blog articles there), I was particularly explicit regarding a previously-described Steinhoff lexicon situation that I contend has come to involve many in entertainment, a lexicon which is also seeing usage by Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.

My lexicon “theory” is described by me as likely having to do with my secret super-importance in relation to the work of many, McCartney in many instances, and also the work of Spielberg (see my “Steven Spielberg and the ‘Mall Man’ Factor”, posted at Archive.Org in Dec. 2009). That the world of politics is also in the picture to a considerable degree is ascribed in part to Spielberg being among the WORLD's most prominent/high profile Jewish men; now factor in that Ahmadinejad is someone who publicly announced a wish that the Jewish state of Israel be blown off the map, while he meanwhile is presumed by the West to be developing nuclear weapons capability. So I’m saying I’ve attracted the notice of Ahmadinejad, who, in his more attention-grabbing statements, has been secretly referencing the same lexicon also referenced in much product from the entertainment industry.

The idea that people would be indulging in such a “game” together, one of this variety, would perhaps tend to seem worthy of more serious consideration, were anyone but myself presenting this awareness to you. For, by me being the one asserting this lexicon is built around things I myself have made/have been prominently involved in, it immediately and clearly makes it all incredibly unlikely-sounding and absurd-sounding, however absurd so much in life may be. As I’ve expressed before, it wasn’t my idea for this lexicon to exist, to be brought to the table, to be so much at the center of the chessboard. Yet I recognize that the reporting or ignoring of certain developments should not be predicated so entirely on the degree of mass acceptability one expects such a report to receive. And my vantage point makes the question of reporting or not reporting one of taking responsibility.
In my August 28, 2010 blog article I describe the specific place where Ahmadinejad last left off inserting such an inside-reference. It was with regard to my 1998 “Gosk 2” video (at Archive.Org since Sept. 2005) and with relation to that video’s “hat scene” and things around the “hat scene”. It is therefore a matter of record that I correlated Ahmadinejad’s words to something regarding that section. As to the “hat scene”, we see Vinkalert pondering why things didn’t work out with his high school sweetheart, Gosk, as if to say he wished they had continued together, i.e., gotten married.

And so, how could it fail to jump off the page for me when, on November 21, 2010, Ahmadinejad, with what would obviously be an attention-grabbing statement, announced that he wants Iranian girls to marry at the age of sixteen?

I Owe Me The World

PAID IN LAUGHTER
There have been a number of new Steinhoff references on the Saturday Night Lives this season, as always. I will not be going into these things, however.

I will instead be focusing on something I see as being in relation to the Pakistani Taliban joining everyone in Hollywood in making inside-references to things Steinhoff. That is what I will be prioritizing this time around! Owing to my being secretly super-important in relation to Spielberg! And McCartney! And others of note! I'm running out of exclamation marks! Read on....


PAID IN HALF-FULL
Fans of what is perhaps my craziest statement ever (that's quite a distinction, with all the crazy statements of mine there are to choose from) should be happy to learn there is something new to report in relation to this, something to perhaps chew on, perhaps scratch your head about, or even, perhaps, laugh hysterically over to think that a corrupt world should somehow inch its way into this strange a circumstance.

I refer to a connection I have repeatedly made between, among other things, the time proximity between the May 1st, 2010 Times Square Car Bomb Incident and my April 29th, 2010 YouTube posting, "Come On, French Stewart, You Owe Me!":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlH2Ln7GlmU

I will begin by putting that idea into a tiny nutshell here (but know I have your promise that you will explore the subject for weeks, beginning with my June 23rd, 2010 blog, "Crazy Time"):

The primary allusion made in my April 29th YouTube posting (evidenced at that site as having been posted on that date) is to the idea of curiosity and investigation resulting from a suspicious-looking empty vehicle parked on a busy New York City street (my June 23rd blog extensively explains the allusion made in my YouTube video, also including verifiable evidence that this allusion was contained in the April 29th video). We all know how this very same idea provided the focus of the news story regarding the Times Square Car Bomb TWO DAYS LATER on May 1st: curiosity and investigation resulting from a suspicious-looking empty vehicle parked on a busy New York City street. Now, add in my secret super-importance in relation to the most prominent living Jewish man, Steven Spielberg (see my video, "Steven Spielberg and the Mall Man Factor" at Archive.Org, posted December 2009), and think of what that could possibly mean to Pakistani Taliban thinking types. There's lots more I could describe, but I don't think anyone is likely to find all this truly worth so incredibly much of their time, unless perhaps someone finds a way to increase our lifespan to 1,000 years old, at which point devoting half your life to studying all this will still leave you 500 years for other things. 500 years! That's plenty, I say!

So the condensed version of what I'm on about here, the new thing in connection with all this, involves, I believe, none other than Mr. International Political Situation Investigator Extraordinaire, Jon Stewart (or "Jon Stewart, Daily Show Host", for short)!

In recent blogs I've provided evidence (a link) that I posted a Comment to a blog article at Huffington Post that Stewart and Colbert should do SEPARATE rallies, at a point in time when there first was talk of some kind of Colbert rally. A few days later when the two did make announcements, they hyped it all for weeks as two SEPARATE rallies.

I have often influenced these two, as I've explained from time to time, and I've even periodically included what I regard as evidence of my influence, evidence spelled out in "clues" that could be easily pieced together. Therefore, though they could have had the idea of SEPARATE rallies independently of me, I lean towards the possibility of that not being the case. I for one am additionally aware that Jon Stewart (or someone who looked enough like him for me to feel inclined to blog about it the next day) looked at me as he drove by me the day after my HuffPost Comment.


PAID IN FULL
On Tuesday, November 9th (a little more than a week after his rally, and a week after the Midterm elections), Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" beseeched former president George W. Bush to "come on" his show. He claimed he was starting a new recurring segment, though he repeatedly bemoaned the strange name his people came up with for the segment, "Come On Jon Stewart". Is it possibly fair to say my YouTube video referred to above, "Come On, French Stewart" is worthy of more serious scrutiny, under the circumstances? And what more can anyone ask for, in the name of all humanity, than more serious scrutiny?



I should additionally mention, however, that though I see this as a deliberate reference by "The Daily Show" to what I see as my little Pakistani Taliban-related situation, I do not presume it to mean any one person has really done the homework I'm talking about, no one has necessarily taken the trouble to see any of the emerging larger picture here. As with the Manhattan Project, many may understand some fragment of the larger project, which might give off that they see the larger project, but I see no clear sign of someone acting on a sense of the larger situation.

How To Convert A Plastic Pail Into A Sword For Defending Against Martian Attack

As I promised I would be doing back when Tim Burton's "Alice In Wonderland" was released in theatres, I have now been able to put together my Steinhoff/Burton Correlations "version" (with a little help from the video becoming accessible on Starz Channel's Early Premieres).

Basically, this is just a dispassionate explanation, perhaps so that there will be some chance of the record being set straight someday. For those who can see the context/history I'm trying to get across, I believe this shows, as I have before, my influence on my fellow CalArts alum, Tim Burton - in this case with regard to "Alice". Unfortunately, however much my little videoclip provides some bases for my conclusions, there ultimately are many other things that contributed to these conclusions as well, things too voluminous to include here.

One Percent Rocket Science, Or Possibly Thirty Percent

In the very first blog I wrote, August 10, 2008 (later published at Archive.Org November 2009 as part of Volume 1), I first discuss something that I believe to be recurring inside-references made by someone regarding myself, by which I mean, a certain type of thing has recurringly (though not invariably) appeared in movies produced by Stuart Cornfeld (whom I once sort of knew a very long time ago, and who produces excellent movies that sometimes appear to have been influenced by my material, in which he is not alone, not by a longshot, Spielberg, The Beatles, etc., someone behind the scenes must be making everyone be influenced by me, you should be spending all of your spare time reading about me, the most unacknowledged man who ever lived, though it might be too soon to say if there are people more unacknowledged than myself, as they wouldn't likely be known if they weren't acknowledged, nevertheless, I cannot imagine someone more unacknowledged than me):

8/10/08. Jonathan D. Steinhoff's Sometimes Blog
(regarding a recurring inside-reference in Cornfeld-produced movies)
"....lying on the ground unconscious, opening his eyes to people/person standing over him."

Today I was fortunate enough to see Stuart Cornfeld's latest movie, "Megamind (released yesterday).

[It is an excellent movie, but of course I'm not here to be a film critic, I'm here to jump up and down pointing at myself.]

Those who saw the end of "Megamind", essentially the final scene of the movie, involving the David Cross character, will, I expect, have to consider the potential significance in my having identified above and so long ago (my first blog, as indicated above) that such a scene (not a particularly uncommon scene, generally) might be particularly associated as having, when in a Stuart Cornfeld movie, inside-reference qualities. In this instance, the scene was considered special enough to belong seconds before the end.

The nature of the scene is very common, in many ways conventional, and normally one wouldn't see its recurring from one movie to the next, in and of itself, as leading to any kind of connection. One distinguishing characteristic here is that a special twist is involved, which again is not entirely uncommon, but more uncommon.

In the context of so many other inside-references and influences regarding myself that I've seen over such a long time, by so many in "entertainment" (people for whom I and so many others have so enduring and enormous a respect and appreciation), I lean towards believing this is again the case with the ending of "Megamind". It is a pleasing thought, hopefully not one that will be seen as a stretch of the mind.