The Beginning
First of all, happy birthday to Ray Bradbury, author of "Farenheit 451", a book that tells the story of a government that burned books as part of its handle on how people should relate to things.
Think Of Adults Talking About Sex When They Don't Want The Child To Get It
I choose today to convey two things that the Iranian President secretly communicated to me, which I expect he did so that I might use my secret super-access to communicate them to pop culture's most super-important. His secret communications were accomplished by the employing of a lexicon of a generally secret nature, which he used in publicly made statements. This lexicon is used frequently by a certain set of people, and in this instance, was used in conjunction with an apparent awareness of my personal knowledge of certain events.
I certainly know how absurd this must sound to the general public, and I don't expect to win any new friends here (I would nevertheless appreciate the men in the white coats being kept at bay, thank you). This is written for those who have the advantage of already knowing that my powers of dissemination are keen in these matters, that I draw from vast experience (did I mention, it also helps to trust that I am sane). The value of this explanation regarding the Iranian President additionally requires that one already be aware of my singular, secret, super-importance over the years in relation to Steven Spielberg, the most internationally prominent Jewish man in the world today, my singular, secret, super-importance over the years in relation to Paul McCartney, and also my secret, super-importance over the years in relation to so many other super-important people in the world, who, through the massive effects of their creative inspiration, have so powerful an influence on the hearts and minds of so many people. Many share the belief that the current nature of things puts the power of certain major pop culture figures very much alongside tremendous political power, irrespective of whether these individuals would wish to exist in a political context (I am not so cynical as to believe their power is limited to occurring in a political context, and would appreciate not being lumped together with those who see everything through that prism).
I'm almost finished with my preface(s) - I hope it is understood that some things require more context-setting than others.
Though there may appear to be a path available to the reader for piecing together the specific basis for the conclusions I've drawn with regard to exactly what was communicated to me, i.e., though it may seem that you can figure out exactly what caused me to believe these specific things were communicated to me by the Iranian President, I am quite certain that, even at best, you would not know more than a part of the story, a part of the basis for my conclusions. You would not have enough facts in your possession to properly refute my conclusions, though you might think so (this statement is of course not meant to be taken as proof that I must therefore be right, I merely wish to state that you are not in a position to use deductive reasoning to determine whether I am right or wrong about having received these communications). Furthermore, the facts that some of you might possibly already have in your possession would likely mislead you into believing you have all the facts that led to my conclusions. This would be unfortunate, given the importance here and the consequential need for my words to be taken seriously. And so, the value of what I write here resides in your ability and inclination to trust in what I say. By now, there are some people who should. This is written for certain people within that set of people. There's a football of sorts here, and I'd like to see it reach the endzone, received by but one person if need be. An important investigation could perhaps be the upshot.
The Middle And The End
The Iranian President has pointed to two moments in two films. Through this, he has demonstrated the desire to solicit support for a position regarding nuclear power in his country. He has relied upon my proximity to the most influential as his means of carrying his message. I will carry his message here, but again, I must emphasize, I do not consider him a sincere person, and liken his approach more to that of the convoluted government in Ray Bradbury's "Farenheit 451", than to that of a world leader seeking a way to make his true and honest feelings known to those who are so influential in shaping popular culture.
The two moments are both contained in films by famed director Tim Burton. My dissemination of the references through the Iranian President's use of a lexicon was assured by his repeatedly drawing from the work of the same filmmaker, a fellow CalArts alumni who knew some of the same people as myself and who has himself made use of secret references known to few (as previously stated, there has come to be a lexicon that is used frequently by certain people). Some of the secret references made by the Iranian President are identical in both instances, further reinforcing my conviction with regard to how to read things. And though both of these secret statements by the Iranian President have an obvious political significance, I would have the same conviction that I had correctly read his secretly made statements even if they had turned out to be on the subject of the old woman who lived in a shoe rather than political matters. He did not have anything to say about the old woman who lived in a shoe, incidentally.
The first is the scene in "Mars Attacks!", where a dove of peace, a gift from our world to the Martians, triggers a massacre of those presenting the dove because it is supposedly misperceived as an act of aggression. The second is the scene in "Alice In Wonderland", where the Mad Hatter finds use of a weapon repugnant because it goes against his nature.
Why would the Iranian President prefer this avenue? He prefers to inject the poison of his propaganda into our reservoir (our most influential), than to be so clearly seen as engaged in propagandizing the world into seeing him as this innocent little lamb. He sees vulnerability/opportunity in the idealism of our most important creative artists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Sorry to sound skeptical, but how do you know you received a message?
I appreciate your skepticism, in fact, given the subject, you would have to be.
I am planning to provide a more detailed explanation in an upcoming blog, which will include the specific basis of my (complex) deductions. My emphasis will be on including things that one can verify for oneself if one so chooses (i.e., information accessible to all via movies and the Internet, verifiable chronology being a key ingredient in laying out my proof). That will make the blog article voluminous as well as over the heads of those seeking an out-of-context, simple explanation. Of necessity it will be more like a court case, wherein illumination of the facts will require a fairly intense number of details, many of which will be there to establish the clear context through which the other details are to be seen. He (those) who left the clues did not intend for the meaning to be accessible to all through simple arithmetic, and that puts me in a funny position.
The gravity of the matter has to be the last word, not just in terms of prompting me to go on with this, but for those who might find it necessary to disagree with my conclusions. I only hope that, once I have finished, it does not somehow license those who can't be bothered to then falsely assert that they did bother. In other words, I wouldn't want to go to trial in front of a bogus jury, no trial would be preferable. For this reason I particularly respect your honest expression of skepticism.
Post a Comment