This post will be a semi-sketchy attempt to justify the outlandish-sounding assertion I made in my 8.22.10 blog, "So I Says To Myself, Hey, I Don't Want The World Blowing Up, Right?". Specifically, I refer to my statement that the Iranian President, on several headline-grabbing occasions, employed a somewhat secret lexicon to express something in addition to what he appears to have endeavored to express. That this secret lexicon regards someone secretly super-important to Steven Spielberg, who is the most prominent Jewish man alive today. [I refer you to "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor", posted at Archive.Org.]
In spite of the length of this blog article, as stated above this will only be semi-sketchy, that is, in the sense that I will not include here most of the numerous footnotes/links scattered about the Web, accessible to all, that support my statements. What I will do is indicate, with red font, those statements I am making that I believe can be verified/proven were one to know the footnotes/links, as opposed to non-red, unverifiable statements such as, "I sneezed half-an-hour ago, allergies," a fact I cannot prove to you (though it is not my fault that I cannot prove it to you). The statements you will see here in red font, had I included all of the related footnotes/links with them, would lead you to Web locations like YouTube or Archive.Org, where everything has a visible copyright date, so therefore, things posted there clearly did not suddenly come into being "after-the-fact". As I've stated many times before, this blogsite has the defect of an all-too-malleable timestamp, and I do not hold up the dates that these blogs are posted as being indicative of anything. There are also matters of public record such as news articles to support some of my statements. I periodically post at Archive.Org accumulations of my blog articles (Volumes 1, 2, 3 so far), which thusly makes it possible to pinpoint, to a degree, when certain of my blog articles were written (i.e., if at the end of 2008 I posted all of my 2008 blog articles at Archive.Org, there may not be proof that my Sept. 6, 2008 blog article was specifically written Sept. 6, but this would provide proof that it was written prior to 2009).
I must also preface this semi-sketch with the following example (which I like to refer to as "The "Aby Principle") to illustrate an important point regarding the deductive reasoning involved with cumulative implications (by the way, cumulative implications, if of a particular nature, can be considered valid in a court of law):
The Aby Principle
If I am on a 500-mile road trip, and at 10:49pm I see a personalized license plate that reads, "mccartney", and then at 11:49pm a license plate that reads "ccartney", and then at 12:49am a license plate that reads "cartney", 1:49am "artney"; 2:49am "rtney", 3:49am "tney", 4:49am "ney", 5:49am "ey", 6:49am "y", 7:49am "by", and at 8:49am "aby", cumulatively, something's going on here. Somebody put somebody up to something. So if I say the "aby" license plate is connected to that stuff, it isn't because I think McCartney necessarily has any involvement, and it isn't because I believe "aby" is generally to be associated with "McCartney". It would be because, as a basic point of logic, there is a cumulative implication. My experience of many, many, many years may have made me aware of how to associate certain things - but conveying to you exactly why I've deduced the "aby" car has anything to do with the "mccartney" car might require a WHOLE lot of explaining - that is, my example here may illustrate the concept, but in terms of the actual, specific things I need to describe, the example only barely scratches the surface of how many details might inform an observation of this nature, however unmistakable the implication may be.
So hopefully, in this semi-sketchy approach to this very important matter, those things I (thankfully) feel I am able to verify with footnotes/links (red font) will sufficently balance against those things I cannot, and you will get a.... semi-sketch of what I am saying. I may eventually return with a more complete explanation of those things referred to here in red font, though you might just go through my earlier blogs, archive.org, etc. if you need reassurance that I'm not just pulling things out of the air. And I apologize for not including everything here, footnotes/links and all, however, a degree of energy is required in order for me to track down all of the related links/footnotes, and this task has become quite draining as it is: The idea that the chain of ideas I express here is only as strong as the weakest link, and then the idea that it is MOST important that I correctly convey what I am attempting to convey, instead of dropping the ball, the potential for this to so seriously impact so many - well, to put it bluntly, a rather considerable amount of strength must be summoned to accomplish this.
A Semi-Sketch Of The Iranian President's Secret Little Messages
A lexicon has developed among those artists at the highest level of the entertainment industry. It is built around me and my little videos and other stuff regarding me, because of my secret super-importance in relation to people such as Spielberg, McCartney, Lennon, Tim Burton, Ridley Scott, The Stones, Madonna, SNL, etc., etc., but it might just as easily have been built/based around things more generally known, such as that which is found through reading Greek Mythology, or information accessible through reading a biography of John Lennon's Aunt Mimi, or it could have been based on anything you can think of. But it wasn't based on anything, it happens that it was built around me. I didn't ask them to and I don't get off on it personally, except perhaps the child inside me does. The size of my ego, though you might be inclined to presume from this that it is great, is not predicated on the things directed towards it. No, I do not describe all this out of ego, but rather, it is because I am stark raving mad! (I can't resist an opportunity to be most humorous - no really, that was a joke! I am as sane as, well, a few people)By way of a secret lexicon, a man can seem to be heard talking about making his rocket go off with his girlfriend when everyone else goes to the movies, but he's really talking about them going at each other's things and doing their business (and I look forward to someday understanding what I just said, if I could just meet the right girl). Hopefully I haven't lost anybody other than myself yet. By the way, the very famous four-letter word we men use when we don't feel like saying we're doing our business with our rockets was itself originated a while back to avoid a direct reference, each of those four letters themselves being the first initial of four separate words.
And yes, I do recognize that followers of the music of aby are capable of getting all helter skelter with their screwy interpretations of so-called intended hidden meanings. However, that is not an intelligent reason for concluding that no one ever conceals their meaning from certain parties, or follows a complex path in order to accomplish this. So clearly, it can take a very discerning mind to make the difficult distinctions between subtle meanings, ambiguities, semi-ambiguities, slightly semi-ambiguities, non-ambiguities, etc. I do not expect that everyone is equally suited to the task, especially when it comes to a particularly high level matter, by which I mean, you are all terrific.
My fellow CalArts alum, Tim Burton, often makes heavy inside-references to me/my material in his work. A CalArts alum woman we both knew is part of that, and also part of some of the things contained in those references.
The TV show "Smallville" also makes heavy inside-references to me/my material. I first noticed that show's references before I learned that producer Sean Daniel, longtime Spielberg friend and the first person from whom I learned of CalArts, who is also someone who is involved with making inside-references to me/my material, was using the "Smallville" writers for his major project, "Mummy 3". I also came to make several other observations regarding "Smallville" in relation to these references. One was that sometimes the cumulative factor required seeing episodes of certain other shows that aired the very same night as the "Smallville" episode in question, TV shows that also had come to make inside references to my material ("Monk" and "Medium"). The other thing with "Smallville" is that they were the only show that led me to wonder what the turn-around time was for them, whether they could possibly get something into an episode 24 hours before air-time. One already knows Saturday Night Live or Bill Maher's show can do this, but I had specific reason, on more than one occasion, to wonder this about this one non-live show, "Smallville", and no other non-live show. I still do not know the answer, but it is clear what caused me to wonder this.
When CalArts alum Tim Burton had a scene in his movie, "Mars Attacks", where a gift to the Martians of white doves is presumably misconstrued and reacted against with serious violence, it was based on an incident involving myself and the CalArts woman I knew who worked for Tim Burton (this same incident also influenced Burton's "Nightmare Before Christmas" and James Cameron's "Titanic", the latter of which she herself worked on). A gift of a mechanical (wind up) bird was involved.
When the Iranian President had a major media event several years ago (November 2007), announcing a major milestone regarding his proceeding with developing nuclear energy, he had the graphic image of white doves as his backdrop. Thoughts of the scene in "Mars Attacks" crossed my mind at the time, as I felt the Iranian President sought to generate the impression that he was some innocent guy whose peace doves were being misconstrued and reacted against with threats of violence. When there already exists in popular culture (such as in a movie scene) something most very similar to an image someone seems to possibly be trying to conjure up, one might consider the possibility that it is deliberately intended in some way - though not necessarily intended to be foremost in our thoughts, as sometimes people exploit things in the backs of our minds (see the nature of the advertising industry for further examples, or political tyrants who have been known to go to extremes to manipulate how they are perceived by the world, such as when they make believe they won their power in a fair election even though we all know he didn't).
My being aware, through experience, of so many incidents in which people intertwine with the above-described lexicon regarding myself, incidents that sometimes involve world leaders, including presidents, I was on special alert with regard to a possible connection here to the "Mars Attacks" scene. The following day, an episode of "Smallville" also did something that immediately brought to mind the exact same incident regarding the mechanical bird and the woman at CalArts. I would have been aware of that similarity even without it having been brought to mind by what happened at the Iranian President's presentation to the media the day before. I noted this in my own inside-reference about a year later, in my Sept. 6, 2008 blog article. I indicated that there was a secret inside-reference I observed that connected the words "Iran" and "Smallville" and "Tim Burton" and "dove" (I included 10 other words as well, which were indirectly related, but the fact that these four words were included (and published at Archive.Org in November 2009 as part of an accumulation of my blog articles), supports my present statement that I was connecting these things no later than November 2009. From this it should be easy to deduce that "dove" in relation to "Tim Burton" was a reference to that "Mars Attacks" movie scene, and furthermore it is no stretch to construe that "Iran" also being put in relation to "dove" in that same Sept. 6, 2008 blog article regarded the November 2007 photograph that I include above. My point is, I had already made this connection prior to what I am about to describe regarding "Iran" and "Smallville" and "Tim Burton".
In Tim Burton's "Alice In Wonderland", released 3/5/10, he again makes inside-references regarding this same CalArts woman in relation to myself. However, more significantly, in "Alice" Burton makes inside-reference to a particular section of my 1998 "Gosk 2" video. In the first "Smallville" episode to air following the release of "Alice", which was titled "Escape," 4/2/10, Season 9, Episode 189 (their previous episode aired 2/26/10), "Smallville" also brought to mind that same section of "Gosk 2". I will be specific here, although, I also plan on doing a videoclip that more clearly illustrates how "Alice" makes strong reference to this section of "Gosk 2", at which time my point will be far more easy to see.
At a certain point in "Gosk 2", Vinkalert suddenly notices that the greenish-blue plastic pail he's been carrying has become purple. Shocked, he drops the pail to the ground, as the Procol Harum song, "Whiter Shade of Pale" is heard. At the end of "Alice", the Mad Hatter drops his sword to the ground in surprise, as if suddenly aware of what it truly is. He shortly thereafter does a special dance that is given great attention by all. In "Whiter Shade of Pale", the song lyrics begin with a description of doing a dance, "We skipped the light fandango." Additionally, the hat scene occurs at this point in "Gosk 2", wherein Vinkalert, lying in the front seat of his car, can only be identified by his hat - his hat is all we see. I cut between different angles of the hat to punctuate what he is saying about things not working out with the girl he knew back when he was in school, much as one would normally cut to different angles of a person's face. The Mad Hatter is the central character in "Alice", therefore, this is the single moment out of all my various works that most directly ties in with the idea of the protagonist of "Alice", The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp). And cumulatively, alongside all of the other Tim Burton inside-references to me over the years, as well as elsewhere in that movie (see "aby" description above), I believe it should be easy to see that this was in relation to his fellow CalArts alum, i.e., myself.
On the very first "Smallville" episode following the release of "Alice" (4/2/10, as indicated above), we see a silver metal pail that has never been painted. Also in this episode is a story line that involves a painting in an inn, a painting containing paint that shockingly changes by itself.
When I was filming the above-described pail/hat scene for "Gosk 2", I had just finished filming with Robbie Cavolina (who played Vinkalert in "Gosk", and was Joni Mitchell's art director for a number of her album covers, while me, I'm just secretly a major influence on a number of Paul McCartney album covers, see "McCartney and Steinhoff, An Introduction" at Archive.Org) the scene where he's walking with the pail when it was still greenish-blue (clearly the same film location). So, what had to happen, of course, to avoid having to return another day? I had to then and there paint the pail so that in the video it could first be greenish-blue, then shockingly change to purple by itself. I painted the pail purple, and Robbie and I sat around waiting for the paint on the pail to dry, in order to continue (Joni Mitchell and Paul McCartney were nowhere to be seen). This moment was again brought to mind by the "Smallville" episode that featured a totally unpainted pail, and paint shockingly changing by itself on a painting. One could recognize the basis for drawing a correlation due to the cumulative factor regarding "Smallville" so often referencing me/my material. The Tim Burton/Gosk-related "Smallville" episode was their first episode to air following Tim Burton's Gosk-related "Alice". So now it's 4/2/10.
On 4/7/10, the Iranian President grabbed the headlines with his remark, "Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries". This remark was considered odd. It is often the case that when someone is trying to work a lexicon reference into what they say, and/or are bent on being quoted in the headlines, the ostensible (non-lexicon) meaning is expressed in a strained/odd manner.
Paint Things As You Please
It is my carefully considered belief, based on my special experience in such matters, that the coinciding of Tim Burton, "Smallville" and the Iranian President's actions in March/April 2010, all occurring in the same very specific time proximity, is too precise a mirroring of what occurred in 2007 with regard to Tim Burton, "Smallville" and the Iranian President, and therefore should not be presumed a mere coincidence. Somebody put somebody up to something.
I do not venture an opinion as to whether any value must be found in a discovery that the Iranian President was involved in the use of a lexicon at these important moments. I only wish to present my belief that such action did occur, and semi-sketch how I came to this conclusion. Some may regard my assessment as being based on something too flimsy to warrant so serious a conclusion. Some may even think the whole world situation in relation to Iran isn't serious. Some may think DNA evidence shouldn't be taken seriously because that stuff is so tiny you need a microscope to see it. There are people who watch detective shows on TV and think, "That's enough evidence?" I believe there is enough here, and the situation sufficiently important, as to make it idiotic to disregard it. However, many are new to this sort of thing, and I'll try not to judge too harshly those who fail to recognize in this a matter of grave concern.
And as I've indicated in other blog articles, I believe my May 2, 2010 blog article, "Knowing Where To Look," proves that the Times Square "attempted" bombing needs to be seen in terms of some of the key things touched on here.
1 comment:
Dadaism is alive and well.
Post a Comment