STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Atlantic Article on Hollywood Misses Powerful Points About CIA Control
By - July 15, 2016

How the CIA Hoodwinked Hollywood Since its inception, the agency has wooed filmmakers, producers, and actors in order to present a rosy portrait of its operations to the American public. –Atlantic

This is a good article by the Atlantic, a neo-con publication that aspires to be a “thought publication.”

This article rehearses the history of the CIA in Hollywood and, in fact, is fairly comprehensive and touches on a number of compelling points.

More;

The CIA has a long history of “spooking the news,” dating back to its earliest days when the legendary spymaster Allen Dulles and his top staff drank and dined regularly with the press elite of New York and Washington, and the agency boasted hundreds of U.S. and foreign journalists as paid and unpaid assets.

In 1977, after this systematic media manipulation was publicly exposed by congressional investigations, the CIA created an Office of Public Affairs that was tasked with guiding press coverage of intelligence matters in a more transparent fashion.

The agency insists that it no longer maintains a stable of friendly American journalists, and that its efforts to influence the press are much more above board. But, in truth, the intelligence empire’s efforts to manufacture the truth and mold public opinion are more vast and varied than ever before. One of its foremost assets? Hollywood.

This is an honest appraisal so far as it goes. As is the article’s conclusion:

With few exceptions, Hollywood has long functioned as a propaganda factory, churning out jingoistic revenge-fantasy films in which American audiences are allowed to exorcise their post-9/11 demons by watching the satisfying slaughter of countless onscreen jihadis.

This never-ending parade of square-jawed secret agents and bearded, pumped-up commandos pitted against swarthy Muslim madmen straight out of central casting has been aided and abetted by a newly emboldened CIA all too happy to offer its “services” to Hollywood.

The article, thousands of words long, still managed to miss some important points, however.

It doesn’t provide us with much in the way of a frame of reference. The control that the CIA exercises over Hollywood is multiplied many times by the control the CIA exercises over the communications industry generally.

At the top of the CIA, executives are responsive to the City of London. Intelligences agencies were manufactured by banking families initially.

Only later on, were their functions laid off onto governments. Now the cash flow comes from tax dollars, but the agencies themselves are still controlled out of the City.

This goes for other countries as well, including Israel, which was created by the City, which still runs it.

 

It is probably not too much of an exaggeration to say that its spooks run both Facebook and Google – especially given that the CIA invested in both companies when they were just beginning.

Basically, the Atlantic article makes it sound as if the CIA’s control over Hollywood is evolutionary and even voluntary. This is to misstate the way the CIA works.

Surreptitious intel operations have doubtless been in charge of Hollywood since its inception. If anyone doubts that, simply take a look at the movies Hollywood produced in the 1930s and especially in the 1940s.

These days, Hollywood movies have staked their main franchise on superhero movies.

These superheroes fly high in the sky fighting “bad guys” and determining whether or not the world will be safe and function properly.

They are above the law and gratitude is always due to them for their exploits.

The resemblance to the coming implementation of technocracy is undeniable.

In the world, as it is to be, technocrats running vast corporations will make decisions affecting millions. In fact, they already do.

Conclusion: This sort of organization and its privileges will not seem unusual to those regarding them. The parallels to today’s movies will already have desensitized people to what is occurring. This is the fundamental paradigm of modern Hollywood, the basic assertion of control.

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Praetor

    All this does make one wonder. If nuclear weapons are real and the world can be destroyed 10 times over, why would anyone in their right mind want a world at war. A destroyed world, in my mind is a world that is uninhabitable for ‘ANY’ life, that includes those who want and love war. The two options, there are no nuclear weapons or there is an outside force wanting the human race eliminated, because only INSANE people would want world war, where nukes are real. It does make one wonder.

    Hollyweird is just and allusion of the CIA matrix!!!

    • Ephraiyim

      It is not as correct as we are led to believe. I spoke to a friend who was a nuclear specialist in the first gulf war.
      According to him nukes are very location specific and have to be esp. designed for the exact coordinates desired. He also stated that the EMP thing is way overblown as well. Most cars, for instance, would not be adversely effected since the metal in their hoods would sufficiently shield them.
      We are continually fed the same old Hegelian BS. Unfortunately, most people are driven by fear so it is extremely effective.

      • the deplorable john doe

        I don’t believe that about the nukes. They worked at White Sands (I’ve been there), Japan and MANY above ground tests worldwide.
        As for EMP’s maybe and maybe not. I do know the electrical grid would be in shambles. I just went 2+ days w/o electricity and it’s no fun. Imagine going 30-60 days w/o it?? That makes EMP’s so dangerous.

        • Interesting. How close were you to the actual explosions?

          • the deplorable john doe

            I was stationed at White Sands and i stood on ground zero. The meters still show elevated radiation. I was signal corp and worked out on the sands regularly.

          • Thanks. So you didn’t see the test but you noticed radiation. OK. Thanks for responding.

          • the deplorable john doe

            WOW I guess you need to see the sun rise in the east to believe it will do the same tomorrow. I’ll bet you even think the moon landing was phony or there was a second shooter on the knoll.

          • OK, we thanked you for responding and clarified your answer. You could also have written, simply, “You’re welcome.”

          • mary

            The sun rising is a natural phenomenon that we’ve witnessed. Nuclear explosions are another matter. (pun intended) You and I haven’t witnessed them. The radiation may be from something other than a nuclear explosion. When trying to sort out purported events where the only public information is tightly controlled by government, always ask, “How do we know what we know? Do we have tangible evidence? Could the evidence have another explanation?”

        • Ephraiyim

          Unfortunately, belief has little to do with it. I do not claim to know the science. My friend does know it though.
          The fact that the mentioned sites did have nukes that worked does not, in anyway change my statement. Most of what we know about them comes from unclassified or declassified details.
          I really doubt that that is completely reliable since governments are notorious for withholding details about everything imaginable. Eg. The recent revelation that the FBI ordered Orlando officials to refuse to release details that may have disputed the ones that supported their (predetermined?) memes about a gay attack by a radicalized Muslim.

          • the deplorable john doe

            Your statement said that nukes needed to be made specific to each site they were to be sent to. NOT TRUE. I
            d really rethink your friends statements. cause they don’t hold water. BTW I don’t for one second believe anything my govt says. I believe things I’ve seen with my own eyes. And I was trained as a “scientist” when that label had meaning.

    • the deplorable john doe

      If you think God’s telling you that Heaven and 72 raisins are awaiting you you’d kill the entire world and die laughing.

  • lulu

    Why would it be any exaggeration at all to say the city of London via the CIA runs Facebook and Google?
    Are these forces not trying to run absolutely everything and succeeding?

    • the deplorable john doe

      No those “forces” are so incompetent that they have a hard time running their own bureaucracy. Granted the CIA etc want to rule the world. But like Khan they keep missing the mark. (Hmmm?)

      • lulu

        That makes it even worse. Bad planning, lack of understanding, ruthlessness, sense of omnipotence, etc are all destructive and donor bode well for anything.

  • tetrahemicon

    Makes me wonder if they are involved in web comment sections. :o)…?
    I don’t expect total anonymity, but I wish DB wouldn’t offer login with Facebook or any other “Social Media”.
    I would trust you with my email identity over any of them.
    Thanks DB

    • Praetor

      Really! What! Discus is a social medium of the media. You have to sign-up and login, just like Fakebook.

      What is you’re first amendment for but to speak you’re mind about what you think of you’re GOVERNMENT. People like to say the second is the most important amendment of the constitution. It is not, the ‘first’ be the more important. To be able to speak ones mind of the conduct of the government and to effect some change in that conduct, without having to use firearms in anger, would lead one to think the first amendment be more important.

      I would say, if you don’t like what going on speak you’re mind and voice your opinion on all social media and let the chips fall where they may!!!

      • tetrahemicon

        Yes, Really, I understand Discus is social media, I just find it to be an inconvenience that I don’t need.
        If you will notice, I chose not to have a real photo of myself beside my pseudonym derived from Greek either. Is that your real image next to Praetor? Were you granted that title by the Praetura?
        As for the second amendment, I don’t like having to register myself or guns in the state I live in and do neither. I happen to think the 2nd is at least as important as the 1st. Being a time of war, I would have reversed the order had I written it. Wars are not won with words they are only part of the opening ceremonies.
        Subscribing to the DB or not in order to post a comment is up to the owners of the site, I’d rather not,. Out of respect to them, I do.
        I detest Facebook and won’t have anything to do with it or it’s data collection in order to tailor ads to my tastes. I like that the DB doesn’t run a plethora of ads.
        As for the first amendment, I think the right to not stand up on a soapbox in the public square is also my right. I don’t expect my words to influence anyone nor do I care.
        I always read your posts and have never had any disagreement worth replying to, nor will I if I do. I don’t read comments in order to get into debates, only to learn.
        Finally, the notification of your Discus reply landed in my spam folder and I will not change that designation, but I will continue to read them.
        I wish you a good day sir.

      • the deplorable john doe

        W/O the 2nd amendment you’d soon lose the the 1st.

  • Samarami

    Probably due to my age I from time to time will click up old John Wayne, Gregory Peck, Roy Rogers and Gene Autry et al., movies. One of the last of the official cowboys, I once (about age 11) rode with 15 or 20 other kids and Gene Autry in the Fayette County Fair Parade down the streets of Schulenburg, TX.

    What’s enlightening to me is how I see the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s movies today with what knowledge I’ve acquired in my trek toward anarchy. I now perceive the memes clearly, where as a lad I merely sucked it all in. It did not dawn upon me when I was 11 that there might be dominant social themes abreast in the production of cowboy movies — where the U.S. Marshall always galloped in to, with Roy or Gene, save the town and/or the range from all the bad guys. Or the U.S. Cavalry “…from them pesky Injuns”.

    Ethnic cleansing had not yet entered my vocabulary. Roy and Gene played a significant roll in my docilely and proudly accepting the draft notice as I walked out of high school. Today I’d fight to the death if anybody tried to draft a grandson (or granddaughter, for pity sake) into that criminal ignorance. Sam

    • We’ve meant to do an article on the “Western meme.” The basic meme, as you’ve pointed out has to do with society being enabled by the “law and order” of the federal sheriff.

      • Samarami

        Our Moms & Dads, their Moms & Dads, all along back through 1843 and Charles Dickens (and probably before), have been inculcated with these memes. Ran across this article by our old friend, Butler Shaffer, just now:

        https://mises.org/library/case-ebenezer

        Little wonder many of us come to the prospect of freedom and libertarian thinking with kicking and a lot of screaming. We’ve generations upon generations of detritus to unglue from our psyche before we can take on liberty. Sam

        • the deplorable john doe

          Just looked at the defense of Scrooge. I love it. Always been a fan of Mises.

      • Warren Celli

        Good article.

        Baloneywood — the vulture in the culture!

        The memes are important, but more important is the present day technology that delivers them and the totality of its effects on other facets of the menticide.

        http://www.boxthefox.com/articles/Xtrevilism%20pandemic.html

      • Macon Richardson

        Great article. But there are no federal sheriffs. The sheriff is an ancient local county office, as in the sheriff of Nottingham of Robin Hood fame. Federal officers in the west were called marshals. Marshall Dillon of Gunsmoke fame was a federal officer. Andy Griffith was the sheriff of whatever county Mayberry was located in.

loading