Henry K and the Council

The true star of Susan Ford's (Brice Taylor's) Thanks For The Memories is Henry Kissinger. Was there ever a fellow more deserving of assassination than Henry Kissinger? Hmm... there's a piece in that - 'People who deserve to be assassinated, inexplicably haven't been, and what that means'. Al Qaeda? Ha! Otherwise, for anyone who's ever wondered at the Nobel Peace Prize, no need to go any further than the fact that Henry Kissinger got one. It's a sort of unfunny Swedish Monty Python I'm thinking.


In Thanks For The Memories, Henry Kissinger is partners with Bob Hope in 'utilising' Susan Ford. Whilst that team-up may seem absurd, it actually makes perfect sense. All one has to do is plug this into Laurel Canyon with its wider implications re the significance of the entertainment industry, and the whole thing stands to reason. Regardless, the partnership of Hope and Kissinger is clearly an unequal one.

The closest analogy I came can come at for this inequality is one based on computers - imagine Susan Ford is a laptop that Bob Hope uses to find porn. He lends the laptop to all of his buddies and they likewise go nuts looking up variations of www.everyperversionknowntoman.com. The laptop always comes back to Kissinger who, unbeknownst to everyone, is systems admin super-user. What with having installed a keystroke monitor, and otherwise having full access to each of their caches, there's nothing Kissinger doesn't know about every sordid detail of their lives. Anyone who's ever run a computer system and had super-user privileges knows precisely what this means. Privilege equals knowledge and knowledge equals power.


Kissinger, not unlike Frank Zappa of Laurel Canyon, never participates in the vices he urges upon others. In spite of the fact that he was super-user and thus free to go nuts, Kissinger never availed himself of, nor even expressed an interest in, Ford's unrivalled charms. Square this with his carefully cultivated, albeit unlikely, image as debonair lady-killer. There's something not right with that picture but I don't know what it is. Otherwise it occurs to me that far more is to be concluded from those who didn't sample Susan Ford's earthly delights, than from those who did. With Ford as 'trap' anyone who falls into her qualifies as variation of 'prey'. Significantly, only Kissinger and the Rockefeller black sheep, John D Rockefeller, choose not to avail themselves of Ford's programmed easy virtue.

And then there's the council. Ford unambiguously states that Kissinger is their number one servant. Since Ford never states precisely who is on the council it's conceivable that Kissinger might not be a servant so much as a member. Whilst it pays to turn the puzzle pieces this way and that to see if greater sense might not be made of them, in this case I dismiss the possibility of Kissinger as a council member. This would posit the council as some variety of meritocracy, frankly an absurd idea. Aristocracies do not function on meritocratic principles - an obvious contradiction in terms. Their servants, absolutely: regardless of birth, talent and loyalty will be utilised. Amongst their aristocratic selves there will be a meritocracy of sorts but only from within their own ranks. Were it any other way, blood-lines might be displaced. And then where would the aristocracy be?


So who is the council? In his foreword, the author of Project Monarch, Ron Patton, discusses Adam Weishaupt being commissioned by the Rothschilds to unite various occultic organisations under the single banner of the Illuminati. Curiously, in spite of this organisation being founded and sponsored by the Rothschilds, they never get a second mention. Ford herself never discusses the Illuminati, nor the Rothschilds, nor even utters the word 'Jewish', apart from in the most innocuous circumstances. All Jewish people in this book are only incidentally so - they are bit players, innocent bystanders, or victims. And Henry Kissinger? Astoundingly Ford's book never once connects the words 'Kissinger' and 'Jewish'. Were you to read this book not knowing that Kissinger was Jewish you'd arrive at the end of it none the wiser.

But never mind Ron Patton, who does Susan Ford say the council are? She never names names and had she done so I'd view it as a black mark against her credibility. The Council she describes wouldn't be much chop if they went about introducing themselves to the help, would they? But that aside, Ford is free to hypothesize. The Council are Freemasons, she declares. Hmm... Freemasons eh? As a fellow not given to pursuing impossible riddles, I've never bothered attempting to undo the Gordian knot of the Illuminati/Freemason connection. I understand their original purpose as a professional guild. I also understand them acting as a counterweight to the ancient centralised control of Rome (this in the time prior to Adam Weishaupt). However I find their evolution into globe-spanning rulers of everything falls apart for want of coherency. What precisely are the ties that bind? Apart from the Rothschilds as sponsors, that is?


Besides that, the book tends to be at odds with its own assertion of Masonic control. Surely Prince Philip is a thirty-three degree mason? God knows how many times I've heard it asserted that the English crown, by way of its masonic/Illuminati influence, is the global big kahuna in the new world order. Square that with Ford's own recounting of her meeting with Prince Philip, and his diffident surprise and delight at being offered her singular talents. With Ford as the nexus, between Philip and Kissinger only one of them has super-user privileges, and it ain't Phil. The logic here is unmissable - Prince Philip, however high he might be in the Freemasons, is subject to Kissinger, and Kissinger is subject to the council. Not forgetting that Kissinger is Jewish and the Freemasons' transformation into internationalist Illuminati was brought about under the auspices of the Rothschilds. Honestly, Freemasons?

The other significant aspect of the Council in this regard is its ultimacy. According to Ford, there is nothing above the Council, and simple reason tells us that nor could there be. In reading of her descriptions of Council: their meetings, their communications, and their extraordinary secrecy, there is no way she's describing lieutenants. These people she describes are 'it'. In the big game of Risk they're not so much players as the writers of the rules. Given that this is the case, and given that fact that wealth equals power, we can safely declare that they are the richest people in the world. In either wealth or power, were anyone to even begin to threaten them they would have to be destroyed. Forget Sam Walton, forget Warren Buffet, forget Bill Gates, and all those other people topping the 100 richest list - ain't none of them in the running. And yep, even the Rockefellers ain't in this picture. Ford categorically states that the Rockefellers are subject to the Council. The only kind of 'Rich' that could have all these bazillionaires subject to it is that variety of rich that comes with ownership of the Fed and the international Reserve system. And the IMF. And the World Bank.


Thinking about it - the old chestnut about a business being 'a licence to print money' only possesses charm when it's not literally true. When it is literally true, the appeal of endless amounts of money becomes almost silly. It's like the child's daydream of owning a chocolate factory. A child cannot conceive that an owner of such a factory might view the product with something other than a desire to spend all day eating it. And so it is with money. Possessing a licence to print money renders the idea of a Scrooge McDuck-like accumulation of wealth as superfluous to the point of idiotic. Clearly ownership of the Reserve banking system is not about being rich. Rather the exercise becomes one of the prevention of others from achieving the same. It's about power, and that driven by a combination of hubris and a hubristic sense of immortality. Or are they the same thing? Probably.

With all that aside, let's also dismiss some other red-herrings. Ford's book is rife with satanism. Her entry point into the world of the council seems to be entirely satanistic. Interestingly Ford herself views the topic with disdain. As she later states, this disdain is shared by all those higher in the power structure. Marx's phrase about religion being 'the opiate of the masses' is ordinarily used as a dismissal, and further as a reason for Communism's smashing of religions. But viewed from another angle, ie. that of opiates/drugs as being a useful means of control, it could just as easily be an argument leading, not so much to smashing, but to co-option. In fact the latter makes far more sense than the former - why fight a thing when you could put it to work for you? Thus satanism makes far more sense as the beast being whipped than it does as the whip-hand itself, if you can dig it.



Likewise, the Roman Catholic church appears in the book and yet never in any impressive fashion. All early mentions pivot on it as part of the mechanism of the ritualistic abuse that goes into creating a MPD/DID slave. Small potatoes. Later, Ford describes putting on a quasi-religious dog and pony shows to impress the Vatican heirarchy, Pope included. Okay, I think we can safely declare a rule - Anyone on the receiving end of one of Ford's shows is not in the Council.

Going sideways now, how might we view other such religions and religiously driven 'isms'? In much the same way that Karl Marx was equally dismissive of all religions, do we imagine that the banking families of the Council would somehow get all weak-kneed for Judaism? Somehow I doubt it. Beyond Judaism is Zionism and its founding of Israel. The Rothschilds display their enthusiasm for this grand effort by living elsewhere. Sure they founded Israel, with Rothschild putting his John Hancock on the Balfour Declaration, but they founded the Illuminati too. If it's sensible to view the Illuminati as a vehicle for Rothschild co-option and control, why not view Zionism and Israel in the same fashion? It makes as much sense viewed in this fashion as any other - hell, more so. Frankly I expect that the members of the Council would hold Judaism per se in the same contempt as they'd hold for all religions - a bauble for the hoi polloi. That's not to say that it doesn't possess a variety of 'favourite' status: but only that of a tribe historically given to being loyal servants. Besides, a precise demonstration of the value of the Jewish people was given during the haggling that took place during the time of the National Socialists in Germany with Jews in great numbers being entirely expendable.


Back to the red herrings, at no time does Ford mention the nationality of those on the Council, nor does it even seem to enter into the picture. In this vein, what are we to make of the following quote (vaguely attributed to the Council) that describes the reasons for bringing Clinton down, "A cornerstone will fall, and further destabilize the American people. First Nixon, now Clinton, thus the people will lose faith in their leaders and the democratic way of life. So they will want to change it and will lean toward World Order." Hmm... "the American people" eh? Strange way for an American to describe one's own. Knowing what I know of Americans, I have to admit having trouble attributing this to any American mouth.

I know that the 'American Dream' is a myth but that doesn't mean it's not without power. I cannot believe that a person who grew up in the United States (in something other than a closet) would utter such a thing. Not forgetting of course that the New World Order is not a New American Order. With the century just ended being described unabashedly as 'The American Century' do we think that Americans would now come over all coy and worry that in naming the world order after themselves, other people might think they have swell heads? Ha ha ha ha, Americans have no such shortcomings. Americans are American to their bootstraps. They're Americans first and Internationalists second. I will never buy an American as having no attachment to his country, mythical or otherwise. The quote above could only come from a true Internationalist, someone who spent the vast majority of their life not living in the US. So! Let's also strike the CIA, the old money American ruling class, and any other significant US institution (that's not currently headed by a dual-citizen Israeli).


For mine, it seems all roads lead to the Rothschilds and the other twelve families. Collectively they remain the one ring to rule them all. How does the rest of it go? Oh yeah, "And in the darkness bind them". Exactly.

Two Movies

May we discuss Jewish culture? What is it? Is there such a thing? Why is it that everyone reading that sentence had a small electric shiver run up their spine? How many people, right now, have the words 'anti-semite' on the tip of their tongue? Rather than leap in head first why don't we go sideways. And mix some metaphors whilst we're at it, sure. Let's have a discussion that is permissible. I've actually had this particular discussion many times and didn't spook anyone. We all sat round the dinner table and nobody freaked out.

The discussion is about the film Spirited Away by the Japanese director Hayao Miyazaki. It's animated but I hold no brief for animation as such. To that end I'm uninterested in discussing it in those terms. Here I treat it as just another movie, a representation of the-world-is-thus comprised of plot, themes and world-view. When viewed in these terms Spirited Away stands out as being completely at odds with everything I understood, or was familiar with, in cinema - so much so that it left me at a loss when I first viewed it. And yet it was based on a very familiar model. It was a variation of the kind of movie we've all seen many many times, especially if you have kids, ha ha. To wit: a little girl, Chihiro, is separated from her parents and plunged into a world of adventure. Simple stuff. The comparison to Disney is obvious and few who reviewed Spirited Away failed to make it.

Whilst there have been many films following the 'lone child having adventures' model, for the sake of simplicity I'll settle on The Lion King as a useful comparison. Both these films were huge smashes at the box office. Spirited Away broke all records in Japan. Every Japanese kid saw it. The Lion King likewise was watched by just about every kid in America and did such big business it pretty much saved Disney. Kids didn't just see these films once. With the advent of video and then DVD they saw them, in all probability, dozens of times. Anyone who thinks that this doesn't shape a kid is nuts.



I'll do The Lion King first since most people know it better. Loosely, the plot consists of a son failing to heed his father's advice that he not go to a particular dangerous place. Apples anyone? Cue the wicked other, in the role of satan who tempts the son to disobey his father. Our young hero not only succumbs to the temptation but in doing so causes his father's death. Following this, he runs away and effectively leads a life that is a disneyfied version of delinquency. With the father dead and the son absent the wicked other somewhat pointlessly turns paradise into hell. In fact you'd have to wonder why he bothered. If you weren't so distracted by all the singing and dancing that is. Finally, via a requisite plot device, our junior hero returns to do his duty and face down the villain.



The nature of the villain is worth discussing. He is evil - irredeemably so. There is no point coming to a compromise with him. Nor is there any point discussing with him the wrongness of his behaviour. Only a craven fool would even consider it. He is that kind of villain - he who must be killed. Twice. How often must the villain be killed twice in Hollywood? I lost count. And when the villain is dragged screaming down to hell to be tortured and eaten alive, then all is as it should be. Redemption? Never heard of it.



That our villain is limned in such black and white terms is not an accident. His wicked nature did not lead him to his death. Rather, it's the other way around: the screenwriters wanted a fight to the death and to that end depicted him as deserving of it. The final fight to the death was not a result of the plot but rather the purpose of it. Thus it should come as no surprise that after our hero's bloody victory over the devil he is regaled by all of creation. Literally. Not only is he not chastised for any of his previous foolish behaviour but the entire animal kingdom agrees that he is the greatest and most worthy creature there is. Indeed his father appears in an immortal and god-like form and gives our hero a blessing from heaven. Which is to say, the god of the film makers is a god who reserves his blessings for killers.



Wow. So what happened in Spirited Away? Did Chihiro in any way resemble our lion hero? Barely. Chihiro starts the film sooky and self-obsessed but then only briefly - a single minute of screen time. Unwittingly she and her family enter a world of spirits. Her parents, without actually being culpable, are effectively taken and our heroine is lost in a world she doesn't understand. By way of assistance from a sympathetic other she finds herself in, believe it or not, a bath house of animist gods.



Anyone who's seen an unhappy kid on their their first day of school will be perfectly familiar with the nature of her predicament. Indeed she cries precisely in that fashion. Her fear is not of monsters but of an unknown environment that is absent her parents. However unlike the junior lion our heroine has no time for delinquency. She must rescue her mother and father. In fact for the duration of the film she remains selfless, courageous, honest, hardworking, and sympathetic to the plight of others - even those who torment her, if you can believe that.



And who is the villain in this film? Surely there must be one? Perhaps it is Yubaba the witch who runs the bath house? But she takes Chihiro in and treats her exactly as well as everyone else. The bath house is is not a place of suffering. If anything we could declare it a happy place. And what to make of the scene where Yubaba alone recognises the significance of a particular bath house patron (a situation that all had previously misunderstood), rallies the staff of the bath house, and pulls off a tremendous victory that earns the gratitude of a god and ensures the further well-being of the bath house and all whose livelihood depends upon it? What sort of villain is that? Where's the pointless cruelty?



Perhaps the villain is the Kaonashi (No Face in English). He is definitely scary. Wow, he just ate that guy! When he's on a roll, everyone runs for their lives, our heroine included. However, unlike the everyone else she has the presence of mind to plead with him to stop and to consider others. (This is standard in Miyazaki's films. All thoughtless rampagers are asked to see reason and to stop their behaviour). On first viewing of the Kaonashi's rampage any little kid watching will be frankly terrified. But only briefly and only on the first viewing.



On the second inevitable viewing, kids understand that the Kaonashi is not a monster. All he wants is to be friends with Chihiro who was previously kind to him. He is simply confused as to how to go about this. Amazingly, Chihiro refuses to judge him by his early bad behaviour. Here, judgement is entirely absent and forgiveness is s superfluous concept. Indeed upon catching the train to a distant unknown, Chihiro gives the Kaonashi the ticket that would otherwise have enabled her to return. Without moralising, all she asks is that he behave himself. He assents and they peaceably ride the train together.

Extraordinary! When did Hollywood ever have a scene like this? And never was a train ride so beautiful. At the end of the movie we see the Kaonashi happy to farewell Chihiro and sit with Yubaba's sister helping her spin yarn. He wasn't even killed once, let alone twice. Believe it or not, this film has no villain and miraculously it is not dull. Who knew this was possible?



Finally, Chihiro returns to the bath house and by way of forthright wit frees her parents. All rejoice. Yubaba is stumped but receives no comeuppance. That would be pointless. Throughout the story her actions were invariably guided by her responsibilities to those she led and provided for. At no time was she pointlessly vicious or cruel. Compare this to the villains of Disney and Hollywood who are idiotically, even self-defeatingly, vicious. If we weren't watching a movie/tv show and instead encountered such entities in real life we would shake our heads. They'd make no sense.



What's going on here? The most popular movie in Japanese history was completely and utterly at odds with the all-pervasive paradigm of western, which is to say American, which is to say Hollywood story-telling. Unsurprisingly Americans, and those schooled in Hollywoodese, had trouble with this film. Reviewers barely knew what to make of it: Spirited Away was like 'Disney on acid!' and other such idiot descriptions. Nobody said it was 'like Disney except it acknowledged the humanity of all of its protagonists'. Ha ha ha, I crack myself up.

Anyway, in trying to figure out what was 'wrong' with Spirited Away I realised what was 'right' with it and wrong with everything else I watched. And let's not be mistaken. We all watch Hollywood. I'd be prepared to bet that Hollywood product comprises at least 90% of what we watch. Hell, more. And don't think that American TV isn't Hollywood. Of course it is. As for those leaping up in protest - 'But I watch this and that!' - ask yourself if the non-Hollywood product you watch breaks from the Hollywood paradigm, or apes it. We're so used to it we don't even notice. It's like the air that we breathe.



Think about it. How many films or shows have we seen that involved: teenagers knowing better than their idiot parents and being proven right; people heaping insults on and belittling each other and looking cool with it; absurd merciless villains who cannot be reasoned with and must be killed; the righteous smashing of those that would find commonality or seek accord with opponents; a hero who uses lies and other subterfuge to destroy the deserving villain; people for whom co-operation is not an option and must survive by dog eat dog; things such as lying, cheating, stealing portrayed as virtues ...hell, let's just call it 'all that old testament shit'.

Like I said, I've expressed my views on kid's movies at dinner parties, barbecues and other polite venues. Kids are there, they watch DVDs and a discussion ensues. I lived in Japan and China and it suits me to discuss the cultural differences between the Japanese and the Chinese and Westerners. But it's not just me. Everyone grooves on it. Everyone has a story to tell and the conversation goes to and fro. I've stated my take on Spirited Away and The Lion King previously and found people to be fascinated.



Clearly it's permissable to discuss cultural differences by way of cinema. Or is it? May we discuss Jewish culture? Certainly we may discuss other Semites, which is to say Muslims, as long as we all agree how wicked they all are. Does anyone know any Muslims? I do. I found them to be the sweetest, most hospitable people I've ever had the fortune to meet. How is it that the people I've met are so completely at odds with Hollywood Muslims? In Hollywood, Muslims are the very definition of the idiotic villain. They make no sense. They hate us for our freedom, whatever that means. Where in all of the Western Canon was there a villain who hated another man for his freedom? How did Shakespeare miss that one? Um... because there's no such thing?



I digress. May we discuss Jewish culture? Maybe we're not meant to be talking about it at all. So unlikely is this conversation that we don't know where to start. And thus the question - Is there such a thing as Jewish culture? Surely there is. How would we describe it? Don't be scared. We're allowed to speak of the Japanese, the Chinese, and Muslims in this fashion. So. How about Jewish Culture? Oh, and anyone who wants to say that Hollywood isn't Jewish - ha ha ha ha - knock yourselves out. I got no time for such idiot parlour games.



And guess what? I got no time for a discussion of Jewish culture neither. It pivots on an us and them paradigm. Them is the other, the irredeemably evil. Them is those whose humanity is denied. Them can be stolen from, starved, beaten, tortured, killed. And the thing is - if you believe in them you will find them. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those of you out there who believe you have impossibly vicious enemies one way or another you, and people like you, imagined them into reality. Dig it, you're living the Hollywood dream.