The Secret Team

[Bobo08]

Again , money can be made billion ways with out hurting others or env. or so. but these beneficiaries are tasked to do things ( which is part of bigger script ) exactly to destroy the life on this planet with financial benefits to them selves and cover them selves the sins that perpetuated. so the master use all their power of synchronous intervention only when when their need arises. This remainds me of 'STS uses the path of least resistance'.

I think that making money is only one of the objectives of the secret masters, maybe even a secondary objective. A more important objective for them is to kill off normal people in the world or to put them under constant fear for easier control. They do it by dividing the world into camps and pitting one against the other, like Communist vs Western or Islamic vs Western.

 

[Laura]

Control is what they want: dominance, ownership. In some cases, also, entertainment and enjoyment that they can only achieve by seeing others suffer. Money is only a means to that end.

 

[Vulcan59]

Here is a quote from Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi:-

"I never understood where the satisfaction is when you're missing the pleasure of conquest" - Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi pronounces on the subject of "amore".

So yes money is probably not the sole or only objective. It's more about conquest and total control!! Spoken like a true psychopath that he is. (Can we have the barf bag icon too? Just what I need here.)

And oh I might as well add here what he told survivors of the recent Italian earthquake:

The people living tent cities "have everything they need, they have medical care, hot food. Of course, their current lodgings are a bit temporary. But they should see it like a weekend of camping," he said, according to the German N-TV channel.

He told one homeless woman to put on suncream, drawing cheers from onlookers.

:O

I assume that those "onlookers" were probably people in his entourage!!

Edit: Added later - Apologies Laura, didn't notice your entry when I hit the post button.

 

[PopHistorian]

Wow, what an excellently informative book, and I'm only 150 pages in. From what we've learned about the PTB, we imagine that they are a conscienceless, self-serving lot. But to see their activity spelled out in such plain, tempered language, even *without* going into the graphic detail (which is merely implied), opens the reader's eyes even more. The described evil is made ever more fearsome when you begin to realize that what Prouty is describing is so institutionalized, so mechanical, so deeply programmed (these are my adjectives, not his), that there is no real possibility of reasoning with it. In this way, it is truly a monster.

One grand theme that emerges from the book, Prouty's opinion, is the idea that active DOing to change the world, effortful as it is, results in far better outcomes than the inertial, least-resistance path of passive reaction. The lesson being, he writes, that you are more likely to become a victim, to be steamrolled by forces beyond your control if you sit around passively. What drove the point home for me was the statement that passive reaction simply cannot work on "their" side of the curtain, because you are waiting passively for them to "come out" and over to your side, at which time you react. He was writing specifically of the two sides of the iron curtain, but surely it applies to the parties on either side of any divide. You are effectively giving your opposition a huge advantage by not DOing anything.

As for how sickeningly depraved the "clandestine operators" are, the point is driven home rather subtly when Prouty describes the "overscrupulous" and the "cautious" as obstacles, makers of "trouble" for the secret movers and shakers. That's pretty plainly stated, and its importance might easily be overlooked or underestimated without taking into account the dryness and temper of Prouty's writing style. That was like his equivalent of ten exclamation points.

 

[Mike]

[...]The described evil is made ever more fearsome when you begin to realize that what Prouty is describing is so institutionalized, so mechanical, so deeply programmed (these are my adjectives, not his), that there is no real possibility of reasoning with it. In this way, it is truly a monster.

I'm about 300 pages in and had to stop for a couple days. Had been reading it in tamdem with 'The Mother of All Battles' and I thought I hit bottom a couple years ago in terms of a mix of despair and anger at the past and current situation, but the weekend was pretty low. The ties between what Prouty talks about and the examples given in terms of spin and lies, etc in TMOAB are truely depressing.

They've had nearly fourty years since Prouty wrote 'The Secret Team'! Over 50 from the examples he's writing about. They must be fully systemic by now, like a virus of lies in everything.

 

[PopHistorian]

Saw Lou Dobbs on CNN tonight asking, "Does the CIA mislead us?" And an annoyed Republican congressman saying "of course not!"

 

[Gimpy]

Saw Lou Dobbs on CNN tonight asking, "Does the CIA mislead us?" And an annoyed Republican congressman saying "of course not!"

Thank you PopHistorian, that was a much needed belly laugh. :D

I've got the "Secret Team", but its tough to read it without wanting to throw it across the room. If I don't find some humor, I'll get too ticked off to finish it.

 

[mamadrama]

What a riveting book. One thing that struck me at the end of his 1997 preface was this: " It will be interesting to see what "enemy" develops in the years ahead. It appears that 'UFO's and Aliens' are being primed to fulfill that role for the future. To top all of this, there is the fact that the CIA, itself has assumed the right to generate and direct secret operations."

 

[SeekinTruth]

I think that making money is only one of the objectives of the secret masters, maybe even a secondary objective. A more important objective for them is to kill off normal people in the world or to put them under constant fear for easier control. They do it by dividing the world into camps and pitting one against the other, like Communist vs Western or Islamic vs Western.

Control is what they want: dominance, ownership. In some cases, also, entertainment and enjoyment that they can only achieve by seeing others suffer. Money is only a means to that end.

So yes money is probably not the sole or only objective. It's more about conquest and total control!!

There's actually quite a bit of data indicating that money is not the sole or only objective, but a means to that end - domination / control. In the film industry, for example, there's ample evidence that there have been situations where making money took a back seat to control (which in the long term increases the chances of making money also, by controling and monopolizing all resources needed for the field - but only for the dominant few). Orson Welles and his career as a filmmaker are a good example.

He may have been manipulated into serving the agenda that is served by the film and entertainment industry early on. However, as he wanted to assert himself and do things that made it more difficult for the industry to control those who work in the industry (writers, directors, actors - Welles was all of these), as well as antagonizing a powerful interest such as media giant William Randolph Hearst, the industry made it impossible for him to have a career as a director, even though they could have made money consistently from his films. He ended up acting in films to try to raise money for his own projects for the rest of his life and made much less films as a result.

After his first film, Citizen Kane, which infuriated Hearst because it was a thinly disguised fictionalization of his life and career, he was sent to Latin America by Nelson Rockefeller to be a "cultural embassador" to USA's neighbors to the south. While filming a documentary in Rio, Brazil (in the early 1940's) while he left his second film, The Magnificent Ambersons, in the stages of post-production, the film was taken away from him, majorly re-edited, new scenes shot, including a totally new ending, etc. And every film of his after that had major problems either to produce, to have as he wanted it made or to release, where even the distribution and promotion were sabotaged resulting in less money for the studio.

His film of many years later, A Touch of Evil (1958), was also taken away in post-production (he was locked out of the studio editing facilities) re-edited with new scenes added, etc. When the film was finally released, the marketing was totally sabotaged, even though it had two major stars - Janet Leigh and Charlton Heston who had recently won an Oscar. Someone from the studio snuck a copy to a European film festival where it won best film and best director. The studio was furious when they found out even though it would be a major promotional advantage for the film.

Welles once said that although everyone in Hollywood talks about money, it's actually a lot less important than all the talk, just like, he said, sex; everyone in Hollywood is obsessively talking about it but there is a whole lot less sex than the talk (the obsession itself is a good means of control, so the actual frequency of the act is less important). And he continued that if the people running the business were really only interested in making money, there are a lot easier and faster ways to do so, and none of them would be invovled in the film business.

And this is just the example of the film and entertainment industry. Think how much money is spent to influence people in the advertising and related fields to get them to buy things they don't need and also wouldn't want without such efforts. Instead, the customers could easily be listened to as to what is wanted in goods and services, what is most appreciated, and follow a marketing scheme based on that, leading to satisfied long term customers who develop loyalty to the business they have a relationship with. In addition to this huge value for the business (loyalty / long-term customer relationships), also would be the fact that they would spend much less on advertising and the most effective real advertising would be driven by word of mouth of truly satisfied customers. The most successful businesses would be those of highest competence and most integrity, instead of the most ruthless, pathological, and dishonest and most monopolistic out to eliminate true competitors while giving lip service to the "free market". But all this is antithetical to pathocratic control.

So it becomes pretty obvious that control and domination is the ultimate goal and making money is a secondary factor to serve the primary one.

 

[Laura]

Excellent example and overview, ST. I didn't know that Wells had those difficulties - puts a whole different spin on some of his work.

 

[NormaRegula]

So it becomes pretty obvious that control and domination is the ultimate goal and making money is a secondary factor to serve the primary one.

I didn't know that Wells had those difficulties - puts a whole different spin on some of his work

Wells was not the only movie star/director/producer who made attempts at bucking the film industry pathology.

Research the careers of Charlie Chaplin and Sessue Hayakawa nearly a hundred years ago. The aforementioned actors were famous from 1915 through the early 1930's. Both made lots of money for their respective studios before founding their own studios of United Artists and HaWorth Productions shortly after WWI. For a time the two were involved in producing, directing, and controlling their own projects. This was a direct challenge to the major motion picture outfits MGM, Paramount, Fox, and Universal...companies that were headed by CEOs who were most likely psychopaths (definitely controlling!) beholden to bankers in New York and Brussels.

Chaplin's socialist politics and outspoken contempt for the controlling Hollywood business practices eventually limited his film financing and distribution.

Hayakawa's refusal to be constantly stereotyped as an Asian villain, plus his dismay at the "Yellow Peril" laws being touted by Hearst's newspapers caused his financiers/distributers to back off even though the Japanese actor was still popular with audiences. Hayakawa left for Europe and had a reasonable career in French films. He briefly returned to Hollywood in the late 1940's, early 1950's. His Academy Award-nominated performance in "Bridge Over the River Kwai" is his most memorable "modern" film.

Both the talented Chaplin and Hayakawa made admirable attempts to be independent of the system. A definite no no in the film industry even today. (That is if a filmmaker wants his project well-financed and distributed to a wide audience.)

 

[SeekinTruth]

Wells was not the only movie star/director/producer who made attempts at bucking the film industry pathology.

Research the careers of Charlie Chaplin and Sessue Hayakawa nearly a hundred years ago.

Yeah, I'm quite aware of Chaplin's life and career, but I wasn't aware about Hayakawa. Well, Chaplin had made enough money by the time he left the studio system to be able to establish his own studio, United Artists, with Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, and D.W. Griffith in 1919. He was no doubt very talented and very independent minded. But in those days the major studios had total monopoly - they controlled production, distribution, AND exhibition - they owned the movie theaters as well.

This was a direct challenge to the major motion picture outfits MGM, Paramount, Fox, and Universal...companies that were headed by CEOs who were most likely psychopaths (definitely controlling!) beholden to bankers in New York and Brussels.

Chaplin's socialist politics and outspoken contempt for the controlling Hollywood business practices eventually limited his film financing and distribution.

From what I've read about and heard about in passing, the studio heads definitely sound like they were pathological. The Hollywood studio system (which actually started out on the east coast in NYC and surrounding areas) was at the height of their power of total control until the 1950's. During the coming of the sound era around the very end of the 1920's they really went hog wild in destroying all the talented writers, of which there were many even into the 1940's (whereas very talented directors they destroyed never numbered all that many to begin with). A system was devised so that they would take a script from a writer and give it to another writer or writers to do a re-write. They just kept doing this to "break the spirit" of the writers, so to speak, so that they felt completely powerless and did not get any ideas that they were too important. So the whole setup is pathological.

This system of making people insecure was used on all people working for the studios as a way of control. Still is.

Chaplin's socialist politics, along with his clear contempt for the domination and control of the studios, definitely also made the system target him for being a threat. Chaplin left the US right as the McCarthy era was getting under way.

Some other things Welles and Chaplin have in common: neither of them as directors or their films ever won an Academy Award during their careers. Chaplin was called back by the Academy in 1972 and awarded a "Life Achievement" type Award and Welles was awarded the Life Achievement Award by the American Film Institute in 1975, about 10 years before he died. But these awards are scams anyway, just a self promotion gimmick by the industry itself.

Welles, when asked about how unjust what happened to him / his career was, always gave Erich von Stroheim as an example of a director whose career was unjustifiably totally destroyed by the Hollywood system, but I never thought Stroheim was as talented as Welles or Chaplin. Heck, Chaplin even composed the music for his films and there are some really amazing scores, as outstanding as his other talents. And there was a totally bogus smear and defamation campaign spread about Welles' inability to stay on schedule and within budget as the reason for the problems in his directing career. This was exactly the opposite of the truth; he always worked with very low budgets and UNBELIEVABLY short shooting schedules and made it on time and within budget. Whereas, from what I've been able to find out, this was pretty much true about von Stroheim. Welles shot Touch of Evil in about 3 weeks!!! and while he was re-writing the entire script while he was shooting because he was originally hired to play "the heavy" - the corrupt Quinlan. He was then asked by the producers, at the behest of Charlton Heston, if he would direct the film. He agreed on the condition that he can re-write the script to his satisfaction. They agreed, but he had to do the re-write as he was shooting. Also they did not pay him any more than what he was to be paid to just act.

Both the talented Chaplin and Hayakawa made admirable attempts to be independent of the system. A definite no no in the film industry even today. (That is if a filmmaker wants his project well-financed and distributed to a wide audience.)

Yeah, and not just in the film industry, either, but just about everything! Matrix Control System, indeed. My personal experiences, though admittedly limited, gave me a really bad taste in my mouth; just about everyone who wants to "make it" in the film business has this desperate character quality - desperate to be rich and famous, and most just are not talented - that is manipulated for the purposes of the system. This leads to all sorts of jealousies and rivalries being created and manipulated to keep everyone off-balance. Even if someone does not start out being pathological they will eventually become ponerized after being "worked" for a while.

Excellent example and overview, ST. I didn't know that Wells had those difficulties - puts a whole different spin on some of his work.

Welles was a pretty enigmatic character; he usually agreed to play roles in other directors' films if he could write his own dialogue for the character. Most usually agreed, as they felt he improved the portrayal of the character and wanted him in their films. As Welles used to say, he was often used to lend some "respectability" to otherwise lame films....

 

[PottersvilleUSA]

That the same Prouty that was approached by Facists in the post WWI era? I remember vaguely hearing about a Colonel that was asked to goto the president at the time and make a buncha demands and if they were not met lead an uprising of WWI vets who were in town to protest for some reason...

He promptly reported to the anti-facist committee and reported the whole incident.

No that was Smedley Butler, the author of the classic book "War is a Racket."
In a sane country he'd be a national hero.

 

[clearmiddle]

A few years late, but I finally finished the book. Reading it on a Kindle makes you think twice about throwing it across the room. I need a Rubber Kindle for books like this.

As I read the latter chapters it slowly dawned on me that my father had been involved in some of what is described there. He was a reserve Air Force officer on active duty, and for much of my life growing up he did classified work. I don't know what he did, apart from a little that he told me just before he died. That is how I connected it with what the book describes. How closely it's connected, I don't know.

It's bad enough to learn that everything you believed about your country is a lie, but finding out that it extended to my own family is really a bit much.

 

[RflctnOfU]

A few years late, but I finally finished the book. Reading it on a Kindle makes you think twice about throwing it across the room. I need a Rubber Kindle for books like this.

As I read the latter chapters it slowly dawned on me that my father had been involved in some of what is described there. He was a reserve Air Force officer on active duty, and for much of my life growing up he did classified work. I don't know what he did, apart from a little that he told me just before he died. That is how I connected it with what the book describes. How closely it's connected, I don't know.

It's bad enough to learn that everything you believed about your country is a lie, but finding out that it extended to my own family is really a bit much.

My mom's dad was 'Air Force' back in the time of WW2, although he did let it be known to her later in his life that he was a CIA asset, and his airforce career was cover.

Kris