war of the worlds

[judvic]

Hi,

I remember that SOTT press review published an article very critical of that Spielberg movie "war of the worlds" and if I remember well this article accused Spielberg of being a Bilderberger and through his films being a propagandist of the New World Order.
I did no share this point of view a the time, even though I must admit that I don't know what Spielberg Agenda can be.

He seems to be a very complex man.(I hold him for one of the greatest painter of American Middle class, third type encounter, ET being the best examples, but IA though located in the future is also interesting from this point of view).

Two year after having see this movie, which I thought very average, I have one precise souvenir. There is a sequence when we are shown the aftermath of a plane crash. And there is a pretty long shot showing that when a plane crashes there are wreckages like reactors....
I have the souvenir that this shot is unusualy long and probably serves another purpose than just the story.

I make the hypothesis that Spielberg wanted to assert the point that when a plane crashes there are wreckages and that it is his way of saying that the Pentagon official explantation for the 09 11 is unsatisfactory.
I also remember him showing the soldier ET who is dying as just a poor folk; showing that people cannot count on the army or the state if big problems occur.

So eventually, this film is in some ways subversive and raises, if too undirectly, interesting issues.

Ludovic

 

[Woodsman]

I saw this film a while ago on a whim. I avoided seeing it at the time it came out because I find Tom Cruise to be creepy and yucky and I didn't want to waste two hours having to watch him and possibly cheer for him on a big screen, but somebody told me that it was actually a good adaptation of the book and that I'd probably find it interesting. And I find alien-end-of-the-world scenarios are particularly interesting to me for obvious reasons, so I decided to watch this film.

First of all, I was surprised at the quality of the story-telling and acting in the first thirty minutes. Spielberg is a very skilled director. There were a few logical holes which others have pointed out, ("How if all the electronics are dead, can there be a guy with a working cam-corder at ground zero?") Granted. But I thought the portrayal of the character and his relationship with his family and community was very cleverly done. I was also impressed with the monster's first appearance. Good film-making.

Anyway, as for Spielberg. . , I find him an interesting man and I've been watching his meta-behavior for a few years now.

My take on Spielberg is that he is a man who has had the time to do some reading and who went through a period of difficult waking. He's gone from "Alien space brothers" (Close Encounters and E.T.) to aliens of the same basic design, harvesting and drinking human blood.

That was deliberately added to the story. H.G. Wells did not include such gruesome details.

He also portrayed. . .

-Alien machines which had been buried since before history as part of their invasion effort against us.
-An airplane crash which was, (as a judvic pointed out), messed up the lawn a fair bit more than the Pentagon crash did.
-Humans behaving abominably and irrationally due to fear.

These are items which were not in the original book, and which were deliberately chosen and into which a lot of effort was made to sculpt them in a particular way.

Spielberg also in that same year, (2005) directed that strange film "Munich" which casts the Mossad in a very unfavorable light.

The year before (2004) he directed, "The Terminal" wherein an average man finds himself trying to deal with a corrupt system having fallen between its cracks.

Whereas two years before that, (2002), he directed, "Catch me if you Can", wherein the cops are the Good Guys who always and should always win. Prior to that were the naive "Men in Black" films.

His last Indiana Jones film (2008) (a terrible piece of story-telling!), was filled with evidence of his dabbling in the world of alternative news/thinking and esoteric research. How often do you see creepy hyper-dimensional aliens portrayed in film?

So through the projects he has directed, I can read a meta-narrative of a man who has begun to learn about the kinds of subjects we explore here at SOTT. I almost think his efforts might be an attempt to share what he has learned in an effort to help. Though, being a Jew in Hollywood, even one as powerful as he is, seems like a good way to be locked down pretty tight in terms of what he can put across.

And also. . , if crystal skulls are a significant part of his learning, then he's certainly not reading this website.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Rabelais]

That Spielberg is an attendee at CFR and Bilderberg meetings is telling. His work receives unlimited marketing and media exposure is also an important observation. If you look at his work carefully you can note the subtle, and sometimes not so subtle social programming therein. As entertainment value goes, he is a master, but you have to be vigilant to note the hooks. He is a skilled propagandist and both sides of the viewer's brain need to be active when in the presence of his "spells".

 

[Ca.]

Some possible facts of the Director, Producer, Steven Allan Spielberg.

IMDB: The Internet Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000229/bio

Quotes are from the Biography

Trivia

Member of Theta Chi Fraternity (Zeta Epsilon Chapter, Long Beach State University). One of his fraternity brothers was Roger Ernest.

Is a supporter of the Democratic Party.

Is among the richest individuals in Hollywood.

Received the Germany's Cross of Merit with star for his sensible representation of Germany's history in Schindler's List (1993). [1998]

Jonathan Norman was sentenced to 25 years to life, for stalking Spielberg and threatening to rape him. [June 1998]

Chosen by Entertainment Weekly as the most powerful person in entertainment in 1997. [31 October 1997]

Involved in road accident and treated for an injured shoulder. [23 September 1997]

American Film Institute Life Achievement Award. [1995]

There are seven children in the Capshaw-Spielberg family: Theo Spielberg, who was adopted by Kate Capshaw before their marriage and later adopted by Spielberg, born in 1988, Sasha Spielberg, born on 14 May 1990, Sawyer Spielberg, born on 10 March 1992, their adopted daughter Mikaela George Spielberg, born on 28 February 1996, and Destry Allen Spielberg, born on 1 December 1996. Kate Capshaw's daughter Jessica Capshaw, born in 1976, is from her previous marriage. Steven Spielberg's son Max Spielberg, born in 1985, is from his previous marriage to Amy Irving.

Amy Irving gave birth to his son Max Spielberg on 13 June 1985.

He claims Richard Dreyfuss is his alter-ego.

Attended California State University, Long Beach after being turned down by USC Cinema school twice.

Attended Arcadia High School in Phoenix.

Donated $100,000 to the Democratic Party. [1996]

Awarded second annual John Huston Award for Artists Rights by the Artists Rights Foundation. [1995]

Co-founder (with Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen) of DreamWorks SKG.

He has one of the original Rosebud sleds from Citizen Kane (1941) in his house.

Godfather of Drew Barrymore and Gwyneth Paltrow.

Named Best Director of the 20th Century in an Entertainment Weekly on-line poll, substantially beating out runners-up Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick. [September 1999]

Born to Arnold Spielberg, a computer engineer, and Leah Adler, née Posner, a restaurateur and concert pianist.

Received the Distinguished Public Service Award, the U. S. Navy's highest civilian honor, on Veterans Day 1999 for his work on the movie Saving Private Ryan (1998).

Sits on USC School of Cinema-Television's Board of Councilors.

When he was a child, he sneaked onto the lot of Universal Studios during a tour and befriended an editor who showed him a few things about filmmaking.

Gwyneth Paltrow calls him Uncle Morty.

During filming of their episode of "Rod Serling's Night Gallery" (1969), Spielberg gave Joan Crawford the gift of a single red rose in a Pepsi bottle. During an on-set conversation with Detroit Free Press reporter Shirley Eder, Crawford pointed out Spielberg and said, "Go interview that kid, because he's going to be the biggest director of all time!" Crawford and Spielberg remained good friends until her death in 1977.

Awarded the honor of Knight of the Order of the British Empire (KBE) in New Years Honours 2001 by Queen Elizabeth II for his contribution to the British film industry. As a non-Commonwealth citizen, he will not be able to use the title. [December 2000]

States that the work of David Lean has had a profound effect on his career.

Spent five months developing the script for Rain Man (1988) with Ronald Bass, but had to commit to his handshake deal to direct Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989). Spielberg gave all of his notes to Barry Levinson.

Almost directed Big (1988) with Tom Hanks starring, but didn't want to steal the thunder of his sister, Anne Spielberg, who co-wrote the script.

Personally offered the American Beauty (1999) script to Sam Mendes, who ended up winning the Academy Award for Best Director on the film, which was Mendes's debut feature.

Flew Will Smith to his Hamptons home via helicopter to offer him the part in Men in Black (1997).

Often casts new actors based on their performances in other works. Rarely does auditions for major roles.

Was asked to approve use of the theme music from Jaws (1975) for Swingers (1996). When he saw a cut of the film, he saw Vince Vaughn, whom he chose to play Nick Van Owen in The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997).

He is an Eagle Scout and was on an advisory board for the Boy Scouts of America. He left this position because he did not agree with the fact that the Boy Scouts of America discriminated against homosexuals.

Was directing a childbirth scene when he received a call that Amy Irving was giving birth to their son Max Spielberg.

According to the 2001 issue of Forbes' "400 Richest People In America," Spielberg's fortune is $2.1 billion.

Spielberg:

"Being a movie-maker means you get to live many, many lifetimes. It's the same reason audiences go to movies, I think. When my daughter Sasha (Sasha Spielberg) was 5 years old, we would be watching something on TV and she'd point to a character on screen and say, "Daddy, that's me." Ten minutes later a new character would come on screen and she'd say, "No, Daddy. That's me." Throughout the movie she would pick different people to become. I think that's what we all do. We just don't say it as sweetly.

After a scary movie about the world almost ending, we can walk into the sunlight and say, "Wow, everything's still here. I'm OK!" We like to tease ourselves. Human beings have a need to get close to the edge and, when filmmakers or writers can take them to the edge, it feels like a dream where you're falling, but you wake up just before you hit the ground.

What I'm saying is that I believe in showmanship.

Times have changed. It's like when the first 747 landed at Los Angeles international airport: everybody thought flying through the sky was the most greatest marvel they had ever seen - floating through the air, seemingly in slow motion. Today we never even look at 747s. They're a dime a dozen and it's that way with the blockbuster. If there was one blockbuster every three years, it meant a lot more than when you have a blockbuster every three weeks. It's the job of each of these studios to market these movies as the must-see movie of the year, so they go after blockbuster status by creating a grand illusion. Sometimes they've got a real engine behind that grand illusion, meaning the movie is damned good and the audience will say they got their money's worth. Other times, the audience comes on the promise of seeing something they've never ever seen before and it becomes just another sci-fi action yarn and they feel disappointed.

I've learned that we can do just about anything under the sun with computers. So the question becomes, should we? Or, should we remind ourselves, as filmmakers, to be careful and remember that there is nothing more important than how a story is told? If storytelling becomes a byproduct of the digital revolution, then the medium itself is corrupted. On the other hand, if digital tools are simply a way to enhance a conventional story, then in that case, they can make telling that story easier. It's easier and more practical to show 20,000 soldiers in the Crimean War using computers, obviously. So, that's fine. But now, we have technology that can replace actors, or an entire performance in an already existing movie. We could cut out Humphrey Bogart and replace him with Vin Diesel, if somebody wanted. Who would want to? Well, there might be people who would. That's why we have to be careful. Movies reflect our cultural heritage from the period in time in which they were made. Therefore, altering them can destroy that historical perspective. That's disrespectful of history, which is a big issue for me. The situation is like walking a tightrope - we have to move forward, but we have to be careful.

I had dinner with the founder of Yahoo! about seven years ago in Japan. I had my son, who is now sixteen, he was much younger then. I took him to a tea house. We had Geishas, they were serving us tea and I had a little soki and we were talking. And he kept sitting across from me and he kept saying "Yahoo! You have to know what Yahoo!"... and he was going crazy over this thing called Yahoo! And I thought he was actually out of his brain. You know, because he kept talking about Yahoo! and I thought he was trying to say "Yahoo!" And he was, but I had no idea what he was building. And he was so thrilled with what was happening in his world. And this was way beyond my world at that time. And how I look back. I thought: God if I could have been a little bit nicer to that guy, he might have called me up and offered me a chance to invest early. (2002).

During an interview with Roger Ebert regarding his film Munich (2005) and the response from Jewish critics that claim it depicts Israeli and Palestinian causes as morally equivalent: Frankly, I think that's a stupid charge. The people who attack the movie based on 'moral equivalence' are some of the same people who say diplomacy itself is an exercise in 'moral equivalence' and that war is the only answer. That the only way to fight terrorism is to dehumanize the terrorists by asking no questions about who they are and where they come from. What I believe is, every act of terrorism requires a strong response, but we must also pay attention to the causes. That's why we have brains and the power to think passionately. Understanding does not require approval. Understanding is not the same as inaction. Understanding is a very muscular act. If I'm endorsing understanding and being attacked for that, then I am almost flattered"

.

The eye of the storm Sunday 22 January 2006 guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/jan/22/awardsandprizes.oscars2006

From ET to War of the Worlds, Hollywood's most successful director is best known for his family-friendly blockbusters. But with his latest thriller, Munich - an account of the 1972 massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes - he finds himself under attack. Steven Spielberg tells Andrew Anthony why he made the film - and why he stands by his story..........................

 

[Woodsman]

That Spielberg is an attendee at CFR and Bilderberg meetings is telling. His work receives unlimited marketing and media exposure is also an important observation. If you look at his work carefully you can note the subtle, and sometimes not so subtle social programming therein. As entertainment value goes, he is a master, but you have to be vigilant to note the hooks. He is a skilled propagandist and both sides of the viewer's brain need to be active when in the presence of his "spells".

Whoa! I didn't know he was a Bilderberg attendee.

Still, I think people can change their minds when given the means and opportunity. I've engaged in all manner of work and living practices which after learning more about the world, I realized were things I didn't agree with and subsequently altered my position in relation to.

I'm not endorsing Spielberg. I'm just saying that the pattern of his late works suggests that his mind has been exposed to new ideas and his resulting behavior suggests that he is trying to deal with that new information in a way which might be quite earnest. I find that interesting. We're all at war with misinformation, we all have to deal with our own traps and programs, and we all have to contend with the matrix which tries to pull us off track and tar ball us up.

Spielberg is interesting in that he seems to be going through the patterns of a man waking up. Can you make a film like E.T. and not deep inside foster a desire for the world to be a nice place? (Well, I guess you can, but I didn't get the impression that he was being deliberately manipulative). That his information was completely backwards at the time, I think, is forgivable. We all had our information backwards. It's how we face the truth and how we react afterwards that matters. Do we tell self-calming lies or do we seek more truth and change our behavior accordingly?

From the perspective of 4D, my (totally far-out) guess is that Spielberg was seen to be a value in his creation of Space-Brother nonsense and things like "Schindler's List" which in a cost/benefit analysis, did more to promote dark-side agendas than his recent works detract from them, and that this might be why he was allowed to get big. In such an analysis, I see him more as a tool who was manipulated into creating heart-felt lies which he probably really believed in at the time, but might be feeling a sick sort of dawning discomfort regarding now, (assuming he's actually waking up.)

Damn. The more I consider stuff like this, the more I'm glad to be a background character in the play of life!

 

[anart]

Woodsman, I think you're doing a lot of Critical Correcting when it comes to Spielberg - or wishful thinking, though they amount to the same thing, for the most part. fwiw.

 

[Woodsman]

Woodsman, I think you're doing a lot of Critical Correcting when it comes to Spielberg - or wishful thinking, though they amount to the same thing, for the most part. fwiw.

Possibly, but it doesn't feel like either of those things, which is why I posted my response to the film at all. I don't have any vested interest in the outcome of Spielberg's soul-decisions that I'm aware of. If I thought the math added up to "Manipulative Agent of Evil" then I'd be quite content to draw and post that conclusion.

Except what I'm seeing adds up as I've indicated, and it didn't take any mental gymnastics. The pattern is simply there to see. If I'm missing something, which is entirely possible, or if I'm falling prey to a program of some sort, then I'd certainly appreciate a few pointers.

What was your take on the film?

**Edited to clarify a verb tense.

 

[go2]

What was your take on the film?

FWIW-Steven Spielberg is an illusionist in the business of myth making, in service to the Judaic principle of a master-slave ideology, founded in the concept of a “chosen people” of God. There is no more dangerous or divisive idea extant on this suffering planet, than that some men or tribe should be chosen to rule over others by God.

The revisionist history of Amistad neglected to note that Jews have been the principle slave traders on this planet. That is a result of a psychopathic orientation of the Judaic mythology, that Jews have been given dominion over mankind. Steven Spielberg is a major player in the mind control operation owned and propagated by Jews to further a demonic ideology.

The revisionist history of Schindler’s List serves to maintain the Holocaust as perpetrated solely by Germans, neglecting to mention the role of Zionist operatives collaborating in the selection of Jews for extermination. Nor does the film mention Jews were a minority of those whose lives were forfeit in the War of the Psychopaths. The Holocaust mythology is used to shield the crimes against humanity of the Zionist cult, which utilizes the Judaic ideology as a vehicle for their master-slave dominion on the earth.

I will not watch more of the propaganda films of Steven Spielberg, hence I cannot comment on the War of the Worlds, but I did watch and study the above examples of his myth making manipulation of the human mind. It is my opinion; he is a master of the master-slave ideology of his progenitors, denying and subverting the potential of the individuated human minds of us all, as-children-of-a-common-father-creator-of-all-that-exists.

 

[Woodsman]

What was your take on the film?

FWIW-Steven Spielberg is an illusionist in the business of myth making, in service to the Judaic principle of a master-slave ideology, founded in the concept of a “chosen people” of God. There is no more dangerous or divisive idea extant on this suffering planet, than that some men or tribe should be chosen to rule over others by God.

The revisionist history of Amistad neglected to note that Jews have been the principle slave traders on this planet. That is a result of a psychopathic orientation of the Judaic mythology, that Jews have been given dominion over mankind. Steven Spielberg is a major player in the mind control operation owned and propagated by Jews to further a demonic ideology.

The revisionist history of Schindler’s List serves to maintain the Holocaust as perpetrated solely by Germans, neglecting to mention the role of Zionist operatives collaborating in the selection of Jews for extermination. Nor does the film mention Jews were a minority of those whose lives were forfeit in the War of the Psychopaths. The Holocaust mythology is used to shield the crimes against humanity of the Zionist cult, which utilizes the Judaic ideology as a vehicle for their master-slave dominion on the earth.

I will not watch more of the propaganda films of Steven Spielberg, hence I cannot comment on the War of the Worlds, but I did watch and study the above examples of his myth making manipulation of the human mind. It is my opinion; he is a master of the master-slave ideology of his progenitors, denying and subverting the potential of the individuated human minds of us all, as-children-of-a-common-father-creator-of-all-that-exists.

That's fair enough and I certainly won't disagree with those examples, (in fact, cannot, as I found myself unable to watch either Schindler's List or Amistad. They seemed too much like religious propaganda to me, though I didn't know to call them that at the time. My then factually ignorant brain just snorted at them without knowing exactly why.) Though it should be noted that Amistad came out in 1997, and was a product of thinking and planning, (and programming?) dating from before then. The changes in Spielberg I've noted began to crop up around 2005.

I've known a few Jews who have struggled hard with their, quite specific, programming. Every now and then, an individual does manage to swim up from the murk.

I don't want to cast myself as a Spielberg champion of some kind; I'm not. I'm just observing his behavior and it struck me that he seems to be revisiting his own beliefs and I was wondering about some of the systems which might be functioning behind that apparent shift.

Can people wake to realize that they've erred?

Making a big action which promotes the dark side (like a culture-defining film packed with lies) does not necessarily mean that one has *chosen* the dark side. If one is ignorant of the facts, then there can be no choice, just sleep walking. What I'm saying is that I think it's *possible*, based on observed behavior, that Spielberg has been exposed to some actual data and *might* be in the process of choosing as opposed to simply being a tool. Heck, the dark side was wrong about JFK; they thought he was in their pocket which is why he was put in power, but then he performed his famous turnabout. I don't expect the same of Spielberg; that's not the impression I get, but it is still interesting to observe the process of quickening, even if it results in burnout or a dark choice.

Though it sounds to me like you shouldn't spend your time watching, "War of the Worlds" if your soul has no patience for it; your energies are probably best spent elsewhere. But this kind of question interests me; the study of how humans choose and think and behave given applications of new knowledge really fascinates me, and this particular person offers a unique example and vantage point. Any piece of creative expression can offer a window into the mind/s of those who worked to present it. A big budget film is quite the canvas.

In any case, this thread is already proving very useful; numerous facts about Spielberg's life have already been distilled and presented here.

 

[anart]

The changes in Spielberg I've noted began to crop up around 2005.

I've known a few Jews who have struggled hard with their, quite specific, programming. Every now and then, an individual does manage to swim up from the murk.

I don't want to cast myself as a Spielberg champion of some kind; I'm not. I'm just observing his behavior and it struck me that he seems to be revisiting his own beliefs and I was wondering about some of the systems which might be functioning behind that apparent shift.

Can people wake to realize that they've erred?

Do you know the man personally? You speak as if you do. You are ascribing qualities to him that you have no way of knowing are actually existent within him. You are coming across as his champion, which is really interesting since for some reason you've identified with Steven Spielberg.

Why would that be?

Here's a better question - exactly what behavior on his part (personal behavior, not movies he's made) has made you think he has made a shift? You don't take his movies as aspects of himself, do you?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

The revisionist history of Schindler’s List serves to maintain the Holocaust as perpetrated solely by Germans, neglecting to mention the role of Zionist operatives collaborating in the selection of Jews for extermination. Nor does the film mention Jews were a minority of those whose lives were forfeit in the War of the Psychopaths. The Holocaust mythology is used to shield the crimes against humanity of the Zionist cult, which utilizes the Judaic ideology as a vehicle for their master-slave dominion on the earth.

Not to mention that Schindler was a psychopath (google "schindler psychopath" for the article in Patrick's handbook on psychopathy).

 

[Lilou]

Thanks for that very succinct analysis, go2!

Not to mention that Schindler was a psychopath (google "schindler psychopath" for the article in Patrick's handbook on psychopathy).

That was a very interesting read, AI. I have never given much thought to Schindler or the movie. Schindler is made out as a hero, and savior of jews, but was really just after the power and the ultimate challenge - Schindler against the Third Reich. He could care less about saving people, it was the ultimate power trip for him.

I'm happy I never watched any of these movies!!

 

[Woodsman]

The changes in Spielberg I've noted began to crop up around 2005.

I've known a few Jews who have struggled hard with their, quite specific, programming. Every now and then, an individual does manage to swim up from the murk.

I don't want to cast myself as a Spielberg champion of some kind; I'm not. I'm just observing his behavior and it struck me that he seems to be revisiting his own beliefs and I was wondering about some of the systems which might be functioning behind that apparent shift.

Can people wake to realize that they've erred?

Do you know the man personally? You speak as if you do. You are ascribing qualities to him that you have no way of knowing are actually existent within him.

No, I've never met the man. He may be a robot and I might be seeing nothing but illusions. This is true. I don't know if the patterns of behavior I've noted actually exist within him or if I'm just projecting.

You are coming across as his champion, which is really interesting since for some reason you've identified with Steven Spielberg.

Yikes! You see that in me?

Well, being that you are reading my behavior and I can't see it without a mirror, and being that I respect your opinion due to the amount of work you have done, I will proceed on the assumption that your perceptions are accurate and that I have a skewed perception of reality and of myself. Here we go. . !

(Time out to think.)

So, upon considering this, it is clear; I HAVE identified with Spielberg. I definitely have been trying to solve this puzzle based on my own projections and assumptions of human behavior, assuming he thinks and reacts the same way I do.

Why would that be?

I think it is part of the same reason set that allows me to identify with other people in a social network. I assume the people around me have similar responses I do to stimuli. Spielberg's creations being put before me are mistaken for those from a person in my immediate social network and so I am able to connect with "him" in a manner which feels intimate. In this case, I was duped by many aspects of the matrix, went through shock and painful realignment after learning how things really worked, and I assumed that Spielberg was experiencing something similar. Of course, if Spielberg is a pathological deviant, then these assumptions have been false.

Here's a better question - exactly what behavior on his part (personal behavior, not movies he's made) has made you think he has made a shift?

I have no behavioral basis to look at other than his films and a few interviews, which of course, are pieces designed for media consumption and cannot be considered reliable pictures of his inner psyche. The interviews I recall were also from the earlier days, so they would not suggest any shift. I cannot remember when he spoke if he did not exhibit examples of strange wording (Bush-isms) which psychopaths fall into. I'd have to revisit that to see what his language and body language reveal. (That would be an interesting project, actually. Wouldn't it be fascinating to find that he does "put food on his family"?) Though, as we've seen with Obama, one does not necessarily have to be a psychopath or exhibit such tells to still be some flavor of mechanical personality.

You don't take his movies as aspects of himself, do you?

Yes, I do. But it's a matter of definitions, I think. To be clear, I consider energies put into any creative project to reveal the mind of the creator and as such, are open to analysis. For instance, hand-writing analysis can be very effective, (analysis of the medium), just as text content analysis can reveal the mind of the author, (analysis of the message). Of course, a film is not a one-person endeavor; they require hundreds of people and so there is a lot of noise to any signal. But the director directs and has a hand in key script and creative decisions; some directors more so than others. A Spielberg film has a look and feel which is quite unlike that of any other director, and these identifying qualities are, I conclude, a result of the leader's personality and decisions. There are numerous directors whose personal styles are similarly apparent in the end product.

Of course, this is no different than any signal a psychopath puts into the world; it can be used to manipulate and sell lies. --I was thinking earlier that a person who made a film like E.T. would have to contain some kind of human warmth inside to be able to understand and communicate such emotions, and therefore MUST have finely tuned emotions, and I based that on my own projection of what I would be thinking and feeling if I were trying to create such a film. I am now thinking, as I go through this analysis, that it might not necessarily be true that human warmth and soul are required to make such a film. A film like E.T. COULD result from a souled person being at the helm, but it might also be the result of a very observant psychopath plucking heart-strings with great facility. I'm not sure how one could tell with any definitive certainty which was which. Obama was certainly good at making people feel warm and cuddly, and he duped the masses with great facility. The C's indicated that he was functioning as a split personality of some kind.

The puzzle for me (was) that War of the Worlds put out a message which seems to work in opposition to conventional alien propaganda. As did Munich work in opposition to conventional Israeli propaganda.

This is incongruous with past messages. Why?

My attempt to understand why led me to wondering if Spielberg had not undergone some kind of personal awakening.

That theory, however, begins to fall apart in two places. . .

1. The Fourth Indiana Jones film, about the crystal skulls, falls back upon the tar-ball notion of (hyper-dimensional) aliens being benevolent builders and guiders of advanced civilizations. Space Brothers from 4th D. A blatant lie. (From the wikipedia summation: "Indiana deduces that the creatures were kindred spirits: they too were "archaeologists" studying the different cultures of Earth.") This film was made in 2008, after War of the Worlds, suggesting not an evolution, but a devolution in thinking. I got my timing wrong in the pattern. I thought the order of the two films was reversed.

2. His attendance at the Bilderberg meetings. That item really stood out in my mind like a burr for the last couple of days and didn't fit the theory I'd built.

So that's where I am now. I still don't understand why WotW presented things as it did. It's still puzzling me. Maybe that kind of reaction alone is reason enough?

Anyway, thank-you for taking the time to work with me on this stuff! I really appreciate it! Do you see anything else I could be working on?

 

[anart]

So, upon considering this, it is clear; I HAVE identified with Spielberg. I definitely have been trying to solve this puzzle based on my own projections and assumptions of human behavior, assuming he thinks and reacts the same way I do.
...

I think it is part of the same reason set that allows me to identify with other people in a social network. I assume the people around me have similar responses I do to stimuli.

Yep - and this is the key component of Critical Correction - you are filling the blanks for others, assuming they think and feel like you do and are motivated by the things that motivate you. This is a very common and VERY dangerous illusion and lie to the self. (and I figured you'd figure it out!)

 

[Cosmos]

So, upon considering this, it is clear; I HAVE identified with Spielberg. I definitely have been trying to solve this puzzle based on my own projections and assumptions of human behavior, assuming he thinks and reacts the same way I do.
...

I think it is part of the same reason set that allows me to identify with other people in a social network. I assume the people around me have similar responses I do to stimuli.

Yep - and this is the key component of Critical Correction - you are filling the blanks for others, assuming they think and feel like you do and are motivated by the things that motivate you. This is a very common and VERY dangerous illusion and lie to the self. (and I figured you'd figure it out!)

I have to admit that I sometimes (to be honest it's more then "sometimes") fall into that illusion too