Head in your A@# .. conspiracy or financial allegory??
KosmicJelli
Posts: 1,855
I found this surfing... can anyone have their head farther up their ass??? (my opinion)
Conspiracy??? I edited it so you get the jist.... just wondering people perceptions...
The Symbolism Hidden Within "The Wizard of Oz"
Many people believe that The Wizard of Oz was (and is) an allegory for the radically new state of affairs that existed in America in the 1930s, following the stock market crash and the bankruptcy of the United States Government which occurred immediately thereafter. For all extents and purposes, it can still be viewed as the current state of affairs, inasmuch as the allegorical nature, the clues strewn throughout the story, are still relevant today. The authors of Redemption in Law, Theory and Practice [BBC of America, 2000] have, for example, provided an interesting interpretation of the story of The Wizard of Oz, one which bears a considerable amount of attention being paid.
Author Unknown
The Wizard of Oz, written by L. Frank Baum, is not a mere child's story.
What is "Oz" a symbol for? Ounces.
What is measured in ounces? Gold.
What is the yellow brick road? Bricks or ingot bars of gold.
The character known as the Straw Man represents that fictitious, ALL CAPS, legal fiction - a PERSON, the Federal U.S. Government created with the same spelling as your birth name.
Remember what the Straw Man wanted from the Wizard of Oz? A Brain!
No juristic person - legal fiction - paper corporation has a brain because he/she has no breath of life. What did he get in place of a brain?
A certificate: a Birth Certificate for a new legal creation.
He was proud of his new legal status, plus all the other legalisms he was granted. Now he becomes the epitome of the brainless sack of straw who was given a certificate in place of a grain of common sense.
Now, what about the Tin Man? Does Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) recall anything to mind? The poor TIN Man just stood there mindlessly doing his work until his body literally froze up and stopped functioning.
He worked himself to death because he had no heart nor soul.
He's the heartless and emotionless creature robotically carrying out his daily task as though he were already dead.
He's the ox pulling the plow and the mule toiling under the yoke.
These days, his task masters just oil him nightly with beer and place him in front of a hypnotic television until his very existence no longer has any meaning or value.
His masters keep him cold on the outside and heartless on the inside in order to control any emotion or feeling that might arise.
The Cowardly Lion was always too frightened to stand up for himself. Of course, he was a bully and a big mouth when it came to picking on those smaller than he.
(Have you ever noticed how bullies are really the biggest cowards? They act as though they have great courage, but, in reality, have none at all. They roar, but with no teeth of authority to back them up.)
When push came to shove, the Cowardly Lion always buckled under and whimpered when anyone of any size or stature challenged him.
He wanted courage from the Grand Wizard, so he was awarded a medal of "official" recognition. Now, although remaining a coward, his official status allowed him to be a bully, but with officially recognized authority. (He's not unlike the Attorneys who hide behind the Middle Courts of the Temple Bar.) et al ad infinitum.
What about the trip through the field of poppies? Did you notice how this had no narcotic effect on the Straw Man (no brain) or the Tin Man (no heart or soul)?
They weren't real people, so drugs could not influence them.
The Wizard of Oz was written at the turn of the century, so how could the author have known America was going to be drugged?
The Crown has been playing the drug cartel game for centuries.
Just look up the history of Hong Kong and the Opium Wars.
The Crown already had valuable experience conquering all of China with drugs, so why not the rest of the world?
What was the Emerald City? The Federal Reserve System.
Who finally exposed the Wizard for what he really was?
Toto, the ugly (or cute, depending on your perspective) and somewhat annoying little dog. Toto means "in total, all together; Latin in toto."
What was it that the witch wanted after she alleged that the little dog had bitten her? TOTO. ... everything.
Notice how Toto was not scared of the Great Wizard's theatrics, yet he was so small in size, compared to the Wizard, that no one seemed to notice him?
The smoke, flames and holographic images of Oz were designed to frighten people into doing as the Great Wizard commanded.
Toto simply padded over, looked behind the curtain (the COURT, etc.), saw it was a scam, started barking until others paid
attention to him and came to see what all the barking was about. Who was behind the curtain?
Just an ORDINARY PERSON controlling the levers that created the illusion of the Great Wizard's power and authority.
When Toto pulled back the curtain and completely exposed him, the charade was at an end. (The veil hiding the corporate legal fiction and its false courts was removed.)
The Wizard's game was UP. What was he after all? ... a con-man. A FRAUD.
We can see, in this tale, just how loud the bark from a little dog can be.
How bout YOUR bark? How big is it?
Most of us remain silent and wait to be given whatever food and recognition, if any, by our legal master.
Let us not forget those pesky flying monkeys. What perfect mythical creatures to represent the Bar Association Attorneys who attack and control the little people for the Great Crown Wizard, the powerful and grand Bankers of Oz: GOLD!
How, finally, was the evil witch destroyed? .... pure, clean water LIQUIDATION!
How, at last, did Dorothy get home? She simply clicked her heels.
She always had the power, and SO DO WE!
What would it take to expose the Wizard for what he is, tearing away his veils?
We each need only a brain, a heart and soul --- and COURAGE.
Then, and perhaps of the greatest importance, we need to learn HOW to WORK TOGETHER.
Only "in TOTO," WORKING TOGETHER as ONE Body of the King of Kings, (whatever name or form that may take for each of us), can we have the freedom given under God's Law.
email us at sovereign50@
Independent Americans Home Page
Conspiracy??? I edited it so you get the jist.... just wondering people perceptions...
The Symbolism Hidden Within "The Wizard of Oz"
Many people believe that The Wizard of Oz was (and is) an allegory for the radically new state of affairs that existed in America in the 1930s, following the stock market crash and the bankruptcy of the United States Government which occurred immediately thereafter. For all extents and purposes, it can still be viewed as the current state of affairs, inasmuch as the allegorical nature, the clues strewn throughout the story, are still relevant today. The authors of Redemption in Law, Theory and Practice [BBC of America, 2000] have, for example, provided an interesting interpretation of the story of The Wizard of Oz, one which bears a considerable amount of attention being paid.
Author Unknown
The Wizard of Oz, written by L. Frank Baum, is not a mere child's story.
What is "Oz" a symbol for? Ounces.
What is measured in ounces? Gold.
What is the yellow brick road? Bricks or ingot bars of gold.
The character known as the Straw Man represents that fictitious, ALL CAPS, legal fiction - a PERSON, the Federal U.S. Government created with the same spelling as your birth name.
Remember what the Straw Man wanted from the Wizard of Oz? A Brain!
No juristic person - legal fiction - paper corporation has a brain because he/she has no breath of life. What did he get in place of a brain?
A certificate: a Birth Certificate for a new legal creation.
He was proud of his new legal status, plus all the other legalisms he was granted. Now he becomes the epitome of the brainless sack of straw who was given a certificate in place of a grain of common sense.
Now, what about the Tin Man? Does Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) recall anything to mind? The poor TIN Man just stood there mindlessly doing his work until his body literally froze up and stopped functioning.
He worked himself to death because he had no heart nor soul.
He's the heartless and emotionless creature robotically carrying out his daily task as though he were already dead.
He's the ox pulling the plow and the mule toiling under the yoke.
These days, his task masters just oil him nightly with beer and place him in front of a hypnotic television until his very existence no longer has any meaning or value.
His masters keep him cold on the outside and heartless on the inside in order to control any emotion or feeling that might arise.
The Cowardly Lion was always too frightened to stand up for himself. Of course, he was a bully and a big mouth when it came to picking on those smaller than he.
(Have you ever noticed how bullies are really the biggest cowards? They act as though they have great courage, but, in reality, have none at all. They roar, but with no teeth of authority to back them up.)
When push came to shove, the Cowardly Lion always buckled under and whimpered when anyone of any size or stature challenged him.
He wanted courage from the Grand Wizard, so he was awarded a medal of "official" recognition. Now, although remaining a coward, his official status allowed him to be a bully, but with officially recognized authority. (He's not unlike the Attorneys who hide behind the Middle Courts of the Temple Bar.) et al ad infinitum.
What about the trip through the field of poppies? Did you notice how this had no narcotic effect on the Straw Man (no brain) or the Tin Man (no heart or soul)?
They weren't real people, so drugs could not influence them.
The Wizard of Oz was written at the turn of the century, so how could the author have known America was going to be drugged?
The Crown has been playing the drug cartel game for centuries.
Just look up the history of Hong Kong and the Opium Wars.
The Crown already had valuable experience conquering all of China with drugs, so why not the rest of the world?
What was the Emerald City? The Federal Reserve System.
Who finally exposed the Wizard for what he really was?
Toto, the ugly (or cute, depending on your perspective) and somewhat annoying little dog. Toto means "in total, all together; Latin in toto."
What was it that the witch wanted after she alleged that the little dog had bitten her? TOTO. ... everything.
Notice how Toto was not scared of the Great Wizard's theatrics, yet he was so small in size, compared to the Wizard, that no one seemed to notice him?
The smoke, flames and holographic images of Oz were designed to frighten people into doing as the Great Wizard commanded.
Toto simply padded over, looked behind the curtain (the COURT, etc.), saw it was a scam, started barking until others paid
attention to him and came to see what all the barking was about. Who was behind the curtain?
Just an ORDINARY PERSON controlling the levers that created the illusion of the Great Wizard's power and authority.
When Toto pulled back the curtain and completely exposed him, the charade was at an end. (The veil hiding the corporate legal fiction and its false courts was removed.)
The Wizard's game was UP. What was he after all? ... a con-man. A FRAUD.
We can see, in this tale, just how loud the bark from a little dog can be.
How bout YOUR bark? How big is it?
Most of us remain silent and wait to be given whatever food and recognition, if any, by our legal master.
Let us not forget those pesky flying monkeys. What perfect mythical creatures to represent the Bar Association Attorneys who attack and control the little people for the Great Crown Wizard, the powerful and grand Bankers of Oz: GOLD!
How, finally, was the evil witch destroyed? .... pure, clean water LIQUIDATION!
How, at last, did Dorothy get home? She simply clicked her heels.
She always had the power, and SO DO WE!
What would it take to expose the Wizard for what he is, tearing away his veils?
We each need only a brain, a heart and soul --- and COURAGE.
Then, and perhaps of the greatest importance, we need to learn HOW to WORK TOGETHER.
Only "in TOTO," WORKING TOGETHER as ONE Body of the King of Kings, (whatever name or form that may take for each of us), can we have the freedom given under God's Law.
email us at sovereign50@
Independent Americans Home Page
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I don't think it is as far up the ass as you want to think it is.
In fact, as of recently on this board i've come to realize that people generaly have a serious problem wanting to believe that ANY fiction was written with an intent other than to just be fiction. Now THAT is having your head up your ass.
It is most widely accepted that the Wizard of OZ is SOME sort of parable, usualy related to the industrial revolution, or populisim, or of a new monitary standard ...
to give you the flip side, a "head up your ass" linkage that has NO documented connection, my highschool philosophy\history teacher was deeply in love with The Wizard of Oz as the "greatest story ever", because it was (according to him) a perfect parable for the psyche, and freudian psychology. The black and white world was reality. The colored world was the subconscious. The witch represented the Ego, which had to be killed. Each of the characters represented some other piece (like the ID, the superego) etc ... you wanna talk about "reaching", THAT was reaching. But i guess it still made sense.
ANYHOW.
No.
I think this guys direct interpretation may be off slightly, because who realy knows what the EXACT parable was supposed to be, but YOU people need to get your heads out of your asses thinking that many of the great books in our "fiction" cataloge are NOTHING more than just pretty stories.
Two i get bashed for on here about are Brave New World and 1984.
Neither of which were intended to "JUST" be cute little stories.
Oh. And i've heard "War of The Worlds" was really a study in government mind-control paid for by the elite. And that H G Wells was a "One World Government" man and eugenicist himself. CRAZY, huh? I have my head up my ass, right?
Go look it up.
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Fiction can be provocative, and the merit of science fiction and futuristic novels like the ones you mention, is that they allow to take something to it's most extreme conclusion based on something that is present today. The writers of these certainly had a deeper thought with it, and they arent just "cute little stories".
It's when you seem to mislabel them as "studies" and "master plans" for the NWO that it goes off the road.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Except in the case of War of the Worlds,
that actualy appears to be a historical fact.
It was a funded work.
By a guy who just happend to write a book called "New World Order" himself.
Hmm.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Or is it this you're referring to:
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
That reads like a whitewash to me actualy.
hold on and let me dig up some of the record.
One thing that tips me off about this write-up is the "Welle's well known liberal political beliefs" ...
... uh, the guy was all over the political map throughout his life so they could just be selectively choosing what to focus on, but he believed that democracy should be phased out in favor of rule by a "scientific elite" (think Brave New World
anyhow.
Let me see if i can dig up the records.
Because there are references that indicate foundation funding.
Hold On.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Hey you know, i'm really glad you press me sometimes.
I found out some MORE neat shit for you.
So.
Here's the deal.
Before we go any further though, meaning before you start tearing in to what i am about to write, i want you to look back at what you posted as rebuttal from wikipedia and tell me ANYwhere in that "article" that there is "PROOF" that it is NOT a "conspiracy". Just think about that. Because what you show as anti-conspiracy proof is little more than circumstantial "evidence" of equal or lesser quality to what i am offering here.
ANYHOW, i did find some pretty "damning" stuff, if you ask me:
1. From this page. And note this is actualy a quote within a quote. It is “America Under Attack: A Reassessment of Orson Welles War of the Worlds” by Paul Heyler of Willfrid Laurier University quoted from WITHIN our little buddy (see wikipedia from your quote) Daniel Hopsick ... but this just goes to set up the following discussion on that page:
Now. While there is no proof offered there, it is curious we now have two sources. One that gives names. So look further down on that page and you find this:
Now.
IMHO, those bolded lines alone conclusively show that this fellow Cantril was very much bough and paid for by Rockefeller, and that Princeton Radio was set up as a sort of joint venture by several of these likeminded men.
Now, there is, you are correct, NO proof so far, tha Wells HIMSELF was "in" on this while writing it.
But we have so far conclusively established that the STUDY or REPORT on the broadcast WAS indeed funded by Rockefeller, so the difference is already waning in importance, it sems.
HOWEVER, THEN WE HAVE THIS LITTLE DITTY.
This article is actualy a bening article talking about the history of some cinema, however it gives us some VERY interesting tidbits:
Well now we've just tied that all in funny little circle, haven't we?
We never did get around to showing that Wells himself was funded by Rockefeller to WRITE "War of the World" but we sure have shown that the STUDY of the broadcast was funded by Rockefeller.
AND we see from this later article that the man who PRODUCED War of the Worlds, Orson Welles, was just a short time later tapped by NELSON ROCKEFELLER (same rockefeller who personaly knew this Cantril and had tapped to do the study) to make some movies.
Then, to add just one further dash of humor, because i found it funny, Welles is spotted at a Aldous Huxley book luanch. Huxley, the man who wrote Brave New World.
So take it for what you will.
The Rockefellers most CERTAINLY were interested in propaganda, and they set up the study groups and walked in close circles with the men whom did the "study" on War of the Worlds. Not only that, but they tapped the guy who actualy produced the broadcast only some years later.
Now.
I guess on the short side, you can stand tall, because you are right. It appears Wells was not directly involved in a "conspiracy", even though it was never conspired upon. It just happened. Wells wrote that novel independently some 38 years earlier.
However, in closing, you should read the "politics" section of his wikipedia. Even though they managed to wash his book "The New World Order" off of his page proper (interesting, someone removed that book huh) they left this:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
widely accepted by who? oz was a kid's book. period. a good one and a fun one, but a kid's book. the people who invented the "populist commie" nonsense were the red scare morons who saw communism everywhere. they're the same kind of people that now think harry potter is an insidious plot to convert the children of the world to satanism and honestly believe judas priest is attempting to push its fans to suicide through backmasking in its songs.
fiction can be written as allegory and satire. cases in point: gulliver's travels, catch-22, 1984, brave new world, etc. what i was getting at with you was that brave new world is NOT a prophetic work like christians view the bible, or some sort of 'how to' guide for fascists. just becos something happened in brave new world (apparently naked 6 year olds playing in the street) doesn't mean that a tangentially related event occurring in the real world (sexual liberation) means there is a fascist plot to rule the world using brave new world as a textbook. i don't think you really grasp the nature of satirical literature. it is a critique of ideas and philosophies, not literal warning of specific actions.
Propaganda research did happen alot in the 30s, undoubtedly. Did someone design that show as a "stress-test", well they might and they might not have. People were scared, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were made some studies right afterwards in any case, as the phenomenon would be interesting to research anyway. But well within the realm of possibilities.
As for the part about his politics, he doesn't sound all that different from other communists of that era (remember, nationalism were by many seen as a great evil that led to ww1), and he also got disillusioned with the Soviet. I hope you are not trying the guilt by association game again.
Anyways, the facts presented here are what they are, and there is no clear interpretation of them. You offer one, and I accept it, as one possible explanation. But it's when it goes from these beginnings to do the leaps from "well he was a leftie, and met that guy at some point that once talked to this guy, that means the last guy is in on it too" kind of reasoning, that's when it really goes downhill.
Nice job, but you may have noticed that in order to "keep it real" you yourself admitted several times that it still wasn't decisive proof. You'd probably not have me jumping on your back so often here if you didnt overstate as often, but kept it real and true to the source. That's kinda my thing with AJ that I've seen. It's well and good that someone looks into the networks of the elite and uncover connections and so on. But he uses that to sell a much bigger, unlikely and ridiculous horror story and draws all kinds of dubious threads, instead of sticking to his facts. Kinda like a really mean-tempered Michael Moore on steroids.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But come on now, does everything have a secret meaning or mysterious intent??? What is the artist trying to convey?? You can imply what you want to any work of art you want but does it make it true/fact???
What about all the other Baum books?? (sorry didnt do my research there)
more questions to throw out there...
Well,
why does eddie ask, "Whose got the brain of JFK?"
And why is the movie called Single Video Theory?
Single Video Theory?
Single Bullet Theory?
THE Theory surrounding the JFK conspiracy?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I just got off the phone calling in to Alex.
One of my questions WAS going to be about JFK and the new movie, the Bugliosi book "Reclaiming History" and the Tom Hanks series coming out of the same name ...
BUT, i was told "you have one minute" just before i got on the air.
Alex did say, "Thats the kind of insightful educated calls we need", though, to my credit.
Even though i didn't really get to ask the question i wanted, which was supposed to be about wether Obama may be getting set up for assassination by "these" people.
Unfortuantely, i was cut short before the question got formed proper.
Oh well.
:(
I'll try again.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
to your credit? hehe, man, this is geek worship at its finest.
Yeah.
I was gonna start my call with the stereotypical fanboi spiel: "Yeah alex, you changed the way i look at our government. Everything you say checks out. People just don't want to listen to you because of your attitude. Its all book by a cover bullhonkey."
but they told me "1 minute. go" so i got a fumbled up, and had to drop a bunch of what i was going to say\ask.
I did manage to get ONE THING cleared up.
I asked him what Aaron Russo's "new" movie had been, that he plugged on his last interview with Alex, and if he knew wether it was coming out or not.
He said it was some fiction movie about the Federal Reserve and that no it never got to production.
Man. That sucks.
My buddy and i were talking about that a while ago.
How it would be awesome if they would do a holywood style movie and semi-fictionalize the history of the Fed ... make it like a suspence\thriller movie, depict JP Morgan, and Rockefeller, Aldrich, and Warburg ... make it clear what the fuck went down.
Sounds like that is what Russo had planned, i'm guessing.
Sad he died too soon.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i dont doubt you were going to. im sorry you didnt get the chance.
i think this is the problem with your posts and your logic. you don't see or acknowledge where the fiction and supposition come into the "information" you find, and yet you think it makes everything a clear indisputable fact that one must be "a sheep" to not see. but that isn't the case. we just see the line between the history and the fictionalized elements.
i'm talking about changing some names to avoid a law suit and doing the typical things with artistic liscence that are done in "fictionalizing" a movie for holywood.
What the fuck is wrong with you, anyhow?
The way the Federal Reserve was created is documented, in several cases by the words of those involved themselves, ADMITEDLY as a "conspiracy".
You don't fucking get on a train (owned by your senator buddy who steamrolls it through congress over christmas break, by the way) and run off to a secret island club in georgia with all your super-rich banker buddies ... using fake names, and fake stories about duck hunts, replacing all your servants, and hitching and unhitching from the train outside of the station so no one sees you get off and on ... IF EVERYTHING IS ABOVE BOARD.
You fucking dont!
WHY DIDN'T THEY WANT ANYONE TO KNOW?
Because the public sentiment was "DOWN WITH THE MONEY TRUST!" ... the people knew that the "money trust" (the rockefellers, morgans, and rothschilds) had a stranglehold on the US economy, the banks, and business. THEY WANTED TO END THAT, NOT FURTHER IT!
Had they fucking had ANY clue that these very same men drafted up the plan that was ... YOU'LL LOVE THIS ... trumpeted as "BRINGING AN END TO THE MONEY TRUST" .. had they known that plan was written by those men themselves ... THEY WOULD HAVE SCREAMED FOR BLOOD!
Again,
THAT IS FUCKING DOCUMENTED.
That is YOUR fucking problem, not mine.
You are the one who wont even concede basic historical truth. Documented repeatedly since the Feds implementation in the early 1900s.
??? i'm not talking about fucking "FICTION" !!!
I'm talking about taking what your typical dipshit dumbass doesn't know gold from a paper dollar bumbling fucking moron American considers to be "boring history" and "jazzing it up" a bit so they won't fucking walk out of the theatre.
Jesus christ.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
the sign of a truly intelligent person with a point to make. it was nice having you here, enjoy being banned.
but before they catch your juvenile outburst, can you tell me what you are proposing? what is your plan? becos if there is a "money trust" elite... so what? i thought you said socialism is what is evil? so you can't redistribute their wealth. what do you propose to do? pretend you're put in charge for a day... what do you do?
you rail against socialism yesterday and now you rail against greedy capitalists today. all it adds up to is clear evidence that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, you just take perverse pleasure in your paranoia.
Like i said, you are deliberately remaining ignorant of the REAL problem.
i could give two fucks about their hoarded wealth.
Well, i could care less if it was accumulated through "honest" enterprise.
But The Federal Reserve IS A MECHANISM FOR WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION ITSELF!
THAT IS WHAT I CAN'T FUCKING STAND.
If the government doesn't have any money, it goes to the "banker" (a false term, since there is NO money he is lending, he should be called a "couterfeiter") and the "banker" PRINTS MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR.
This money, contrary to the common thought that this somehow just comes in to creation with no affect on the economy, DEBASES YOUR MONEY AND CAUSES YOU TO LOSE ACCUMULATED WEALTH.
Why should the government be allowed to spend money IT does NOT HAVE, at YOUR EXPENSE, WHILE ENRICHING THE BANKER, who gets INTEREST on the whole transaction?
All for lending money he never fucking had to "lend".
Its fucking bullshit.
Pure bullshit.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
so all you are pissed about is the federal reserve printing more paper money? that is the entire source of your rage?