April 18, 2012
Every so often we are painfully reminded that, yes, an effort is underway- conspicuous because of the concerted nature of the attacks- designed to undermine the few who tell the ancient tale of freedom for a change… and that to audiences worldwide.
Actor and director Mel Gibson, under fire by the entire mainstream media a few years back for alleged misdoings, has now been carefully targeted in yet another psyop. This time with the welcome help of a disgruntled screenwriter who just happens to, oops, present a letter he wrote after his screenplay for Gibson’s work in progress was rejected both by the director and Warner Bros. And oops, it just happens Gibson is again being portrayed as a cartoon-like anti-Semite. Now it just happens that the lone filmmaker in Hollywood – effectively fighting tyranny with such outstanding works as Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ and Apocalypto — is now being scrutinized in the extreme by both low-grade tabloids and self-professed “serious” magazines.
Gibson’s works are prime examples of how storytelling at its core signifies both the story itself and serves to illustrate the age-old, everlasting struggle against tight-gripped tyranny. Two giant forces, both measureless and complex in their endless expressions, are “slugging it out”, as Gibson told a startled automaton- Diane Sawyer- who stuttered her way through the interview, frowning a lot while nervously glancing over her notes.
The establishment media once again jumped at the opportunity to revive its smear-campaign against Gibson, redeploying their media tricksters and gadgets in an attempt to discredit him. Notice it’s always the same old nonsensical sewer-tactics employed. Puny smears by puny minds. And just like previous attacks, this one seems to be designed to hinder Gibson doing his important work.
Why important? As we have seen, every film flowing from Gibson’s hands turns out to be crucial storytelling exposing in all of its layers the eternal fight against tyranny. When Braveheart (a powerful tribute to one man in the face of tremendous evil) was released, expectations for future projects were high. The films after that exceeded those expectations.
Just like in the previous attacks, the mainstream media again denounces Mel Gibson for so-called “anti-Semitism”. During the last “controversy” self-declared “voice of the left” Arianna Huffington in 2009 even argued for a revival of non-existent “Hollywood values” and, in the same breath, for Gibson to be burned at the stake:
“(…) Now is the time”, screamed Huffington, “for Hollywood to show what those values really are by making Gibson pay the price for his bigotry and intolerance.”
Just like in the days of J. Edgar Hoover, when every important person, both inside and outside Hollywood, had the dubious honor of blackmail-space reserved in the FBI-director’s desk, the arrows have now been let loose on Gibson, not for anything he might have done mind you, but rather with the aim of stopping the man from capturing audiences around the world with any more works. In other words: the current “controversy” serves nothing more than to hinder the filmmaker from simply doing his job. In an age where many filmmakers, royally sniffing it up in the bathroom, are producing predictive programming to audiences everywhere, the crusade launched against Gibson should raise all thinking people’s eyebrows.
Remember the Playboy-interview from July of 1995, where Gibson identified the power behind the throne with stunning accuracy. With the conversation turning to then-president of the United States, Bill Clinton, Gibson suggested that he was obviously groomed for the job early on in his career (an admitted fact).
“Do you really believe that?”, asked the surprised interviewer (he shouldn’t be), to which Gibson replied:
“I really believe that. He was a Rhodes scholar, right? Just like Bob Hawke. Do you know what a Rhodes scholar is? Cecil Rhodes established the Rhodes scholarship for those young men and women who want to strive for a new world order. Have you heard that before? George Bush? CIA? Really, it’s Marxism, but it just doesn’t call itself that. Karl had the right idea, but he was too forward about saying what it was. Get power but don’t admit to it. Do it by stealth. There’s a whole trend of Rhodes scholars who will be politicians around the world.”
Put aback by Gibson’s words, the interviewer retreaded into a kind of retardedness (popping up more and more these days); a sort of dream-like nothingness that hangs on people’s heads, like a hat- and then, aware of the tape recorder, the reporter retreats into the mantra of the numb when confronted with an outburst of sudden truth:
“This certainly sounds like a paranoid sense of world history. You must be quite an assassination buff.”
Gibson: “Oh, f***. A lot of these guys pulled a boner. There’s something to do with the Federal Reserve that Lincoln did, Kennedy did and Reagan tried. I can’t remember what it was, my dad told me about it. Everyone who did this particular thing that would have fixed the economy got undone. Anyway, I’ll end up dead if I keep talking s***.”
Not dead, thank God. Although the New World Order is pulling all the stops to make sure his career will be.