Hicks' follow-up show to Relentless, recorded at the Dominion Theatre in London.
We live in a permanent state of Halloween - no, really. This reality is bizarre and strange. People are strange. They do weird and scary things and are proud of them.
Once in a while we are blessed with a visionary able to catch these things with an objective eye and just pause for a second, realise it - and then yell to all concerned.
Bill Hick was one of those visionaries - and he could see and pause and then describe what he noticed in a foul, poignant and excellent way.
If you are offended by what you hear in this recording, then you missed the point completely.
Is there a point to any of this? Yes, I think there is.
The world is like a ride at an amusement park. It goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it's very brightly coloured and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while.
Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question: Is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, "Hey - don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because, this is just a ride...”
But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok.
Jesus - murdered; Martin Luther King - murdered; Malcolm X - murdered; Gandhi - murdered; John Lennon - murdered;
Reagan... wounded.
But it doesn't matter because: It's just a ride. And we can change it anytime we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money. A choice, right now, between fear and love.
The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride.
Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.
Hollywood star Dan Aykroyd, who is a believer in the existence and government cover-up of alien life-forms, hosts this look into the phenomenon of UFO sightings.
Akroyd shares his personal experiences in this field and also discusses recent findings with author and UFOlogist David Sereda. Dan Aykroyd Unplugged On UFO's features UFO footage as well as testimonial material from Astronaut Gordon Cooper and others, including former president Ronald Reagan.
Note: Dan has in his possesion the photo and video material of the famous O'Hare Airport sighting. That feature will be presented is his new documentary.
Hmmm..., something seems to be taking place on the UFO scene at the moment – something quite subtle and intangible. Both in terms of the actual increase in the number of sightings and the widespread release of tons of new research material.
The general increase in the number of sightings is probably due to both the number of people actually looking up in the sky – and the increased number of alien visitations.
What could that mean in terms relevant to us – the everyday people? This is basically the theme of today’s documentary.
To be honest, I never gave Dan much credit. I kinda thought that he was a bit of a showman, maybe with a dash of geekiness. Sorry Dan, if you are reading this – but you never really exposed this side of yourself before…
And the person that basically comes out in front of our very eyes is an extremely intelligent philosopher with extensive knowledge in the field of UFO’s, with a genuine thirst for knowledge.
That is rather surprising and most pleasing, actually.
I must congratulate Dan on this interview – it must have taken quite a lot of strength to do it. I mean, most people attempting to discuss UFO's and aliens are either ridiculed or pushed out to the fringe of science, with little chance of reaching mass audiences.
What surprised me the most about Dan in this particular interview was his eloquence and the impressive display of knowledge – information which he seems to have gathered over an extensive period of time. It is especially evident in his discussion of interdimensionality.
Another interesting part of the interview is when Dan speculates about the benevolence of the alien visitors - something that most researchers feel very uncomfortable about and tend to just settle on “they’re friendly – why not” shtick.
The possibility of us being food or a cruel joke is somehow inconceivable to most people interested in the topic.
Well, Dan Aykroyd seriously explores various possibilities. He gives some reasons to think about aliens as friendly beings – but also delves into the implications of malevolent alien behaviour; things like abductions, the trauma caused as a result, etc…
That in itself is rather revolutionary. Sure, there were plenty of others before him to seriously consider this question but Dan Aykroyd is a celebrity. A famous celebrity talking about aliens trying to pretend they’re nice so they can trick you. Not bad.
Anyways, enough about my impressions – do make an effort to form your own and just watch this fascinating interview. It is peppered with lots of great UFO footage – a lot of it is very recent.
I am very interested in the topic of UFOs and have already posted about other great movies discussing them. Please see Open Your Eyes - UFO Video and Testimony for more information.
Manufacturing Consent 2 hr 47 min 37 sec - Mar 27, 2007 Average rating: (208 ratings)
The classic Canadian documentary Manufacturing Consent based on the Noam Chomsky/Edward Herman book by the same name. Explores the propaganda model of the media.
Noam Chomsky... Well, to be honest, this is not a person that I claim to know much about. Nevertheless, his work came up during the course of my research.
It would seem that everybody has an opinion about Noam - much as is the case with David Ickie. In other words, some bits of his will be good - some not so kosher. However, ultimately he has made a number of really good observations and these resonated with many people.
The reason I like this movie is because it is a classic with a lot of excellent points about media bias and the way our minds are shaped by those in power. By now, you have probably noticed that these sorts of issues are the prevailing theme in my blog.
The reason to like it slightly less is the dryness. There are plenty of excellent moments - but at times, they do get repetitive. Nevertheless, the content is spot on and really enlightening as to the true nature of modern propaganda.
Do yourself a favour and make an honest effort to see this one. It is filled with juicy excerpts from newsmedia and various public talks.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia regarding the documentary:
Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992) is a documentary film that explores the political life and ideas of Noam Chomsky, a linguist, intellectual, and political activist. Created by two Canadian independent filmmakers, Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, it expands on the ideas of Chomsky's earlier book, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, which he co-wrote with Edward S. Herman.
The film presents and illustrates Chomsky's and Herman's propaganda model, the thesis that corporate media, as profit-driven institutions, tend to serve and further the agendas of the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society. A centerpiece of the film is a long examination into the history of The New York Times's coverage of Indonesia's invasion and occupation of East Timor, which Chomsky claims exemplifies the media's unwillingness to criticize an ally.
Until the release of The Corporation (2003), made by Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott and Joel Bakan, it was the most successful documentary in Canadian history, playing theatrically in over 300 cities around the world; winning 22 awards; appearing in more than 50 international film festivals; and being broadcast in over 30 markets. It has also been translated into a dozen languages.
Chomsky's response to the film was mixed;
in a published conversation with Achbar and several activists, he stated that film simply doesn't communicate his message, leading people to believe that he is the leader of some movement that they should join.
In the same conversation, he criticizes the New York Times review of the film, which mistakes his message for being a call for voter organizing rather than media critique.
Added 12 April 2008
And so the video has made the rounds around the Internet. In fact, Manufacturing Consent has caused quite a stir. Except, the controversy never really focused on the topic at hand but the credibility of Chomsky and his associates. Again.
It's different this time though, Noam. Now it's the Truth movement turning against you and beginning to question your credibility. It's questioning your selective attention to the Facts.
When this post was first released back in October 2007, I claimed not to know very much about Noam Chomsky and what he represented. I also complained about the dryness of his approach. I still stand by that.
Of course, this could be a result of slight mental retardation on my behalf - after all, lots of people love his stuff. And lots of people seek out pages about him, including this one.
So why on Earth, would I bother to flap my wings about it? Well, obviously, not all of it is crap. In fact, there is a lot of good content in the movie. Hell, nowadays you tend to grasp at straws when it comes to Seeking the Truth.
Not very many people say anything at all about the current state of planetary affairs. You kind of have to put on a good pair of weeding gloves, validate everything, explore multiple sources - and eventually, you would hope that everything falls into place.
Except, with Chomsky - you will get a good dose of the standard set of "issues" and then he refuses to go any further with that. The 9/11 inside job is a good example - it is inconceivable in his opinion that there could be a problem with the involvement of Neocons.
What an odd thing to say...
And so now it is coming back to bite Mr. Chomsky in the proverbial behind. Of course, this is not a criticism of the movie as presented to the audience. It's about Complicity with Evil.
If you are selective about Truth and then present it in a way that serves your own agenda - you are guilty of spreading Lies.
In conclusion, allow me to quote from one particularly interesting source, followed by some more research material.
Where Noam will not roam: Chomsky manufactures consent, supports the official stories of 9/11 and JFK
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." - Noam Chomsky
"That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it." - Noam Chomsky, at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, in response to a question from the audience about US government foreknowledge of 9/11.
At that time, 9/11 investigators had already presented substantial documented evidence for: prior warnings, Air Force stand-down, anomalous insider trading connected to CIA, cover-up of the domestic anthrax attacks, inconsistencies in identities & timelines of "hijackers", US connections to al Qaeda in Balkans, a Pak ISI-al Qaeda funding connection, etc etc etc
Professor Noam Chomsky, one of the country's most famous dissidents, says that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas. Anyone who still supports the Warren Commission hoax after forty years of countering proofs is either ill-informed, dumb, gullible, afraid to speak truths to power or a disinformation agent.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where Chomsky has worked for decades, has a very good physics department (MIT is the largest university contractor to the military). Perhaps he could visit them and learn why it is physically impossible for Oswald to have been anything more than the "patsy" that he (accurately) claimed to be.
The truth is that Chomsky is very good in his analysis within certain parameters of limited debate -- but in understanding the "deep politics" of the actual, secret government, his analysis falls short.
Chomsky is good at explaining the double standards in US foreign policies - but at this point understanding / exposing the mechanics of the deceptions (9/11 isn't the only one) the reasons for it (Peak Oil / global dominance / domestic fascism) and what we can do (war crimes trials / permaculture to relocalize food production / paradigm shifts) is more important than more repetition from Chomsky.
Professor Chomsky was apparently part of a study group in the late 1960s that was investigating what really happened in Dallas (ie. he was a skeptic of the official story). It seems likely that Chomsky did indeed figure out what happened - and decided that this was too big of an issue to confront.
Maybe Chomsky gets more media attention these days than most other dissidents BECAUSE he urges people not to inquire into how the secret government operates.
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
An act or instance of such falseness.
[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrnesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krnesthai, to explain, middle voice of krnein, to decide, judge; see krei- in Indo-European roots.]
This is the full length 90 min version of Bill Moyer's 1987 presentation. It is a scathing critique of the criminal subterfuge carried out by the Executive Branch of the United States Government to carry out operations which are clearly contrary to the wishes and values of the American people.
The significance of the documentary is probably greater today in 2007 than it was when it was made. We now have a situation in which these same forces have committed the most egregious terrorist attack on US soil and have declared a fraudulent so-called "War on Terror".
The ruling regime in the US who have conducted the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, are now banging the war drum against Iran. We have the PATRIOT act which has stripped us of many of our basic civil rights justified by the terror of 9/11 which is their own doing.
It is fascinating how history likes to repeat itself. This interesting documentary explores the ins and outs of the events surrounding the scandalous sale of weapons to Iran Contras.
The whole affair involved many players – including Israel, and went on behind the backs and oversight of the US parliament or any other official body. The thing is, the parties at fault did not really care that this was the case – in fact, they freely admitted their deceptive practices. Much like the Nazis following the Second World War, they excused their deeds with the need for national security.
Funny how times (do not) change, isn’t it?
Now think about it for a second. With the events of late, what conclusions can we draw – what lessons have we learnt? Well, not many, in my humble opinion. Look, the whole drama is playing itself over again – this time a different country is targetted, yet the same players seem to be involved.
What interests me the most, is the fact that Iran seems to be the next big target of America. And yet – this is the same country that they manipulated and supported not so long ago. Is this a part of a larger master plan that is executed in meticulous detail – over prolonged periods of time so as not to arise any suspicions…?
History is an amazing tool – little wonder that politicians are trying to manipulate it.
What I also find amazing is the fact that when you look back (through the filters of this particular documentary), you will see some familiar faces popping up, with quite different agendas than what we see nowadays. In a strange sort of way, with the “hindsight of now”, we suddenly see the deceptions of “back then”.
Probably a good thing to keep in mind…
I am talking here about Sen. Kerry. Funny fellow that one – he was such a champion of the little people, such a hero in a war against the government’s intervention into our little lives. But that was then. And now? Well, have a look at some of the articles linked to below.
-p
k
r
)
nesthai, 
