[FirstClassSkeptic]

Do celebrities really have millions and millions of fans? Do they really sell tens of millions of recordings?

I got to thinking about this during Michael Jackson's trial, death and other associated things. What got me thinking was the fact that in my life, I have never met a Jackson fan. I never saw anyone with a Jackson record. I never heard someone play a Jackson tape while riding in their car. I never known someone to go to a Michael Jackson concert.

OK, OK, I admit, most of the people I hand around are White. But it only blacks are fans of Jackson, that would only be 11% of the population of the USA. But even of the blacks I've known, none talked of Jackson. The only person I remember having anything about Jackson was a jewish woman at a place I worked at, who was married to a black man, and who had a Michael Jackson picture hanging up at her word station. And I'm not even certain of that, because it's been many years ago.

What of the hundred thousand or so that went to his concerts? Well, when you think that most of his concerts were in large cities, and that people will travel a hundred miles easy to see someone they like, live a hundred thousand isn't really much, percentage wise.

How did Michael Jackson live such a lavish lifestyle if he wasn't making all those bucks? Easy. The federal government was subsidizing him. How did they hide the money on the budget? Again, easy; Jackson was a black budget operation of the Dept of Defense, or the Energy Commission. Jackson and other celebrities are psy ops.

The Beatles, they say, were the most underpaid superstars in history. That may be because their jewish producer skimmed off a lot. But maybe the Beatles were more 'genuine'. Maybe after the Pentagon realized what a good potential for psyops that rock music is, they entered in. And County music also.

So these celebrities, and superstars, are part of the matrix of control, of the scientific dictatorship.

[rerevisionist]

I hadn't thought of Michael Jackson in that light, but it makes sense. (I'm not sure he was that popular with blacks - I heard that black music stations didn't play his stuff, since they didn't think he was properly black). I agree about the Beatles (NB there's an interesting online site about questions over Lennon's murder).

But on the general subject, you (or at least I) get to the stage that I think almost everything in the 'news' is pushing someone's agenda.

* 'Worlds in Collision' in the 1950s, which left e.g. Martin Gardner aghast. It didn't occur to me that it was just a promotional push until I saw a recent internet comment
* The Phil Silvers show, about the time of Korea, was supposed to have influenced a lot of US men into enlisting, presenting the US Army as a happy playground run by bumbling administrators, rather than a money-making scheme for Jewish arms makers who didn't care if Asian 'insects' were mass-murdered
* There are websites claiming, with evidence, that the idea of black sports superiority is just a myth, promoted by the usual suspects. It would help to explain the boring perfomances of black boxers, football and baseball players etc etc
* There are countless Jewish TV series deliberately presenting blacks and immigrants in a flattering and unreal light
* I'd guess black rap and other singers are promoted way beyond any possible influence, given their minority appeal to people of limited spending power

This is quite apart from more or less obvious Jewish propaganda - anti-white crime shows, 2nd World War material, TV stuff on Arabs etc

[rerevisionist]

Diana Spencer - prompted by you, FCS, it suddenly struck me that maybe all the flowers that appeared after her death - no doubt murder - could easily have been plants. (Pun not really intended).

In Lincoln Cathedral in Sept 1997 I jotted down these messages, attached to bouquets, mostly, I think, still in cellophane. The Cathedral must have given permission - there was a huge number; maybe I should have counted them - at any rate quite a display. I can't help wondering whether local flower shops had multiple orders from government departments, with cards with messages supplied, including convincing mistakes, all basically on the same theme ---

-- I Love You DIANA Love Natalie aged 7 years
-- BORN A LADY/ DIED A LEGEND/ YOU WERE THE JEWEL IN THE CROWN/ REST IN PEACE DANA
-- For Dianna/ You were a shining light, an example to follow. You were Truly the Queen of the Nation's hearts
-- To Diana & Dodi/ We are so sorry we have lost you. May you both rest in peace and be happy together in heaven
-- My dear Diana,/ Oh! I wish I had met you. Though I feel I knew you very well, you caring and sweetness is something we shall treasure. The nation and the world mourn you - there will never be another like you, though William will make a fine king, your legacy to us./ Thank you
-- For Dodi/ You gave joy and happiness to the princess. Be Together in Paradise.
-- Diana our love to a beautiful princess a tragic loss. Why oh why? No longer in our sight, but forever in our hearts and thoughts. For gods safekeeping.. god bless Debbie
-- Diana and Dodi/ May you rest in peace/ The Queen of everybody's hearts much loved and sadly missed/ Love alway's/ Debbie
-- Diana and Dodi/ Together, at play in Gods garden./The Johnson Family

AND MORE - not a single one said anything amusing like 'You were an adultress' or 'you shagged that Muslim' or 'you were horrid to Charles' or 'sadly, you believed in astrology, you retard' or 'I gave my souvenir book away'

I wonder how popular the 'Royal family' are in Britain. From my old website---

A little-known fact is the non-nativeness of the Royals; they weren't even British. Thus the various Anglo-Saxon monarchies (and occasional Danes) were headed by invaders. The Norman conquest was from France (the Normans being something like Vikings). The Plantagenets derived largely from Anjou. The Tudors were Welsh, James was Scottish, (but originating in France) and Germans predominated later—in the Houses of Brunswick and Hanover, for example, with Albert a prominent example, responsible for introducing Christmas Trees and German bands. Geoffrey Bocca has interestingly pointed out that the present Queen is the first British sovereign to have British blood in her veins; and that through her Scottish mother. The dynastic name 'Windsor' was chosen only in 1917 at the height of the First World War by the Hanover-Saxe-Coburg-Gothas, .. to deflect anti-German feeling. When the Kaiser heard that his cousins had changed the family name, he commanded a performance of 'The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha'. Prince Philip .. abandoned his traditional name of Schleswig-Holstein-Sönderberg-Glücksberg for similar reasons of pubic relations expediency in 1947, and assumed the name Mountbatten, which is just an anglicisation of Battenberg.. ever since the Revolution Settlement of 1689, the British Monarchy has been the instrument of the plutocratic establishment of Britain .. it has always been more convenient to have mediocre and tamed foreign princelings, 'Hanoverian Mercenaries', on the British throne.
. . . . Republicanism in Britain reached some sort of high point in about 1870, with Bagehot's The English Constitution (1867), including remarks on the Prince of Wales as 'an unemployed youth', W. M. Thackeray's The Four Georges (1869), and Charles Bradlaugh's booklet An Impeachment of the House of Brunswick (various dates given: 1871, or 1874). Dilke battled Gladstone in Parliament. Frederic Harrison (later a professor of jurisprudence and international law) wrote an article in Fortnightly Review (all reference to which is omitted from the Oxford Companion to English Literature).
. . . . There's an idea that one of the most important British traditions is radicalism, but it is suppressed: '.. a set of values based on the ideas of freedom, equality and democracy.. [but] the very fact that an alternative tradition has been in existence for many centuries is simply not known to many people' (Benn, intro. to Writings on the Wall (1984).

. . . . . . . . . . . . **********
In Britain, to avoid the dangers of thoughtful comparisons in this area, little is published about the Japanese monarchy and its myths. (The Japanese had a coronation, broadcast for the first time on television, at about the same time as the much-trumpeted coronation of Elizabeth in Britain in the 1950s, no doubt accompanied by similar absurdities and nationalistic mythologies. I can't remember a single commentator pointing this out.) Or how the Italians got rid of their monarchy (they voted them out after the Second World War), or how the Swedes and others tamed theirs. There's little on the Thai monarchy, South African black monarchies, or the various more or less manufactured Arab monarchies.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Princess Di was made into an icon of beauty and style, by the popular media in the USA. It came as a shock when an opinion poll showed that men preferred Fertig over Di, about two to one.

[rerevisionist]

I've just been told
"Diana's death was timed to hit peak US TV news, to be hidden from the British till the morning. Most British people get up late on Sunday, and some read newspapers, which were published earlier than usual as it was a dead news night. I was listening to TalkSport that night and a DJ called Mike Dickin announced her death quite early. It took the BBC and ITV hours to get round to it. It's a bit like the BBC losing their complete recording of the coverage of 9/11."

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Another thing that always puzzled me some, was how these recording artists could sell so many recordings when there were so few places to buy them. Record stores are more rare then book stores, in the USA. Generally, you'll only find a record store in a largish city, or maybe a mall.

It was also confusing to me as to why people would buy recordings when the 'hit' songs were being played on all the radio stations across the USA, several times a day. And they are played to the point of boredom, and even irritation. I remember when "You light up my life." was a big hit, and some woman told me, "I liked that song, the first thousand times I heard it." (The jew who wrote that song, or claimed to, committed suicide a few months ago. Maybe something connected with child sexual rape, that he was being charged with. This is the type who writes your hit songs.)

It's also interesting as to how radio stations find out which is the hit songs. They go by Billboard Magazine. If that magazine tells them it is a hit, then it is a hit, and they keep playing those 'Top Forty' hits that Billboard Magazine tells them are the top hits. I have always asked myself the question, "Does the song become a hit because a lot of people are buying the recording, or do people buy the recording because they've been told it's a hit?" Now, I think it possible that Bill board Magazine is telling the radio stations that ever so many millions of people are buying a certain record when there may be very few actually buying it.

It's also interesting that a lot of people will express that they "don't like the music they are playing these days." or "I wish that radio station will play some good music." Yet, people will listen to the radio, especially while working or riding in the car. (Radio stations call morning and afternoon rush hours "drive time", and those commuting times are the times of the day that they have the biggest audience.) The radio, and the music, are like a background to what people are doing.

This listening to the radio, while engaged in another activity, might actually increase the suggestiveness of the songs. I am not an expert on psychology, but there may be elements of hypnosis or subliminal suggestion in this. In the USA, forty years ago, divorce was very rare. Now divorce is very common. Can that be a surprise when the theme of many county songs is divorce, or cheating? Also, during the same period, sexual promiscuity among young people has increased. Is that a surprise when the rock music, which high school and college students tend to listen to, is usually centered around the theme of sex?

Back around 1961, Ray Charles had a hit song, "Hit the road, Jack", which was about a woman that kicked her man out of the house. I was listening a few years ago to a black preacher who was being interviewed on the radio. He related when he was a boy, about 1959, that his mother threw his dad out of the house. The reason this came about was that she was being offered welfare money ("dole", in England ) and the social workers told her that she wouldn't be eligible for the money while she had a man living with her. So she threw the man out so that she could get the government money. From what this black preacher was saying, I take this to be quite common in black families.

Now, was there a deliberate effort to break up black families, causing black boys to grow up without a father, and thereby contributing to their bad behavior? Not that the behavior of black boys is so great to begin with, but these actions worsened the problem. What that deliberate? And then to add to the conspiracy: Did the Powers that Be want this hit song, Hit the road, Jack to be played over and over again, by a black entertainer, in order to encourage the black women to cast out the black men? And did they tell the radio stations that this was a hit song in order to get them to play it over an over again?

They couldn't just go to the radio stations and say, "Hey look: We have this plan to destroy the USA, and we want to create an underclass of violent black males. And we want your help. We want you to play this song, suggesting that black women throw their black men out of their house." That action would give away the plan, and arouse people to, perhaps, resist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Tiz6INF7I

[rerevisionist]

was there a deliberate effort to break up black families

When mooninquirer was here, he said Lyndon Johnson deliberately set out to impoverish and demoralise blacks, with the Civil Rights Act 1964. If you search this forum, you'll find Vietnam-JFK-LBJ-Civil-Rights-Act-drugs-1945-1965.html which was by Mooninquirer (re-posted by me, as Mooninquirer went round the site deleting some of his posts). He specifically states Lyndon Johnson was a Jew, and the Civil Rights Act was deliberately intended to cause damage. Unfortunately I don't find his wording very clear. Maybe you could reinterpret mooninquirer?

I agree about subliminal promotion of attitudes - or 'subliminal' perhaps isn't the right word. After all, hymns were sung in churches, patriotic songs in armies; England had, or used to have, school songs. I don't know why company songs didn't catch on, as in Japan - maybe companies in Japan really are owned, and felt to be owned, by Japanese.

'Hit the Road, Jack' - I remember when capital punishment was being 'debated' in Britain - I think in effect Jews had decided to push abolition, in my view to make the country more dangerous - there was a song by Ewan MacColl about (I think) Derek Bentley, if I remember correctly presented as a backward accomplice who pulled a trigger. Bentley was hanged and this was seized on - this was at the same time immigration was being promoted, and e.g. some Somali murdered some harmless person. But MacColl wasn't very mainstream - he was a bit like Pete Seeger in the USA. I don't remember any pop songs about abortion - come to think of it, there's a Madonna one about "keeping the baby" - and only one about 'the pill', a country/western US song. But films are a different matter - I think visuals work much better as you don't have the intellectual complexity of interpreting words, and also the way films are made has been kept very secret and understated - I've heard it stated that many women simply aren't aware that soaps are written, edited, etc - they think they're real. I watched Expresso Bongo, made in about 1960 in Britain to promote Cliff Richard (who in fact is half-Indian - it's surprising how many actors are mixed race) and it presented London as fairly full of prostitutes, blacks, teenagers, and what have you. (NB thanks, Youtube, for providing the means to get these films).

[FirstClassSkeptic]

I agree about subliminal promotion of attitudes - or 'subliminal' perhaps isn't the right word.

Yes, it's more overt than subliminal. I know that people have gone to great lengths to play songs backwards, to hear the 'hidden' messages there. But just listening to the song forward is good enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8UeoiRh_8M

[NUKELIES]

A lot of it is definitely hype and probably psy-ops. I passed Mike Myers on the street a couple of times in Soho just now. He did the Austin Powers movies. I got to thinking - what's his life like? Does he live a life of luxury? You're only as good as your last flick they say, and his Guru movie was not a big hit. Austin Powers was funny and must have made him a bit of money.

There's no doubt at all that most of show biz is made to further the Agenda. To what extent actual profit is disregarded is subject to debate, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was outright subsidization as FCS suggests.

[NUKELIES]

Another note on celebrities and money. Last night I saw a concert at Radio City Music Hall. Matthew Barney, Bjork, Tilda Swinton, and Michael Stipe were a few rows down in the audience. I found it a bit curious that they - being "rich" celebrities - were not in the more expensive seats in the orchestra pit.

I'm really interested in the benefits versus the liabilities of 20th-century-style fame, and I suspect the liabilities are beginning to outweigh the benefits in the age of the internet, because of the probable decreasing profitability of fame - music can easily be downloaded for free. Movies can be downloaded for free.

Here's something to ponder which relates to the original post by FCS - the music industry died several years ago due to file sharing, and Hollywood is crumbling also due to file sharing. I've been wondering about this for a while: Who is financing new music acts? Are the record sales profitable at all? Do they make enough money from concerts to support the business?

Or is current pop music pure propaganda? We all know the music they are feeding the public now is far from melodic. I think that FCS is right on about the nature of modern Show Biz - it's a psy-op. Check out Rihanna's "We Found Love" video which has 118,000,000 views and counting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg00YEETFzg&ob=av2e

Rihanna's video depicts two mulatto junkies living a foul romantic nightmare. It's an intoxicating video. The song starts out with the lyric "Yellow diamonds in the light," - which sounds like a reference to crack rocks. It's a really addicting song (I'll admit). The video shows Rihanna vomiting up textile.

They're trying to debase the masses of youth all over the planet. It's getting to the point that I can't even see clearly any more - the subversion is so thick in New York City that I'm beginning to lose my bearing and can no longer tell black from white. I can avoid the media to an extent in my apartment, but I go outside and have to navigate my way through scores of politically upside-down leftists who are beginning to convince me that I am wrong.

[rerevisionist]

'NUKELIES' - you've been around China, India, Glastonbury, Niagara, New York, Manchester, Spain, and Japan since this forum started. One day you must tell us what it is you do! (Unless it's humdrum - in which case, keep it tantalising!)

[FirstClassSkeptic]

'NUKELIES' - you've been around China, India, Glastonbury, Niagara, New York, Manchester, Spain, and Japan since this forum started. One day you must tell us what it is you do! (Unless it's humdrum - in which case, keep it tantalising!)

I hope that his job is restocking condom dispensers.