Little More Than A Glorified Propaganda B-Movie

Usually success is a combination of talent, hard work and luck. Then again, a movie like this gets the Best Picture Oscar and one can only wonder: did the members of the Academy vote FOR this movie or against James Cameron? Sure, his arrogance did not make things easy; then again, one should not underestimate envy and spite as human motivation.

Inaccuracies and obvious mistakes run rampant; the Saving Private Ryan -wannabe camera shakes you into nausea; the plot line is abandoned in the sand again and again and (what is worse) there is absolutely nothing waiting at the end. No catharsis, no message, no moral, no closure. Nothing.

Platoon defined the Vietnam war not only with its realism and its ability to paint all the shades of moral ambiguity but also because because it had the guts to send a clear political message. In dire contrast, The Hurt Locker offers only a deafening silence on all these aspects.

The movie presents this war, with some of the sacrifices and atrocities it entails, as inevitable and expected. Keep enlisting, keep fighting and keep dying for the corporations and the banks - but don't you dare speak your opinion on the matter. Its message is a cowardly "don't ask - and we are not going to tell you why either".

Because self-censorship is the worse kind of censorship, this is Hollywood at its worse.

A spineless pseudo-documentary masquerading as an art movie. A cowardly film trying to capitalize on the stories of brave men thrown into unwinnable war.

A film made by errand boys, sent by grocery clerks, to make sure the bill of blood is being paid in full. Again and again.

Pass. With extreme prejudice.

Pathetic Masonic Propaganda

Dan Brown is a writer more famous for stirring up controversy rather than his meticulous research. Although the media noise surrounding his last two books treats them as historic novels, they are much more fiction than fact. Understandably; were they treated as works of wild fiction there would had been nothing to argue about. And if there ever was a writing career built on controversy...

I will refrain from letting any spoilers slip through and, instead, I shall make clear why this is one of the very worse books I have ever read - and that is not solely because I refused to be fed unadulterated Masonic propaganda. The book is haphazardly researched, badly written and the plot runs in circles. Come to think of it, just like a Masonic ourovoros!

Allow me to give a couple cases in point.

The over and over glorified "field" of Noetics is nothing but a New Age philosophy masquerading as "science" only to peddle warmed up ancient ideas as scientific. I never heard of Noetics before reading this book and I am not surprised. If the best arguments supporting the notions that human (and why, I wonder, is it only human?) ...thoughts have a direct effect on reality and that there is a soul and it can be...weighted are the ones presented in this book, well snake-oils and good-luck charms should start to look pretty "scientific" by now.

In his attempt to substantiate a scientific basis of the idea of Global Consciousness (in yet another excuse for the Masonic efforts towards a Global Government), Brown presents some very shaky "facts". On p.70, he claims that following 9/11 "37 Random Events Generators"(sic) [and I am guessing that, since they are capitalized, they must be some Serious Scientific Equipment, right?] "suddenly became significantly less random". Wow, hold the presses! Shouldn't we wake the President?

Even if someone were to ignore the question of ...what exactly are these 37 generators measuring, can someone give us a precise time frame of these "events" following 9/11, to establish even a mere time-line of causality? For how long were these generators been monitored to be sure that a similar "event" did not occur, say when Vettel took the checkered flag at Abu Dabi's F1 race? And if it took a catastrophic event of the magnitude of 9/11 to get a "significantly less random" measurement, what are chances of this pseudoscience getting anything measured ever again?

As to ...weighting the soul - is he serious? What are his scientific references, the ...movie 21 Grams? Was he not aware that the actual scientific explanation for the (dubious) weight difference is the release of the residual air from the collapsing lugs? But that was not fitting with the rest of the "theory" so it had to be cut to size. Here is an expression to work out the etymology of, Dan: Procrustean methods!

By the way, I doubt that anyone hiding out in a Greek island would remain inconspicuous for long with the ridiculously made-up name of..."Andros Dareios". The correct spelling is Darius and it is a ancient Persian, not a Greek name. What's more, the word "andros" is the name of a Greek...island, it means "lair" and it is not a proper name - yet another example of how epidermal and self-serving his "research" really is. Just think how many heads would turn to the name..."Piratecove Adolph".

Nevertheless, the most serious issue with this book is its incessant Masonic propaganda. Their rituals are glorified, their beliefs are polished and presented again and again whereas the political implications are (conveniently) glossed over.

Brown expresses his condescending outrage to the masses that would fail to comprehend that "Senators, Chief Justices and CIA directors are all Masonic brothers". Really Dan? Do you fail to grasp the implications of a judge having to pass judgment on a Masonic brother he has sworn to protect? Is it too complicated for you to comprehend how a Mason CIA director or a Secretary of State may promote the interests of his (International) Brotherhood above those of his country?

And exactly how ...enlightened can a secret society be when it refuses to accept women and shunts minorities? I am also wondering why there was not even a pip about Nazis' obsession with the occult Ancient Mysteries and the Illuminati (the German offshoot of Freemasonry) or and the role of the infamous Masonic Temple P2 of Rome in connecting the Fascist regime of Mussolini with the Sicilian mafia bosses. Dan's silence is deafening on these matters.

Any free-thinking person would be very suspicious of groups operating under blood-oaths of secrecy, enforcing strict obedience to their (selected and not-elected) hierarchy and wielding the ability to undermine every pillar of a democratic society, from the judiciary to the executive branch, when their members are called upon to "support a brother".

I for one do not buy the "if I were an Mason I could not be writing about all this because of the secrecy oaths" argument. As if repaying a debt, Dan Brown goes to great lengths to function as a loud PR department to the Masons. His descriptions of the Masonic rituals are peculiarly selective - and they are strictly limited to what is already public knowledge. With some selective omissions of course.

Why is there no description of Baphomet, the hoofed and horned deity ever Mason upon reaching the 33th degree has to declare allegiance to? Is this not the final "Truth" that is revealed at the 33rd degree?

Judging by his ramblings in the last pages of this book, I am guessing his next book to be on the (equally bogus) Bible Code. For someone who has been attacking the Bible so vehemently he sure seems obsessed with it. Well, I am curious to see how he is going to twist the serpents' suggestion of "Ye are Gods" into something "enlightening" Masonic.

If the Masons wanted to improve their image, maybe they should had picked a better writer.

No matter how much this guy is pushed and pulled, sure, he may be selling books - but he is convincing no one.

A Bloated Mess

When a long book is also good, it is a delight. In contrast, a long book that slowly turns from indifferent to bad is a chore. Sadly, Fall of Giants is one of those books.

Ken Follett, instead of coming up with three new ideas decided to stretch the plot of a single book into three, thousand-page, parts of a Trilogy. And it is painfully apparent. The story could had easily fit into a third of the pages and it would had been tighter and much easier to follow. A thousand pages novel which received little work and even less craft is too much.

And yet, for all its length, the book never gives but a very epidermal and caricaturish study of its characters. You get to follow the honorable yet rigid aristocrat and his temperamental Russian-princess of a wife; the rich suffragette and the poor, single-mother activist; the level headed German gentleman and his homosexual Austrian cousin; the young American presidential adviser and the spoiled daughter of the nouveau-riche thug; and two Russian brothers that could not be more opposite in character. However, apart from a name and a brief character-tag you get nothing. They all feel like stick figures drawn at the corner of the pages containing the story.

You keep turning pages because you are curious, but, after a while, you realize that you do not actually care for any of them.

Around these characters the world collapses into World-War I and everyone's life is swept into the cataclysmic currents that engulf the world. Strangely, the political decisions and machinations described are oversimplified and described as much more naive and open than realistically possible. And everything has a strong left-wing bias.

On top of being a bloated book, for some strange reason, Follett makes numerous clumsy attempts to exonerate the House of Rothschilds from any wrongdoing. Their British branch is described as "peace loving" whereas the role of their German branch is conveniently omitted.

In fact, it was the Rothschilds who funded Lenin, Trotsky and their Bolshevik party in taking control of the Russian revolution. This well calculated move (which opened up what was later to be known as the Red Orchestra) turned an allied nation into the Communistic bogeyman that fueled the Cold War armament race of the past 50 years - and seeded the global debt crisis of our generation.

For over 1,200 years, in war or piece, republics or totalitarian regimes, this Khazarian House of international financing has been puppet-mastering history from the shadows - and the House always seem to win.

If this were a mere book of fiction it would be just an annoyance. However, Follett claims numerous historians as his advisers and, thus, opens himself to valid criticism. For all his historic claims, the story he tells is more of an Orwellian re-write than actual history.

Pass. With extreme prejudice.

---