The King's Speech

[Circe]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jiBRULHOaW8/TUAivbvtbQI/AAAAAAAAE7k/_4zztEhFays/s1600/The-Kings-Speech2.jpg
Did you know the Oscar winning "The King's Speech" film was made by the UK government?
The King's Speech is a film is about a minor footnote in modern history. It was made by the UK Film Council (i.e. the government) and the Weinstein Company. It is indicative of how historical reality is trivialized and suppressed. The Illuminati isn't going to let us learn the truth. We are their mental and spiritual prisoners. They want to reduce humanity to an animal-state, better to serve them.

The purpose of cinema, and art in general, is to uplift us. We are not animals. We are something unique. And we are one family.

Th Illumunati 's power is evinced by the fact that "The King's Speech" won the 2011 Oscar for Best Picture, Director and Actor.

http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/

Weinstein Company
Weinstein Company who were also involved in the making of the film.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/Weinsteinlogowhite.png
Logo above similar to Volkswagen logo don't you think?
http://www.pycomall.com/images/P/wv.jpg
666 The Number of the Beast
In Hebrew 666 would look like VVV because 6=V .
If we calculate the number of the beast we find many interesting connections to the corporate world. Consider that if you transliterate the numbers 666 into English you get FOX. This is how this works: F is the 6th letter in the alphabet, O is the 15th, and X is the 24th, the final computation is 6, 1+5=6, and 2+4=6. The V W logo incorporates the V V V in its logo with 2 V’s interlaced making a third, equaling 666.
Source: http://www.freemantv.com/
The Weinstein Company (TWC) is an independent American film studio founded by Harvey CBE (Hon) and Bob Weinstein in 2005 after the brothers left the then-Disney-owned Miramax Films, which they had co-founded in 1979. They retained ownership of the Dimension Films label of Miramax.

Make of it what you will.

[write4change]

A perfect example of them not knowing what they are doing. Did you see it? The Acting was tour de force.

This film and the Queen which also won the Oscar tells us exactly why they are unfit to rule. The images of stupidity and incompetence and total arrogance are there for all to see. And the cast and company are in on it. That is why it is so good. But ironically the Producers are so dumb they don't get that they are really the butts of the film and shows all over. Let me show you.

The Queen there is a montage of Diana's work-- touching AIDs patients, kissing African babies, holding the amputated children and advocating against cluster bombs, etc. then there is her sad face saying I will never be Queen and there are three people in my bed.

Next we see the Queen denying she is ever part of the family any more. They are leaving to escape the riff raft and go to the country and hunt bucks. Now we have scene after scene with the Prime Minister begging her to come back and share grief with the people and she is appalled, you can see her looking down her nose.

Then the buck is killed. She rushes right over to see him. She asks to see him and asks if he suffered in his death. Her eyes fill with tears--for a deer and though she capitulates on the end of the film --- she never shed one tear for Diana. Trust me most people who saw that film got that. The funeral scenes were actual footage. Those people got up and clapped for 20 minutes for Diana and it was heard all over London as well as world TV. The people of the world got it.

The King's voice shows the father king who was much beloved good looking macho kind talking about "acting skills" as king. He talks about his contempt for having to appear before the rift raft. He emotionally abuses his own son. It his his abuse that makes the son studder and that is quite clear. It is never considered an issue of emasculating the younger son because he will never be king and he doesn't want to be king because he hates the life and just wants peace and quiet and privacy. Edward who abdicates is shown as being totally decadent and relying on the weakness of his brother not to force his abdication. But his immorality is so offensive with the old coot lords it is a no go. And he immediately begins colluding with the Nazis to be a puppet government.

The King who cannot speak is so hung up on the privileges of maintaining his office that despite his needs--he won't speak to Rush by name. And Rush to his credit knows who he is and holds the kings feet to the fire always by making him acknowledge him as an equal human being regardless of their class. Rush and Firth as ensemble actors in this piece convey so much much more than words. And people get that too.

What these films show is not the results of the blue blood of royalty meaning ditty but that these people won the sperm lottery.

End of discussion.

[Circe]

What these films show is not the results of the blue blood of royalty meaning ditty but that these people won the sperm lottery.

End of discussion.

LOL what a great quote!! LOL

[ulli]

What these films show is not the results of the blue blood of royalty meaning ditty but that these people won the sperm lottery.

End of discussion.

You mean


THE END
?
thats when the discussion begins.
Loved the term sperm lottery. Funny.
But there is a lottery that they missed out on.
The Internet forum lottery.
Their time is fixed by protocol.
Yuckyuck, can you imagine a life less free?
I am free. I have a choice of lying on the beautiful Caribbean beach a few hundred feet from here, or go shopping, or visit friends, or have lunch in pretty restaurants,

but NO!

I CHOOSE to be here and read your (and everyone else's) great posts and yap back at ya'll
(that's a Sarah Palin YA"LL, not a cultural one, as I'm a Rastafarian in real life)

[3optic]

What these films show is not the results of the blue blood of royalty meaning ditty but that these people won the sperm lottery.

End of discussion.

LOL what a great quote!! LOL

These films are clever in that they are in alignment with public perception. One couldn't simply write a puff piece about these characters. Nobody would swallow. So instead they are portrayed as deeply flawed and elitist.. but ultimately sympathetic and human.

Interesting piece by Christopher Hitchens on the conceited, spoiled, Hitler-sympathizing Edward VIII.:

http://www.slate.com/id/2282194

[Lord Sidious]

Hitchens isn't very biased, is he?

[3optic]

Hitchens isn't very biased, is he?

I personally know little about him. The fact that Edward the VIII was a Nazi sympathizer was known to me prior to reading this article. Is there something the piece you found biased or inaccurate?

[Lord Sidious]

Hitchens isn't very biased, is he?

I personally know little about him. The fact that Edward the VIII was a Nazi sympathizer was known to me prior to reading this article. Is there something the piece you found biased or inaccurate?

For one thing, would you call someone a conservative sympathiser? Labor sympathiser?
And look in the article for buzzwords preceding peoples names or titles and such.
Hitchens is a leftist, so you have to expect him to be against anyone he perceives to be on the right.

[Sarlic]

The uk film Council was funded by the goverment but not any more http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-10761225

I have worked with a few people from the Film Council whos only role that i saw was to help film companys secure permission
to film mostly in central London which can be hard due to the all the red tape that you need to go though,Closeing roads, Noise,
Filming though the night etc.

[write4change]

Lord Sidious,

I find none of those labels to be really accurate in the assessment of political dynamics.

[3optic]

Hitchens isn't very biased, is he?

I personally know little about him. The fact that Edward the VIII was a Nazi sympathizer was known to me prior to reading this article. Is there something the piece you found biased or inaccurate?

For one thing, would you call someone a conservative sympathiser? Labor sympathiser?
And look in the article for buzzwords preceding peoples names or titles and such.
Hitchens is a leftist, so you have to expect him to be against anyone he perceives to be on the right.

Are you saying he perceives Hitler as being to the right of himself politically and thus he is against him?

Hehe just teasing. Yes I have heard he's a blowhard but found the article informative.

[Lord Sidious]

Lord Sidious,

I find none of those labels to be really accurate in the assessment of political dynamics.

I would agree, they are there to fool people.
In this context, it is what THEY think, the people involved, that I use those labels.





Hitchens isn't very biased, is he?

I personally know little about him. The fact that Edward the VIII was a Nazi sympathizer was known to me prior to reading this article. Is there something the piece you found biased or inaccurate?

For one thing, would you call someone a conservative sympathiser? Labor sympathiser?
And look in the article for buzzwords preceding peoples names or titles and such.
Hitchens is a leftist, so you have to expect him to be against anyone he perceives to be on the right.

Are you saying he perceives Hitler as being to the right of himself politically and thus he is against him?

Hehe just teasing. Yes I have heard he's a blowhard but found the article informative.

Yeah, he is a blowhard.
Put it like this, if he and us were on a sailing ship, we would never be stuck at sea without wind.