Hollywood Insiders: Full Disclosure
Hollywood Insiders: Full Disclosure
Hollywood Insiders: Entire Collection
Hollywood Insiders: Series DVD [Dark Stars,Full Disclosure,Magick & The Matrix]
[AVI Video File:970Mb
Full Disclosure on Youtube
Full Disclosure (documentary decription)
Full Disclosure examines Hollywood's repeating story. It intends to recover the Illuminati's hidden tradition by finding overlap in their repeating story. It also reveals their more blatant symbolism like all-seeing eyes, pyramid, suns, and serpents. The story of the "gods" told over and over, in countless movies, using countless contexts. The first part of the documentary analyzes the 1975 movie The Man who would be king, and the many retellings it's had. Namely Stargate, The Road to El Dorado, an episode of the Simpsons called "Homer the great," Dogma, Starwars. Full Disclosure then reveals the true identity of George Lucas' "Darth Vader" as Jesus Christ. Also exposing the dark truth of his THX-1138 and how his vision for the movie directly mirrors the NWO's intentions for mankind.
Then, the documentary reviews the two Men in Black movies, and their connection to not only John Keel's book "The Mothman Prophecies", but to reality. Stories of aliens and vampires, both ancient and modern.
One of the most commonly depicted characters in Hollywood is Asmodeus. And Full Disclosure reveals just a few of his many portrayals. The Joker from Batman, Ozymandius from Watchmen, and Asmodeus from the movie Gabriel all revealed to be the same character.
Finally, the documentary cover the many stories from Egypt that Hollywood has based whole movies on. Stories about Anubis, Horus, Osiris, and Set from movies like: Blade, Hellboy, Lara Croft, Lion King, and Conan the Barbarian.
About Fallen Angels/Full Disclosure
Hollywood Insiders: Fallen Angels started as a documentary named "What makes the light: Starwars Unveiled." Starwars Unveiled focused on The man who would be king, George Lucas' StarWars, and their masonic and Illuminist messages. Starwars Unveiled also revealed Darth Vader's real identity as Jesus Christ. Knowing Starwars was more than it seemed, I began looking for copies of that story as well. I found those copies retold The Matrix and Harry Potter. What Makes the light: Hollywood Insiders, the second version of Starwars Unveiled, would build a similar case against The Matrix and Harry Potter. With Starwars as a copy of The Man who would be king, and The Matrix and Harry Potter as a copy of Starwars, I would eventually add 3 more retellings into What makes the light: Final Edition( The Simpsons, Stargate, The Road to El Dorado ). Although complete regarding content, Hollywood Insiders and Final Edition, were poorly formatted and needlessly long. After finding yet another copy of The man who would be king, Dogma, I set about making the documentary from scratch, more convincingly presented, and focused on brevity. Hollywood Insiders Fallen Angels, the fourth version of Starwars Unveiled, was the result.
After finding out about the NWO, I saw a few documentaries that cited this movie named "The Man who would king." The few and short clips I did see of the movie included Sean Connery adorned with the All-seeing eye. Initially resistant to the notion from gaining anything tangible about the NWO from a movie, I finally sat down and watched this much talked-about movie. I was totally taken back by the tone that the movie was not only made in, but the underlying story itself. From the first moments of the movie, the symbolism, messages, and ( I've come to suspect ) subliminal messages were poured on thick. Some parts gave me the chills and affected me in strange ways ( especially those scenes which included Gregorian-like chanting, and animals and children suffering ). There was something terrifying about this movie, but I could not put my finger on it. One thing I was certain of, was that Danny [ Sean Connery ] was playing a messiah's role. A normal man, less than godly, clearly mistaken for someone else who was expected to come. Mid-way through the movie, I noticed trumpets, and committed to counting their occurrences in the movie when I watched it again ( which, by then, I had also committed to do ). I was becoming suspicious that I was hearing a biblical retelling. When I heard Danny say to his new wife:"You won't perish," I was 100% sure. I had seen enough, I knew what I was looking at now, Satan and/or The Antichrist.
Interesting, indeed. But didn't compel me to any conclusions. So a guy who I've come to learn was in the Illuminati ( Rudyard Kipling ) writes a story of Satan and the antichrist. So what? The only thing that shocked me about that was how they were depicted: two schemers who got luckly, and then got their comeuppance ( as opposed to heroes ). Because, embedded within Kipling's ending, is the admittance that Satan loses; I found this baffling (the Illuminati being so, uhhhh, partial to Satan ). Interesting, indeed. Kipling's regurgitation of the Book of genesis and Revelation didn't mean too much because, outside of his telling, I had no reference points to the symbolism he chose. That wouldn't last......
Eventually I would find myself studying the fallen angels. In the hope of establishing a solid fallen angels/gods/annunaki connection, I came to read texts outside of the Bible ( and further, had to stretch myself into believing that they too were authentic ). Stumbling across the Book of Enoch, it was almost like deja vu.
- the signing of a contract before departure
- the fallen angels given something that would make humans tremble
- the teaching of weapons and war.
- the taking of a wives
- a sub-commander who's taken out to a desert and cast into a pit
- cast into a pit 20,000 miles deep ( bottomless pit, abyss ).
- A leader who gets burned
It all seemed so familiar. And that's when Kipling's real story became clear; he wasn't [ just ] telling the story of Satan and the Antichrist, this is the story of the fallen angels from the Book of Enoch. Writen in the context of 2 men in the 19th century instead of a group of 200 in ancient times. A clever cross between the serpent of eden, the fallen angels of enoch, and satan and the antichrist from Revelation and Daniel. What's more, I had also discovered who was who, and realized that Semyaza and Azazel ( although representing all 200 ) were the two specific characters from Enoch. I began to wonder whether this Illuminati insider was giving me clues that Azazel=antichrist and Semyaza=Satan. My first reference points. Interesting indeed, but not much more.
Slowly I was expanding my definition of "inspired texts." This led me straight to the Quran and the sunnah. Filled with stories of shape-shifters and the "mothman" ( Draco ) aliens, I became convinced that there was something to be learned from it. In Islam, the antchrist is described as: caucasian, muscular, blind in one eye, and friends with a hairy being. A being described to be so hairy that one could not tell his front from his back. They call this being "Al- Jassasah," which means the assassin.I found such references interesting, because in the movie The Man who would be king, "Danny" [ the antichrist ] was described as:"A big man with long-grey sideburns, a great swell he is...", and also at one point goes temporary blind.
I was at the same time absorbing research from Michael Tsarion and Jordan Maxwell. Tsarion, in Atlantis and Genetic Manipulation briefly mentions the Djedhi, described as "a race of powerful Druids with magical powers." The remark ( needless to say ) brought my mind to George Lucas' Starwars. That's when I remembered a small clip of Jordan Maxwell in the documentary "The Illuminati" talking about how high-level Freemasons actually believed in Yoda.
It's worth noting that although Mr. Maxwell said the "reference works" that backup this claim can be "found in any library," I was unable ( for the life of me ) to locate any Freemasonic references to Yoda ( outside of taking his word on it, which I'm not in to). it bothered me that I could not confirm Jordan Maxwell's research because I found his word associations sometimes absurd, conclusions that were 5 steps ahead of the facts, specious logic was frequent, and "vagueries" like "reference works" whilst not actually citing himself further discredited him. But alas, it appeared his lead was correct. |
These two connections, combined with the Islamic references to the hairy friend, I thought Starwars may be one of "those movies." Those "hidden-in-plain-sight while we clapped like seals" kinda movies. So I watched starwars episode 4-6 over and over again. But I didn't quite get it. Han, Luke, Yoda, Chewy, these were heroes. But according to my theory, they were in reality the bad guys. There seemed to be no harmony.
Then I decided to let go of George Lucas' version of who the good and bad guys are. I decided to go completely occult; black was white, white was black, up was down, down was up, good was bad, bad was good. So I said: lets assume he made a hero of the antichrist ( who was friends with the hair being ), lets assume Yoda isn't so great in reality, and lets assume that Vader was actually a good guy. Now what do I see? The truth...
I decided to push my luck further by seeing whether Danny, who I suspected was playing the role of the antichrist in The man who would be King, and Han Solo, the guy with the hairy friend, had anything in common. When viewing the movies and two characters in that light, the similarities were glaring. In some scenes, it even appeared George Lucas went out of his way to make Han and Danny alike. I knew I was on to something.
Finally, a theory and reference points. But, if followed to its logical conclusion, my theory would suggest that Vader was playing Jesus or God; somehow, someway, the leader of heaven. But Vader wasn't likely to be God because he seemed to be taking orders from another character. So Jesus seemed like the primary candidate, but little detail is given about Darth Vader in episodes 4-6, aside from vague references to his subordinates having a "lack of faith." So, knowing that episodes 1-3 were about his life and youth, I watched them.
Question asked. Question answered. There was no missing it:
Now I hadn't been to church in 15 years, but considering I had a pre-existing theory, and just enough memory of the Bible to know what to look for, I couldn't miss it. And further, couldn't imagine everyone else missing the obvious for so long. His mother even looks like every Mary I had ever seen [ been depicted ]. Symbolism, everywhere. I then wondered if there was anything to the casting of Starwars. Reviewing the history of each actors, I eventually stumble upon Pernilla August; Pernilla August was the woman Lucas choose to play Vader's mother. And as it turned out, she played in a movie called "Mary, mother of Jesus" the same year she played "Shmi" [ Darth Vader's mother ] for the first time. I looked into what role she played in the movie Mary, Mother of Jesus ( already knowing in my heart ), and of coarse she played as Mary. An immaculate conceiver twice in one year? C'mon George, give us a break. So, lets review...
- an immaculate conception
- found by a wiseman, by the will of "the force"
- called "the chosen one" almost immediately
- exceedingly powerful
- obsessed with using his power to save lives
- rejected by temple leaders
- raids a temple
- puts down a rebellion
- "if you're not with me, you're against me"
This was becoming quite a web. And I still didn't know the half of it...
- Yoda=Freemasonic hero
- Han Solo=Danny=Azazel=antchrist
Being convinced that the two characters from The Man who would be King could be found in any movie, I kept my eyes open for copies of what was clearly the Illuminati's favorite story. one by one, they arrived. Stargate, Dogma, The Road To El Dorado, and The Simpsons episode "Homer The Great." I was also open to Starwars copies, and found just that in The Matrix and Harry Potter. Certain they all in fact the same story, I set about tying them together. That effort would end up being called Hollywood Insiders: Fallen angels.
So, why the repeating story?
Ahhh, the oft-asked question. Well, lemmie save you some time. The Illuminati is privy to secretly kept traditions. These teachings include:
- Earth's true history
- The history of the cosmos
- The nature of spirits, spells, magic, and extra-dimensions
- The major ball-players in this massive spiritual battle that has been going on for ages; detailed descriptions of "gods" who have fought with humanity, fought against humanity, and fought eachother. And each god's many names throughout the mythologies.
- The literal version of historical and prophetic events which were written symbolically.
Because every member of the Illuminati is briefed on these matters, these are stories they are likely to retell. This initiaited knowledge includes the various gods and their respective personalities and histories. With everyone drawing from a single source of events, personalities types and character histories, it is inevitable that 2 retellings will eventually resemble eachother to such the extent as to betray both encodings; as was seen with The Man who would be king, Stargate, and The road to El Dorado. My audio commentary regarding this matter.
You wouldn't be here if you weren't open-minded. But the grim reality is more than even you'd believe; more than Full Dislosure can express. If counting the top 50 movies of any given year, I estimate that 60-75% of those movies were in fact retellings of no more than 7 "gods." ( I know :-( I know :-( ). But think of it this way, look how close, and how far, The Man who would be King and The road to El Dorado were. Close in that they had a nearly identical storyline. Far because of their release date, the target demographic, and endings. Also, one is a film, while the other is a cartoon. Those two gentlemen from The man who would be king can be found in buddy movies, romantic comedies, and (of coarse) gore, horror, action, and suspence films. Do they not put symbolism in 60-75% of their publications, logos, etc? Is this not how they do all things?
There is also a predictive programming angle in all this. If you notice, almost all the copies of the anti-christ spied in Full Disclosure were portrayed as heroes; even in Hellboy's case, whose identity was openly the Anti-christ, the beast, ad Dajjal. This character is often seen redeeming himself, as opposed to failing the moral test ( as Christianity, and Islam suggest ).
C'mon Ricin, vampires? Yeah, ya' heard me. That's vampires with a "V", by the way. If blood-drinking and a serpent-associated bloodline hasn't surfaced once in your research, somewhere between my class and NWO 101, you missed a class. These are the remants of nephilim, the children of the fallen angels. A bloodline becoming ever-more dilute, and using inbreding to maintain the last traces of the fallen angel's seed. And they aren't alone. In fact, our world is cluttered with beings the "experts" don't acknowledge.
The list of character attributes for the anti-christ, given at the end of Full Disclosure, is not simply derived from the movies used in the documentary. You can use that template to find the anti-christ in almost any film. Do not wait for the obvious, such as being mistaken for a god, or coming back to life. Those parts of the anti-christ's character may not be able to fit within the contructs and context of a particular film. Carry those character attributes with you like a template and you will find more. Indiana Jones, Jason Bourne, Capt. Jack Sparrow, Wolverine. [wink, wink, hint, hint].
So, why do they do it? If you knew the details of these mysteries, wouldn't you?
The "fiction" paradox
There is a deception of the highest order underway. A bullshit-spectacular happening on every channel, in every newspaper. Our classrooms have become halls of mirrors, showing us a distorted reality no matter which direction the glance goes. And when we look to our institutions for increasingly deeper truth, all we find is increasingly bigger lies. And how much a person has become misled can be easily measured in hours of exposure to CNN, university lectures, and the discovery channel. Yea, my brothers and sisters, we label even fact and fiction askew.
In some stories, anything can happen. In other stories, only that which can be explained between the covers of a high school physics book may occur. If a man were to shape shift into a rocking-chair in a movie like "Meet the parents," utter confusion would sweep the theatre. The movie patrons would glance at each other, hoping to be comforted by the sight of other baffled patrons. The viewers of a Harry Potter movie on the other hand would not be caught off guard by shape-shifting rocking chair, in fact they welcome it. Now we consider movies like Meet the parents more practically based, in that the movie's occurrences follow within the relative framework of the "scientific laws," where nothing paranormal happens. By consequence, we consider movies like Harry potter "more fictitious" than movies like Meet the parents, and therefore less worthy of analysis. Then, for stories even more colorful, we have another genre that is even further from fact than fiction is, and we call this category "Fantasy."
But the real reality includes shape shifting. It includes demons, includes aliens, includes extra-dimensions, includes magic, includes distant worlds, includes technologies unseen by the eyes of men. Could it be that the only kind of story that could ever reflect reality is that which we have relegated to "fantasy"? Is fantasy the only reality, while the rest, just a hall of mirrors? A world without the paranormal and mysterious, now that's the fantasy.
So if you asked whether it ever bothers me that I'm analyzing fiction, I say "Yes, of coarse, I'd rather be analyzing fantasy."
So it goes that only the most far-out fantasies could ever depict the truth. This is why it is easier to reveal more in comic books than in more "adult" tales. Further, the viewer, whose distanced from the story ( being that it doesn't even remotely resemble their everyday life ), is willing to hear anaything, and analyze nothing. Sadly, "common sense" cannot not so much as approach the reality of "nonsense."
In this lies the explaination for something else. The frequently made comments that seem strange and out of place. Often in movies, things are said that don't make any sense, and jokes are told that just aren't funny. But maybe they're funny to somebody. ( aside from the glassy-eyed waddler that laughs at everything ). Just as you (may have) saw in Full Disclosure, the Illuminati have a parallel story going on; a parallel culture, with an entire array of symbols and code words. Each symbol designates to the insider who or what they're looking at.
Even places, such as those that are run-down, deserts, prisons, underwater or at sea, extremely dark, islands, extremely high, and extremely cold are in fact hints to insiders regarding far-off and, in some cases, extra-dimensional places. ( believe it! ). In the Illiminati's palette, lies enough symbols to tell 2 parallel stories of any type, in any medium, with any characters, and any settings.
The Lady In Red
One of the most common characters to appear in Illuminati-based movies is the Lady in Red. This character represents the Whore of Babylon, an entity, or power structure described in the last book of the bible, Revelation. This character, similar to the anti-christ, has repeating character attributes that I've yet to cover ( in a video, that is). What does the bible say about the Whore of Babylon?
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
She is associated with the colors Purple and scarlet ( scarlet being red with a hint of orange ), sorcery, finances, and trading. According to the bible, the Whore of Babylon is the present power structure on the Earth before the arrival of "The beast." After his arrival, "the beast " strips the whore naked, and burns her flesh. What the bible seems to be relating is that one evil power ( "the beast" ) will arrive and crush another evil power ( The whore of Babylon ).
The common character attributes for the Lady in Red is as follows:
- Falls in love/or seduces The Anti-christ
- Is spotted wearing all red in at least one scene
- May at some point switch sides, loyalties
- Working for the "bad guy." Or may go bad
- Shows voluntary act of loyalty towards the anti-christ
- Loves money, praise, glory
- May find herself kidnapped
- Does magic
Below, are the many uses of "Purple and scarlet" and "The Lady in Red" in the movies covered by Full Disclosure. The colors purple and scarlet are usually associated with a powerful organization, and not always a single woman. Ozmandius and the Clown from spawn wear purple. Both jokers wear purple and red, where Jack Nicholson wears purple and scarlet specifically, and Heath Ledger wears purple on the outside, and red on the inside of his suit. In The man who would be king, Danny's future wife wears none other than purple and red. While in HellBoy, a female villian wears all red. In the simpsons, the "Stonecutters" ( a.k.a Freemasons ) have chosen Purple and Red ( and also a mixture of the two ). In The road to El Dorado, Michael, who has been mistaken for the sun god, also wears purple and red. Keep in mind how few movies, relative to the sum of cinema, Full Disclosure covers, and how many examples may be drawn from so few.
Color, you'll find, is a big part of their symbolism. A black motorcycle, horse, or car may be code for the Black Horseman, or rider of the apocalypse. And as for the "Scarlet beast," he is indeed often seen wearing red. This is the nature of the reference points they insert for the benefit of other insiders.
"Jesus.. Vader...it's the same elephant, you see?"
As I asserted in Full Disclosure, George Lucas derived the material for Star wars from the Bible and other religious and mythological sources. Many characters in his Star wars saga have connections to real characters taken straight from "legend." When writing for Darth Vader, George Lucas had Jesus in mind. When writing for Chewbacca, Lucas has Al Jassassah in mind ( an extremely hairy character that is friends with the Anti-Christ found in Islamic sources). Even Yoda was called out by [the very questionable] Jordan Maxwell as being a real entity for whom guides the highest ranks of freemasonry.
But enough with speculation and accusations, here's George Lucas admitting his movies are indeed derived from myth and religious texts. The first quotes comes from an interview with Bill Moyers and George Lucas from 1999, where the subject of the use of religion in the Star wars series surfaces. The interview also reveals George Lucas' knowledge of these stories and the effect he has on the minds of youth.
In the second interview, with the stale Charlie Rose, George Lucas again alludes to how Star wars was built with the "Old mythologies" in mind. He even makes a rather stupid remark in the interview regarding why the series started at Episode 4.
His laughable premise was that Star wars was originally intended to be similar to a "Movie serial." Movies series, unheard of these days, is when a new, small episode of a slowly enfolding story was played at the movie theaters ( along with the feature film ) every week or so. Movie-goers would return feeling they can see a movie for free if they returned to the theater often enough. And if they missed a few episodes, they just picked up the story from there. He claims that he meant to have the viewer arrive mid-way in the saga, and never see a single sequel, or prequel. Doubtful George. Doubtful. Star wars episode 4 is long by itself, and together with the subsequent episodes 5 and 6, contains WAY too much material to have ever dreamed of putting it in a single movie. Would have the people of the late 70s, early 80s spotted your "Jesus"? Did you have to tell the story ass-backwards, as you did? His intended movie serial, "unfortunately" became a multi-billion dollar film saga.
Quotes from the Moyers interview:
Moyer: Joseph Campbell said that all the great myths, all the primitive myths, the great stories, have to be regenerated if they're going to have any impact. And you have done that with Star wars, are you conscience of doing that? Are you saying "I am trying to recreate the myths of old"? Or are you saying "I just wanna make a good action movie?"
Lucas: Well, when I did Star wars, I consciously set about to recreate myths. And the classic mythological motifs. And I wanted to use those motifs to deal with issues that existed today.
Moyer: One reason, one critic said, that Star wars has been so popular with young people is that religion without strings attached. That it becomes a very thin based theology...
Lucas: It is a thin based theology, that's why I would hesitate to call the force God. When the film, came out almost every single religion took Star wars and used it as an example. In their religion. And were able to relate it to young people, and saying this is what... and relate the stories, specifically the Bible, and relate stories to the Quran, and the Torah. So it's like...if it's a tool that can be used to make....old stories be new. And relate to younger people, that what the whole point was.
Moyers: Have you been influenced by Buddhism, because Star wars came along just about the time there was this growing interest in America in eastern religions. And I noticed in the Phantom Menace, that new episode one, that they discover this slave child who has an aura about him, and it reminded me of how the Buddhists go out and look for the next Delhi Lama.
Lucas: Uh huh, well again, there's a mixture of all kinds of mythology and religious beliefs that have been amalgamated into the movie.
Moyers: One of the comparisons that came to mind, as I was rewatching the series recently when Darth Vader tempts Luke to come over to the empire, offering all the empire has to offer. I was taken back, in my own view to the story of Satan taking Christ to the mountain offering him the kingdoms of the world if he only turn away from his mission.
Moyers: Was that conscience in your mind?
Lucas: Well yeah, I mean that story has also been retold .. the temptation.. i mean, Buddha was tempted in the same way. It's all through mythology. ... I didn't want to invent a religion. I wanted to try to, explain in a different way the religions that have already existed.
Moyers: You're creating a new myth
Lucas: Well, I'm not [bubbling] .. I'm telling an old myth in a new way. I'm just taking the core myth, and localizing it
General Quotes from the Moyers interview:
Lucas: When I make the films, I'm very aware i'm teaching on a much larger scale than I would just as a parent ..
Lucas: All the religions are true, they just see a different part of the elephant.
Lucas: I put the force into the movies in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people. More a belief in God , than a belief in a particular religious system.
General Quotes from the Rose interview:
What kind of story were interesting in telling? [regarding Star wars]
Lucas: Well, I wanted to tell a modern myth, that was in the classic mode and motif of old mythology.
Lucas:so it [ Star wars ]was designed to be like those [movie series]. It starts in episode 4, you're in the middle of this thing, and that would be the end of it, it was one movie ...it just grew to be 3 movies, unfortunately. I wrote more than I expected.
A bit about the series
Hollywood Insiders started as a full-length documentary called "What makes the light: Starwars Unveiled" ( released April 14th, 2008 ). Its basic premise were the connections between "The man who would be king" and the Bible ( and book of Enoch ). Then, the reoccurrence of "Peachy" and "Danny" from Rudyard Kipling's The man who weould be king in George Lucas' Starwars.Although I've had to make little retraction to the facts presented in Starwars Unveiled, the presentation as a whole was lame and untimely. In a word, lame. But I'm a programmer, not a video editor.
My second effort was "What makes the light: Hollywood Insiders." This included all of the material from Starwars Unveiled, plus further retellings found in The Simpsons, The Road to El Dorado, Stargate, Harry Potter, and The Matrix. Although more comprehensive, it was still delivered in an unconvincing and untimely manner. And as before, mediocre video quality. Did I mention I'm not a video editor?
My third donation to conspiracy nation was Hollywood Insiders: Fallen Angels(released Nov. 3rd, 2008). This production was a bit better. All of the material presented in What makes the light: Hollywood Insiders, better presented, more convincing, more timely. Video quality is better, but still much to be desired. And completely unnarrated.
My fourth attempt at humor was Hollywood Insiders: Dark Stars (released Mar. 6th, 2009). This documentary took a slightly different turn from the previous, now also including the music industry. Instead of focusing on illuminati symbolism, its focus was the predictive programming and foreknowledge ( regarding 9/11 mainly ), Steve Jackson's cardgame Illuminati, and the use of demons in the music and movie industry. Demons that turn no-talent bums into legends. Because of Hollywood Insiders: Full Disclosure, I have only four full-length documentaries worth seeing, Full Disclosure, Magick and The Matrix, Illuminati Esotera, and Dark Stars.
My fifth full-length work was Hollywood Insiders: Revelations (released Aug. 19th, 2009). Its focus returned to Illuminati symbolism in movies. Reviewing Men In Black, Batman, Gabriel, Watchmen, and Spawn. Timely, informative (although I did say something stupid about the Joker's mask ), but made obsolete by Full Disclosure.
My sixth video is Hollywood Insiders: Full Disclosure (released Oct. 6th, 2009). This video takes an even closer look at Illuminati symbolism, and its meaning, in Hollywood. Discussing how much of the movies you watch root back to Christian, Islamic, and Egyptian traditions. Full Disclosure rendered all my previous work, with the exception of Dark Stars and Magick & The Matrix, obsolete. Examining: Batman,Watchmen, The Simpsons, Men in Black, Tomb Raider, Blade, Hellboy, The Lion King, THX-1138, Conan the Barbarian, Stargate, The man who would be king, Spawn, The Mothman Prophecies, Dogma, Gabriel, The Road to El Dorado.
My seventh film is Hollywood Insiders: Magick & The Matrix (released Dec 15th, 2009) examines Abdul AlHazred's "Necronomicon" and the Illuminati's concealment of the truths it bares. This documentary takes a practical look at black magic and the forces behind it. Then, delves into "The Matrix-like" world the Necronomicon paints. It discusses the multi-dimensional beings that feed off of us, parallel universes, and explains much Illuminati and Freemasonic imagery.
My eighth, and most recent film is Hollywood Insiders: Illuminati Esotera (released Jan 31st, 2010). It's focus is the Illuminati's body transformation using ritual magic. Then, it reveals details of George Lucas' "Jedi", magic, and spirits.
Hollywood Insiders is not a series for NWO-beginners. I always assume that the viewer already knows the NWO's basic symbolism and ambitions. I give only cursory review of their most basic symbolism. This is done, not only to deliver my case to you in a timely manner, but because there's only so much to be learned from snapshots of pyramids and all-seeing eyes in movies. These are superficial examples of symbolism, and inevitably the time will come to analyze the stories for what they are; that's where Hollywood Insiders steps in. The truth is, even the pyramids and all-seeing eyes are there for public consumption.
In most documentaries, the viewer is only learning 30% of the time. The other 70% is spent with animations, dramatizations, sound effects, and interviews/monologues loaded with opinion and conjecture. In a word: fluff. I try to bring the learning time to 90%, sparing not one moment as I move from topic to topic. I include virtually nothing that doesn't help me illustrate my point.
Although Hollywood Insiders uses movies as a foundation, I strive to teach the viewer a word of knowledge about the real world; I just do so using movies. In fact, I may have convinced you of numerous truths only because they were depicted in a movie. ( admit it! ) I also believe that the series fills a massive vacuum. Hollywood is so incredibly instrumental to the Illuminati agenda, and yet the only other documentary that even comes close to exposing Hollywood and the Illuminati is "Hollywood's war on god," a lengthy, and rather preachy documentary hosted by an uber-Christian; a veritable Ned Flanders. It's a excellent film and really opened my eyes, but aside from Hollywood Insiders it stands largely alone ( in regards to deep analysis). There are many good videos out there floating around that reveal Illuminati symbolism in movies, but very few examine with depth. This I find a problem, because as tools go, Hollywood's a sledge-hammer.
A bit about Ricin (Michael Wynn)
I'm basically just a computer nerd from Florida who became 9/11-aware through Loose Change and Alex Jones in early 2006. After only a year of research, my old perceptions about the nature of reality were burned and buried. Each detail of the NWO operation was darker and more disheartening than the last. In late 2007, my attentions would be turned to a movie named "The man who would be king," and well, here you are.
Probably the most pertinent thing you should know about me is that I'm not a movie buff, nor mythology buff. I have only recently caught up to my peers in "movies seen," and as for mythology, I'm a nerd, but not that bad. Had you asked me before 2006 about Christianity, Islam, and especially mythology, I would have said they were dumb, "spear-chuckin" stories conjured by people who thought lightning meant the gods were angered. The second pertinent thing you should know about me is that I'm in no way, pushing a particular religion. No text, or religion, has a complete monopoly on the truth ( especially the literal one, as opposed to the symbolic ). So how did I go from a believer in nothing, to a believer in so many faiths, vampires, and guitar-playing demons? Lets just say that after I was done with 9/11, I went looking for the stories I never wanted to believe. And Behold! The legends were true!
All those nearly-lost memories of grandma pointing to the dollar, claiming the symbols were the machinations of wicked men. All those times I was told what was to come, and what had been. The fall of man, war in heaven, behold the legends were true! And how disheartening. I couldn't deny it, I've lived forever with the strange sense that something big and sinister was happening in the world, I just couldn't put my finger on it till now.