The lie is that everything said in that 1981 clip wasn't a prediction or a fantasy, it was a statement about the past.
Just like in 1984 (the book), the "prediction" of the future was actually an exposition about the past; it was history. The world they envisioned had already happened before pen was put to paper, with enough changes to make you believe that the "Scary Future" was "nothing like what already existed."
For example, in the 1984 book the prediction was about a world where the media was just one media, and you couldn't get dissenting views. But the truth was that the media was already just one media, and they were purposefully created to give all the dissenting views required to create division, and through division control the entire populace. "You never look at the enemy behind the curtain when there is an enemy right in front of you."
As it turns out, long before 1984, the "Left" and the "Right" were controlled by the same media. They were just controlled by different divisions of the same extended corporation (controlled primarily by the CIA by that time, or rather, its precursor the OSS, a division of the Rockefeller Empire). But the "Conspiracy Theorists" were ALSO controlled by the CIA.
EVERYONE was controlled opposition. That is how the world works. Indeed, the author of 1984 wrote several books that were made specifically as works of propaganda created for the Govt. Look up Animal Farm. It was a book designed to push a specific narrative about the Soviet Union, designing us to go into the Cold War. That book was made by the same people who pushed us into the Cold War, written by the same author who created 1984, writing a book about "the future," which was already the past, with that one change: Controlled Opposition instead of One Voice. It was One Voice, just speaking from multiple mouths.
My FIL had a bunch of old Playboy magazines from the 1970's that we had to dispose of after he passed.
While doing some "research" on the articles 😉 I noticed the same narrative over and over of how trendy single men (Playboy subscribers) could be by conquering many women (destroy family nucleus), buying expensive clothes (overpriced money laundering efforts), expensive foreign cars (weaken US economy), interviewing & glamorizing people within the C|A & FB| (trust gubmint), etc.
It's all scripted, encouraged and has been going on for many decades.
Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory, apparently playing themselves, share their lives over the course of an evening meal at a restaurant. Gregory, a theater director from New York, is the more talkative of the pair. He relates to Shawn his tales of dropping out, traveling around the world, and experiencing the variety of ways people live, such as a monk who could balance his entire weight on his fingertips. Shawn listens avidly, but questions the value of Gregory's seeming abandonment of the pragmatic aspects of life.
Andre Gregory is the focus of the first hour of the film, when he describes some of his experiences since giving up his career as a theatre director in 1975. These include working with his friend, director Jerzy Grotowski, and a group of Polish actors in a forest in Poland, his visit to Findhorn in Scotland, and his trip to the Sahara to try to create a play based on The Little Prince by Saint-Exupéry. He worked with a group in a small piece of performance art on Long Island, which resulted in Andre's being (briefly) buried alive on Halloween night.
The rest of the film is a conversation as Wally Shawn tries to argue that living life as Andre has done for the past five years is simply not possible for most people. He relates ordinary pleasures, like having a cup of coffee. Andre responds that what passes for normal life in New York in the late 1970s, is more akin to living in a dream than it is to real life. The movie ends without a clear resolution to the conflict in worldviews articulated by the two men. Wally reminisces during a taxi ride about his childhood and mentions that when he arrives at home, he tells his girlfriend Debbie about his dinner with Andre. Erik Satie's Gymnopédie No. 1 plays in the background
1984 was not a work of fiction, it was a manual, a blueprint of the future and most of all it was a warning. The movie My Dinner With Andre was a fantastic movie and everyone should see it.
The lie is that everything said in that 1981 clip wasn't a prediction or a fantasy, it was a statement about the past.
Just like in 1984 (the book), the "prediction" of the future was actually an exposition about the past; it was history. The world they envisioned had already happened before pen was put to paper, with enough changes to make you believe that the "Scary Future" was "nothing like what already existed."
For example, in the 1984 book the prediction was about a world where the media was just one media, and you couldn't get dissenting views. But the truth was that the media was already just one media, and they were purposefully created to give all the dissenting views required to create division, and through division control the entire populace. "You never look at the enemy behind the curtain when there is an enemy right in front of you."
As it turns out, long before 1984, the "Left" and the "Right" were controlled by the same media. They were just controlled by different divisions of the same extended corporation (controlled primarily by the CIA by that time, or rather, its precursor the OSS, a division of the Rockefeller Empire). But the "Conspiracy Theorists" were ALSO controlled by the CIA.
EVERYONE was controlled opposition. That is how the world works. Indeed, the author of 1984 wrote several books that were made specifically as works of propaganda created for the Govt. Look up Animal Farm. It was a book designed to push a specific narrative about the Soviet Union, designing us to go into the Cold War. That book was made by the same people who pushed us into the Cold War, written by the same author who created 1984, writing a book about "the future," which was already the past, with that one change: Controlled Opposition instead of One Voice. It was One Voice, just speaking from multiple mouths.
It still is...
My FIL had a bunch of old Playboy magazines from the 1970's that we had to dispose of after he passed.
While doing some "research" on the articles 😉 I noticed the same narrative over and over of how trendy single men (Playboy subscribers) could be by conquering many women (destroy family nucleus), buying expensive clothes (overpriced money laundering efforts), expensive foreign cars (weaken US economy), interviewing & glamorizing people within the C|A & FB| (trust gubmint), etc.
It's all scripted, encouraged and has been going on for many decades.
Hefner was a jew.
And the Intel bois used him same way they used Epstein.
It’s called “My Dinner With Andre”
https://old.bitchute.com/video/qCyjrei2vuvE/
MY DINNER WITH ANDRE (1981)
https://www.bitchute.com/hashtag/fineartfilm/
Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory, apparently playing themselves, share their lives over the course of an evening meal at a restaurant. Gregory, a theater director from New York, is the more talkative of the pair. He relates to Shawn his tales of dropping out, traveling around the world, and experiencing the variety of ways people live, such as a monk who could balance his entire weight on his fingertips. Shawn listens avidly, but questions the value of Gregory's seeming abandonment of the pragmatic aspects of life.
Andre Gregory is the focus of the first hour of the film, when he describes some of his experiences since giving up his career as a theatre director in 1975. These include working with his friend, director Jerzy Grotowski, and a group of Polish actors in a forest in Poland, his visit to Findhorn in Scotland, and his trip to the Sahara to try to create a play based on The Little Prince by Saint-Exupéry. He worked with a group in a small piece of performance art on Long Island, which resulted in Andre's being (briefly) buried alive on Halloween night.
The rest of the film is a conversation as Wally Shawn tries to argue that living life as Andre has done for the past five years is simply not possible for most people. He relates ordinary pleasures, like having a cup of coffee. Andre responds that what passes for normal life in New York in the late 1970s, is more akin to living in a dream than it is to real life. The movie ends without a clear resolution to the conflict in worldviews articulated by the two men. Wally reminisces during a taxi ride about his childhood and mentions that when he arrives at home, he tells his girlfriend Debbie about his dinner with Andre. Erik Satie's Gymnopédie No. 1 plays in the background
I just ordered a copy from Amazon. I know “it’s Amazon” but at least I’ll add this to my collection.
INCONCEIVABLE!
Oh man, you beat me to it. 😁😁
I do not think you know the meaning of that word :)
No more rhyming, and I mean it! :)
Anybody want a peanut?
The '60s as a burst of humanity is nuts though. Sex, drugs and rock and roll didn't lead to freedom, Just another form of slavery.
It was hijacked in part by steering speed and heroin use.
Yep....a classic.
Also:
I just remembered another GOOD ONE:
The Newsbenders 1968
☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻
Must see if you haven't already!
full movie:
https://odysee.com/@dynosarus:c/My-Dinner-with-Andre--1981----Full-Movie:9
1984 was not a work of fiction, it was a manual, a blueprint of the future and most of all it was a warning. The movie My Dinner With Andre was a fantastic movie and everyone should see it.
Yep, they warned us. Just as Beta tests are for companies to fix or prepare for the incoming issues.
So did the Terminator (1984) . War of the Machines starting in 2024. "Escape from New York" with Kurt Russell.