Friday, September 15, 2017

WAR (for the planet of the apes)

Note: This blog assumes you have seen the film "War for the Planet of the Apes." But you don't necessarily have to have seen the film in order to appreciate the points presented. However, a viewing of the film will probably add much more weight and credibility to what is discussed here.

PT I - PROPAGANDA OR ENTERTAINMENT?

Ever since the release of the original 1933 King Kong film, we've seen this classic archetype updated fairly regularly in mainstream entertainment. Part of this archetypal image has usually involved the violation of an innocent blonde white woman. We must acknowledge that this is a very stereotypical "white American nightmare," and that it stems from a negative assumption that "foreigners/non whites are bad." But there is another side to this where we may side emotionally WITH the brute. Being that society generally accepts Darwin's evolution theory, we must acknowledge that one reason the Kong metaphor is so effective to this day is because we believe that on some level WE are related to the beast - regardless of our ethnic identity and regardless of any apparent "racial assumptions" regarding the image. We can all play "the beast" and we can all play "the innocent victim" at various times. When the brute violates our innocence (symbolized traditionally by a blonde white woman), we are forced to look at our own dark desires to dominate or violate something or someone which is pure or innocent. Some may find the violation of the woman by the brute terrifying, while others, both male and female, may secretly be excited by this imagery. Whether this stems from a desire to be "dominated by a savage" or a genuine sadistic desire to dominate another - we cannot avoid the fact that many of us, perhaps not even consciously, identify with some of the darker sides of all this. We find similar themes in the Tarzan story, but some of the roles are switched. Tarzan lives among apes, but later turns out to be of white, royal blood among humans. Inversely, we find that the character of Ceasar, the leader of the apes in the latest "Planet of the Apes" film, is raised by humans, but later rises to the status of "king among apes."

As we can see, the Kong/primitive man metaphor provides an extremely broad platform from which to make political, racial, social, biological, militant, and scientific statements. It's no wonder this archetype is still appearing regularly in mainstream media. Be it through films, video games, advertisements, or propaganda.

If the media can portray the "enemy" as a foreign, non human, violent beast of lesser intelligence - and appeal to the latent "inner xenophobe" in all of us, we are more likely to follow along when Uncle Sam says "destroy that brute!" What is interesting about this latest "Planet of the Apes" film though, is that Matt Reeves (director) claims the main theme of the plot is "empathy," presumably FOR the apes. This follows the secondary use of the "ape brute" archetype, which is the one that tries to understand why the beast is being violent. This also connects to our own tendency to identify with the brute on some level. Perhaps the beast was wronged and is only acting the way anyone under such circumstances would? Perhaps the beast was attacked first, and is only exacting revenge? It is my belief that this switching of perspectives between the "white American fear of a savage foreigner" and the "identification with the victimized foreigner" is a game these types of films play on our minds in order to promote social tension in society and in the world, not to give us a nice "lesson in morality" as the director of this particular film and the actors might suggest in interviews. The identification with a fear of the "brute" encourages negative feelings of xenophobia/superiority while the identification with the "victimized foreigner" asks us to play the role of victim, or the role of vigilante. But in reality, both sides lose. Did the Germans win WWII? Did racism end in America after the civil war or the civil rights movements of the 1960s? Who really "wins" these wars? In this blog we will attempt to identify the true enemy of the people by taking a closer look at his handiwork.

Billboards are typically advertisements created to sell us something. Propaganda billboards are really no different, other than typically selling an IDEA, rather than a product or a TV show. But are advertisements not also asking us to accept an IDEA in order to convince us to take action and buy a product? Let's forget what we know about this film for a moment and assume we are just laying eyes upon the above billboard for the first time. What ideas is it trying to sell in order to convince us to go see the film?

The first thing we may notice is the word "war" in large, bold red capital letters. Capital letters indicate something is being shouted. You are being sold a WAR. If the word WAR is being shouted, the next logical question would be, "what war are we talking about?" Well we know this is the "War for the Planet of the Apes," but let's let the picture tell its own story for a moment. The word "war" sits in the middle of a snow storm. The word is in RED, indicating emergency, fire, and blood. Red enhances the meaning and urgency of the word WAR, but also makes it stand out like blood on the snowy backdrop. A bloody war or possibly a war over blood? A war over the mixing of blood.

Blood on snow is a very violent and eye catching image. Snow is cold and white, so we have a cold war occurring during a white storm. The phrase "Cold War" historically describes the tense relationship between Russia and The United States just after WWII ended. These themes would seem relevant enough for the times, as Russian/US tension has been a hot topic again in the media since Trump was elected (although this tension is now being shifted again towards North Korea). Interestingly, the Russian civil war of the early 1900s was fought mainly between the "Red Army" and the "White Army." These colors have meaning. In more general terms, a cold war is "a state of political hostility between countries characterized by threats, propaganda, and other measures short of open warfare, in particular." A "white storm" reminds one of the white storm troopers of the Nazi SS. Or, if you like, the Storm Troopers of the Star Wars films - which drew directly from Nazi imagery/themes. Ultimately, this war is occurring symbolically in the midst of a violent white territory.

The next thing which stands out is the armed Chimp-Man riding a horse. The horse is moving AWAY from the word WAR. Therefore, he has just left a war which was bloody (red). By his expression and arms, he would seem to be heading towards another. He's heading toward you (the viewer), so this indicates not so subtly that YOU will be involved in this war when you watch the film. Riding with him is a blonde white girl with a blue hoodie. She peeks out from behind him, as if attempting to hide. This indicates that she may not necessarily have been taken from this bloody war by force, but perhaps she has gone willfully - and she knows it is wrong and does not want to be seen as a "betrayer of her race." This subtly hints at interracial taboos, especially the one involving white women with dark skinned men. This happens to be the taboo which probably most agitates the neo-Nazi type, indicating that the film is already flirting with deep seated racial issues. But this insinuation is brilliantly avoided by making the Chimp man's face almost the same color as the white girl. So the interracial taboo is both suggested, but also carefully avoided in the technical sense. The image is there but you are stripped of your ability to correctly state, "the Chimp Man is black." But in the literal sense, he IS "mostly black" in color. The horse is also "black in color." Black figure, white girl, white blood war - it's all here - it's just being articulated in a very cunning manner.

These images cause you to feel compelled to see the film. Why? Because people like watching a good war. A good fight (Just look at what people pay to watch one.) But what fight can truly be called a "War" without strong racial/political tension?

People forget that these are storytelling tools which can indeed be used for good or for evil. George Lucas himself has spoken on this topic in interviews regarding the concepts behind creating Star Wars films. Yet we ignorantly take them for "eccentric pontifications" which are only appreciated by Nerds and/or academics. When in fact, these are powerful, real tools used to influence the minds of the public.

"When you watch this film, you will have an emotional identification with an ape. You will see yourself in the faces of these apes...The weirdness of our movie, the thing that people come to that's so different is that they submit to an experience where for a couple hours they become apes." - Matt Reeves, as interviewed by AOL/FILM4

"Your stepping into a character who feels outside. Hes's a human being in an ape skin. Then eventually has to communicate with his own kind, he's thrown into an ape sanctuary...he sees his own color really for the first time. He sees his own skin for the first time and tries to become a member of the ape community." - Andy Serkis, BuildSeries NYC

In the above quote, director Matt Reeves doesn't just suggest we identify with the apes, he says we will BECOME APES. So now we know which classic ape perspective is being pushed onto the viewer in the billboard. The one which "sympathizes" with the brute/foreigner. If WE are playing the role of simian, it means our enemy must bare the likeness of the white blonde haired girl. Do you see the reversal of roles happening here? All of us, the viewers, are being turned into "the foreign brute," and our hypothetical "enemy" is the white human race. Therefore, if you are a white person watching the film, you are being asked to take on your "white guilt" uniform. If you are a non white, you are being asked to take on the "victim of the white race" uniform. In both cases, you are being encouraged to focus on racial agitation as it applies to you. In both cases, you are being encouraged to take on the role of "victim." The loser in the war. Oh, you WILL have an emotional connection with an ape in this film. You may even cry. But there is no "higher moral agenda" here. Quite the opposite. There is also a 3rd identification some viewers will take, and that is the identification with the "white enemy." This perspective sides with the "Neo Nazi" type individuals, who would be most outraged to see their "pure blonde blue eyed girl" violated. So although this is a new interpretation of the "Kong archetype," it's really not much different than the black and white version, it's just being presented in a more advanced, subtle, and cunning manner.

If these types of films are propaganda, which is ultimately produced by forces who would have us "at war" in order for a 3rd party to win, just who is this 3rd party? It seems their signature is included within the billboard:

If we look a bit closer, we can make out a square and compass subtly emphasized by the "A" in the background, which forms the upper triangle. The lower triangle is formed on one side by the ape man's rifle, and the other side by the girl's head. (this is similar to the square and compass contained within the "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" poster I cover in an earlier blog about the film and its occult symbolism/themes) This is the symbol for Freemasonry. The "Illuminati" is a powerful sect of Freemasonry, and seem to be in control of the US Media. Why else would they embed their signature right into prominent billboards such as this? We also find the "A" in the word "WAR" forms a truncated pyramid. This is the same shape depicted on the back of a US $1 bill, and is a Freemasonic symbol as well. The missing top of the pyramid is where "the all seeing eye of illumination" sits. This invisible eye of illumination sits in the sky, above the billboard and above the symbolic "cold war" depicted (pretty clever isn't it?) This would seem to illustrate how the "elite illuminated ones" view themselves. Above the wars, creating the propaganda, directing and manipulating both sides through deception in order to control the populace. In other words, if you take a side in this "war," you are only a primitive animal jumping through hoops in this mad circus.

Therefore, this "cold war" is being staged in front of us in the form of "entertainment" for purposes of social propaganda, which director Matt Reeves alludes to when he suggests we "submit to an experience." When taken in the context of "entertainment," we go along with this quote without fear. But if Reeves was wearing a scientists uniform and said "you will now become an ape" as he straps you in like Alex from "A Clockwork Orange," you'd see this all as a sinister experiment being performed upon your consciousness. Perhaps Stanley Kubrick was trying to tell us something more obvious than it seems by depicting such a horrific scene, as pictured above from the film. Perhaps the real "cold war" here is the one where we are to be conditioned into submissive ignorant apes, without even being aware of it (that is, without direct confrontation, and where propaganda is the weapon of choice).

SECTION II - APE-POCALYPSE NOW

"And the lofty frontal bone of Mr. Kurtz! They say the hair goes on growing sometimes, but this—ah—specimen, was impressively bald. The wilderness had patted him on the head, and, behold, it was like a ball—an ivory ball" - Heart of Darkness

"It’s pretty obvious that War for the Planet of the Apes borrows thematic elements from Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now — that “Ape-ocalypse Now” graffiti in the middle of the movie is a none-too-subtle hint" - Hollywood Reporter 7.14.17

Many have already noted the similarities between the 2017 film "War for the Planet of the Apes" and the 1979 Francis Ford Coppola film "Apocalypse Now." This association is confirmed by the film in several very obvious ways, which we will get into later in the blog. But one thing I have found distinctly missing from many of the reviews of this film where this comparison is being made, is the fact that "Apocalypse Now" was itself based upon "Heart of Darkness," which was an 1899 novella by Polish-British novelist Joseph Conrad. In the cases where "Heart of Darkness" is referenced, the typical reviewer is careful not to dwell too much on that writing, opting instead to focus on comparisons to Apocalypse Now, which is supposed to be set in Vietnam - where the "savage foreigner" role is played by the Viet-KONG and their GUERRILLA soldiers.

"...whether you want to say it’s from Apocalypse Now or the real source, [Joseph Conrad’s] Heart of Darkness — was an interesting guide. My initial talks with [director] Matt Reeves were about, ‘Let’s not let this guy be too black and white, just pure evil. Let’s really show his conflicts and what he went through.’" - Woody Harrelson, as quoted by Hollywood Reporter

In the above quote, Harrelson acknowledges his character's connection to the character of Colonel Kurtz in "Apocalypse Now" [played by Marlon Brando, pictured above] and even mentions "the real source, Heart of Darkness." If Harrelson used Heart of Darkness as a "guide," then he knows full well this story was originally set in the African Congo and depicted Native Africans as "savages" to be used as slaves from the view of white European Imperialists striving to dominate the country's natural resources and their people. Are you starting to see where this is going?

One particular element which plays a large role in the backdrop of "Heart of Darkness" is the white imperialists relentless drive to gather ivory, obtained typically by killing an elephant for its tusks. In the above quote, Kurtz' head is compared to the bone whiteness of ivory - a profound symbol subtly indicating that the horrors committed by the white imperialists to dominate the ivory trade (at the expense of native Conglese) is the true "heart of darkness" referenced in the title. Let's compare this ivory/head symbolism in the original novella to Harrelson' depiction of Kurtz above, where he is shaving his head and holding a white cloth just before addressing his renegade soldiers...

The symbol of a WHITE SKIN HEAD is being shoved into our faces, seemingly for no reason. As he walks out to address his devoted, seemingly brainwashed soldiers, he doesn't bother to wipe the shaving cream from his head or finish up. This white shaving cream on his head brings attention to the whiteness of his skin symbolically. This would seem to be a "wink" to the Kurtz/ivory metaphor quoted above. White. Skin. Ivory. Shave cream. While such crude racial references, including the very liberal use of the "N" word, might not seem so shocking in a 100+ year old text such as "Heart of Darkness," one would think a modern film would put a more "PC" slant on things for the "post civil rights movement" America. Instead, this film simply shoves all of the crude racial allegories into our face and dares us to call it out. Allow me to do just that: this film is taking what is, to me, the most accusatory stance AGAINST white imperialism in the original novella, and corrupts the meaning of the metaphor by its crude delivery. In other words, "the ivory metaphor? Ha, that's nothing more meaningful than shaving cream on a white man's head!" I believe the film is mocking Conrad's brilliant ivory metaphor. But that is not to say "Heart of Darkness" was without its own controversy.

"Heart of Darkness is criticized in postcolonial studies, particularly by Nigerian novelist Chinua Achebe. In his 1975 public lecture "An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's Heart of Darkness", Achebe described Conrad's novella as "an offensive and deplorable book" that de-humanised Africans. Achebe argued that Conrad, "blinkered...with xenophobia", incorrectly depicted Africa as the antithesis of Europe and civilization, ignoring the artistic accomplishments of the Fang people who lived in the Congo River basin at the time of the book’s publication. Since the book promoted and continues to promote a prejudiced image of Africa that "depersonalizes a portion of the human race," he concluded that it should not be considered a great work of art"

While the above is an opinion which is not shared by all scholars who have attempted to interpret the novella, it shows that opinions such as this were not exactly "fringe." Therefore, anyone who studies the book and it's critical response to any degree would be well aware of the uncomfortable racial controversies which were stirred by the story. Given that, I doubt Harrelson would intentionally throw in a racial remark when interviewed about this film. One would think he would tread lightly anywhere a potentially racial remark might be misinterpreted in our hyper reactionary society. Nonetheless, let's review objectively what he said just after referencing "Heart of Darkness" as a guide:

"Let’s not let this guy [Harrelson's character] be too black and white, just pure evil."

There's two ways to interpret Harrelson's quote here. In the first sense, we think he is saying he doesn't want his character to be "pure evil," he'd like him to be more interesting than that. But the odd thing about all of this is that the Kurtz character his is modeled after is ALREADY a fairly complex character! Sure, Kurtz is shown to be evil and crazy in both "Heart of Darkness" and "Apocalypse Now," but he is also shown to be complex, contradictory, admired, and even loved for his behavior. Take a look at Marlon Brando's depiction of Kurtz in the above photo. If that isn't supposed to express someone deeply conflicted, I don't know what is. A person who is conflicted is not "black and white." So again, it makes no sense for Harrelson to insinuate that the Colonel Kurtz character needs to be re-written so as NOT to be so black and white or "pure evil."

Maybe we need to take a closer look at the above quote. To be a "black and white" character does not automatically assume that character is "evil." It means the character settles on one extreme or the other. So what Harrelson is saying if we take his quote LITERALLY, is that the MIXING of the colors black and white is "pure evil." I'm not suggesting Harrelson is a eugenicist, but I am suggesting that he is reading from a pre-written script. And I am suggesting that the same ones who wrote that script were probably involved in the writing of the film script itself. This is proven time and time again through the incessant double and triple meanings everywhere regarding this film. And when I say "everywhere," I mean within the film, in the ads, during promotional interviews, and even bleeding out into other films which we will take a look at later in the blog.

"You could easily look at the colonel as a "bad guy," but I kinda look at him as a guy who's called upon to do something great and important in this uncertain world." - Woody Harrelson, Movie-Times.net

Which "uncertain world" does he mean? Is he talking about the fictional world depicted in the film, or the actual world we live in? Notice how ambiguous these statements are. In the first sense, this is consistent with Harrelson's sorta questionable comment above about not wanting his character to be too "black and white." But I really don't think that translated in the film. We discover "The Colonel" shot his own child because he was infected with the "simian flu." Was this supposed to make us relate to the character's point of view more? All it really did was make him appear MORE black and white and more accurately described as "pure evil." Exactly what Harrelson claims they were trying to avoid! When Ceasar and his friends first stumble upon the concentration camp, the first thing they see is crucified and mutilated apes. I think this sorta set the tone for how we view "the Colonel," and he doesn't really get any LESS evil through his behavior and monologues. He's basically a psychotic man justifying his actions through some Machiavellian inspired blood thirst with a "higher goal" in mind. So what in the hell is Harrelson talking about when he says he sees his character as someone called upon to do something great? This would sound a lot less weird if Harrelson said he felt that the character SAW HIMSELF this way. But no, he's saying HE sees him this way in THIS uncertain world. (whatever world that is)

I think it is Harrelson's disarming delivery which allows quotes like this to go unexamined. We assume such a gentle, soft spoken man couldn't possibly mean what he actually said. But if he didn't mean what he said in the above quote, just what DID he mean? Supposing Andrew Dice Clay was cast as "The Colonel" and said the exact same thing in this interview. We'd have a whole lot more microscopes being focused on these words. But we just love the "Cheers bartender" so much, he couldn't possibly mean what he says when he says something kinda sinister. It goes in one ear and out the other. But somewhere in the back of your mind, the words stick.

SECTION III - THE WHIPPING SCENE

"Another scene that touched me...was when Ceasar gets whipped...and he's giving me that Denzel "Glory" but he gives it a little bit of reaction. Filming that part, like, how was that day on set because whipping in America is a big thing." -GlobalGrindTV interview question to the cast and director

If you've read this far, you might think I am trying to force my own interpretation on this film as being some sort of racial allegory. But take a look at the picture above. The interviewer for GlobalGrindTV (available on youtube as I am typing this) is wearing a shirt that clearly makes reference to racism, obviously against it. Right away Harrelson disarmingly compliments the shirt and the two establish immediately that "hey brother, we're ABOVE that stuff." But the question still remains, why would he choose to wear this shirt during the interview regarding the new "Planet of the Apes" film if he wasn't ready to confront the racial messages contained within it? He instead ENCOURAGES the racial messages. He singles out the most obvious scene in the film which references American black slave era horrors, and directly compares the lead ape character (Caesar) being whipped to Denzel Washington's character being whipped in the film "Glory." Let me repeat that. This man compares Caesar the chimp being whipped by another ape to Denzel Washington playing a black American slave being whipped in the film "Glory," then compliments the execution of the allegory! Now I ask you, is this interviewer forcing HIS interpretation on this film as a racial allegory? No, because the allegory IS there. He's just calling it out in a very gentle manner. I'm not.


Although the interviewer mentions "Glory," the scene depicted in "Apes" mirrors even more closely a horrible scene from "12 Years a Slave," in which the main character "Solomon" is forced to whip another slave. One would think presenting such a scene with apes would be in incredibly bad taste, or at least runs the risk of being severely misinterpreted. But there it is, right on the big screen

The interviewer then states: "Whipping in America is a big thing." And why is it a "big thing?" Its not like people get whipped everyday in America, so what is he talking about here? Clearly, the interviewer is referencing THE PAST where black slaves were whipped. But he doesn't come out and say that, he's being very indirect about it. And yet he delivers this line so nonchalantly as if it's no big deal at all. I've got a good questions for these guys: "why would you use apes to re-enact what is obviously a scene right out of American black slave era cruelty?" This interviewer is basically softening the question to the point where it's almost hard to even figure out what the hell he's getting at. But in the process, draws a direct correlation, without seeming to be offended. In fact, he says he was "touched" by the scene. That's a compliment, by the way.

This interviewer's job is to encourage passive acceptance of the racial references within the film. By wearing this "FCK. RACISM" shirt, he is silently claiming to represent the black perspective which is quick to point out negative racial imagery. But then he proceeds to PRAISE the negative racial imagery. The message he is sending to those paying attention is basically, "relax, I'm like YOU and I'm not offended. So why should you be?" This interviewer is what the film calls a "Donkey." Donkey is an obvious allegory for an "Uncle Tom." For those who don't know what that is, An Uncle Tom is, according to www.merriam-webster.com, "a black who is overeager to win the approval of whites (as by obsequious behavior or uncritical acceptance of white values and goals)"

DONKEY KONG

"There are turncoat apes basically, they've gone to work for the humans and they are treated appallingly, they're like slaves in actual fact. They're really badly taken care of and their called "donkeys." They carry weapons and they haul stuff around and they cook food for the humans, they are literally like slaves" - Andy Serkes, BuildSeries NYC

In the above film still, we see a "Donkey" leading Ceasar to his whipping, which he personally delivers. In the above quote, Serkis makes the connection between the apes and SLAVES. He uses the word "slave" twice in this short statement - and exaggerates the gesture by saying they are slaves "IN ACTUAL FACT." Remember, these are apes he is talking about. Animals. He's giving them an attribute only HUMANS can have. Horses work for humans. Do we call them slaves? A "turncoat" is "a person who deserts one party or cause in order to join an opposing one." Or in this context, an APE who is overeager to win the approval of the Colonel, who happens to be a white blue eyed skinhead cult leader who wants to exterminate all apes.

I've pointed out this "white" symbolism a few times earlier in this blog, and we are starting to see why it is there. If it isn't represented specifically in the ethnicity of the actors themselves (The Colonel or Nova's Nordic features), it is represented by the colors and themes emphasized by the film in other ways (the white snow storm covered backdrop, the white clad soldiers who come to destroy the fortress, the white avalanche which wipes out the humans near the end.)

Serkis: "That set was a horrible horrible set to shoot on it was...it reminded you of so many horrific events in history. You know, concentration camps and...it was a really nasty place, it had a horrible vibe...and that scene...you know it just, it just um...kind of felt, you know I felt beholden to play him as someone who was gonna stand up for his people, who was gonna stand up for his kind. And it was physically kind of exhausting and quite painful" [laughs]

Serkis is speaking here as though he actually experienced some "historical atrocity" during the filming, which he is referencing by using the word "history" specifically. In the film during the scene where the apes are brought to the colonel, there is a distinct scrawl of the word "history" scribbled on the colonel's wall in his quarters (the kitchen if memory serves correct). He then goes on various monologues, referencing history while the apes stand there in chains. Clearly, the film, and Serkis as he answers the questions, is telling us, THESE ARE HISTORIC EVENTS BEING RE-ENACTED. It's not well done in the story telling sense, but it is brilliant in the sense of "propaganda" delivery.

Why is Sekis exaggerating so much about the "real torture" he felt filming these scenes? He is indeed a talented actor, no doubt. In fact he is STILL acting in this interview! Look at what he is saying here. He is an English man, wearing a chimp uniform, representing a slave, who is going to "stand up for his kind." Who is Serkis speaking about when he says "his kind?" Does he mean apes, Englishmen, or black slaves? He says this shortly after the interviewer compares his character to Denzel Washington's in a film about black American slaves. So isn't he the least bit concerned that some may wonder what he means when he says "his kind?" This "reserved Englishman" act of his serves the same function as Harrelson's "I'm just the Bartender from Cheers" act. Disarming delivery of what aughta be regarded as controversial responses. But we overlook the actual words in favor of their innocent delivery.

Reeves: "The thing that was amazing to watch was Andy. I mean, he is, he's not being whipped but he is...you can feel him being whipped...Andy wanted to be whipped and whipped, he was like, he goes "keep going because" He goes "I feel like I need to be - I need to go through this." It was powerful because of the way Andy was expressing himself. You could feel his pain, you could feel the brutality. You were like, "this is horrifying."

I'm guessing this is supposed to be some sort of compliment on Andy Serkis' commitment to "throwing himself into the role." But it comes off like some demented process of a white man trying to re-live the horrors black slaves suffered at the hands of white men. Only Andy's wearing an chimp suit while doing it. If the apes are an allegory for black slaves, doesn't that mean Serkis is acting out an allegory for "white guilt?" It's interesting that "Serkis" sounds like the word "circus." It seems to me Andy is playing a circus animal and Matt Reeves is playing the role of animal tamer. He wants us to identify with Serkis' character, meaning he wants us ALL to "join the circus as animals, while he cracks the whip on us and we plead for more." We will look more into Andy Serkis later in the blog.

SECTION IV: THE SIMIAN FLU VIRUS

When Caesar is captured by the Colonel in his ape slave stronghold, we discover through his conversations with the ape, that he is on a "holy war" to purge the planet of apes. The reason he needs to purge the earth of apes is that they carry a virus which, when humans are infected by it, causes them to lose speech abilities (among other things). Caesar and his small group encounter dead Alpha Omega (the Colonel's army) earlier in the film, which appeared to have been murdered by their own fellow Alpha Omega soldiers. So now we discover why the Colonel and his troops are holed up in their stronghold: He has been killing humans he believes to be infected by the "simian flu virus." We find he even killed his own son. So the Army is after him, and therefore he needs the apes to build a wall in order to defend the stronghold when they arrive.

I have not followed this trilogy, but as I understand it, this simian flu is the result of humans injecting apes with a drug which causes them to "become smart" and adapt more human characteristics. So the virus would seem to be the negative result of humans messing around with the laws of nature, backfiring into a virus which causes humans to devolve into apes mentally. If all of the racial allegory in the film is to be applied here, we begin to have some very controversial messages to contend with, to put it lightly.

Above are some examples of how simple hand gestures can express a deep sense of personal, political, racial, religious, or even spiritual pride. Even when presented as an allegory, as with the cross armed "Pink" gesture from "The Wall" film, we get a sense of something very serious and dangerous. Given that obvious fact, it is very hard to ignore how blatantly these recent "Planet of the Apes" films flirt with extremely controversial gestures. As you can plainly see above, the apes in the recent series have a hand gesture very similar to the "Black Panther's." This is a gesture which signifies "ape strength" or "ape pride." In this film, most of the apes seem to be evolving into more intelligent apes than the ones we know in reality. However, only a few of them seem to be able to talk. But they all seem to know sign language. Therefore, the connection between the "ape strength" gesture and the "Black Panther" gesture is LANGUAGE. The sign language of the apes would seem to be an allegory for "black language." Known in America as "Ebonics."

When the apes/chimps such as Caesar develop the ability to speak, this is an allegory for adapting the speaking style of "white society." When "whites/humans" are contaminated by the "simian flu," this is an allegory for white society being mixed with black culture, resulting in whites starting to speak in Ebonics (this allegory also fits with any foreign influence.) This is symbolized by them losing the ability to speak, such as in the case of the blond haired blue eyed Nova. She then learns the language of the apes (sign language). The analogy being - she has started hanging out with blacks and has adapted their manner of speaking in Ebonics. This is referred to as "devolving into an ape" in the film.

If you find this all extremely offensive, remember that it's right there on the big screen and millions of people are staring right past it. It is appalling what this film is showing us, but what is even more appalling is that these racial allegories have gone mostly un-examined in all major media coverage of this film, as if it isn't there. In the few cases where these allegories ARE addressed, we find a campaign to MIS-REPRESENT those attempting to point out these allegories for what they are, as shown in the above section regarding "the whipping scene." Clearly, we have a common enemy, and it's not your neighbor or the foreigner down the street, and it may ultimately not even be the enemy you think you have across the pond. You don't win chess by taking on all the pawns, you win by cornering the King - who hides behind his army. And right now the "mad king" is throwing so many of his pawns at us, we've forgotten the way the game is won!

We might think one film franchise is enough to deliver the message, but if we take a step back and look at what Andy Serkis is doing next, we find that as I write this he is working on a film called "Black Panther."

V: ANDY SERKIS AND THE BLACK PANTHER

If we take a step back and focus on the "Heart of Darkness" novella again for a moment, we find the character of "Colonel Kurtz" to be based on an actual person. It is widely believed that Kurtz was based upon a ruthless Belgian Imperialist named Léon Rom (pictured in the black and white photo above) born in Belgium 1859, and spent much time in the Congo during the height of European Imperialism there. "Rom became most famous for the alleged brutality of his administration in the Stanley Falls area (African Congo). According to contemporary reports from white missionaries, Rom had used the severed heads of 21 Congolese to decorate the flower beds of his house at Stanley Falls. He is also said to have kept a gallows permanently in place at his station." These atrocities committed by Rom are echoed in "Apocalypse Now" and "War for the Planet of the Apes," in the form of mutilated bodies which decorate the Colonel's outpost.


Chained Congolese slaves on a Belgian Rubber Plantation [from http://ultimatehistoryproject.com/belgian-congo.html]. This is a sample of the sort of racial violence being directly referenced in this latest "Planet of the Apes" film when they depict the apes as "slaves in chains" in certain scenes. Similar scenes are depicted in the original "Heart of Darkness" novella, so there is no avoiding the association.

Léon Rom must have been a very important person, because he appears again in the Tarzan story, as depicted by Christoph Waltz (pictured above next to the real photo of Rom). In the film, he is sent by King Leopold II of the Belgians to secure the fabled diamonds of Opar. This is an allegory for Belgium's scramble to plunder the natural resources of Africa, as Opar is a fictional "Atlantis" made up in the Tarzan story which is located in the Congo. The obtainment of the diamonds there is necessary to pull the country out of bankruptcy - mirroring the historical accounts of Belgium's struggle to compete with the British Imperialists also present in the Congo at the time. The story involves the enslavement of the Congolese population by the Belgians, and of course an "Ape man" in the form of Tarzan. We find almost all of the themes associated with Léon Rom in the fictional character of Ulysses Klaue, whom Andy Serkis is currently cast as in the "Black Panther" film.

Black Panther was the first non caricature black superhero in mainstream American comics. Although creator Stan Lee denies the connection, the character is clearly a metaphor for the "Black Panther" militant group, which just happened to be formed in 1966 - the exact same year the Black Panther superhero appeared! In the upcoming film, Serkis reprises the role of Ulysses Klaue, a Belgian man who kills Black Panther's father. "Ulysses Klaue is the son of Nazi war criminal Colonel Fritz (Kurtz?) Klaue of the Blitzkrieg Squad led by Baron Strucker. He was sent to Wakanda to learn their secrets by Adolf Hitler. Wakanda is a fictional location in Africa where Black Panther is from. In order to continue his design of a sound transducer which converts sound waves into physical mass, Klaw steals the metal vibranium to power his device. This is a metal substance known to exist only in certain meteoric deposits in the small African nation of Wakanda. By stealing this rare mineral, Klaw comes into conflict with the Wakandan ruler/superhero T'Chaka whom Klaw murders in cold blood. T'Chaka's adolescent son T'Challa, who watched his father fall to the invaders, then attacks Klaw to avenge his father. Klaw manages to escape at the cost of his right hand.

So let's try and sum this up. Serkis goes from playing Caesar, who's mortal enemy is a character based upon Léon Rom. Caesar and the other apes have a hand gesture very similar to the Black Panther hand gesture. Serkis then goes on immediately to play a character in another film which is heavily reminiscent of Léon Rom. Down to being a Belgian plundering the Congo for natural resources, killing the father of "Black Panther" in the process. What does all of this suggest? It suggests that there is a larger plot involving multiple films, actors, and stories - which is being sold to delivery propaganda to the public covertly through entertainment. And when you think about it, it's not even very surprising when we consider that the financiers of large films typically have a say in the subject matter - if not total dictatorship, as George Lucas and others have suggested. But we really only need imagine ourselves in such a position to influence the minds of the public on such a grand scale. Why WOULDN'T we use that power to influence society as we see fit? And wouldn't the exposure of that fact destroy the "magic spell" of Hollywood entertainment? Therefore, we find a very strong motive for the media to make a complete mockery of anyone discussing these concepts. Because if they were to be taken seriously on any mass scale, a sudden mass awareness by the public would create a profound domino affect and our leaders would be caught with their pants down to their knees. But this gets into a larger topic I will go deeper into in a future blog.

SECTION VI: THE WALL

Another allegory worth mentioning is this wall, which the enslaved apes are being forced to build in the Colonel's concentration camp/fortress. In the above billboard, we see Ceasar and his army emerging through the wall, which doesn't necessarily happen in the film. For most of the time, Ceasar is trapped inside where we find him refusing to work to build the wall, which then leads to the controversial "whipping scene" we mentioned earlier. The symbol of dehumanized slaves building a wall for a Hitler-esque leader bent on exterminating foreign influence is not a very subtle reference to the Trump wall, which he intends to build across the US/Mexican border. This "wall" of Trump's, whether it is intended to be or not, is a literal symbol of division. This is why it is being used so much in the media, because it plays directly into the "divide and conquer" strategy. We covered this "wall" symbolism in a previous blog where "The Great Wall" starring Matt Damon was discussed. We find another prominent wall in the HBO series "Game of Thrones," where "The Wall" keeps out the "White Walkers" from destroying the human race.

In the film, this wall is being built by the ape slave labor, in order to protect the white skinhead leader, in the form of the Colonel. The Colonel is being attacked by a WHITE ARMY who is aware that he is killing other humans he suspects of contracting the simian flu. When I say "white army," I don't necessarily mean that they are "white skinned," but if you look at the picture above - I would say that army could accurately be described as white. These are the soldiers that are hunting the Colonel, so yes they are a WHITE ARMY. One might then ask how we are to interpret this allegory of a "white army" attacking the "white skinhead leader," who is only trying to preserve the human race from being infected by the dark savages? Well if you notice, the apes are in the middle of this "cold, white on white war" over the mixing of species/races. If we remember that WE are supposed to identify with the apes here, you can lose your mind getting lost in this sea of negative racial allegory. It just gets kind of ridiculous at this point. How many different ways does this film wanna spell out "racism" and "xenophobia?" Infinitely, apparently. And just when we think they are finally done, it is a great white avalanche caused by the explosion of the fortress which smothers everyone, ending the war.

SECTION VII: POSTHUMANISM

"That is the beauty of the technology it does allow you, it's totally liberating, it allows you to play anything on this planet You can anthropomorphize ANYTHING now. We have the capability of doing it." - Andy Serkis, BuildSeries NYC

"I was a fan of the series from a child. I wanted to be an ape so badly. And...when I saw "Rise," I was particularly drawn to it because I'd never had that level of emotional identification with a CG character. " Matt Reeves, Film4

In this final section, I'd like to briefly cover another major agenda this film flirts with, and that is the concept of Posthumanism. This is a very lengthy topic which I hope to go more into in a future blog, but in the meantime I would suggest googling the term and doing a bit of basic research on this fascinating, potentially horrific concept. But if we simply look at the word, it means AFTER HUMAN. The term "post mortem" obviously means the state of an individual after they are dead. So how can "post human" be a good thing? It indicates that we are not human, but also does not indicate we are dead. It can only mean that we transform into something else. A robot? A monster? I don't know about you, but I'm not very eager to transform my body into a non-human lifeform.

In the above quote, Serkis talks about how "liberating" the process of being "anthropomorphized" can be. "Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities." So what Andy means is that all of that machinery connected to his body which allows him to "become" Gollum, or King Kong, Supreme Leader Snoke, or Ceasar the Chimp - is "totally liberating." Andy is promoting here, the idea that "becoming something non human" through technology is a great and wonderful , even liberating thing.

Director Matt Reeves goes a step further and reveals how badly he always wanted to be an ape! He then goes on to express his own "emotional identification" with a CG character.

Both Reeves and Serkis are passionately expressing their own desires to transfer their identities to non-human forms through technology. That may seem like a very sinister way to translate the above quotations, but it is also accurate. And as we saw in an earlier quote, Reeves' intention for the viewing audience is to turn them into apes. He's sharing his own childhood fantasy of "becoming an ape" and urging us to follow. In other words, he is advertising a form of posthumanism and strongly urging us to become something "non human" through technology. This film, or more-so its promotional campaign, is an advertisement for posthumanism.

I'd like to end this blog with some racial propaganda you won't see.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Chris Cornell: A Suicide Without Motive (PT 2)


"last guy in the world I thought that would happen to...That's not the way that book was supposed to end. And it was not the way that book was going." - Jerry Cantrell (Alice in Chains)

This is part 2 of my blog on Chris Cornell's recent passing. It will focus on the newly released toxicology report of 6/1/17 and the post mortem report of 5/18/17 (which both seem to have been released simultaneously). Some might ask why bother dwelling on this if it will not bring back the dead? My answer to that is that there are strong indications of a media coverup regarding this event, which are detailed in my last blog. This then points to murder, and if Cornell was murdered and the mass media is covering it up, it means the murderer either controls the media or has the money to pay them off. (I'd say that deserves a bit of dwelling on, even if you're not a fan of his) Given that disturbing revelation, I'm going to spend more time scrutinizing the media here, especially TMZ, and also the methods which are being used to force a false narrative onto the public.

The only 2 sources I found who claimed to have gotten the official toxicology report released by Wayne County Medical Examiner are TMZ and CNN. However, these sources only reference the report and do not publish the entire thing. I did manage to find it, as well as the post mortem report, without too much digging around - so obviously it's been leaked to multiple media sources. As of this writing, it was still available at mlive.com, who published one of the most thorough stories I found anywhere on this subject. I don't know how reliable mlive.com is, but all other simultaneously published media stories seem to quote from these documents, so I assume they are as legitimate as we can get at the moment. We will also take a closer look at public comments supposedly made by Vicky Cornell.


TMZ's managing editor is Harvey Levin, a lawyer-turned-journalist who was previously a legal expert for the Los Angeles television station KCBS-TV. The site claims that it does not pay for stories or interviews; however, Levin has admitted that TMZ does "sometimes pay sources for leads on stories". Levin has stated that "everything is researched and vetted for accuracy."

TRACK MARKS

As stated in may last blog, TMZ was the source of the "track marks" rumor. Any other media who published this story took it from TMZ. The original article was released with this headline: "Chris Cornell Fresh Track Marks on Arm." It then goes on to state that

"Chris Cornell had apparently taken more than Ativan before hanging himself, because we've learned he had fresh track marks on his arm when his body was discovered in a Detroit hotel room."

So let's just be very clear about this - TMZ has heavily suggested that Cornell shot up drugs BEFORE hanging himself based on these observed track marks. They even went the extra step to back this up with another "exclusive" story they published, which now seems fabricated specifically to enforce this false accusation:

"The new information is consistent with our story that Ted Keedick, Chris' longtime house engineer and tour manager, said Chris seemed "high" and "f***ed up" during the concert ... hours before his death."

So now they are tying their story about Ted Keedick's comments into the "track marks" story to lend credibility to it. Clearly, TMZ was at that point actively trying to encourage the perception that Chris Cornell was a druggie who was likely to commit suicide (a persona which seemed to magically appear within days following his death). After all their effort to paint Cornell as a needle junkie, they then admitted this was not true after the toxicology report appeared, albeit in VERY subtle language most people will miss or simply ignore:

"As we reported, cops observed fresh track marks on Chris' arm. According to the tox report, he had 4 needle puncture wounds on his left arm, but it appears the marks were from EMTs administering Narcan to counteract an opiate OD." - TMZ posted 6.2.2017

That last line is TMZ subtly admitting they told a half truth and exaggerated it in order to falsely make Cornell look like a suicidal junkie. And that first line is a lie, they didn't report that "cops observed fresh track marks" in the first article on this, what they actually said was "sources close to the investigation" observed the track marks. So they are even changing the wording of their source around. Perhaps some genius realized that if their "sources close to the investigation" were later found to be questionable, that might bring into question the validity of the toxicology report, which also makes references to sources close to the investigation. (and let's not forget, only TMZ and CNN claimed to have been given the Toxicology reports, which means they must have sources connected to the investigation, if we are to take them at their word) So the wording was changed to "cops" in order to avoid potentially invalidating the toxicology report inadvertently. I'm just guessing here, because otherwise it just makes no sense at all why they would so blatantly contradict themselves and then point it out to us. Even if we accept the little update about the cops - how is it multiple cops were close enough to the body to see track marks, but didn't know they were administered by the medic in an attempt to revive Cornell? If these cops were real and they were close enough to the body to see track marks, they were part of the investigation, and they knew how the marks got there. They either left that part out when they spoke to TMZ, or TMZ left that part out. There's always the real possibility that this is all bullshit too, which is probably the case. In any case, we are starting to get hints of collusion between the media and the authors of the toxicology/post mortem report.


Ted Keedick, the man TMZ claims said Cornell was "high" and "fucked up" during his last performance

TMZ cannot keep their OWN stories or sources straight. And yet we have major news publications telling us how "TMZ has obtained the Toxicology Report." These news sources then go on to quote TMZ. It's pretty sad that we must look to TMZ for "facts" about what happened to Chris Cornell, but that does appear to be the case when it comes to the Toxicology Report (the CNN article is completely uninformative, so I'm not bothering with it) I would advise the reader to remember that when they are reading anything on TMZ, we have just shown how questionable that information may very well be, and that they have no problem misinterpreting facts in order to guide a story into a direction not necessarily reflecting the truth. But it's what we have to go on, so let's continue here.

According to the report, obtained by TMZ, the singer had Naloxone (Narcan), Butalbital (sedative), Lorazepam (Ativan), Pseudoephedrine (decongestant) and barbiturates in his system at the time of death. It appears Chris had taken 4 (1 mg) Lorazepam tablets.

I compared this with the list on the Toxicology report I found, and it matches. You will notice that most news articles who list off this seemingly scary list of drugs, fail to inform the reader that Naloxone (Narcan)was injected into the body AFTER CORNELL WAS DEAD [newer articles have started including this information subtly, now that time has passed and the public isn't paying as much attention] We are not told why this was done, but we assume this is standard procedure when someone is not breathing in case they had overdosed on opiates (heroine, oxycodon) which he HAD NOT. This is also where the track marks came from. The fact that virtually all news sources are leaving that information out of the story indicates 2 things.

1: that all of these media outlets are not performing their own journalism, they are merely taking a story which was handed to them and altering the wording or simply quoting it.

2: That the same narrative is being fed to all major news outlets simultaneously, omitting the same information.


An example of the "hard drugs" found in Cornell's system

The intentional omission of this fact that Cornell did not shoot himself up and that Narcan was injected post mortem clearly indicates an attempt to distort the public's view of Cornell's character in order to SUPPORT a suicide motive. Why is the media so bent on driving home this suicide motive? Sure, it's sensationalism at its ugliest, but where are the Martin Kirsten sensationalist stories? So many people think he was the murderer, why is the media completely ignoring that fact, and instead, focusing on this bogus "suicide motive?" The answer is clear - the media is actively involved in covering up the truth about Cornell's death. Plain and simple.

Butalbital is in a group of drugs called barbiturates. It relaxes muscle contractions involved in a tension headache. It is often combined with Acetaminophen and Caffeine. Acetaminophen, butalbital, and caffeine is a combination medicine used to treat tension headaches that are caused by muscle contractions. - Drugs.com

So we have traces of meds, likely OVER THE COUNTER, to treat headaches and sinus problems. Pseudoephedrine (decongestant) doesn't sound very incriminating to me. I know this drug well as I myself have allergies. The report mentions "no doz," which are basically like drinking coffee in tablet form. Speaking of which, why would he take "no doz" and then take "Ativan?" That's like drinking a coffee right before going to bed. Serious addicts don't even mess around with that, they will do huge lines of cocaine before the show, and then slam some heroine after the show. THAT'S what junkies do. Cornell was NOT a junkie, and the Toxicology Reports basically prove that. And yet somehow the media is making the opposite seem true.

Let's just call this what it is - an overly wordy list being blown WAY out of proportion to pathetically try and further solidify this false image of Cornell as a junkie. Again, the intent here is to support a SUICIDE MOTIVE. Cornell HAD NO MOTIVE to kill himself. [some seem to think he suffered from depression severe enough to have lead to suicide, which completely ignores his healthy/productive/sober appearance of the last 15 years or so as well as the implausibility and inconsistencies of the story as it was given to the public. I would remind these people that conjecture is no substitute for huge unanswered questions in the basic narrative. There's also the fact that Vicky Cornell has been quoted multiple times stating she did not believe he was suicidal. So this automatic assumption that Cornell was suicidal and depressed is just as much conjecture, if not more, than the opposing view despite what many "conspiracy debunkers" would have people believe] The only real "drugs of note" listed in the report are Ativan and Narcan, and neither contributed to Cornell's death, according to the post mortem report. The Narcan was injected into his body after he was dead, so really we are looking at 4 Ativan pills, as the only somewhat "hard" prescription drugs of note that Cornell actually took. (notice there wasn't even alcohol in his system, which is consistent with HIS OWN narrative commenting about Soundgarden making a silent decision to be sober when they reformed) His bodyguard gave him 2 of the pills, and we don't know when he took the other 2 because apparently the media doesn't think that little fact matters. (but of course it does, and they are avoiding answering that one) And yet all media outlets are presenting this list as some sort of incriminating proof that Cornell was a "Scott Weiland" or a "Curt Cobain" or a "Layne Staley." No disrespect to those other musicians, but Cornell WAS NOT AT ALL like those other individuals, and this entire campaign to push him into that category is absurd, disgusting, and beyond disrespectful. Not just to Cornell, but his friends, fans, and family as well.


Martin Kirsten. The last man to see Cornell alive, the first person to discover the body, within less than an hour of giving the singer 2 Ativan pills - still not a word from him, and the media isn't even mentioning his name anymore in news reports

POLICE REPORT

The police report has not been posted for the public to view as far as I know. Obviously this report is composed of Martin Kirsten's recollections and there is only 1 version of it. Again, Kirsten has basically VANISHED into thin air since this story broke, so all we have is 2nd hand information of what happened via this police report, which nobody has seen except Detroit News and apparently the authors of the newly published toxicology and post mortem reports, as the police report is referenced from these sources. So why do these two sources contradict each other even when supposedly quoting the same police report? This raises valid questions about the legitimacy of the document they are supposedly in possession of.

"Per the investigative report and the police report, the decedent was found partially suspended by a resistance exercise band in his hotel room by his security guard on May 18, 2017." - Wayne County Medical Examiner's autopsy report

This is not what the Detroit News article said when this story first broke. They claimed to be quoting the same police report shortly after Cornell was pronounced dead, when they published the following:

“(Kirsten) again called for security but could not gain access to (the) room,” the report said. “At this time (Kirsten) kicked in (the) bedroom door and found victim laying on the bathroom floor.”

Notice the manner in which Detroit News quotes the report above, as if delivering to the public the raw, unedited version. But were these real quotes, or just a made up report? It says Kirsten found the body on the floor. Yet the autopsy report published more recently says the body was found "partially suspended" according to the police report. How can they both give information so basically contradictory to each other when supposedly using the same source? Somehow, this basic question of how the body was positioned when discovered by Kirsten is made confusing. If I told you I got drunk and passed out on the floor last night, you aren't going to ask me "wait, were you ALL THE WAY on the floor, or were you partially suspended?" No, on the floor means ON THE FLOOR. The quote above says he was LAYING. You can't LAY if you are partially suspended! This is a police report. A cop is asking the person who found the body how he found it. You don't get vague when it comes to a death scene, let's be realistic here. Cornell's body could not have been both "on the floor" and also "partially suspended" at the same time, so at least one of these stories is lying about what the police report says (or they've been given a fake version of it.) Detroit News were one of the first to break this story and many other news reports were based upon theirs. Therefore, this brings into question the reliability of ANY information the media initially published regarding this event, since it is was all largely copying and pasting the obviously unreliable original Detroit News article. One would then hope that the medical examiner's account would be more reliable, but a quick examination reveals that it is actually LESS plausible than the Detroit New's version!


A Bedroom suite inside the MGM Grand in Detroit, bathroom door open.


Hmm...not seeing where a carabiner clip needed "releasing" by Martin Kirsten when he entered that bathroom door. We can however see how Cornell clearly didn't need the clip at all, he coulda rigged the exercise band just like this. I don't recall seeing "overly ambitious sense of ingenuity" as one of the side effects of Ativan...

If Kirsten busted open the bedroom door and saw Cornell's body AT ALL, suspended or on the floor, the bathroom door must ALREADY have been open. The clip Cornell supposedly used to fasten the elastic band was held into place by the top of the CLOSED door and the door frame. Once the door was open, there was nothing to support this clip anymore (as you can see in the above picture). Therefore, if Martin Kirsten was able to view the body, the door would already have been open and the body would be all the way on the floor, with no wedge to hold the clip into place. We are never told how the door got open, yet we keep hearing over and over about these amazing feats of superhuman door kicking ability Martin Kirsten had, as he heroically kicks down 2 doors locked from the inside at a high end hotel without any witnesses or any security showing up (even though he called them twice asking to gain entry into the room after hours) before he actually gets to the bedroom, where he then sees Cornell on the floor. I mean, partially suspended. By an exercise band connected to a clip with no support. Why do we even need to bother with ANY "conspiracy theories" when this very basic hole in the plot exists right out in the open and nobody will address it? This is some of what makes me really wonder about the sanity of our entire American society these days! Do people just really NOT want to believe this was murder to the point they can't even address illogical explanations which are right in front of them? Forget Vicky Cornell and her possible motives for a moment, what about THIS???

LOOSENING VS UNTYING

The security guard released the resistance exercise band from the top of the door, loosened the end of the resistance exercise band around the decedent’s neck, and began resuscitative efforts. Despite resuscitation, the decedent was pronounced dead at the scene on May 18, 2017 - post mortem report published on mlive.com

Many people have asked why Martin Kirsten did not untie the band from Cornell's neck and immediately attempt CPR when he discovered the body. The reason people were asking this is because NONE of the reports previous to the release of the toxicology reports mentioned ANYTHING about Kirsten untying or even loosening the strap around Cornell's neck.

"MGM medic Dawn Jones arrived at the room at 12:56 a.m., the report said. “Jones untied the red exercise band from (the) victim’s neck and began CPR on (Cornell, who) was not breathing.”

The Detroit News quote above, which was published 5/19/17 clearly states that Dawn Jones, MGM medic, untied the band and performed CPR. There is nothing in that article stating Kirsten loosened or untied the band or administered CPR before this. But even if he did, why would Dawn Jones then need to "untie it?" That kind of means it's not loose, it's TIED. If your shoe laces are "all loose," your friends are gonna say, "hey buddy, might wanna tie those up." We should not have to sit here and figure out what the difference is between "loosening" and "untying" or "on the floor" vs "partially suspended." Sounds like they are trying to "tie up" loose ends here because they goofed on the narrative the first time around...The report also says that Mr security guard "released the resistance exercise band from the top of the door." Well we already know that is bullshit because the door was open, so what was keeping the carabiner wedged to the top of the door at that point, the force? What's really disturbing about this is it's starting to seem like the Toxicology/Post Mortem reports are in collusion with the false media narrative. Is ANY of this true? Before we ask "why would anyone want to kill Cornell" we might want to start by answering the more basic questions, of which there are many!

PICTURES RELEASED

This section of the blog was added more recently because it is directly applicable to what was just said above (note: the above was posted well before the following photos were released to the public). Detroit News posted these images online July 11th and they are claiming these are from the room where Cornell committed suicide. Now everyone assumes these are authentic pictures from the death scene - but I would not be surprised if you took a close look at the wording in that page and found it doesn't say that EXACTLY. But I leave that to the reader to follow up on if you wish to, but for now I just want to focus on these pictures here.

The top picture shows the alleged caribiner clip which was jammed in between the top of the CLOSED door and the frame which held the entire weight of Cornell's body while he hung. Notice it has not a scratch on it, it looks like someone just bought it from a store and hasn't used it for anything, and it certainly doesn't look like it was ever jammed into the top of a closed door. Also, keep in mind that this would be how the clip looked when Kirsten discovered the body, as the door was open (how else could Kirsten have seen the body in the bathroom when he entered the bedroom?) Again this illustrates the point I keep making above - this clip is simply sitting there on the top of a door. How are we to believe this clip supported Cornell's body so that it could be "partially suspended" as stated in the post mortem report? It's not physically possible, the only reason it is even staying put in the picture is because someone carefully placed it there and there is obviously no weight pulling down other than the weight of the handles on either side. A slight yank on either side and the thing would fall right down. So obviously the idea that an entire body could be even partially supported by this thing in this state is ridiculous. The original story stated Cornell was found on the floor. This made more sense, but still doesn't explain how the bathroom door was open when Kirsten arrived.

Second picture shows the clip fastened around the band. Notice it does not look like it was ever tied (no, that tricky little way they have the handle curling around the band is NOT tied, nor could it ever be tied that way, but nice try guys. So now we have to ask, why did a medic need to "untie" it if it wasn't ever tied? Oops, little hole in the plot there) We can plainly see this band did not even require tying to function as a noose, as Cornell could have put his head right into that and his own weight pulling down would have been sufficient to tighten it (assuming he lifted his legs since he was too tall to hang at that height). And there would be no logical reason to attempt to tie the other end. There's no conspiracy theory here, just a lot of info which makes no sense and for some reason people are buying it.

Last picture looks like a half assed attempt to replicate what I just suggested above without contradicting previous stories. Is that guy's hand supposed to be where Cornell's neck was? Because unless Cornell shrunk to about half the size, I don't see how he managed to hang from that high in the air, being that he'd have to lift his legs at that height in order to hang. They aren't showing the other side of the door if you notice, but one can imagine the other end of the band indeed has the handle looped over the other side, as I suggested would be enough to hold the thing in place, and probably the way someone would do it if they went with their first instinct. So where the hell would Cornell get the idea that he needed to jam the carabiner clip by forcing the door shut on it at that point? The only real reason I can see from the picture for jamming the clip would be to make the band shorter, but even at this shorter length it's nowhere near short enough to allow a man of Cornell's height to hang. Notice they are doing their best in the photo to make the door look as TALL as possible. The man's hand reaches upwards, making it look like the thing is hanging way high in the air. This is being done because the people who made this photo know very well Cornell was too tall to hang from that height. I don't believe any of these pictures are real, I think this entire session was staged. I think these people realized the "carabiner" detail was a bad idea and now we are seeing their clumsy attempts to make it look plausible and it's failing because IT ISN'T PLAUSIBLE.

If you take a look at the above pictures, you may recognize the first one as the one I used in part 1 of this blog as an example of what the door must have looked like after Mr Kirsten kicked it in. I did this to give visual representation of how physically violent and difficult the kicking in of a door which is locked from the inside can theoretically be. We are told he kicked in 2 of these, and in a seemingly very short period of time. Now I am no expert on how doors are kicked down or how it is SUPPOSED to look, but I'd say the first picture is pretty hard to dispute as a "genuinely broken in door." Now guess which door the 2nd photo is supposed to be? This is supposed to be a door Martin Kirsten kicked in to check on Cornell the night he died. If we give the 2nd photo the benefit of the doubt and assume Martin is just very skilled and can cleanly kick a door open, we still have some problems. None of the hardware which holds the door shut appears to be damaged in any way! The metal housing which lays flat against the side of the door looks slightly bent, but the wall housing seems to be completely in tact, at least from the angle shown in the picture. If the police really wanted to illustrate that the door was truthfully kicked in, they might have chosen a different angle which would show some kind of convincing damage. But I simply ask the reader, how did this door manage to open without any of that hardware being damaged if it was FORCED INWARD, meaning it would have to pass through the metal housing screwed into the side of the door frame? Look again at the first picture. That's what happens to a wall and a door when blunt metal objects are forced in a direction they are designed to resist against while they are bolted into the side wall/side of the door. That wall should be torn open or at least damaged to the point where we can see where metal hardware forced itself through the wall. This photo makes it look like the metal hardware simply passed right through the wall as if it became invisible for a split second! If someone showed me this photo and didn't tell me what to look for or what it was, I'd probably assume it was just a slightly funky door at an office or hotel - but it certainly doesn't look like it was kicked in. In fact, it looks like it probably still functions normally!

WOULD THEY LIE TO US?

In my previous blog about the 2015 La Bataclan shooting I provide an example where FOX news was brought to court for distorting the truth about a growth hormone rBGH in Milk (Akre\Wilson vs FOX Television.) The court basically ruled that it isn't illegal for FOX news to lie, nor does the FCC seem to regulate these things. Therefore, it's probably not even illegal for the media to lie to us about Cornell's death. Cigarettes companies lied to the public for years about the health hazards of cigarette use. It took a whistle blower and a tremendous amount of effort to force these companies to include health hazard information on their labels (Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams.) The NFL has gone to great lengths to sensor alarming numbers of concussion/head trauma cases (see "Concussion" film starring Will Smith). If the history of media coverup, lies, and distortions of this scale have existed in the recent past, the Chris Cornell case would seem like a very small matter. But collusion between media sources to coverup details hints at a much larger story than anyone seems to want to consider. If Cornell killed himself, why would the media need to cover ANYTHING up? Why the nonsense details and distortion? Why the silence from his band mates? Why no on camera interviews from Vicky, the band, Kirsten, or Cornell's parents/siblings? What the hell did Cornell get himself into that such a massive coverup is being perpetuated?

We're told Chris' wife, Vicky, became concerned when she couldn't reach the Soundgarden frontman after his show, and police discovered his body on the bathroom floor. TMZ 5/18/2017 10:50 AM PDT

MANUFACTURED PERCEPTION

I'm sure everyone reading this views comments sections below news stories, youtube videos, or within forums they frequent. We read these to be entertained, to watch people go at it, to gather more information that others might bring to the table, or just to vent ourselves. Now if we think that the news media and those who finance them are NOT also reading these comments sections, we are likely mistaken (I'm sure everyone reading this has seen a TWEET or a FACEBOOK POST featured as a news story, so there you go). Why would these people pass up on an opportunity to enter into our intimate conversations and thoughts in order to gather information which could be used to sell us products, gauge our beliefs regarding current events, or even just to push us into a certain direction? Focus groups pay individuals to give their thoughts on a product or a topic. Anyone who uses Yelp.com knows very well that business owners read yelp reviews, and even respond to reviewers sometimes. So yes, what you post online, and on Facebook, can and will be used to sell you stuff and to influence your thinking.

Most of us have, at one time or another, noticed an individual or a group of individuals who come onto a comments section and proceed to bash ANYONE with a viewpoint outside the mainstream narrative - or just lean heavily in one direction, usually in favor of the popular media narrative. Sometimes these individuals do not appear to even be real and will have grammatical errors all over the place and sentences which may not even make grammatical sense. We already know advertising bots are being sent into email spam folders and comments sections of news stories. You may have seen the "I make XXX amount of money working from home!" type posts, which don't even seem connected to the conversation on any level. I made a single comment on a youtube video just after Cornell died and within 24 hours I had over 100 negative responses, all using what seemed to be a pre programmed algorithm of flame responses. Within another 24 hours they all simply stopped, as if shut down by a switch. I have not gotten another comment since on that post. It was as if a swarm of robot hornets came along, stung me a bunch of times, and simply moved on. Just why and who would invest any time/money creating/deploying these bots to cyber assassinate people who are questioning the popular media narrative with regard to Cornell's death? Who wants Cornell's death details censored so badly? These bots don't come from nowhere, they are programed and sent out to complete a specific task. Someone had to make that happen. Who is it?

TRIGGER WORDS/PHRASES

If say, 55% of people commenting on news stories concerning Cornell's death are saying things like "another rock star junkie bites the dust," that still leaves 45% who are either on the fence or not convinced. Bots (or hornets) can be triggered by phrases, such as "murder" or "conspiracy" and then swarm in to make it appear like these people's opinions are WAY outside the norm. This has the effect of discouraging others to speak up, and encourages those on the fence to "join the pack" and accept the suicide narrative. It can also simply degenerate an otherwise educational conversation into a manufactured flame war, destroying any further civil conversation on the matter. (this is the same technology used to advertise/sell products to people based on trigger words they make online, on the phone, or in text messages - ever talk about a product/hygene issue and then find a spam email in your inbox advertising that very product type?) Meanwhile, news stories are generated using information gathered in these forums, in order to guide public perception into a certain direction. This is where Vicky Cornell's impeccably timed and impeccably worded quotes seem to come from, and this is why the updated versions don't always seem to make sense with previous versions. The news we are getting is literally being updated in "real time" by a combination of reality, our observed opinions, and the direction the media wants our attention to go. In other words, this isn't news - it's highly advanced propaganda. This is the basis for my theory (and yes, I will admit it is a theory) that the public comments being attributed to Vicky Cornell may not even be coming from her at all. The fact she will not appear in front of a camera is one hint of this. This is especially obvious when we look at the wildly different versions/personalities behind her original story...

Vicky was still on the phone with the bodyguard when he was able to knock down the second door and saw Chris' body hanging from an exercise band. -TMZ 5/29/17

Cornell's wife called a family friend Wednesday night and asked him to check on the singer's well-being. When the friend forced opened the hotel room door, he found the SOUNGARDEN frontman on the bathroom floor. - Blabbermouth, referencing TMZ 5/18/17

VICKY KARAYIANNIS CORNELL

Some people seem to think Vicky Cornell may have had something to due with Chris' death. I think Chris loved her and I am not convinced she is the evil woman some think she is. But I am also not convinced she is the person we keep seeing quoted in the press.

He then started to complain, "I blew my voice. I blew my voice." He kept repeating it. And then he changed the subject to something that made no sense. Vicky says she knew something was seriously wrong and said to Chris, "I need to know what you took tonight. You don't sound right, sweetheart." He replied, "I was really angry and I just took 2 Ativan. I'm really pissed and I had to calm myself down." Vicky replied, "I need to know what you took. It doesn't sound like 2 Ativan. It sounds like you took something else. You need to tell me now what you took. I forgive you." Vicky says at that point Chris' entire demeanor changed. He got aggressive -- not toward her -- but his tone was "cocky and aggressive." She says she immediately had a flashback to 14 years before, when Chris was abusing Oxycontin ... when it got so bad at one point he nearly died. Chris then changed the subject and made no sense at all. Vicky panicked, hung up and called Chris' bodyguard, begging him to race over to his room and get inside, and she said if he had to knock the door down then so be it. She had never had someone check on him in 14 years, but she was afraid he would die. She says the bodyguard knocked down the front door but couldn't knock down the second, so she used a second phone to call the hotel and plead with them to open the interior door. She was screaming, "He's having a heart attack." - TMZ 5/26/17

In this article we don't get the impression that Chris had just seen his bodyguard or that he was GIVEN any pills by him. He even says he took (meaning, GOT IT HIMSELF, not from someone else) the Ativan "to calm myself down," that kind of indicates he was the one in charge of medicating himself. He says "I'm really pissed" then suddenly "becomes aggressive" when Vicky presses him on what he took. What does that mean exactly? If you are "really pissed" isn't that kind of the same as being "aggressive?" So how is it his demeanor totally changed? This doesn't make sense. Also in this story Vicky calls Martin Kirsten and STAYS ON THE PHONE WITH HIM while he kicks doors down. This is why she needs a "second phone" to call the hotel, who apparently didn't think this warranted showing up to the room.

When we spoke after the show, I noticed he was slurring his words; he was different. When he told me he may have taken an extra Ativan or two, I contacted security and asked that they check on him. What happened is inexplicable and I am hopeful that further medical reports will provide additional details. I know that he loved our children and he would not hurt them by intentionally taking his own life."

First, the tone of this second story is of a much more calm and collected Vicky Cornell. The story is also practically re-written. In this quote, Cornell is no longer "aggressive" and "angry," but "slurring his words." Well, which one was it Vicky? Because if I were to believe both, I'm having a hard time picturing Cornell being aggressive, angry, and slurring his words simultaneously. Cornell now says he MAY have took an extra ativan or 2, whereas in the first story he flatly states he had to take a couple to calm down. Again, 4 were found in his system according to the post mortem report, but we never hear where the extra 2 came from. She is no longer panicking and screaming "he's having a heart attack." She is no longer on the phone with Martin Kirsten as he bashes doors down. She is no longer calling the hotel with her other phone as she stays on the line with Kirsten. She also isn't referring to Kirsten anymore, she's calling him "security." That could mean she called the hotel or that could mean she called Kirsten - it's ambiguous. As we mentioned earlier, the Post Mortem report also refers to Kirsten as a "security guard." It seems the authors of this false story were having problems deciding if they were going to have Martin discover the body, Hotel security, or the police. I guess they tried to keep it abiguous so they could leave room to update the narrative later. "Security" could refer to any one of the 3 in a pinch - this would explain why that term is used so loosely in many cases. This was a badly scripted event, it's kind of amazing anyone is accepting it.

To My Sweet Christopher, You were the best father, husband and son-in-law. Your patience, empathy and love always showed through. You had always said I saved you, that you wouldn't be alive if it were not for me. My heart gleamed to see you happy, living and motivated. Excited for life. Doing everything you could to give back. We had the time of our lives in the last decade and I'm sorry, my sweet love, that I did not see what happened to you that night. I'm sorry you were alone, and I know that was not you, my sweet Christopher. Your children know that too, so you can rest in peace. I’m broken, but I will stand up for you and I will take care of our beautiful babies. I will think of you every minute of every day and I will fight for you. You were right when you said we are soulmates. It has been said that paths that have crossed will cross again, and I know that you will come find me, and I will be here waiting. I love you more than anyone has ever loved anyone in the history of loving and more than anyone ever will. Always and forever, Your Vicky -billboard.com

First of all, this woman lost her husband to suicide less than a month ago. What on earth made her want to write an open letter to the public addressed to him? "I love you more than anyone has ever loved anyone in the history of loving?" Why does this sound like the end of the Wizard of OZ when Dorothy is hugging everyone and going "I'm going to miss you the most Scarecrow!" It seriously sounds like some sort of Disney movie ending scene quote. It's like she's saying farewell to her husband for good and closing the book. It's as if she's suggesting the film is over and we should go home. No, I'm not going home and this film is not over. Say it in front of a camera Vicky. Let's see your eyes while you say this. And bring along your "family friend" Martin Kirsten. Let's see his face while you say these things. Then MAYBE I will believe this. Until then, these are words written by anyone.

“Many of us who know Chris well, noticed that he wasn’t himself during his final hours and that something was very off,” “We have learned from this report that several substances were found in his system. After so many years of sobriety, this moment of terrible judgement seems to have completely impaired and altered his state of mind. Something clearly went terribly wrong and my children and I are heartbroken and are devastated that this moment can never be taken back.”

“We very much appreciate all of the love we have received during this extremely difficult time and are dedicated to helping others in preventing this type of tragedy.”

Who exactly noticed that Chris "wasn't himself" during his final hours? Would it be that Ted Keedick guy who TMZ paid to say Cornell was "fucked up" during his last performance? Would it be his "family friend" and "bodyguard" and "security guard" Martin Kirsten, who gave him 2 Ativan after the show even though everyone seems to think Cornell was just WAY off his rocker when performing that night? When did he take the other 2 pills Vicky? I thought Martin was holding his prescription? Indeed, "several substances" were found in the singer's system alright. Yeah, that sinus headache medication can be quite serious! And that Narcan - boy that will bring a corpse right back to life out of an opiate induced stupor! It's difficult not to get angry when reading comments like these, which seem almost condescending to the reader who is actually taking the information at face value and weighing the plausibility of it. But sadly, it really doesn't seem many people are doing this. Because if they were, this blog would not even need to have been made!

WE JUST CAN'T KNOW WHAT GOES ON IN THE MIND OF THE DEPRESSED

Chris Cornell showed no signs of being suicidal, therefore this idea that he may have been secretly tormented is conjecture. Even his wife's quotes, which I admit are questionable, have consistently maintained that Cornell was not suicidal. In fact this point is one of the few she has NOT contradicted herself on. But could he have hid this from even his wife? Well sure, it could be. But it's still conjecture. Why is conjecture allowed when it favors suicide, but conjecture is NOT allowed when it favors murder? Even people who think Cornell killed himself will admit this entire story has felt odd from the start. And yet these same people refuse to answer the many basic questions or respond to very obvious inconsistencies in the narrative. As we can see, if we are bothering to read any of this, the "conjecture" favoring murder is actually STRONGER than the conjecture favoring suicide. So next time you see an article about this story and you see a "suicide prevention" phone number at the bottom - just remember, that number isn't there just to help suicide victims. What do I mean?

In sales we call this being "assumptive." It means you don't say, "so do you believe me that Joey died drowning when we went to the river?" Instead you say, "Yeah so it really sucks that Joey died when we went to the river, we'll never forget him. Let's start an organization to help kids learn to swim" The latter statement ASSUMES you believe it, without asking. By placing "suicide prevention" notices on every Cornell story, this subtly suggests to you that Cornell's suicide is already an ESTABLISHED FACT, even though it has not been proven (Unless you call a load of contradictory/incomplete/unverified information or conjecture "proof" that is) So even though many people may have their heart in the right place, ultimately anyone who goes on this "suicide awareness" trip is not only exposing the fact that they haven't done any in depth research regarding the story, it also helps hinder the progress of those who HAVE and are trying to inform people. This is a very important point and I hope people understand that I am not condemning "suicide prevention" awareness. But these people HAVE TO DO THE RESEARCH before assuming all of that, and clearly many have not. Because anyone who does this will see there is, at BEST, ambiguity regarding Cornell's death. You wouldn't put an AIDS PREVENTION ad on a story about Greg Allman, because he didn't die from AIDS. There's nothing wrong with raising awareness about AIDS prevention, but there is a time and place where it is appropriate, and you don't go posting it where it isn't appropriate. And you especially don't use such an occasion to encourage people to think someone died in a manner which has not been absolutely proven.

SO WHO KILLED HIM THEN?

I will state flatly right now that I do not know who killed Chris Cornell. But as I stated earlier, a media coverup indicates that this was organized by someone very powerful. We've already seen that the media has no problem sensationalizing a story, misrepresenting facts, changing their story, mixing up their sources, etc...but all the while consistently promoting the "suicide motive." So while this all may seem like pathetic bumbling attempts to sensationalize a story, it's not as harmless as that. By totally leaving Martin Kirsten alone, the media is protecting him. The media is not covering the opinions of Cornell's band mates, his ex wife, or his parents (are they even alive still?) The media doesn't leave an obviously hot topic alone to protect people, unless they are paid to or blocked from the top - Martin Kirsten is a hot topic they are just not touching. Again, I don't know who killed Cornell, but this guy needs to talk, on camera. And we need to know who the hell he is exactly. Bottom line.

As most reading this know, the Cornells had a non profit organization to help endangered children. This is an area of Cornell's life I was not aware of until very recently. Some have suggested that one possible reason he was murdered had something to do with this work he was doing. I'm not going to comment on it because the information seems unverifiable and the sources seem questionable at this point. But I thought that was a good bit to end this blog on. I hope this was informative and I thank you for reading it.