It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Colbert's subtle (or not so subtle) hints at Skull & Bones / Bohemian Grove

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 06:25 AM
link   
There has been talk here about Colbert being up to date on lots of CTs, even an amusing thread that some ATSers were implying Colbert posts here, but I digress.

For example, last night on the Colbert Report (Oct 31, 2007), when he mentioned what Bush's job was, the first thing to pop on screen was "Burnt Effigy Model."



There is clearly no other explanation for that joke but the Bohemian Grove. I imagine the studio audience laughter was a bit faked on that one, unless I underestimate a average person's info on CTs.

Also, Colberts book came out this month, and there is a chapter on politics that jokingly says that if you goto college, the best thing to do is join a secret society, then proceeds to talk about Bush going to Skull and Bones, and that Skull and Bones is the premier club for cia directors, high ranking government officials, presidents, etc.

That one wasn't so subtle.

p.s. on a sidenote, if you want the book, I suggest getting the audio book - it's read by Stephen, Jon Stewart, that chick from Strangers with Candy and a few other people.




posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   
I think you are off base and missing the obvious on your claim.I believe that the far more likely explanation would be that he has alienated so much of the world that protesters make likenesses of him and burn him in effigy, hence the title given.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to agree with BFC on this one. Burnt effigies are not so common here in the US, so Colbert's joke probably went over the heads of a lot people anyway. Colbert's fanbase is more likely to catch it than say, Leno's, though.

In other countries it's practically a tradition to dress up a dummy like the President of the United States and set it on fire. It happens all the time, and makes international news, but the media over here thinks that would upset some people so they don't like to show it to us sensitive citizens.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I really don't like this guy nor the station he reps. Think about it, people watch that drivel everynight and sardonically laugh about how dire the geopolitical situation is instead of ACTION to end it, brainwashed dumb in front of the tv. Then, he's got the nerve to "run from prez" like it's a sarcastic joke. Now, you'll get the "vote for Nader is a vote..." thing w/ him.

On or off the ballot, it'll happen because some idiot kids will use the ol "write-in" feature and then - we get more nwo w/ Hill.

So, people following this actor on a tv station -- you're hurting Ron Paul's chances by supporting this stupidity.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I take him for what he is: a comedian and political satirist. I do not "follow" him, and I spend VERY LITTLE time in front of the TV. I agree with you that voting for him would be "throwing away your vote", but really, that is something only an idiot would do.

I think I'd have to disagree with you slightly on some of the points you made. I think political satire is a good thing - it makes people think. It was this kind of humor that was instrumental in opening up my paradigm. I don't think I ever was a 'brainwashed-TV-addicted-zombie' anyway, but if we're going to rate the evils of what's on TV, I'd put Colbert and his ilk way down at the bottom of the list.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   
It's far from 'thought-provoking' coming from Comedy Central -- owned by Viacom -- who's the biggest corporate killer to free speech there is.

FCC takeover, since no one gives a hoot to change anything, deregulation while you were sleeping and there's hardly any indy media left.

Viacom = CBS MTV VHI BET USA TNN UPN Showtime and thousands more including book publishers, radio stations, etc.

"VIACOM is owned by 81 year old Forbes list Sumner Redstone (Rothstein) whose Net Worth is aprox. $8.8 billion and counting, The Boston native Harvard grad is a Bush family friend..."

www.psychotronicvideo.com...

So, is it "poli satire" when they're all on the same team? Or laughing at those who think they're free of their doublespeak?

I pay, as a taxpayer, for this?! Deregulation since invention.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   
It may not be thought-provoking to you, and perhaps not so much to me either, but it is to some.

Viacom knows they have to include material like this, or everyone else would notice that they're just another shade of gray, Big Brother on the tube. So, their censors are stuck with the job of deciding just how much to let pass.

The conundrum for Big Brother is that he is not creative, so, in order to sell soap, Big Macs and various pharmaceuticals, he has to hire folks that are. These folks are often opposed to (or indifferent, or completely uninformed about) Big Brother, censorship and mind-control, but if they can prove that they can play by the rules (like any good brick in a pyramid) they get the job. If they break those rules they get fired. If they break 'em good enough, they get blacklisted. Until then, they create material for entertainment purposes and some of them try to slip a few jibes in under the radar. This is the kind of thing I'm referring to, and you can't tell me it doesn't happen. And that it's not a good thing when it does.

I know very few people have their eyes opened by Colbert making a particular joke about Bush, but the seeds of dissent are there. He might be on their payroll but I wouldn't put him on their "team".

I do not think I'm "free of their doublespeak", I know I am. Your taxes don't pay for Comedy Central. Procter & Gamble, McDonalds, Pfizer and your cable bill does.

[edit on 11/1/2007 by Teratoma] (Changed first word from "I" to "It")

[edit on 11/1/2007 by Teratoma]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
the truth is, Colbert and Jon Stewart couldn't say 1/10 of the things they say now, unless it is in a satirical tone. If their shows weren't obviously on comedy central, chances are they would have been blackballed or assassinated by now.

about the effigy things - perhaps, although ive never heard that phrase before.

about Colbert being a "free-speech killer" or only for idiots... develop a sense of humor already. If you were really so proactive, you wouldn't be wasting your time on a message board - you would be out promoting Ron Paul, right?



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Wrong again on that last bit -- DARPA and the likes does "television research" and I refuse to have cable in the house, so actually my taxpaying dollars does go into inane programming for the mindless. Friends have shown me the show and I still find it a paradoxical piece of waste, like most programming on tv.

Why are you taking such a defensive stance in this? "Not on the same team" -- dude, like you know what goes on behind closed doors, let alone the FACT that they're on the same payroll w/ one of the largest corporations of war there is - Viacom.

Think they're a part of this? Oh yeah, I do.
(click on it to change the image -- there's a chart-like illustration tying many U.S. entertainment companies to war companies. From the music group Godspeed, You Black Emperor's "Yanqui U.X.O." album.




posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by anhinga

Why are you taking such a defensive stance in this? "Not on the same team" -- dude,



Dude, maybe it's because of the tone in choice of words. Plus, your statement about Colbert and the fat cats "laughing at those who think they're free of their doublespeak" was a direct reference to what I said, so it sounds to me like you think YOU know what goes on behind closed doors. With all due respect, you have no idea what doors I've been behind or what went on behind them.

When you move into a cave and stop paying taxes altogether then maybe what you're trying to say will make more sense, but face it - you're just as much a part of the establishment as I, or anyone else here on the WWW is.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Why are you taking such a defensive stance in this?

hardly. I have no personal stake either way. Just find it amusing, out of all the people to have a chip against, you pick a comedian. What a ray of sunshine you must be, lol.


there's a chart-like illustration tying many U.S. entertainment companies to war companies. From the music group Godspeed, You Black Emperor's "Yanqui U.X.O." album.


I don't get the point of this, or how it relates to anything - let alone this thread.

I still find it amusing you seem to be taking this "higher ground" stance, as if you wouldn't dare waste your precious time having a laugh. You aren't fooling anyone. Just the fact you read this post and commented on it shows how much free time you have to waste. Perhaps you should try to spend more time laughing and taking things lighter, as opposed to being on the offensive all the time. It's probably not healthy



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by anhinga
Wrong again on that last bit -- DARPA and the likes does "television research" and I refuse to have cable in the house...


But you spend time on the internet on sites like ATS. You think the Powers That Be turn a blind eye to the internet?

DARPA would have alot better chance learning about you through posts and online activity than what you watch on TV.

Most TV is garbage, agreed. But your seemingly "holier than thou" attitude about it gives me indigestion.

Just a thought.

BTW, how does "Redstone" equate to "Rothstein"?



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Look it up, he changed his name.

Don't mean to take a "holier then thou" attitude -- I dislike when others do it and I try not to -- sometimes TONE gets lost in forums like this. Didn't mean to offend anyone, I just take this topic (in general) to heart seriously.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by anhinga

Look it up, he changed his name.


OK, I'll take your word for it.

The only thing I get from "Rothstein" is that he's Jewish. What's the problem?

Please tell me that you know that the "Protocols" are a load of shyte. Please.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Tone is one thing; sure it gets lost in text. That's why I also said "choice of words". You posted with vitriol in direct reference to what I said, which would be considered offensive to most people. But you also apologized (sort of) so let me just say, we probably agree on more things than we disagree about - even on this subject. Arguing amongst ourselves like this is pretty counterproductive and it's not what I come here for. Peace.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


You started the (pointless?) thread, I don't think you should be jumping down the throats of those who are having a discussion with another member within the thread, or dictate on what subsequent aspect of the thread should be discussed. Let those who get into it, have it out. You should be grateful that people want to hear what you have to say, and even take the time to comment on it.

I think the thread is kind already sporadic in discussion already, but he has a good point about media and the military industrial complex. Watching anything related to Viacom, even something as "non related" as the Colbert Show, kind of defeats the purpose of being against "them." When all is said and done, they're still collecting your money, and you're inevitably giving in to the evil you're against.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Colbert and Stewart are the only "news" I watch regularly.

They're more intelligent by far than any of the mainstream infotainment channels, and far funnier.

They mock the government, they're not part of it.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Watching anything related to Viacom, even something as "non related" as the Colbert Show, kind of defeats the purpose of being against "them."


Who is "them?"

Viacom? The Illuminati? Big Brother? The Jews?

Again, I agree that most TV is crap, and I agree that to an extent it could be used as a tool to weaken the mind and/or implant suggestive ideas (or to just plain make us lazy), but who is "them?"

Until "they" are identified, really it's all "us," isn't it?

I would imagine "their" power structure is much less convoluted than alot of people make it out to be.

I think in the end it's all about MONEY, not necessarily CONTROL. At least by and large.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
You started the (pointless?) thread, I don't think you should be jumping down the throats of those who are having a discussion with another member within the thread, or dictate on what subsequent aspect of the thread should be discussed.


jumping down throats? Why is everyone being so dramatic today? If anything, I've been amused with the replies in this thread, not agitated by them.

Also, from now on, lets keep personal or on-topic related posts to U2U messages, thanks.


Watching anything related to Viacom, even something as "non related" as the Colbert Show, kind of defeats the purpose of being against "them."


first of all, the plethora of assumptions in this thread are still way out of proportion. I haven't had cable for over 5 years - I watch the daily show and colbert report via torrents and newsgroups. So "supporting" viacom is laughable. Second of all, it seems like you guys are taking the head-in-the-sand approach.

"I'm against _____, so I will just avoid it and remain ignorant out of fear of indirect support."

p.s. who said I'm against "evil?" How do you oppose an abstract, subjective concept anyways?



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by The Axeman
 


Exactly why it was in paratheses. The topic starts out to suggest that it's a subtle remark for those involved in the Bohemian Grove society, or what have you, then another poster starts talking about the military industrial complex... I generalized the claim.

I personally don't belive in "them." And absolutely agree with you, when you bring a little thing we seem to so commonly lack called "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY."

Money bonds with money, companies conglomerate for power, wealth and power equal control in industry. I don't think there's any one agenda, but just the vague appearance of one that is just a subsequent outcome of what you could call, "the nature of the beast."

Edit: Then/Than. It's always the little things...

[edit on 1-11-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join