A Different Corner

[rachel]

The easiest spots are back in the Wham! days, when it wasn't about the money, it was just having a laugh. It was that Sony deal that corrupted everything and turned George Michael to the dark side, pushing AIDS depopulation agenda drugs for Big Pharma.

I'm of the view, Mini's abnormally wide jaw is because it's not normal, it's been widened to change her face shape, and for the camera, it has to be a bit OTT to be picked up.

[Exit]

This fakeology process, gets rid of so many heroes!

Having said that, his song ‘Praying for time”, is still up there with my favourite, heartfelt songs.

[rachel]

Yes, for some people it's going to be a harder hit than others. I look on the bright side, I'm not trying to punish or shame people I name, really I'm not. I just believe if this stuff is out of the closet, then the need to hide it at all costs with quite frankly dangerous ideology goes right out of the window.

I'm convinced the Trans stuff now, in the first instance, was created as an excuse to go after people who have been trying to put this information out in various coded ways. But because it's all about commercial interests, and everyone needs money to live, no one in the industry can directly address it. Whatever their personal feelings, they are trapped by the system. We should never forget that.

[Exit]

Yes. I always wonder now if, people like George Michael who are humiliated in the public eye, are being punished or warned. A shot across the bow. Imagine how that would feel, being owned like that with few places to hide.

[Samson79]

Yes. I always wonder now if, people like George Michael who are humiliated in the public eye, are being punished or warned. A shot across the bow. Imagine how that would feel, being owned like that with few places to hide.

Are these icons, idols, aSTARtes, temple prostitutes, liars, actors (fakers) enter-T-anus peoples really having a gun put to their heads? Are they literally faking the enjoyment of being watched, being seen or influencing peoples minds, emotions and life choices?? What could make someone want to live that lifestyle if not for the promise of being a active participent in this evil world??

Im only asking the question.

I have doubts they are threatened to live this way at punishment of death.


Ive met quite a few failed artists in my time, writers, poets, musicians, actors and there is a theme running parallel amongst them, they never concede they are talentless, but concede they cannot voluntarily walk into a lifestyle they begin to learn is morally corrupt from the minute they embark on their journey to gain exposure in their chosen field, they simply love what they do, but realize the only people who can catapult them to success or are a requisite of disowning self reliance are monsters.

I met a woman online once who I began chatting to, we became quite close, or as close as can be said for friendship in the digital faceless domain of username fakery (are we not made to choose a charachter name to be able to post our thoughts, an initiation of sorts, needing a password and a artistic license?), this woman wanted me to know how evil her chosen enviroment really was, she was not in too deep and so had not anything to lose but her dream to become a household name, she was still looking at it all through the lense of ability and talent, hardwork and determination, but having not made her big deal with Satan and his children to somehow prove she was worthy of her place amongst the elite writing minds, promotion, contacts, SACRIFICE.
I think she couldn't stomach it and I told her it was a blessing in disguise, but not without her lesson learned, the bitterness of accepting ambition always brings you face to face with the "world" how it really is.

Why do social workers persue social work?
Why do Police persue a career Policing?
Why do some of the most honest, loving people I have ever met wish to die or struggle to adapt to society?

Some people have no compulsion but to want to live a very private life in peace without any interference or wish to become a burden upon others, I only have to look at the concept of footballers and compare their importance to the requisites of a healthy happy society and I instantly see the reason.

[rachel]

I have doubts they are threatened to live this way at punishment of death.

Punishment of death in the entertainment industry is an interesting concept. And in a way I do believe it exists...but back to this later.

I've long thought the disguises are two-fold. If we stick with George M for the moment, the interview I posted up, George talks about how the first job he got was DJ-ing, and even though no one could see him, he found it terrifying. It therefore seems, by putting on a disguise, particularly if it's so removed from oneself as to be the opposite gender, it frees the person from fear; because people are looking at someone else, so it's easier to concentrate on the performance.

Then there is the record label. Is it possible for a corporation to copyright a human person's face? I'm going to suggest the answer to that is no. So for a corporation to own and protect the content they paid for, it needs to copyright something else. If we think back to The Beatles, when their five year contract with EMI ended and they chose not to renew it, they radically changed their look. I would suggest a big part of that was because EMI owned the mop-top look; John, Paul, George and RIngo didn't. Therefore John, Paul, George and RIngo could have been sued for using it post EMI, just the same as anyone else.

s-l300.jpg (19.23 KiB) Viewed 7640 times

Again, if we think of Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May might have totally made the show the success it was, but BBC owns the copyright, so when they left the BBC, they couldn't take Top Gear with them. Instead, the BBC hired new presenters to take the show forward and the three produced something similar but different for Amazon.

With music artists it appears to be more tied down. And this is where the second part of disguises comes in. Now from previous posts I put forward the claim the actual sex of the artist playing George M is female. So who owns the legal fiction George Michael? I'm going to suggest it was never the artist. Prior to the Sony contract, George was signed to another label, they likely owned the brand, we get glimpses in the following quote relating to George M's law suit with Sony where he wanted out of the contract. Whatever happened to that label, they signed the GM contract over to Sony, the artist agreeing to the transfer and the new terms and conditions. For the substantial investment, Sony required changes to the brand image and a set amount of records over a number of years. No different from stock market investments really.

George Michael Loses Lawsuit Against Sony
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/22/arts ... -sony.html

Recording companies have always argued that because they spend so much to find and develop new artists, they can recoup their investments only through long-term relationships with those relatively few acts who go on to major success. If artists were given freedom to break their contracts and walk away after an album or two, the companies would no longer be able to afford to spend so much on new talent, executives said.

"The concern we had was that the judge might have found against long-term contracts between artists and record companies," said David Hughes, a spokesman for EMI Records in London. "Had the judge found that, it would have had quite severe implications for us in our confident ability to invest in artists."

At the news conference, Mr. Michael said he had signed the 1988 contract "to make the best of a bad job" and sued only when left with no other option.

"In fact, there is no such thing as resignation for an artist in the music industry," Mr. Michael said. "Effectively, you sign a piece of paper at the beginning of your career and you are expected to live with that decision, good or bad, for the rest of your professional life."

So back to the 'punishment of death'. see how above, George says, "there is no such thing as resignation", this is not entirely true. There is, but it's "death". The legal fiction is liquidated, and the media announce the artist has died, and I would suspect, as far as the industry is concerned, the artist is dead, anyone working with them after this point is also likely to be cancelled by the corporation and its affiliates. The cancel culture we see now in every day life is just an extension of what first came in via the entertainment industry.

But for a label, how do you make this stick in a court of law? Well, with the ability to create false skin, it's perfectly possible to produce a persona that looks different enough that people will not recognise the artist underneath, and instead just see the image. But to make the argument legally tight, if that artist is a different sex to the persona and people just see the gender presented, then there is no doubt who is performing...it's the legal fiction; the brand...literally a glove puppet.

Was George Michael really arrested for lewd behaviour in a gents toilets? We can say with a high level of certainty, no. It's a fictional story produced for a fictional character owned by Sony. Whether the artist had any say in the articles that were published is unknown. It could be it came directly from the artist hating the prison of George Michael by this stage. Else, having just won the court case, Sony might have decided to make money from the brand in other ways, pushing other agendas, so they produced the story independent of the artist, and the person we know as George Michael just had to suck it up.

What we do know, once George Michael fulfilled his contract obligations and any legal argument over the music licenses of his back catalogue were sorted, there was no further reason for George Michael to exist, particularly if the artist didn't want to use the persona going forward. Therefore we have the liquidation of the character, in the same way as any other company listed on Companies House. RIP George Michael.

[napoleon]

do we consider people who survive being a full time truther as controlled ,after all if one is talking bullshit masons will fund them ,its the masons that are used to maintain the shitty charade after all,,,just a question because we know they donate to control also ,you see ,,,,,im trying to grade idiots you see,so some cockknocker with 2000 subs on youtube has to maintain the level in the discord as that platform is about the same level ,,,just wanna grade truth outlets

[napoleon]

cos its not mainstream thats controlled they are entertainers arent they with a tad of truth first impression truthers ,alex jones them boys ,,so what level are we here?

does that rely on number of interactions followers what

[napoleon]

its not concensus reality obviously ,but i am interested in what level they consider themself truther ,or should i say how far down the path are you ,did you miss the turnoff? and have a fright with the trannies in the cul de sac

i do find this fascinating as some chaps that declare themselves professional truthers are limited to the same levels imposed by the discord troupe ,personally its an ongoing process and switched to analysing truthers in 2018 because of their manipulators ,and the psilly beliefs some have to adopt ,demons lizards chemtrails whatever vaccines are harmless ,whatever ridiculous shtick they take on ,whatevers your poison

anyway id be happy for any thoughts
or a list of truthers shortcomings ,ie he's good but he believes its a ball .or vice versa

and links to the chaps would be nice ,

or regulars on talk shows and the audo

[rachel]

First off, I suspect some names we wouldn't suspect are actually part of the low level truther community. If, for example, you get a proper contract with the BBC, then there are lots of hours to fill. I used to wonder how the BBC could justify paying, for example, DJs for two hours of work five days a week? And if they were actually only being paid for ten hours a week rather than 35, how they could afford to live. So therefore we get the bullshit they are all on these massive salaries. I think that is part of the con.

This was my main starting point for...this person is this person...because if we go back to the BBC example. What might be another way around the cost of employing a load of people for seemingly two hours a day, four or five days a week...not all DJs do the Friday show, and what gives with the people who only do one show a week? Why are they not on the street destitute? In the real world where people have to earn money and therefore they cost money, how does the BBC get around the apparent drain on resources and massive waste of money for something like its DJs?

So I started looking at BBC DJ photos. How many of those DJs would actually be needed working full-time to man Radio One.

Radio - BBC Radio One Launch - Broadcasting House, Portland Place, London - 4 September 1967

Here's a listing of the first day's broadcast. 5:30 am to 2:00 am, that could be covered in three shifts, and if they employ two sets of people a week so the weekends are covered, we are still not getting a full eight hours of work out of them. But we are looking at a job for six people...we see twenty-two. How can the BBC afford this?

https://www.radiorewind.co.uk/radio1/ra ... ch_day.htm

Now I know that is just a paper exercise and the reason DJs swap around is that no one wants to hear the same person speaking for eight hours. But the question is, considering the economics of the situation, how does the BBC get around it? ...One way would be for one person to actually do six hours, but as three different characters...this immediately saves costs, yet gives the impression the BBC is bigger and more impressive than it actually is.

While I except it is far more nuance than I suggest in the above example, I never-the-less am convinced this is the principle the BBC works to...and the BBC is the model for every other television/radio organisation in the west.