Dear Matt Damon

[Rose]

Dear Matt Damon,

First of all, let me just say that I have enjoyed your work in various movies over the years. And congratulations on all of your success, both popularly and especially financially. But I want to talk specifically to you about one of your rolls, as the voice-over talent for the recent documentary movie entitled “Inside Job”.

Again, well done sir. This was a very well presented documentary on corruption most foul within the banking industry and in the United States government. But to be honest Matt, I have never seen a more well-done and yet totally incomplete presentation of the facts about such an important event in our nations history. In short, you were the narrator of one of the biggest propaganda pieces in history, and I was wondering how that feels…

You see Matt, I figure that your participation in this thing can only be explained by two possibilities:

1) You were just reading a script, and really don’t comprehend what was truly happening outside of what that script stated within the government and banking industry. And you thought you were truly part of something quite special.

2) You were fully aware of your participation in a government cover-up of the most important aspects of what really happened during this period of organized crime, and you were rewarded handsomely for your popularity and participation in this totally incomplete propaganda piece.

Now, I see that you are supportive of many charities and organizations around the world, and that pleases me as one of your fans. And so I am writing you this letter to let you know that I want to give you the benefit of the doubt with regards to your participation in this misleading documentary. I truly believe that you were doing what you thought was best (and I’m sure the paycheck wasn’t too bad either).

But if this assumption is true, I am wondering what you would do if you found out that you were unwittingly part of a massive misinformation campaign designed to obfuscate the most important aspects of this criminal event. Would you seek to publicly rectify the situation if you saw the proof that “Inside Job” was just a half-truth, designed to allow the very government who has ravished the third-world you are so desperately trying to help through your charities and support, get away with the financial crime of the century? Have you made enough millions yet that you would be willing to sacrifice your future movie career to truly educate humanity about the real Inside Job that took place and how it is directly responsible for the poverty and destitution that you publicly rally against?

As a fan, I’d like to know the answer to these questions…

So Matt, if you will indulge me for just 15 more minutes, I’d like to explain a few things to you, so that you might publicly address the true nature of the so-called financial collapse of 2007-2008 with a fully informed head. For that, I’ve prepared this video, which is just a short snip-it of a 4-hour documentary that I made on the same subject. Please know that this movie cost me nothing to make – except my valuable personal time – and is offered for free to the public without charge. I’m not selling anything. You see, it doesn’t take 20 million dollars to uncover the truth… not like the budget for “Inside Job”, just a deep passion for the truth and a hell of a lot of research.

Now, if you will, please view this 15 minute excerpt from this free movie, The Great Pension Fund Hoax:

So as you can see, Matt, Inside Job failed to mention the most important information for the comprehension of this whole Ponzi scheme – the fact that government had massive controlling stock investments in these banks, investment corporations, mortgage corporations, and bail-out receivers. In other words, the financial collapse of these corporations was not a collapse at all, but was instead a merger of government investment held and owned corporations through what is called “corporate governance”, as well as the complete and utter theft of billions and billions of dollars from the public. This term, corporate governance, was even mentioned once to my surprise in the movie – but with no explanation of what it actually means.

Again, now that you have received this holy grail of comprehension with regards to your documentary’s cover-up, and now that you can see the true nature of government’s complete conflict of interest as major share-holder of every major and important corporation on the planet – while also regulating the markets and industries those investment held banks and corporations operate under (including the major water companies like Nestle, Coca-cola, and Pepsi that are stealing all of the clean water from the African children you are banging your head against the wall trying to help) – what are you going to do about it?

What will you do…?

I mean, considering that the government also has major controlling shares in the very media industry that has made you such a wealthy and popular icon, do you have the integrity to stand up against the hand that feeds you in order to set into motion the necessary public comprehension that is needed to truly save the world from this organized propaganda and government-military industrial machine?



By the way, here are the investments in media companies, if you can spare another 10 minutes:



So what’s it gonna be, Matt?

Will you be the hero of our generation, exposing this truth to millions?

Or will you continue to support the very government corporate owned structure that is killing the families you’re trying to protect in your charitable organizations?

The choice… and the consequence of inaction is now yours, Matt. Because now you know.

Signed, a fan that hopes #1 is the answer you seek to rectify,

–Clint Richardson–

[maddog]

don't forget matt's portrayal of a CIA agent, a factual account--sort of?

[Rose]

Supposedly, there was a lot of symbolism in Good Shepherd that told the rest of the truth, so to speak. A lot was made of the ship in the bottle. It's supposedly a metaphor for anal sex. I'm not sure I buy it, but I have no doubt De Niro uses poetic symbols/language, to communicate what he can't overtly display. And I know he was good friends with a CIA agent for years. He said he wanted to make a film revealing the "truth" of the CIA for a long time. Anyway, here's what I read:

This scene elaborates on the sexual relationship between Wilson and his son, which began with the son being "baptized" by the father at winter solstice. That multi-generational incest and ritualized bi-sexuality is at the core of the control system.

Then, when Wilson is analyzing the tapes of his son and the soviet spy, he is eavesdropping on his sexual rival for his son's loyalty. Wilson's marriage to "Clover" is dead because his relationship with his son takes precedence.

The film makes clear from the outset that it will speak in poetic language, the title of the film itself being an allusion to a parable. The scene with the 'ship in a bottle" is a poetic depiction of anal sex and the compartmentaliztion of a power relationship. The ship is a vessel within a vessel, the mast is erected, the ship and its cargo is both launched and contained. The ship is a vehicle for the sea-men inside of it, and it is a vehicle of commerce; DNA is information, is intelligence, is power. The coded metaphors in this one scene stretch to the horizon.

Earlier we are shown the flag with "skull and bones" on one side and the "union Jack" (think about it) on the other. This symbolizes many things, union of opposites, transcending duality, the literal identity of the admiralty with piracy, the fusion of monarchy with organized crime, and the twin pillars of irreconcilable opposites which together support the entire edifice of "civilization", the over-arching system.

That this film was made and exhibited at all is startling testimony to the near flawless operation of a control system that can remain not only undetected but virtually unimagined while simultaneously revealing and concealing its darkest mysteries.

There is a direct connection between Wilson's urination/initiation in the Bones "crypt" and the subsequent scene where Wilson bathes his son who has just spontaneously wet himself in the presence of Santa. The identification of Santa/Satan or Saint Nick/Old Nick has been the subject of great deal of commentary, notably by R.A. Wilson. Both scenes represent initiation into ancient/modern pagan mysteries. After being "bathed" by his father the young boy is given "new clothes" and formally accepted into the world of the "order". The ritual cross-dressing that takes place in the film directly relates to this as well. The scene from HMS Pinafore speaks to this directly. Cross-dressing is an integral part of this dynamic of fragmenting the personality of the controlled subject, and still figures prominently in the festivities at Bohemian Grove (another offshoot of the "order").

I used to be a huge De Niro fan. He has a very interesting, unconventional history.