Suffice it to say: I would not be overly satisfied with the first, second, third or forth answers that you receive regarding the true meaning of these communications 'hidden in the open", as a certain "John" oft loves to remark, in our major media. So what could it mean? I will be candid and say I don't know. Not for sure. If I guess and say that infrastructures in some soon to be devastated countries are up for grabs it would be hard for you to swallow so early in this document. There is, however, one thing for sure that you can reason: you, Kind sir, and you, Dear Lady, are not invited. "Oh, pooh," you must be thinking, "The major executives on Madison Avenue are known to be a bit bats anyway, at least major drinkers. Couldn't this be some nonsense a tad prior to leading the overworked Mr. Spellbinder gently toward a detox?" Yes, that could account for a few cases, but not to many. "But whatever for? Why publish secret messages? Seems to be a very large contradiction. Explain that!" The powerful purpose of publishing secret messages is that it legitimizes statements of policy. The publishing serves the same function of the court reporter. It is right there in black and white to refer to, and infers that all the nabobs are behind this policy: that if there was dissent you would hear it now. If this was done too secretly, with no bases of referral, it would be hard to determine what is policy and what is whim. Let me make up an example: the Western Block does not want Eastern Block support of rebels in the Sudan to go further north. (If you know the purpose and function of destabilization you can easily see how North-South, East-West can be interchangeable in this example.) At any rate you publish or "billboard" your policy, large type, in a specified full page ad: YOU MAY GO NO FURTHER NORTH. To make it read like an ad, underneath in much smaller type it says, "Visit Lapland ... Travel and Leisure Magazine." When possible the message is designed to be read both ways. Obviously, this is not always possible. Sometimes it can be read as an ad too, but reads as a very stupid ad, one that any junior copywriter would be fired for. A good example would be a full page ad running day after day, week after week in the Times. In this case it is the back of the Business Section (D 22) on June 2, 1993. This example is on page "C" of the appendix. The ad does give some exposure to John's American Express and a little more to a restaurant whose name, because of the size of the type, I forget. That expensive space does not serve either one of the advertisers well. In fact, upon a closer examination, you have to agree that it serves both very poorly. Again, seeing the actual ad, or seeing it on microfiche is a very different experience than seeing an identical "mock up" of the ad. Gee, did I mention John? Yes, well I I might as well mention that these large billboards are, very often, in advertisements from company's controlled by John. John who? I thought you knew all this. Neverworry. We will, Dear Lady - Kind sir, get to John. This billboarding of messages is not limited to print. Ted Turner accused the other major networks of treason. He made some cryptic comments concerning unspecified hanky-panky, but did use the word "treason". He then went on a personal peace trip to Cuba. A few months later he was interviewed by Diane Sawyer on 20/20. In the interview Diane Sawyer asked Ted Turner if he accused the networks of treason. Ted Turner said that he had, but that he is no longer doing so. Then Diane Sawyer asked Ted Turner if he had accused the other networks of treason. Again, Ted Turner said that he had, but that he is no Ion er doing so. Then Diane Sawyer asked Ted Turner if he had accused the other networks of treason. Ted Turner said that he had, but that he is no longer doing so. Bored? Already? It gets better. Next Diane Sawyer asked Ted Turner if he had accused the other networks of treason. Once again Ted Turner said that he had, but that he is no longer doing so. How, Kind Sir - Dear Lady, can you say you are bored with this repetition when you sat through a full 20 minutes of it! Never, in this exotic exchange, was it ever mentioned why Mr. Turner made the accusation. Never was it mentioned what the alleged treasonous acts were! "Ted, you recently accused the other networks of treason, didn't you?" "Yes, Diane, I did, but I am not doing that any longer." Twenty minutes! Why? Because Ted Turner was new at the "news" business. He did not know the things that I am presently telling you. He went from "mass perspective" to "ruler perspective" very quickly. He was emotionally reacting to some sick stuff. He was for a brief shinning moment acting real, having the same great sportsmanlike qualities that we all loved him for as he rolled a raw egg from first to second base with his nose. The powers-that-be could not afford such a loose cannon. They had to "educate" this newcomer quickly . "Weeeeelllll, Teeeeed-.", and broadcast to the rest of the world (the "ruler" world) that this loose cannon was tied down. Want to guess as to how many viewers wrote in and asked how they could broadcast this silly exchange for a full 20 minutes. I don't know: but I would guess about five. If the repetitious sentences were beginning to bore you in this medium, and you think, Dear Lady - Kind Sir, that the word "hypnotism" is a little to strong, then please ask yourself: were you one of those five? And Ted Turner? Who knows what was said or done to him. I could be funny and suggest that maybe we are getting better at genetic engineering: could he have been turned into a lizard? You could have one of your friends at his network sniff for mice on his breath. Could come right out and ask Ted . "Weeeeeelllll�.."
