Meryl Streep, Amy Adams & Philip Seymour Hoffman’s ‘Doubt’: The Geo-
Intolerability of Military and Institutional Perversions Against Children
and the Consequences for Them are Severe
© 2009 Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.
Barrister & Solicitor
“Shocked” and “horrified” may be overused in the Fiefdom treatise to describe how the international community reacted when discovering what was going on in Canada for many decades. However, the regular employment of these sentiment descriptions don’t detract from the reality of how determined the coalition is to bring those to justice who corrupted the young with their nefarious ideology and enjoyed their multiple perversions on them in the belief they were never going to be held to account.
Meryl joined the coalition in late 2003 when agreeing to star in the remake of July ’04 released film ‘The Manchurian Candidate’. Philip joined in early 2007 when being invited to headline in Aaron Sorkin, Julia Roberts and Tom Hank’s geo-politicized ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’. And Amy joined in February 2008 and is a 2008 Geo Award recipient.
One of the revelations that came out of three years of research on the country’s non-transparent constituent of governance was that the rich, powerful and Chinese had been recruiting and training children, who’d grown up to become faithful, competent and sociopathic street soldiers. Given the totalitarian militarization of the Canadian state, which was conspiratorially seeking Soviet-style global hegemony, this was as is described in Chinada Recruits Child Soldiers in Violation of International Law.
It wasn’t difficult to conclude that Canada’s intellectually feral and morally vacuous political and corporate leaders along with the serial human rights abusing and sex-addicted Chinese had devolved so far into being psychologically demented that their perversions knew no bounds. In addition to employing stealth cognition technologies to undermine democratic and capitalistic states, they have been and until stopped will continue to engage in hypno-rape (1, 2). There is no room for ‘doubt’ on this point, since it is an easy extrapolation not only from everything that’s been documented about their proclivities to enthusiastically engaging in the most serious crimes and improprieties known to the humanity, but also because they boastfully admitted to possessing these vile techniques for the purpose of suspending free will so they could turn the unsuspecting and unwilling into sex toys: Canada’s Three Sub-Factions Confess to the Crime Against Humanity Involving Militarized Hypno-Rape.
Doubt is a 2008 film adaptation of the John Patrick Shanley stage play Doubt: A Parable. Written and directed by Shanley and produced by Scott Rudin, the film stars Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Viola Davis, who were all nominated for Oscars at the 2009 ceremonies.
Set in 1964 at a Catholic church in the Bronx, New York, the film opens with Father Flynn (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) giving a sermon on the nature of doubt, noting that, like faith, it can be a unifying force. The next evening, Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep), the strict principal of the attached school, discusses the sermon with her fellow nuns, the Sisters of Charity of New York. She asks if anyone has observed unusual behavior to give Father Flynn cause for preaching about doubt, and instructs them to keep their eyes open for any such behavior.
Sister James (Amy Adams), a young and naive teacher, observes the closeness between Father Flynn and Donald Miller, the school's only African-American student and an altar boy. One day during class, Sister James receives a call in her class asking for Donald Miller to meet Father Flynn in the rectory. When he returns, Donald is distraught and Sister James notices the smell of an alcoholic drink on his breath. Later, while her students are learning a dance, she sees Father Flynn placing a white shirt in Donald's locker. On guard for unusual behavior, Sister James reveals her suspicions to Sister Aloysius.
Under the pretext of discussing problems with the school's Christmas play, Sisters Aloysius and James confront Father Flynn with their suspicions that his relationship with Donald may be inappropriate. Several times Father Flynn asks them to leave the matter alone as a private issue between the boy and himself but Sister Aloysius persists. The priest reveals that Donald had been caught drinking altar wine. Father Flynn explains that he had promised Donald not to tell anyone about the incident, and that he could remain an altar boy. Having now been forced to break that promise and reveal the truth, he will need to dismiss Donald as an altar boy. Father Flynn tells Sister Aloysius that he is displeased in the way she handled this.
Initially, Sister James is relieved and convinced of Father Flynn's innocence, but Sister Aloysius' belief that he has behaved inappropriately with the boy is unshakable. Sister James later confronts Father Flynn about the shirt she saw him leaving in Donald's locker, having not revealed this detail to Sister Aloysius. They discuss his relationship with the boy. Father Flynn reveals a reasonable explanation for the situation and Sister James' doubts are assuaged.
Sister Aloysius sends for Donald Miller's mother to reveal her suspicions. Mrs. Miller (Viola Davis) shocks Sister Aloysius by stating that she should not pursue the matter further and that he only has to last until the end of the school year before he goes on to attend high school. She also hints at Donald's homosexuality and reveals that he has a physically abusive father. She begs Sister Aloysius to drop the matter, and rationalizes Donald's relationship with Father Flynn to protect him from his father, and because his chances of going to a better high school would increase after finishing from a prestigious church school.
Despite having no evidence and no support from Donald's mother, Sister Aloysius in their final showdown demands that Father Flynn tell the truth or she will go to his superiors. Father Flynn repeats that there is no illicit relationship, but Sister Aloysius says she knows that he has a history of problems, having moved to three different parishes in five years. She tells him that she has contacted a nun at one of his prior churches (she refuses to say whom) and that this nun corroborated her suspicions. Father Flynn is furious that she has contacted a nun rather than the church's pastor; the latter being the proper church protocol. Sister Aloysius demands that he resign. Unable to stand up to her willingness to destroy his reputation, he succumbs to her demands.
Following his final sermon, the nuns sit together in the church garden. Sister Aloysius tells Sister James that although Father Flynn has left, he has been promoted from assistant pastor to that of pastor at a different church and its parochial school, in effect a promotion. She goes on to reveal that she lied about speaking to a nun at Father Flynn's former church, and thus never found hard evidence against him. Repeating a line from earlier in the film that "in the pursuit of wrongdoing, one steps away from God."
Sister Aloysius concludes that one also pays a price in pursuing wrongdoing. She breaks down in tears and reveals to Sister James "I have such doubts." The viewer is left to determine on their own whether Father Flynn was guilty or innocent of misconduct.
Source: wikipedia.com
The first employment of the lexicon is right at the beginning during a church scene in which Father Flynn is delivering a sermon to his congregation. Attired in quantum he is choreographed to execute a 'gun to the temple' Richie-Santelli Maneuver to set the geo-tone of the Triple "E" initiative as early as possible:
[R-S M. X2] What do you do when you’re not sure? That’s the topic of my sermon today. Last year when President Kennedy was assassinated, who among us didn’t experience the most profound disorientation, despair? Which way? What now? […] [gallery #1: 60 MM] It was a public experience – it was awful. [gallery #2: Z-J M.] But we were in it together.
How much worse has it been for the lone man, the lone woman, stricken by a private calamity? No one knows I’m sick. No one knows I’ve lost my last friend. [protracted Condi M.] No one knows I’ve done something wrong. Imagine the isolation. You see the world through a window: on one side of the glass happy, untroubled, people; and on the other side you [Sister James: sneezes; NBC M.].
I want to tell you a story [choir boy: Staul M.] A [gallery #3 & 4: Colbert M. & Pfeiffer M.] cargo ship sank last night. It caught fire and went down. And only this one sailor survived. He found a lifeboat, rigged a sail; and being nautical disciplined turned his eyes to the heavens and red the stars [choir boy: Rooney M.] He set a course for his home and, exhausted, fell asleep. Clouds rolled in. And for the next twenty nights he could no longer see the storm. He thought he was on course, but there was no way to be certain. And as the days rolled on the sailor wasted away. He began to have doubts. Had he set his course right, was he still going on towards his home [gallery #4: Cl.M.] or was he horribly lost and doomed [school boy: CBS M. X2] to a terrible death? […] When you are lost, you are not alone.
The opening portion of the script identifies first off what original members of the coalition should have entertained when examining the Custodian Chief Executive’s circumstances in 2002 and 2003; for they were so absolutely bizarre that a possibility existed what he pled in his Federal Court lawsuit was either innocently inaccurate or a fantasy of fabrication.
The opening portion of the script sets the geo-stage for the film, identifying first off what original members of the coalition should have entertained when examining the Custodian Chief Executive’s circumstances in 2002 and 2003; for they were so absolutely bizarre that a possibility existed what he pled in his Federal Court lawsuit was either innocently inaccurate or a fantasy of fabrication.
Following it immediately with a reference to the assassination of JFK is swift acknowledgement that he did suffer as described in the pleadings and Fiefdom treatise and the systemic criminality and human rights violations linked to a militarized foreign policy that’s reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s imperialism does attract the employment of covert lethal force to neutralize the enemy.
Next is a reference to a matter being “public”, but not in the conventional sense; rather in terms of the cognizance of the entire contingent of civilization’s world leaders, the diplomatic core and top tier movers and shakers; and that they and he constitute a community of the like minded who have agreed to take on until achieved the challenge of terminating the next wave of imperialistic totalitarianism.
Empathy is then directed towards him and condemnation at the malfeasant – his twenty plus years having been encircled by Chinada assets for the purpose of advancing their nefarious, enslaving and torturous human experimentation program. Cleverly they choose to red flag this abomination with what is documented in David Letterman et al.: High Profile Enslaving Torturous Human Experimentation During the Holiday Season and Coalition Partners Continue to Express How Trepidatious and Mortified They Are Over the Gruesome Use of Stealth Cognition Technologies – a lab monkey reference specifically addressing how militarized hypnosis advances are employed to take over one’s autonomic physiological functions.
The story the priest delivers is heavy on geo-condemnation and on articulating what the coalition has been planning for to do years, namely bring an end to the last democratic fiefdom through covert regime change.
Additionally, it by analogy describes the two decades he suffered. Producers even insert the lexiconic representation of this period of time – twenty. In a most uniquely clever fashion, they describe him being sucked into the vortex of China’s imperialism and Canada’s trans-generational corruption as clouds rolling in which prevent him from seeing the storm that was brewing in his life in the 1980s. In this context “clouds” is the multi-institutional conspiracy that operated behind the cleverly manufactured façade of democratic respectability.
During the late 1980s and early 1990s he believed he was on his own career path; only to entertain doubts thereafter that he’d been unlawfully interfered with. In his pleadings he indicates he began collecting evidence when there was much to be suspicious about in his personal and professional life.
Given the lifestyle that was imposed upon him clandestinely he began to “waste away” – living in poverty and isolation that to anyone will wear away at them cognitively, spiritually and physically. And having come to the conclusion that he was “horribly lost and doomed”, i.e., his career path had been so successfully sabotaged, he fell to experiential nihilism and sought suicide. It would have been terrible not in the pain it would have caused him as he took his own life, but rather the tragedy that pushed him to that conclusion.
The sermon ends with a reassurance that in the face of these two decades of being “lost” he is no longer “alone” – he has the most powerful conglomerate of public and private sector assets the world has ever known to fight his double demon and be victorious.
The next scene in Sister James’ class has ramifications for the battle between democracy and its opposite.
Sister: When [JFK] assumed office thirteen million people in this country [clip: school boy: Powell M.] were unemployed. They’d lost hope. And President Roosevelt said to these people “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”. What did he mean by that?
School Boy: [Dayna M.] I think he was trying to say there’s nothing really wrong; so don’t get so emotional [Powell M.]
The Powell Maneuver is employed once again, this time to underscore there is something historically wrong, namely the next wave of militarized imperialism and while it breeds trepidation, it is critical to stay focused and work towards its containment and neutralization.
This is a recurring theme in coalition productions; namely ‘f _ _king up good’ the malfeasant in many ways; in this instance employment termination and appointment revocation of the complicit and loyal:
(ii) The Complicit and Loyal are to be Blacklisted in Perpetuity, The Triple “P” of Objective Attainment: Poverty, Prison, Perish
During a scene in which the Catholic school nuns are having dinner, the Principal seeks everyone’s attention for a moment to ask them a question. It both seeks to recall what communiqués were embedded in the opening sermon as to again link its messages to the torture the Custodian Chief suffered and the corruption and criminality that produced that intolerable and inexcusable mala fides. A Clooney Maneuver is chosen to make the point:
[Cl.M.] This past Sunday, what do you think that sermon was about?
A geographical reference is added during interaction between the Principal and Sister James. When the two walk into the latter’s classroom the audience sees a diagram on the chalkboard comprising a conceptual scheme of a book’s plot. The most prominently and often displayed item is “Beach Avenue” – the street that is closest to and runs parallel with the Custodian Chief’s exercise walkabout.
The dialogue that immediately precedes it is delivered by the former, who directs the latter’s attention to an ailment in one of the elder nuns: “Sister Veronica is going blind […] If they find out in the Rectory she’ll be gone” – geo-politically referring to the willful blindness of Canada’s political and corporate leaders to the concerns, fears and intentions of the coalition, the pivotal role played by its Canadian representative and the consequences for failing to capitulate to what were first requests and then became demands when all that was observed in the diplomatic corridor was arrogant belligerence and more systemic corruption and criminality.
The first scripted line delivered by the Principal when they walk into the classroom is “Ordinarily I assign my most experienced teachers to eighth grade” – a communiqué indicating that the Custodian Chief has the intellectual capacity and proven talents to work with the coalition to resolve the international threat posed by the Chinese. Her “but I am working within constraints [NBC. M.]” as she is choreographed to look at the diagram is the partnership’s way of acknowledging that while Chinada principals are harnessing what evil delivers, its members must operate in a manner that is in full compliance with domestic and international law.
This is, of course, problematic, making the achievement of stated objectives much more difficult; requiring first a lengthy period of diplomacy and then (i) the passing of laws in each coalition country to authorize a declaration of war that permit:
(a) appropriations to fund coalition activity,
(b) the negotiation and consummation of multilateral agreements,
(c) coordination between relevant departments and agencies,
(d) assassination and rendition,
(e) the creation of the ‘Iron Fist’ tribunal,
(f) imprisonment of the convicted,
(g) international asset seizure and
(h) employing military assets to effect covert regime change.
The Principal notices that the classroom window is open and leafs are blowing in. She moves to close it and notices Father Flynn and his superior talking on the street below.
Sister: Is something the matter?
Principal: [Close M.] Why? Something the matter?
Sister: I don’t think so.
Principal: Well then nothing’s the matter then.
Sister: Yes.
Principal: What’s this? [looks down to floor]
Sister: A pen?
Principal: A ball-point pen. The students are not using them for assignments, I hope.
Sister: No, of course not.
Principal: I am sorry [Colbert M.] I even allowed cartridge pens into this school. […] Every easy choice today will have its consequence tomorrow. Mark my words. Ball-points – make them press down; when they press down they write like monkeys.
Producers insert the lab monkey metaphor (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and link it to ‘writing’ – what the Fiefdom treatise author’s been doing since March 2004 when the examination into Canadian governance began. The pen is the color of Canada and the lexiconic gesture red flag is to draw attention to what was analyzed and argued in the undisseminated chapter:
Should U.S. Coalition Partners Feel to Any Extent Accountable for How Canada Evolved?
© 2006 Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.
Barrister & Solicitor
During the November 1, 2006 broadcast of the ‘CBS Evening News’, the caption “Sorry” – rendered in Canadian colors – was aired. Was this a message that coalition partners were accepting some responsibility the U.S. might have in the perpetuation of the corrupt trans-generational paradigm of governance and Chinese colonization that led to institutional economic monopolization, wealth plunder, torture, enslavement, experimentation and sexual perversions?
It’s not the first time the geo-political and historical issue was raised. It came up during Aaron Sorkin’s October 9th episode of ‘Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip’:
News anchor #2: We’re live right now on the west coast. We have cut into the tape delay feed of the program that began as a broadcast three hours forty-three minutes ago in the east. Our mistake was inadvertent and deeply regrettable. [protracted Execution M. – floor producer]
Aaron is acknowledging there is some responsibility on the United States’ part for letting Canada’s totalitarian militarization and corruption persist without taking concrete steps to address them. If the U.S. had grabbed Canadian leaders by the throat decades ago when intelligence reports made the case, Canada wouldn’t be in the double-headed predicament it is in now.
As argued early on in the Fiefdom treatise, Canada’s political elite and wealthy class manufactured and perpetuated a trans-generational hostility for the United States beginning in the 19th century. The purpose was to set up a titanium barrier so that the two sub-factions could perpetuate the ‘pigs at the trough’ paradigm of governance – economy monopolization and wealth plundering – and not be held to account by the same kinds of democratic institutions of accountability and transparency that made the U.S. the world model of freedom, equality and the rule of law.
[…]
A complete review leads to the conclusion that the perception the threat China posed as a 21st century Soviet Union was not attainable until well after the beginning of the new millennium. There is a world of difference between espionage to keep up with the Jones and (i) establishing a forward military base on America’s door-step, (ii) developing a Pandora’s Box that has the ability to undermine military superiority and (iii) seeking to achieve global hegemony. The evidence clearly indicates (i) was the only national security discourse on the China problem in the 1990s.
The third item was only on the international community’s radar screen when China began accumulating trillions of dollars of wealth and were reasonably predicted to acquire more – only then enough to buy, bribe and seduce its way to a measure of global hegemony that put the gains made by democracy in the 20th century in serious peril.
Further, with sovereignty being virtually absolute in international law there was nothing Americans could do about the insidious evolution towards militarized totalitarianism except mitigate undue influences and injury to their national and economic security interests. And with nominal involvement in the economy as a result of the monopolization policies first implemented by the Trudeau government in the early 1970s and thereafter by the Conservatives, the U.S. business class cannot be successfully argued as having been complicit in systemic atrocities.
Some might legitimately argue, however, that with the U.S. economy being a major source of profit for the malfeasant it was morally incumbent on America’s political and corporate leaders to take substantive steps to curtail that flow of enabling capital; which would have sent a powerful message that the status quo as fully understood by the CIA in the 1980s and 1990s was intolerable.
The chapter views one single American policy change as a major sea change in international relations attitudes about the threat Chinada poses:
US Imposes Improvements to Canadian Export Controls
by Ken Epps
Ploughshares Monitor
Spring, 2002
In April 2001 the federal government quietly put in place regulations which raised the standard of controls on Canadian arms production and export. […] [L]egislated changes were in direct response to a single US government action which unilaterally removed special access to the enormous Pentagon procurement market which Canadian military industries had enjoyed for over half a century. Canada’s military industry has been dependent on exports to the US for more than 60 years.
[…]
The International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR) changes effectively cancelled the special status enjoyed by Canadian companies and placed them in the same category as all other non-US suppliers.
The changes to the military trade regulations arose from US concerns that US-built technology was being exported for military use by countries identified by the US as "rogue states" or "countries of concern." The action closely followed the Cox Report on Chinese Espionage, a special Congressional report produced in the wake of accusations of sensitive technology transfers from the US to China, which was issued to the US government in January 1999 and to the public in May 1999 in an unclassified form.
[…]
The April 1999 removal of the Canadian exemptions to the ITAR was perceived as a major blow to a Canadian military industry integrated with US industry and dependent on US procurement.
"I know of no company that hasn’t been impacted," one industry spokesperson was quoted as saying; "I think everyone has an experience where they’ve missed an opportunity to bid"(Globe and Mail 1999, p. A2). As government negotiations drew on, Canadian industry became more vociferous about losing money and bids. "The deadlock is costing the defence and aerospace companies in Canada millions," another industry spokesperson stated in February 2000 (Globe and Mail 2000, p. B15).
[underscore added]
Canada’s military and defense industries were edified in the spring of 2009. It was more proof how much the Chinada agenda was embraced by the largest corporations operating in the sector – members of the Ottawa-Toronto-Montreal-(Beijing) triangle of power and wealth – when the president of the biggest industry association, Tim Page of the Association of Defence and Security Industries, confirmed knowledge of The Sidewinder Report and indicated he was with the state of U.S.-Canada relations; revealing a profound insensitivity to the loss of tens of billions of dollars due to ITAR.
In a later scene Sister James approaches the Principal for another discussion. It includes the former executing another Powell Maneuver to generate the communiqué the Custodian Chief has protectors in coalition partners and any foul play will result in immediate retaliation.
Sister: Can I speak to you about [a student]?
[…]
Principal: Has anyone hit him?
Sister: No.
Principal: Someone will! And when that happens [prison certainty (chain link fence) send ‘em right down to me.
Sister: I’m not so sure anyone will.
Principal: This Parish serves Irish and Italian families. Someone will hit Donald Miller.
Sister: He has a protector.
Principal: Who?
Sister: He has a protector. [protracted dbl- SNL M.] Father Flynn [Powell M.].
Principal: [wraps string around three fingers – protracted Kelly M.] What?
Sister: He’s taken an interest.
Principal: Has anyone hit him?
Sister: He has a protector.
Principal: Has anyone hit him?
A scene involving Father Flynn and schoolboys sitting around a table having a man-to-boy chat about girls is turned into an isolation-deprivation initiative. The drinks they are sharing is the color of quantum:
The first question posed by an inquisitive teen “Was it wrong?” and answered in the negative included an Olmert-Spielberg Maneuver by another schoolboy to underscore the coalition’s condemnation for what the Custodian Chief lost to advance the enslaving experimentation program. He’d just picked up and drank the quantum colored liquid, emphasizing the geo-point all the more.
What the general audience won't have picked up, but the sharp and multi-year geo-trained eye of the diplomacy archivist did, was the placement of props on a mantle as the Principal and Sister James discuss the evidence accumulating against the Priest. At the commencement of the scene there are three ceramic figures and two candles – a coalition identifier and compensation ratifier. Moments later there are four of the former. The line of the script that is timed to this is “I didn’t think there was anything wrong with it” – the nun offering her view of the interaction between the priest and his alleged victim and producers putting themselves in the shoes of the arrogantly belligerent and rule of law deluded malfeasant.
To “I suppose it makes sense – he’s isolated” – the head mistress drawing a conclusion about why there are affections for the predator because he is African-American and subject to racism, is where the forth figure is added. This is the coalition’s way of drawing the inference that if China was going to advance its military foreign policy when in the planning phase it would identify all the inherent weaknesses and vulnerabilities in democracy and capitalism – one of which being consciousness itself; and would engage in a lengthy ‘mind control’ experimentation regime to have a technique that would be difficult to defend against. To achieve success they needed to completely marginalize the victim so scientists could fully and absolutely control of the environment. Thus they sabotaged every business opportunity, destroyed his law practice and prevented him from having any meaningful contact with anyone not connected to their deviousness. They wanted him poor, alone and susceptible to the experimentation regime 24.7.365 – giving them full and unfettered access to his mind.
The Principal looks inward to assess her administrative shortcomings that led to pedophilia in the educational facility:
Principal: I should have foreseen this possibility.
Sister: How could you have imagined it?
Principal: [Hayden M.] Well, It’s my job; out-shine the fox in cleverness. [Brown M.; SNL M.] That is my job.
Sister: Maybe it’s nothing.
Principal: Then why do you look like you’ve seen the devil?
Again producers critique American administrations back to the 1980s; asking the question, given it’s the task of the CIA and Pentagon to discover and expose the kind of threat Chinada now poses including the development of its Pandora’s Box, why they didn’t. Totalitarianism by its nature is supposed to be substantially inferior to everything democracy and capitalism creates. That was proven in who won the Cold War.
There is an implicit argument of institutionalized incompetence being leveled at these and their associated agencies. Having missed 9/11 coming and the Iraqi WMD intel failure, producers view this latest revelation of a blind-spot as a negligence that needs to be addressed if the country is going to adequately defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Fiefdom treatise research indicates that the Trudeau government was communist by nature; which would have raised red flags of concern throughout the U.S. administration beginning with President Nixon because the world at the time was embroiled in the Cold War.
Canada and the World: A History
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade on Prime Minister Trudeau (1968 – 1984)
[B]ilateral tensions that had plagued Canada-U.S. relations in the 1960s spilled over into the 1970s and 1980s. Trudeau and American President Richard Nixon, who met for the first time in 1969, did not like each other…
[…]
Trudeau was too much of a pacifist and a leftist for the Americans, some of whom considered him little more than a communist. He did nothing to change this perception…
[…]
[I]n 1972, Nixon declared that the special relationship between Canada and the United States was dead. "It is time for us to recognize," he stated, "that we have very separate identities; that we have significant differences… […] As the Western world moved to the right in the 1980s, Trudeau became odd man out. He had little sympathy for the extreme anti-Soviet views of President Ronald Reagan…
Undeniably that while there was nothing substantive done to influence a change in the political status quo, American intel put Canada under an electron microscope to watch this insidious evolution; and today the CIA has comprehensive dossiers on everyone who’s anyone – a valuable evidence asset for the ‘Iron Fist’ tribunal.
The producers’ criticism of U.S. intel agencies ties into the matter of American business leaders not acting preemptively to address Canada’s dysfunctionalities in previous decades. If the CIA knew of them and didn’t disseminate properly or at all, the heads of industry and commerce cannot be held in any way shape or form accountable for a moral dereliction.
As the diplomacy archive proves, when the intel was circulated the business community acted and decisively – joining the coalition in droves especially after the April ‘07 Triggering Event and becoming fully engaged in the Triple “E” full-court-press that originally began in early ‘06.
As the Principal and her subordinate are concluding their conversation a staff member bursts in to proudly exclaim that the cat she borrowed to track down a rodent was successful. Producers turn it into an analogy of what’s in store for Chinada malfeasant.
Principal: We are going to have to stop [the priest] ourselves.
Employee: [enters] There we go. [extends her hand to show dead mouse in handkerchief]. She got ‘em. Takes a cat.
Principal: Yes it does [Powell-Cl.M.; Cl.M.; CBS M.; Prince Harry M.; Anderson M.]. [pause] Yes it does.
Sister James is exceptionally troubled about the allegation made by the head mistress about Father Flynn being a pedophile. A short scene has the nun awakening in bed; and to a storm outside that is blowing through an open window. She rises to shut it and producers insert a multi-layered instance of prison certainty. There is an inescapable geo-retrospective back to the storm referred to in the priest’s movie-opening sermon – linking what the sailor qua the Custodian Chief didn’t see, being obscured by multi-party complicity keeping the Chinada agenda secret and the fate of those who perpetuated life-sentence attracting conduct.
The fierce storm led the Principal to instruct the groundskeeper to effect a clean-up of fallen branches that litter the grounds. She approaches him as he’s engaged in that task. She carries with her a pot of soup, which is wrapped in a Canadian colored and chain link fence patterned kitchen towel:
Principal: The world is crashing.
Employee: I haven’t heard a wind like that since I left Mullingar.
Principal: I’ve never known a wind like it. A wind that’s changed.
The lexiconic red flag draws attention to two matters: (i) the winds of change gusting through Canada’s halls of political and corporate power – which will blow the malfeasant right into a prison cell for life or lengthy periods measured in decades; and (ii) Mullingar, to the public the name of a town in Ireland. There’s a hamlet in the province of Saskatchewan by that name. Put it and it being an Irish reference meaning "the short/left-handed mill" all together and one has a geo-description of Canada as ideologically left – or totalitarian – and puny when compared to the size of the coalition: Comparing and Contrasting the Size of the Coalition and Chinada.
There’s an argumentative showdown between the alleged pedophile and the two nuns in her office – colored green from the outset. It represents the quantum the Custodian Chief is entitled to for being a victim of predatory perverts.
At the end of the confrontation, he departs angry the Principal cannot say definitively whether she can prove her case. The two nuns engage in a review of what they just heard. Producers use this portion of the scene to engage in the issue of the Custodian Chief’s credibility and resolve the matter by experiential competence when dealing with conniving rogue regimes and morally failed states.
Sister: What a relief; he cleared it all up.
Principal: [protracted Brown M.] You believe him?
Sister: Of course.
Principal: Isn’t it that it’s easier believing him?
Sister: But we can corroborate his story with Mr. McGuinn.
Principal: Yes, these types of people are clever.
Sister: Well, I’m convinced.
Principal: [Thalia M.] You’re not. You want things to be resolved so you can have simplicity back.
Sister: I want no further part of this.
Principal: I’ll bring him down.
Sister: How can you be so sure that he is lying?
Principal: [Erin M.] Experience. [Cl.-Federer M.]
Sister: Well, I’m convinced.
Principal: Yes, these types of people are clever.
Sister: Well, I’m convinced.
Sister James unconsciously takes out her frustration on the alleged victim during class time. He appears not to be listening to what’s going on so she singles him out for a verbal reprimand. It becomes the staging ground for an observation that goes to the attitude of Chinada principals and their many followers and apologists.
Sister: What was the question, Donald?
Donald: I don’t know Sister.
Sister: It means you weren’t listening.
Donald: [student: 60 MM] Yes, Sister.
Sister: The question was ‘what was Patrick Henry’s famous remark?’
Donald: I don’t know.
Student: [protracted 60 MM] “Give me liberty or give me death”.
[The remark] is a famous quotation attributed to Patrick Henry from a speech he made in a court hearing on March 23, 1775, at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia, and is credited with having swung the balance in convincing the Virginia House of Burgesses to pass a resolution delivering the Virginia troops to the Revolutionary War. Among the delegates to the convention were future US Presidents Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Reportedly, those in attendance, upon hearing the speech, shouted, "To arms! To arms!"
The geo-relevance of inclusion of this famous phrase is in the coalition's ideology.
The head mistress and the mother of the victim meet and discuss the matter alleged. The latter confirms that her son has homosexual tendencies. When she indicates that if the issue is formally raised with her husband, he will kill the boy. She executes a Clooney Maneuver to generate another instance of coercive diplomacy threatening lethal military consequences and the death penalty.
The mother returns and they have a more in-depth conversation in her office. A peripheral small-talk issue arises when the Principal directs her guest’s attention to a transistor radio confiscated from one of the boys; adding “now I can’t stop listening to it”. Her NBC and Kernan Maneuvers added to that remark red flag the fact that she like all coalition partners are unable to stop being engaged in achieving stated objectives due to the stakes involved. She adds that she listened to news reports when she was married during the Second World War. When she indicates he was killed in battle she executes two quasi-McGraw-Jackson Maneuvers to drive home yet again on behalf of her coalition partners that there may not be a war in the conventional sense, but nonetheless there’s an economic war fought with military methodologies; and thus the enemies of democracy, rule of law and human rights must expect assassination and the death penalty.
The final showdown between the head mistress and the now exceptionally fearful priest begins with her entrance to her office. As a prelude, she pauses in the hallway to collect her thoughts. The camera is floor level looking up and she’s positioned so there are a coalition identifying three light fixtures overhead – foretelling the imminence of the struggle between the truth and its emergence from a collection of disparate facts which in the final analysis is evidentiarily ambiguous – thus the title of the film.
Her strategy is from a lawyer’s perspective brilliant. She confronts him with his nefarious deeds and when he refuses to capitulate to what she thinks is the truth falsely indicates she contacted nuns in the previous two parishes he’s worked at; leading him to believe his past has caught up with him. She points to the fact this is his “third parish in five years” – another indicator of the geo-relevance of the film and the reality of international relations; and specifically referring to the coalition’s mission to deliver him his historic damages.
He seeks to rely on her religious-procured compassion. She responds to his question ‘where is it?’ with a double-handed Becky Maneuver and a large dose of sarcasm with “nowhere you can get at it” – which underscores how when the coalition moves and there are pleas for mercy, there won’t be any. This draws attention to what the malfeasant were told years ago when they showed no empathy for their victim and showed no interest in addressing coalition concerns and fears:
No Mercy
© 2006 Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.
Barrister & Solicitor
On the morning of Friday, November 17, 2006, Tyra interviewed Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs. The last time the Triple “E” family member contributed to coalition interests and objectives was on October 13, 2006 when he appeared on ‘Letterman” sporting a punishment certainty theme.
On Tyra’s morning talk show, he was articulating another theme – what the Fiefdom treatise has documented the Canadian lawyer demands when the ‘Iron Fist’ of accountability brings democratic reform to the country: no mercy for the country’s hundreds of thousands of conspiratorially involved serial murderers, torturers, enslavers, thieves, frauds, treasonists, sociopaths, stalkers, saboteurs, agents provocateur and sexual perverts.
To make this point official on behalf of the coalition, Diddy wore a white shirt with black lettering – again a punishment certainty theme. Emblazoned on the front of his shirt was:
No Mercy.
The issue of showing no mercy has been front and center in the Fiefdom treatise for some time. The issue was voiced in the mid-April 2006 Demonstrating That ‘Coercive Diplomacy’ Became Even More Intense Against the Last Democratic Fiefdom:
For once the iron fist hits the table, there will be no room for mercy, no empathy to rely upon for a better deal. It’s either mitigate the already planned punitive measures now or face a fate that would leave anyone wishing for death.
In the early June 2006 chapter David E. Kelley’s ‘Boston Legal’ Continues to Affirm the Triple “E” Coalition’s Demands for Capitulation, Compensation and Reform in the Last Democratic Fiefdom: Revisited, the following was stated:
What his captors, enslavers and torturers do know, however, is that when the time comes to judge each of them, there will be no mercy and they will be, if not imprisoned, stripped of their power and wealth, prevented from gainful employment and – like what they did to him – deprived of welfare benefits for the duration of their lives. And on that scores, he’s “very serious”.
The issue was again referred to in the September 29, 2006 treatise chapter Congratulating and Celebrating the United States and Coalition Partners For Seeking Regime Change and Justice in the Last Democratic Fiefdom:
There will be no mitigation of sentence and no mercy for all these career murderers, torturers, enslavers, thieves, frauds, treasonists, sociopaths, stalkers, saboteurs, agents provocateur and sexual perverts. If the Canadian lawyer had his way, they’d be taken out back and unceremoniously shot like the Romanian dictator Ceauşescu and his wife. He can only hope that’s what the military faction of the coalition will be asked to do when judgment day comes in the last democratic fiefdom.
A day later the issue was put thusly in Acknowledging the First Month Anniversary of the Coalition-Imposed Deadline on the China-Canada Military Alliance to Capitulate to International Demands:
Since that period of time and being the constitutionally and internationally legitimate political leader of the country, the Custodian Chief has amended what he seeks viz. vengeance: see The Relevance of ‘The Count of Monte Cristo’ to the Last Democratic Fiefdom: The Methodology of Justice Applicable to Chinada Malfeasant.
The following is stated in the website posted “No Mitigation, No Mercy and No Exceptions”:
A variant of the phrase “no mitigation, no mercy and no exceptions” was first employed in the Fiefdom treatise supplemental Canada’s Rich & Powerful: Pubescent Sociopaths Who Hate America and Enslave, Experiment and Torture for Fun and to Help Beijing’s Imperialistic Foreign Policy Deconstructing Their Image of Democratic Respectability, Compassion and Upholding the Public Interest.
To fully reform Canada’s political, economic and accountability system is going to require gutting institutions and filling the top executive tier with new people – those who have demonstrated high integrity, are honest to a fault and are trustworthy – capable of reprimanding, sanctioning and punishing to the fullest extent of the law. This is an environment where pinnacle political station and vast wealth have no meaning or value. In other countries where its people had to start from scratch, like Romania, Poland, Lebanon, the Czech Republic and even Russia, they purged offending personalities without mitigation, without mercy, without exception. Canada not only should be no different, it cannot be any different. The corruptive rot is so embedded in core agencies and departments that cutting corners will not deliver the results being sought.
The phrase was later repeated in [chapters disseminated to original treatise recipients]:
(i) Coalition Warning to All Federal and Provincial Parliamentarians: Supporting ‘Business as Usual’ Governance Attracts Fiefdom Indictment Culpability
(ii) Sociopathic Governance: Pushing the Militarized Human Experimen-tation and Torture Envelop Further and Further Still in the Last Democratic Fiefdom, and
(iii) Turning Fifty and Absolutely Nothing to Show for It in the Last Democratic Fiefdom: Victim Impact Statement.
The head mistress ends the scene with a combination Letterman, Bush and SNL Maneuver red flagged remark “I have no sympathy for you; I know you are invulnerable to true regret” – referring to what pubescent sociopathology delivers to those who possess it.
A close-up of his personal bible is the last moment of the geo-potent scene. There are two flower-like emblems on it – one red and yellow and one white on a black background: Chinada punishment certainty.
Compelled by the daunting circumstances that face him, he resigns and delivers his farewell sermon. The scene begins with the camera panned-in on two female members of the choir: red gowns, black hymn book covers, white pages and a full background of golden organ pipes; which lexiconically articulates Chinada prison certainty and the child protection theme.
For this speech he’s attired in a combination of condemnation and justice. There are a coalition identifying twelve candles burning behind him.
From another angle there are five alter candles behind him; timed to “the power that propels me does so with superior knowledge as to what is for the best”. This is another endorsement of the Custodian Chief’s tested intellectual capacity and talents and trust in what he does with his historic damages in guiding Canada to fulfill the destiny Her Majesty the Queen and her predecessors expected of such a great land.
The last scene of the movie involves the Principal and Sister James reuniting in the parish garden discussing events past. The former breaks down into sobbing tears, admitting she continues to harbor doubts about the priest’s guilt. However, the reverse is true amongst the partnership. it is evident from the heavy geo-politicization of the film nobody in the coalition sustains the same sentiment about the nature of Canadian governance and China’s foreign policy.
The Bonus Features are also geo-politicized. In From Stage to Screen all the interviews of principal actors contained the lexicon. JP Shanley – director: Canadian prison certainty; Meryl: China; Philip: justice & prison certainty; Amy: justice; and Viola: justice & prison certainty.
Meryl’s repeatedly used the lexicon to generate communiqués. To a video still in which her character is executing a CBS Maneuver and the colors of China and quantum are present she states “[JP] understood the piece as an organism”, to describe one of the fundamental characteristics of the pandemic virus that’s invaded the Canadian body politic and will die when the coalition vaccine, i.e., defense system, is fully implemented.
She describes to JP, who adopts the role of interviewee, how she came to see the Broadway play version of the story:
Meryl: I got there late in the run. I felt very guilty [Staul M.] because I hadn’t gotten there earlier to see it; and everybody talked about it [protracted Branson M.] and said “Oh, you have to see it”. […] Cherri Jones, ah, sort of delivered a blow to my solar plexus [NBC M.] at the end of that play.
[…]
I was torn up by many of the performances [clip: protracted Eva M.]
[...]
JP: As a mother…
Meryl: …yea…
JP: …that scene that you play with Viola Davis where she’s telling you [Meryl: Beckinsale-Clinton-Latifah M.] …
Meryl: …yes…
JP: …how did that feel?
Meryl: Her work was fully realized and revelatory, and, you know, [protracted Eva M.] It was – it’s great; it’s great.
[…]
Meryl: You think you don’t have a choice [O-S M.] – it’s just like in my town. There were the kids who went to high school and the girls who went to Catholic school. Now you think ‘well, they have a uniform’. No, no, no! It just means the number of choices get narrowed, but the choices in how you differentiate became so elegant and so [Branson-Diaz M.] sizeable. […] [photo: Amy: Powell M.] Everything is a choice.
[…]
People really see it through the prism of their own biases, their own experience, their own emotional connection [scene: coalition identifying three light fixtures] to not just the church, but to authority – certain kinds of authority [Newman M.] – celestial and temporal.
JP starts his interview of Amy with “I just want to talk a little about [Soledad M.] what it was like to work with your cast members”:
Amy: I absolutely loved – I loved the way that it was adopted to screen; and [Diaz M.] I just fell in love with the character and it was something I felt strongly* about doing. [*clip: prison & punishment certainty; justice]
Amy underscores her and the coalition's affection for the Custodian Chief.
JP injects his geo-political views:
I’ve become more interested in other things other than simply whether this person is guilty or innocent – whether this person is right or wrong. And I’ve started to become more interested in things I’ve had in my own life about being a human being on this earth and how to live and [Bush M.] what to do and how to be effective and useful to my fellow beings.
In The Cast of Doubt an ‘Entertainment Weekly’ correspondent conducts an interview with the four main actors. It too becomes a platform for everyone involved in the film to state the case for the coalition. The lexicon is employed throughout by them all. Of note was when Viola states “And then you discover who the character is” and Philip executes a combination Pfeiffer-Beckinsale-Clinton Maneuver and Meryl an embellished Diaz Maneuver to draw attention to who the film is geo-politically about. And to the question what they thought the audience should be debating beyond guilt and innocence of pedophilia Meryl geo-opines “When I saw the whole film put together I thought about my own tendencies to be judgmental [Anderson-Erin M.]”. When Amy suggests that audience members won’t be anything but certain, focusing on a character stereotype, with “I know that character”. Philip adds a Pfeiffer-Richie-Santelli Maneuver to his view that the imperialistic, militarized totalitarian personality has been made out in the intel and Fiefdom treatise’s research project and diary component; recommending that lethal force be used. Amy jokes that being silent in the face of controversy is something she’s working on in life, adding a Clooney Maneuver to articulate she won’t remain mum about what the coalition is challenging.
With the Custodian Chief being kept under 24.7.365 surveillance, coalition partners learned swiftly he’s rented the movie. Within twenty-four hours Amy appeared in the diplomatic corridor with a hastily prepared initiative:
[prison certainty, justice, Presidential quantum, Powell Maneuver]
[prison certainty (chain link fence), Zeta-Jones-Oprah Maneuver]
[prison certainty, justice, Presidential quantum, Oprah Maneuver]
[prison certainty, Branson M.]
[prison certainty, Execution Maneuver]
