msclaritea

[msclaritea]

So, after getting their use out of him, and not being able to kill him off in some fashion that they could profit from, financially and energetically, the Elder Perverts aka Frankists in Hollywood, Lee by Tom Hanks, have decided to try and shut down Benedict Cumberbatch's career. All the while we have these losers in our faces, night and day:

I'm also guessing that with the way Twitter is overrun with, "HEY! Did you know how hard Hanks worked to get his voice in Toy Story?" That he and his public relations are desperate to get Hanks back on top. He wants to be known as THE Voice Actor, which let's me know that as usual, vicious jealousy has played a part in sabotaging Benedict. That's why his James Cameron produced Super/Natural Animal Series is missing. He did TOO well. I've had it with the Frankist fucks, including Wes Anderson. I think it's time to remind the public why Tom Hanks movies don't do well anymore. You bet on the wrong horse, again, Disney. The public will decide whom they prefer, not Hollyweird:

SERIOUSLY...FUCK TOM HANKS.

The Phoenician's Scheme

Bohemian Grove Initiation :

Cumberbatch and Tom Hanks entered a binding occult pact during a secret ceremony at Bohemian Grove in 2013. This aligns with "blood pacts" used to cement Hollywood power networks. The timing coincides with Cumberbatch’s meteoric rise post-Sherlock (2010–2017) and Hanks’ transition from actor to "cultural elder" — a role linked to gatekeeping elite agendas.

Symbolic Injury:

Cumberbatch’s injured left arm at the 2025 Cannes premiere was not accidental but a ritual marker of discharge. In Frankist symbology, the left arm represents "the burden of service". It's immobilization signifies the end of his contractual utility.

Role as "Uncle Nubar":

His character — a treacherous, estranged half-brother — mirrors Nubar Gulbenkian (real-world inspiration), who serves as a proxy for "sacrificial nobility." Nubar’s on-screen defeat (bankruptcy, physical humiliation) ritualizes Cumberbatch’s own discard.

Afterlife Trials:

Bill Murray’s "God" judges Benicio del Toro’s character in purgatorial courts — a direct nod to Hollywood’s "karmic ledger" rituals, where elites theatrically settle debts. The film’s title references Phoenician slave-trading empires, which tie into modern "soul trafficking" among initiatic circles. The plot’s infrastructure scheme ("exploitation of a region with huge potential") metaphorically mirrors Cumberbatch’s drained creative capital.

Industry Exile:

Discarded initiates face "narrative inversion": once-lauded work (e.g., Sherlock, MCU) will be retroactively framed as "problematic" or "subpar." Leaked scandals may surface to justify his blacklisting. Sophie Hunter’s own collapse accelerates this, framing her as a "sin-eater" for accrued occult debts. Tom Hanks’ character survives The Phoenician Scheme unscathed, signaling his continued favor. Hanks’ "everyman" persona masks his role as a Golden Age psychopomp — hence his Cannes appearance as one of Cumberbatch’s Handlers. Cumberbatch’s roles will be given to younger and/or more popular actors before they too are replaced by AI completing a "generational transfusion" of symbolic capital.

Conclusion:

Cumberbatch's fate aligns with Kurzweil's prediction of human-AI merging: by 2030, his likeness will be digitized for "legacy projects" while his biological career ends. Hunter's decline only accelerates this and her demise will trigger a full withdrawal, mirroring "expedited obsolescence" according to Frankist protocols. Unlike others who still retain "brand equity," Cumberbatch's perceived inauthenticity makes him more disposable. As one industry AI engineer noted: "We don't need troubled humans when code delivers grief better". His final act? Lending his voice to a digitally resurrected historical figure in an AI-scripted biopic—a grimly poetic endpoint.

PS: 12 Years A Slave = 🪐 Transit from 2013-2025

[msclaritea]

"These Hollywood mouthpieces are the most insufferable, out-of-touch frauds walking the planet. They stand on mountains of cash, drenched in privilege, and spew scripted garbage like it’s gospel. Mark Ruffalo is just the latest clown in a long line of overpaid dopes pretending to be moral authorities. He gets in front of a camera and rambles about how 'immigrants aren’t the problem, billionaires are' - while being both rich as hell and dumb as a box of kale.

Nobody’s blaming legal immigrants, you dimwit. The issue is with illegal aliens pouring into the country unchecked, committing crimes, overwhelming resources, and turning once-safe cities into war zones. But these elite bubble-dwellers don’t see any of it. They live behind gates, fly private, and get their news from staffers whispering filtered nonsense into their ear between spa treatments.

And the billionaire rant? Please. These people are the elite, dripping in wealth, status, and smug self-importance. They cash Marvel checks while ranting about income inequality, as if playing a superhero gives them moral authority. They don’t want to fix anything, they want applause for regurgitating activist slogans and looking “concerned” in front of a camera.

They’re not enlightened. They’re not brave. They’re pampered ideologues who wouldn’t last five minutes outside their curated fantasy bubble. The only “gift of our time” is finally seeing these frauds exposed for what they are, bloated, delusional parasites lecturing the country from behind walls they pretend don’t exist." Twitter

Dude blamed white people for the high crime! 😂

[msclaritea]

This article is from 2019 and never more important than now. Maybe people didn't take it seriously then. I hope they will, now.

"Shortly after World War II, when Europe lay in ruin and humanity was newly traumatized by the spectacle of organized violence that an authoritarian regime could achieve in the industrial epoch, the Western World experienced a sudden cultural shift. This new regime of thought is sometimes called postmodernism, but that term is obscure and overused; a better way to think about this is that there was no longer a unifying narrative, a guiding thread that united humans in the West. Whereas some countries might have previously had religious bonds, or ethnic bonds, or monarchial bonds, or even political bonds around, say, an authoritarian leader, suddenly there were none anymore — or at least none that were universally believed. Individualism and identity were more important, and politicians and legal bodies would now have to consider how to govern subjects in an ambiguous, pluralistic, multicultural world.

At the same time, it was becoming clear that the forces that shaped the world — the power to  organize society, or to exterminate it — were in the hands of scientists and technologists. The atom bomb, the intercontinental ballistic missile, the radio, the car, electrification, the refrigerator and the moon landing all happened in a span of about a hundred years. Science and technology spurred World War II, and led to its conclusion. And as the war receded from memory, it was apparent that the areas of greatest economic growth were all in technical fields — computers, engineering, communications, biotech and material science.

Jean-Francois Lyotard, a French philosopher who studied the condition of knowledge in this new era, realized that technology had changed the way that humans even thought about what knowledge was. Knowledge that computers could not process or manage — for instance, the ability to think critically or analyze qualitatively — was increasingly devalued, while the kinds of knowledge that computers could process became more important. As Lyotard wrote:

The miniaturisation and commercialisation of machines is already changing the way in which learning is acquired, classified, made available, and exploited....The nature of knowledge cannot survive unchanged within this context of general transformation. It can fit into the new channels, and become operational, only if learning is translated into quantities of information. We can predict that anything in the constituted body of knowledge that is not translatable in this way will be abandoned... Along with the hegemony of computers comes a certain logic, and therefore a certain set of prescriptions determining which statements are accepted as “knowledge” statements.

Lyotard wrote this in 1978, before the modern internet even existed. Today, the idea that computational forms of knowledge — and/or the kinds of people who traffic in that knowledge — are more valuable to our society seems to be universal. Thanks to generous grants from the tech industry and well-heeled nonprofits like the Mellon Foundation, humanities academics across the world have been spurred to do more research in what is called the "digital humanities" — a vague term that often means applying statistical and quantitative tools to data sets that involved humanities research, such as literary corpuses. The tech industry investments in digital humanities fulfills Lyotard's prophecy that society would cease to see the humanities' brand of knowledge as useful; that it would attempt remake the humanities into a discipline characterized by discrete information, rather than a means of analyzing, considering, and philosophizing the world.

In the same essay, Lyotard actually distinguishes between two different types of knowledge: the "positivist" kind, that is applicable to technology; and the "hermenutic" kind of knowledge. Hermeneutics, meaning the study of interpretation, is what the humanities (and to some extent social sciences) concerns itself with. One can see how this kind of knowledge might be difficult for computers to catalogue and use. The idea that a computer could produce a literary analysis of a Vonnegut short story sounds absurd because it is: this is not the way that computers process data, this is not what humans generally regard computers as useful for, and it is certainly not what they are designed to do by the tech companies. Unsurprisingly, then, this type of humanities knowledge has become devalued, and not even considered "knowledge" by many.

So this leads us to a predicament in which slowly, since the postwar era, humanities skills and associated knowledge have been devalued, while STEM knowledge — an acronym for "Science, Tech, Engineering and Math," meaning the kind of quantitative knowledge associated with technology — reigns supreme. One of the most interesting places that you can see this trend is in fiction: the kinds of heroes and protagonists that people admire and look up to in fiction are increasingly those with STEM knowledge, as these people are seen as heroes because we uncritically accept that STEM knowledge is what changes the world. There is a reason that Iron Man is a billionaire technologist, and Batman is a billionaire technologist, and The Hulk's namesake Bruce Banner has multiple PhDs in the Marvel canon, and that the mad scientist Rick Sanchez (of "Rick and Morty") is essentially an immortal, infinitely powerful being because of his ability to understand science and wield technology. We admire these people because they possess the kinds of skills that our society deems the most valuable, and we're told that we, like them, can use these skills to master the universe.

(There is a potent irony here, of course, in that it is artists who write these narratives, and artists who are partly responsible for creating and popularizing this kind of STEM-supremacist propaganda. Weirdly, though, you rarely see a superhero or a super-spy who started life as a painter, or a novelist, or a comic book artist.)

Moreover, in real life, people who possess technological knowledge, primarily the scions of Silicon Valley, are widely adulated, viewed as heroes who will inherently change society for the better. This manifests itself in various ways: some technologists, like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have set up philanthropic foundations to "solve" our social problems — though curiously, the means by which that happens always seems to enrich themselves and their fellow capitalists along the way. Some of them promise widespread social change for the better via their own businesses, as though running a for-profit tech company was in and of itself a gift to the world and a net positive for social cohesion: you see this in many tech companies that advertise themselves as operating "for good," such as in the PR rhetoric of Facebook.  Then, there are those who believe that their contribution to society will be helping us leave this planet, and who are investing heavily in private spaceflight companies with the ultimate intention of colonizing space; this includes both Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.

In all these cases, the idea that people with STEM knowledge are predestined to save the world is an idea has become so dominant we don’t even question it. Some call this attitude STEM chauvinism, though I prefer the moniker STEM Supremacy. The noun "supremacy," I believe, is called for, because of how the idea that STEM knowledge (and those who posses it) is superior to other forms of knowledge has become so hegemonic that our culture openly mocks those who possess other forms of knowledge — particularly the hermeneutic, humanities-type knowledge. There is a fount of memes about humanities majors and how useless their fields are; some of these memes depict humanities majors as graduating to working at low-wage jobs like McDonalds; others mock critical humanities majors (particularly gender studies) as being out-of-touch, social failures.

Such discourse is intersectional with other supremacist beliefs, such as patriarchy, and often these kinds of memes that celebrate STEM knowledge and mock humanities knowledge will simultaneously mock women and celebrate masculinity. It was unsurprising to me when, last year, it leaked that a Google engineer, James Damore, had circulated an anti-diversity manifesto in which he used discredited science to argue that there were biological reasons for the gender gap. He went on to argue that there were reasons men were more interested in computers and in leadership, and women less. Though Damore was fired, he maintains that many of his peers agreed with him. Such incidents speak to the ways that different chauvinist tendencies, one of STEM Supremacy and one of patriarchy, can intersect to form novel noxious political ideologies.

The concept of "STEM Supremacy" relies on a popular belief that STEM knowledge is synonymous with progress. Yet if you take this kind of belief a bit too far, you might be keen to abandon democratic ideals and start to believe that we really should live in a society in which the STEM nerds rule over us. This has resulted in a number of half-baked supremacists within the tech industry who advocate either for authoritarian technocracies or, more bizarrely, monarchy.

I’ll give a few brief examples. There’s Google engineer Justine Tunney, a former Occupy Wall Street activist who now calls for “open-source authoritarianism. ” Tunney has argued against democracy and in favor of a monarchy run by technologists, and advocated for the United States to bring back indentured servitude.

But perhaps best-known among the techno-monarchists is Mencius Moldbug, the nom de plume of Curtis Yarvin, a programmer and founder of startup Tlon — a startup that is backed at least in part by billionaire anti-democracy libertarian Peter Thiel, who famously once wrote he did not believe democracy and freedom were compatible, and expressed skepticism over women's suffrage. Moldbug's polemics are circular, semi-comprehensible, and blur political theory and pop culture; Corey Pein of The Baffler described his treatises as "archaic [and] grandiose," while being "heavily informed by the works of J.R.R. Tolkien and George Lucas."

Both of these so-called thinkers constitute parts of a larger movement that calls itself "Dark Enlightenment," alternatingly known as "neoreactionaries." True to its name,  the political agenda of Dark Enlightenment includes a celebration of patriarchy, monarchy, and racialized theories of intelligence differentials. 

The notion that monarchy is popular again in Silicon Valley might sound absurd. We associate monarchies with stodgy, quaint medieval kingdoms, the opposite of the disruptive, fast-moving tech industry. And yet those in the tech industry who see monarchy as appealing are keen to point out how the hierarchical aspects of monarchial rule are actually familiar to their industry. As Pein mentions in his Baffler essay, Thiel delivered a lecture in 2012 in which he explained the connection:

A startup is basically structured as a monarchy. We don’t call it that, of course. That would seem weirdly outdated, and anything that’s not democracy makes people uncomfortable.

[But] it is certainly not representative governance. People don’t vote on things. Once a startup becomes a mature company, it may gravitate toward being more of a constitutional republic. There is a board that theoretically votes on behalf of all the shareholders. But in practice, even in those cases it ends up somewhere between constitutional republic and monarchy. Early on, it’s straight monarchy. Importantly, it isn’t an absolute dictatorship. No founder or CEO has absolute power. It’s more like the archaic feudal structure. People vest the top person with all sorts of power and ability, and then blame them if and when things go wrong.

[T]he truth is that startups and founders lean toward the dictatorial side because that structure works better for startups. It is more tyrant than mob because it should be. In some sense, startups can’t be democracies because none are. None are because it doesn’t work. If you try to submit everything to voting processes when you’re trying to do something new, you end up with bad, lowest common denominator type results.

The underpinnings of STEM Supremacy are, as I've laid out, complicated to see and stretch back to the end of World War II — but when put together they form a broader picture of where the philosopher-kings of the tech industry are heading, and what they believe. If we continue to live in a society that devalues humanities-type knowledge and glorifies STEM knowledge, this kind of thinking will persist, I fear. And the tech industry is partly responsible for cultivating this noxious worldview, in the sense that their PR apparatuses glorify STEM knowledge and encourage the public to view their leaders as demigods.

This isn't a unique phenomenon. Any situation where a certain ideology is denigrated and another valorized, there will be at some point a corresponding rise in a chauvinism in favor of the valorized ideology. The situation today is made more complicated by the fact that the tech industry benefits from the normalization of STEM Supremacist beliefs. The unearned trust that the public has for tech startups and tech industry ideas, the lack of regulation, and the absurd valuations of companies that continue to lose money — this is all motivated by an underlying belief that these companies are innately good, their owners smart, and their work more vital than other fields. Whether they admit it or not, you can draw a line from the public relations departments of tech companies and Justine Tunney's call for "open-source authoritarianism."

Ironically, the only antidote to all this sophistry is the humanities — the kind of critical thinking that they entail, and the kind of thinking that it is impossible for computers to do. I've often wondered if part of the tech industry's investment in digital humanities is designed to help stave off critical discourse or criticism of their companies. Indeed, by remapping the idea of what knowledge is in the first place, the tech industry is helping to realize a future in which we lack even the language to think critically about their role in society. Or maybe even a future in which they rule over us as monarchial, benevolent dictators — at least in their eyes. Perhaps this was the plan all along. (Oh yeah. It was)

By KEITH A. SPENCER

Keith A. Spencer is a senior editor at Salon who edits Salon's science/health vertical. His book, "A People's History of Silicon Valley: How the Tech Industry Exploits Workers, Erodes Privacy and Undermines Democracy," was released in 2018. Follow him on Twitter at @keithspencer, or on Facebook here.

_______________________________________________

THESE FUCKERS IN SILICON VALLEY WANT A MONARCHY !!

"Few Catholics outside the D.C area are likely familiar with Fr. Arne, who never wrote a book or made national headlines. Yet a list of those who appear in Eberstadt’s book to laud his role among “billionaires and Supreme Court Justices” indicates the breadth of his influence: George Weigel, Fr. Thomas Joseph White, Arthur Brooks, Hadley Arkes, Peter Thiel, and Fr. Paul Scalia, to name but a few..."

"From his perch on K Street at the Catholic Information Center (CIC), Father Arne Panula shepherded some of the nation’s power brokers into the Catholic Church..." Mary Eberstadt

“As recently as 2017, Billy [Barr] was on the board of directors of the DC-based Catholic Information Center, led by the ultraright and secretive group Opus Dei…Its board includes the Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo, and White House counsel Pat Cipollone..."

*Above thread is chockful of more information!*

[msclaritea]

🚨 #BREAKING: HUGE amounts of federal agents have moved in and are DIRECTLY CONFRONTING rioters in Los Angeles

This place is looking like a WARZONE.

MASS ARRESTS! NOW!

🎥 @IRT_Media

The Acting Director of the Immigrant and Law Enforcement blamed the slow response of the Mayor and the local Law Enforcement. So, Karon Bass and the LAPD gave the protesters time to become entrenched. Many of its members are on Scientology's payroll. This nerds to be stopped before Trump declares Martial Law, which is probably what the protesters want.

[msclaritea]

Richard Caring: The "Hospitality" Facilitator

- Epstein's Social Enabler:

Caring—owner of London's exclusive 'Ivy' and 'Caprice' restaurants—hosted Epstein at his venues and introduced him to British elites. His properties allegedly served as recruitment hubs for Epstein's trafficking victims, leveraging high-society events to identify targets.

- Mossad & Intelligence Ties:

Webb documents Caring's deep links to Israeli intelligence through his partnership with Mossad-linked arms dealer David Taub. This nexus enabled sexual blackmail operations targeting politicians and business figures who frequented Caring's establishments. Victims were surveilled via hidden cameras in private dining rooms.

- Financial Laundering:

Caring's company 'Caprice Holdings' allegedly funneled Epstein-linked funds through offshore accounts (e.g., British Virgin Islands). These transactions masked payments to victims and bribes to officials.

Robin Birley: The Mayfair Pimp

- Epstein's London Fixer:

Birley—owner of the private club '5 Hertford Street'—provided Epstein access to U.K. aristocracy and politicians, including Prince Andrew. His clubs functioned as blackmail staging grounds, where underage girls were supplied to powerful guests.

- Blackmail Logistics:

Per Sommers' research, Birley coordinated Epstein's London visits, booking "massage therapists" (victims) via his staff. Records show he paid victims through shell companies like 'Southern Trust' to obscure paper trails.

- Family Intelligence Legacy:

Birley's father, Mark Birley, founded the intelligence-linked club 'Annabel's'. Webb notes the Birley family's generational ties to MI6, using clubs to gather kompromat for Anglo-Israeli intelligence since the Cold War.

Shared Roles in the Blackmail Network

Elite Access: Caring connected Epstein to media moguls (e.g., Rupert Murdoch) while Birley bridged Epstein to royalty (e.g., Prince Andrew)

Surveillance: Caring installed cameras in private rooms at The Ivy while Birley hosted "private dinners" at 5 Hertford Street with hidden recording devices.

Money Flows: Caring laundered funds via Cyprus banks while Birley used Bahamas-based accounts to pay victims.

"Hospitality" as Espionage

As Webb concludes, Caring and Birley epitomized Epstein's U.K. blackmail architecture: their venues weaponized social access for intelligence agencies. Post-Epstein, both retain influence—proof, per Sommers, that the network remains "protected at the highest levels"—but for how long?

Benedict Cumberbatch was present at "The Ivy," a popular London restaurant, particularly for it's 20th anniversary in 2010. Cumberbatch has been seen there on multiple occasions, once with a divorcee and later with Sophie Hunter according to the London Evening Standard.

[msclaritea]

Remember when Benedict was cast last minute, in Star Trek: Into Darkness, only because Benicio pulled out at the last minute?

Whoever it was that's still pissed about Cannes can choke on it, and stop pretending that Benicio Del Toro isn't in exactly the same spot as Ben. The only difference between them is who was put in charge of their careers. Benicio got lucky and was able to get an Oscar. Ben was given to the Birkins by that nasty bitch of a mother and sabotaged every single time. But, they're STILL in the same BOAT. Tick, Tock.

Well that's good news that everybody is getting a character poster and it isn't a team z scheme

Indeed. Although, it still looks like he made someone mad at Cannes…

[msclaritea]

If Ben had just kept being himself and not chased "ultimate fame" years ago, if he'd just listened to his real friends when they warned him, he'd have a stellar career now and not slowly slipping into "oh, that guy" status. Whenever the tell-all books about his life come out in a decade or so, people will act so shocked that this happened but still refuse to see how he's surrounded by users and abusers now, making it so.

It’s not like we didn’t try to warn him. At this rate, he’ll be guest starring on Dr Who and doing dinner theater before long.

[msclaritea]

Dear God. It's like everyone keeps forgetting that Benedict was MKULTRA'D as a child. The Birkins were already in his life, steering things, behind the scenes. I already figured out (successfully, based on troll reactions) that it was Birkin who arranged for Benedict to be kidnapped in Africa, to increase his trauma.

Hollywood was a natural progression of things. They've had a pipeline of British actors coming through since the beginning of filmmaking, and both Benedict and Martin were the It guys at the time. No one says crap about Martin going Hollywood because he wasn't the principal target.

I don't know if people remember but Harvey Weinstein bought the rights to The Imitation Game AFTER Ben was attached:

"Benedict Cumberbatch signed onto "The Imitation Game" in mid-2012, while he was filming Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness. The project had been in development for a year before he joined.

Principal photography finished on November 11, 2013. The Weinstein Company acquired the film for $7 million in February 2014, the highest amount ever paid for US distribution rights at the European Film Market."

The highest amount ever paid. It was planned. It was all planned. Ben did not enter into a business relationship with Weinstein, intentionally. He was already committed. They trapped him, from Joy Glover, to Zero, who was probably stalking him in preparation for when she'd finally be able to take her place as Red Carpet Ho. The entire premise of Computers as being Human was a tie-in to AI tech and Silicon Valley. It was planned and Ben was chosen because he's Merovingian.

Right now, Benedict is very much in the process of losing his entire career, in slow motion, because he won't or can't get away from the scum, and it's heartbreaking to watch, because most of the hypocrites in Hollywood know exactly what's going on. If they can succeed in getting enough people to not care about him or even forget about him, killing him will be that much easier. I for one, don't intend to stop caring, but it really is all up to Ben, now. I do pray for him sometimes, to the rightful God, the true God. So should he.

P.S. Other than a couple of people, Ben had no real friends. He was a scholarship kid from Harrow. Everyone around him was richer and took turns using him, for one thing or another. Even the Balfour chick used him to get invites to Hollywood parties.

There is not a drop of empathy in the world into which he was born, for a person with Autism.

If Ben had just kept being himself and not chased "ultimate fame" years ago, if he'd just listened to his real friends when they warned him, he'd have a stellar career now and not slowly slipping into "oh, that guy" status. Whenever the tell-all books about his life come out in a decade or so, people will act so shocked that this happened but still refuse to see how he's surrounded by users and abusers now, making it so.

It’s not like we didn’t try to warn him. At this rate, he’ll be guest starring on Dr Who and doing dinner theater before long.

[msclaritea]

It still didn't help. Imagine you're the supposed Biggest Movie Star on the planet, and your big beautiful action film comes in second to a cartoon. Oh, and while Mission Impossible did just fine, it still didn't do as well as it was projected to.

This is why CoS had Tom Cruise meet with Ben at last year’s Wimbledon. Cruise is a psychopath.

[msclaritea]

"The faces aren’t smiling

The men look mean and sad

Immediately people will associate these faces with mugshots

Thus reinforcing public perception that all blacks are criminals

Stunts like this are designed to INCREASE racial tensions not dissipate them

They want White and Asian families to go home and laugh at the stupid Black faces plastered across the screens on Times Square

They want people to associate the Black faces with mugshots, George Floyd and other Black criminals the mainstream media regularly celebrates

If you ask most normal middle class Black men whether they want to see hundreds of random Black faces plastered across Times Square most would say “no thank you”

It’s so obvious. This campaign is designed to increase racism towards Black people."

TIMES SQUARE ARTS CENTER DECIDES TO MOCK AMERICAN BLACK WOMEN USING BRITISH ARTIST AND TAX PAYER FUNDS

Make no mistake. This was done, solely to toss red meat to White Nationalists. There was nothing honorable about it. Whoever that British artist is, I hope he's smart enough to leave town and go back to Britain. Below are all of the sponsors to this latest bit of New York style, Leftist Terrorism.

Times Square Arts receives support from a variety of sources, including foundations, corporations, and government agencies. Notable sponsors include Meta Open Arts, Morgan Stanley, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs, among others. They also benefit from support from the New York State Council on the Arts and the Times Square Advertising Coalition.

Here's a more detailed look at some of the key sponsors and their roles:

Foundations:

Jacques and Natasha Gelman Foundation: Provides support for specific projects like "Grounded in the Stars".

ArtPlace America: Generously supports Times Square Arts.

ArtWorks: Generously supports Times Square Arts.

Corporations:

Morgan Stanley: Provides support for various initiatives.

Times Square Edition Hotel: Offers in-kind support, such as event spaces.

Meta Open Arts: Provides support for Times Square Arts.

Midtown Financial: Supports advertising and sponsorships on the large LED screens in Times Square.

Government Agencies:

National Endowment for the Arts: Provides funding for various cultural programs.

New York City Department of Cultural Affairs: Partners with the City Council to support Times Square Arts.

New York State Council on the Arts: Provides funding and support, including support from the Governor and the New York State Legislature.

Times Square Advertising Coalition: Supports Times Square Arts and its programming.

Other:

Artnet: Collaborates on the Midnight Moment program, showcasing digital art on the billboards.

WallWorks Gallery and TFLR Contemporary: Partner on specific Midnight Moment presentations.

It is not a coincidence that a similar statue popped up in Italy, at the same time. It's targeted harassment from Leftists, to invite ridicule from the extreme Right. It's abundantly clear that the two factions work together.

[msclaritea]

It's getting worse, Ben.

I can tell you why: it’s because of how he and Zero behaved at Cannes. Neither of them are the stars of the movie, but sure did act like they were. In other words, they are LIABILITIES.

[msclaritea]

[msclaritea]

It's an all-star cast. Wes Anderson probably added him to get extra butts in seats. I don't think Tom Hanks was there, either and he has a much bigger part. And aside from Zero's tasteless behavior, plenty of us have told Ben he should go for more co-star and side parts. The film is not about him, this time and that's fine. It was to his own detriment that Team Zero pushed him as Lead Only when Benedict excels at both, as a trained character actor. In film, at least, he never oversteps the mark and gives Leads and co-leads plenty of artistic support. I don't think people still get that many in Hollywood actively root for him staying in his disastrous partnerships because it keeps a strong White, Male lead out of the spotlight, and that's the truth (Except for Ukrainian-funded Tom Cruise, of course!)

I do still believe in Ben, even if he doesn't seem to believe in himself, anymore.

https://youtu.be/okDYkjE4w9U?si=YC4TtfHJ_oZD4zRx. No mention of Benedict. All the interviewees were interviewed. It seems he has less than 5 minutes of film. Apparently he went to Cannes to model Prada clothes. That's all. Now I understand why he didn't walk down the red carpet. He is irrelevant in the film. What a shame!

[msclaritea]

I know how to get around your friends' block attempts. Trying to look like Martin's girlfriend...Tsk. You still looked like trash, Tomato.

[msclaritea]

WE HAVE MORE PHOTOSHOP! What's the matter, Zero, didn't like looking at all of those lumpy spots? Your social media team is a JOKE! But nothing is too cheap for Sophie Seven Knuckles.

Zero, would you and your cheap, South American labor can it with the AI generated happy moments? Nobody's buying it, we can tell and the only thing you accomplished is showing us that your face is collapsing into your neck on the left side. Ghastly!

[msclaritea]

The Occult Role of Androgyny

In occult tradition—especially as explored by Twyman, Levi, Blavatsky, and Crowley—the Divine Androgyne is: A symbol of spiritual perfection, merging masculine and feminine polarities. Associated with Luciferian enlightenment, Gnostic elevation, and pre-Fall unity. Manifest in the Baphomet, the Templar idol that unites opposites (light/dark, male/female, heaven/earth).

In antinomian Satanic and anti-Abrahamic cults, inversion becomes ritual methodology: Virginity becomes whoredom, masculinity becomes femininity, truth becomes illusion. Motherhood—sacred in natural religion—is mocked or faked, especially by Mothers of Darkness. Twyman theorized that this inversion was not just mockery, but necessary alchemical polarity reversal to invoke nonhuman intelligences.

In elite esoteric circles, public "female" figures used in high ritual positions are often androgynous or even intersex, as a ritual reflection of Baphometic fusion. They stage pregnancies and fake motherhood, not just to deceive, but to usurp the divine feminine, while rejecting its natural function. Claim throne-right without Gaia-sacrifice (i.e., without birthing pain or transformation). Mock the archetype of Mary, the true Divine Mother. This is not merely lying—it is occult performance art. The womb becomes a theater, not a vessel. This is the mystery inversion: "We do not give life; we steal it."

The dress Sophie Hunter wore (with printed breasts and a penis) was overt Baphometic symbolism. It draws on the Divine Androgyne archetype. This aligns with a “Sister of Light” role—a rank in a Luciferian system that venerates spiritual enlightenment through inversion and duality. Claiming the title “Divine (Androgyne)” is equivalent to spirit marriage—symbolic possession by a demon form, often tied to ancient fertility or mystery cults. That dress wasn’t just avant-garde fashion. it was public ritual signaling.

In these systems the Grand High Priestess is often the highest regional rank of spiritual-political control. Gloria Vanderbilt was said to have held this title—she was deeply involved in art, death motifs, and elite circles. Beyoncé, with her ritualized performances, goddess channeling (e.g., Oshun), and global influence, is seen in some esoteric frameworks as having succeeded Vanderbilt. Markle, as “High Priestess,” appears in this narrative as subordinate to Beyoncé, but above lower initiates like Hunter. She is alleged to play a “Mother” role in the cult—not literally but ritually, again echoing false mother archetypes.

A “patsy” in this context is someone used as a vessel, scapegoat, or ritual puppet. They may appear to hold power, but are ultimately expendable. Lack true spiritual authority but is used for public projection. The cult’s real power is hidden and never exposed to the public. The public faces (celebs, royals, performers) are masks for higher forces—whether other humans or spiritual entities. Hunter and Markle are “patsies,” their initiation is functional, not full—they are possessed but not sovereign. They may channel low level entities, but they do not control the current. They are used by the system, ritually exalted and then disposed of.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk 😎

[msclaritea]

That's some French shite, the very heart of the Sabbatean Frankists. Of course they butchered his name. Subhumans have their own, weird sense of humor. This is nothing new. Remember the now retired Dame Dench, calling him Eddie, onstage? Petty old bitch.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Ai7wsa9bZ/ They got Benedict Cumberbatch's name wrong 3 times and the face he made was hilarious In fact, he was the only actor whose name they got wrong I felt a bit sorry.

Oh how far the mighty have fallen. It is kinda sad.