Man on Fire was synonymously the best and most vile movie ever.  Everything about the movie is 100% top-notch.  The main character is John Creasy, played by Denzel Washington.  Creasy, the character, ranks with or above almost every action hero in motion picture history; Washington, the actor, is well nigh flawless.  The cinematography mixes the most tried-and-true traditional and modern camera work in a breathtaking style.  In the process, it also invents a few new tricks.  The dialogue was perfect.  The casting was perfect.  Everything was perfect.  Add to that the fact that almost everything in the film actually happened, though not all at the same time, and the movie really hits home.  Unfortunately, Man On Fire was intentionally designed to program millions of people.  In a certain percentage of the population this movie will cause depression, paranoia, posttraumatic stress, and a myriad other negative emotions.  Someone or some people behind the making of this movie knew that by utilizing advanced technology, they could destroy a certain number of persons' minds for the short and/or long term.  It is sheer insidious genius.

 

The Movie - Man On Fire begins with our hero, ex-intelligence officer John Creasy, Denzel Washington, being a washed-up has-been intent on drinking himself to death.  When this proves too time-consuming, he opts to shoot himself in the head.  For some reason the bullet doesn't fire.  It is a lucky bullet.  Shortly after, his retired intelligence friend, Rayburn played by Christopher Walken, gets him a job as a bodyguard in Mexico for a little girl name Pita, played by Dakota Fanning.  She is the daughter of a Mexican father and his Anglo wife.  Tragically, despite Creasy's best efforts, Pita is kidnapped.  In the process, John Creasy kills two agents who appear to have been corrupt in some way.
 

            John Creasy has bonded with the young Pita, and he is devastated and racked with guilt after her kidnapping.  The Mom is extremely angry, scared, and depressed.  They try negotiating, but the kidnapers kill the little girl AND take the money.  John Creasy, finding a new mission in life, investigates.
 

            The ex-intel op, Creasy, meets a journalist who decides to help him in exchange for information.  First he finds out that the kidnappers were in fact a criminal gang involved in all kinds of despicable enterprises.  Creasy locates a gang lieutenant, duct-tapes his hands to a car steering wheel, and proceeds to cut off fingers, one at a time, using the heated car lighter to cauterize the wounds.  After two fingers, he slices off an ear.  When he gets more information on the kidnapping, he kills the gang member. 
 

            John Creasy discovers that many people are involved.  One is the negotiating task force chief.  Further, the crooked chief has been known to steal money for hostages before, but is protected by American and Mexican officials, and lives in a compound.  Creasy blows up a car, then gets to the chief and kills him, while "coercing" him into relaying more info.  He also tortures the generals inside the criminal gang and finds out the remaining leaders of the gang are two evil brothers.
 

            Creasy also figures out that Pita's Dad, portrayed by Marc Anthony, was involved.  The Mother, Radha Mitchell's role, freaks out, and tells Creasy to kill her husband, or she will.  Creasy takes out that lucky bullet that didn't fire when he tried to commit suicide, puts it into his gun, and hands the gun to the Dad, Anthony.  Dad didn't think the girl would die.  He is guilty of using his daughter for monetary gain.  A lower act can hardly be imagined.  Creasy tells Dad that the bullet might still be lucky, and that Fate or God might step in again.  They don't, and Dad blows his own brains out, in divine justice.
 

Finally, Creasy finds one of the two brothers, Aurelio Sanchez.  He corners Aurelio and his pregnant wife.  Creasy is being watched and tracked at this point by sympathetic agents from both Mexico and America.  Creasy beats Aurelio some, and then points a gun to his head.  When Creasy forcefully questions the wife, she doesn't even hesitate to spill the beans.  Yes, it is her husband, Aurelio, and his brother Daniel Sanchez who have kidnapped the girl.  Creasy has her call the mysterious Daniel, the most evil character in the movie.  Daniel admits that this is the worst thing that can happen: his family kidnapped and being threatened with their permanent loss.  Creasy blasts off Aurelio''s hand while the agents and Daniel are both listening.  Aurelio screams and screams.  Daniel realizes he has been put into the same place John Creasy was put into when Pita was taken - a true role-reversal.  Creasy shooting off Aurelio's hand, the calm way he has heretofore carried out psychological abuse, physical torture, and murder, and his current uncompromising tone of voice; all tell Daniel Sanchez that there is no doubt as to whether he is about to have to bargain his own life to save his family.  But wait:
 

            Daniel Sanchez says he will trade.  Trade what?  It is a life for a life.  Creasy tells him he will settle for nothing less than Daniel's assassination and probable torture.  Daniel startlingly reveals that the little girl is still alive!  Creasy can't believe it, but without missing a beat, he agrees to give back Aurelio and Aurelio''s pregnant wife in exchange for Pita.  Creasy sets up a meeting place, heads over, and calls the Mother, a great performance by Mitchell.  He tells Mom that Pita may still be alive, and heads out.

 

            In the end, the little girl gets saved, Aurelio dies, but Daniel and Aurelio's wife live.  The last shot sees our hero, John Creasy, slowly dying from bullet wounds.

 

            Again, I will say that in all senses, this movie was possibly the best ever made in a few different genres: action flicks, "spy" movies, dual-language films (floating rapidly back and forth from English to Spanish).  Creasy's is perfect justice, and he is never flawed in choosing who should be tortured, how much, and who should die.  Yet, still, Man On Fire was designed to make some people go insane.
 

            I explained why it was so great.  There are many, many levels such as the soundtrack, the cinematography, the script, the acting - almost every facet.  Now hear me out as I tell you why this movie was designed to be horrifyingly detrimental to the global society.

 

Stress and the Brain - First, in the beginning of the film, Creasy's attempted suicide brings out some sort of primal fear of death.  For those who don't believe that fear messes with actual centers in the brain, that it doesn't change brain chemistry, that it doesn't have lasting effects, you are refuting science.  Science Central News reported some recent discoveries in a June 24, 2003 article entitled "Stress Changes Your Brain".  SCN: "We all have a little stress in our lives. But after studying nerve cells in a banana-shaped area of the brain called the hippocampus, a hub for learning and memory, neuroscientists say chronic stress can have devastating effects on our brains."  Scientist Bruce McEwen said the hippocampus is important and "provides context" for important events.  Science postulates that the hippocampus is highly stimulated in most people during intense events, like 9-11, thus creating permanent images.  It works in extreme positive and negative situations.

 

AffordableRX's "Health Section" states that stress in the brain, activating the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis (grouping), causes great damage.  This stress causes "High Blood Pressure (hypertension), loss of appetite, weight loss, muscle wasting, GI ulcers, loss of reproductive function, suppression of the immune system, and depression."  The Franklin Institute Online adds: "A chronic overreaction to stress overloads the brain with powerful hormones that are intended only for short-term duty in emergency situations. Their cumulative effect damages and kills brain cells."  From Future Pundit: "Researchers at Johns Hopkins have discovered that sudden emotional stress can also result in severe but reversible heart muscle weakness that mimics a classic heart attack."

 

Even if you loved the movie and were completely sympathetic to John Creasy's actions, can all of you honestly say that this intensely dark and violent movie didn't stimulate internal stress?  If so, you should be working for the CIA yourself.

 

As you can see, even if you are a part of the percentage who doesn't get stressed when you watch grotesque acts committed on film, some are adversely stimulated.  Other factors come into play, and the stress level is constantly intensified.

 

Going on from Creasy's attempted suicide, the little girl is captured.  This stirs a deep primal emotion, a fear that is not named.  There are only a few things worse than having your child kidnapped.  And, the way Man On Fire was shot, you are right inside the film.  Fear is the primary agent used in information gathering, brainwashing, mind controlling, and a plethora of other unsavory acts, especially when used to dominate or coerce.  NPR's Ira Flatow gives an online streaming oral dissertation called "Making False Memories".  He begins by telling us that cops and prosecutors know that many memories are totally, unknowingly fabricated.  Studies have been done to corroborate this.  A John Hopkins scientist is interviewed, and adds that creating false memories in the lab are very easily, and regularly, done.  Stress can quicken the fabricated memory process.

 

Directly after the kidnapping, we have Creasy cutting off and burning the gang-bangers fingers.  This brings additional sharply intense fear.  By this point in the movie, chemicals are sparking off in the brain like a meteor storm in a beach's night sky.

 

            Next you get a man blown up by having C4 being inserted inside his rectum.  If every man deserved what he received from Creasy, people would not watch this incredibly graphic movie.  Because of the script, we admire John Creasy and his justice, and thus keep watching.  The deep-rooted emotions continue firing synapses in dynamic patterns.

 

Another level of subconscious ripple is created with the cutting dialogue.  Creasy shows no mercy, and psychologically tortures the evildoers as well as physically so.  Waves and waves of fear, anger, and hatred occur.

 

Two more men killed and tortured, and the flashing strobe sequencing begins.  This flashing is done in sporadic patterns.  Pfwooof-Pfwooofpfwoooof! Pfwoof-Pfwoofpfwooofpfwoooof! It is constant and unyielding.    The flashing lasts for the final 30 or 45 minutes of the movie.  This strobing is juxtaposed with jumping screen shots, definitely a new or drastically refined video technique.  The flashing lights are another method used by torturers, most notably American and British intelligence.  The FBI, CIA, MI6 have all admitted to using strobes, and our Neo-con leaders continue to endorse the technique with almost no outcry from the Democrats.  Inside of Man On Fire, this effect starts to hypnotize the viewer, while reptilian emotions are swimming in his or her subconscious, pushing the fear deeper still.

 

This constant negative emotion is relentless; as the Father is revealed as one of the kidnappers and commits suicide, as Daniel Sanchez has the tides turned with his own family being the tortured hostages, we are happy and aghast at the same time, a double shot of diametrically opposed emotions.  Add to this Creasy's sharp tone of voice, and we have another level of mental control.  The American Psychological Association admitted that voices create chemical reactions in the brain on February 3, 2005.  The title of the article says it all: "Brain increases response when hearing anger in voices".

 

Then, hope: The little girl being alive draws us from our sedation and stupor.  This hope is quickly depressed to the lowest depths yet with a realization of something worse than kidnapping.  If the little girl is alive, then most intelligent people will know what would have happened to her.  She would have been raped in ways too morbid to describe.  This is never said, but only the densest person would not think it for a moment.  How could someone?  Why would someone?  More fear, more stress.

 

But, Pita is saved.  In the end, Aurelio is killed.  So, too, is John Creasy.  This is the very last shot of the film.  John Creasy has become loved by the audience as the perfect judge and jury, flawless and justified.  Our hero dies.  By leaving us on this sadness, we are never raised out of our state of depression, yet we are somehow happy.

 

There are other things that more deeply enhance the instinctive brain responses.  The subtitles in English stroll across the screen in different directions, or just appear, in various designs.  The music that is juxtaposed over the movie is excellent, but entrancing, lulling the brain into deeper and deeper state of shock.  It's druidic, hypnotic, yet beautiful and enchanting.  The Richards Institute of Education and Research admits, "Exploring the neurobiology of music, researchers discovered direct evidence that music stimulates specific regions of the brain responsible for memory, motor control, timing and language.  For the first time, researchers also have located specific areas of mental activity linked to emotional responses to music."  All these factors and more play into this piece of mind-destroying celluloid.

 

Government and Media - OK.  So you are ready to admit that stress responses create a multitude of adverse effects in the brain and body.  But, you don't see that there is a connection with this and the creators' intent.  There are several indicators that finger the Illuminati, or the global banking shadow government, in the making of popular culture.

 

I was sitting in a bookstore, waiting on the consignment manager while distributing "Webs of Power".  Bored, I bought the Volume 11, Number 2 copy of Nexus Magazine.  In it was one of the best essays I've ever read on the government's use of media for control of the masses, published in full online.  It was a 2004 college dissertation paper by David B. Deserano dubbed "Information Control For Social Manipulation".  It was fully footnoted, for those who want sources.  Deserano: "In no way is this intended to convince readers of any particular conspiracy theory, but rather to present a collection of facts: The radio, the computer, and the Internet are all products of the military."  The corporate American government gained much of their propaganda information from the Nazis such as Goebbels and Riefenstahl, and later incorporated research done by the infamous Edward Bernays.  They were able to take the pacifistic U.S. public, remembering Washington's warning of "entangling treaties," and make them fervent warmongers.  Bernays' partner, Walter Lippman, called it "manufacturing consent." Deserano relays, "On October 24, 1947, Walt Disney testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee that films could be used successfully as a tool of propaganda and admitted his studios had already made several propaganda pieces; In the 1950's, ABC, CBS, and NBC offered Joseph McCarthy hours of free airtime on television and the radio. Of course, he accepted! If Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, or Diane Sawyer say that Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden are bad guys, the viewing audience just silently agrees; no evidence to support such claims are needed. However, if something out of the ordinary is told, something that contradicts common understanding, then the audience very rightly wants to know more."  As we can see, the government has been studying and using media, and movies, to control thinking.

 

"Information Control For Social Manipulation" goes on.  "Although millions of Americans watch the evening news, even more watch the entertainment programming that surrounds it; and those who do watch the news are only getting a sound bite or two as a substitute for any real knowledge or contextual understanding of the events described. However, programs dedicated to bringing fictionalized accounts of real events give considerably more. For those viewers, reality is tainted with a blurring of fact and fiction. On average, individuals in industrialized nations spend three hours a day watching television - roughly half their leisure time; only to work and sleep is more time devoted. At this rate, someone who lives to be seventy-five would spend more than nine years of their life just watching TV" (much of this is movie watching.  E.F.)

 

The article connects the usage of media mind control with government.  "The president and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America since 1966, Jack Valenti is a former White House insider. Upon the release of Top Gun (1986), the United States Navy set up recruiting booths in theaters where the film was being shown to capitalize on the pro-military fervor the film encapsulated. In August of 1999, the US Army signed a five-year, $45 million deal with the University of Southern California, chosen because of its close proximity to Hollywood, (The mixing of Intelligence and Hollywood) has proven most effective, with scriptwriters even rewriting history. Hollywood filmmakers and the Pentagon have a long history of cooperation; Karl Rove met with many entertainment executives to discuss the war on terrorism and ways that Hollywood stars and filmmakers might work together with the administration's communications strategy (Directors) were asked, "to engage in apocalyptic brainstorming of the kind that has yielded acts of cinematic terrorism."  Army Brigadier General Kenneth Bergquist assembled the group, a part of the Institute for Creative Technologies. On February 19, 2002, The New York Times reported that the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence (OSI) was 'developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations in an effort to influence public.'"  Confessions of a Dangerous Mind comes to mind.  In that film, it is revealed that a TV show scriptwriter and creator is also a CIA agent.  Of course, he's fighting Communists, so it's OK.  Many lambasted that "hero" as a precursor to the inane programming that now envelops TV land.

 

Still quoting from Deserano's lengthy, superbly documented, and professional essay: "The FCC was created to regulate interstate communications that run over radio, television, wire, satellite, or cable. Its authority is based on the idea that its decisions will serve the "public interest!" As one FCC Chairman put it, "the job of the FCC is to regulate fights between the super wealthy and the super, super wealthy. The public has nothing to do with it". In 1996, Congress passed the Telecommunications Reform Act, which amended the Communications Act of 1934 and drastically reduced the restrictions placed upon media owners as to just how much they could own. Conservative pundit Bill O'Reilly, in an interview with CBS News anchor Dan Rather, stated that news on the corporate owned networks refused to challenge "people of power" (presumably of the government or corporate world) because "the corporations have to do business with the powerful and they don't want to make enemies" to which Dan Rather responded, "You're absolutely accurate about that! During the first Gulf War, each of the big three networks had profound financial ties to the war."  This is only about 10% of the information in David B. Deserano's article.  A must read for everyone.

 

An Unscientific Analysis - We should acknowledge that the government is trying to control our minds, even if you think they couldn't do it to you.  We can agree that a certain percentage of the people are weak minded, and all these aforementioned effects will drive them a little crazy, similar to post traumatic stress.  Let us be very conservative, though, and say Man On Fire pushed only 10% of the entire viewing audience into this state.

 

Of the remaining 90%, half are conservative, half are liberal.  The conservatives came out of this movie putting it at the top of their lists.  They loved the movie: they loved what John Creasy did and why he did it.  They were floating on air.

 

The liberals were slightly despondent, and understood that this was, minimally, a propaganda piece designed to make torture, which most of the new Bush appointees are on record approving of, acceptable to the public.

 

But what of the 10% that went partially insane due to stress?  How many people saw that movie?  100 million?  More?  Again, with a worldwide blockbuster and award-nominated film, 100 million is conservative, but we will again err on the side of caution.  If this is true, 10 million people were negatively affected by this movie.

 

If this was the intent of the movie, to make 10 million people stressed to the point of a jolting mental shift, are not the creators themselves evil?  Even amongst the vast amount of conservatives, I bet that less than 10% could actually say, at this very moment, that they are 100% positive they could conduct the acts that Creasy perpetrated.  The other half - the liberals - while not being stultified by the movie, were changed in some way.  And while this 90% of the audience won't admit it, most were affected on some deep, subconscious level in an adverse way.  To not be so would make one Godless and soulless.  Yes, it was right for Creasy to do what he did.  But, who would really want to be him?  Remember, you must give your life and brutally torture others to save one girl, who will be damaged for life because of what has been done to her.  You will commit acts that most of you have never committed, or even thought about much.  If you could do this, then go do it.  There are plenty of kidnappings, everyone concedes.  Where are you?  Even the CIA knows that 99% of the population would never be able to do it.  Even the 1% pre-dispositioned to commit such difficult tasks must be trained, giving up a little piece of themselves in the training and doing.

 

It must also be remembered that many tortures are perpetuated against innocent people.

 

The Bushes and Sex - It should be re-noted that John Creasy is only loosely based on a real person.  The Denzel Washington movie is adapted from a previous movie adapted from a book.  And the incidents are a conglomeration of different operations occurring in Italy, not Mexico.  This seems to be a classic case of intelligence working inside the publishing and movie industries.  The case of Jeff Gannon comes to mind.  Jeff Gannon under an alias was in the inner-circle of White House journalists daily asking President George W. Bush softball questions.  He is also a male homosexual prostitute, primarily whoring out to military men, or attempting to through several websites.  Despite all the questions that arise over the Gannon case, there is a primary one: HOW did a homosexual prostitute use a fake name, a fake news service, pose as a journalist, and make it past the vetting of the White House publicity staff during wartime!?

 

This did happen.  Is it not possible that the author of the book and the makers of the movie Man On Fire deliberately etched together half true stories for some nefarious reason?

 

And while we're on the subject of a homosexuality in the Bush White House, we should further explore the Bushes and their sexual predilections.  Noted journalist Alexander Cockburn, Alex Jones, and others reported that a culture of homosexuality is prevalent at Bohemian Grove Club meetings.  Clan Bush is a member.  Ron Rosenbaum, Anthony Sutton, and many others have reported that members of the Skull & Bones Yale fraternity masturbate in front of their "brothers" while revealing sexual histories.  Both Bush Presidents are members of S&B.  Henry Makow, PhD, David Lindorf and many others wrote that George H. Bush had a secretary/mistress that accompanied him when he went to China.  She was later given a cushy job.  New York Post and other journals relayed the fact that Neil Bush, brother to the current President, accepted female Asian prostitutes in Hong Kong.  This is admitted in his divorce depositions.

 

I wonder what we don't know about the Bushes?

 

Reasons For Control - Finally, we must ask why the government would use movies and media to control the mind.  In the case of Man On Fire, Big Pharma fingerprints are evident.  We have established that stressful films cause adverse chemical and biological effects in the human brain and body.  It is also fact that the Corporate Government knows this, has infiltrated media, and utilized their knowledge.  Many scientists and scientific journals assert that many people who are stimulated in such a way become mentally ill in the short and long term.  The Pharmaceutical wing of the government has been pushing mood-altering drugs like Ritalin, Prozac, and a dizzying array of other such patented chemicals.  The FDA makes it nearly impossible for new drug makers to get their products approved.  Americans who try to get cheaper drugs from Canada or Europe are threatened with imprisonment.  George W. Bush and Congress' new law, "The Freedom Initiative", has created a slippery slope by mandating psychological evaluations for all children.  Because of the intentional saturation of violence in the media, many kids will definitely be off-kilter, mentally.  They will need drugs.  These drugs may be given out for free, a gift from taxpayers.  This money will go to the Pharmaceutical Agencies.  Most national politicians and FDA board members own stock in Big Pharma.  The connection is quite obvious.

 

A secondary purpose for movies like Man On Fire is to normalize torture.  Among other White House cabinet members who are on record approving torture are Sec. of St. Alberto Gonzalez, Homeland Director Michael Chertoff, and by proxy the President.  This film and its ilk are meant to desensitize the public to vile, formerly Axis country tactics.  Of course, all countries have used torture in the past.  But, the official line for the United States of America has always been that we do not sponsor or condone it.  Arguments included the fact that you can't be morally superior when demanding that our captured troops not be tortured.  It promotes anger in the enemy, and thus spawns exponential torture.  It is now admitted that 70-90% of the tortured victims at Abu Ghraib and several other torture sites in Iraq were not involved in any terrorist group or violence against America.  Some of the victims at Guatanamo Bay were Canadian and English.  Both men and women have been raped with various objects in various orifices by American troops.  Don't believe me?  I'm not going to devolve into gory details, but just use your own search engine.  It's on record.

 

By normalizing torture, we are refuting our humanitarian, spiritual, tolerant heritage!  The control agents make the hero justified to keep you involved, to keep the synapses firing.  This is not, nor should it ever have been, what the U.S.A. is about.  I'm not saying that torture could never be necessary to stop a catastrophic event.  However, this is less than 1% of all torture cases.  American citizens are beaten, shocked, and abused in our own prison system.  Half the people in our own prison system never hurt anyone, or used violence; they just did drugs.  This is not right.  All but the worst of the worst deserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without torture - and there is a Christian argument that everyone does.  All the news has to do is say a person is a terrorist or vile criminal, and we shift into agreement.  Yet, it is rarely the terrorist or vile criminal who is tortured.  And still we are angry when Saddam, Hitler, or some rogue country utilizes the practice.  What a double standard!  Total programming.

 

One of the reasons we have not supported torture is that it is logical that evil men will use it on almost any enemy.  You don't like the VA?  Torture.  Growing weed in your backyard?  Torture.  What of Christians who preach against homosexuality or abortion?  Torture, torture, and more torture.  Like Soviet Russia, if we continue on this course, soon those who disagree with the government will be tortured.  The government, Corporations, Pharmaceuticals, and Military are all intermarried with Mainstream Media.  Through that media, if you do anything that is currently under attack by the System, they will just say you are a terrorist, or killer, or whatever.  Then, all the brainless masses will remember John Creasy, hear that you are a kidnapper, and they will be HAPPY you are being tortured.  It's total control.

 

Final Notes - I'm just a common man, not some intellectual, and I have discerned this blatant manipulation.  I'm sure there are many more levels to the propaganda.  In the famous words of Bill Hicks, Jim Morrison, and others: "WAKE UP!"  This is not right.  We can't accept this.  Turn off your TV.  Better yet, throw it away.  Learn what the slant of a movie is before you watch it.  There are plenty of pro-liberty films out there by morally conscious directors.  Turn off the AM radio.  Spend your money on the Internet and learn some facts.  Or, preferably, read books.  We are being brainwashed with movies even while being admittedly dumbed-down in the schools.  Take your kid out of the public school.  We used to be a politically, socially, and spiritually aware society.  Now we're slobbering idiots, saying "Oh.  Man On Fire was such a great movie.  I love torturer John Creasy.  And did you see his birth and death date at the end.  It's a true story."  (The author of the book, A.J. Quinnell, claimed to have been unaware of the dates until after the movie came out.)  Can't you learn about the true facts of kidnapping, corruption, and aspects of torture without taking in the pretty flashing lights?  Do we really need to see sequence after sequence of base acts of death and destruction?  Are some of you actually allowing your kids to watch this trash?
 

I charge YOU, America, with being too apathetic to turn off the military/industrial complex's propaganda films.  I charge you with accepting torture, but being too ignorant to learn the true facts behind it.  I charge you with accepting the official line without question.

 

If you, America, do not change, this country, as we know it, will soon be no more.