1981 Barney Miller Episode Lays Out Trilateral Commission Agenda

originally posted by: Dapaga
I wouldn't be surprised if people were fired over this episode.

The writer of that episode had a long career in film and TV after that including more Barney Miller episodes.

IMDB.

originally posted by: learnatic
Recently saw a regular series on US preppers on tv and every case they showed the extreme end of prepper movement. Just training the sheeple to have the views they want them to have on the issues they have on their list.

Well, they're not going make a reality show about some guy stocking some extra canned beans in his pantry. They're just looking for crazier and crazier examples of human behavior to exploit to make a buck.

Maybe you could help me understand how this conspiracy is supposed to work? Is there supposedly someone at the top of the food chain sending down orders to (for example) make a program ridiculing peppers? Based on what I know of the industry a lot of these ideas actually originate closer to the bottom---i.e. you have producers coming up with the content ideas and bringing it to the networks

EDIT: For example, if Doomsday Preppers is the show you are talking about it's produced by Sharp Entertainment. Just check out what else they produce. The common denominator doesn't appear to be "training the sheeple to have the views they want them to have on the issues they have on their list."

IMDB.

It's a classic smoke screen. If you know you look guilty of what you're accused of, have somebody accuse you of it but make sure they're portrayed as a crackpot or that it all looks like one big joke. At least back then they were worried about the people catching on, nowadays they don't even care. Meh, maybe they can have Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert make some jokes about it.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Thanks for the information.

originally posted by: Dapaga

Rather than see it as an attack on a specific conspiracy; I felt it was an educational moment for the masses. More of a call to educate, and wake up, and also a way to slip some sensitive information past the censors. I mean, they named names and real political situations. I wouldn't be surprised if people were fired over this episode.

If that were the case, why did they portray the character the way they did? The scene opens with the guy basically confessing to a crime, completely destroying his credibility with the audience before he even mentions the TLC. Then they bust out with the "kooky literature" to seal the deal.

If they were trying to "get the truth out", they did pretty much everything they could to not be taken seriously at all. So I'm not buying that.

No, I think this was a very deliberate attempt to discredit the anti-TLC crowd brewing at the time. There's not really any explanation for such an odd scene like this, other than advancing someone's agenda... whoever that may be.

originally posted by: NthOther
There's not really any explanation for such an odd scene like this, other than advancing someone's agenda... whoever that may be.

Yeah, no other explanation other than that's exactly what that show was like for eight years.

originally posted by: NthOther
If that were the case, why did they portray the character the way they did? The scene opens with the guy basically confessing to a crime, completely destroying his credibility with the audience before he even mentions the TLC.

That was one of the main premises of that show. People would wind up in the squad room charged with a crime (frequently immediately confessing) and setting up a seventies sit-com style "serious message" moment about some topical issue.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

Yeah, no other explanation other than that's exactly what that show was like for eight years.

I don't see how those two scenes are even comparable:

1) One is calling out a specific, existing-in-real-life elite organization as a fraud with a hidden nefarious agenda, the other is not;

2) One is naming real people in positions of power as members of this organization, the other is not; and,

3) One character is presented as a whackjob criminal conspiracy theorist, the other an overly enthusiastic nerd.

Not even the same ballpark.

a reply to: NthOther

Barney Miller was always smart and entertaining and they had a window into the conspiracy theories and rumors of the day. Barney himself seemed to share the philosophies of the writers. Everyone else was just spinning possibilities around him. This program was All In The Family but smarter and in a precinct. Heavily influenced by NYC. It definitely feels like this is something of a warning and it even has that ring of truth.

a reply to: NthOther

In the clip you present in the original post, I think is definitely some type of red flag type warning and message that names, names, an agency or think tank and a theoretical plan. I think it may have had to be presented as "fiction" so the guilty people directly named could not sue. It's all too plausible.

originally posted by: Loveaduck
It definitely feels like this is something of a warning and it even has that ring of truth.

I think it may have had to be presented as "fiction" so the guilty people directly named could not sue. It's all too plausible.

It has the "ring of truth" because a lot of it is true. And it's not being presented as fiction at all. He's laying out the exact theory a lot of people subscribe to.

My disagreement is with the contention that this is "NWO social conditioning." I think it was just some clever writers in NYC in the seventies with their ears to the ground trying to create a hip, topical comedy.

Sgt. Dietrich: "I'm working on a case that dates to 1973."

Captain Miller: "That was seven years ago!" "Nixon was President!"

Sgt. Dietrich: "No, he's got an alibi for this one."

Dietrich had an odd, strangely right on observation or comment for every situation. He was my favorite. I used to watch the show with my dad as a kid and found him to be the funniest character in the whole precinct.

The little explanation he gave about the Tri-Lateral commission left little out.

Good eye sir, if they were making jabs in the mid to late 80's about what is said here, than we may be on to something.

Maybe not much, but something.

originally posted by: Spader

Dietrich had an odd, strangely right on observation or comment for every situation. He was my favorite. I used to watch the show with my dad as a kid and found him to be the funniest character in the whole precinct.

I was a little sad to discover as a result of poking around after reading this thread that Steve Landesberg died in 2010. I guess I missed that news.

Thanks OP, excellent find. This seems to me like predictive scripting. I don't believe the people that are successful in the entertainment industry make it there by chance, and these were not just trendy, hip writers. Entertainment is loaded with endless predictive scripting. Why is the question? To educate us, no , I believe not, they detest us. To subconsciously embed their will into the mental collective is what I believe. If we are all co authors of the reality we experience around us, then it would be imperative that the masses conscious energy is driving their plan. You know, like in freemasonry, turning the rough Ashlar to the fine. Harnessing the psychic energy of the masses. Thats my two bits. Glad i caught this thread before it disapears into the void.

How do you know an ATS thread contains truth? Anwser: there are never more than 2 pages of replies.

Good jod OP!

originally posted by: cointelpatrol

I don't believe the people that are successful in the entertainment industry make it there by chance, and these were not just trendy, hip writers. Entertainment is loaded with endless predictive scripting. Why is the question? To educate us, no , I believe not, they detest us. To subconsciously embed their will into the mental collective is what I believe.

Exactly. You don't get a job as a writer for any network television show unless your bosses already know that you'll play ball. You won't even get a phone call (or email, I suppose nowadays). The bosses simply do not have the time to micromanage every decision being made below them, so they stack the organization with people they know they can trust. It isn't all that different from any other organization, nefarious or otherwise.

I'd really love to believe that this script was simply the result of some "hip" New Yorkers trying to create "relevant" and timely material, but I just can't. My naivete can only be stretched so far.

a reply to: NthOther

Great find. Information worth digging into is who wrote and produced Barney Miller and any connections they had.

Director: Noam Pitlik (not a lot of information on him with regard to his connections)
Writers for this episode
Teleplay: Tony Sheehan
Story: Lee H. Grant (recent work as Assistant Director, writing ended in 1989)

I'm reminded of the information that came out about Chris Carter and the X-Files, how he was being fed story lines from FBI and CIA that mingle in Hollywood. It makes me wonder what connections Noam Pitlik and Lee H. Grant had.

a reply to: WCmutant

I'm pretty sure that episode was called "Field Associate" and the writer was Jordan Moffet. If you want to investigate anyone it probably should be Danny Thomas. The guy who really created the show was Ted Flicker who never played ball with the networks and studios but he was gone at that point.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: NthOther

Listening to the guy rant about getting rid of national boarders.....creepy now, very creepy considering how funny it was then and what is happening now.

No one listened then much. Its was all very quaint. Now its about to late.

no one listened then
no one is listening now.
it is too late. all we can do is sit and watch the fallout.
i can hear the laugh track now. its hum can be felt every where.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yep, "controlled opposition" is a smart way to condition most people into believing that certain topics are just too silly. Consciously most people would not even remember such attempts of "controlled opposition" through media propaganda, but their minds have been already conditioned to think that those topics are simply silly.

Even when actual evidence is presented of documents drafted for and by world agencies like the UN, and the statements and documents which show that many world leaders want exactly what that actor alluded to in that show, people will normally just say "it is coincidence and it's silly to think otherwise".

When you condition people to believe lies as if they were the truth, even in the face of facts a lot of people will believe the conditioning is the truth.