For My Friend Bill

I have plowed, desperately, around and around the internet, to find a pic somewhere, of the absolutely correct formation of the tuxedo protocol actually on someone.

There are one or two - not more than that - photographs which are indistinct in key sections, and which could possibly show someone wearing a tuxedo correctly, or, that is to say, the absolutely totally correct form of this particular attire; but as I say, these photos are indistinct and may not in reality be the real thing. Samuel L. Jackson has a photo that is perfect as long as one concedes those areas that are not distinct in the pic itself. But otherwise, his tie, his lack of collar gap, and a range of other elements, are all perfect.

Completely perfect tuxedo style

And this is quite at a distance from what has become commonplace now.

Not even Connery's Bond ever fully complied with tuxedo etiquette at its absolute peak of ordinary formal tradition. His beautiful white jacket iteration is totally acceptable but it is a form of 'sea rig' evening dress, meant for hotter climates, and not exactly a standard tuxedo.

If you ever consulted those 'style guides' you will come across this kind of phrase: 'usually there are no side-pockets but if you have them...' What is this 'but if you...' thing all the time? ...How about just don't.

And so, rather surprisingly, you could think, the one person who carried it off as close to complete perfection as is required by the etiquette, was Pierce Brosnan!

You like this, Billy, Billy, Billy-Baru...?
(Paraphrasing Ted Knight in 'Caddyshack').

He wears the correct attire, of: off-white or ice-white shirt with placket-covered buttons, no side pockets on the jacket, no vents, peak lapels, grosgrain SQUARE EDGED bow-tie, proper french cuffs, jacket single-buttoned in front. And on one occasion he wore the birds-eye buttoned shirt version. One stripe 'galon' down the sides of the trousers. Black patent pumps. 

All correct. 

Nothing else is 'correct.'

And there are significant reasons why someone of genuine breeding and class must adhere to the virtues of the absolutely conventional, strict traditional format, for wearing a tuxedo.

...I have to run along in a second to go to a show in the city, and so, I shall pick this all up after a few hours, and revisit things and complete this little post. For now, remember the old adage. You know, any old adage.

: )
  
Okay anyway, so now I'm back...

So what's the point of 'tuxedo etiquette?' The tuxedo was invented by Griswold Lorillard - now don't let anyone pretend things are otherwise! The story they trot out now about James Potter is a fabrication designed to cover up a social indiscretion, which we cannot go into here - and even though I have made a habit recently of committing the crime of revealing state secrets, I shall stop at revealing the promiscuous incidents to do with, or the habits of, members of authentic society. Anyway, Potter's ex-wife Cora Brown, became a famous actress who played the Comtesse De Winter on stage in The Three Musketeers.

The Lorillards were not only moguls of tobacco, but the younger Lorillard brothers were among the two or three really large tea merchants in the United States at the time, owning at least 40 ships at sea transporting tea. Consequently, the Lorillards were personally known to one of my own ancestors, a certainly particular lady, who owned the largest, and the fastest clippers ever to sail; ever. Her half-sister was the very famous Princesse de Caraman Chimay, Clara Ward.

A gown by Worth, owned by the sister of Clara Ward

Now there is a great secret about tuxedo etiquette, and no amount of purchasing of mansions on Lake Como next to the actor George Clooney, will ever give one access to such inner knowledge. 

So yes you can fiddle around with exact specifications for tuxedo etiquette, but don't do it.
  
Tuxedos are not about conformity or conservatism at all - after all, they were a departure from the standards of the day when they were first shown. And the fact that we maintain the exact same specifications to correctly wear (Elizabeth Barrett Browning split infinitives often, so shall I) tuxedos even now, has nothing to do with conformity or having a conservative mentality necessarily.

You can go surfing all you like, disporting your buff torso to all the eligible ladies to your heart's content. And they say that attending a British Public School attaches an automatic brand of status and supposed class to a young person. But this is the very soul and meaning of the nouveau riche -  for neither are these people from actual aristocratic society when there really was such a thing in Great Britain, nor are they honest about the sources of what appears to be 'their money' now, and certainly, these are the strata who have absolutely no clue at all about why men of genuine substance and worth stick to exact specifications when donning the attire known as 'the tuxedo.' Sven Raphael Schneider the style guru goes around the bull's eye closest of anyone, but even he refrains from publicly going deeply into the real lore of it.

  

  

The Spy Book Names David Solomon

Any of you who by now have downloaded the 'free excerpts' PDF from the 'covertly'-sponsored 'Invulnerable Missiles and Extreme Tactical Insertions,' will already have realized that there is probably more to this whole 'Russia collusion' atmosphere in the West than meets the eye.

Certainly there's no collusion between Donald Trump or anyone involved with him, and the Kremlin. That is categorically the truth.

But that is not to say the Kremlin does not know exactly what is going on, and why. They have always known - and that is the specific problem for people like Hillary Clinton and Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller and Sidney Blumenthal and others in that camp. Mueller and Rosenstein and that crowd are all acting out of fear, not anything else. They are deeply inveigled in corruption and aiding in covering it up. 

...Now it's going to be very hard to convince those people who have long-held, and cherished beliefs, in some kind of 'Jewish/Zionist' criminal conspiracy, and by virtue of that stance want to thrust everything into the same box. Why I say this is because I am therewith predicating my next statements: Goldman Sachs is not the villain of the piece. What happened was they took advantage of Bill and Hillary Clinton's need for money after the Monica Lewinsky situation took shape - but then, seeing how much money could be made by selling influence, Hillary Clinton went a lot too far!

She didn't sell out to Goldman Sachs - she sold out to everyone! Sure she sold out to the Russians over a number of things. Goldman Sachs facilitated - and resolved - the 'theoretical' moral situation because they already had a role advising in Russian privatizations following the collapse of the Soviet system. The moral position of the US administration regarding selling uranium to Russians who might have been proxies for the Russian government itself - was that this was just an allowable part of the 'privatization' process of formerly State assets, and that technically, anyone could buy into the corporate entities that owned the US-sourced uranium. The part about 'might have been proxies for' was the tricky bit.

Goldman Sachs does not recognize that Russia, or the Russian government, is in any way a problematic partner... What they know inside their closed rooms, is different to what they 'know' when asked for a State-side public view.

Now here's the point you're not going to necessarily like - Goldman Sachs took a firm view, that Barack Obama was a problematical character, and that Hillary Clinton was as well. The top executives inside Goldman Sachs, are some of the people responsible for putting together a US Military shadow secret service that enabled Trump to win.

Now this also means that Goldman Sachs is NOT part of the 'globalist elite/NWO/NATO/Eu' geopolitical phenomenon; although it might look like they do things that align with that group, the reasons they are doing them are not at all shared reasons, and the goals are not shared either. For example, Goldman Sachs London has been shifting all its top layers of staff to Frankfurt, and the business media covers this as due to negative concerns about Brexit - the reality is that Goldman Sachs recognizes London as a source of too much 'interest' in things that are none of their business - Goldman Sachs doesn't want another 'Christopher Steele' to suddenly turn on them and their early involvement in the corruption of Hillary Clinton, as a way of hurting their relationship with today's White House! THAT is why Lloyd Blankfein is 'retiring.' That is why Goldman Sachs is pulling out of London.

(Here is a repeat link to the downloadable PDF: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uW7p1fk0thQm0LXceAi4mZya20MV3BIz)

There is no possible way you can trust London, and by that I mean the UK Intelligence establishment - they are acting for themselves and no one else. Goldman Sachs has a stunning new profile in Saudi Arabia and this could be a cause of much jealousy in London.

The book 'Invulnerable Missiles...' asserts there is an entirely private, highly organized, and completely 'in the shadows' group that is comprised of higher ranks inside the US Navy and Military Intelligence, as well as some highly-placed bankers such as individuals in places like Goldman Sachs. And the book names David Solomon, as, if not an actual policy-maker and leader of this covert group, then most certainly an active member.

David Solomon will take over as CEO of Goldman Sachs, when Lloyd Blankfein retires and leaves presently.

Insights Into Real 'Mind Control'

The only possibility to create 'impressions' that are false compared to objective outside reality, by means of some kind of remote 'beam' is if you develop sufficient energy, and which is directed very precisely, so that lesions are formed in parts of the brain; especially so-called 'unilateral temporal lobe lesions.' You can definitely create hallucinations in that way. And permanent damage, of course.

Every now and then, you get some phrase that turns up in a body of science, and it is repeated over and over in many sources, basically because it is an excellent description of something.

Here is one of those: 'the temporal lobe is a part of the brain that is used in processing sensory input into derived meaning.'

Trust me -  I'm about to do some 'mind control' on you...
So watch your step.

One of the most important and valuable areas of neural science these days is 'neural encoding.' All neural encoding comes from so-called 'temporal rate signaling.' The fact is - or, has very recently been ascertained - that the rates and packets of waves and spikes that networks of neurons perform when in various stages of action, are able to encode both digital as well as analog information. And the information is highly discrete, and we don't fully know how it is done. I mean, some people do know, but this is not knowledge available in published studies as yet. And it is a contested area because the leading-edge research demonstrates there are iterative templates pre-existing inside memory cell structures that provide feed-back for types of 'spike count rates.' Richard Dawkins has tried to say that such advanced complex (for one  instance - 'moral' meaning...) 'templates' which are there before birth are due to 'memes' being part of evolution. I mean this is probably the most hotly contested subject there is in modern science debate.

Anyway, here is the point you might look at in terms of what this Blog is usually about: designers, and I mean fashion designers, architects, design engineers and design planners - they all realize (the best of them, that is) that the human brain already contains very highly advanced and complex, sophisticated frames of reference; be it aesthetically, as well as why we 'think' a thing is utilitarian or not. That is to say, even human concepts about utility relate to weight we GIVE to meaningfulness of objects and desired activities - that is not really there in an objective sense at all. The train tracks go past the stadium BECAUSE we play football matches THERE. And football is important. In fact it is a matter of life-and-death. ?? And dominates our economic thinking due to that reason.

Could be, I suppose. And we are thus a bizarrely ornate evolved species, if so.

Watch it now, it's happening under your nose...

Real 'mind control' engages in temporal encoding strategies which play on our pre-existing templates of emotional significance. Theoretically. Because as I say, not a lot of the leading-edge material is published in standard academia.

'Temporal' does mean the signals themselves have timed rates of firing, and they also go in waves that have spikes and troughs. It can mean assigning meaning to sensory inputs, and it also deals with itself like a 'clock rate' inside any modern computer, in that there are ways to 'fudge' our own individual personal sensations of time passing.

Tchaikovsky is probably one of the most clear-cut manipulators (using beats and sound) of how we sense time - he has music that will give you the feeling of time slowing, or you moving more slowly, whereas Camille Saint Saens is the opposite and appears to always be rushing about; I mean even his famous danse macabre is an example of that when everybody else's danse macabre is a slow thing.

Smell sense is signaled, neurally-speaking, also through temporal encoding once the stimuli is picked up in the olfactory organs. Everything is signaled in the brain via temporal encoding. And so - at least in theory - there might be some connection in the spike count rates, perhaps some harmonics or harmonic ingredients, in common in Tchaikovsky music, and say, olfactory signals from vanilla (which has the property of making people feel that 'time is slowing down').

Now the key to what is picked up by the hypothesized memory structure templates, is in spike drop-offs, those distinct differentiation features in any run of rate average - and these are the things which eventually lead to distinct patterns forming which theoretically link up to the discrete emotional 'memex' or template (categorized, logged archives of discrete appropriate emotional responses). 'Edge detection' is a crucial area of modern computing and signal processing.

Now this all does NOT mean that merely because something is being repeated via your daily media - such as in a normal advert rotation, for example - people are seriously in a deeply and modern scientific way trying to 'mind control you!

In fact it's not about repetition at all. It's about playing on templates already existing within human beings - but which are beneath the surface. Human beings have been playing at the game of 'mind control' forever. The technique of how we do it, is known as 'art.'

'Mind Control' - Really??

The recent 'disclosure' in the wider press about some kind of documented methodology a covert (US) government department has, to do with the capability of exerting 'mind control' over selected members of the public - has a few problematic aspects.

Firstly, the 'research' or at least 'documentation' that was released under an FOI application by the US journalist Curtis Waltman, to the Washington Fusion Center - involves nothing but a litany of ways to do damage to someone, remotely, using electronic fields and waves and so on; nothing to do with actual mind control as such.

Secondly, the whole thing fits in neatly to the YT channels dedicated to disaffected individuals complaining about 'how the government is attacking them using remote beams...'

Remembering that it was Vannevar Bush, and not Richard Dawkins, who originally coined the term 'memex,' as well as the actual concept behind the word, which has now been modified to the word 'meme' - then, we can presume there could be some kind of 'meme' being effected here, rather than there actually being either any technology which delivers thoughts, ideas, and feelings, and images, into people's brains. (I should add, 'via extra-sensory means!').

Mind control technology...

Even if there were a technology that 'beamed' an idea, or an image, or coherent sound, into someone's brain, how does this equate to 'mind control' unless there is an accompanying tool which alters how they feel about that sudden 'image' or purely neural-activated 'auditory signal?'

It doesn't.

Typically, all we are looking at are another bunch of destructive things - sure, using remote transmission techniques and... ...well, so what, but?

Complex propaganda, and highly sophisticated whole systems and layers of data or information might be able to be used to manipulate people's emotions - that seems reasonable enough. It may well be that at some future stage, there could be highly-integrated micro-sized but very complex electronics, adapted into 'wearables,' which provide a sensory atmosphere or 'environment' or 'sense bubble' to the individual wearer. That's possible. And that is not what is constituted by the details in the 'accidental release' of documents to do with government technology on 'mind control.'

There are kinds of advanced prototypes that are down this research path - but they are not in government hands, and they are not destructive instruments.

Mind Control? ...An Issue with Wikipedia/Academia

I have been scathing, recently, concerning the under-reported massive funding of UK Universities and so-called 'military strategic think tanks' by Middle Eastern dictatorships. My view now, is that the only reason there is to possess any modern academic qualification is it's monetary value when you are prepared to lie on behalf of someone paying the money for you to do so - the ordinary member of the public, pushed on-wards in this uncritical adventurism, still 'believes in' anything anyone with a degree or Master's or Doctorate, says.

Wikipedia also has this unfortunate tendency to go by anything someone on a campus somewhere tells it. With the effect that a large number of entries are very misleading. 

Now I'm going to give just two examples, and these are from areas of interest that I have, and which I don't expect others to necessarily share as particularly 'interesting' in and of themselves. But nevertheless, they are still good examples that demonstrate what I mean by 'misleading.'

As a side-note, though, I know there are still a few people coming in to look at the post for the 24th of April, and so I will briefly repeat the link that is contained there: 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uW7p1fk0thQm0LXceAi4mZya20MV3BIz

...Which has nothing whatsoever to do with today's subject! But anyhooo...

On matters of culture and 'cultural folklore,' it's not genuinely justifiable to suddenly come out of nowhere to gainsay what the currency of that folklore already is - merely because you have some academic process of 'verifying' some odd thing here or there! 

'Jimmy the Hat' Allard

...I mean, 'Jimmy the Hat' is already a well-known race-track identity, you can't suddenly turn around and suggest his name 'ought to be' for instance, Jimmy the grey mustache!! And just because it happens to be a most certainly verifiable fact that he does indeed possess a tiny grey hint of a mustache, just plain does not allow anyone to change his actual folkloric name. 

But this is the kind of thing going on in Wikipedia all the time - some academic puts up some undoubtedly 'true (-ish)' thing, and all of a sudden, the really important key matter disappears altogether, in favor of some utter, and highly misleading, balderdash - that is, with respect to the significant issue entailed in having a Wiki entry at all.

Damien Oliver's (winning) riding style

Take this example: Damien Oliver is recognized around the world as one of the greatest race horse jockeys in the world. Now I know D. Oliver - his brother rode horses for me, and many a time early in the morning my sister and/or I would drive Damien or his (now deceased) brother Jason to and from track-work. I have no idea who posted or contributed to the entry for Oliver in Wikipedia. It has become, as a result largely of Wikipedia, a 'fact' repeated in the sports media, that Oliver won his first ever race as an apprentice licensed rider on a horse called 'Mr. Gudbud' at a track called the Bunbury Race Track in Western Australia. And that is true, and it is 'a fact.' And that is all that is recorded in Wikipedia.

And it is grossly, and I mean, from a racing expert's point of view, grossly misleading. 

Lengths in front as he wins, you see...

The whole point about the prodigy that Oliver is, is not that he won at his first ever race ride anywhere - it is that he won at his very first city track race ride on a main race day, against seasoned, and very good, senior riders - and he beat them pointless.

He rode 'Massingham' and I was there. The first actual mainstream race ride ever by Damien Oliver was on 'Massingham,' not 'Mr. Gudbud.' And he rode against senior riders of note, and he beat them pointless. ...It is extremely misleading to merely note that he won at some nondescript early stage in his training as an apprentice, a weak bush track race against no one.

Wikipedia, in failing to record this, is forgetting and failing the owners and trainers of the city horse Massingham, failing the memory of Oliver's riding teachers, failing him as the prodigy rider that he truly is, and failing in the understanding of just what a talent he possesses. Not only did he beat the other senior riders on the day - it was the way he beat them: his horse made three runs in the race (a nearly impossible thing for any horse to do), the other riders trying to block him and intimidate him, and he slipped through hard and incredibly fast, the horse going for him (meaning co-operating and running fast for his instructions as a pilot, which generally means the horse has confidence in him and trusts him), on the extreme inside against the rail after slipping in and out around traffic up the straight. It was literally impossible to make out the difference between the rider and the horse itself - they were 'as one' going past the post first.

And he's never stopped being that good since.

Second example - and this is taken directly from the Wiki entry on Pierre Lorillard IV:

"While it has been reported that Lorillard's son, Griswold Lorillard, introduced the then-unnamed tuxedo to the United States in 1886 at the Tuxedo Club's Autumn Ball, this is now known to be incorrect." 

'Known' - by whom? Where is any citation at all to this bald assertion?

Here's a bald assertion for you - at almost Seventy,
I'd still cast SLJ as James Bond, and I'd make millions doing it;
because he's AN ACTOR.

Tuxedo Park, is for one thing, originally named and owned by the Lorillards. The entire span of all common folklore about tuxedos is that they were commissioned and hence instigated as upper class formal evening attire by Lorillard at Tuxedo Park, and made by Henry Poole & Co of Savile Row. There are crucial aspects to do with color and fabrics used that are particular to Lorillard and to Poole. There is no other tradition. Period.

What are these present-day 'academics?' Cultural iconoclasts with nothing to substitute for that which they are egotistically removing, or seeking to remove by manipulating the media and information archives.

Why? What's the point of all this? It obtains right throughout a very large number of subject matters as they are represented in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a first-call reference for almost everyone these days, but you have to be very careful about reaching conclusions based on what you will find there...