Popular Posts

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

LA PREMIERE for Breaking Dawn 2:Kristen Stewart and Ayn Rand's Dominique Francon: CONTEMPT For SUMMIT'S "Empty" Celebration

LA Premiere of Breaking Dawn 2
This is not a dress - link

Does Stewart appear in DEMURE as a PR person might advise her to do?
No, she appears in OBSCENE.

The "dress" is porn that is hyper-porn that is OBSCENE costing thousands of dollars by a famous designer, so how can she be criticized. It is sexier than sexy, hyper-sexy, porno, hyper-porno = OBSCENE (Baudrillard, Herzog). 
See it and look at it. Your eyes lock on her sex and you wonder if she waxes it. It is skin you see through the translucent chiffon. It is being given to the photographers and any paparazzi who are at the Premiere. Gratis, far "worse" (Nietzsche) than the photoshopped images of the media manufactured Debordian SPECTACLE of a scandal.

This "gown" designed by a designer of glamorous gowns for glamorous women, Zuhair Murad  link for Kristen Stewart to wear to Summit Entertainment's Premiere of Breaking Dawn 2 in Los Angeles, the virgin first showing of the long awaited final film. It is also the first time Kristen Stewart and Rob Pattinson have appeared in public since the media SPECTACLE of the scandal. 
Worse than any paparazzi image ever stolen from her and she is giving it to them. Here is my ass, take all the images you want.
But you know they would rather "steal"  an image than have it be given to them.
It is a simulacrum being worn at an event that is in itself  an event of Simulated Reality, a copy of a copy with no original.
this is not an opening, not a premiere of celebration, it is a  coarse circus to pump up the box office. To crudely bring in as much money as possible on opening weekend. To exploit the sexual relationship of the two stars.

You want sex she says with this "dress." Well I'll give you sex, dirty sex.

She is wearing it as an act of
CONTEMPT. The dress was designed as a floating sign of CONTEMPT, masking and asserting the integrity and purity of the young woman wearing it. Designed for crude, coarse, lewd, lustful, boorish, greedy, impotent LA Hollywood types, Summit Entertainment, who would exploit a loving relationship between two people, film them in soft-porn sex scenes, promote  a sexual relationship in real life by sending paparazzi after  them constantly to harass them, and then to photoshop "scandal" images, to make hundreds of millions of dollars, and save on promotional costs.

    Here is the media manufactured Debordian SPECTACLE of a Scandal

And  here is "NORMAL", ACCEPTED,
APPLAUDED!A Parody, a "dress" as Swiftian Satire.

Foucault touches here on the very structure we find in

     Swift, whereby the function of satire is not simply to

     create a strange and unfamiliar world, but rather to

     return, to rebound upon the present, such that the real

     world is shown to be itself a parody...

For there is
     a point at which the relation between the distorted image
     and the real thing becomes unstable, beyond all dialectical
     mediation, a point at which, moreover, it loses the
     *generative* force that is given in the concept of
     productive negation.  The fact that the inverted image
     turns out not to be an inversion, but to reveal that the
     normal world is itself already inverted, calls into
     question the very standard of "normality" by which one
might measure invertedness

          ^11^ Slavoj Zizek,_ For They Know Not What They Do: 
     Enjoyment as a Political Factor_ (New York: Verso, 1992), 13.
Ayn Rand's Dominique Francon is fictionalized in a similar performance, thus calling to mind that "life imitates art".

So I turn to Ayn Rand in The Fountainhead: Dominique Francon's wedding to Gail Wynand. Dominique observes the world as evil. Integrity, excellence all that we say we admire and revere is sabotaged, punished, ridiculed, undermined, and dragged through the dirt. 

A beautiful and desirable woman  she determines to choose the "worst" man she can to marry:
Gail Wynand, the owner of The Banner that has raised mediocrity to admiration to make a fortune in wealth and power.

Returning from Reno, after divorcing  Peter Keating, Wynand meets her train:

"Where are we going, Gail?"

"To get the license. Then to the judge's office. To be married."

"No," she said.

"I want a real wedding, Gail. I want it at the most ostentatious hotel in town. I want engraved invitations, guests, mobs of guests, celebrities, flowers, flash bulbs and newsreel cameras. I want the kind of wedding the public expects of Gail Wynand."

She saw him again when she stood beside him, facing a judge who pronounced the words of the marriage ceremony over the silence of six hundred people in the floodlighted ballroom of the Noyes-Belmont Hotel.

The background she had wished was set so perfectly that it became its own caricature, not a specific society wedding, but an impersonal prototype of lavish, exquisite vulgarity.

Then she stood with him, the mob becoming a heavy silence and a gluttonous stare behind him, and they faced the judge together. She wore a long, black dress with a bouquet of fresh jasmine, his present, attached by a black band to her wrist. Her face in the halo of a black lace hat was raised to the judge.......

Afterward the mockery of the monster reception that followed left him immune. He posed with her for the battery of press cameras and he complied gracefully with all the demands of the reporters, a special noisier mob within the mob. He stood with her in the receiving line, shaking an assembly belt of hands that unrolled past them for hours. ....untouched by these guests who had come here driven by boredom, by an envious hatred, a reluctant submission to an invitation bearing his dangerous name, a scandal-hungry curiosity. He looked as if he did not know that they took his public immolation as their rightful due, that they considered their presence as the indispensable seal of sacrament upon the occasion, that of all the hundreds he and his bride  were the only  ones to whom the performance was hideous. (F. 478-480)

Paul Pflug is a big press/PR honcho at Summit. He also co-owns a PR company called Principal Communications Group, which is “a strategic corporate communications firm serving the media and entertainment industries”.Dan Abrams co-founded Gossip Cop. He also owns a business called Abrams Research which , in its own words, “is a full service digital and social media agency, specializing in the development of web-based digital marketing and social media campaigns.” In 2009, Principal Communications and Abrams Research “formed an alliance combining the benefits of both organizations’ unique capabilities.” (http://www.deadline.com/2009/0... big honcho of press at Summit and the owner of Gossip Cop are, or at least in 2009 were, in business together.Wonder why Gossip Cop gets Breaking Dawn exclusives?from nonnie-confessions.tumblr.com

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Zuza - DE-SHAMED:Kristen Stewart a Post Modern Philosopher in Action - How The FUCK Does She Keep Doing It???

Zuza’s New Book!

“No fear or shame in the dignity of yr experience, language & knowledge.”  - Jack Kerouac
"I'm deeply sorry for the hurt and embarrassment I've

caused to those close to me and everyone this has

affected. This momentary indiscretion has jeopardized

the most important thing in my life, the person I love and

respect the most, Rob. I love him, I love him, I'm so

sorry," Stewart said in a statement Wednesday. 
 Kristen Stewart
Dr. Zuzanna Szatanik (Professor of Gender Studies and Literature)

.....We discussed, for example, how real thinkers and progressives have been targeted both in the United States and in Europe for being creative in terms of the activist tactics.  In this respect, Zuza’s and mine work very much intersect because not only does our work attempt to uncover hidden ideological power (class-struggle, racism, sexism, lookism etc.) but how that power is used to reproduce oppressive conditions for other marginalized and oppressed voices.  What is perhaps even more disturbing is how pretend progressives (people who identify themselves as victims of social and political oppression) will use strategies to shame other oppressed groups in the name of self-righteous “justice”.  Often groups who deploy these heavy-handed strategies of “shame” are themselves members of highly privileged and powerful groups even though they perceive themselves as victims. 

What is brilliant about Zuza’s book, De-shamed. Feminist strategies of transgression. The case of Lorna Crozier´s poetry, is that it demonstrates a very clear and compelling argument for how shame can be traversed precisely by giving voice to women.  By allowing (or risking) women to voice their shame they are able to trans-gress the power that shame has had over them.  As a consequence of voicing shame–women can be liberated from the power that shame has had over them both psychologically and socially (symbolically).  What I especially like about the basic matrix of this book is that this same “de-shaming” strategy can be used to liberate other perceived acts of shame; indeed Zuza is brilliant in identifying the logic of shaming itself.   MORE

Objet petit a

The Unobtainable Object of Desire

Often when a person in power exacts 

their power onto a target (a group or 

person) they will use tactics of shame 

in order to silence the victim.  That is, 

they will “frame” the targeted victim in 

terms of “shaming” so that the target 

(the one who is a victim of sexual 

abuse or of a false accusation etc.) 

will be too ashamed to speak the truth– 

to trans-gress the oppressor by 

exposing the oppressor as the true 

culprit of injustice.  By discovering the 

power of “de-shaming” we are able to 

expose the oppressor for what they 

truly are. But not only are you able to 

expose the oppressor you are at the 

same time liberated from their 

oppressive scheme of “shaming” you.

 In this way the one 

who feels shame is able to reverse the 

table by exposing the truth, even if the 

telling of that truth is perceived as 


Are you beginning to understand the 

extraordinary intuitive genius of 

Kristen Stewart, 

this young woman, this actress, whose 

fan you are?

Step back: the pattern in the tapestry
won’t tell itself till more of it is made.
Although it’s eighty-seven in the shade,
we have to work this hard making the hist-
ory we need till, trusting it, we’re free
to kiss each other better than when we
imagined kissing when we hadn’t kissed.

Yes she said I am a kiss you will never know
Now do you imagine what it might have been like to kiss him for a long long time because you didn't dare to find out
Or do you find out and let go of it?
Would you rather your lover wondered in their imagination? For a long long time?

Monday, October 22, 2012

Part 2/3 : Sanders and Stewart "CHEATING" Pictures Exposed: US Weekly and Popsugar Got PUNK'D $200 Grand!

# 22 Poopsugar
#3 Poopsugar
FourMatch - Authenticate Images Instantly HERE
If only I had known about this. Would have saved me hours. But I learned a lot.
CORRECTION: My photoshop genius says NOTHING is as good as the human eye and a good photoshopper knows how to hack around this software.

For these 4 images note the foliage. At top right the woman's hair is softly lit by the sun and tendrils are blowing in the breeze. The leaves below in all 4 images have not changed or rustled with the breeze in upper right or the bottom 2 images.

The feathery shadow immediately to the right of Kristen in upper left, and to the right of Rupert in upper right and to the right of Kristen in the bottom images are all exactly the same as it falls on the top of the fence.
If you go to the Poopsugar links you can run the cursor over the image to enlarge any portion of it. All of the images by the fence have that same feathery shadow. 
In some it is blurred and in others in sharper focus.

The figures do not cast any shadow on the top of the fence. Shadows can only be photoshopped in on a flat surface. To curve them around the fence is major time and who is going to notice anyway. There are shadows on the ground, that is enough.
# 19 Poopsugar
# 21 Poopsugar

I put Charlize Theron's face on Kristen.People easily let themselves be manipulated. Many of us become easy targets for such things.All I want to say is that people should not believe in everything that the media say or show.

3rd Image from Top - See All of Site - link for gigantic pic

Where could paps have been to take the pictures at the angle they were taken? Tell me! And 4 sets (of paps) of them? 
Gimme a break!
Note here the entrance to the cul de sac (dead end) street here as its reflection in Kristen's car door is quite different. To adjust the reflection on the car door requires a particular software and expertise to produce. # 8 Poopsugar down below on the left.  
1st Image from Top  - link for gigantic pic
Please link for the huge pictures at Gossip Cop left by Lynnette as a commenter that have been ignored by the site administrators of the "supposed" expose of false reporting in the tabloids. No one went to the site to photograph it and Lynnette took it upon herself to see it. She is a portrait painter with a good eye. 

Here is a nice tutorial on putting a background in for your subject.

The foliage is particularly interesting as it is quite different from the "cheating" images. Please examine if you want to see for yourself.

# 8 Poopsugar
# 55 Poopsugar
Here Stewart is walking like Gradiva. I couldn't resist.

In the above images we have shadows! The figures have been photoshopped in and now the shadows get photoshopped in.

How to Create a Real Drop Shadow in Photoshop 

With Layers
Kristen's car is a black Mini-Cooper - Onyx Black. This car is Graphite Black.
Only a car OCD person would notice that one. 
Also her car is flat on a sloping road. See the tires,the door.
Notice Lynnette's white car parked in the same place. It is slanted. So Kristen's car has been photoshopped in here. 
Neat eh!
 In the above images the shadows at Kristen's feet and Rupert's are small, less than knee high, past noon, and probably around 2 PM Daylight Saving Time and they are photoshopped in.

# 12 Poopsugar
In #12 at Poopsugar note the outline of sunlight on Rupert's right leg from his knee down and at his heel and all the way down his left leg. It is as if the sun is hitting his legs obliquely but still falls full on the top of the fence. 
The 2 sources of light in these images have been discussed in detail HERE so I won't bore you again with it. If you have not read it, then link and read as it clarifies even more IMO. 

 Since the sun is hitting the figures obliquely, from the west but partly shaded by the tree, why are their shadows not falling on the top of the fence? Only the one feathery shadow to the right of them, which remains the same whether Kristen is flush with the fence, or Rupert is against the fence, this shadow remains the same. 

In the Poopsugar images by running the cursor over the image, you will see that sometimes it is sharper and sometimes more blurred. 
But always the same feathery shadow.
And NEVER the shadows of the figures.
As if they are ghosts in the image eh!
Now why is this?

But before I tell you note the bright white surface on the top of the fence. All traces of grain in the wood have disappeared. 
Here's where I got in an argument with my photoshopping expert. My reason was because the sun was shining full on the top of the fence, perpendicular to it, at right angles to it and that was why there was no grain. 
No I was told. Look at Lynnette's photos of the fence and the garage door (in detail in this link) and at Gossip Cop NOT, where they are huge. 

My argument continued about the sun, the 2 sources of light, but my OCD photoshopper said the smooth white at the top of the fence that made it look like plastic (it does and I had noticed and commented before that it looked like plastic) was due to, are you ready:

Gaussian Blur

WTF is Gaussian Blur? 
A normal distribution is known as a Gaussian distribution curve
In photoshopping it sort of does the same thing to an area of the image you want to blur along a distribution of x number of pixels. Soften an image or an outline. 
Adobe Photoshop 4,5,6 have this tool
CS6 is $699.00 
If you are taking 2 images from different places, of different sizes and importing them into a background both are not going to be focused equally. One may need to be sharpened and one may need to be blurred in order to match.

This is what you will use Gaussian Blur for in these images. 
In case you don't know where I am going, here it is straight out. And Gaussian Blur as you will see in the video affects the entire image. You will see it go completely black before the layer changes.

The figures were photoshopped into the fence location. The foliage was photoshopped around them. This is why they cast no shadows of their own on the top of the fence. The original location had the tree leaves casting shadows on the top of the fence. But the figures pasted in came from all different light sources and shade ones had to be chosen, and background filled in. Overlooked by the photoshopper who never expected such a keen dissection of their work. There are thousands of pap pictures of Kristen Stewart and her clothes could easily have been photoshopped on her figure to match what she was wearing the day she met Rupert Sanders by the fence. 

She had to meet him there or she would know she had never been there. People have seen pics - removed now - of her carrying papers with her. 
Kristen is wearing a sleeveless white T with a little pocket and yellow bra straps show at her shoulders. 
It's very HOT out!
Rupert is wearing a long sleeved jacket. Is he dressing for chilly weather? I suspect all Rupert's pictures were taken at the same time as there is not the assortment to be had of him as for Kristen in all sizes, poses, attire, hair color and length whatever.
Unless he is in on this. But if he is in on this why is he not wearing a T shirt for hot weather?
And why does he look like a cardboard cut out?
In addition the sizes of the two figures are going to be different. They need to be re-sized to be the right size relative to each other. And relative to the height of the fence. Lynnette is 5' 4", just 1 inch taller than Kristen (Stewart's CV lists her at 5'6" but she is 5' 3") so you can see that the top of the fence is at her breasts. Kristen's waist hits the top of the fence. The heads and faces need to be in proportion. You don't just take the figure and make it smaller. You tweak it here. And there. And over there. Until you get it right and you will probably never get it right in this instance. 

Then you fill in the background around them as you must leave a space to move them into.
This is what makes the images feel off. No chemistry between them. Kristen looks uncomfortable, because they really are pap pics from another place and time.

What I cannot understand is why no journalist went to the site to investigate. The errors are glaring when you see the above images.

They are like cardboard paper dolls being moved around and positioned and the photoshopper does not know what Kristen looks like when she is turned on. Her face can be turned, inverted, her mouth, eyes, lips etc all tweaked.
Her known rings must be correct, her nail polish and you begin to see the infinite number of variables involved to get them right. 

Photoshop can make you look any way the photoshopper wants you to look. Fat, thin, flexible, stiff, whatever. Amazing. 

So if you don't know all this stuff you can't ask the right questions. When you look at pics, you can't observe what you are looking at.

An object does not exist until and unless it is observed. - William Burroughs

US Weekly has no such expert on their staff. They can command up to one million a year so Pixar, etc has them, not magazines. All Kristen would see was herself but not herself. She would know someone did this but not know how they did, and how good they had to be to do it. And how much software and hard drive power they had to have to do it, not to mention the skill. So how could she ever explain it and defend herself. I watched him take the layers back explaining why each one was done. There are hundreds and hundreds of layers. And still we never got to the original with no figures at all. 

Someone who knew photoshopping but was not certified so could not command a minimum of 200K a year - and they would never risk their certification by doing this - 
was the person who did this. 200 Grand for these images was a very nice paycheck.  Each image took about 8 hours so now we see why it took so long from THAT AFTERNOON until the pictures were sold and delivered. And why the made up story doesn't match the site, the time of day for shadows, the multiple paps who were never there, etc.

hue and saturation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgVpTKOhr-Y The color of the background has been highly enhanced. Add sun, take away clouds from the sky, etc

Video shows you how that greeny-green background foliage was gotten in the "cheating" pics. Not that green in Lynnette's untouched pictures.

magic photo editor http://www.smartphotoeditor.com/?gclid=CML5z66S-LICFZGhzAodoWYAlQ

Adobe CS6 Master Collection http://www.novedge.com/products/3538?AFTK=FRGL&gclid=CIjq3MiS-LICFdHDzAodgXwA4w

http://www.firegraphic.com/  For painting light in a photoshopped picture. Highlighting edges sharply or softly.
Well I just got back from about 4 hours of a tutorial in photoshopping. To do those pics: choices. 

1. video Rupert and Liberty in poses on green screen background. Fill it in later.

2. photoshop it. From scratch or from stills taken off the video. The video is non existent for sure.

3. Photo the fence and fill in the figures. 

What's needed: About a $30,000 powerful computer and about $25,000 worth of photoshop software and accessory tools  as some tools do one thing and another does another. 

90% of all the media companies in the US are owned by 4 mega corporations. Do not forget this statistic!

The big Question: Who and Why?

photo manip
photo manip

With no evidence for either one of these pics, why is one believed with fanaticism and NOT the other?

A Summary of Evidence:


Click on the above link for embedded hot links for all sites detailing Proof:


/Users/Genalee/Desktop/cheating pics
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/29/entertainment/la-et-mn-kristen-stewart-20120730 SEE HOW MANY LIES ARE IN THIS ARTICLE

http://desdenuestrosojos.tumblr.com/post/33601910730/do-you-think-this-man-will-be-a-succesful THIS GUY IS DISGUSTING, NOTICE KS FACE

http://justiceforkristen.wordpress.com/ GOOD WEBSITEhttp://justiceforkristen.wordpress.com/?s=word+of+the+day READ ALL THESE!!
http://nonnie-confessions.tumblr.com/post/10104227833/speaking-of-pr-did-someone-call-a-cop NICK AND DAN
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7wqq3hHTu1r88mufo1_500.gif HOW MANY TIMES DID SHE SAY THIS RUP
http://desdenuestrosojos.tumblr.com/page/2 RUP KNOWS HOW TO PHOTO SHOP
/Users/Genalee/Desktop/tumblr_mao3d9Z3021rewxu0o1_400.jpg THE APOLOGY IS FAKE


Much much more on The Grand Punk 10