The Manchurian Candidate is a 1959 political thriller by Richard Condon, detailing a conspiracy where a US soldier, Raymond Shaw, is captured during the Korean War and brainwashed by Chinese and Soviet agents. The novel has been adapted into a feature film with the same title twice, with the first being released in 1962 and the second in 2004. The film follows the story of Raymond Shaw, who becomes an unwitting assassin in an international communist conspiracy.
The Manchurian Candidate conspiracy theory is similar to birtherism, where conservatives rationalize their anger over politics by convincing others to believe they are being used as puppets by an enemy power. The film presents a plot to assassinate a presidential candidate by long-range rifle during his campaign. John Frankenheimer’s 1962 film, The Manchurian Candidate, directed and produced by John Frankenheimer, starred Laurence Harvey, Frank Sinatra, and Angela Lansbury.
The Manchurian Candidate brought together conspiracy themes as it reframed 1950s-style anti-communist fears into a complicated package. The film’s ending reveals that Raymond Shaw, the vice-presidential nominee, is the product of a vast conspiracy orchestrated by his mother, Eleanor Shaw. The film also features Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury, and the screenplay was written by George Axelrod.
In conclusion, The Manchurian Candidate is a psychological political thriller that explores the conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of a US soldier by Chinese and Soviet agents during the Korean War. The film serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of trusting Russia and its allies, as well as the potential dangers of allowing such actions to occur.
📹 The Real Manchurian Candidate
📹 Conspiracy Movies: The Manchurian Candidate, Conspiracy Theory, Burn After Reading – Salty Nerds
The Nerds put on their tin foil hats and talk about what Alex calls “documentaries”, or fictional movies about conspiracy theories.
There were a tv show here some years ago exhibiting the prowess of a known ‘mentalist’ to induce behavioral change on a trigger (cue) by quick hypnosis of some celebrities. It was fun at first but it got weird to watch. It really poses the question of freewill in this situation. What was really weird is that those hypnotized people have some sort of two awakening states. One was under the behavioral change induced earlier by hypnosis and the other was their normal state with no hypnosis implantation. But they couldn’t tell the difference between those two awakening states. Once ‘cleared” of the implantation they only knew/realized for real that something happened but it was blurred to recall and mostly oblivious to the short memory.
Kind of Ironic the number of authors who wrote books and produced movies on mind control, while MKUltra was secret. As for JFK the 7th trumpet in ‘Operation Sail,’ has been set for 2026. ‘And the spirit of God hovered over the waters’, mapped out the world, realized there was no where else to go by the mid 1800’s, and ‘multiply and fill’ was questioned.
RFK Jr. interview he said it was NOT Sirhan who did him, the fatal shot was right behind his ear & sirhan was neither ever so close nor to his rear, is super shady this, same as MLK as well. I believe so little of these official stories these days, we lied to literally ALL the time by the main stream. Lastly, many say ah, is impossibme he forgets everything, he had the gun etc but just watch “Derren Brown Assasin” shows this guy v.susceptible to hyonosis, also the guy shoots Stephen Fry on stage and had no memory of it, is amazing demonstration the manchurian candidate can ABSOLITELY be carried out with the gun man literally having zero knowledge of it
How supposedly would Chicago’s crime boss, “pay off the hit” on Joe Kennedy? ..This makes no sense. ..If there is a contract on someone’s life, a third party can not simply pay it off. Pay whom off? ..Every possible killer..? Modelitz himself..? If a kid wants an ice cream, but his Health teacher doesn’t want him eating an ice cream, how does the teacher giving the boy the money needed to buy the ice cream make sure the boy does not eat ice cream? If anything it only enables him to buy another ice cream while having no effect on his desire to eat it. If the money was of more value to the boy than the ice cream, he wouldn’t have bought it to begin with. ..Try and even imagine a scenario where this paying of a contract on one’s life could be possible? It’s ridiculous. This may be a peripheral remark, but it points to how evidence is unevenly analyzed here. That which is convenient to one side of an argument isn’t given the same logical attack as the aspects which that side seeks to repudiate. …The problem with these productions is that they already have reached their own conclusions and they only fill the production with the evidence convenient to their argument and exclude contrary evidence. ..I think this does us a disservice. In fact, I would go so far as to say, I think it is mainly owing to one sided productions like these which themselves pry on people’s suggestibility, and create “Conspiracy Theorists,” ..Being a “conspiracy theorist” isn’t itself a fallacy, since conspiracies do occur.