Mademoiselle Magazine
is and always was part of the problem
Note: I’m not going to post actual images here because I haven’t been able to ascertain if the model photographed for this shoot was of legal age, but I’ll include a screen capture of the thumbnails for the 10-page spread. It lists the “creative” staff and pays homage to the sponsor. I blurred the thumbnails a bit to disguise the model’s face and certain exposed body parts. The website URL is in text at the end of this post, for anyone who wants to copy/paste it into a browser and view at their own discretion. This is an ugly display.
The model’s name is Jamie Rishar. She is also listed in some places on the internet as Jaime Rishar.
The photography was done by the late Bob Richardson, likely in 1993, for the cover and spread in Mademoiselle magazine. Bob Richardson was and still is looked upon like a demi-god in the fashion industry, in Hollywood, and in other dark circles everywhere. He and his photographer son Terry Richardson have made decades-long careers of staging scenes of bizarre sexuality, violence, and depravity, all under the guise of “art.”
One only needs to look at the vapid face of Jamie — she looks drugged, dazed, and visibly apprehensive — to see that there is something else going on behind the black-and-white scenes.
I’ll examine each two-page spread to describe just a few of the things that I see which concern me.
1 - 2:
Jamie is shown wearing a white gown (innocence) as she is propped up on pillows on a bed that features an ornate wrought iron headboard. Her eyes are wide open as she looks at the camera lens above her. The smeared black makeup under her eyes reminds me of the “Heroin Chic” look of the 90s, but it could also be hiding “panda eyes” which are a result of repeated, rough sex, especially anal sex, by multiple people and/or objects. Jamie is cradling a large glass of what appears to be red wine; in her fingers on the same hand, she holds a nearly burned cigarette with a long ash. In photo #1, her left arm (feminine side of the body) protects her right hand (masculine side of the body). Looking at her arms, there are visible bruises and possible white scars from cigarette burns. On her left upper arm is a tattoo: CC. This translates in Gematria to 33, a “Free” “Mason” number. Or it could be an actual flesh-burn-brand of Chanel, the haute couture company that provided the clothing, shoes, and accessories featured in the shoot (link to founder Coco Chanel). In the wide shot, we see Jamie’s expression has become even more indicative of distrust and probably compartmentalized rage. She extends her right arm to reveal the bruise as she presses her hand between her legs into the skirt part of her dress. Bruising on her left arm becomes obvious. A black cross has been strategically placed on the headboard to her right. She is barefoot. The out-of-focus dangling ornament to the left of the photograph itself may or may not have significance.
Note from Bob Richardson:
A handwritten, all-caps message from the photographer is featured in the next page. He talks about “Chanel” (ostensibly referring to Coco Chanel, founder of the business) and how he felt “turned on” by her look and smell. The note is labeled: Paris 1967, Rue Cambon, and the message itself is signed by him with the inscription “Hollywood 2000.”
3-4:
The next two images are “interesting,” to say the least. The left of the folio shows Jamie with the same “panda eyes” and dressed in a solid black dress except for the tulle-like fabric extending from the wrist area. She is seated and hunched over a small dining table. Her left arm is crossed over her right arm, and her fingers hold a cigarette. The left hand holds the red-wine glass, and her hand is almost completely covered by layers of sheer white fabric. The table contains various items: Cigarettes, a lighter, and an ashtray; a mug; some kind of domed stainless steel container; a large bowl filled with something unrecognizable; and a tray with a weird object (maybe a cooked octopus?). A black cat is roaming on the table. Jamie’s facial expression is one of distrust and angst. The photo is completely out of focus, likely intentional in mocking Jamie since she is clearly drugged. In the other photograph, we are shown a corner of the same table, this time with a view out tall windows onto a nearby hillside featuring a home. I cannot even begin to speculate on the significance of this view.
5 - 6:
The image on the left side of the folio is a weird doll posed with the one-eye symbolism and its “higher mind” not visible. This could be the revelation of MK-ULTRA trauma-based mind control, which forces the victim to dissociate and compartmentalize their mind. In the right-side image, Jamie is backed into the corner of a recently used shower (droplets are visible on the glass and shower) and a toilet with the lid up; she leans into the wall. She wears a white rose-themed lace dress and complimentary white rose on her headband. Roses have significance to “Rosicrucians” and “Free” “Masons.” Jamie cradles the same glass of red wine and a long-ash cigarette. Her makeup shows markedly increased black beneath her eyes (and I think the makeup is covering up rape-induced bruising). Draped over the shower door is a tapestry that also likely has some significance.
7 - 8:
The most disturbing image is shown on the left side of this folio. Jamie is propped up with pillows on a large sofa. She is wearing a black strapless dress that has a reinforced skirt (which makes it balloon out when its wearer is standing). Jamie holds a cigarette in her left hand. Her right arm — with a visible but illegible tattoo on her wrist — is tucked under her head, as if cradling it. Her underarm appears as if bruised. The photographer and/or his assistants pulled up Jamie’s dress to expose her crotch, which looks weird, as if she is wearing a G-string made only of strings. Jamie looks like a freshly-dead person with her eyes wide open. The opposite folio image is a close-up of the hillside home I referred to in folio 3 - 4.
9 - 10:
The final folio shows Jamie wearing a heavy black dress with long sleeves and a loose turtle neck. Her eyes are completely obscured behind thick black sunglasses. In the left image, she is standing in the corner of a balcony with the hillside behind her. She is cradling the red wine glass in one hand and a lit cigarette in the other hand. Her shoulders are raised and her arms tucked in close to her body. The right image is a closeup of the same scene, with Jamie blowing cigarette smoke. The smoke wafts upward in front of the left side of her face, effectively making a “one-eye” symbol.
CONCLUSION:
This kind of photography is not “art” but is a process of dark occult programming. Jamie appears to be traumatized, and is never shown smiling or even mildly happy. These images are displayed via media to deliberately program viewers with occult symbols and the signs of their techniques (hypnosis, drugging, torture, and so on), also known as “revelation of method.” The manufacturers and purveyors of these images believe that when viewers “see” the pictures, they are “consenting” to the torture shown and thus to their own mental manipulation. The consistent use of such images in the media then normalizes the horrific content in the minds of uncritical “entertained” viewers — or worse, is proselytized by those who sympathize for and apologize on behalf of the directors, photographers, and media peddling this garbage. Consumers become fully hypnotized and purchase the hawked wares (clothing, shoes, accessories, and the overall fake images projected by these pretty zombies), lining the pockets of dark-agenda suppliers and their highly paid cushy-job-keeping career clowns, like Bob Richardson and the “stylists” for this photo shoot.
In fact, some people have been pointing out that Hollywood, sports, and the fashion industry have been portraying biological males as females. This deception goes back decades, at least since the late 1800s, when the exotic-technology Luciferian agenda — combined with the eons-old inversion principles of Satanism — came into full “shining” view.
Keep your senses tuned to Truth, because we don’t know how quickly the wayward wizards will roll out the next phase of their planned takeover (which will fail).
WE are the living breathing divine beings that they intend to continue using as batteries for their death-cult system. Let us refute that intention by living righteously as per the Divine Order!
https://issuemagazine.com/mademoiselle/#/
Dear Shari--
Gross! and your analysis is spot on.
When I was eleven years old, before I even hit puberty, I used to go to the grocery store with my mother, as, back in 1980, she shopped at the Acme surrounded by cornfields, while my dad worked for the Nazi company that employed most of the local husbands and fathers.
I was a total horn-dog, and I was being mind-controlled, so I was very keen to find pictures of naked or topless women.
As I describe in my first book, these consisted of two pieces of art reproduced in my book on dragons, while Dungeons and Dragons sought unsuccessfully to promote gang-rape fantasies, with homosexual bonding and disparagement of women, not to mention two drawings in MAD Magazine, which was used to program children, pre-teens, and teens, as hand-drawn parodies suggested rape with Charlie's Angels and Jacqueline Bisset in "The Deep."
Playboy was completely unavailable, and it was all I wanted. Over the coming years, as described in my third book, its operation would be white-washed as (i) Hugh Hefner married the Playmate of the Year, Kimberly Conrad, (ii) his daughter, Christine Hefner, became president of the magazine, (iii) Playmate of the Year Debra Jo Fondren became a born-again Christian, who continued to associate with the "Playboy Family," and (iv) Playmate of the Year Donna Edmondson became the ultimate goody-goody ambassador for Playboy, as she innocently promoted wholesome fantasies and art photography. This was in response to the Meese Commission on Pornography, as CIA operatives like Laurel Aston exposed what really went on at the Playboy Mansion, so Hefner cleaned up his act, and his magazine, while he was on his best behavior.
Although Playboy was not available at the Acme, or elsewhere, I would excuse myself from my mother's shopping activities to look at the magazine rack in the front of the store, where I combed the pages of Glamour and Mademoiselle for pictures of topless women.
It's funny that Playboy was far more wholesome than the fashion magazines that targeted female readers.
It's also funny that during this time, and shortly afterwards, I browsed the photography shelf at Walden Books, where I hungrily gazed upon volumes like How To Photograph Women, How To Photograph Nudes, and a beautiful book of Bo Derek, whom I celebrate in my writing.
The funny thing was that they were trying to use Mrs. Derek, nee Cathy Collins, not only to lead women to wreck their hair with corn-rows, a la "10," but also to lead older men to divorce their wives, so they could marry a teenage hottie just as the big kid, John Derek, had done.
But, for me, and my friends, Bo was not a far younger teenager--but a far older woman.
Anyway, although repulsive, it is interesting and valuable that you expose the disgusting perversity of the fashion industry, which, like mainstream comic books and mainstream television, was far worse than the underground comics I would later read, showing the ravishment of super heroines, or, at least for a short time, the Magazine for Men.
Your friend,
Timo
This kind of perversion should never be labeled as art or freedom of expression especially when it is mainstreamed and accessible to minors. I do not consider this art. So sad this type of exploitation is allowed and promoted. We have lost our moral compass.