We highlighted and lampooned this moron a while back. He made it onto Anderson Cooper 360.
“You are the experiment.”
As I often lay out here, fictional films can show you more about what is really going on that the fictional mainstream news outlets The Box is one of the most striking examples. The Box (2009) is Richard Kelly’s most recent film—Kelly of Donnie Darko and Southland Tales fame. All of Kelly’s films contain deep esoteric themes, and The Box is no different. In fact, it’s one of the most, well, “illuminist” films I’d seen since Eyes Wide Shut. The Box also contains hints and homages toward Kubrick, in fact. On the surface, the viewer is presented with a moral dilemma: It’s a film about compromising morals and suffering the consequences. On another level, it describes the elite worldview and control system with stunning detail—but not just the elite perspective—it also contains an even deeper, initiatory quasi-masonic level, as I will argue. The film was not a critical success, but I suspect its meaning went over the head of most.
The story takes place in 1976, where NASA Viking Mission camera engineer, “Arthur” (James Marsden) and his wife “Norma” (Cameron Diaz), have just purchased a large, new home. They are the typical middle class suburban family, pictured as overwhelming mediocre, in fact (on purpose). We then learn that a certain “Arlington Steward” (Frank Langella) has been resuscitated and released from the burn unit. Early one morning Arlington arrives in a black Lincoln, a “man in black,” and mysteriously drops a box off at Norma’s door, while Arthur heads off to NASA to privately construct a prosthetic foot for Norma, who is slightly crippled. Recall, of course, that in many purported “UFO” experiences the so-called “men in black” arrive on the scene, etc. Note that I am not advocating aliens and the assorted myths attached thereto. This will be relevant later in the analysis, however. Norma discovers the box has another box in it with a large red button on top, and Norma is astonied.
Meanwhile, Arthur finds out he has been rejected from acceptance as an astronaut, a longtime personal goal. Presumable funding for the new house and car would come from the astronaut position he was counting on. Norma teaches English at a local Catholic private school, and significantly, they are studying Jean-Paul Sartre’s play, “No Exit.” A certain miscreant in class has appeared who attempts to embarrass Norma by asking her to show the class her club foot. Norma acquiesces. This is relevant to those in the know concerning Sartre’s philosophy—Sartre proffered that as we mature, it becomes evident we are simply hiding behind various “masks” as a kind of cloak to escape the radical freedom we are condemned to.
For Sartre, Norma’s clubfoot is an imperfection she hides because it’s a reminder that her beautiful appearance which masks the clubfoot is a facade. It’s not real. Were Norma to embrace her defect, she would actually be free from the stigma such defects produce in our psyches. Indeed, for Sartre, we even hide behind such roles as “suburban middle class wife,” because there is a kind of ease in accepting this pre-programmed role handed on from the previous batch of middle class suburban forebears. Sartre calls this “being in itself,” and likens it to inanimate rocks. Those who become “free” realize that reality presents “radical freedom,” and when this is accepted, one becomes “being for itself”-being that is free and undetermined. This will be relevant for the later “initiatory” reveal.
Norma mentions to another student in class the famous Sartre quote that “hell is other people,” because it would be like others “knowing all your faults.” We also note that Arthur’s young son doesn’t believe in Santa when the subject comes up in the kitchen, because Arthur is a “scientist.” It is also relevant that this is Christmas time. This is relevant because we are supposed to understand that “scientism” is another mask, Sartre would contend. The “scientist” hides behind the mask of “rational inductionist,” and when presented with mystery or radical freedom, he timidly avoids the fearful conclusion by resting his faith in the imagined totality explanatory power of “science.” Arthur and Norma are about to encounter something they could never have imagined.
The next day NASA gives a press conference for the upcoming Viking Mars Probe and curiously interjects statements about the expected discovery of “alien life” and “ancient alien civilizations.” In fact, this is precisely what Arthur C. Clarke and the NASA videos at the time were promoting. Isn’t it somewhat obvious that you will find what you’re looking for? It’s not very scientifically “neutral” to be so completely sold on the idea of alien life. Instead, we are being given a larger clue as to the meaning of where the film is going—the underlying new mythology that the supposed “science establishment” has predetermined we will “discover.” The new “discovery” will be that there is “life” elsewhere in the galaxy, thus exotheology. Exotheology is the planned new cosmology that replaces man’s origins and telos with aliens and apotheosis. However, The Box is going to give us a veiled clue as to who the “aliens” really are. During the press conference, one reporter asks why NASA is working closely with the NSA, which goes unanswered. Continue reading
Bored? Restless? Does your secret cabal need something to do more interesting than donning goofy outfits? Well, look no further–you’ve found the infamous step by step program to destroy nations. But wait, it gets better. Not just destroying them; you’re going to take them down, and then rule them. So get your cabal together and let’s talk world domination.
First, your fellow society members need to be well-educated. You need a hefty dose of the major disciplines and men (and some women) trained in the arts and sciences, with some specializing in various disciplines. Of particular relevance will be subjects like psychology, philosophy, history, economics and the sciences. The more “Renaissance Man” your good men are, the better. Hopefully your cadre has some players that are also good at acting and theater, because you’re going to need to do a lot of acting, lying and mass theater.
The first thing you’ll want to do is banking, so we’re going to establish a centralized bank that used a fiat currency. The bank is to be established under the guise of “stability,” since a centralized bank that sets the rates of interest gives the appearance of a unifying factor, and which can eventually force all markets and localized economies onto a fiat currency. As you extend more and more loans, you will be amassing real assets, which amounts, of course, to real wealth. It may be necessary at first to base the new economy you’re establishing on gold or something real, but this won’t be a problem, inasmuch as over time as you build capital, you can purchase the gold. Eventually, the gold standard won’t even be necessary, as all the money will be based on non-existent digital debts.
If you don’t have the ability or means to start a central bank in a nation, you’ll have to think more long-term. Establish smaller, simper organizations, like the now-popular fast cash and credit bureau institutions which, over many decades, can grow into large banks. It is important that in the host nation you are taking down, you promote the new banking institutions as geared toward progress. These banks are the perfect “capitalist” mechanisms, inasmuch as they are able to produce “profit” (ie, amass real assets), from almost no bottom line! It is important to promote this under the guise of a “free market” and “deregulation” (which of course, doesn’t exist), and fools the masses who are still caught up in cliché systems and phrases that are now 200 years out of date.
Now that you’ve got your bank in place, you’ll need to start planning on integrating and controlling other areas of commerce and social existence. Control is the name of the game. What you’ll want to initially do is set up numerous private foundations that operate under the guise of philanthropy. You’ve got a bit of wealth now, so you won’t want to run a total scam–you’ll want to build a few museums and schools, but this will work for your advantage as well, as you will be able to control the content of the worldviews you desire to present in these institutions, as we will see in the education step. Continue reading
In this exclusive interview with Reuters’ award-winning D.C. economics correspondent, Pedro da Costa, we explore the Federal Reserve system, economic and philosophic history, “free markets,” the “third position,” the bail out and derivatives, Max Weber, and much more, as well as his award-winning report, “Club Fed: The Ties that Bind at the Federal Reserve.”
Mr. da Costa’s bio is as follows:
Note: apologies for the Skype quality which skips and jumps here and there, and which I could not help. We’ll just pretend it’s cryptographic and we’re “agents” (not spies!) and de-code certain sections where Skype “jumps.”
Ms. Annie Machon was gracious enough to grant me an interview to discuss her own story, the infamous David Shayler affair, corruption and whistleblowing in British Intelligence, the modern terror state, and much more. Her 2005 book, Spies, Lies and Whistelbowers: MI5, MI6 and the Shayler Affair is a fascinating read, and can be tracked down, if you’re sleuth enough.
Her bio at her site reads:
Annie Machon is a former intelligence officer for MI5, the UK Security Service, who resigned in 1996 to blow the whistle on the spies’ incompetence and crimes with her ex-partner, David Shayler.
Drawing on her varied experiences, she is now a media pundit, author, journalist, international tour and event organiser, political campaigner, and PR consultant.
She has a rare perspective both on the inner workings of governments, intelligence agencies and the media, as well as the wider implications for the need for increased openness and accountability in both public and private sectors.
She is also a recognised international public speaker on a variety of issues: security and intelligence, ethics and citizenship, the war on terror, press and media freedoms, secrecy legislation, civil liberties, totalitarianism and police states, accountability in government and business as well as discussing her personal story of being ‘on the run’.
Annie can also provide relatively pain-free and fun training in public speaking and media skills,
Annie read Classics at Cambridge University and then began a career in publishing. In 1991 she was recruited by MI5 where she was posted to their political and counter-terrorism departments.
Machon, A. (2005).
Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers: MI5 and the David Shayler Affair. Book Guild Ltd. ISBN-10: 185776952X
A Simple Example of How to Refute Moral Relativism
I argued with Lez Winstead, I mean Lizz Winstead, today. She’s the co-creator of the Daily Show, so you think she’d be intelligent and funny. However, in a spar with her femenemy, man, she ended up flustered. Yes, logic and humor were not what she was expecting to meet on Twitter from an actual male not in her trendy New York drag queen circles. So let’s see how well ultra-liberal wit and reasoning stands up to masculinity. Let’s see how tolerant, level-headed and logical those of this ilk are.
Lizz tweeted how much she loved homosexual gayness, because, you know, it’s just inherently so beautiful and radical:
So let’s see that loving tolerance in action. What happens when you rationally challenge this claim on philosophical grounds? Liberals are into philosophy, right? Local universities, philosophy, liberals, etc., doesn’t that all sorta flow together into one large living Gaia? Yes, you’d think. So let’s analyze this. Note the reasoning – “happiness” is what is the justifying criteria for what constitutes moral affirmation. So, if you say that, it follows that:
This is entirely reasonable. The “tweet” claims that moral lifestyles are justified on the basis of the purported pleasure of “happiness” they bring. Well, some people enjoy sex with animals, children and relatives. What’s the enlightened, tolerant liberal response? “Shut the Fuck Up.”
So, because I responded with a logical query, that moral relativism leads to the conclusion that bestiality, incest, rape and torture are all ago, I’m a “hater”! Why, who are we to stop someones else’s “happiness,” we fascists?! How dare you! But wait! Lizz is a super liberal, who thinks that no one should impose their views on others. But Lizz thinks Planned Parenthood is glorious and that feminism is totally awesome. So, Lizz thinks it’s wrong to oppose these things and adhere to moral absolutes. but Lizz imposes her worldview on others, even though you can’t impose your views on others, since that’s intolerant and not loving. But who said “shut the fuck up” first? She did. That’s not loving liberal and is intolerant. I was a “hater” for asking a logical question. So much for the beautiful “open mind” that the “liberals” are supposed to have. My next response was more abrupt:
Moral relativism is the key foundation stone of all who take this route. Moral relativism says that there are no absolutes in morals, period. Those who argue this never explain how that very claim itself is supposed to be absolute, though, since there are no absolutes. All moral claims are purely relative to the individual. No one, therefore, can claim that any thing is, strictly speaking, “wrong.” There are only preferential and non-preferential actions. Murdering babies isn’t wrong, per se (Lizz likes it, in fact), but is instead solely up to the determination of whatever the individual lists. Not in a good mood today? Baby-daddy ran away? Just kill it.
If Lizz is such a supposed liberal, why does she support Planned Parenthood, which was founded to weed out blacks, as the video below shows? That’s not very loving liberal or logical. In other words, Lizz had no response, not even a funny one (given that she is supposed to be a “comedian”). What’s her response? I, and anyone who believes in moral absolutes wants to have sex with dogs. You can’t make this up:
And you will see in a moment I am who she is responding to. So, because I pointed out that adopting moral relativism is contradictory, I actually want to have sex with dogs. There is no comparison between homosexuality and incest and other actions. But the point is not whether the actions are similar or of the same degree. The point is that the justification for actions is based on whatever makes one “happy.” No one can deny another person their hedonistic fleshfest (or furfest!). In fact, that Lizz thinks actions like incest and rape are of a different category deemed offensive shows she still wants to have moral absolutes and standards. But wait! Why are you imposing again on others’ “freedoms”? Why are you being a fascist again, seeking to tell the poor pedophiles and bestiality afficionados they are distasteful or aberrant? Why are you being so judgmental. And furthermore, why are you being so judgmental against me? I clicked “follow” on Twitter because I thought you might be funny. In response, I got hatred. It is not I who hate, but you. Continue reading
Max Horkheimer and Theodore W. Adorno, key figures of the Frankfurt School of Marxist Critical Theory, wrote in their landmark work, “Dialectic of Enlightenment,” that “myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology.”1 By this, the authors mean that the historical progression of the enlightenment tradition has actually subverted its original intentions of, as Francis Bacon wrote, making man the sovereign of nature, and has actually produced the opposite: barbarity and domination of the social nature in fascism and Stalinism.2 In response to this, later Frankfurt School writer, Jurgen Habermas, responds to Horkheimer and Adorno with an interesting counter-critique. The purpose of this paper will be to examine Horkheimer and Adorno’s criticism of enlightenment and Habermas’ response.
The project that Horkeimer and Adorno engage in is correctly titled an “immanent critique”; called by Habermas “ideology critique.” This type of critique arises out of Kant and Hegel. In this approach, a system, or ideology is investigated internally to see whether its presuppositions are consistent with one another. If they are not, then the system is considered self-refuting. Thus, Horkheimer and Adorno make the case that the enlightenment tradition fails the test, and the inheritors of the enlightenment tradition, namely the Vienna Circle positivists and nominalists, are involved in promulgating a self-destructive, self-refuting ideology.3
Horkheimer and Adorno set forth their case in the essay, “The Concept of Enlightenment.” They hold that enlightenment thinking has displayed a couple major motifs: demythologizing the natural world through knowledge and control, dominating that demythologized nature through autonomous, instrumental reason. These motifs are inter-connected, and actually interact and affect one another in a dialectical fashion.
First, they argue that the enlightenment tradition has, from mankind’s beginning, been bound up with myth. A study of the social evolution of ancient societies demonstrates, according to Horkheimer and Adorno, myth actually arises as a response to mystery and the domination of man by the natural world. Thus, one can see in the earliest known human societies the mythological scheme actually produces a kind of classification, a seeking for origins, and reductionism, though not self-consciously. In other words, just like enlightenment, “myth seeks to explain.”4Enlightenment, however, since Bacon, Kant, Hume, and up to the positivists, has failed to recognize this dialectical relationship. Instead, For the Enlightenment, anything which cannot be resolved into numbers, and ultimately into one, is illusion; modern positivism consigns it to poetry. Unity remains the watchword from Parmenides to Russell. All gods and qualities must be destroyed.5