For a long time I’ve held back on my actual thoughts on things, but nowadays I could care less. The actual operation of the entire society has become so absurd, backward, and irrational that it is now comical. For those aware, it is quite evident there is a long term plan to re-engineer and reorganize the western world in particular. The modern world is under the delusion that it has been freed from the prison of “superstition” and “dogma”: Altar and throne have been overthrown and now the “New Man” can arise from the ash heap of millennia of “dark ages” and oppression. Modernity has given us medicine and personal computers, right? Indeed, so onwards towards the great utopia! But is this so? Why do the day-to-day lives of those of use in modernity seem like everything but the great utopia? The previous millennia has seen a multitude of millenialist demagogues hellbent on establishing the “Great Society,” yet the he awakening public is becoming aware of the sense that modern utopia is really another form of enslavement, as even Zbigniew Brzezinski has noted on multiple occasions.
But what if the uprising of the masses is not really a good thing? Mass uprisings bring forth the reordering of society under a new hierarchy: not the elimination of hierarchy. Marshalling of the masses for political means has ever been the tool of petty tyrants, demagogues and gainsayers, as well as powerful larger interests. To understand the gigantic farce of the modern world’s beliefs about itself, it is to the ancient world that we must turn. This is a point you will almost never hear mentioned, so grab your pen and paper and get ready for notes. Following upon the French Revolution, most of the western world supposedly rejected monarchy and religion in favor of Enlightenment Republicanism. Obviously this doesn’t mean Sarah Palin and George Bush. By “republicanism” is meant the idea of a republic, and the idea of a republic cannot be divorced from Plato, and an analysis of the Republic should be given, but before that, the stream (or sewer) of millennial sects and movements must be explained.
Prior to the French Revolutionary Jacobins and so-called “illuminists,” came the medieval heretical sects of the Bogomils and Cathari that represented the most significant challenges to papal power. While never an organized front, the sectarians were able to wrest various sections of Europe from Roman primacy, while the compliment in the East could be seen as Islam, representing similarly a gnostic challenge to the Imperial Orthodoxy of Byzantium (such is the origin of Bogomilism, which birthed the western gnostic movements).
Also concurrent with these movements were the Catholic orders that had similar trends, like the Franciscans and pseduo-millennialists like Joachim of Fiore. The Joachimites and some Franciscans foresaw an era of mass pouring out of “the Spirit,” ushering in a “golden age” of humanity living righteously. In fact, Benedict XVI has even written concerning these connections in Joachim as follows:
“Ratzinger dug deep in his research. And he discovered that in Bonaventure, there is a strong connection with the vision of Joachim of Fiore, the Franciscan who had prophesied the imminent advent of a third age after those of the Father and the Son, an age of the Spirit, with a renewed and entirely “spiritual” Church, poor, reconciled with Greeks and Jews, in a world restored to peace.”
I think there is a clear conduit from this to modern revolutionary movements. The Thomas Muntzer rebellion should also be mentioned as important currents of modern socialism, inasmuch as Muntzer attempted to practice perfect and total communism. It is also important that these centers of rebellion were France, Germania and Hungary: future centers of radical communism and “illuminism.” Renaissance humanism and the Reformation gave birth to the revolutionary movements of Illuminism and socialism, yet there are two crucial factors seldom mentioned in treatments of this subject that undergird all these trends: Plato and millennialism. Continue reading
False Flag shooting event analysis broken here first.
Update: The blending of fiction and programming has extended into reality like I predicted, with the New York Police Commissioner (like Commissioner Gordon) saying the villain was “The Joker,” and the NYPD will keep everyone safe from “The Joker” and/or Bane.
“Bruce Wayne’s grandfather founded Skull & Bones.” -Batman tv show
Batman: The Dark Knight Rises is the final installment in the Christopher Nolan trilogy and, in my opinion, is excellent. Like the previous two, the concluding film is just as esoteric and filled with predictive programming as the others, yet stands out as preeminent. This final film is the climax of this version of revelation of the method par excellance. The entire essence of this film is concerned with how the system itself operates on the deepest levels—levels far beyond what most people are able to comprehend. Like the rest of Nolan’s films, this one resonates with a particular Jungian ethos, almost to the level of Inception. In fact, Dark Knight Rises is very similar to Nolan’s Inception, and, believe it or not, Jim Henson’s Labyrinth.
In fact, Nolan even takes Dark Knight to the higher esoteric level of including actors from previous films and roles to play them again in this film. As I myself and Ross have discussed on Jay’s Analysis, this often turns out to be the case, especially in the case of the top Hollywood figures—figures like Angelina Jolie, Nicole Kidman, and now, it seems, Rachel Weisz. Among males you can see it with Robert DeNiro Nicolas Cage, Johnny Depp and Tom Cruise. Granted, some roles are chosen on the basis of having a certain “look” adapted from another role, but as I argue, and as we see in films like Mulholland Drive, roles are often chosen for deeper, occult reasons. Think about Heath Ledger in Batman: The Dark Knight, and then his role in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus and then his strange death.
“What?” you say, “Why, that’s wacky.” That’s because your view of the world isn’t the same as those who understand liturgy and ritual. The study of liturgics is not some dry, dusty, arcane academic discipline for old religionists to haggle about. Liturgics to those who know, is the very heartbeat of the universe itself. It is itself the meaning of things. Granted, one can learn about metaphysics or science in philosophy or at some university, yet these are merely fields that operate in the realm of bare knowledge. Knowledge itself is lacking in that it is static and merely one of the divine energeia.
To combine will and action in harmony with intended purpose in the service of God in symbolic act is meaning, and thus all of life becomes a liturgical ritual. Most ancient religious traditions have some notion of this. Thus the standard exposition most “conspiracy theorists” and/or critics give is done at the most basic level of plot, interpretation of meaning, technical achievements, and possible “Illuminist” symbols. While there is a place for all of that, none of them understand the principle of the film itself, including the actors and their own experiences, the set, the script, etc., all coming together at a certain time, with a certain zeitgeist behind it. A couple good books on this I would recommend would be Mircea Eliade’s The Sacred and the Profane, Abraham Heschel’s The Sabbath, and any basic introduction to liturgy. Such a radical alteration of perception is only achieved by investigation into, and participation in, liturgy. Those who have experienced this will understand, and those who haven’t will not. But regardless, films are themselves a kind of ritual ‘working,’ and whether the 99% of the critics out there acknowledge or know this is irrelevant: it is true.
In fact, as I write this, it has just happened that several people have been killed in a Dark Knight Rises premier in Colorado. Readers of this blog will be aware of Colorado being outlined in other films and in reality as a new, more secretive command base for various elite factions. Think of the Denver Airport and the Columbine events. The RT article states:
“Police say that the assailant initially opened a gas canister. Witnesses recounted hearing a hissing sound and smoke, and then the shooting started.
Some say that when they first heard the gunfire, they thought it was some new type of special effect.
“It was chaotic, it was surreal, it was like in a movie,” one of the witnesses told 9news Denver TV station. 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