Straight to the point

One of the most widely used means the tyrannical globalists employ, to lull the populace into a state of anaesthesia as far as the goings-on behind the scenes are concerned, has to do with ‘entertainment’ of the kind one finds in the realm of streaming services such as Netflix or Showmax. 

By and large, this covers captivating movies and series, in which one can immerse oneself so completely that events in the ‘real’ world are almost completely blotted out. This is an indirect, or passive manner in which entertainment is ‘weaponized,’ in the form of a smokescreen of sorts, against populations. To this may be added a more direct, or active way of doing so; namely, through films or television series which communicate a mostly subliminal, but sometimes more explicit ‘message’ to viewers about what to expect in the future, thus ‘pre-programming’ them for such events.

Not that I have anything against watching a good movie or series, such as The Blacklist or Maestro in Blue, on Netflix; my partner and I do so regularly, except that it is not at the cost of forgetting the very real threat to our liberty and lives hanging over us daily. After a day of work, during which a fair share of my day is spent on reflecting and writing on different aspects of the neo-fascist scourge confronting freedom-loving people the world over, we relax by either going dancing, reading, or watching a film or a series, of which there are many excellent ones available on streaming services. 

We also have a substantial DVD collection, largely because one of my areas of teaching and research is the philosophy of film and critical film analysis, usually through a psychoanalytical lens as well. In sum – as I teach my students, film should never be merely passively ‘consumed,’ but, while enjoying it at a sensory, perceptual level first and foremost, one should not be lulled into a state of being hypnotised to the point of being anaesthetised. They provide occasions for critical reflection.

Even popular movies are no exception to this rule. Take the widely popular Terminator films, the first two by James Cameron (see Chapter 9 in my film book), for example, as well as his equally popular Avatar movies. In both of these instances, their popular façade may easily hide the serious, albeit entertaining, thematic implications involved. 

In the case of Cameron’s Terminator films, one seems to have a science-fictional, neo-noir thriller, which may be enjoyed all the more – despite all the blood and guts – because the robotic AI-villains get their comeuppance in the end. In the second of these films, the robot-villain is a liquid-metal, seemingly indestructible creature from the future (The T-1000), intent on killing the young protagonist, John Connor, paradoxically to prevent him from becoming the human rebels’ leader in the war against the machines in the future. 

If the Terminator films were intended as distractions, on the one hand, and ways of informing us what was coming in the future, on the other (which I doubt in this case, but which the neo-fascists appear to like doing), then their critical potential certainly subvert such intentions. In brief, in the tradition of true science fiction, they showcase the power of science and technology to construct novel worlds, but simultaneously also their potential for destruction of the extant world. 

Regarding these powers of technology (and by implication, science), Eli Amdur has it right when he writes: ‘Always an issue with every technology advance ever made, from stone tools to AI, we humans have never failed to figure out not only the beneficial uses, but also the destructive ways. The reason, stated simplistically, is that we are more committed to what we could do than what we should do.’ In this sense science fiction is easily distinguishable from science and technology fantasy or ‘space opera,’ such as the Star Wars series of films. 

Returning to the Terminator movies, what is particularly interesting about them is their prescience as far as the turn to artificial intelligence or AI is concerned – all indications are that, if the World Economic Forum should have its way, humanity would be ‘ruled’ and controlled by AI in various guises, even if their language on AI is couched in euphemistic terms, which stress the need to regulate AI. Yet, evidence has emerged of this organisation’s intention, to ‘ethically’ reprogramme the brains of non-compliant humans who rock the boat in the future. Clearly, they don’t know the meaning of the word ‘ethical.’ It would indeed be the ‘rule of the machines’ adumbrated by the Terminator films, even if ‘machines’ will not necessarily assume the guise of murderous, machine-gun wielding AI-robots. 

What about a movie like The Matrix – especially the first one (1999; directed by the Wachowski brothers, before their transgender shift to Wachowski sisters)? Here it seems far more likely that, in addition to being science-fictionally ‘entertaining,’ it was, at the same time, a deliberate foreshadowing of the future of humanity, where (like the humans in the film) we would be the source of ‘energy’ to keep the ‘system’ running, all the while being quite unaware of it, believing that we live fulfilling lives largely dependent on our own plans, intentions, and actions. 

Like the Terminator films, The Matrix pits humans against ‘intelligent machines,’ and displays a messianic motif insofar as the principal character is projected as the ‘One’ who will save humanity from the intelligent machines. In the latter respect the film subverts, at least to some extent, the structure of ‘pre-programming,’ providing a model for resistance against the AI-machines. 

The narrative of the first Matrix film is fairly well-known. It is the story of a computer programmer named Thomas Anderson (Keanu Reeves), whose hacking pseudonym is ‘Neo,’ who meets a woman named Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss), and is introduced by her to someone known as Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) who, in turn, tells Neo that he has been living in the ‘Matrix’ – a computer programme that creates the illusion of reality but is in fact a simulation within which people are caught. In reality, people are imprisoned in pods, from where the ruling machines draw their physical energy to power the Matrix system. 

Given the choice between taking a ‘blue pill’ or a ‘red pill’ – nowadays familiar terms in common parlance – Neo chooses the latter, and is hence confronted by stark reality, instead of the illusionary comfort of the intra-cinematic Matrix. The rest of this allegorical story – allegorical because it is an unmistakable representation of what people were already experiencing in 1999 – instantiates a struggle between the forces of liberation (led by Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus) against the forces of oppression, to wit, the agents of the Matrix. 

These are literally ‘Agents,’ under the command of ‘Agent Smith,’ who is Neo’s main rival in the conflict. Today the allegorical nature of the film is far more conspicuous, in light of the encompassing surveillance network that has been established worldwide, in an ostensibly innocuous form, including (but not restricted to) smartphone connections by means of wireless cell phone towers – a veritable electronic prison – and which depends on human resources, very much like in the film. 

Hence, whether or not The Matrix was made with the dual purpose of entertaining people and simultaneously pre-programming them for what was coming is a moot question, but my vote is in the affirmative. What makes me so sure? There is a telling scene in the movie, where Neo (anagram for ‘One’) confronts the ‘Architect’ – which is the artificial intelligence centre of the programme, in human guise – and is told that he, Neo himself, is a function of the operation of the Matrix (that is, is spawned by it), and that people like Neo fulfill the important role of ‘testing’ the system so that it can improve its functioning. I may be wrong, but I believe this is the globalist cabal letting us know that, even if a formidable force such as Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus were to arise in the real world, it would only serve to make them (the neo-fascists), and their oppressive system, stronger. 

The names of characters in The Matrix are bound to evoke interest, given their quasi-religious and mythological connotations, which are puzzling because they are not all compatible. To be sure, as noted before, ‘Neo’ easily translates into ‘the One,’ identified as such in the film, supposedly the messianic person who would liberate humanity from the Matrix, and could be an allusion to any such messianic figure, including Jesus. ‘Trinity,’ on the other hand, has clear connections with Christianity’s doctrine of the Triune God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but incongruously, given Christianity’s patriarchal character, she is a woman. 

As for Morpheus, it does not appear that his name bears any association with Christianity; on the contrary, he was a messenger of the Greek gods (although sometimes referred to as a god himself) and responsible for ‘fashioning’ the dreams of mortals. Moreover, as the one who induces dreams, it would seem strange, in fact, ironic, that in the film he ‘red-pills’ people like Neo; that is, awakens them. It could be, if one reads his name metonymically – as the part representing The Matrix as a whole – that his name signals the cabal’s intention to lull viewers to sleep with the film; that is, it ‘fashions’ science-fictional dreams for us, not to be taken seriously, yet plants subliminal, fictional seeds of real future events. 

The latter metonymical interpretation of Morpheus’s name appears to be indirectly confirmed by the name of his hovercraft, the Nebuchadnezzar, which is apparently a reference to Nebuchadnezzar II, the ancient king of Babylon, who features in the Old Testament and was responsible for reconstructing the famous ‘ziggurat’ of Babylon. 

Like the mythical Morpheus, Nebuchadnezzar was therefore a ‘fashioner,’ albeit in historical reality. Significantly, as confirmed in the article linked above, he is depicted in the Old Testament as the king who opposed the God of the Israelites and therefore serves as a further clue that The Matrix is probably a camouflaged pre-programming movie, subtly informing us what will happen in the future (that is, today). 

True, it is full of contradictions in this regard; the underground city in which the ‘free’ humans reside in The Matrix, is called ‘Zion’ – a name historically attributed to the eastern of the two hills of ancient Jerusalem (although sometimes used for Jerusalem in its entirety), and therefore not compatible with the connotations attached to the name of the ship, the Nebuchadnezzar. This may just be to confuse one, of course, or it could be that the names are just a jumble of loosely connected, often semiotically clashing, terms arbitrarily decided upon.

My hunch is that it is deliberately confusing, but even if this is the case, and the film is a sophisticated instance of pre-programming, it cannot erase the seminal functioning of Neo as the motif of liberation, which works against the globalists’ intentions. 

A very interesting recent example of a movie that simultaneously pre-programmes viewers for an impending – although metaphorically disguised – mega-disaster and ambiguously satirises politicians’ and the media’s reactions to scientific indications of the increasing threat is Adam McKay’s Don’t Look Up (2021). The movie is pitched as a satire aimed at people (politicians, celebrities, the media) who downplay the potential dangers of climate change, but this is to overlook its more likely interpretation as a sophisticated, tongue-in-cheek instance of pre-programming the masses for the excess mortality disaster of the so-called Covid ‘vaccines.’ 

Not that the makers of the movie intended the latter interpretation; what they hoped for was probably a different kind of pre-programming; namely, to instill the awareness into people, that to question supposedly ‘scientifically sound Covid vaccines’ – utilising the ‘latest mRNA technology’ into the bargain – was unwise, because that would be to invite death on a large scale.

This was the point of pitching a narrative involving scientific (astronomical) evidence, which is largely ridiculed or ignored by politicians and the media, that a massive comet is on a collision course with the Earth. In the context of the film narrative, not heeding the sound scientific advice of the two ‘low-level’ astronomers (played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence) about the ‘killer comet’ hurtling towards Earth, is tantamount to humanity’s suicide. Ergo, at a subliminal level the message is that, not heeding ‘scientific’ advice to get the Covid jab – notably, Dr Fauci’s and ‘Dr’ Bill Gates’s – supposedly amounts to suicide on a colossal scale. Only…as we now know, taking the jab amounted to such large-scale suicide. 

Pity that the producers of Don’t Look Up – an ironic title, in more than one sense – overlooked the fact that, as I have indicated above, the more likely, and unavoidable, metaphorical interpretation of the movie bears on the implicit exhortation, not to ‘look up’ in the sense of not ‘waking up’ to the true intentions of those who have touted the supposed Covid ‘vaccines.’ (‘We can’t have that now, can we!’) Looking back, however, they forgot the saying about being ‘hoist with their own petard.’ Weaponising entertainment can, and sometimes does, backfire.

Source: Brownstone Institute Read the original article here: https://brownstone.org/

One of the most widely used means the tyrannical globalists employ, to lull the populace into a state of anaesthesia as far as the goings-on behind the scenes are concerned, has to do with ‘entertainment’ of the kind one finds in the realm of streaming services such as Netflix or Showmax. 

By and large, this covers captivating movies and series, in which one can immerse oneself so completely that events in the ‘real’ world are almost completely blotted out. This is an indirect, or passive manner in which entertainment is ‘weaponized,’ in the form of a smokescreen of sorts, against populations. To this may be added a more direct, or active way of doing so; namely, through films or television series which communicate a mostly subliminal, but sometimes more explicit ‘message’ to viewers about what to expect in the future, thus ‘pre-programming’ them for such events.

Not that I have anything against watching a good movie or series, such as The Blacklist or Maestro in Blue, on Netflix; my partner and I do so regularly, except that it is not at the cost of forgetting the very real threat to our liberty and lives hanging over us daily. After a day of work, during which a fair share of my day is spent on reflecting and writing on different aspects of the neo-fascist scourge confronting freedom-loving people the world over, we relax by either going dancing, reading, or watching a film or a series, of which there are many excellent ones available on streaming services. 

We also have a substantial DVD collection, largely because one of my areas of teaching and research is the philosophy of film and critical film analysis, usually through a psychoanalytical lens as well. In sum – as I teach my students, film should never be merely passively ‘consumed,’ but, while enjoying it at a sensory, perceptual level first and foremost, one should not be lulled into a state of being hypnotised to the point of being anaesthetised. They provide occasions for critical reflection.

Even popular movies are no exception to this rule. Take the widely popular Terminator films, the first two by James Cameron (see Chapter 9 in my film book), for example, as well as his equally popular Avatar movies. In both of these instances, their popular façade may easily hide the serious, albeit entertaining, thematic implications involved. 

In the case of Cameron’s Terminator films, one seems to have a science-fictional, neo-noir thriller, which may be enjoyed all the more – despite all the blood and guts – because the robotic AI-villains get their comeuppance in the end. In the second of these films, the robot-villain is a liquid-metal, seemingly indestructible creature from the future (The T-1000), intent on killing the young protagonist, John Connor, paradoxically to prevent him from becoming the human rebels’ leader in the war against the machines in the future. 

If the Terminator films were intended as distractions, on the one hand, and ways of informing us what was coming in the future, on the other (which I doubt in this case, but which the neo-fascists appear to like doing), then their critical potential certainly subvert such intentions. In brief, in the tradition of true science fiction, they showcase the power of science and technology to construct novel worlds, but simultaneously also their potential for destruction of the extant world. 

Regarding these powers of technology (and by implication, science), Eli Amdur has it right when he writes: ‘Always an issue with every technology advance ever made, from stone tools to AI, we humans have never failed to figure out not only the beneficial uses, but also the destructive ways. The reason, stated simplistically, is that we are more committed to what we could do than what we should do.’ In this sense science fiction is easily distinguishable from science and technology fantasy or ‘space opera,’ such as the Star Wars series of films. 

Returning to the Terminator movies, what is particularly interesting about them is their prescience as far as the turn to artificial intelligence or AI is concerned – all indications are that, if the World Economic Forum should have its way, humanity would be ‘ruled’ and controlled by AI in various guises, even if their language on AI is couched in euphemistic terms, which stress the need to regulate AI. Yet, evidence has emerged of this organisation’s intention, to ‘ethically’ reprogramme the brains of non-compliant humans who rock the boat in the future. Clearly, they don’t know the meaning of the word ‘ethical.’ It would indeed be the ‘rule of the machines’ adumbrated by the Terminator films, even if ‘machines’ will not necessarily assume the guise of murderous, machine-gun wielding AI-robots. 

What about a movie like The Matrix – especially the first one (1999; directed by the Wachowski brothers, before their transgender shift to Wachowski sisters)? Here it seems far more likely that, in addition to being science-fictionally ‘entertaining,’ it was, at the same time, a deliberate foreshadowing of the future of humanity, where (like the humans in the film) we would be the source of ‘energy’ to keep the ‘system’ running, all the while being quite unaware of it, believing that we live fulfilling lives largely dependent on our own plans, intentions, and actions. 

Like the Terminator films, The Matrix pits humans against ‘intelligent machines,’ and displays a messianic motif insofar as the principal character is projected as the ‘One’ who will save humanity from the intelligent machines. In the latter respect the film subverts, at least to some extent, the structure of ‘pre-programming,’ providing a model for resistance against the AI-machines. 

The narrative of the first Matrix film is fairly well-known. It is the story of a computer programmer named Thomas Anderson (Keanu Reeves), whose hacking pseudonym is ‘Neo,’ who meets a woman named Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss), and is introduced by her to someone known as Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) who, in turn, tells Neo that he has been living in the ‘Matrix’ – a computer programme that creates the illusion of reality but is in fact a simulation within which people are caught. In reality, people are imprisoned in pods, from where the ruling machines draw their physical energy to power the Matrix system. 

Given the choice between taking a ‘blue pill’ or a ‘red pill’ – nowadays familiar terms in common parlance – Neo chooses the latter, and is hence confronted by stark reality, instead of the illusionary comfort of the intra-cinematic Matrix. The rest of this allegorical story – allegorical because it is an unmistakable representation of what people were already experiencing in 1999 – instantiates a struggle between the forces of liberation (led by Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus) against the forces of oppression, to wit, the agents of the Matrix. 

These are literally ‘Agents,’ under the command of ‘Agent Smith,’ who is Neo’s main rival in the conflict. Today the allegorical nature of the film is far more conspicuous, in light of the encompassing surveillance network that has been established worldwide, in an ostensibly innocuous form, including (but not restricted to) smartphone connections by means of wireless cell phone towers – a veritable electronic prison – and which depends on human resources, very much like in the film. 

Hence, whether or not The Matrix was made with the dual purpose of entertaining people and simultaneously pre-programming them for what was coming is a moot question, but my vote is in the affirmative. What makes me so sure? There is a telling scene in the movie, where Neo (anagram for ‘One’) confronts the ‘Architect’ – which is the artificial intelligence centre of the programme, in human guise – and is told that he, Neo himself, is a function of the operation of the Matrix (that is, is spawned by it), and that people like Neo fulfill the important role of ‘testing’ the system so that it can improve its functioning. I may be wrong, but I believe this is the globalist cabal letting us know that, even if a formidable force such as Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus were to arise in the real world, it would only serve to make them (the neo-fascists), and their oppressive system, stronger. 

The names of characters in The Matrix are bound to evoke interest, given their quasi-religious and mythological connotations, which are puzzling because they are not all compatible. To be sure, as noted before, ‘Neo’ easily translates into ‘the One,’ identified as such in the film, supposedly the messianic person who would liberate humanity from the Matrix, and could be an allusion to any such messianic figure, including Jesus. ‘Trinity,’ on the other hand, has clear connections with Christianity’s doctrine of the Triune God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but incongruously, given Christianity’s patriarchal character, she is a woman. 

As for Morpheus, it does not appear that his name bears any association with Christianity; on the contrary, he was a messenger of the Greek gods (although sometimes referred to as a god himself) and responsible for ‘fashioning’ the dreams of mortals. Moreover, as the one who induces dreams, it would seem strange, in fact, ironic, that in the film he ‘red-pills’ people like Neo; that is, awakens them. It could be, if one reads his name metonymically – as the part representing The Matrix as a whole – that his name signals the cabal’s intention to lull viewers to sleep with the film; that is, it ‘fashions’ science-fictional dreams for us, not to be taken seriously, yet plants subliminal, fictional seeds of real future events. 

The latter metonymical interpretation of Morpheus’s name appears to be indirectly confirmed by the name of his hovercraft, the Nebuchadnezzar, which is apparently a reference to Nebuchadnezzar II, the ancient king of Babylon, who features in the Old Testament and was responsible for reconstructing the famous ‘ziggurat’ of Babylon. 

Like the mythical Morpheus, Nebuchadnezzar was therefore a ‘fashioner,’ albeit in historical reality. Significantly, as confirmed in the article linked above, he is depicted in the Old Testament as the king who opposed the God of the Israelites and therefore serves as a further clue that The Matrix is probably a camouflaged pre-programming movie, subtly informing us what will happen in the future (that is, today). 

True, it is full of contradictions in this regard; the underground city in which the ‘free’ humans reside in The Matrix, is called ‘Zion’ – a name historically attributed to the eastern of the two hills of ancient Jerusalem (although sometimes used for Jerusalem in its entirety), and therefore not compatible with the connotations attached to the name of the ship, the Nebuchadnezzar. This may just be to confuse one, of course, or it could be that the names are just a jumble of loosely connected, often semiotically clashing, terms arbitrarily decided upon.

My hunch is that it is deliberately confusing, but even if this is the case, and the film is a sophisticated instance of pre-programming, it cannot erase the seminal functioning of Neo as the motif of liberation, which works against the globalists’ intentions. 

A very interesting recent example of a movie that simultaneously pre-programmes viewers for an impending – although metaphorically disguised – mega-disaster and ambiguously satirises politicians’ and the media’s reactions to scientific indications of the increasing threat is Adam McKay’s Don’t Look Up (2021). The movie is pitched as a satire aimed at people (politicians, celebrities, the media) who downplay the potential dangers of climate change, but this is to overlook its more likely interpretation as a sophisticated, tongue-in-cheek instance of pre-programming the masses for the excess mortality disaster of the so-called Covid ‘vaccines.’ 

Not that the makers of the movie intended the latter interpretation; what they hoped for was probably a different kind of pre-programming; namely, to instill the awareness into people, that to question supposedly ‘scientifically sound Covid vaccines’ – utilising the ‘latest mRNA technology’ into the bargain – was unwise, because that would be to invite death on a large scale.

This was the point of pitching a narrative involving scientific (astronomical) evidence, which is largely ridiculed or ignored by politicians and the media, that a massive comet is on a collision course with the Earth. In the context of the film narrative, not heeding the sound scientific advice of the two ‘low-level’ astronomers (played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence) about the ‘killer comet’ hurtling towards Earth, is tantamount to humanity’s suicide. Ergo, at a subliminal level the message is that, not heeding ‘scientific’ advice to get the Covid jab – notably, Dr Fauci’s and ‘Dr’ Bill Gates’s – supposedly amounts to suicide on a colossal scale. Only…as we now know, taking the jab amounted to such large-scale suicide. 

Pity that the producers of Don’t Look Up – an ironic title, in more than one sense – overlooked the fact that, as I have indicated above, the more likely, and unavoidable, metaphorical interpretation of the movie bears on the implicit exhortation, not to ‘look up’ in the sense of not ‘waking up’ to the true intentions of those who have touted the supposed Covid ‘vaccines.’ (‘We can’t have that now, can we!’) Looking back, however, they forgot the saying about being ‘hoist with their own petard.’ Weaponising entertainment can, and sometimes does, backfire.

Source: Brownstone Institute Read the original article here: https://brownstone.org/