Nietzsche: King Among Atheists

From the passage below we see why Nietzsche is the king among atheists, and by the end of this thread we will understand why he is so-called. "the new atheism" of smuria. The passage refers to Nietzsche’s central thought: the battle of being is eternal to return the same/equal.

Nietzsche's idea of eternal restoring it is often explained as an example of "poetic opinion", or intellectual wooden iron, where one does not actually mean what is said, but we are supposed to act as if we have said exactly what is meant.

The author of the passage below, Michael Gillespie, thinks, rightly, differently: when Nietzsche says that every single moment in eternity returns, and hence has always been infinitely times and infinitely times will be, he expects to take it literally. /2
That's a different story, but I will still point out: Nietzsche understands eternity as infinite time. Here he stands in the tradition of German philosophy that is obsessed with time and history and, unlike traditional metaphysics, the eternity of thoughts from time, and not the other way around.

Why does Nietzsche think that the will cannot want to “reverse” death pain? Is it because we have an experience of "being thrown into the world" where we have to make the best of what we have been given that is not God-knowing? Or is it that every conscience is impure?

No answer of common sense can explain Nietzsche's claim on will slavery, because this writer with reason, healthy or unhealthy, tries to forgive and does so in an exemplary consistent way.

The reason Nietzsche cannot accept that will cannot “want backwards” is that then it cannot be creative will. At the same time, under creation, he thinks of something quite specific, namely no less no more than the uncreated first cause of everything that is.

"Past" or past is the weather vector of cause. If we think about causes and consequences - and otherwise, despite all modern escapades, nor can we - the cause in this relationship is always the first thing that already has to happen in order for the other to happen. First cause hence no cause.

The will is not the first cause, because it does initiate, but does not cause itself. We want that which has always been given in some way, that is real or seems to be real. The cause of the will is the purpose, and this purpose of the will can only be chosen, not created.

Whatever people think of Nietzsche, he knows very well what he wants and how to get it. Namely, he wants to open the horizon for the arrival of beings whose will is creative, i.e. the one that causes its object by itself. Such a will is, strictly sense, God's will and he knows it.

Since God allegedly "died", God's will must be carried by another being. That being, however, is not human, because he cannot bear the "deepest thought"; the thought that everything comes back and that, moreover, one must want that everything comes back. Thus the term Nietzsche calls the creature is: "superhuman".

Why a man - and still counts himself under the people of Nietzsche - cannot withstand the eternal return of it? The reason is simple: it is not easy to be God. For God, that is, everything that is the product of His own will; whoever wants to replace Him must see things equally.

He who wants to live without God must say for everything that was: "I wanted so", because only in this way can he accept the world as a whole, i.e. what is originally not his work; his will must justify the truth and beauty of everything, and not only hers and to say: "yes".

The implications of Nietzsche's thoughts are scary.

Nietzsche’s atheism accurately hits the property of God that matters most—namely, the fact that everything that is created is good by itself. All things strive to be and to maintain their survival. Hence follows the traditional attitude towards which what you strive for is good.

For Christianity, to which Nietzsche generally refers traditional ancient metaphysics, especially platonism, evil is a deprivation that manifests itself in a variety of ways: decay, disease, weakness, lie and, finally, death. The cause of evil, on a cosmic level, is the original sin.

Christian teaching about original sin not only negates the reality of good after a fall - it, on the contrary, measures all the horror of the human situation precisely on the basis of the abundance of good that exists concurrently with the abundance of evil. The greater the good, the more horrific his inconsiderate fall into evil.

In the light of learning about the Fall, the fact that one man can live life in the greatest happiness imaginable is only a measure of the amount of evil experienced by the one who lives his life in the greatest misfortune imaginable. The death of one man is the death of all men. Nietzsche is perfectly aware of this.

His atheism is creepy - far creepy than the structured, but extremely superficial, posthumanistic fantasies - so he wants to say to this exact state: "Yes" and add: "I wanted it so." Nietzsche's superhuman must accept responsibility for good and evil as a whole.

A Nietzschean atheist lovingly accepts the goodness and beauty of the moment a child is born as well as the next moment when the same child is strangled by his own mother. In order to make sense first, he has to say to the other: "Yes".

When Dawkins' "new atheist" guy says, "There probably is no God, so quit worrying and enjoy your life," Nietzsche means a consistent conclusion. However, being an infantile cunt, he chooses not to pull it. Well, never mind. Conclusions eventually pull themselves out.

Nietzsche’s atheism is consistent; he knows that the death of God implies the taking of God’s qualities, and these qualities are not primary, as it is often thought, immortality and boundless power, but the distinction between good and evil, and the ability to redeem good from evil.

Within a world where everything is eternally coming back, redemption is the acceptance and equalization of good and evil through the decision to both "want to". As the will tends to the future, and the future has been there infinitely many times, Nietzsche sees it as a consistent conclusion, and as the only consistent one. And she is right.

But Nietzsche's conclusion is also the basis of all forms of modern atheism, but not everyone dares to drag it to the end. Because of this, if he were alive, he would see today's regal atheists as nihilistic beans, which they are. He is interested in the dominance of nihilism.

To overcome nihilism in a world without God means to give value to everything by your own will where good and evil are said in the same way and at the same time: "yes". In this sense, superhuman is the new, earthly god who stands on the side of good and evil, and Nietzsche is his John the Baptist.

Modern "facts & logic" atheists are, from a Nietzschean perspective, consumerist-type nihilists, who just want to eat, drink, have sex and put up pictures of their underage replicas on Instagram. For Nietzsche, even the cockroach would have more relevance than them.

But those "last people" should not be neglected, whose appearance and mass were consistently predicted by Nietzsche. The measure of a superhuman is exactly such a subhuman. Namely, the tradition to which Nietzsche belongs allowed his ideas in a way that he removed the measure by which once measured man.

That measure was a second person of the Holy Trinity. German philosophy 19. St. was acutely aware that Europe already has a paradigm of man in God. A new age, and henceforth a new man, could come only if this paradigm was "deconstructed".

That is why "criticism of religion" is a presumption of any other criticism; Christ must be reduced first to an idea, which once gave center and meaning to everything, and then to the projection of man's own qualities and, finally, to nothing. Only then is it possible to talk about superhuman and subhuman.

A superhuman is the measure of everything in a world without God, the only question is, what superhuman exactly? Nietzsche thought he had found the right one, and it’s hard to disagree with him: he is the one who without fear accepts the eternal return of it.

According to Nietzsceh’s criteria, man as man is not fit for atheism; to have the experience of the death of God and at the same time deciding to take His responsibility for everything that is, is a step into insanity.

"New Atheism" is corn flakes for "the last men". In this sense, the mediation is nihilism for those who want to consume the world without God, but not take responsibility for it. By the way, it's fun to watch how a conclusion that they can't draw, pulls itself.

For example, LGBTIQ techno posthumanism grows and feeds on humus made by new atheists and similar to them, and yet they are so systematically unaware of their own responsibility, that they manage to convince themselves how to oppose it.

Every form of modern nihilism is an attempt for equalization. Nietzsche's superhuman avoids this, assuming the role of God "whose sun rises on both good and evil". "Last men" are trying to bypass good and evil by indifference to the autonomous choice of an individual.

Of course, allowing everyone to do what they want, while harming others has no positive moral content, so there the hierarchy of good and evil is seemingly suspended. However, the perception is quickly lost when it is shown that there is no morally neutral political choice.

LGBTIQ is a form of nihilism of great ambitions that parasites liberal utopia and finally destroys it, when it's no longer needed. The scene is morbidly entertaining, and I can only imagine what Nietzsche's comment on the birth of a "freak" would be like as a measure of humanity.

Of course, I wouldn't want the reader to think that I've neglected the basis of Nietzsche's "misosophy", namely: his insanity. I just want to point out that this madness is what he consistently brought to the conclusion and that every modern atheist should follow him in this.

Unfortunately, modern nihilism prefers euthanasia over acceptance of responsibility. Instead of superhuman, a head full of atoms and emptiness.

- Croatian Philosopher Branko Malic

Jesus Christ: The Rebel

Most people miss the notion because of his association in the modernist mindset with “organized religion,” but Jesus Christ was nothing but the ideal rebel of his time. He lived as a minimalist during his ministry years, picked the common man as his leadership, chose to socialize with the downtrodden and outcasts of society, elevated the status of women, while also challenging the exploitive “capitalists” and corrupt “priest class” of his time.....

The Ideological Bias Against Catholicism

It is unfortunate to observe the bias that exists in “Truther” or “Anti-Establishment” circles against Catholicism. Truthers are largely ignorant of the historical value of Catholic social teachings or the role the Church played in resisting occult ideologues. The Church did eventually compromise and succumb to the occult influences with time, but historically they were the original bane of the secret societies. It even appears that in a large portion of conspiratorial media/literature that the history has been revised to picture the Roman Catholic Church has the chief infiltrator instead of being the chiefly infiltrated. I think Truthers would benefit from a reading of Michael A. Hoffman’s Secret Societies & Psychological Warfare to put all this in proper perspective.

Rock Music’s Declining Status And Its Subversive Nature

Is it just me, or has the status of Rock Music really taken a gradual dive over the last say 20 some odd years? I haven’t been exposed to the full arena of rock music out there today, so I can’t really have an overarching opinion as to its overall quality. But even in the general conversation of what is considered popular music today it seems rock is conspicuously absent. I feel like it doesn’t even really get mentioned anymore... Anyone else notice this trend?


My second observation would be the understanding of Rock N Roll Music (and by extension the majority of modern popular music it brought with it) as an inherently subversive medium. And I don’t mean just subversive on a social level as various social critics and religious fundamentalists have always painted it. I’m more interested in its effects on a psycho/spiritual level.

Some of my favorite commentators in the realm of anti-establishment thought have implied that their various “paradigm shifts” were seeded by an attraction to rock music and the like. I myself shared this experience and have come to believe that in some cases attraction to the subversive nature of modern music can trigger or work in tandem with developing critical observations about the wider world. This obviously doesn’t mean everyone goes down this route. “Youthful rebelliousness” can take on a variety of expressions as the old adage of “Sex, Drugs, and Rock N Roll” implies.

Students of “deep political” research would also observe that the establishment appeared to manufacture a subversive movement or movements with the counterculture which accompanied the rise of Rock music. Has anyone else ever wondered why modern music has failed to fully capture its subversive capabilities since that time? Did the establishment realize the potentially dangerous strength of music intwined social movements? Were they frightened by the influence of figures like John Lennon?

Anyone who thinks I could possibly be on to something here, might be more fully immersed in the subject by diving into Alex Constantine’s book The Covert War Against Rock or for a wider picture, the audiobook of the same name done by Josh Reeves. Reeves is also producing Spellcasters Volume 2 - a film that will outline and expose many of the intrigues within the music industry over the years.

The Veil of Materialism

By Phillip D. Collins

As the mists of antiquity gradually receded and history welcomed modernity, the old theocratic power structures were gradually supplanted by secular theocracies governed by science. No doubt, the chronocentric impulses of the contemporary mind compel many to consider this shift an advancement in “political, social, and cultural evolution.” However, although these new theocracies are veiled in secularism, it must be understood that their new state-sanctioned epistemology is a form of mysticism akin to its religious progenitor. This truth is illustrated by radical empiricism’s rejection of causality, which stipulates the investment of faith in the purported results of scientific research. Likewise, the new state-sanctioned metaphysics is equally mystical in character. Accompanying radical empiricism is materialism, the metaphysical contention that matter holds primacy.

Naturalism works in tandem with materialism because it attempts to sustain the primacy of matter with the metaphysical claim of “self-creation” (i.e., abiogenesis). Of course, this claim suggests that living and dead matter are inseparable. Thus, living things are literally artificial entities that create themselves, an occult theme communicated through the Kabalistic myth of the golem. In a universe where materialistic metaphysics hold sway, the biosphere and the life it supports amount to one enormous golem. Accompanying this contention is the Gnostic doctrine of “self-salvation.” If humanity is a god that created itself, then it is also responsible for its own salvation. Given these strange confluences of occult thought, materialism qualifies as little more than a new secular mysticism.

Not surprisingly, materialistic metaphysics pervade the fabric of many occult institutions. Even the acknowledgement of supra-sensible and incorporeal entities cannot hide the occultist’s materialistic propensities. In fact, such propensities may have given rise to the occultist’s mystical beliefs in the first place. Guenon explains:

Without seeking for the moment to determine more precisely the nature and quality of the supra-sensible, in so far as it is actually involved in this matter, it will be useful to observe how far the very people who still admit it and think that they are aware of its action are in reality penetrated by materialistic influence: for even if they do not deny all extra-corporeal reality, like the majority of their contemporaries, it is only because they have formed for themselves an idea of it which enables them in some way to assimilate it to the likeness of sensible things, and to do that is certainly scarcely better than to deny it. There is no reason to be surprised at this, considering the extent to which all the occultist, theosophist, and other schools of that sort are fond of searching assiduously for points of approach to modern scientific theories, from which they draw their inspiration more directly than they are prepared to admit; the result is what might logically be expected under such conditions. (153-54)

In this sense, materialism acts as a veil. The fact is that, although the occult theocracy of antiquity declined in power, it is still very much alive. It perpetuates itself through secularism. As sociologist William Sims Bainbridge makes clear, secularization actually represents the opening stage of an occult counterculture movement:

Secularization does not mean a decline in the need for religion, but only a loss of power by traditional denominations. Studies of the geography of religion show that where the churches become weak, cults and occultism explode to fill the spiritual vacuum. (“Religions for a Galactic Civilization”)

Thus, the thoroughly secularized society merely presages the emergence of a new theocratic order. The new ecclesiastical authority shall be occult in character, embracing what Guenon calls “neo-spiritualism” (155). The galvanizing mythology of this new theocratic order will most likely reflect the paradigmatic character of the Gnostic cosmology, depicting humanity as a collection of pluralities awaiting unification into a singularity through the sorcery of “science.” As for the dominant religion, it will be Luciferianism, which was initially disseminated on the popular level as secular humanism. This is [the] anatomy of the emergent “Satanic state.”

In addition to facilitating the rise of a new occult theocracy, materialism has also contributed to the enormous volumes of bloodshed witnessed by the 20th century. Arguably, contemporary regimes premised upon dialectical materialism have murdered far more people than any traditional theocracy premised upon a theistic faith. This is directly attributable to materialism’s emphasis upon the primacy of matter. Materialistic metaphysics preclude the spirit, confining moral questions to the ontological plane of the physical universe. Severed from their ontological source, moral principles become tantamount to material phenomena. Thus, in a universe where materialism holds sway, it is reasonable to assume that evil is a purely corporeal entity that can be physically expunged. The ramifications of such an outlook are disturbing. In the article “What Evil Is and Why It Matters,” Christian philosopher John Paul Jones reveals the consequences of this Weltanschauung:

According to this [materialist] methodology, all we need do is find the material cause of evil and destroy it. After, all, since materialists assume all causes are material, they are logically obliged and conceptually predisposed to assume that evil is itself caused by material, physically destructible things or causes. (64)

The outgrowth of this paradigm is what Jones calls the “search and destroy” approach to dealing with evil (64). Jones expands on this approach:

Consequently, those of a materialist mindset, whether Christian or otherwise, are constantly engaged in campaigns to destroy the evil things or people they think are at the root of the problem. So we have, for example, the “war on drugs,” the “war on guns,” the “class war” and various genocides–all of which are known to cause more evil than they allegedly uproot, and today, as we witness the spread of eco-fascism in Europe that holds that we can solve the reputed environmental crisis by simply exterminating many millions of people, we also witness the approval of Chinese population control techniques, such as state-sanctioned abortion, infanticide, and forced sterilization. Strange fruits and bad apples, all. (64)

After years of war and waste, the materialist state is still incapable of expunging evil. This failure is directly attributable to materialism’s misappropriation of matter as the totality of reality. In light of this metaphysical error, one is still left to ponder the source of evil. Yet, Biblical wisdom, which the materialist thoroughly rejects, may have already answered the question of evil. James 4:1-10 states:

From whence come wars and fighting among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust and have not; ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain; ye fight and war, yet have not, because ye ask not. ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God? Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, the Spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep; let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

Of course, such a conclusion is unthinkable to the materialist. It is interesting that Charles Fort believed:

that man deliberately invented the dogma of materialism in order to shield himself from the evidence of what was being done to him by means of psycho-spiritual warfare methods hyped by “coincidence,” symbolism and ritual. (Hoffman 68)

A metaphysical smoke screen currently obstructs humanity’s view of the spiritual principles upon which so many of the world’s dilemmas rest. It is the veil of materialism.

Sources Cited:

Bainbridge, William Sims. “Religions for a Galactic Civilization.” Excerpted from Science Fiction and Space Futures, edited by Eugene M. Emme. San Diego: American Astronautical Society, pages 187-201, 1982.

Guenon, Rene. The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times. Trans. Lord Northbourne. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books Inc, 1953.

Hoffman, Michael. Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare. Coeur d’Alene, Idaho: Independent History & Research, 2001.

Jones, John Paul. “What Evil Is and Why It Matters.” Paranoia Magazine Issue 33 (2003): 62-64.

Classical Nihilism

By Daniel Spaulding

It’s a common refrain among self-described conservatives and libertarians in America that both the modern bureaucratic managerial state and mass culture have veered wildly out of control, headed in an ever increasing totalitarian direction, and must some how be reined in. Their prescription is almost always a return to the Constitution, along with the supposed values of the Founding Fathers, and some form of classical liberalism; as one constitutionalist slogan declares, the answer to 1984 is 1776. What is often absent from sloganeering is any meaningful analysis of how society developed from the original republic to the current oligarchic, Leviathan surveillance state.

Certainly assorted bogeyman figures and political movements are blamed in passing (just think back to Glenn Beck’s schizophrenic chalk board scribblings), but very few mainline conservatives and libertarians would dare entertain the notion that classical liberalism, which the American Constitution is an expression of, may itself be the mother of all the problems they now bemoan. Or to put it another way, either the Constitution is inherently too weak to stop its increasing irrelevance and the expansion of the Leviathan state, or totalitarianism is the natural, if not entirely foreseeable, progression of the original constitutional order.

One American, the Orthodox monk Fr. Seraphim Rose (1934-1982), was willing to entertain such notions, and boldly exposed classical liberalism as the first stage of unfolding revolutionary nihilism in his careful and prophetic study of the nihilistic dialectic. Through Rose’s clear-eyed vision, liberalism has always been a faulty compromise between traditional authority and what he called the Revolution, that is the drive to uproot and overthrow traditional authority:

The Liberal view of government, as one might suspect, is an attempt at compromise between these two irreconcilable ideas. In the nineteenth century this compromise took the form of “constitutional monarchies,” an attempt-again-to wed an old form to a new content; today the chief representatives of the Liberal idea are the “republics” and “democracies” of Western Europe and America, most of which preserve a rather precarious balance between the forces of authority and Revolution, while professing to believe in both.

Yet such a mixture is unnatural and ultimately one element must give way to the other. As Rose noted, the Revolution “cannot be stopped halfway, it is a force that, once awakened, will not rest until its ends in a totalitarian Kingdom of this world.” That is to say, returned an earlier mentioned slogan, 1984 was conceived in the womb of 1776. So in the end, as the Italian traditionalist Julius Evola observed, similar to Fr. Seraphim Rose, in his Men Among the Ruins,

“The beginning of the disintegration of the traditional sociopolitical structures, or at least whatever was left of them in Europe, occurred through liberalism.”

Why must this be so? According to Fr. Rose, this is because the Old Order was “founded on absolute truth,”

“...wherein sovereignty was vested in a Monarch, and authority proceeded from him downwards through a hierarchical social structure.”

Liberalism, on the other hand, as an outgrowth of Renaissance humanism, places sovereignty in the hands of “the people” and authority is seen as “proceeding from below upwards.” It is not grounded in anything transcendent, even if it did in its infancy utilize the Christian vocabulary of that era.

In the American political arena, many conservatives and libertarians, in addition to their idolatry of the Constitution, often chant the mantra of “We, the People,” while they, supposedly, are the true bearers of the will of “the people.” Such a claim is all quite ludicrous, as atomized, multicultural America no longer has anything that could even remotely pass as a homogenous population – there is no People. The American Empire is a hodgepodge of increasingly polarized, balkanized, and alienated racial, ethnic, and other sectarian groups. But even beyond that, the very concept of popular sovereignty is the root of the problem. After all, every totalitarian party, be it the Bolsheviks or the National Socialists, claimed to rule under the mantle of the will of the people, and the notion that the vulgar masses are especially wise or good has not been born out by history. If anything, quite the opposite seems to be the case.

So to return to the “spirit of 1776” is not the return of some lost golden age of constitutional justice, but rather a mad attempt to play out the entire fiasco all over again. The answer to the later stages of the nihilistic dialectic, careening in our age toward total destruction, is not solved by a return to one of the early stages, the nihilism of liberalism.

How’s that Constitution working out for you?

Globalism and Prejudicial Conspiracy Theories

The “New World Order” is an idea. It exists apart from any one elite dynasty, political movement, secret society, or bureaucratic organization. Both the notions of a “Jewish Conspiracy” and a “Catholic Conspiracy” are based on prejudicial world views that use either or as a scapegoat.

Fascism was and remains largely a controlled opposition movement. The far-right helps to empower the Zionist elite by fostering notions of a “Jewish Conspiracy.”

Similarly, the notion of a “Catholic Conspiracy” finds weight only in the far-right “Patriot Movement” as such has usually been associated with fringe Protestant movements and the odd allies they have in New Age Conspiracism. Like fascism, “Catholic Conspiracies” usually incorporate a large amount of prejudicial historical revisionism.

The Catholic Church presented some resistance to occult movements and Protestant liberalism in the West, so the Church was chiefly targeted for infiltration. The Vatican has been hijacked as vehicle of globalism, but that doesn’t mean that the Vatican itself is where the conspiracy originates.

Both conspiracy theories can be discerned as bunk largely by identifying how they misrepresent the historical Bavarian Illuminati. The “Jewish Conspiracy” advocates present the Illuminati as a Rothschild front and the “Catholic Conspiracy” advocates present it as a Jesuit front. Both ideas are erroneous. There are no historical facts connecting the Illuminati to Rothschild interests in Europe and while the Illuminati adopted the methodology of the Jesuit secret society, they were very much opposed to religion and Catholic power.

If we base our opposition to the conspiracy around bigotry and hate we are playing their game. We can become marginalized as a movement and also really miss the bigger picture at play. We should oppose globalist elitism on all fronts and not just scapegoat one “people group.”

For further elaboration, see the Articles below...

Article: Zionists’ Best Friends: Patriots, White Supremacists and Libertarians
Link: 👇
http://www.conspiracyschool.com/blog/zionists’-best-friends-patriots-white-supremacists-and-libertarians

Article: Illuminati Conspiracy Part Two: Sniffing out Jesuits
Link: 👇
https://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2015/02/08/illuminati-conspiracy-part-two-sniffing-out-jesuits/

They Live, We Sleep: Beware the Growing Evil in Our Midst

By John W. Whitehead

“You see them on the street. You watch them on TV. You might even vote for one this fall. You think they’re people just like you. You’re wrong. Dead wrong.” — They Live

We’re living in two worlds, you and I.

There’s the world we see (or are made to see) and then there’s the one we sense (and occasionally catch a glimpse of), the latter of which is a far cry from the propaganda-driven reality manufactured by the government and its corporate sponsors, including the media.

Indeed, what most Americans perceive as life in America—privileged, progressive and free—is a far cry from reality, where economic inequality is growing, real agendas and real power are buried beneath layers of Orwellian doublespeak and corporate obfuscation, and “freedom,” such that it is, is meted out in small, legalistic doses by militarized police armed to the teeth.

All is not as it seems.

This is the premise of John Carpenter’s film They Live, which was released more than 30 years ago, and remains unnervingly, chillingly appropriate for our modern age.

Best known for his horror film Halloween, which assumes that there is a form of evil so dark that it can’t be killed, Carpenter’s larger body of work is infused with a strong anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment, laconic bent that speaks to the filmmaker’s concerns about the unraveling of our society, particularly our government.

Time and again, Carpenter portrays the government working against its own citizens, a populace out of touch with reality, technology run amok, and a future more horrific than any horror film.

In Escape from New York, Carpenter presents fascism as the future of America.

In The Thing, a remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic of the same name, Carpenter presupposes that increasingly we are all becoming dehumanized.

In Christine, the film adaptation of Stephen King’s novel about a demon-possessed car, technology exhibits a will and consciousness of its own and goes on a murderous rampage.

In In the Mouth of Madness, Carpenter notes that evil grows when people lose “the ability to know the difference between reality and fantasy.”

And then there is Carpenter’s They Live, in which two migrant workers discover that the world is not as it seems. In fact, the population is actually being controlled and exploited by aliens working in partnership with an oligarchic elite. All the while, the populace—blissfully unaware of the real agenda at work in their lives—has been lulled into complacency, indoctrinated into compliance, bombarded with media distractions, and hypnotized by subliminal messages beamed out of television and various electronic devices, billboards and the like.

It is only when homeless drifter John Nada (played to the hilt by the late Roddy Piper) discovers a pair of doctored sunglasses—Hoffman lenses—that Nada sees what lies beneath the elite’s fabricated reality: control and bondage.

When viewed through the lens of truth, the elite, who appear human until stripped of their disguises, are shown to be monsters who have enslaved the citizenry in order to prey on them.

Likewise, billboards blare out hidden, authoritative messages: a bikini-clad woman in one ad is actually ordering viewers to “MARRY AND REPRODUCE.” Magazine racks scream “CONSUME” and “OBEY.” A wad of dollar bills in a vendor’s hand proclaims, “THIS IS YOUR GOD.”

When viewed through Nada’s Hoffman lenses, some of the other hidden messages being drummed into the people’s subconscious include: NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT, CONFORM, SUBMIT, STAY ASLEEP, BUY, WATCH TV, NO IMAGINATION, and DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.

This indoctrination campaign engineered by the elite in They Live is painfully familiar to anyone who has studied the decline of American culture.

A citizenry that does not think for themselves, obeys without question, is submissive, does not challenge authority, does not think outside the box, and is content to sit back and be entertained is a citizenry that can be easily controlled.

In this way, the subtle message of They Live provides an apt analogy of our own distorted vision of life in the American police state, what philosopher Slavoj Žižek refers to as dictatorship in democracy, “the invisible order which sustains your apparent freedom.”

We’re being fed a series of carefully contrived fictions that bear no resemblance to reality.

The powers-that-be want us to feel threatened by forces beyond our control (terrorists, shooters, bombers).

They want us afraid and dependent on the government and its militarized armies for our safety and well-being.

They want us distrustful of each other, divided by our prejudices, and at each other’s throats.

Most of all, they want us to continue to march in lockstep with their dictates.

Tune out the government’s attempts to distract, divert and befuddle us and tune into what’s really going on in this country, and you’ll run headlong into an unmistakable, unpalatable truth: the moneyed elite who rule us view us as expendable resources to be used, abused and discarded.

In fact, a study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens. Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups.

In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism—a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled.

Not only do you have to be rich—or beholden to the rich—to get elected these days, but getting elected is also a surefire way to get rich. As CBS News reports, “Once in office, members of Congress enjoy access to connections and information they can use to increase their wealth, in ways that are unparalleled in the private sector. And once politicians leave office, their connections allow them to profit even further.”

In denouncing this blatant corruption of America’s political system, former president Jimmy Carter blasted the process of getting elected—to the White House, governor’s mansion, Congress or state legislatures—as “unlimited political bribery… a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over.”

Rest assured that when and if fascism finally takes hold in America, the basic forms of government will remain: Fascism will appear to be friendly. The legislators will be in session. There will be elections, and the news media will continue to cover the entertainment and political trivia. Consent of the governed, however, will no longer apply. Actual control will have finally passed to the oligarchic elite controlling the government behind the scenes.

Sound familiar?

Clearly, we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests.

We have moved into “corporatism” (favored by Benito Mussolini), which is a halfway point on the road to full-blown fascism.

Corporatism is where the few moneyed interests—not elected by the citizenry—rule over the many. In this way, it is not a democracy or a republican form of government, which is what the American government was established to be. It is a top-down form of government and one which has a terrifying history typified by the developments that occurred in totalitarian regimes of the past: police states where everyone is watched and spied on, rounded up for minor infractions by government agents, placed under police control, and placed in detention (a.k.a. concentration) camps.

For the final hammer of fascism to fall, it will require the most crucial ingredient: the majority of the people will have to agree that it’s not only expedient but necessary.

But why would a people agree to such an oppressive regime?

The answer is the same in every age: fear.

Fear makes people stupid.

Fear is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government. And, as most social commentators recognize, an atmosphere of fear permeates modern America: fear of terrorism, fear of the police, fear of our neighbors and so on.

The propaganda of fear has been used quite effectively by those who want to gain control, and it is working on the American populace.

Despite the fact that we are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack; 11,000 times more likely to die from an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane; 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a terrorist attack, and 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist , we have handed over control of our lives to government officials who treat us as a means to an end—the source of money and power.

As the Bearded Man in They Live warns, “They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery.”

In this regard, we’re not so different from the oppressed citizens in They Live.

From the moment we are born until we die, we are indoctrinated into believing that those who rule us do it for our own good. The truth is far different.

Despite the truth staring us in the face, we have allowed ourselves to become fearful, controlled, pacified zombies.

We live in a perpetual state of denial, insulated from the painful reality of the American police state by wall-to-wall entertainment news and screen devices.

Most everyone keeps their heads down these days while staring zombie-like into an electronic screen, even when they’re crossing the street. Families sit in restaurants with their heads down, separated by their screen devices and unaware of what’s going on around them. Young people especially seem dominated by the devices they hold in their hands, oblivious to the fact that they can simply push a button, turn the thing off and walk away.

Indeed, there is no larger group activity than that connected with those who watch screens—that is, television, lap tops, personal computers, cell phones and so on. In fact, a Nielsen study reports that American screen viewing is at an all-time high. For example, the average American watches approximately 151 hours of television per month.

The question, of course, is what effect does such screen consumption have on one’s mind?

Psychologically it is similar to drug addiction. Researchers found that “almost immediately after turning on the TV, subjects reported feeling more relaxed, and because this occurs so quickly and the tension returns so rapidly after the TV is turned off, people are conditioned to associate TV viewing with a lack of tension.” Research also shows that regardless of the programming, viewers’ brain waves slow down, thus transforming them into a more passive, nonresistant state.

Historically, television has been used by those in authority to quiet discontent and pacify disruptive people. “Faced with severe overcrowding and limited budgets for rehabilitation and counseling, more and more prison officials are using TV to keep inmates quiet,” according to Newsweek.

Given that the majority of what Americans watch on television is provided through channels controlled by six mega corporations, what we watch is now controlled by a corporate elite and, if that elite needs to foster a particular viewpoint or pacify its viewers, it can do so on a large scale.

If we’re watching, we’re not doing.

The powers-that-be understand this. As television journalist Edward R. Murrow warned in a 1958 speech:

We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

This brings me back to They Live, in which the real zombies are not the aliens calling the shots but the populace who are content to remain controlled.

When all is said and done, the world of They Live is not so different from our own. As one of the characters points out, “The poor and the underclass are growing. Racial justice and human rights are nonexistent. They have created a repressive society and we are their unwitting accomplices. Their intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness. We have been lulled into a trance. They have made us indifferent to ourselves, to others. We are focused only on our own gain.”

We, too, are focused only on our own pleasures, prejudices and gains. Our poor and underclasses are also growing. Racial injustice is growing. Human rights is nearly nonexistent. We too have been lulled into a trance, indifferent to others.

Oblivious to what lies ahead, we’ve been manipulated into believing that if we continue to consume, obey, and have faith, things will work out. But that’s never been true of emerging regimes. And by the time we feel the hammer coming down upon us, it will be too late.

So where does that leave us?

The characters who populate Carpenter’s films provide some insight.

Underneath their machismo, they still believe in the ideals of liberty and equal opportunity. Their beliefs place them in constant opposition with the law and the establishment, but they are nonetheless freedom fighters.

When, for example, John Nada destroys the alien hyno-transmitter in They Live, he restores hope by delivering America a wake-up call for freedom.

That’s the key right there: we need to wake up.

Stop allowing yourselves to be easily distracted by pointless political spectacles and pay attention to what’s really going on in the country.

The real battle for control of this nation is not being waged between Republicans and Democrats in the ballot box.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the real battle for control of this nation is taking place on roadsides, in police cars, on witness stands, over phone lines, in government offices, in corporate offices, in public school hallways and classrooms, in parks and city council meetings, and in towns and cities across this country.

The real battle between freedom and tyranny is taking place right in front of our eyes, if we would only open them.

All the trappings of the American police state are now in plain sight.

Wake up, America.

If they live (the tyrants, the oppressors, the invaders, the overlords), it is only because “we the people” sleep.

Originally published by The Rutherford Institute

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His book Battlefield America: The War on the American People is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © John W. Whitehead, Global Research, 2019

Thoughts On Religion & Love

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

"Know them by their fruits," Jesus said.

I'm not interested in the dogma. I judge a "faith" by the people who espouse it. Are they good, industrious and honest? Are they happy and generous? Do they have strong marriages and families? Do they care about others? Are they independent? Do they enjoy life? Are they interesting or boring?

A man's religion is his day. How does he spend it? Where are his thoughts? Where does he devote his energy?

On this basis ,I would not recommend myself. My concerns are too mundane. Like most people, I try to wring my happiness from the world. Recognition here. Book sales there. You know what I mean.

At least, I'm not on Facebook or Twitter, waiting for someone to "friend" me or write on my wall. We need to shut out the world and enjoy ourselves, our family and close friends. We can't make our happiness dependent on the progress of mankind, which is headed in the wrong direction.

ATHEISTS

I get a kick from atheists and agnostics who reject God. That's like saying they don't believe in oxygen. They have this storybook image of God and they can see through it.

These atheists have a strong sense of Absolute Truth, Goodness and Justice. What do they think God is? "God is a Spirit and we must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth," (John 4:24) "Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," (Mathew 5:48)

Atheists blame God for evil. Man was put here to fulfill God's purpose, as His agent. If we fail, we have only ourselves to blame.

How do we know that God exists? How do we know that food exists? We get hungry. We have souls as well as stomachs. Our souls crave Perfection. Deny our spiritual needs (i.e. Divine Purpose, Truth, Beauty, Order, Justice and Love), and we die inwardly. (Look around.)

A religion satisfies our hunger for Love, Order and Purpose. I don't care what the particular storyline is any more than I care if I have spaghetti or salmon for supper. The religion satisfies the spiritual hunger. It makes us better, happier, stronger. It helps us sleep at night and face the new day.

Don't kid yourself. Everyone has a God. Power. Money. Sex or God. Some religions work better than others. Let's look at what creates the best people, what is truest and has not been subverted.

Society seems to suffer from a collective autism, Asperger Syndrome. I am amazed at the number of people who are unable to consider the wishes or basic interests of the person they are talking to or dealing with. They seem so starved for love and attention that they inflict themselves on other people or use them. Considering others is the first baby step of spiritual evolution.

Society seems fixated on physical perfection and oblivious to moral perfection, and to style, charm, humor and refined behavior.

SURROGATE RELIGION

God is Love. The surrogate religion of modern society is romantic love. Sex is the holy sacrament. How many songs and movies are devoted to this bogus religion? We are obsessed with romantic love because we dont have Divine love. That is because we don't serve God (i.e. spiritual ideals.)

Religio-- to go within. To know and obey God.

We are all in love with Perfection: God. But we sublimate it to other people. Very few people are perfect and worthy of this "love." We get disappointed and break up. Mature love is really based on mutual dependence not idealization. Idealization weakens and makes you vulnerable. You become love's slave.

Young people have been psychologically neutered and have trouble finding mates. Males and females are too much alike. They are friends. Friends come and go.

Marriage requires an act of love (i.e. sacrifice) from a woman. She gives a man her power because she loves (trusts her life to) him. He responds by giving her his power in the form of love and protection. Marriage is the foundation of the family.

Young women have been re-engineered to distrust men, and seek power ( deceptively called "equality" ) not male love. Thus they cannot bond permanently. Young women pawn their ephemeral beauty without demanding and getting love and security in return. Many will miss their opportunity.

We condemn the "loveless marriage." Playing a role and honoring commitment have received a bad rap. At least they don't depend on what side of the bed you got up on, or who struck your fancy on the way to work.

September 11th and the New Atheist Movement

Taking a break from the conspiratorial angle, Chad Davidson comments on how 9/11 was used to promote the New Atheist movement in the new millennium. 👇

September 11, Evil, and the Gospel by Chad Davidson

On September 11, 2001, thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. To date, this tragedy is reported to have the greatest loss of police and firefighters in our country’s history. With almost 3,000 people passing away from the events that occurred, it is most certainly a memory that will be burned into the minds of those who were cognitive enough to understand what was happening on that day. Whether you believe that this was a wicked act carried out by our government, or that Osama Bin Laden helped to orchestrate this sinister plot, we know that ultimately it was guided by a spiritual force that is not flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12).

Sadly, many atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris decided after these attacks that they were going to begin an evangelistic effort to turn people away from God and steer them into atheism. They used this tragic event to help advocate for a “New Atheism” which would challenge religion, agreeing that “religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.” (Source) New Atheist, Victor J. Stenger, would go as far as saying, “Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.” (Victor J. Stenger, The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, Prometheus, 2009)

However, we need to ask ourselves this question: was it religion that made those men fly those planes into those buildings? Actually no, it was SIN. The same sin that sent those men flying planes into buildings is the same sin that moved Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Lenin to kill millions upon millions of people. The sin committed by these men is actually the second of the Ten Commandments, which commands us not to fashion a god that will fit our own liking (Exodus 20:4). Every one of these leaders (we would include Muhammed as well) created a god that fit their own image. Whether atheist or otherwise, man will typically worship anything other than the one true God. If we look to Romans 1 on the subject, we find that their rejection of God has nothing to do with the evidence provided. It is made evident within them, but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-19).

These men would rather have their sin than their Savior “and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man” (Romans 1:23). When we look back on this date, remembering those who were lost, let us also remember that roughly 150,000 people die on a daily basis. What are we doing to make sure they know our Lord and Savior before they die? Do not let an atheist do more evangelism than you! Let us do as Jesus commanded:

Mark 16:15
“Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”

For more on the New Atheist movement, see this edition of the Our Interesting Times radio broadcast with host Tim Kelly and historian E. Michael Jones where they discuss the topic at length. 👇

E. Michael Jones on the Rise & Fall of New Atheism 👇