Degeneracy · Democracy · Subversion

Subversive Messaging in Fight Club

It is quite interesting how many great movies were released in the late 1990s. I do not think that this has much to do with my age as people as well as critics of various generations have praised movies like American Beauty, The Matrix, Fight Club, or The Truman Show. Perhaps one could add Eyes Wide Shut to the list, but Scorsese has produced great movies all throughout their career whereas the aforementioned movies were arguably the high points in the career of their respective directors. Yet, as you age and become more educated, you tend to view products you enjoyed or thought were valuable for your personal development in a much different light.

As I rewatched Fight Club, the main message of the movie was just as powerful to me as it had been two decades prior. As a youngling, though, I found the soundtrack more riveting and somehow considered the Jewish actress Helena Bonham Carter in this movie very attractive. This is what VHS video quality does to you because in HD she looks like a total crack whore, similar to how porn starts of yore look better in SD. What also surprised me was the amount of subversive elements I noticed in this movie, none of which made it better. Arguably, the inclusion of these elements made it worse, and they also limited the commercial appeal. Similar to how interracial and bisexual porn gets produced even though it is not commercially viable, because some people in the background want this garbage to be produced, so did the men behind the curtain add elements to Fight Club that did not make it a better movie and limited its reach.

There are several elements in Fight Club that add absolutely nothing to the movie:
– Excessive violence at a shock factor hitherto not seen in a mainstream release. This includes a gruesome detailed shot of an attempted suicide with a gun.
– Full frontal female nudity that adds nothing to the story
– Full frontal male nudity, with a penis in the center, as some kind of “joke”
– The movie making fun of Catholicism

The first three points are pretty self-explanatory. On the other hand, the movie’s very negative depiction of Catholicism as a joke is something that may completely fly by you if you to not want to look behind the surface. The context is that the main protagonist gives his acolytes the homework task to start a fight with a random person. As the narrator, he tells you that this is a lot harder than it sounds. For some strange reason, a priest, recognizable by his attire, is depicted as having pent up aggression. The guy is scrawny, yet, upon having been sprayed on with water, quickly loses his composure and hits first. He drops the Bible, just so that it ends up in a spot where it gets hosed.

It surely is a complete coincidence that the aforementioned scene made it into the movie. After all, it added nothing to the story. Probably it slipped past quality control. It is absolutely inconceivable that it was included upon the insistence of some shadowy figures, after all. The same is true for the absolutely disgusting levels of violence in this movie. People were just asleep. It had nothing to do with wanting to push any boundaries. Surely, instead of a priest, we could just as well have seen a rabbi with a torah in that scene, right?

Who am I kidding? Movies are used for pushing an agenda, and this happens across all genres and budget levels. Fight Club was used by social engineers to push excessive violence, trying to normalize it, and the supposedly humorous inclusion of a cock smack in the center of the screen for a second or two serves the same purpose. I cannot even remember having been exposed to naked male genitalia in any mainstream movie release before, but there is a first time for everything, right? This is clearly progress for the progressive agenda.

Fast forward two decades, and gratuitous violence does not cut it anymore. The current frontier is the sexualization of children. You can probably write a history of Hollywood as a vehicle for destroying a society’s morals. From this angle, Fight Club appears in a much different light. Sure, you can say that it is a movie pandering to the sensibilities of men. Hollywood gave you that, but they served this message with a side of rather shocking cultural subversion.

46 thoughts on “Subversive Messaging in Fight Club

  1. Eyes Wide Shut is a Kubrick movie not Scorsese. But you’re right about the fact that this wasn’t the high point of his career.

    1. “EWS” on the other hand is probably Kubricks politically most daring film, because it is explicitly about the (((satanic))) cryptocrat power elite that has been controling Western societies for several hundred years now. The film is an initiation for Dr. Bill Hartford into this structure just as the reveleation is a kind of initiation for the viewer himself. That John Q. Public has a hard time watching those movies because their structure doesn’t conform to his Hollywood induced preconceptions is not really an argument.

      The real pity is that Kubrick doesn’t seem to be on the side of the “powerless” viewer, but on the side of the power structure, which he is depicting. Just as like 2001, where he obviously buys into a process philosophy, gnostic, transhumanist-materialist worldview – which is self-refuting andnl thus impossible. That’s a sad aspect one only gets to appreciate after repeated viewing and some reflection on those viewing experiences.

  2. I was with you until you said: The real pity is that Kubrick doesn’t seem to be on the side of the “powerless” viewer, but on the side of the power structure, which he is depicting.
    The way I see it is Kubrick has a more fatalist and deterministic view. He doesn’t take sides. He’s more of an observer. It’s very obvious in a movie like Barry Lyndon. Sure he makes you sympathize with the main protagonist but everything happens as it was already written.
    On a separate note I want to clarify something about EWS. I am a French speaker so maybe my wording was not clear. I don’t consider it as the height of his career, but I, as many viewers at the time, didn’t appreciate it before multiple viewings. I remember seeing it in theatres when it was released and remember being slightly disappointed by the rather optimistic ending. I enjoyed it much more after watching it a second time.

    1. Thanks for your reply! I agree with your progressive viewing experience of EWS. It’s a multi-layered film and it does grow on you once you see it a few times and mentally digest those viewing experiences.

      My assessment of Kubrick’s not really siding with the viewer, is primarily based on 2001 and EWS. and with EWS in particular, because the film itself (and not just the characters and actions depicted in it) shows a particularly ritualized wordlview that seeks to use the human sex drive as a force for metaphysical power. And thereby having power over this drive allows to have power over the blind masses. The intention of this very film is not just the depiction of the inititation of the couple, but the initiation (i.e. contamination) of the viewer, through the revelation of the method, assuming one is willing to see.
      I once read an amazing analysis of British intelligence strategy and tactics by Michael. A. Hoffman, where he’s analyzing precisely: “Realizing that our activities will sooner or later come to the light, we structure our activities to that as conspiracy researchers unravel them, they will release information in such a way that it mirrors our initiatory procedure. In this way, the more we are investigated, the more masses of people are psychologically processed by the people who seek to expose us. The meme that constitutes our structure is then successfully mimicked within the consciousness of those who investigate us.  Success can then be measured precisely to the extent that our work is “exposed”.”

      In that very sense EWS is a bleak and toxic work of art of the highest caliber. Just with O’Brian vs. Winston in Orwell’s 1984, the purported revelation is also a contamination of the mind and of the soul, because it offers no hope at all, that this profound and disgusting evil could ever be transcended and overcome. That is the very point. Kubrick (and Orwell and Huxley for that matter) should also have pointed out that the very paradigm those power structures rest on, are impossible because at their base level they are already contradicting themselves, i.e. self.-refuting. Any set and absolute conclusions drawn from or deducted through them are moot. The terrible, bleak sense of fatality conjured up by EWS and the like is just a fata morgana, and illusion for those willing to investigate and then to see. But that is precisely *not* what Kubrick set out to do. Neither in 2001 or in EWS.

      I share your impression, that BARRY LYNDON is one of the most piercingly beautiful works of art ever made anywhere, at anytime and in any medium. It’s certainly not a film siding with the powerful.

  3. Let us also remember those gentle words of wisdom by our good old buddy ED BERNAYS in his seminar book “Propaganda”. On p. 166 (the 1955 edition) he writes: “The American motion picture is the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda in the world today. It is a great distributor for ideas and opinions.”

    1. There is also the shockingly antisemitic phrase, “Having a TV at home is like having a Jew in your living room.” I have to say that I am not quite sure what this is supposed to mean. On a more serious note, television and movies are obviously propaganda tools, as much as Uber’s mom may think otherwise. Just recently it was revealed that the US government paid countless millions of dollars to media companies, including Fox and Newsmax, to push the “safe and effective” narrative.

    2. I think the right is delusional when they say the left can’t meme, because Hollywood is essentially the left meming popular culture and making a fortune while doing so. It’s to the point where they can even afford to take loses in order to accelerate the push for more radical messaging.

    3. @Pickernanny… You’re using a very broad definition of “meme” to make that point. I don’t feel like you’re being intellectually honest here.

    4. If you’re referring to the right being better at making memes in the form of pictures with captions then yea, maybe so. We have that and stonetoss vs popular movies, music, vidya and so on. Which one has had the biggest impact on the propagation of ideas? Imo it’s the latter examples. I believe the thing that is turning people on to the right is the visible degradation of society as a result of the successful implementation of leftist ideals.

    5. You’re changing the topic though. Just because you think that movies have a bigger impact on culture does not make it intellectually honest to refer to movies as “memes”.

    6. I’m not being dishonest, I think we just disagree on the definition of a meme in this regard.

    7. You can’t define memes as “anything that impacts culture”, in order to disprove the phrase “left can’t meme”. That’s a trick used by leftists and feminists.

    8. Pickernanny raises an interesting point: The left does not need to meme effectively, or thinks it does not need to, because they control the mainstream. Sure, we have fabulous memes that were created by random guys all over the Internet, but in terms of reach this does not compare to taking $300m and creating a garbage movie with it just to push a message. You get insta-banned the moment you slip and accidentally post a comment that contains nothing but the letter “N”, and people assume you were about to engage in a “racist hate crime”. Meanwhile, the men behind the curtain went from pushing unrealistic black-white male friendships in 1980s action movies, e.g. Lethal Weapon, to the glorification of blacks in Black Panther and now we have arrived at blatant anti-white racism.

      Countless billions of dollars have been burned to push diversity, feminism, homosexuality and, more recently, pedophilia, which is a PR term that was coined to make this paraphilia sound appealing because it contains the Greek word for love! Star Wars, one of the once most valuable franchises, was sacrificed for the culture-change agenda, which is incredible. Even after Disney’s first few woke Star Wars movies and TV shows failed, they doubled down and burned a few more hundred million dollars. On a positive note, the problem with the heavy-handed Hollywood approach is that it is not possible to push garbage indefinitely long, and there is also a hard limit with regards to how much degeneracy society tolerates. At some point, which we are long past, society starts to crumble because the only way to run an effective society is by setting up and maintaining a meritocracy.

    9. Thanks for likening me to a feminist. Would you be so kind as to define the word meme for me so I don’t make dishonest mistakes in the future regarding this topic? If I’m wrong I’d certainly like to know the correct position.

    10. Speaking of changing the topic, I am going to go on a big tangent here. I discovered Sleazy 10 years ago when he published minimal game and briefly exchanged with him a the time. Can’t remember the topic. Since then I switched to day game full time because I am no spring chicken anymore and day game is the only method that works for me for getting girls in their twenties (half my age). I rediscovered this site a few weeks ago because and it is so refreshing to have conversations like this one and the ones I see under other topics. One thing that made me leave the game scene, other than me going on LTRs was the staggering amount of b.s. from quasi virgin morons pretending to know anything about game. But also the fact that everyone in the PUA scene was so one-dimensional, obsessed about one thing only. Really interesting topis and discussions here. I am hooked. Back to the topic now, I think Hollywood’s role as a propaganda machine is slowly eroding. One reason being a lot of people see through it. But also because Hollywood movies became so bad in the last 2 decades that TV took over. Another reason I see is there are now so many different TV series and movies that it’s hard to find one movie or TV series that everyone watches at the same time. It’s easier to push your propaganda when there is one TV channel and a handful of blockbuster movies everybody watched. It’s a lot harder now.

    11. Hollywood is clearly on the way to irrelevancy, and this applies to movies and TV shows alike. A problem related to the proliferation of its output is that those people are spreading themselves too thin. They are throwing more and more mud against the wall, and less and less sticks. It is a great illustration of diminishing returns. When was the last time you were looking forward to watching a new movie? Probably it has been many years because Hollywood simply lost its grip on society.

      Videogames are moving into the same direction, by the way. There are a few huge games, but those cannot afford to be too political as they need a large audience. Hollywood makes a fair amount of money off its back catalogue as well as various licensing deals. In contrast, a big game studio cannot really afford to risk pissing off its audience because they may just go under as a consequence as they need to recuperate their costs. Of course there are plenty of smaller games that push an agenda, but those you can just ignore, and for any indie game with a pink-haired protagonist you can find ten or twenty that are untarnished. For a while now, the number of big video game releases has been quite modest. It is just too risky. Give it a few years and Hollywood may be in the same position, being forced to limit the scope of their output, which is increasingly often happening already. They still want to push garbage, but costs are becoming a problem. Here, the silver lining is that cheap releases will not make much of a splash with the general audience, just like indie games.

    12. @ Aaron “Sleazy” Elias
      Hollywood is clearly on the way to irrelevancy, and this applies to movies and TV shows alike. A problem related to the proliferation of its output is that those people are spreading themselves too thin.

      There is one more reason Hollywood TV and video games are less and less relevant. The producers take themselves too seriously. I remember hearing Frank Zappa commenting on why the 60s and 70s created great music. His opinion was that music producers knew nothing about music . They threw darts in the dark hoping one of their picks would be a hit. This gave an unprecedented amount of freedom to the musicians they sponsored and resulted in a lot of creativity and experimentation. But once the old producers were replaced by others who knew more about music, these new producers thought they could predict the new hits. And music became more predictable. Now , you don’t have to agree with Zappa’s taste in music. But it is true that the more an art form is respectable and institutionalized , the less interesting and truly subversive it becomes. This is particularly true for video games and is a separate issue from the progressive propaganda. In Hollywood the perfect example is Tarantino. I sometimes find the B movies he takes his inspiration from more interesting than his own movies. Precisely because they are less self conscious and don’t take themselves too seriously.

    13. Alek is right. Movies are not memes. Did you really believe that they are, Pickernanny? I have a hard time believing that.

      As for the proper definition, just google it. I did it for you this time, just because I’m such a nice guy and all. 😉

      “an image, video, piece of text, etc., typically humorous in nature, that is copied and spread rapidly by internet users, often with slight variations.”

    14. meme: [noun] an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture.

      I don’t think it’s a wild idea to say that movies, for example, are highly responsible for the propagation of memes without claiming that movies are memes exactly. And therefore, the left knows how to meme and has been doing so for decades through several mediums—quite successfully.

    15. Examples of Hollywood memes, in the sense of ideas, are as follows:
      – whites are bad people
      – women are strong and independent
      – women are physically as strong as men
      – blacks and white can coexist peacefully, if it were not for big, bad whitey
      – ethnic minorities are highly competent, whereas whites are corrupt, lazy, and untrustworthy

    16. I would expand, but I don’t think you’re willing to engage in intellectual honesty at this point, but are so ego-bound to not admit fault, that I don’t think you ever will.

      The ORIGINAL POINT WAS THIS:

      – The phrase “the left can’t meme” is short for “The left can’t make memes”.

      If you’re going to pretend you didn’t know that, you’re either lying, or desperate. I AM A BILLION PERCENT SURE you KNOW the phrase doesn’t mean “The left can’t propagate memes in the meaning of help propagate ideas/behaviours”. You know full WELL it means MAKING memes as per those SHORT/SUCCINT SMALL pieces of content that go viral.

      I don’t think it’s a wild idea to say that movies, for example, are highly responsible for the propagation of memes without claiming that movies are memes exactly

      But that’s not making memes. That is making movies that spread ideas/behaviours. Even if you refer to those ideas/behaviours of memes, the left is still not MAKING THEM, they’re makin the movie.

      The phrase “MAKE A MEME” obviously refers to making memes as per what Karl posted for you. YOU CANT SAY THE PHRASE MAKE A MEME REFERS TO MAKING MOVIES. YOU ARE REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALEEEEEEEEEEE stretching now.

    17. Alek, I am not sure it is a good idea to get hung up on the exact wording. Pickernanny is making a bigger point that stands even if the categorization may not have been perfect. Sure, movies are not memes in the strict sense of the word, as it is used nowadays. However, there is a similarity if you look at the ability to convey ideas. Memes are designed to do that, and so are movies.

      I also agree that the statement that the left can’t meme is not nearly as significant as it may seem. Sure, lefties cannot meme but they also do not need to. On the other hand, for the right memes are rather vital as they are possibly the only way for them to effectively spread their message. Thus, you could argue that there is evolutionary pressure on the right but not on the left. The left can push their garbage in two-hour movies whereas people on the right may only get one or two seconds of exposure of a meme, addressing a much smaller audience, too.

    18. The phrase “MAKE A MEME” obviously refers to making memes as per what Karl posted for you. YOU CANT SAY THE PHRASE MAKE A MEME REFERS TO MAKING MOVIES. YOU ARE REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALEEEEEEEEEEE stretching now.

      In other words, the phrase “left can’t meme” has never meant “left can’t make stuff that propagates ideas”. Pretending that’s what the phrase means is dishonest. If you feel good defeating imaginary strawmen, by all means go ahead if it makes you feel better.

      You know full well that the phrase means “left can’t make fun short succinct powerful pieces of content that go viral on the net promoting an idea in a short, fun, small succint way”.

      The other reason why what you’re saying is very dishonest… is because the same people who say “the left can’t meme” are THE SAME PEOPLE who will be the first to complain about hollywood and how it promotes leftist ideas.

      So you can’t claim they’re wrong for saying x, when they never said x. All they’re saying is that the left can’t make memese. They’ve never said the left can’t propagate ideas using movies. You’re just inventing things nobody ever said to then defeat them, strawman style.

    19. Aaron, but I don’t disagree with that point. I disagree with the strawmen he made.

      Pickernanny said “the Right are wrong in claiming the left can’t meme, look at all they do with movies”.

      The right has never said that the left can’t do that. So he made up something about “the stupid right”, in order to put it down.

      Nobody on the right has ever said that hollywood isn’t doing that. In fact, the right is the one saying it.

    20. Examples of Hollywood memes, in the sense of ideas, are as follows:
      – whites are bad people
      – women are strong and independent
      – women are physically as strong as men
      – blacks and white can coexist peacefully, if it were not for big, bad whitey
      – ethnic minorities are highly competent, whereas whites are corrupt, lazy, and untrustworthy

      Basically, the right are the ones who say this. The right will be the first to tell you that hollywood is promoting these ideas. Call them memes if you want.

      Pickernanny: “loook at the right, they say left can’t meme, but holywood promotes a lot of memes”.

      That’s a strawman. Nobody on the right has ever said that the left can’t promote ideas.

      Even if you refer to ideas as memes, it still doesn’t change the fact that the phrase “make memes” refers to *making memes*.

      Stretching it to mean “can’t make things which promote ideas that we can also refer to as memetic” is a stretch, and again, it’s a strawman.

      Not a SINGLE person on the right who’s said the phrase “left can’t meme” has ever meant “the left can’t produce movies that promote ideas”.

    21. I also agree that the statement that the left can’t meme is not nearly as significant as it may seem. Sure, lefties cannot meme but they also do not need to. On the other hand, for the right memes are rather vital as they are possibly the only way for them to effectively spread their message. Thus, you could argue that there is evolutionary pressure on the right but not on the left. The left can push their garbage in two-hour movies whereas people on the right may only get one or two seconds of exposure of a meme, addressing a much smaller audience, too.

      Well put, agree 100%

    22. Isn’t the difference between memes and the dissemination of uncouscious propagandanvia kovies precisely that very aspect: That movies do program the collective conscious in a more “sustainable” and seemingly unintrusive way. Memes are obvious, the (predictive) programming done through movies only becomes noticeable if one is willing to actually see it, i.e. with one’s own eyes wide open (to use a Kubrick analogy).
      E. g. 2001 is an amazing movie, even today unsurpassed not merely on a technical level but on almost all other levels too. Yet it IS absolutely toxic. I know it almost by heart, yet I can rarely watch it in its entirety because I just know that I’m getting vaccinated with toxic ideas through it.
      That is one of the dangers of great artists – and one of the pitfalls of modernity. Now, a Bruckner symphony or a Schumann string quartet on the other hand do not toxify my soul, quite to the contrary…

    23. I’ll say the left can’t meme. The Jews have a cultural stranglehold. You can’t even be openly right wing, and get anywhere in the movie industry. That said, I do agree with you that Hollywood is essentially a multi-billion dollar a year meme making machine for the left.

    24. Alek was being autistic.

      That the Left can’t meme is the very definition of pyrrhic victory. Just as pyrrhic as his victory over Pickernanny in regards to the dictionary definition of the word “meme”, if you think about it.

    25. No need to view this as a contest. Point of intellectual disagreements should be to sharpen understanding and not to inflate or deflate one’s ego. I have to agree that in common parlance meme means funny caption. “Left can’t produce ideas, behaviors, or styles that spread by means of imitation” said no one ever.

      However, Pickernanny brings a good point that movie industry is a huge production of leftist memes. We could also extrapolate that the leftist memes spread top-down i.e. are passed down to the general population by the entertainment industry, while rightist memes are often spread bottom-up i.e. created within the populus.

    26. I might have gotten defensive. I see Alek’s point and I could have made a better argument without the straw man. I also think a lot of us here tend to lean to being either on the autism or schizoid spectrum without necessarily being clinically mentally ill. Except CQV, he is full blown aspie (joking!).

    27. That the Left can’t meme is the very definition of pyrrhic victory.

      Nobody has ever claimed it as a victory. That’s the whole issue. It’s one fucking huge strawman.

      Not a single soul on the right has come even close to claiming such a thing. In fact, if anything, they keep whining about how the left has taken over everything and control all of the culture.

  4. “I’m getting vaccinated with toxic ideas through it.”
    Maybe I am too dumb to understand but can you explain what is it that you find curious. I am genuinely curious because I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything you said about Kubrick.

    1. I know what you mean and what tou ask about, because this stuff is rarely if ever elaborated on.
      2001 is an alchemical, philosophical presentation of the supposed evolutionary ascent of man, from primal, animalistic ape into the singularity of divinized “starchild”. It is an initiatory process that purports to unfold over aeons of brute, meaningless (!) time, culminating in a series of yet meanjngful (!) revelations associated with zodiacal alignments that “awaken” and “propel” a new stage in that process.

      This entire concept is a weird combination of radical Darwinian “survival of the fittest” mythos coupled with ancient esoterics, thus revealing a radical version of process philosophy with its completely incoherent “metaphysics” of everything being perpetual material flux (“pantha rhei”). Its basically Demokrit’s old atomistic process philosophy repackaged in occult and Kubrickian visual splendor. Presenting man as an animal, like Darwinism, that either through radical collectivism or radical Nietzschean-influenced individualism will attain to the status of the famed “New Man”. Human consciousness in this film version emerges from the deus ex machina, an emergent god (or gods) incarnated in symbolic form in the black monolith itself. While the monolith is surely extraterrestrial, it doesn’t appear to be other than the universe, but rather some special yet universal part of it.
      All of this is presented as if it were Shakespeare, subject to no critical analysis of the screaming incoherencies of this nonsensical philosophy presented as reality (scrutiny which Kubrick would and did undertake in other films of his). Why does this matter? Well, because 2001 is not merely some kind of entertainment, but deliberately a sensually overwhelming presentation of this very philosphy, as if it were truth from the mountain. And uneducated people will just eat it up. Politics being downstream from popular culture I’d guess it’s safe to say that “secular miracle” films like 2001 have done more to solidify the alleged veracity of this flux-and-change-materialist-naturalist-yet-headed-for-esoteric-apotheosis-through-himself-and-technology-through-“alien”-guidance concept within the public (Western) mind as an orthodox, dogmatic given than *any* scientific presentations or school curricula put together squared.

      What are the dangerous “vaccine components”of this film & its philosophy? Well just to state the most important ones…
      – The primary problem is that such process philosophy “systems” are anti-systemic by their very nature, because you cannot have an internal, mental, abstract philosophical system composed of invariant conceptual entities in an external world of perpetual flux. Those ideas would also have to be subject to the “pantha rhei” process, and hence become unusable or simply impossible to exist.
      – The secondary problem is even worse: How do these abstract concepts and ideas apply and “stick” to objects in the world that are perpetually in flux? It’s impossible to justify this.
      – this dualism of an interior mental realm attempting tl predicate meaning concerning an exterior , physical realm of brute matter and meaningless (!) time cannot be reconciled, it’s self-contradicting at the base level. It’s lacking a unifying, metaphysical principle (you could also call that”God”). This principle can only have 2×2 = 4 combinations of attributes: It can either be immanent or transcendent and personal or impersonal. Darwinian process philosophy would be at pains to insist that there is no ultimate guiding principle, yet their worldview ultimately still tends towards “the forces of nature” (“the environment”, “genetics”, “random mutation”, whatever…) determining. Thjs determination is ultimately irrational and impersonal, despite of the appearance of order, telos and design, whose existence it cannot justify in any way.
      – If an Absolute (or an “ultimate reality”) is an impersonal and chaotic force, then all localized events, phenomena qnd objects are also devoid of any ultimate meaning. Language, mathematics, logic, etc. etc. are thus also annihilated as merely mental fictions “somehow agreed upon”, or at best some “cosmic force” we do not understand (yet it is impersonal).

      There is many more but such devastating questions are the very reason why “modern science” has chosen to discard philosophy as “useless”. Yet those questions do not go away… nor does sciende determine reality by some will-to-power dismissal of philosophical scrutiny.

      So 2001 is on the one hand elaborates a flawed philosophical paradigm as visual and emotional reality, while at the same time being far more occult than any fact-hardended, rationalistic “scientist” would ever want to be, because in 2001 the planetary “gods” are leading man through his planetary ascent to apotheosis (i.e. self-deification) through technology. This is Ray Kurtzweil’s wet transhumanist dream in a nutshell. The colossal “final challenge” of man: To overcome man, the “evolutionary error” himself in his very essence (which from a materialist process philosophy standpoint doesn’t even exist).
      What does “apotheosis” entail in this context? Well, in the macro sense this is nothing else than the OPUS MAGNUM, the “Great Work of the Ages”, the transformation of the entire universe into the “Omega Point” of G. W. Hegel (or Teilhard de Chardin), where the totality of reality becomes conscious of itself as conscious. And where inanimate matter becomes merged into the psyche, realizing its own potentiality and god-in-process – and now you can understand the true significance of the “starchild”. All of thiscoipled with the flame of the “alien” gospel, bunjng hot inside the hearts and minds of the Kurtzweilites and the Dawkinites.

      All of this is higly problematic and completely incoherent. It’s a secular and/or occult miracle myth, a miracle only without God. Yet, those who laugh about the notion of a God believe in an even more incoherent story that’s even more ridicolous to begin with. And this gigantic philosophic and esoteric bonanza is presented in a way that is not perceptible for the conscious mind of the average moviegoer, but it goes directly into the subconscious with all the highly symbolistic and symmetrical visuals and frame compositions. If kne doesn’t call that dangerous then I don’t know what else could be.

    2. Or to put it as succinctly as possible: 2001 and its underlying ideas and worldviews posit with all visually and emotionally overwhelming power that these worldviews are sojnd and true and that this materialist process of ultimate trqnshumanist apotheosis is a) the eternal goal of man, b) desirable and c) absolutely inevitable – because this is all there is. There is just nothing else to suggest otherwise.

      Which is untrue in a general sense and on the level of its details. 2001 unfortunately is another admissikn through science phantasy of the uncomfortable fact: That real science and metaphysics in particular is suppressed and the masses are fed garbage to keep them in a prison. (Sorry for having been so wordy with the above text…)

    3. “That real science and metaphysics in particular is suppressed and the masses are fed garbage to keep them in a prison.”

      Can you possibly elaborate on what would be a more accurate representation of true science and metaphysics. No judgement.

    4. @ pickernanny:
      – “accurate representation of metaphysics”: Plato (and I’m not a particular fan of his) already described the fact that reality is truly present in mental ideals. These ideals exist in a realm of forms distinct from the material realm, i.e. they are transcendentals. (Something that e.g. his pupil Aristoteles didn’t fully understand.) These transcendentals are invariable, but structure our material existence. Examples for such transcendentals would be: numbers, time itself, the principle of induction (i.e. that the future will be like the past), our personal identity over time, logic, language and meaning, music, categories of ethics like “good” & “evil” etc. The grave error of Western enlightenment was to pose particularly with David Hume that empiricism is dead and impossible and that metaphysics also itself does not exist, that it is not necessary and can be abandoned. Because everything which exists is matter or a function of matter, i.e. everything non-material could only be an subjective illusion or even worse, and thus considered irrelevant. This is one of the main tenants of “rational, modern societies”. It apparently didn’t occur to him, that numbers or the laws of logic or the meaning of words are not illusions, and that by constantly utilizing them he kept contradictjng his own paradigm at the base level. The direct philosophical reaction to Hume was Immanuel Kant btw., who desperately had to construct a new purely solipsistic pseudo-religion of idealism in order to fill the huge ethical and metaphysical void Hume’s realizations did leave society with (“Grundlegung einer Metaphysik der Sitten”). Which also doesn’t get off the ground.
      So the first step is to recognize that the essence of things does exist and that it is non-material (this already annihilates – no pun intended – nihilism, which is *the* basis of all of Western modernity). That is the very definition of the term “metaphysics” and its purview is the question about what is real and what is not real. If this weren’t the case we couldn’t know anything or predicate any meaning.

      – “accurate representation of science”: By “science” we usually tend to mean empirical quantitative science which is a tool for examining the material world around us. This also means that “science”, apart from logic itself (which is part of philosophy and mathematics) cannot make any claims about the realm of transcendentals, i.e. no value judgements, no judgements about shoulds, no ethical posits. Thus Popper was right in that “science” even cannot claim to recognize truth itself, that it can only falsify hypotheses and that any statement that is non-falsifiable hence cannot be an object of “science” at all. Empirical materialist science cannot justify even its own method of examination because it cannot justify the use of the transcendentals like numbers and logic which it absolutely requires. Likewise the French enlightenment concept of “brute facts” is nonsensical, because such brute facts also do not exist. They are always an interpretation of completely abstract empirical data according to a distinct (but often hidden) paradigm, be it materialist, nihilist, pragmatic, utilitarian or whatever. Science which does make such unwarranted transcendental claims is not science but its degenerate brother of “scientism” which has been basically running the show of current Western degeneracy for the last few decades (just look at the entire “Corunka” bullshit, which urges us to “follow the science”).

      Taking a step back and asuming the meta-perspective is the key to all of this. Directly linked with metaphysics (“What is existence and what does exist?”) are the two other main transcendental categories of epistemology (“How can I know anything?”) and ethics (“How should I act?”). The big question is now, since all of these categories are interconnected, what is the invisible chain which strings all those transcendentals together like a pearl bracelet? Or: Which wordlview/paradigm justifies and allows for the existence of these transcendentals in the first place? Radical materialism, naturalism or process philosophy certainly don’t, because according to them you are just a meaningless illusion and don’t really exist, language and meaning are just word play without any actual real meaning and absolutely everything in this world is meaningless (including any discussion about this very issue) – so you wouldn’t even be able to form words.

      About this I will not talk, because this is too highly non-PC even for our august forum over here. This is the work everyone has to undertake for himself if he feels the truthful urge to do so.

    1. Disgusting. I’d like an explanation for an alleged case involving a dog and another of a teenager coming down with it. Certainly, the 17 year old affords more complex scenarios but why in the world a canine? I’m sure it’s nothing.

    2. The case involving a dog might have a rather simple explanation as the male owners apparently shared their bed with it. Surely, the dog just got caught up in a little tryst and none of those sodomites accidentally put his dick in the dog’s anus. Those sodomites would never do that. In California there were a few cases involving the adopted little children of sodomites, which is a complete mystery. I mean, if little kids can catch pride pox merely by being around carriers, what protection does the general public have? I am not an expert, but it seems that locking homosexuals into their homes is a no-go, but the idea of locking down all of society surely has some supporters in the lizard class.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.