The RedIce Interview on Catcher

[Joe Atwill]

Hi Allan

Let me answer two of your questions.

First, I think The Yearling is not cuturally destructive but all of the Coen brothers films are. We will be discussing the Coen brothers on our show shortly. Note that they have cryptically placed P O E within their films showing that they understand the genocidal humor it represents. ( This simply underlines what a decoding of their symbolism reveals.)

I also agree that the 911 reference in the Matrix shows that its creators were not on the side of the general public.

Joe

 

[Jerry Russell]

Wiki says "The Yearling" was #1 best seller in 1938, selling over 250,000 copies. So does this imply that oligarchic control over the mainstream publishing industry was not so solid in 1938 as it has been since?

Out of all the Cohen brothers films, I've only seen Raising Arizona and Fargo. Both of them struck me as humorous & trenchant social critiques, but it's been a long time since I've seen them. "The Matrix" is something of a mixed bag, to the extent that it seems to represent marshal arts & militaristic metaphors as the answers to the problem of elite control. On the other hand, all the Wachowski movies show a remarkable understanding of the situation, which I think can only be interpreted as a powerful critique of the status quo.

The 9/11/2001 expiration date on Neo's passport (assuming it's intentional and interpretable and not just a coincidence) indicates that the creators knew there was something special about the date, but what? Maybe they were warning us that many freedoms would expire on 9/11/2001.

Allan mentioned that Joe might be able to interpret "Cosmic Banditos" as yet another expression of the "degenerate" agenda of the elite and their counter culture. Even if that's true, surely this was not done with any conscious wicked intent to further the elite agenda on Allan's part, nor was Allan on the MK-Ultra payroll. I hope we all can agree to that premise? Sometimes, artistic creations (whatever their message and effects) are simply a result of the general cultural zeitgeist.

As a general rule, I completely disagree that use of cryptic symbolism is evidence (in itself) of evil intent on the part of the artists. Here's an interesting case in point: this video "I, Pet Goat II" was created apparently as an independent, (relatively) low-budget effort by special effects artist Louis Lefebvre, and is chock full of all our favorite symbols. Yet it pretty clearly has an anti-oligarchic agenda, which Lefebvre himself expresses in an interview with Alex Jones. That is, unless you think both Lefebvre and Jones are some sort of hypocritical double agents.

http://www.heliofant.com

 

[Joe Atwill]

Maybe the Coen brothers were also warning us about losing our freedoms.

We have so many friends in the media.

the big lebowski 911 check

 

[Joe Atwill]

To all:

In the following clip our friends in the media reverse the Gospels' story of the Roman's ear being cut off. The 'dude' represnts Jesus - "the dude abides" mocks the "Jesus lives" stickers on the backs of cars in southern California. The three German nihilists are the Flavians.

Such fun but why don't our friends mention their symbolic framework to the public?

 

[Jerry Russell]

It would be safer for me to go watch the whole movie before I say anything more.

But, of the sake of discussion: (1) why do symbolic frameworks need to be explained to be effective? (2) Maybe it's risky and difficult to make a "friendly" movie, and this symbolism is more acceptable or passable by the oligarchs, compared to more overt statements; (3) the Gospel story of the Roman's ear being cut off is well known exoteric material; how do we know the three German nihilists represent the Flavians, as opposed to Romans in general?

 

[Jerry Russell]

Getting back to the child sexualization theme, the video "Elastic Heart" (2014) by Sia, Shia LaBoeuf and Maddie Ziegler is hopefully the ultimate expression of the trend so far? Rather than link to the video itself, I'm linking this Bart Baker parody that tells the whole story:

 

[lorenhough]

It would be safer for me to go watch the whole movie before I say anything more.

But, of the sake of discussion: (1) why do symbolic frameworks need to be explained to be effective? (2) Maybe it's risky and difficult to make a "friendly" movie, and this symbolism is more acceptable or passable by the oligarchs, compared to more overt statements; (3) the Gospel story of the Roman's ear being cut off is well known exoteric material; how do we know the three German nihilists represent the Flavians, as opposed to Romans in general?

Predictive programming theory would predict that if such a moive etc. were to arise, people would be less likely to resist it and more likely to accept it based on their exposure to the film in fiction. The fact that the government is portrayed as a villain to be resisted is said to be irrelevant;

under predictive programming theory, mere exposure to a concept induces acquiescence to it.

An idea introduced in a science fiction movie, takes on a surrealistic tinge and, when it is introduced in the real world, it is experienced as not quite real;

to an extent disarming the public from experiencing it as undesirable or something to potentially fight against.

Researcher Alan Watt explains the phenomenon this way:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cutting-through-matrix-alan/id154490096?mt=2&i=335103224

Things or ideas which would otherwise be seen as bizarre, vulgar, undesirable or impossible are inserted into films in the realm of fantasy. When the viewer watches these films, his/her mind is left open to suggestion and the conditioning process begins.

Remember the mind does not have a firewall and less you put one up.

Loren

 

[lorenhough]

Predictive programming theory would predict that if such a moive etc. were to arise, people would be less likely to resist it and more likely to accept it based on their exposure to the film in fiction. The fact that the government is portrayed as a villain to be resisted is said to be irrelevant;

under predictive programming theory, mere exposure to a concept induces acquiescence to it.

An idea introduced in a science fiction movie, takes on a surrealistic tinge and, when it is introduced in the real world, it is experienced as not quite real;

to an extent disarming the public from experiencing it as undesirable or something to potentially fight against.

Researcher Alan Watt explains the phenomenon this way:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cutting-through-matrix-alan/id154490096?mt=2&i=335103224
Things or ideas which would otherwise be seen as bizarre, vulgar, undesirable or impossible are inserted into films in the realm of fantasy. When the viewer watches these films, his/her mind is left open to suggestion and the conditioning process begins.

Remember the mind does not have a firewall and less you put one up.
Loren

• Volition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition
  
  Volition may refer to: Volition (psychology), the process of making and acting on decisions. Coherent Extrapolated Volition, hypothetical choices and the actions ...

In course V-50, Galambos laid out his two postulates of volitional science:

• "Postulate Number One: All volitional beings live to pursue happiness,"[11] and
• "Postulate Number Two: All concepts of happiness pursued through moral action are equally valid."[12]

Galambos equates immoral action with coercion[13][14] and defines freedom as "the societal condition wherein every individual has one hundred percent control over his own property."[15][16] Galambos derives his theory from these postulates. The essence of Course V-50 is Galambos' elaboration of his theory of volitional science and his application of that science to solve the problems of human society.


Golden Rule
Galambos explained that the positive version of the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”) was problematic because it implied that it was acceptable for person A to “meddle” in the affairs of another provided person A would likewise appreciate the same thing done “unto” him/her. Galambos instead preferred the double negative version of the Golden Rule as the foundation for his philosophy. The double negative version is: “Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.” Galambos explained that this version is “not subject to meddlesome interpretation.”[23]

 

[lorenhough]

TO all not focused on any person.
So please do not take this personally.

The new old age religion that, 'nothing is true;' is that true? Nothing is real; is that real? Sing with me, nothing to be hung up on strawberry fields forever.

Course in miracles would say you're not a body there is no world and you're not here now, and if you know what's good for you be happy no matter what!

See children being bombed in Vietnam for real on TV, If you're unhappy it's your fault! You know unconditional love.

Is that what the master slave relationship is all about? Love the Cesar master as he beats you and Your children. Those who are abused tend to look to the abuser for help. And turn the other cheek. Just meditate and your anger will go away. No need to try to stop the war.

Those who find it amusing entertaining to watch people being killed make believe or not, have lost their minds, Amusement basically means your mind is not working. Eat the bread and watch the circus.

Question is there any time when kindness is inappropriate? Is Kindness all we need?

This is not an excuse to 'not' be kind in the appropriate times.

Truth seeker. Thx.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Loren,

As far as I know, none of us posting here at this website are attempting to enslave anyone, nor abuse anyone, nor kill anyone.

I am having trouble with the idea that my interest in (and even enjoyment of) films, novels & other artistic expressions, is for no other purpose than being entertained by watching people being killed; or that it means my mind is gone.

 

[lorenhough]

Hi Loren,

As far as I know, none of us posting here at this website are attempting to enslave anyone, nor abuse anyone, nor kill anyone.

I am having trouble with the idea that my interest in (and even enjoyment of) films, novels & other artistic expressions, is for no other purpose than being entertained by watching people being killed; or that it means my mind is gone.

thank you Jerry for your response.

I may not be the best wordsmith here. I'm trying. This is what I meant by no mind. One is being abused when being amused. See bread and circuses, getting on the same page

"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,[1] as an offered "palliative." Its originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns.[2][3][4] The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance ofcivic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.

1. Bread and circuses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
   
   "Bread and circuses" (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the ...
   Disambiguation
   Look up bread and circuses in ... This ...
   Grain supply to the ...
   In classical antiquity, the grain supply to the city

Word Origin and History for "amuse"
v.
late 15c., "to divert the attention, beguile, delude,"from Middle French amuser "divert, cause to muse,"from a "at, to" (but here probably a causal prefix) +muser "ponder, stare fixedly" (see muse (v.)). Senseof "divert from serious business, tickle the fancy of" isrecorded from 1630s, but through 18c. the primarymeaning was "deceive, cheat" by first occupying theattention. Bemuse retains more of the originalmeaning. Related: Amused ; amusing.


U said As far as I know, none of us posting here at this website are attempting to enslave anyone, nor abuse anyone, nor kill anyone.


Did I say you are or anyone else on this website is Cesar or a master killing anyone ? Did u say As far as you know no one on the site is Caesar? Are you joking? I "know" we all slaves on this form trying to learn to be free and to know the truth on this site. eXSample does anyone on the site have to pay taxes and if they don't want to what happens?

U said U are having 'trouble' with the idea that interest in (and even enjoyment of) films, novels & other artistic expressions, is for no other purpose than being entertained by watching people being killed; or that it means my mind is gone.

If I understand you; By changing what I say or maybe miss understanding me you seem to think I am wrong. Problem is I didn't say watching any film etc. or that was the only reason to watch a film etc. I was specifically talking about violent coercion films novels songs etc. bread and circus the coliseum watching people die. And calling that amusing entertaining etc. read what I said again please.


Of course one can look at things to trying to learn and understand them. I don't call that entertaining or amusing. I call that learning what's important to know for survival sake.

Another question is
how many porno videos do I need to see to know they're not morally helpful. If I need to see any. To Understand them. As an example.

Let me repeat myself I hope no one takes this personal please. Some people like to be the devils advocate. Not me. I Wish all truth seekers well, as I learn from joe to be more effective in my communications. The best words in the best order In kindness. When appropriate. As
I believe love is earned. Not unconditional. Thx

LH. 6'4" and growing

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Loren,

Thanks for the clarification. The Roman circuses had a particularly bad reputation, I think, partly because they involved literally murderous activity right out there on the stage: gladiators fighting to the death, feeding "christians" to the lions, and so forth. Nowadays, those sorts of activities are supposed to be simulated, and hopefully incidental to the telling of a story.

I'm not sure if this is exaggerating, but you and Joe seem to be suggesting that most or all of the mass media and all modern literature and art are completely corrupt, that Joe can't recall anything newer than 1938 by way of examples of films or novels that haven't been touched by the oligarchs' typology -- and also that any use of said typology or symbolism is proof of genocidal intent towards the audience, on the part of the artist.

Also, I think you're saying that these modern films and novels are saturated with intentionally planted NLP motifs designed to turn our subconscious minds to mush.

Finally, there's the suggestion that behind the scenes, the modern artistic process is just as destructive and ultimately murderous as the Roman circus, with little children swept into a web of abuse and trauma, drugs and/or electroshock, so that the young adults we see in films & music are mind-controlled slaves with multiple personalities, needing "handlers" to orchestrate their behaviors.

Before I go on responding, I should ask: is this indeed what you're claiming is true?

 

[Joe Atwill]

Jerry

Please do not put words into my mouth. I gave The Yearling as an example of "coming of age" films that I did not see as using oligarchic typology.

joe

 

[Joe Atwill]

Jerry and Loren

To be clear, I believe that much of modern media is corrupt. In other words it intends to debase its viewers to make them easier to control. When I provide specific examples of this, such as the May 1957 Life magazine cover or the pedophilia in Catcher in the Rye, my hope is that it will create an awareness in the public that it is under attack and learn to defend itself. The public needs to identify the group that is doing this and understand it motives.

In general, Loren is doing a service to democracy by voicing his concerns. Kudos to Loren.

Joe

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Joe,

Sorry about extrapolating an unwarranted conclusion from your statement. So to further clarify, let me propose two contrasting views of the state of the media today:

(1) All the owners of the media outlets (whose ownership is highly concentrated) are part of the conspiracy, and at this point they exert nearly complete control of the creative process of anything that comes from their studios. Most or all of the artists are either insider members of the conspiracy, or they are mind control slaves or otherwise "sold their souls to the devil".

vs.

(2) Some media owners may be high-ranking Freemasons or members of other tentacles of this conspiracy we're discussing, while others may be simply wealthy business owners, either of a secular nature, or genuine followers of other religions such as Protestants or Catholics. They might be motivated to support anything that makes money for them, or anything that doesn't conflict directly against their interests.

Some artistic creators within the media are part of the conspiracy, and are attempting to infiltrate the industry because of their desire to commit murder and mayhem and genocide -- while others participate in the media for a variety of other non-conspiratorial reasons: out of a desire to express themselves through artistic means, or to gain wealth & fame by providing entertainment, or perhaps even because they want to fight for truth and justice, against the evils of today (in whatever guise they perceive them.)

In other words, according to hypothesis (2), the media continue (at least to some extent) to represent a plurality of different voices of varying intents. Not necessarily "friends" exactly, but not necessarily enemies either.

 

[Joe Atwill]

Hi jerry

Very well expressed. I couldn't agree more but you know my response. Without first getting DNA evidence from the oligarchs - Bush Chaney Rockerfellers Rothchilds etc we don't know exactly how the group has been formed and what has held it in place all these years.

Joe

 

[Jerry Russell]

I'd also like to articulate the controversy or dialectic regarding ethics and family values that seems to be materializing at the site.

Consider:

(1) Genesis tells us to "go forth and multiply", accordingly it is the obligation of every citizen to get into a monogamous marriage, have children, and raise those children so that they all have the goal of doing likewise. Also, men should have a job or profession, and make and spend substantial amounts of money, while women should stay occupied at home taking care of the brood.

vs.

(2) Everyone should maximize their pleasure by being stoned out on drugs all the time, participating in casual sex while utilizing some form of birth control (venereal disease will do nicely), or better still pursue homosexual relationships. Any children who somehow manage to be born into this system, should be molested early and often, so that they too can grow up to be hippies.

I'm hoping it should be obvious to everyone, that this is a false dialectic, and that wisdom lies in a middle road between these two extremes. The first extreme was championed by the emperors Augustus and Vespasian, while the latter exemplified by Nero and Elagabalus. Obviously the two extremes have different effects on society: the first results in exponential growth and power (until limits are encountered) while the latter minimizes all terms of Paul Ehrlich's formula of environmental impact, I = P * A * T : that is, the product of population, affluence and technology.

However, freedom means the opportunity to choose. For some people, freedom means the freedom to support "middle-class values". For others, freedom can mean the freedom to avoid all those obligations.

Tolerance is a virtue, and I believe we should be accepting of people who choose to stay single and not raise a family, and also those who occasionally and responsibly enjoy mind-altering substances. Where a person falls on this spectrum (assuming they can avoid extremes) has nothing to do with their value as an opponent of oligarchy.

 

[lorenhough]

I'd also like to articulate the controversy or dialectic regarding ethics and family values that seems to be materializing at the site.

Consider:

(1) Considering that Genesis tells us to "go forth and multiply", accordingly it is the obligation of every citizen to get into a monogamous marriage, have children, and raise those children so that they all have the goal of doing likewise. Also, men should have a job or profession, and make and spend substantial amounts of money, while women should stay occupied at home taking care of the brood.

vs.

(2) Everyone should maximize their pleasure by being stoned out on drugs all the time, participating in casual sex while utilizing some form of birth control (venereal disease will do nicely), or better still pursue homosexual relationships. Any children who somehow manage to be born into this system, should be molested early and often, so that they too can grow up to be hippies.

I'm hoping it should be obvious to everyone, that this is a false dialectic, and that wisdom lies in a middle road between these two extremes. The first extreme was championed by the emperors Augustus and Vespasian, while the latter exemplified by Nero and Elagabalus. Obviously the two extremes have different effects on society: the first results in exponential growth and power (until limits are encountered) while the latter minimizes all terms of Paul Ehrlich's formula of environmental impact, I = P * A * T : that is, the product of population, affluence and technology.

However, freedom means the opportunity to choose. For some people, freedom means the freedom to support "middle-class values". For others, freedom can mean the freedom to avoid all those obligations.

Tolerance is a virtue, and I believe we should be accepting of people who choose to stay single and not raise a family, and also those who occasionally and responsibly enjoy mind-altering substances. Where a person falls on this spectrum (assuming they can avoid extremes) has nothing to do with their value as an opponent of oligarchy.

to all
as a side note to the start of this. just a though

some one walks up and gives some one a sugar cube and says its lsd man. ok do you eat it when you have no idea what's in it? when where why or how . or what it will do to you when the person given it you does not know either. so you cut in half. as the middle ground? millions of young incent young adults did just that. thank the drug pusher for we know not what he do. the big boys gave bad alcohol during the probation. people went blind.

if we were left alone we would work it out but after generations of slavery mind control school perfecting the better slave we raise good little salves. and think it all normal. its real hard for salves to think of what it means to be free when they have never been free. and now love there slavery I am afraid. the American Indians just didn't fit the bill look what happen to them ? take drugs trance dance the ghost dance. and it will all be ok? who gave that? a American Indian payed to be stupid guy with a 10 Gallon hat who could go any where he wanted. when most of them couldn't leave the res. o ya no bullets can hurt yu now. all i am sorry it didn't work and you are a now ghost.

the middle ground is to be left alone; but my good friends wes good old friend of Paul Ehrlich's doesn't say that. I say why is not there horror that more and more people are infertile, sperm is 80% bad in 20 year olds to day and they will say its all our fault, dr. wes Jackson would say population is going to start coming down real fast so when people say things like population growth is out of control don't see what's happening. and that there not out of control there under control.

Wes Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Jackson
Wes Jackson (born 1936) is the founder and current president of The Land Institute. He is also a member of the World Future Council.

ya he talked to me for 4 hours this summer at his home. wes was one of the people that followed my grand father and wes said he cried watching my grand father and mother as they walked down main st. saying no to war n 1967. he called them saints.

Wendell Berry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia wes good friend and I have meat him many times and herd him talk on marriage that change me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Berry
Wendell Berry (born August 5, 1934) is an American novelist, poet, environmental activist, cultural critic, and farmer. A prolific author, he has written dozens of books has some great though on family. but I don't agree with him that there is to many people.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Agreed, if you start with a false dialectic and split the difference down the middle (taking half the unknown "LSD" cube from the government sponsored pusher) you wind up with the worst of both worlds.

Also agreed that considering all the assaults on the biosphere today, fertility and reproduction could plummet, cancer deaths could soar, and the population could even badly undershoot the 500 million "optimum" proposed by the Georgia Guidestones.

Given the formula I = P*A*T -- if there's a need to reduce ecological impact, the humane approach to the problem is to work on technology first, and then "affluence" (which also includes waste); there are limits to what can be done about P without infringing on basic principles like avoiding murder & genocide.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Well said Jerry.

It should also be pointed out that Augustus, the true creator of Christian (and American) Family Values didn't actually practice them himself.

I think it is perfectly fine if any freedom lovers want to live an Augustan personal lifestyle because this works for their circumstances, but if doing such leads to konformity for themselves, their children and others that does not work for their circumstances, then I say this is counter-Postflavian. It is an extreme non sequitur to extrapolate from one's own personal experience that, for instance, father told them not to go to war because they are bogus, that this must apply to everyone else. I figured this out on my own despite being in a traditional Augustan family whose father did go to war. There is a difference between correlation and causality.

As such I find it deeply ironic to be told that I must konform to Augustan values in order to be able to fight them. This is something like we must kill everyone in order to save them.

Since I'm admittedly cultural clueless compared to yall's, what might be some examples of good American culture that we can use as a moral baseline from which we are being degenerated away from. Are war movies, and Cowboys vs. Indians, the Alamo, the thing, or what? How about The Exodus, Ben Hur, etc.?

These are all degenerate and if you don't think so then you belong with Kenneth Atchity, the author of the otherwise great The Messiah Matrix where on his website he is proud that Augustus is Jesus (prototype).

The Masonic Founding Fathers were proudly recreating Rome here, albeit the Republic in their minds, but the powers that be knew how to convert this temporary republic back into the Imperium, and they have. Until some of you come to terms with all this you are just having a mental circle jerk, IMHO.