The Bourne Bad Guys

The "bad guys" in the Bourne franchise pretty much do what Obama has now made blase', when it used to be considered downright criminal if his predecessors did the same things. In that sense, the Bourne movies are out of date, out of touch with the times. Killing American citizens without trial, mass spying, black ops, assasination, regime change...these are programs in the Bourne movies that the antagonists -- the bad guys, the CIA characters Conklin, Abbott, Vosen, Dewey -- attempt time and again to kill our main character over. They'll kill swaths of Bourne's allies over who threaten to leak the programs. But they usually get arrested in the end, they get their comeuppance, when the docs are leaked to the press. Yes, I guess these are just movies, because when Obama kills people and spies on everyone, he or his admin doesn't get arrested. No ones cares. The next Bourne movie should have the president and the CIA as the protagonists, presented as "the good guys". And, I'm totally being sarcastic, btw. Because what motivates the "fictional" CIA characters to do what they secretly do, is to keep America "safe," that leaks of their programs "endangered lives." Yet, this couldn't be further from the truth. No evidence supports this rhetoric. It just exposes what they shouldn't be doing in the first place. If they're not doing anything wrong, why do they worry? Wanton destruction "Team America" style, that does more harm than good, is their policy. And, you could expect mafia-style hits, or career damaging hits, of any leakers of secret programs, instead of praise for keeping America accountable. The heroes know this. Bourne finds allies in Nicky, Landy, and in the new one, Lee, in a sorta gray area, but I won't give away the ending. Bourne fights for his freedom, liberty, and American moral values, instead of the cycle of killing, as he says, "I'm trying to find another way".

Captain Libertarian

SPOILERZ...
     So, I haven't read too much of the Marvel comicbooks, but am a fan of most of the MCU movies. I thought Captain America: The Winter Soldier was quite possibly the best movie of that year. The anticipation for Captain America Civil War was high.

     It seems CACV had a foreign release a few weeks earlier than the US release. Not sure if that's normal; especially a movie about Captain AMERICA to not release first in AMERICA. I was kinda pleasantly surprised it was a huge freakin hit all over the world; the hype and buzz was ablaze before it even hit US theaters. So, what is it that resonates with foreign audiences? Well, yeah, it's a great action FX movie, a well-written script and plot (a 90% on the Tomatometer), and I believe the political issues are something the rest of the world are more knowledgeable about than the average American. The movie revolves around the issue of collateral damage from the Avengers fighting evil throughout the years. And, here in the real world, people see the "police of the world" US warring for over decades and decades, sees all the collateral damage it has wrought, and it seems that maybe possibly this movie is a sympathy card or apology card to the world, an acknowledgement on behalf of our controlled biased corporate news media, the deaf and dumb so-called leaders that really don't acknowledge the truth of what their neocon foreign policy does (well, maybe a few politicians do complain), that yes, we understand our (well not our, it's the undemocratic US military/CIA's) actions have consequences. That, since the anti-war liberals have all but disappeared because no one wants to criticize Obama and his kill list, art can be a way the filmmakers can express these issues to possibly trigger a dialog, because there isn't much dialog in mainstream media. Art should reflect the times. At least I hope that's what the screenwriters are saying. That's what I hope the global audiences find so compelling to buy tickets for. Yes, they're buying entertainment, but it's entertainment that means something. By comparison, Batman v Superman -- which had similar collateral damage themes -- was perhaps entertaining or set out to be, but certainly didn't amount to anything in plot or characters. The issues didn't mean anything; it meant jack shit. CACV showed how it's done.

     Here are a few articles about CACV that sort of express some of the sides and issues audiences have pulled from it:
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/06/captain_americas_a_douchey_libertarian_now_why_did_marvel_have_to_ruin_steve_rogers/
 http://louderwithcrowder.com/the-dumbest-captain-america-civil-war-review-youll-read/
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/3/11531348/marvel-civil-war-explained
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/02/captain-america-civil-war-screenwriters-cap-is-the-anti-donald-trump.html

     But some are confusing. One liberal writer calls Cap anti-liberal and libertarian, confuses Cap's libertarianism with anarchy. But others are Bernie supporters, who I'm sure are liberal, who support Cap. So, which is it -- is Cap liberal or anti-liberal? Another article says the writers tested the movie as they were making it, to mold it to get audiences split down the middle between Cap and Iron Man. Then the writers also then pretty much say they are pro-Cap. Others call Iron Man the capitalist, but I think of him really as the war profiteer 1%er establishment (or maybe I'm lumping the Starks together); as in, he sides with government regulation, the establishment. Sigh...What's in labels, anyway...

     Who's side are you on?  I still gotta say, I'd go with my initial reaction after seeing CACV -- I'd side with Cap. He's been called the libertarian, as he stands for non-regulation, but here's why: Cap sticks up for the people, not bureacracy. Liberals for some reason equate libertarians with anarchists, but libertarians do want law and order, want regulation, but it depends what kind of regulation that is and from whom. Stark says he wants regulation in "whatever form that takes, I'm game." Uh, see...that's the rub. Who's regulating the regulators? Because in Winter Soldier, SHIELD was infiltrated by HYDRA. Who's to say the UN wouldn't be, or hasn't been? As Cap says, "it's run by people with agendas and agendas change." And Iron Man trusts his judgement, but he created Ultron, for chrissakes.

     I'm for accountability, but, if you follow politics at all, how many times have we seen the foxes guarding the hen house, with bailouts and revolving doors, or the foxes investigating the foxes and letting white collar and war criminals go with hardly a slap on the wrist. Libertarians believe in state's rights, a country's sovereignty, the separation of powers -- not centralized power, not one fox guarding the foxes. Just because you trust the current benevolent king, the next successor could be an insane inbred. You gave obamadrones a pass, horrible and inaccurate as they were, but do you trust Hillary or Trump with the keys?  A ship is built with compartmentalized sections, for if one section floods, it won't bring down the whole ship. I mean, the metaphors could go on and on, throughout history.

    And honestly, I'm less with Cap's sense of interventionism and patriotism (because today's extremely complicated war of tribes and factions is not the same war as with the truly evil Nazi's), because perhaps it's more that I'm against Iron Man's sense of restriction on civil liberties ( the internment of the Scarlet Witch, Hawkeye and all of Cap's side) and Stark's egotistical trust in his own judgment and centralized power, as explained above. Where is a jury in Stark's world? Also, does it lead to registration of all enhanced individuals, which too often historically leads to harrassment, surveillance, internment, and other restrictions on liberty on all of the same types of people? I mean, we just saw the same issues in Zootopia. Zootopians would've loved this movie. War has turned the population against Jews, Japanese, now Muslims. And everyone that is lumped with them, from Chinese that were mistaken for Japanese, and Sikhs mistaken for Muslims.

     And, my biggest question, who is the next enemy in the UN's view? What would be the next mission for the Avengers? What if it's regime change in another country? Like we've invaded countries that had nothing to do with 9/11, or that had no WMD's. Or what if the targets are political enemies, whistleblowers, one of the Avenger's own -- what if it's something the superheroes don't agree with? Or instead of attacking, what if you're told to ALLY with certain terrorist groups, as the US does when it serves their special interests. Ally with countries with sharia law, like the Saudis, or unreasonables like Israel? Right now in Syria, the CIA is backing one group, the Pentagon backs another group, and they are fighting each other -- how stupid is that. I guess under the Sokovia Accords, the Avengers couldn't disobey the UN, or have much choice in who to fight. They are slaves to the system, they signed their life away with Stark's pen. They'd be beholden to their missions, as Winter Soldiers are to their given missions.

    For Iron Man's reasons, I guess I would agree on the idea of accountability, certainly. He feels guilt, like from Alfre Woodard's character. The movie revolves around all the collateral damage and civilians killed throughout the various Marvel movies that parallels with real life -- i.e. the US's (well, maybe it's the CIA, JSOC, the western world, etc.) horrible actions abroad. Pick anything from the 2% drone bombing accuracy, hospital flattening, wedding parties bombing, etc. It makes Team America's destruction of Paris not really an exaggeration. I mean, this goes way back to Vietnam, with napalm and agent orange. Modern warfare is ridiculous. Well actually, the MCU and the real world are not exactly parallel or comparable -- because in the MCU, it was mostly the bad guys initiating the threats and battles; it was Crossbone's bomb, it was Ultron who levitated Sokovia, Winter Soldier was mind controlled for his missions, it was HYDRA/SHIELD's helicarriers in DC....As opposed to bombs made-in-the USA and dropped by USA vehicles. If we're comparing the Avengers with the US/western world's battle styles, kinda seems to me the US is more at fault for civilian casualities in their battles than the Avengers are for their battles. And ironically, it seems easier to pass the Sokovia Accords than it is to hold the US accountable. But hey, it's a movie.

     Vision brings up that perhaps escalation brought about new enemies, new conflicts, which is also a great theme at the end of Batman Begins when Gordon talks about escalation. So, has the US caused escalation? If the new normal is pre-emptive war abroad, where will this end? Doesn't seem an end in sight. Not to give real terrorism a free pass, but religious extremists have been around for hundreds of years -- why have they escalated now? Because have we? Clearly. We destablized everything from North Africa to the middle east, creating power vacuums, allowing the thugs free reign, and with our fancy weapons and vehicles to boot. That's causality. They fight the US because the US killed their families and flattened their houses. That's causality.

     After he finds that Bucky was framed by Zemo, Iron Man sides with Cap in a way after all and goes secretly against Ross. But then his emotions for revenge flip him again against Bucky for killing his parents. And if emotion and vengence is what rules over judgment, I wouldn't want Iron Man leading the UN's Avengers. When the Black Panther saw that revenge wasn't the answer, it was a glimmer of hope, in my opinion -- war is over, if we want it. I stand with Cap, laying down his shield, effectively handing in his badge like a disillusioned cop, because the system is broken. It was a great end to the movie. What a cliffhanger. What the heck will happen next? What will happen to our country, foreign policy and domestic national security policy? We haven't even begun to have this dialog really.

     In the foreword to the CACV "Art of..." book, the directors write, "His strength and toughness were inspiring, but there was something about his unshakable moral certainty, his overwhelming mix of patriotism and propaganda, that left us wanting a little more complexity and a little more edge....Now we were being given the opportunity to do in a movie what we had dreamt of as fanboys: texturing and even subverting the patriot through a story that led him to question his country and break orders. For us, CACV is the completion of that subversion. The film moves Steve Rogers past the flaws in his country to finally confront the flaws in himself. This is what makes him a true hero in the classical sense. Despite all the greatness he is capable of, he is flawed, and he is human. And this is a Captain America that we can love."

Libertarian Movies

Always great to see when movies have major themes that reflect our times, as art should reflect and comment on our times. Even moreso, it's the recent big blockbuster movies, and that means they resonate and connect with the majority of the public. Here are some recent ones:

SPOILER warning.


Zootopia
The civilized public fears a certain classification of the public when the cops blame "predators" (lions, tigers, foxes) as inherently vicious, saying it's in their DNA. This could be said about govn't racial profiling muslims, black and brown people, natives, japanese/asians, etc. and the fear spreads in the public. Authorities say they're not racist or ignorant, but they are, and the public knows it.


 
Bridge of Spies
Even prisoners (of war) deserve due process and civil rights. I was thinking about Guantanamo throughout watching it.
And, as shown in the negotiations, war is always about a show of force, a dick size contest. The US, East Germany, Russia all want to look powerful.


Jurassic World
Vincent D'Onofrio wants to make the raptors a military weapon. Bad guys always seem to want to turn things into a weapon, don't they... Govn't wants to equip and arm "moderate" rebels? Psh, good luck. Look where it's gotten us.


Captain America The Winter Soldier
Redford/Hydra wants to take away freedom for security, calls for pre-emptive attacks, drone bombing, to kill people that a database labels as enemies, without due process. Sounds like obamadrones, and obama's matrix.
One of Captain America's great lines is, "By holding a gun at everyone on Earth and calling it protection."
Captain America is on our side, his friend Bucky is mind-controlled on the other side.


 
Mad Max: Fury Road
Many great themes here.
Man nuked itself. Wars for oil.
Water controls the people.
The brides want freedom and liberty from patriarchy.



 
The Lego Movie
Freedom and liberty from the rules and regulations of the father figure.

Star Wars
Rebels against a fascist empire.

The Hunger Games
Rebels against a fascist empire.

Citizenfour
about Edward Snowden. Just pointing out that is got the Academy Award. Nuff said.

Dirty Wars
US war crimes.
nominated for Academy Award

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
anti-war themes

Ender's Game
war games. War is all a game.

The World's End
Simon Pegg does a long speech at the end about freedom and liberty.

My Defense of The Prequels

   This is a collection of my thoughts on The Prequels, of Star Wars. That is to say Episode 1 The Phantom Menace, Episode 2 Attack of the Clones, and Episode 3 Revenge of the Sith. Perhaps I'm the only one in the world who likes them, whatever. I mean, I don't think they're the greatest of the Star Wars films, but I find the major aspects of them (the art, Palpatines' politics, Anakin's journey towards the dark side intertwining with the government's journey toward the dark side) fascinating, moving, entertaining, and fitting, because it is straight from the creator, George Lucas. I think the stories work. I think the art works.
   As of this writing, I've seen the Episode 7 The Force Awakens twice, but I may or may not write about it yet here in this post. But as always and at any rate, SPOILER WARNING.
   The whole of Star Wars has personal meaning to everyone, and it's totally subjective. People may say Star Wars is about this and that, or it SHOULD be about this and that, that the Prequels weren't about this and that. Well so, this is my opinion.
   People say Star Wars is about the hero's journey, about Luke. Well, yes and no. I mean, yeah for ANH, but now it's much bigger than that. The Star Wars series is about the Skywalker family and how they fit with the Republic/Empire. It's both intimate (about family) and big (about society). I think it's kind of that simple. It's how all these things relate, as the Force relates to everything, surrounds, binds the galaxy together. It's operatic, it's mythic. Also, it is melodramatic. It has always been. It's pulp.
  The Galactic Republic, probably most exemplified by the look of Naboo and Coruscant, is SUPPOSED TO BE glossy, grand, not dirty, rich, etc. It's the height of society. I have like 15 "art of" and "making of" Star Wars books I've read cover to cover, and the concept design is thought out and fitting for the SW universe. Naboo is decorative like art nouveau and classic Greco-Roman, as in contrast, the Empire is cold and sterile, like the inside of a computer. After the Senate and Jedis are crushed and the Emperor takes over, the world goes to shit. Infrastructure goes to shit, things become rusty and dirty. After a war, people salvage, people make-do. The Rebel Alliance are scappers, cobbling together old parts to make their vehicles, because they are not the Empire with money. When there is a totalitarian regime, the lower and middle classes are neglected, competition and entrepreneurship is squashed. You just get what the government allows you to have. You barter, salvage, smuggle, run a black market, as Han does.
   Little Anakin used to be a good innocent boy, saying "Yippees" as someone from the '50's might, like Lucas, or someone from a Norman Rockwell painting, as Lucas and Spielberg both have Rockwell collections. And it's so interesting to see this kid become the most evil mofo of the universe, Darth Vader. So, Jake Lloyd wasn't the greatest actor. Neither was Mark Hamill. And certainly many of the Imperial officers in the Classic Trilogy (ANH, ESB, ROTJ). But, Lloyd did have some great moments of anger, at the Jedi Temple, and this was probably key in him getting the part. I think his character attributes were great -- a kid piloting a dangerous pod racer (showing Jedi reflexes), a generous being wanting to help strangers and a kid in love (innocence), and someone who can fix anything mechanical (but can't fix life and death of his loved ones, and also becomes mechanical himself). His life is turned upside down by leaving his mother to go with the Jedi. Perhaps it's one the reasons he hates the Jedi later. They make him lose attachments.
   Hayden Christensen, like Mark Hamill, I think looked older than the age they actually play. From complaining about not getting to go to Tosche Station, or complaining about being held back by Obi-Wan and the Jedis, they are both impetulant brats (like father, like son) that probably should look younger, however the actors probably needed to bridge the span from teen to adult. Christensen's Anakin comes across strong, and creepy, to Padme because the Jedi's don't get out much. They are celibate monks. And he's a teenager with emotional problems, seduced by power. I have more of a problem with Natalie Portman's acting, as she only plays being weirded out, one note, but her character needs to have a glimmer of interest even before her love confession at the top of the Geonosis gladiator arena scene.
   The greatest thing about the Prequels is the political intrigue. It's the aspect most hated by most, but their loss. It's the story that mirrors and entwines the Skywalker's. Senator Palpatine plays both sides (multiple sides) of the trade conflict to start a crisis to create a situation where he could move in as Supreme Chancellor, and then Emperor. Anakin would be Palpatines' muscle in the end. Anakin's drive for power for control stems from the things he couldn't control in life (his mom's plight, vision of Padme's death, how the Jedi's don't really like him). And so, Palpatine's story of the Sith Lord Darth Plagueis and the knowledge to "cheat death" to peak Anakin's interest is probably one of the best scenes in the series. Ian McDiarmid should've gotten some sort of Academy Award. After Anakin becomes Darth Vader and terrorizes the galaxy, HE is the one to kill the Emperor and find redemption. It's an amazing arc.
   Other aspects that I love about the Prequels were the lightsaber fights of Jedi's and Sith in their prime, Darth Maul, the podrace, the Clone Wars, the brotherly feud between Anakin and Obi-Wan also mirroring the Jedi and Sith point of views, how the Clone Army story-wise and visually becomes the Imperial Stormtroopers, the portrayal of democracy dissolving into a dictatorship by imperialism, militarism. If you know anything about history (kings in general, Napolean, Hitler, USA, etc.), it's the history of our world told over again and again. War motivating a fascist security police state. Bureacracy and corruption motivating calls for more executive power. This is both universal, and personal. It's Anakin's story. It's the Galactic Republic/Empire's story. I think it's genius.
   Jar Jar Binks was innocence (and slapstick), but sometimes "too much." But so is C3PO, a character I can't stand. There is "cheese" to be found in the Classic Trilogy -- the "you rebel scrum" lines, Chewie's cowardice of the dianoga, the antics as they all run around the Death Star, the Ewoks hijinks. A lot of it is campy. It's fun. The Battle of Naboo had "accidental" victories because it was still a innocent time. The Clone Wars is where the Civil War starts to get serious. Well, as serious as SW can be. By ROTJ, things got the most dark, more was at stake; it came to a head for the Skywalkers. The series had to have a progression.
   Lucas' world of Star Wars, his visual choices, is a certain aesthetic. His choices are appealing and popular. I don't like Star Trek aliens; I like Star Wars aliens. Many concept artists can present designs in front of Lucas, but he is the one calling the shots. Joe Johnston and Ralph McQuarrie, Doug Chiang, Terryl Whitlach, Iain McCaig, and Ryan Church worked on many other films, but I'm not crazy about any of their other designs, they weren't as memorable as the Star Wars films. Disney had an eye for design and how it appeals to the majority of audiences as well, and had his artists almost make a science out of it, using proportions and style. For the lack of a better word or explanation, it was an aesthetic. The character designs of these greats, Lucas and Disney, sell mechandise. They are appealing to the masses. I can't say any designs of Don Bluth or Dreamworks appeal to me. I don't have a desire to purchase their toys, if they had any.
  I should probably write another separate post of my thoughts on Episode 7 The Force Awakens, which is mostly positive, but briefly my thoughts on the designs were kinda...meh. The orangey-ET Maz was ugly with small eyes and thin lips. The tentacle ball was ugly and stupid, like something from JJ's Star Trek movies. The stormtroopers looked like cheetahs. Kylo Ren was a bit racist, looking like Omar Sharif in Lawrence of Arabia. The Supreme Leader Snoke looked like ass. Captain Phasma belongs with the cylons. However, BB-8's design was genius. Rey's speeder was great simplcity. Jakku the junk planet was awesome.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus DECON PART 1

The first time I saw Parnassus, I think I had mixed feelings. It was an awesome adventure, felt it was layered and meaningful, but also confusing. I wasn’t sure I understood the plot entirely. I’ve read and listened to reviews and podcasts floundering about as well, trying to make sense of it, but always talking around it, never about what exactly is going on and what is seen. As I researched more into esoteric and occult subjects and got the blu-ray and listened to Terry Gilliam’s commentary a few times, I’ve seen the movie around 5 times now. I think TG is a genius, always have. Movie-wise, dialog wise and scriptwriting wise, it’s a little rough on the edges because characters sometimes flatly state their intentions and repeat information a lot, but really I wouldn‘t have known because the accents, mumbling, and overlapping lines make it difficult to understand what’s going on, so watching it with subtitles was extremely helpful. But as far as the ideas and potential of the film - brilliant, amazing, awesome, enlightening.

Jumping right into some analysis, all the imagery in the Imaginarium has meaning. It’s a reflection of the imaginations and thoughts of the people who go inside that mirror on the stage. In the beginning, the drunk trudges through bottles. I think the jellyfish and space is like an underwater feeling of being drunk. When the boy enters, it’s all toys, candy things, and air-inflated things for the video-game playing kid to blow up. The shoppers (the tall one is Brienne of Tarth , btw) dream of jewelry and baubles, etc. As the movie goes on, more and more people enter the mirror, aka the Dr.’s mind (not sure how) who polices it, and so there are a mixture of people’s imagery competing for attention, as well as the competing Mr. Nick, a type of devil character. The imagery represents the temptations, the distractions, the decadence, and they are respectively dazzled, lured like a fish. It is unless they drop it all, sacrifice worldly things, choose the Dr.’s long hard road path, they'll come out an enlightened changed person. It’s about reclaiming spirituality in a time of ignorance, hence the odd traveling wagon show juxtaposed near modern settings.

TG’s commentary explains that Dr. P came from a monastery of ancient jewish/tibetan monks (who say “om vei“), and believe their role is to tell the story to define the world. The tree stump Dr. P sits on is the Tree of Life that was cut down, and the monks feel, quite arrogantly, that they replace its role - they are the lifeblood of the world and their story is the only story. Mr. Nick enters, proves them wrong by shutting their mouths, but Dr. P supposes someone else in the world is telling a story. So TG states his feelings on religion - all the Christians and Jews, etc. have got it wrong. It’s ALL of our stories. I believe there is a truth, an enlightenment, to be found in all things; the ancients knew it, but it was broken apart long ago. And also, it’s an ancient idea that we manifest events and things, past, present, future, that we are all part of a one-consciousness. The story of Dr. P is really a story of the lost and found-ness of the ancient mystery schools, i.e. pre-religion. And he is trying to tell us again, as Anton says in that mystical phrase, "for those with eyes to see and ears to hear."

The Wagon: The wagon is loaded with symbols, from ancient Egyptian, Greek, Buddhist, etc. The illuminated great all-seeing eye in pyramid, twin pillars, Anton dressed as Mercury, etc. Dr.P, in various Asian and exotic garb, has acquired all this through his immortal years, and it’s just so dense, it’s indecipherable, and yet maybe that's the point. This is antiquated spiritual imagery that most people are ignorant of and do not care. Dr. P and friends have a very hard time gaining an audience in the modern world that worships consumerism. Later, Tony, Heath Ledger’s character, a smoothtalker chameleon that adapts to situations, comes in and changes up the design of the stage, to modernize it, and it does the trick. And the new stage will have other symbols. More on that later.

The Deal: Mr. Nick and Dr. P make various gambles to spice up life, TG explains. In Dr. P’s ancient book, he explains to his daughter Valentina that Mr. Nick wagers that it is fear that runs the world and how to control it (Mr. Nick portrayed amongst priests, very telling of what TG says about the rise of religion). Mr. Nick believes in the “necessities of danger, fear and the fabled bliss of ignorance.” However, according to TG, Dr. P says it’s about joy, “the power of the imagination to transform and illuminate our lives.” First to 12 disciples wins, Dr. P wins immortality. BTW, Anton, I think, is an extension of Dr. P, for Andrew Garfield plays everything in a fun and playful way. Mr. Nick, TG explains, isn’t really the devil, he’s somewhat below that, some second-rate figure. The two immortals run these battles with mankind, they gamble because it’s interesting to them, or else things get boring. Percy is like Jiminy Cricket, the conscience. And, I don’t think Dr. P, the protagonist, is entirely that good of a person actually, for he wagers lives for selfish reasons. Evil Mr. Nick even seems to have a heart near the end, offering to gamble again so Dr. P can get his daughter back. These main story elements about what pushes and pulls mankind through the ages, and which school of thought governs us, saves us or destroys us, is probably the main interesting and powerful thing about the movie

 Well, that’s just part of my first page of my 5 pages of notes. I’ll split this up into several posts.

THE FILMS OF CHRISTOPHER NOLAN part 2

The Dark Knight Rises continued.

[spoilers]

The quotes below are transcribed from a podcast called /FILMCAST.

“Colin writes in:
The film makes a number of allusions to the French Revolution in a event where the common people overthrew the wealthy yet suffered under the hands of their own disorganization. The liberation in the prison in the film is liberation of the Bastille where the peasants and convicts began looting and pillaging from the homes of the rich. Moreover the people’s court of law headed by Cillian Murphy sentenced citizens to death without fair trial similar to the way executions were carried out during the French Rev. Also, similar to Robespierre during his Reign of Terror, Bane was the intellectual giving compelling speeches to the masses while ruling Gotham as a dictator. You (the podcasters) addressed the notion as the 99% and suggested the film might antagonize the rich, however I think the film’s message is that while our economic institution and administrative structures are not perfect, they are preferable to anarchy, terror, and manipulation of the masses by a few, as was the case when the French Rev. resulted in oligarchy and despotism.”
“Well, you can read all those things. You can read the cultural revolution in China. I think what Nolan has said is the political side of things is little more open, because you can view it multiple ways and it’s not as definitive as ‘oh, this is pro-Occupy Wall St.” or against it or anything.”

The reason one "can read all those things" is because they all stem from the same thing. The French Revolution was started by the jacobins, who were largely freemasons (but again, I'm not bashing freemasonry, just illuminated freemasons). I have yet to do research on how Mao Zedong got into power. Wall St. and russian freemasons in the Great East of Peoples of Russia started the soviet revolution.


“David Su writes in:
One thing I wanted to chime in on is the nature of the 99% vs. the 1% theme. At one point, Dave referenced an editorial the purported the film to be in support of the 1% since they seem to be the primary victims of Bane’s uprising. However I think Nolan was making a much different statement on the socio-economic situation facing Gotham and thus America. With Batman gone for roughly 7 years and crime nearly nonexistent due to the harsh regulation imposed by the Dent Act, a new set of problems have emerged in Gotham; a widening wealth gap, growing unemployment and corruption in the financial institutions. Catwoman’s dialog in the ballroom scene reinforces this notion, and I think as an audience we are meant to bring our understanding of what’s going on in reality with things like the Occupy Wall St. movement to the film. As soon as we hear the phrase 1%, it’s safe to assume Nolan is drawing a clear parallel between Gotham’s woes and unfortunate economic truth which have become apparent in America over the last 4 years (well it's been decades or more really). Early in the film, the police discover the body of a young man outside a sewer drain, and we quickly learn through officer Blake that he “aged out” of a boy’s home that is no longer receiving funding from Wayne Enterprises. I believe the boy’s home represents the welfare programs and other social institutions that the 1% refuses to support by defying increases in taxes and corrupt financial practices. As soon as good men like Bruce Wayne stop paying attention to details, the corrupt can run amuck, much as they have in our own under regulated financial system.
The money is not trickling down to the people that need the safety net and the crippled economy is not offering those people an opportunity to make it on their own."

He has some good points, but this last part is typical mainstream misunderstanding. It's not that the financial system is "under regulated," it got that way through cronyism. Not capitalism -- crony capitalism. Regulations are written by corporations to hurt competitors and small businesses. De-regulation took off the brakes only because the FED was their guaranteed parachute. Also the idea of trickle-down is ridiculous, as I'll explain later. But these are 2 big false debates in mainstream media that for some reason people don't think through and do enough research, because they address the symptoms (Keynesianism band-aids) and not the cause of the economic crisis (cronyism).

"Enter Bane. With so many disenfranchised young men as well as unemployed members of the lower class having no where else to turn, Nolan is proposing a worst case scenario, a situation where people would actually turn to an anarchic leader with plans for a violent uprising. In this sense, the film isn’t victimizing the 1%, but warning them that if they don’t let things even out by paying their fair share, members of the 99% can organize this sort of violent revolt, literally engaging in class warfare."

I agree that's the movie is a warning to everyone that the disenfranchised and desperate may turn to a compelling leader, which they have in the past and present. We can list the names of all tyrannical leaders. But I don't agree with saying "1% paying their fair share" would prevent class warfare or solve the economic problem. If what they are saying is to raise taxes, it's the false paradigm that again the mainstream media would like to pit the left vs. the right as left or right stances. It would NOT even begin to scratch the debt or the spending problem. The debt is literally unpayable, it needs to be "forgiven." The FED needs to stop making and popping bubbles. I mean, there are many things that address the symptoms vs. the cause. And if people stop listening to mainstream corporate media, they'd join the people awake and address the causes.


"This interpretation really refrains or possibly conflicts with the final showdown between the police and Bane’s thugs. If you look at Bane’s army as misguided young people with no place to turn, it’s harder to see them as simply evil criminals that deserve an ass kicking from Batman. They may have gotten in over their heads and not realized Bane’s plan involved anything beyond an attack on Wall St. Granted much of the violence in the streets towards the end could’ve involved the released prisoners, but it was still pretty clear that Bane had amassed a large group of followers before taking control of the city. I wished we’d gotten a perspective of one of these young men, not that the film needed another character to track, and see how his allegiance to Bane was reluctant and regretful because it really would’ve added another layer to the whole 99%/1% them. I know there’s not a ton of evidence to support this interpretation, but I thought it was worth sharing.”
“Under David’s interpretation, the movie is not anti-99%, it’s just saying it’s anti-inequality.”

Which is what, a socialist view? Look, you're not going to solve inequality. Again, that's symptoms.

I agree that it's a shame most people are "followers." Sheeple will follow leader who speak well and are convincing, and that's what's interesting with Nolan's Bane. He a brute, but talks like a politician.

THE FILMS OF CHRISTOPHER NOLAN part 1

[SPOILERS below]

BATMAN BEGINS
The main antagonist in this movie is Ra’s Al Ghul and the League of Shadows. Who are they and what do they want?

PURPOSE

“The League of Shadows has been a check against human corruption for thousands of years. We sacked Rome, loaded trade ships with plague rats, burned London to the ground.  Every time a civilization reaches the pinnacle of its decadence, we return to restore the balance.” - Ducard/Ghul 

“Gotham’s time has come. Like Constantinople or Rome before it…the city has become a breeding ground for suffering and injustice. It is beyond saving and must be allowed to die. This is the most important function of the League of Shadows. It is one we’ve performed for centuries.” -Ra’s Al Ghul

“You’re going to destroy millions of lives.” - Wayne

“No. Billions of lives. Gotham is just the beginning. The world will watch in terror as the greatest city falls. Anarchy and chaos will spread…mankind will ravage itself, the species will be culled and the balance of nature restored. The planet will be saved for all species.” -Ducard/Ghul

“Gotham is helpless without you. That’s why I’m here.” -Ducard/Ghul

“To kill me?” - Wayne

“To bring you back to us, Bruce. The world will need great men like you-” -Ducard/Ghul

“To take power.” - Wayne

“This is not about power…this is about saving the planet before man destroys it with his greed, with his pollution, with his weaponry…” -Ducard/Ghul

At first it sounds like TLOS are anarchists, but I'm not so sure about that. They still use "government," a form of fascism, which is more clear in The Dark Knight Rises. But I think TLOS has a lot of aspects of a secret society, because it's a bunch of guys with an agenda, hidden in the mountains, being mystical and educated, and infiltrating society by coopting and pretending to be a part of it.

The character of Ra's Al Ghul was created in the '70's, a time where several historians, investigators, politicians, military men, and whistleblowers have talked about plots to take over the world, or the "new world order," although definitely not the first nor last.  I wrote about George Lucas, having made Star Wars in the '70's, talking about the NWO. I believe this theme is a key part in why these movies are successful and resonate with audiences, in addition to of course the film craft.

Like TLOS, secret societies tend to favor harmony and balance of the environment over the value of human life, as seen in their dark occult and pagan practices like in the Thule and Tooley societies influencing the Nazis (i.e. the expedition to the Himalayas, similar to the place where Bruce Wayne finds TLOS) and the Fabian and Theosophical societies influencing the Labor Party. Many are influenced by mystics, having traveled to the east and brought back mystical knowledge and eastern cultural views.

Secret societies meet and share the knowledge of the world; discuss how things have gone in the past, and where things should be in the future. They consist of the most influential people in society and thus arrogantly believe they know what's best for the rest of us. Eugenics was actually sort of popular a hundred years ago. They talked of culling the population. Basically a forced Darwinism. If you can't justify your existence, you're useless and deserve to die. Thankfully, not all "globalists" see eye to eye on ways and means (Japanese assassins are something interesting; talked about as vigilantes of sorts against the NWO globalists). But call them what you will. The Jacobins (Freemasons) and the French Revolution, Thule Society and the Nazis, the Illuminati in various coopted forms such as the Freemasons and the US, and of course the Bilderberger Group and the world. At the height of a corrupt civilization, they just go and crash the party, but the cost is usually human lives. The stakes are the absolute highest; which is why it makes for good drama.

INFILTRATION
“You are defending a city so corrupt we have infiltrated every level of its infrastructure.” -Ducard/Ghul
“When a forest grows too wild, a purging fire is inevitable and natural. Tomorrow the world will watch in horror as its greatest city destroys itself.  The movement back to harmony will be unstoppable this time…Over the ages, our weapons have grown more sophisticated. With Gotham, we tried a new one: Economics. But we underestimated certain of Gotham’s citizens…such as your parents. Gunned down by one of the very people they were trying to help. Create enough hunger and everyone becomes a criminal. Their deaths galvanized the city into saving itself…and Gotham has limped on ever since. We are back to finish the job…” -Ducard/Ghul

So, TLOS isn't solely "shoot-em-up" destructive. Ducard/Ghul mentions they've used economics. If TLOS saw the charitable Waynes as in their way, TLOS must have been creating the poor and desperate to destroy Gotham. How? My guess, debt, taxes and bailouts transfer wealth, outsourced jobs, restrict growth, etc. (here's a great recent Bill Moyer's show). Create poverty, and when people are desperate, they turn on each other (which is why real modern day protests around the world were predictable. 1,2,3). They’ve manipulated the economic system, creating classes, then class warfare ensues, which is TDKR. So, TLOS attacks from both fronts; pressure from above and below. We eat each other up. The Wayne's tried to voluntarily spread their wealth, almost bankrupted them in the process, but it inspired the city to follow good example.

In the Batman Begins script, Ducard says, “When Gotham falls, the other cities will follow in short order.”

The global domino effect of protests was predictable. We are all interconnected [1,2,3,4]. What is the establishment's solution to protests? Martial law. Which is why martial law has already been set up, ready to go.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES
Jonathan Nolan says the The Dark Knight Rises story was conceived before "Occupy," and was actually influenced by Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities. I haven't read it, but the class-warfare divide-n-conquer method plays itself throughout history, so its MO is predictable if you learn the stages. Nolan could be tapping into the cyclical nature of these stages civilizations go through. America today has similarities to the economic collapse of Weimar Germany before fascism came in.


Christopher Nolan declines to say if he’s right or left wing, but says “the films genuinely aren’t intended to be political,” and “I love when people get interested in the politics of it, when they see something in it that moves them in some way. But I’m not being disingenuous when I say that we write from a place of ‘What’s the worst thing our villain Bane can do? What are we most afraid of?’ He’s going to come in and turn our world upside down. That has happened to other societies throughout history, many times, so why not here? Why not Gotham? We want something that moves people and gets under the skin.”

C'mon, Nolan. The whole movie was basically a modern day political drama -- there were hardly any superheroes in it. At any rate, hey, it's my blog. Having said that, I feel it's good to view things in a historical context -- these are not necessarily ever left or right issues, in TDKR movie or real world. There isn't any reason to pigeonhole into either, as mainstream media does, because this is just the ways things go.

I think what Nolan is saying, is that this movie brings up a lot of issues, and it does so epicly. It seems complex, but as a whole, straight forward. It has you think about them and recognize them in their various guises and say, "Y'know, I would hate for America to turn out like that Gotham City police state. It was brutal." There are historical precedents and patterns, the rise and fall of the great republic civilizations, I follow in it, but there’s not a one-to-one correlation here in TDKR, and that makes it so interesting to me. It's like someone saying they want to make a book/movie about buddhism and called it Fight Club. I say that's great art.

The trailers may make it seem like Bane is an anarchist and his army resembles the “Occupy” movements, beating up the rich 1-percenters. He says he's giving the city back to the people, but that's a politician's rhetoric. You see, the way TLOS controls the city is fascist, statist. How?

The movie starts off with the Dent act, a sort of USAPATRIOT act. Put into law, based on a lie, it seems to create peace. But is it really? How big did the prison population get? But this is the thing that constitutionalists warn about -- even if you think you’re current leadership is wonderfully perfect and has good-intentions, the successor may not be. Once overreaching laws become legal, it’s hard to reverse. Damn near impossible without a revolution. So, who’s the next guy in charge? Bane and TLOS.

Well, it looks like Occupy protestors, you say. It sounds like Occupy rhetoric. But it is fascism. It's control by fear. The whole city is corralled to control it better. The fear that any citizen has the detonator (a lie), that everyone’s a suspect, makes everyone complicit in allowing more security, welcoming this goddamn martial law police state. There’s no due process by Crane/Scarecrow -- he’s the judge, jury and executioner. It’s certainly not democracy. Not anarchy. We don't want poor old Com. Gordon tried under the same justice system. We don't America to be like that, but it's heading that way [1,2,3,4,5]. The government even complies to lock Gotham down. There’s a great scene on the bridge where Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s character challenges the cops to let the kids on the bus through, but the cops are establishment stooges and fire on him. There are watchtowers like they have today. It perfectly represents when police and military blindly obeys their orders because they don’t know what’s really going on. However, there are a growing number who will disobey, as Com. Gordon rallies people who don't buy into the lie (the security theater on citizens), and actually protect the citizens from tyranny, like the valiant knights are supposed to. And then there are people who just don’t act, cowards like Mathew Modine’s character, so they are just as complicit in allowing tyranny in.

Bane's stock market crime scene was just a literal stealing of wealth, I suppose, whereas the real world Wall St. crime was more subtle [1,2,3,4,5]. Also, TLOS leader Talia al Ghul was a rich 1-percenter. So the TLOS had money. If the Occupy movements coopt anything from this movie, then they clearly didn’t understand the movie.

So, ultimately, my take is that it's a secret society coopting an impressionable movement (isn't that always the case?). And it is dangerous and brutal when the majority of people don't get it.

So, is forced redistribution of wealth the answer to a failed civilization, like Gotham? Stealing from the rich? Hey, the corrupt rich should of course be punished, but all people, indiscriminately? Or is the charitable rich an answer? Like the Wayne family. Allowing liberty and freedom to decide. Ralph Nader talks about trying to convince the rich to put their money where their mouth is. It seems like Nolan likes this idea. In Inception, the goal is to change the mind of the heir to one of the largest energy monopolies and break up his empire. And speaking of energy, The Prestige brings up the rivalry between Edison and Tesla, said to have made free energy. TDKR has a free energy device. I can't wait for Nolan's next.

[updated 7-24-12] This issue of surveillance is brought up in The Dark Knight as Batman takes Lucius Fox's sonar technology and expands it. Our hero is desperate, but fallible. Indeed it is the older wiser figure, Fox, saying that this is wrong and ultimately shuts it all down. It is a dilemma, but it does not become normalcy. In real life, the NSA listens to everything, and there are many opposed to this. [1,2,3,4,5,6]

Also, all Batman's gadgetry, especially ones made with military contracts, of course seem so wonderful and useful -- in the right hands. But in the wrong hands, uh, bad. Fox's whole consolidation of military projects in TDKR gets stolen right from under them, literally, by Bane. The energy core gets stolen by Bane. In BB, TLOS steals Wayne's water vaporizer machine. What's with Lucius Fox doing all these military projects and he lets it all get stolen? Technology being both useful and lethal is explored well, and I guess, I'll leave it at that.

There are a few bad apples, and they even can corrupt true white knights like Dent, but the majority of us are good noble people, as the two ferries in TDK proved when they didn't blow each other up. I think only one ferry voted, democracy didn't work (yes democracy is a fallacy), so good noble spirit prevailed. Like a herd mentality, the majority have their heads up the asses of the establishment status quo controlled by the elites. The majority can get to the point where it can be wrong, and the ones that are heroes may seem like rebels to establishment, like Harry Potter and his school and Luke Skywalker and the Empire, for they stand up for goodness and what's right. Blake/Robin literally throws away his badge after his standoff with the stupid cops blocking the bridge. Batman needs to be outside the system and be like the American patriots who rebelled against their British rulers. Our heroes stand for truth, basic human rights, and IMO common sense, regardless of a badge or not. Because the TSA has a uniform, does not make what they do right. Because cops at Occupy are in riot gear and have mace, does not make what they do right. Because we have such ingrained paradigms, the controversy over whether Batman is a good guy or criminal rebel will continue.

THE HARRY POTTER SERIES [part 2]
(11.18.11)

SPIRITUALITY
After seeing HP:The Deathly Hallows:part2, I came away thinking it was very “eastern.” Then again, most people would say “What? It’s very western.” On the surface, of course, it’s western (Anglo, European) with the British accents and the castles and production design, but why did I think eastern?

For me, it seems that eastern religions are kind of internal; like Ghandi, “Be the change you want to see in the world” and Buddha sitting under a tree and finding enlightenment by meditating. Whereas western religions are external, relying on an external god to save you, and pushing their religion on others. I’m not sure eastern religions imperialistically go to other countries, spreading their religion to other populations. A school like Hogwarts internalizes; hides away to a castle, has secret transportation systems to get there, keeps its secrets and knowledge from muggle eyes. As in the previous post, the Fellowship of the New Life, many whom were Theosophical Society, wanted to set an example in the industrial age, work on the internal, whereas the Fabians were more external and sought to change things more politically. Isn’t that always the case? A grassroots, well-intentioned, spiritual, creative group always gets coopted and infiltrated by the corrupt and control-freaks. Author Michael Tsarion talks about the Theosophical Society being coopted by Fabians, who were “pushers of left-wing socialistic philosophy,” having connections to the British royalty and political establishment. Tsarion is big on clearing up misconceptions.

A good overview documentary that explains this is Secrets of the Occult. The occult doesn’t mean devil worship -- it means things that are hidden. All witches aren’t evil -- there’s white magic and black magic. Helena Blavatsky wasn’t an evil witch -- it was other people coopting her ideas and work. Secret societies initially were not evil -- they were coopted. I also think mystery religions like early Christians were coopted by the political elite. George Washington believed aspects of freemasonry were coopted by illuminati. The Ministry of Magic was coopted by Death Eaters. The Ministry coopted Hogwarts. Yet, there would be ones who would break away and start anew, small grassroots and back to basics, like The Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore’s Army.

Organized religion aside, I think there is a spiritual quest in the Harry Potter saga (and for the atheists, there’s a science angle I’ll get into later). It’s not just a boy having a rite-of-passage to become an adult. It’s boy to adult to friggin enlightenment. Most so-called adults are not mature at all, and Rowling wants to show that many of us has got a long way to go. Rowling has carried us through the life of Harry Potter in his quest to find his purpose in life, and it comes down to The Deathly Hallows.

Before I get to that, Harry Potter deals with good and bad choices throughout -- free will -- all along the way.

FREE-WILL
Around Prisoner of Azkaban, when Harry Potter got increasingly angry, I had thought Harry Potter’s scar and Voldemort’s piece of soul within him was just Rowling saying it was a metaphor for the raging hormones of adolescence. Then, by Deathly Hallows, I realized it was about free will, the good and bad within all of us. Sirius Black says, “We’ve all got both light and dark inside of us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That’s who we really are.” Dumbledore also says, “It is not our abilities that show what we truly are. It is our choices.” The sorting hat may place you…wherever, but it’s up to you and your choices in life. Just like Star Wars’ Jedi -- anybody can be corrupted and use the dark side. Use dark magic, but it’s up to you. Even the seemingly incorruptible Dumbledore admits he can be tempted, when he followed Grindelwald in his youth.

So, these ideas are about an internal change or power struggle within us. The west, as in the Judeo-Christian-Islam religions, believe mankind is just plain born bad, and only by external grace that a external god can save mankind. They would say this mentality makes us lose our big stumbling block: our pride. Although, some would say it makes us slave-like, a subservient people. I.e. we are, by nature, a pitiful sinful lot, and our only hope of salvation is to be saved from an outside force. The guilt-trip is suppressive, makes one submissive (quite the powerful tool for a church-state, if one so chose to coopt a religion...). I don’t see much about an external god in the Harry Potter saga, but I do see a lot of internal struggle and internal strength. And there is strength in numbers, and the cooperation of other humans.

If Star Wars is more like Jesus, with Anakin being conceived by midichlorians, then Harry Potter is more like Buddha. Someone with human parents, who lived his life with everything basically handed to him until the end. To gain enlightenment, he had to give up everything, any attachments, his life -- an unbelievably selfless act. He mastered the patronus charm, a Buddha-like blissful state. He would attain a sort of nirvana, a cessation of the struggle to survive, and a sort of enlightenment and mastery of being able to choose to come back to physical life. Hmm… well then Harry is like Jesus -- sacrificing himself, destroying the sin in him (represented as the part of Voldemort’s soul within him) so that others may live. Well, then Rowling is combining east meets west. Yeah, she is a globalist.

We have much to learn from foreigners. “International magical cooperation” as Hermione says. When east meets west, you combine each others notes, share technology and knowledge. The crusades brought back technology from the arabs and asians. The US got technology from the Nazis. Blavatsky traveled the world many times and brought back eastern religions. The coming together and breaking apart of knowledge has been on a repeat cycle for thousands of years. Hogwarts definitely knew this. How?

Let’s go back a couple thousand years. In the Egyptian/Greek times, there were mystery schools and ancient texts, like those attributed to Thoth and Hermes (the Hermetica) and others, that had all this ancient knowledge (that modern scientists would get inspiration from today) about astrology, alchemy, medicine, math, spirituality, etc. Buddha and Jesus traveled the world learning from gurus and collecting ancient knowledge. Christianity would be coopted as the Christian rulers suppressed all the the mystery school stuff, called it all heretical, to keep people dumb and controlled. It became occult, hidden. However, the east kept it. The west had their Dark Ages. Then the crusades traveled the world, brought back Arabic and Asian technology, and there was a resurgence of art and science in the 15th century, the Renaissance. Why do you think the east was more technologically advanced than the west? Fuck Darwin -- mankind didn’t advance in a linear fashion. The ancients and magicians already knew this knowledge. The west just suppressed it for political reasons, to keep its own people down. Ancient texts are under lock and key in the Vatican, no doubt. What’s also important is the theological renaissance, and that threatened the rulers of the west even more. Secret societies had to be formed to keep and maintain all this knowledge, but time and again, as stated before, they are infiltrated and coopted to be discredited. Knight's Templar, Freemasons, Hermetical Order of the Golden Dawn, the Theosophical Society, the Fellowship of the New Life. Time and again, there would arise a new theological and even artistic renaissance, trying to break free. The Victorian Age occult craze, the 60’s new age, and today. Ancient mystery school knowledge and spirituality are what the secret societies are about. This is what Hogwarts is. Why do you think people in the Harry Potter world look like they’re stuck in the Renaissance or the Victorian age? Because those were high points in the renewed interest in occultism and secret societies. Modern technology is all influenced from the ancients. Galileo and Isaac Newton‘s scientific ideas were influenced by the Hermetica and occult ideas. Thomas Edison was a Theosophical society member. Probably everything in your house is from alchemy. Carl Jung says alchemy “is the basis of our modern way of perceiving things.” I find it interesting that modern Russian scientists are making modern pyramids as healing centers.

THE VEIL
The Veil in the Ministry of Magic is an ancient stone arch with a veil in between the living and dead dimensions. It seems the only people who has seen death can see the veil and hear the voices behind it, and also see thestrals, like Harry and Luna. The others can’t yet. This seems similar to people who have been close to death and have had NDE’s (near death experiences) and have come back with increased intuition and psychic abilities, as studied by a Dr. Jeffery Long. And the veil, in various religions, is the barrier between the living and the dead dimensions, or between knowledge. Also in Kabala, it’s called Veil of Paroketh, or portal of soul to body, or Veil of Illusion. In Buddhism and Hinduism the veil is the barrier people have from realizing that our experiences is an illusion of the physical and mental world; the struggle is to pierce the veil, understand you’re one with everything, or god, and always have been. A confusing thought to westerners who strive and strive for something, but the east believe we need to realize we already are. “Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” Dumbledore says.

Some say the veil is thinnest around Samhain and Beltane, Halloween and May Day (hmm, what political events happened on May Day… Ritual perhaps?). The witnessing of ghosts can be thought of as the barrier, veil, portal flicker between the 2 dimensions.

The study of the veil is the quest for the meaning of life. In the tree of life our soul knew everything at the higher levels, then passed down through the veil to forget our memories, and fell into our physical bodies at the lower levels to this earthly experience and go through the test of free-will. For if we knew everything and love was automatic, we would be robots. The test of life is remembering our power.

As in eastern thought, visualizing what you want, you already have -- the universe time and space reconfigures itself and makes it so. Western thought is to pray and pray and wish for external help. It’s a dangling carrot you’re always striving for because you’ve willed it to be out there and not within you. Like in Fight club, “The gun is in my hand.” Maybe this is similar to Harry Potter visualizing the Philosopher’s Stone and getting it. Or Harry being the one deserving of obtaining all 3 Deathly Hallows. The twist Rowling adds is that he deserved those powerful objects because he would be at a point to understand his role in life and death, have a natural acceptance, instead of constant desire.

THE DEATHLY HALLOWS
The Deathly Hallows symbol seems very similar to the unofficial illuminati symbol of the eye and pyramid. Why? As in the previous post, it seems secret societies (Theosophy, Hermetica, freemasons, illuminati) were/are keepers of occult and spiritual knowledge, forced underground from the mainstream west, having many famous members who have spawned the most famous classic fantasy, sci-fi, and children’s books (Tokien, Lewis, Baum, Wells). From these books, the readers are groomed with these occult (simply meaning hidden) ideas already, planted with pieces to the puzzle of the universe, like parables containing huge wisdom and lessons of life. However, it's only a few people, only those smart enough to put all the pieces together, that reach an epiphany, an enlightenment, an illumination. Ron and Hermione both have heard of the The Tales of Beedle the Bard and The Tale of the Three Brothers, but Harry would be the one to live through its life lesson and actually become enlightened from it. The 3 Deathly Hallows would give great power to the wizard who had all 3, but the true possessor deserving of it would welcome death, would not fear it, when it truly came down to it. Would Hermione and Ron have done the same?

Fellow seekers of the Deathly Hallows wear the symbol or mark their stuff with it as a sign to recognize others who also follow the Hallows. Like the media's portrayal of a kooky conspiracy theorist, Xenophilius Lovegood is portrayed as a wacko. As if all people who believe in the illuminati are wacko nutjobs, so too are the seekers of the Deathly Hallows. But that's all proven wrong when well-respected professionals like Dumbledore bears the symbol in his letters, and ultimately in the end, the Deathly Hallows are true and do exist. I think George Washington was well-respected when he acknowledged the illuminati's infiltration in freemasonry.

In his youth, Dumbledore meets Gellert Grindelwald and they seek to possess the 3 Deathly Hallows. Talking to Harry in limbo, Dumbledore says, “I had proven, as a very young man, that power was my weakness and my temptation. It is a curious thing, Harry, but perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it. Those who, like you, have leadership thrust upon them, and take up the mantle because they must, and find to their own surprise that they wear it well.”

Like the reluctant hero, who struggles with the idea of being the hero, only to not just eventually accept it, but to “wear it well.” It is only when we stop seeking or struggling, that we find. Maybe it’s Buddhist or Hindu (I’m mixing it all up, who cares) thought that we always have this struggle to survive so much, but we can realize we don’t have to struggle at all. Nirvana. Maybe it’s similar to when you struggle to think of a good idea or solution to your problem, only to come up with the best ideas later, sitting on the john, out for a walk, almost sleeping, or thinking about something else.

“I open at the close,“ reads the inscription on the golden snitch that holds the Resurrection Stone. It’s a similar thought to the acceptance of life and death. Consider the 3 ways in which the Peverell brothers died. The first brother was murdered -- a life lesson cut short, may have to start again and reincarnate. The second was a suicide -- life cut short and obviously didn’t want to play. The third, after living a full life lesson, willingly exposed himself and died naturally. Dying voluntarily, letting go of the thought of your physical self, knowing your physical body is vessel, that there is a higher dimension souls attain to, gaining an enlightenment of sorts. Harry’s tasted death as a baby, seen the ghosts of his family and friends, so he knows there is an afterlife. Knowledge is one thing. Actually doing it is another. True character is revealed when you’re truly tested to your limits, at your limits.

Harry would be responsible with power. Dumbledore would be tempted to abuse it, in his youth. “I was unworthy to unite the Hallows, I had proved it time and again…Maybe a man in a million could unite the Hallows, Harry…I was fit to own the Elder Wand, and not to boast of it, and not to kill with it. I was permitted to tame and to use it, because I took it, not for gain, but to save others from it…But the cloak, I took out of curiosity, and so it could never have worked for me as it works for you, its true owner. The stone I would have used in an attempt to drag back those who are at peace, rather than to enable my self-sacrifice, as you did. You are the worthy possessor of the Hallows.”

“I was scared that, if presented outright with the facts about those tempting objects, you might seize the Hallows as I did, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons…You are the true master of death, because the true master does not seek to run away from Death. He accepts that he must die, and understands that there are far, far worse things in the living world than dying.” Just as the last Percival brother, Harry Potter would depart this life with Death, “as equals.” I believe being equals to mean the enlightened person would know as much with the higher consciousness because he would reunite with that higher consciousness, or god, or whatever you choose to call it, passing on back up through the veil.


So, imagine the superiority complex that would arise in the type of power hungry people who would believe they had all this powerful occult knowledge. They would believe that people who are not as illuminated as they are would be considered inferior. Consider the definition of fascism.

COMING SOON IN part3: Voldy and Fascism and The Wizarding World.