The Philosopher's Stone: The Secret of Esther Vilar

Once one has read Esther Vilar’s The Manipulated Man, it’s hard to forget.

The book depicts women as stupid--unwilling and unworthy of participating in a man's world. She says that men have become these worthless creatures' slaves.

Yet she herself is a woman. Her tone is, "All Women Are Like That," but doesn't the fact that she says so many ugly things indicate that she is A Woman Who Isn't Like That?

Why is a woman attacking other women so viciously?

Here is her claim from a later edition of the book:

Over thirty-five years have passed since the first publication of my book The Manipulated Man - a pamphlet written in great anger against the women's movement's worldwide monopoly of opinion. The determination with which those women portrayed us as victims of men not only seemed humiliating but also unrealistic. If someone should want to change the destiny of our sex - a wish I had then as I have today - then that someone should attempt to do so with more honesty. 

She says she aims for honesty. This statement is dishonest.

TMM has a second mystery. Why isn’t it more significant? It’s nearly forty-five years old. It’s written with no ambiguity. It hits both red pill points and men’s rights points. Yet it is referenced less often than, say, The Book of Pook.

Vilar’s second book of her series, The Polygamous Sex, provides a clue. While TMM describes the fixed game men are playing, TPS is her attempt to explain why this situation has arisen. It reveals her thinking as unreasonably flawed.

It also tells us why Vilar turns her bile toward the entirety of her sex.

TPS comes to us via Eric Crowley at runsonmagic. He calls it, “The Best Book the Manosphere Has Never Heard Of:”

The Polygamous Sex could be the most important book the manosphere has never read. It begins from one simple premise about human drives and works its way forward with clear reason.

She uses “clear reason,” yes--but it’s the reason of Chesterton’s lunatic in Orthodoxy. A reason so unburdened by reality that it approaches madness. It is the madness of the Philosopher's Stone.

The “simple premise” is that humanity is driven by three biological imperatives. The first, that we must protect our own lives, is immaterial to her arguments.

The next two are the basis for the rest of the book. We have a drive to reproduce--to have sex. The last is the mentoring drive--the urge to rear offspring until they are able to care for themselves.

Vilar’s logic is obsessively focused on definitions. The reproductive urge is sexual love. It is completely separate from the second drive.

Vilar goes further. Sexual love properly requires partners to be completely equal. Equal, that is, except in their sexual characteristics. These are optimally as opposite as possible. This point of her definition is vital for what comes later.

She defines a protege as one who is inferior both mentally and physically but shares some kind of likeness with their mentor. Children often look like their parents and echo their personalities--this is the source of the affection parents have for them.

After establishing that these urges can be manipulated into almost unrecognizable forms, Vilar show a streak of Marxism. The relationships between a man and wife, and a man and child, are essentially those of power.

Vilar describes the difference between power and force. Force is obvious:  the strength to compel others to fulfill one’s wishes. Power is more subtle:  the condition in which others want to fulfill one’s wishes. In other words, the powerless compel themselves.

The most one-sided power relationship in this light is the mentor-protege relationship. Though the protege is weaker, it holds the power because the mentor is driven, through its biological imperatives, to serve the protege. The protege has no reciprocal desire.

Sexual love is more flexible because each partner has desire for the other. When the power dynamic favors one partner over the other, it’s because one partner has less desire than the other. When one partner is pursued and the other is not, the former has the power.

Vilar accepts as axiomatic that humans--and particularly women--plot to increase their power.

This is the fundamental idea behind the first book. First, in order to increase their power, women restrain their sexual drive, making themselves the least desirous partner in the sexual relationship. A man desires sex; the woman does not. The man is in the weaker position.

Second, women transition their sexual relationship to that of the mentor and protege. Women position themselves as physically and mentally inferior; this inspires men to serve them just as they would serve their children. By altering their sexual relationship in this way, women have the more powerful position in both the sexual and the protege dynamics.

TMM describes the situation that arises from these manipulations in the bluntest way. But if her description seemed world-shaking there, it's because the analysis it stems from is built on something less firm than solid ground.

The conclusion Vilar draws from her examination of the male-female power dynamic is this:  The sexual relationship between a man and a woman--manipulated into a mentor-protege relationship--is pseudo-incest. The woman has turned herself into a pseudo-child. The sexual relationship has been contaminated.

The sexual drive and the mentoring drive are so dissimilar that the pseudo-incestual relationship causes cognitive dissonance. The man must resolve the two drives. Vilar tells us that he may submit and eventually commit real incest. Those with more common sense, she says, react by becoming either polygamous or prudish.

Polygamy is the man’s effort to separate the paternal feelings he has for his wife with the sexual urge. Vilar has a hierarchy of what she finds the least negative among the polygamous reactions. The least unhealthy situation is that of a man with a wife and a mistress, which she calls “simultaneous polygamy.” The wife is the recipient of his mentoring drive; the mistress, his sexual drive.

Other men pursue “successive polygamy,” which we may better know as “serial monogamy.” The man leaves behind one woman for another. The paternal successive polygamist searches for a new mentor, while the sexual successive polygamist searches for a new equal.

Neither ultimately finds what they are looking for, because woman insist upon play-acting the role of the child. The paternal are disillusioned because the act is false. The sexually-driven bachelors are disillusioned because the woman refuses not to perform the act.

Vilar points out that the above two reactions to pseudo-incest are available only to men of means. It costs money to support two women, or to divorce one and marry another, or to court one after another.

The poor, then, are reduced to sporadic or symbolic polygamy. Sporadic polygamy entails the use of prostitutes or seizing upon the occasional one-night-stand with a promiscuous woman. Symbolic is the use of pornography.

It’s important to note that Vilar is framing the sex within polygamy as a substitute for the sexual relationship she established earlier. The sex acts in most polygamous relationships are just that--mere sex acts.

The ideal sexual relationship--the sexual union of two partners equal in all respects but sex-specific characteristics--is only present when a man takes on a single mistress while continuing to act as a husband to a pseudo-child.

Polygamists are attempting to express their sexual imperative without commingling it with their paternal imperative. Prudes attempt to deny their sex drive entirely.

Vilar tells us that all of human society is built upon the power of women. Thus, in order to succeed, a man has to publicly acquiesce to female demands. This results in a false prudery. A politician, for example, must appear to have a monogamous marriage and disdain polygamous expressions. This may not be his personal preference, but he sacrifices his sexual imperative in order to succeed.

Genuine prudery is that of the father. Finding his sexual imperative mixed with his paternal imperative and finding the dissonance intolerable, he rejects the sexual drive. When he does have sex with his wife, he feels guilty--he is having sex with his protege.

So far, Vilar has offered a small number of assumptions and derived their combinations. These are reasonable and some may even find them enlightening. As we go forward, however, we will find her inserting more simple assertions, assertions that are increasingly unreasonable. Through these statements, we discover why she turns her wrath towards her own sex.

Vilar “proves” that faithful family men are prudes by asserting that such men express their guilt through dirty jokes and talking about sex with other men:

But why should a grown man, unless he is a homosexual, discuss sex with another man? Normally, the sex act is a fit subject for conversation only between two sex partners. That men nevertheless preferably and persistently talk with other men about their sexual experiences can be explained only by damned-up guilt feelings, the bad conscience they have about their sexual intercourse with women.

As contemptuous as Vilar is about male conversations about sex, she heaps scorn on the desire for a virgin bride:

Genuine prudery is also expressed by the male preference for a virgin bride. The man who wants to marry a virgin is clearly expressing a low opinion of sexuality. He subjects women to a simple test: if they go to bed with him they are no good; they are only good women if they refuse to go to bed with him. Only a good woman, i.e., one who has proved that she does not desire him sexually, is eligible to win him as a provider for the rest of her life.

Having analyzed all of the male reactions to pseudo-incest, Vilar next attempts to define the ideal sexual relationship.

If there are any doubts where her preferences lie, remember that fulfillment of the sexual imperative is “love,” while the paternal/mentor relationship is something else entirely.

Vilar’s ultimate conclusion is that love is monogamous, jealous and faithful. She asserts this through the ontological arguments of Klaus Wagn.

Wagn, she neglects to mention, is her ex-husband. She had a child with him and remained “allied” to him after their divorce. TMM was written around seven years after the split, TPS a dozen years.

To be brief, Wagn’s argument centers around the idea that objects are defined only by comparison with what they are not. These not-objects define the object.

Vilar says that the individual is no different than the object. She knows who she is by the definition of others.

The optimal definition comes from a single other. More than one definition results in contradiction. Thus, the optimal definition for an individual comes from a lover, who gives her "the total definition of my person, my body and my mind, by means of one other person."

She delves further into the murk as she explains love’s qualities, but it should suffice to say that any condition that isn’t monogamous, jealous or faithful creates a non-optimal definition. If love is the optimal definition of the self, then a non-optimal definition is not love.

Her next step is to examine different sorts of love affairs using this definition of the ideal and that sexual love is the union of two equals who are opposite in their sexual characteristics.

Brief love affairs are the result of one or both partners idealizing either themselves or the other. They imagine that the other is their equal or that they are equal to the other. When the illusion disappears, so does the love.

It is in her discussion of mid-length love affairs that she begins to reveal herself. Her argument is that extended affairs begin as the ideal. After time, the balance shifts. One partner may grow while the other doesn’t so that they are no longer equal. In another case, one partner loses the opposite sexual qualities, as in a woman who begins to take on masculine attitudes and appearance.

Placed right in the center of the examples is another cause for the end of an affair, instability:

Instability often goes hand in hand with above-average intelligence. All things can be seen from more than one aspect; it is possible to have at least two different views of anything, and each view is somehow right, somehow wrong. The person of average intelligence is not aware of these complexities and sees only one aspect at a time. The one of above-average intelligence is aware of them, and tends to fall from one extreme into the other. Naturally the partner of an unstable person is not safe from these constant shifts in mood or perspective, being in fact more immediately exposed to them than any other part of that person's environment. The love partner of the unstable person is constantly faced with contradictory definitions of himself: he is good one day, bad the next, praised or damned, never sure what to expect. He finds himself always exactly defined, but the quality of the definition can never be depended on to last. In time he ceases to believe what his partner tells him — he will withdraw his confidence from his partner and try to find a more dependable definer of himself.

If one is intelligent, one is unable to choose among multiple valid perspectives. Having multiple perspectives means that the definition of the love partner changes often. The definition is inconsistent, so the love affair eventually falls apart.

Vilar gives us a very specific and very detailed explanation. Is there a reason to assume that it is not autobiographical?

But I'm giving away Vilar's secret too soon.

Skipping over her description of "Great Love," she takes a detour to discuss journalists as public fathers. There is some interest here to advocates of Cathedral theory, as she discusses the motivations journalists have for spreading the lies of  a covert matriarchy. However, it is tangential to the rest of the book.

Her conclusion is that polygamy is making the best of a bad situation. The best play out of a bad hand is the arrangement in which a man has a wife and a mistress. This situation, though, is far from ideal.

The man who takes a wife and a mistress takes two women. This leaves another man--a poor man, probably--with no women. Polygamy does not hurt wives--it hurts other men.

For a man to allow this to continue is to be a traitor to one’s own sex. She lays it out thus:

Women are free to choose: they can take a man as a father or as a lover; they can arouse his compassion or his desire. As long as women play the role of children, they clearly prefer sympathy. As long as they choose to be the weaker, younger, less intelligent partner in every relationship, i.e., as long as they insist on choosing male superiors they are opting openly for altruistic love.
...
Women are to blame when both sexes have to go without adult egalitarian love — they renounce it voluntarily, and the man has to make do with what they call love. 'True love puts the partner's happiness first," is the female definition of love. The man tries to adhere to it. But every time he feels for a woman what she expects of him — putting her happiness first — he is not happy with her; every time he is happy with a woman, he has [put] himself first.

Then, for all the aggressive condemnation of women in this book and the previous, Vilar concludes strangely--and revealingly:

As long as they continue as they are, men have no alternative to polygamy. They need not torment themselves with guilt because of it. As long as women insist on simulating children, as long as they want protection whether they need it or not, men have a right to more than one woman at a time. They have a right to keep looking for a real woman, among all the little girls they encounter in the course of their lives, until they actually find one. In any case, they alone are the real victims of polygamy. Whether or not they want to victimize themselves thus, is ultimately for them to decide. 

Can you hear what she’s saying? Women are villains, but men are victimized because they allow it to happen. It’s their own fault. It’s up to them to change.

Doesn’t that sound like something a feminist would say?

That’s because Esther Vilar’s secret is that she is a feminist.

It’s a mutant form of feminism, to be sure--it looks a great deal like misogyny. One might be more comfortable viewing it as a rogue form of progressivism, but that would mean ignoring the one quality that defines feminism.

Vilar relies heavily on definitions--she sees the world through them. Most of the definitions are reasonable enough that one can agree for the sake of argument, but then she throws in bizarre assertions, like her definition of love.

Armed with these definitions, her descriptions get further and further from reality. Her definitions are true, thus any logical derivation is equally true. Progressives usually live within a world of abstraction so that even the smallest of phenomena are products of oppressive forces.

Vilar sneers at the preference for virgin brides, practically writing SLUT across her bare chest in protest. She clearly has nothing for contempt for traditional families, as they are defined by slavery and deception.

Her position is based on cultural Marxism, seeing male-female relationships entirely as a result of power dynamics and exploitation. Her only distinction is that she says men are exploited and not women. She promotes a form of "equality" as the ideal.

Her description of the world takes place in an eternal post-war West. The role of historical stressors on male-female relationships doesn't enter the picture. It seems that, sometime at the dawn of civilization, women decided to start conning men and have been on the gravy train ever since.

Vilar’s third book in this series is The End of Manipulation and is untranslated. In it, she prescribes a solution to the problems outlined in the first two books. From what she’s already written, it appears that she believes in a sex-positive destruction of the traditional family. She divorced her husband because she no longer believed in the institution of marriage. She asserts that children don't love their parents. Her descriptions denigrate family life as being a grift against men while sexual union is "love." She wants nothing less than to destroy the foundation of civilization.

Yet all this would still make her only a mere progressive, looking at the world through a counter-intuitive lens and demanding an end to society as we know it.

What makes her a feminist is that she wants all this for her own personal benefit.

Only feminists want the world to change so that they personally get the validation they desire.

Steve Sailer's First Law of Female Journalism:

"The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking."

Now consider Vilar's discussion of Great Love, in which a man and a woman are equal in all respects except for their sex-related qualities, which are as opposite as possible.

There is a reason why it is so rare, as Vilar explains (emphasis mine):

Women who are outwardly not unmistakably different from men — women whose appearance is not especially feminine — are biologically less attractive than the others, and not likely to be pursued by men seeking to corrupt them. To survive, these women must plunge into the same hard struggle for existence as men do, and are equally compelled to develop their minds. These barely feminine women — in appearance and effect — accordingly also fulfill only one of the two necessary conditions for love: that of intellectual equality. The other condition, of outward polarity in appearance, they mostly tend not to fulfill.   

This leads to the following consequences:   

1. Whomever the man chooses as a partner, he is likely to find lacking in one of the required qualities for love (the woman is either too unfeminine or too stupid).
2. Whomever the woman chooses as a partner, she is likely to find lacking in one requirement for love (the man is either too unmanly for her, too stupid, or too intelligent).
3. Since the fulfillment of biological law has priority — since biological drive is more powerful than a psychological need — feminine-looking women, though stupid, are preferred to unfeminine-looking women, who are intelligent.   

This leads to the following misapprehension:   

1. Men believe intelligence makes women unfeminine. In reality it is the other way around: a lack of femininity makes women intelligent.
2. Women believe that intelligence puts men off. This is not so: men don't mind intelligence in a woman, but they are put off more by an unfeminine appearance more than by stupidity (it is a matter of priorities).    

It is a vicious circle: men cannot find women whom they can love, and those women who value a man's love more than his protection cannot be lovable. Since they believe that men will avoid intelligent women, they studiously avoid whatever will expand their mental horizons, and so move ever further away from fashioning themselves into true love objects. The few, rare great loves that do bloom into being and last a lifetime only prove that there are exceptions to every rule.

There is a victim in these misapprehensions:  the feminine woman of great intelligence.

Can you think of anyone who might believe herself to fit into this category?

Vilar tells us that unfeminine women do not easily gain the protection of men. As a result, they are forced to develop their intelligence. Feminine women gain the protection of men and have no need to develop their intelligence. Female stupidity is correlated to femininity, so the public thinks that stupidity is inherent to femininity.

But, Vilar cries, it just isn't so! Even though men "believe" that intelligence is unfeminine, and women "believe" that intelligence is unfeminine, that belief is only the result of the villainous plotting of women.

The plotting of stupid women, that is.

This is the most stereotypical feminist statement imaginable:  "They only like those dumb girls because society tells them to.”

“I deserve the best men because of my intelligence! Men should be attracted to women based on the qualities I value."

Vilar's trilogy is not a defense of men. It is a tool of female competition. She wants men to reject the unintelligent women they appear to prefer. She wants to convince men that the reason they don't prefer women like, say, Esther Vilar, is because the have been manipulated, deceived and enslaved.

Fat acceptance feminists tell you that "Real women have curves." Esther Vilar tells you--in one of the most brilliant misdirects in polemic history--that "Real women have brains."

[But Vilar's covert feminism isn't my primary issue with her work. In Part Two, I discuss the foolishness of pursuing the Philosopher's Stone.]

A Playground for Incompetent Sociopaths

Here's another example of where we can shrug our shoulders and say, "Well, that's democracy for you." From Zero Hedge and Charles Hugh-Smith, "Does Our System Select for Incompetent Sociopaths?"

Natural selection isn't only operative in Nature; it is equally operative in human organizations, economies and societies. People respond to whatever set of incentives and disincentives are present. If deceiving and conning others is heavily incentivized, while integrity and honesty are punished, people will gravitate to running cons and embezzlement schemes. 

What behaviors does our Status Quo reward? Misrepresentation, obfuscation, legalized looting, embezzlement, fraud, a variety of cons, gaming the system, deviousness, lying and cleverly designed deceptions. 

Let's connect the pathology of power and the behaviors selected by our Status Quo. What we end up with is a system that selects for a specific category of sociopaths: those whose only competence is in running cons.

In a sense, every system incentivizes sociopaths whose only skill is running cons. A con is all about satisfying the external signifiers while acting exclusively to enrich oneself. When the external signifiers are not indicators of success or achievement or completion that is the problem. That is, when what looks good is the same as what is good.

A well-formed system has little interest in the intentions of its workers. Whether the individual is trying to make a name for himself, impress women or, incredibly, simply takes satisfaction in a job well done, the system's interest is whether the worker is accomplishing the system's goals or not.

It hardly matters if a king fattens himself at the public treasury if he's created an overflowing economy.

As we know, there's no hope of creating a perfect system. The signifiers are supposed to be a description of how well things are functioning--what we hope for is accuracy. There's is always some wiggle room between the representation and the reality, which is where the con lies.

The question, again, isn't how to prevent the system from being gamed--it's how to minimize the possibility that it's gamed, how to minimize the damage that comes from being gamed, and how to best repair that damage. In other words, a robust system.

The progressive solution to the problem of poor administrators is to install a better class of person in the role. In a nation of nearly 360 million, how can we know whether a potential administrator is a better class?

Well, we go back to looking at external signifiers. You know who sounds smart and moral and compassionate? Someone who went to Harvard Law School, maybe showing his leadership by editing their Review. Someone who's worked among the people, out in the community, maybe organizing them. Someone who knows how hard the system can be on some people, maybe by virtue of his race.

In a massive centralized system, all we have to go on are the signifiers, the reports and the credentials. The most important order of business is making sure everything looks good. The name of the game is marketing--"Look, the number of unemployment claims is down and nine out of ten doctors agree that our policies are great!"

Your Guide to Monarch Mind Control - Chapter Five

The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave
By Fritz Springmeier and Cisco Wheeler

Introduction
Chapter One
Chapter Two

Chapter Three

Chapter Four

CHAPTER 5 THE SKILL OF LYING, THE ART OF DECEIT

Wow, what an exciting chapter title! Unfortunately, nothing has changed in the way this book is written. As we go further into the book, I'm finding less and less to extract that helps us understand what everyone is talking about when they talk about mind control programming.

The majority of this chapter of nearly 100 pages is devoted to exposing evangelist Billy Graham as an operative of the elite. This is proven by his alliance with Catholicism, which conspiracy theorists consider a major arm of the satanic elite. It's also tedious, excessively tangential to the topic of the book and mired with plodding detail.

The first few sections are devoted to Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland and other fictional narrative programming. While one would hope that this would illuminate the references we find while reading other mind control theorizing, in fact the references are shallow.

Theorists love to point out images in which a seemingly innocuous fashion model is referencing, say, the Cheshire Cat, and announce that this is evidence that the model has undergone AIW programming. It would appear that the character has some sort of special significance.

This is not exactly the case. What S&W are discussing, though they don't seem to understand it very well, is using pre-fab models for mental structuring. This is an unexciting visualization technique, manipulating one's thoughts using the various perspectives one can assume mentally.

For example, neuro-linguistic programming has a technique to reduce the power of particular memories. The first step is to change one's perspective while remembering. Rather than relive the memory, patients are encouraged to view the actions of the memory from the third perspective as an uninvolved observer. Then the patient is asked to view those actions within a frame, like a window or picture frame. Then they are told to imagine the size of the picture being smaller. Finally, one can mentally "move" the picture out of their sight. Done effectively (probably with multiple attempts), this recontextualizes the memory as being less important and less painful than before.

If this sounds related to the "dissociation" we've discussed in previous chapters, there's a reason. What they are discussing is consciously manipulating how the mind processes its tasks. S&W tell us that, when experiencing trauma, victims imagine that the trauma is happening to someone else--applying a third person perspective. That "someone else" is then imagined into a personality with a name and personal qualities.

S&W take our ability to do this to an absurd extreme, but we see shadows of it all the time. To "put on your game face," we imagine ourselves serious and determined. By imagining it, we become so. "Fake it till you make it" is another example.

The use of Oz or Wonderland programming here is the same. All S&W are saying is that the elements of The Wizard of Oz are used as signifiers for mental elements. To "go over the rainbow," in the book is to enter Oz; in mind control, it's to enter an interior mental state. 

One can use the same metaphor innocuously. When you are stressed, close your eyes and imagine yourself going "over the rainbow" into Oz. Once there, you find that you've defeated the immediate stress (Wicked Witch of the East) but you wish to find permanent tranquility (Home). You imagine yourself walking down the Yellow Brick Road and join forces with your mind (Scarecrow), your heart (Tin Man) and your will (Lion).

Is that what Oz is really about? No more or less than the ugly and twisted significance the theorists apply to it.

Oz, Wonderland and all the other references that theorists point to really are prevalent in the media. But I don't believe that it's the result of a world-wide conspiracy of satanists and omnipotent programmers. Instead, those works have lasted because they are more susceptible to metaphorical interpretation than most other narratives. They can be reinterpreted as stress-relief metaphors, cutesy and/or sexy images or parallels to demonic forces.

Understanding this makes S&W's assertions that, for example, "Auntie Em represents HP Blavastsky’s “Mulaprakriti” and Uncle Henry represents HPB’s “Unmanifested Logos,” rather pointless. The association of fictional reference to conspiracy reference is close to random. 

However, the author of Oz, L. Frank Baum, did join the aforementioned Blavastsky's Theosophical Society. One can take from that what one will. While some theosophical concepts can be seen in Oz, they aren't much different from common philosophical ideas like the combination of mind, heart and will discussed above. My take is that he's just another of the soft-headed talents who were taken with the promises of New Age philosophy. That type of thinking, through Gurdjieff and Crowley and its current incarnations, is both dangerous and foolish, but not a branch of an all-powerful international conspiracy. 

The more practical explanation is that Baum joined the Society because it mirrored how he conceived the world. The book being a product of his mind, it naturally also mirrored how he conceived the world--it wasn't written as a cloaked manual for mind control.

Wonderland and the obscure children's books discussed in this chapter are the same way. They introduce a magical world full of marvelous things, which S&W cherry-pick and claim reference the occult or programming codes.

In this way, the victim is told to "chase the white rabbit" in order to enter the trance state. The "Wonderland" the victim encounters is her internal world, where concepts can be manipulated just as Lewis Carroll plays logical games within the book. The Cheshire Cat, to return to our example, is said to be a trigger for some kind of programming associated with the character's attributes, perhaps by maintaining a smile no matter what happens.

But I would be failing in my duties if I didn't draw out some of the references S&W cite. One of the more desperate is that Oz's Dorothy is whisked away by a cyclone. "Cyclone," we're told, derives from the Greek word for snake, which means that Dorothy was taken "over the rainbow" by a serpent. I shouldn't have to tell you the significance of serpents, or that the cyclone was mostly called a "twister" in the film. 

The fact that the great Wizard of Oz was actually a fraud is supposed to reference the core of Luciferian worship, that God is Man's enemy because he wishes to prevent men from becoming Godlike themselves. I suspect this teaching is for Illuminati trainees, not mind-controlled peons.

In the film, the same actors play characters in Kansas as well as characters in Oz. Rather than imply that Oz was simply a dream, this shows that Illuminati elite often lead double lives. Toto, of course, was an animal familiar.

Here's a sad example:

“SILENCE!” is both in the movie and a command of the Oz Programming. This word SILENCE stands for a code of “no talk” which runs deep in the mind of the slave.

The most important book, we're told, is The Lesser Key of Solomon, which is a real book of demonology dating back to pre-Enlightenment times. In this way, of course, demons can be channeled within the programming.

But the chapter is ostensibly about the use of deception. What little is directly discussed here is standard-issue conspiracy stuff. Records are altered, sometimes overnight. False identities are provided to slaves with a false history of records. Organizations have noble public missions but evil designs in private.

This leads to a discussion of false-front Christian organizations and then to the over-long expose of Billy Graham I mentioned before. We're told that the Amish, strangely enough, are a major source of programming slaves and agents. 

In order to throw off the suspicious, the conspiracy uses deflection, misinformation, false leads as well as controlling all sides of an apparent conflict. 

Finally, S&W tell us that deception is found even within the cult teachings. Each level of the sect is told something different, more "true" than the last. At the highest level, we're told, the elite openly worships Satan but lower levels are told that they worship Lucifer the Light-Bringer or Mother Gaia--whatever's necessary at the time. We get a hint of the overall plan that culminates once world domination has been achieved--bringing the world back into "balance" through the death of almost all of the world's population.

Chapter Six will be very short, about the use of electronics in programming.

Democracy and the Media--Marshaling the Mob

Via Tumblr

Several months ago, I commented on Steve Sailer's blog (regarding Patton Oswalt's reference to him), "Louis CK? There's no hope for that guy. He's friendzoned the dark side."

For a time, I thought he was the best comic working but he's assumed the role of Righteous Speaker of Truth, and revealed himself to be just another idiot savant able to make the audience laugh despite having a head full of received wisdom. The above is applause-bait, a "clever" turn of phrase that relies on a shallow knowledge of history and a loose understanding of democracy.

But the sentiment itself is indicative of more. Earlier this week, 28 Sherman asked the question, "Who Pushed Women's Suffrage 100 Years Ago?"

Son of Brock Landers puts this cartoon circa 1912, four years before the issue made the Democratic platform. The answer to the question, "Who pushed it?," is, of course, the media.

Which brings me to Bruce Charlton's theory of the mass media being the very center of the left. And to my thoughts about the left being the inextricable degenerative force within democracy. 

The enfranchised is a smaller set within the total population. The mass media's audience is the total population. The trend, unless directly opposed (similar to Derbyshire's Second Law of Conquest/John Sullivan's First Law), is for the set of enfranchised individuals to approach the number of the total population.

So, who doesn't have the right to vote? Felons? "Felons Deserve the Right to Vote" Illegals? "Immigration Bill Gives Illegal Immigrants Full Voting Rights!" Children? "Why It's Time To Give Children The Right To Vote"

We could ponder why democracy pushes toward greater and greater enfranchisement. We could ask why the mass media is eternally shuffling the populace into newer and angrier mobs. John C. Wright has diagnosed the paradoxes in his Unified Theory of Madness.

But maybe it's better to view democracy and mass media as metaphysical objects. Why does democratic enfranchisement expand? Why do wolves howl at the moon? That's what it does, whether you want it to or not. 

The Tumblr comments are very much as one would expect, more righteous than even Righteous Louie himself. The Voting Rights Act didn't pass until 1965. Native Americans couldn't vote until 1924.

We could engage such thinkers with arguments, pointing out that the original democratic proponents were open about their contempt for mob rule. We could argue that there isn't a compelling reason for those that don't contribute to the state to have a voice in it, especially if their only contact with it is cashing the government's checks and being restrained by the police.

(The progression, by the way, goes from, "Why should those powdered aristocrats tell me, an educated and affluent man, what taxes to pay when I can't even argue?" to, "Why should those non-inebriated job-holders tell me, an ostensible human being, not to perform any act that pops into my head?" Is John Adams' indignation all that different from your average drunken "rebel?")

There's no point in convincing them, though. They believe in democracy. Instead, we should shrug when they rage at the government for corruption or at the press for being divisive. "That's democracy," we should say. "When you let a monkey in your house, you can't get mad at it for shitting on the floor."

Scott Walker: The First Solo Run - Interpretations

The proper foundation required to understand the Scott Walker story is to know that he was known originally as an interpretive singer, in the manner of Frank Sinatra or Tony Bennett. The category most often mentioned about the period from 1967-1978 is "MOR," middle of the road--old ladies' music.

This song, "Through a Long and Sleepless Night," from Scott, is a good example.

This style, string-heavy balladry, was Walker's bread and butter until his late-70s reinvention, but that's not the reason that his first solo run is so highly regarded. The albums, Scotts 1-3 and his sixth 'Til the Band Comes In, are peppered with interpretive covers. What's attracted cultists, however, are his originals and his discovery of a songwriting model.

That's not to say that the works by other songwriters aren't sometimes interesting. "Angelica" is a fine showing of Walker's baritone. "The Big Hurt" has a hyperactive arrangement. But mostly they stand as a contrast to Walker's solo work and his interpretations of Jacques Brel.

Brel deserves a post of his own but, as a non-Francophone, I couldn't do him justice. Suffice it to say that he was a leading singer-songwriter in France from the end of WWII to the early 70s and his songwriting is stereotypically French, focused on sex, death, passion, misery and doom. In other words, right up Walker's alley.

Here's a Brel original, translated into English as "Next:"

Just as Brel was retiring from the stage, he was discovered, separately, by songwriters Mort Shuman and 60s-kitsch-icon Rod McKuen. It's Shuman's translations that dominate Walker's interpretive work. Here's his version of "Next:"

In the first part of Walker's story, I said that his work with The Walker Brothers was bombastic rather than dramatic. With Brel's work, Walker was able to find songs in which there is no difference between the two:

It's easy to see how important Brel's work was to Walker. Just as his original songs with his band seemed to be take-offs of their covers, the Scott albums show Walker writing in the Brel vein. By Scott 3, Walker had grown more confident in his own songwriting--all but three of the songs were originals, while the rest were Brel covers.

With Scott 4, all of the tracks were written by Walker. Considered the masterpiece of the era, it was the beginning of the end for the brilliance of his first solo run.

But more about that later. Since this walk through Scott's work is more a set of my personal favorites than a collection of critical highlights, I'll end with the Brel song I like the best, "Jackie:"

A Light in the Gloom

Kristor at The Orthosphere caught some attention with the post Onward, Christian Bloggers:

So, we need not feel discouraged that the orthosphere, or Neoreaction more generally, have not yet exploded in popularity...We must rather look ahead to the next iteration of the High Middle Ages. Our proper purpose is like that of Lindisfarne, and Alcuin: to shine in the gathering gloom a glimmer of the eternal light of Truth, so that in the wreckage of the collapse that seems daily more inevitable, we and the readers who discover us in the next few years will be philosophically, morally and spiritually prepared to propose by our acts a social order founded on reality – which, in a collapse, is anyway already asserting itself with a vengeance.

This is very much what I've been getting at when writing about neoreaction. While it's an exciting project to create a government from scratch, the public isn't agitating for a new system. Not because our current system is so great but because they've never considered that it isn't so great. "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Here's another quote:  “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one,” Charles Mackay said.

The non-establishment right is full of individuals who have recovered their senses alone. The myth of progress is seductive; it provides moral superiority with no heavy lifting. And most who have been seduced will only repent when they have no choice but to see that it was all a lie.