Tampilkan postingan dengan label communism. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label communism. Tampilkan semua postingan

The Hundred Flowers of The Matrix

Posted by Unknown Selasa, 12 Mei 2009 0 komentar
Once upon a time in China, after the revolution had bedded down and things were going well enough, the leadership under Mao Zedong, and premier Zhou Enlai particularly, declared that China needed the participation of its intellectuals and that their criticism would help improve Chinese communism. This was called the Hundred Flowers Campaign. The title came from one of Mao's own poems: 'let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend.'


Depending on who you listen to, this was either a well meaning attempt to improve communism and lend it the kind of well-rounded timelessness of confucianism and taoism, or it was a trap. Intended or no, the latter is what occurred. From its early start of 'healthy criticism' to its final orgy of demands that the communists be thrown out, it seemed that China's ancient curse of luan (乱 - chaos) wasn't far away. In China, it never is. What followed was an Anti-Rightist Campaign that saw hundreds of thousands of students, intellectuals, and bureaucrats demoted, fired, imprisoned, or killed. It seems that provided the centre holds, luan isn't really luan. Not that dead people can tell the difference, sure enough.


Mind you, the Hundred Flowers Campaign and its follow-on Anti-Rightist Campaign wasn't a patch on the Cultural Revolution. But that's a whole other story. As is the earlier Three Anti Five Anti Campaign, the later Tiananmen Square protests and crackdown, and ten years later, the Falung Gong protests and the subsequent anti-Falung Gong campaign. But each had in common the removal of anyone, or more specifically any collective, who could threaten the centre. But the Hundred Flowers is the clearest and most graphic - a hundred flowers open their petals, impressed with their own gorgeousness, all the while unaware that over by the shed the mower is being started up.

---

Speaking of China, in the first year I was there an obscure film called The Matrix was released. Has anyone heard of it? I recommend it and you can probably pick it up in any number of Beijing DVD shops. Don't pay more than 8RMB ($1.30) or else you're being ripped off. Anyway, The Matrix starred Keanan Wynn, or Christopher Reeves, or somesuch, and was made by the Wachowski brothers who astoundingly appear not to be Jewish.

I say that because The Matrix is very very Jewish. Apart from the Jewish uberman nature of the hero Neo; the slo-mo orgiastic promised land of Zion; and the constant repetition of the number six; the plot revolves around humans living lives of complete delusion with everything they understand of the world being false - the reality being that they are little more than sources of sustenance for a parasitic uber-intelligence, here represented by computers.


But this is merely one layer of truth. Beneath it is another. Appallingly (for Zionists), Zion is merely a throwaway vehicle intended only to nurture each successive uberman. Millennia after millennia, Zion is repeatedly destroyed, as is the uberman du jour - all of this so that the godhead computer rulers of the world may more nearly perfect the nature of the delusion that holds the humans in their thrall.

Astoundingly, at the end of the film Neo does not defeat the godhead. Rather he earns their thanks and reverence by being a loyal servant who sacrifices himself to ensure their survival by killing the mutual enemy 'Smith'. In defiance of whatever sense of realpolitik computers might possess, and not forgetting the endlessly repeated historical precedent of killing without mercy, the godhead keeps its end of the bargain and does not rid itself of the threat of Neo, and nor does it wipe out Zion.


Otherwise, looked at objectively, Smith was potentially a good guy, an ally worth having. He was the only means by which the godhead could have been destroyed. But never mind, he's killed, the pitiful human slaves are left to live lives of delusion in their goop-filled coffins, and Zion is free to rescue the odd individual here and there and otherwise carry on with their ecstasy-fueled rave parties. And Neo? He is embraced in the loving arms of the godhead and ends the film on a bier like some warrior on his way to Valhalla.

Forgetting the come from nowhere 'happy' ending for a moment, as well as the initial red-pill arrival at not-quite-the-truth, the actual time-and-time-again reality of the Matrix's world is that each given period of enlightenment, climaxing with the arrival of 'The One', is merely this millennia's variant of the hundred flowers campaign.

---

And so! Here we are! We took the red pill, and by way of the internet, we woke up to the truth of the world and the veil of delusion that's kept us in thrall all these years. Let's not be distracted by the fact that the internet was initially set up by the military - just like Al Qaeda was set up by the CIA, American nazis by various Jews, communism by the bankers etc. etc. Let's also think little of the prediction by that most loyal servant to the bankers, Rupert Murdoch, that the internet will all be over soon. To hell with that! We've woken up to what's going on. We've read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for chrissakes!


But wasn't the Protocols a best seller in Russia just before the Tsar was thrown down and the Bolsheviks began their seventy year reign of terror? Far more people were familiar with it then than are familiar with it now and yet it seemed to make no difference whatsoever. Indeed here we are, one hundred years later, and everyone is convinced that it's a 'forgery'.

That aside, how many times have the lords of usury been thrown out of each given country exactly? Edward Longshanks (the villain of Hollywood's Braveheart) threw the goldsmiths out of England in 1290 and yet in 1654 all-round good guy (unless you're Irish) Oliver Cromwell readmitted them. Dig it - in the time of Shakespeare there were no Jews in England. Or to put it another way, in the time of no Jews in England there was Shakespeare. I wonder if The Stranglers got the irony of singing 'whatever happened to all the Shakespearoes' whilst surrounded by strippers? Probably not.


Sure enough today the City of London rules, and all those hard-done-by Jewish oligarchs hounded out of Russia by the villainous Putin (and otherwise known as the 'Russian' mafia) are all welcome to come on down and buy half of Mayfair (and a famous football team while they're at it). Did you know that the City of London is its own jurisdiction, with its own police force, and is otherwise not subject to the mayor of London, or parliament, or anyone at all? The Vatican eat your heart out.

But we're on to them! Or should I say, we're blooming well onto them? With the internet as our spring time, we have burst forth from our cold dark earth of ignorance and now turn our faces to the sun of truth. Here now in this time, the like of which the world has never seen, we glory in our pursuit of knowledge and open discussion. We are the hundred flowers.

---

Yeah, yeah, what a cynical party-pooper I am. Here we are grasping the hard-fought-for truth and I'm asserting a truth above this that says it's a big con, that it's merely a trick by the world's greatest liars to strengthen their position, and that ultimately we're all fucked.

Ha! Not so fast! Here's one small truth - um, I've run out of space and shall have to continue in the next piece. Another (and less self-referential one) is that the world is very great, far greater than the people who imagine that they are in control of it. Coming up next - Stephen Chow, chaos theory, cocks and cunts, and, um, the Buddha possibly. Mind you, if it's somewhat different I'll come back here and edit the preceding sentence to make myself look clever. God forbid I should ever be wrong. Ha!

Baca Selengkapnya ....

Orwell and Warburg

Posted by Unknown Rabu, 24 September 2008 0 komentar
It was an appearance of John Hurt on television that set me off. There he was in my head as Winston Smith. And next to him was Richard Burton as O'Brien. Spooky casting.


I've read the book and seen the movie three times each I'm pretty sure. But not lately. What with my understanding of the world being in a constant state of flux (particularly lately with events steaming in the vertical part of an exponential curve), I found myself rolling 1984 around in my head and wondering at it anew.

No mistake, Orwell was a genius. His name entering the dictionary as an adjective is a fitting and proper testament to this. But he didn't get everything right. 1984 can primarily (arguably so, sure), be considered a discussion of Stalinism, which is to say a betrayal of the revolution. But what did Orwell know of Stalinism? Hell what do we know even now?

1984 is a tricky beast. Its protagonist Winston Smith (John Hurt's character in the movie of the eponymous year) is 'enlightened' by inner-party member, O'Brien (played by Richard Burton) in two key scenes. But are the revelations he is given real? Might they not be more propaganda? We will never know. The only 'truth' of 1984 is to be found in its narrated actions. Thus it's entirely possible that there was no Emmanuel Goldstein, no Eastasia, no war even. The rats on the other hand were real.

But that aside, Orwell didn't put these explanations in 1984 for no reason. He had points he wanted to make and parallels he wanted to draw. Take the Goldstein character. Orwell didn't pull him out of his arse. The possible apocryphal aspect of Goldstein aside (and his immediate plot function sure), Orwell was clearly referring to Leon Trotsky. But who was Leon Trotsky? Did Orwell really know? And who was Stalin? Who was Karl Marx? I expect that Orwell understood pre-Stalinist communism in the terms laid out by Marx, Lenin, and the Bolsheviks who founded it - the ownership of the means of production, the bourgeoise, the proletariat, blah blah blah.

I wonder if it ever occurred to Orwell that perhaps Marx and his buddies were bullshit-artists? Certainly, Marx's work was really something. To write a treatise on class struggle and macro-economics and leave out ownership of the money supply is an astounding effort. It's like re-writing Romeo and Juliet, but leaving out the two lovers and still having a story that not only makes sense but goes on to become everyone's favourite play. You'd have to be impressed wouldn't you? That's not to excuse Marx of course. He's a motherfucker.

So when Stalin seized control and threw out Trotsky, the banker's friend, who was the bad guy? Okay, everyone, sure, ha ha. But Orwell would vaguely have us understand that the Emmanuel Goldstein character didn't deserve his 'villain' status. And thus nor did Trotsky deserve his. Or so Orwell, and everybody else thought (even me at one point). Perhaps the greatest truth in 1984 was one unintended by Orwell. Insofar as we have no idea if anything that is revealed to Smith by O'Brien is true, so it is with communism as told to us by communists and their banker backers. Remember how communism was all about the 'means of production'? Where's the means of production now? Who gives a fuck? It's all about the means of exchange, which is to say the ownership of the money supply. If you have that stitched up the means of production is neither here nor there. Mills and lathes ain't going to save anyone now. Only smashing the banks will.

Meanwhile it's acceptable to dip into 1984 for metaphors and analogies for this, that, and the other. Hell, they teach it in high-school. But I wonder what would have happened had Orwell written 1984 with not just the proles and the outer party being deluded, but the inner party too. What if he'd had a tiny number of families occupying the tiniest pointy bit of the pyramid with the ownership of the means of exchange as their ultimate control mechanism? Do you think his publisher Frederick Warburg would have still put 1984 into print?


This is the bit where I roll my eyes and say, 'Sure why not?' Ever the comedian, me.

Baca Selengkapnya ....
Trik SEO Terbaru support Online Shop Baju Wanita - Original design by Bamz | Copyright of sexiest woman room.