3 Responses to “Collins Bros Radio”

1. Ross Says:
   February 7th, 2010 at 1:25 pm

   -Philip & Paul - Just listened to the “Guns for Jesus” segment. Interesting stuff. Especially the parts about Brzezisnski’s C.I.A connections.

   Regarding the movie reviews, I agree that “Legion” is typical of the kind of neo-gnostic shlock Hollywood turns out these days but “Book of Eli” wasn’t entirely bad. I’m not sure if the message was Dominionist or not. In a way, despite the gun violence, it seemed sort of anti-Dominionist.

   (Spoiler warning) If you haven’t seen it and don’t mind having it spoiled, the plot is as follows: In the early 21st century a (presumably nuclear) war occurred that turned the world into a Mad Max style post-apocalyptic wasteland. After this war, survivors blamed the bible as the source of the conflict and tracked down and destroyed almost all copies. It seems kinda weird that they were able to organize such an enormous task as destroying every copy of the bible on earth and presumably all the fragmented biblical quotes that exist in myriad other texts and yet weren’t able to organize efficiently enough to rebuild civilization, but who am I to question the plot? Thirty years pass from the time of the war and most of the younger people can no longer read. Eli, a survivor, hearing a voice in his head (meant to be the voice of God) was lead to unearth the last remaining copy of the bible left on the planet and directed (by this same voice) to take the book westward. Meanwhile, Carnegie, another literate survivor of the war and the petty ruler of a semi-civilized town, seeks to possess his own copy of the bible so, in true Dominionist fashion, he can use its powerful language and message to control and presumably militarize the masses. It is intimated that Carnegie might have come from some kind of evangelical background, hence he is familiar with the power scripture holds over Men’s minds. Not wanting this, Eli fights to prevent Carnegie from acquiring the bible, till he can get it to the West where he finds a bastion of human civilization on Alcatraz Prison Island that has created a great archive of lost texts and cultural treasures. They begin to make new copies of the bible. Presumably this was God’s intent because these people want to use the bible to rebuild civilization rather than dominate humanity and propagate violence. True Eli, occasionally resorts to Kung-Fu violence but never to enforce the bible, in fact he’s quite guarded with it’s content till he reaches the West Coast.

   If I had any criticism of the film it wouldn’t be that it’s overtly Dominionist but rather that it presents somewhat of an overly pluralist or watered down version of Christianity. At the end of the movie the bible is placed on a shelf with the scriptures of the other great world religions. Though it’s not directly said, this is obviously meant to potentially serve as a pluralist message to appease all viewers. In this way of interpretation, the bible is shown as just ‘one of many paths’ or merely as a sort of useful tool for building civilization. Though the moral message is an important part of the bible, the most important message of salvation through the literal death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is clearly too politically charged to directly present in a mainstream movie.

   It is possible, however there is some kind of gnostic message in the movie I’m not seeing, since Eli was directed by the Hughes brothers, who also directed the 2001 film “From Hell” based on the graphic novel of the same name, by occultist and author Alan Moore. The original comic, like so much of Moore’s work, was replete with gnostic themes.

   Eli was actually very similar to the recent movie “The Road” in both theme and setting. Though with “The Road” it’s hard to tell if the message was meant to be a traditional Christian one or something more akin to the Gnostic, anti-Yahweh tradition as exhibited by texts like Hypostasis of the Archons. (Again spoiler warning, don’t read this if you don’t want the movie ruined for you) In “The Road,” A father and his son wander a post apocalyptic wasteland, where plant life has essentially been whipped out, taking most animal species with it, as such the few reaming humans either scrounge for canned food or resort to cannibalism. The father tells his son, they must stay alive since they “carry the flame” inside them, seemingly meaning morality, civilization etc. However as the story progresses the father begins to sacrifice his morality to protect himself and his boy, refusing to help others, dealing with everyone as mercilessly as they might deal with him and so on. The son always tries to set the father straight, saying that there’s no point in them surviving if they aren’t the good guys. Eventually the father dies and the son finds a new family who take him to a new land where it seems plant life might be returning. The boy obviously is meant to be Chris,t as the father at one point says of him “if he isn’t the Word of God, then God never Spoke a word” If the father represents the Pharisees or anyone else who might hold to the letter of the law but not the spirit, then the film’s message is essentially a traditional Christian one, if however he represents a critical view of God the Father as an unjust tyrannic “Archon of Arrogance”, as some gnostic sects styled it, then the film is yet another example of Hollywood’s neo-gnostic war on Christianity. It’s somewhat difficult to pin down. If either of you have seen it I’d love to know you’re thoughts. Hope it’s not to off topic, I only bring it up because of it’s similarities to “Book of Eli.”

   While on the topic of movies, at some point you guys should do an analysis of “Avatar.” The fact that a film that is essentially propaganda for both the Gaia theory and deindustrialization, came out at the same time as the Copenhagen Summit, seems more than coincidental to me. Interestingly, the recently released Mel Gibson vehicle, “Edge of Darkness” could have also, initially, been intended to carry the same message. It was based on a 1980’s British tv mini-series of the same name which was basically an anti-nuclear/pro Gaia theory story. However, the recent film version seems to have expunged the Gaia theory aspect of the story. It’s possible Gibson, who is a bit of a conspiracy theorist himself, had this removed upon attaching himself to the project. If this element was in the original script it would mean Hollywood was planning on making a two pronged attack for the Green Religion, right around the time of Copenhagen. “Avatar” is, of course, just one of three films to come out in just the last few months about remote body control, the other two being “Surrogates” and “The Gamer.” It is possible this idea of a “Higher Self” outside the body, is yet more Hollywood gnosticism.

2. Phillip D. Collins Says:
   February 8th, 2010 at 5:44 pm

   Ross,

   Thank you so much for listening! Actually, we didn’t comment on the “Book of Eli.” Derek Gilbert only mentioned it in passing and, because neither of us had seen it, we didn’t offer any analysis of it. Judging by your review of the film, I wouldn’t mind seeing it!

   As for “Legion,” it brazenly promotes an inverted hermeneutic. I was astonished at just how transparent the Gnostic inversion of the roles of Jehovah and Satan were.

   You’re right on target with “Avatar.” We’ll have to address that film some time. Cheap pantheism and definitely echoes of Rousseau’s “noble savage.”

3. Ross Says:
   February 11th, 2010 at 2:29 am

   Sorry, Philip. I wasn’t clear that you guys hadn’t seen Eli. Now, I feel bad about ruining the plot. I didn’t give everything away though. There are some clever twists I left unmentioned. It didn’t cross my mind till you said it but you’re right, Avatar does play to Rousseau’s noble savage myth. The success of that movie still baffles me. Then again, I’ve yet to see it 3D, maybe that’s how the subliminal brainwashing kicks in. Haha.

Leave a Reply