by Paul & Phillip D. Collins, Dec. 1st, 2008
In his 1940 book The New World Order, H.G. Wells wrote:
… when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we [must] bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people. (The New World Order)
Wells’ prognostication was, without a doubt, correct. As the global government envisioned by the supranational elite is gradually instantiated, many voices of dissent will be raised and subsequently eradicated. Yet, not every dissenter may “die protesting against it,” but will die unwittingly embracing it instead. Some dissenters may, in fact, naively accept another form of global government being proffered as a viable alternative.
Such is the case with Zeitgeist: Addendum, the 2008 sequel to the pseudo-documentary entitled Zeitgeist, the Movie. The film was produced by Peter Joseph, a proponent of the inherently technocratic Venus Project. While the film presents a few valid critiques concerning the world monetary system, the military industrial complex, and America’s meddlesome foreign policy, it uses these political and social ills as a pretext for the presentation of counterfeit solutions. The movie’s prescriptions are posed within a distinctly Hegelian framework. In many instances, the solutions proffered by Zeitgeist: Addendum merely constitute dialectic extremes that produce precisely the same results as the problems that they allegedly address.
Moreover, Zeitgeist: Addendum either intentionally or unwittingly fails to recognize the problems for what they are: contrived grievances employed as polar extremes to perpetuate a dialectical climate. Instead, Zeitgeist: Addendum portrays the problems as the natural outgrowths of America’s constitutional republican system, thereby vilifying representative democracy and enshrining the technocratic paradigm. The film’s ultimate solution is little more than a Hegelian synthesis, as is evidenced by the dialectical commonalities between the Venus Project and the globalist forces that it purportedly opposes.
by Paul Collins & Phillip D. Collins ©, Nov. 18th, 2006
Few who have researched the UFO phenomenon are not familiar with the Majestic 12 documents. This controversial series of documents surfaced in 1984 and have been debated ever since. While a related report’s discovery in the National Archive lends corroborative evidence to the case for the authenticity of the MJ-12 papers, chronological and formatting anomalies within the documents arouse substantial skepticism. However, all debate aside, what is important about the MJ-12 papers is the portrait that they paint for the public mind. The papers present a shadowy group of policy professionals allegedly established by a secret executive order of President Truman on September 24, 1947. The underlying theme of the MJ-12 documents is inherently technocratic. That is, they dignify the concept of a Technocracy. A technocratic society, or Technocracy, can be defined as follows:
Technocracy, in classical political terms, refers to a system of governance in which technically trained experts rule by virtue of their specialized knowledge and position in dominant political and economic institutions. (Fischer 17)
Oxford Professor Carroll Quigley also wrote about a dictatorship of “experts,” suggesting that a cognitive elite “will replace the democratic voter in control of the political system” (Quigley 866). Of just such a democracy of “experts,” H.G. Wells stated:
by Phillip D. Collins ©, Sept. 9th, 2006
Anatomy of a Weltanschauungskrieg
Historically, humanity has divided somewhat evenly into two diametrically opposed camps: those who subscribe to a spiritual, theistic Weltanschauung and those who do not. The philosophical milieu of ancient Greece illustrates this division. In the theistic camp, one would find the likes of Socrates and Plato. In the atheistic camp, one would find Democritus and Protagoras. While the more deistic philosophies of both Lucretius and Aristotle might present some exceptions to this division, one could convincingly argue that deism is little more than a camouflaged form of atheism.
Since the inception of the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung, numerous permutations of this philosophical camp have emerged. Materialists, behaviorists, physicalists, functionalists, secular humanists, and Marxists are just a few of the resulting variants. To be sure, the countless theoreticians of these anti-theistic and anti-spiritual camps have had their occasional epistemological feuds. Yet, all share the same core metaphysical convictions: matter holds primacy and the ontological plane of the physical universe constitutes the totality of reality itself.
Of course, the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung adamantly opposes most, if not all, religions. However, most contemporary movements that have ostensibly eschewed a spiritual outlook have sociologically behaved like religions. Communism and fascism are two such cases in point. How does one explain this paradox? It is this researcher’s contention that the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung was spawned by an older religion. This religion is purely occult in character and, because it acted as the progenitor for the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung, it remains deeply embedded within the ostensibly secular mind. Thus, even the most stridently secular movements are conceptually predisposed to religious thought and behavior. Ultimately, the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung is designed to relocate the Eschaton of Heaven and Hell within the ontological plane of the physical universe. Simultaneously, it relocates God within man himself. The final result is a control ideology devoted to the transformation of prima materia and a secular religion devoted to the apotheosis of man.
by Phillip D. Collins ©, Oct. 2nd, 2005
In the previous instalments in this series, we established the centrality of war to the elite’s occult doctrine of transformism. This occult doctrine has presented itself under numerous appellations, but its core theme has remained the same: humanity is gradually evolving towards apotheosis. The most recent incarnation of this doctrine is Darwinism, which depicts life as an enormous struggle to survive. On the microcosmic level, this struggle is bodied forth by the competition between species. On a macrocosmic level, this struggle manifests itself as war between nations. In hopes of facilitating the purported evolutionary ascent of man, the power elite has instigated war after war. In this instalment, we shall take brief glimpse at some of the hidden alchemists behind World War II.
Sci-fi Predictive Programming Revisited
In the first instalment of this series, we examined the role of sci-fi “predictive programming” in psychologically conditioning the masses for future wars. Researcher Michael Hoffman defines “predictive programming” as follows: “Predictive programming works by means of the propagation of the illusion of an infallibly accurate vision of how the world is going to look in the future” (205). Through the circulation of science “fiction” literature, the ignorant masses are provided with semiotic intimations of coming events. Within such literary works are narrative paradigms that are politically and socially expedient to the power elite. Thus, when the future unfolds as planned, it assumes the paradigmatic character of the “fiction” that foretold it.
by Phillip D. Collins ©, June 9th, 2005
In recent years, physicalistic philosophies of the mind seem to dominate both the scientific and academic communities. This paradigm equates mental states with brain states, thus reducing the concept of the “soul” or “spirit” to a metaphysical fantasy. This view seems to pervade modern psychology as well. Ironically, the word “psychology” is derived from the word psyche, which meant “soul” in the original Greek. However, imposing the metaphysical doctrine of materialism upon psychology, Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt would expunge the soul from the halls of psychological research and enshrine the primacy of matter. Several years later, B.F. Skinner would continue the materialist-physicalist tradition of psychology. Dubbed behaviorism, Skinner’s brand of psychology emphasized observable behavior as the primary indicator of mental states. Working from this premise, Skinner developed a “technology of behavior” by which human nature could be conditioned and manipulated. Skinner believed that, as desirable behaviors were promulgated within the human herd, the ideal society would eventually emerge.
Skinner presented his psychologically engineered Utopia as a roman a’ clef entitled Walden Two. Characterizing Walden Two as an innocuous fiction, Skinner stated: “The ‘behavioral engineering’ I had so frequently mentioned in the book was, at the time, little more than science fiction” (vi). Yet, “behavioral conditioning” was much more than science fiction to dark forces with dark intentions. Thanks to a $5,000 grant from a group called the Human Ecology Fund, Skinner was able to pay for the secretary and supplies he needed during the writing of Beyond Freedom and Dignity (Marks 171). When approached about the grant and its origins, Skinner claimed to have no memory of the contribution (Marks 171). However, he did make the slightly suspicious comment: “I don’t like secret involvement of any kind. I can’t see why it couldn’t have been open and aboveboard” (Marks 171).
by Phillip D. Collins ©, Feb. 15th, 2005
In the article entitled “The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship”, we examined the transmogrification of the elite’s religious power structure into a technocratic oligarchy legitimized predominantly by science. The history and background of this “scientific dictatorship” is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in Freemasonry. In this article, we shall examine the “scientific dictatorship” as an enormous project in the re-sculpting of reality itself.
Freemason Aldous Huxley coined the term “scientific dictatorship” and presented an allegorized version of the concept in his famous roman ‘a clef entitled Brave New World. Huxley was mentored by Freemason H.G. Wells, who also presented a fictionalized “scientific dictatorship” under the appellation of the “Technocracy.” This is an interesting designation for a world government managed by functional elites and scientists. It is derived from the Greek word techne, which means craft. Given Wells’ membership in the Craft of Freemasonry, the synchronicity becomes apparent.
Moreover, the term craft is associated with witchcraft or wicca. From the term wicca, one derives the word wicker (Hoffman, 63). Examining this word a little closer, Michael Hoffman explains: “The word wicker has many denotations and connotations, one of which is ‘to bend,’ as in the ‘bending’ of reality'” (Hoffman, 63). This is especially interesting when considering the words of Mark Pesce, co-inventor of Virtual Reality Modeling Language. Pesce writes: “The enduring archetype of techne within the pre-Modern era is magic, of an environment that conforms entirely to the will of being” (Pesce).
By Phillip D. Collins ©, Feb. 6th, 2005
Aldous Huxley first presented the “scientific dictatorship” to the public imagination in his book Brave New World. In Dope, Inc., associates of political dissident Lyndon LaRouche claim that Huxley’s book was actually a “mass appeal” organizing document written “on behalf of one-world order” (Dope, Inc. 538). The book also claims the United States is the only place where Huxley’s “science fiction classic” is taught as an allegorical condemnation of fascism (Dope, Inc. 538). If this is true, then the “scientific dictatorship” presented within the pages of his 1932 novel Brave New World is a thinly disguised roman a clef–a novel that thinly veils real people or events–awaiting tangible enactment.
Such is often the case with “science fiction” literature. According to researcher Michael Hoffman, this literary genre is instrumental in the indoctrination of the masses into the doctrines of the elite:
“Traditionally, ‘science fiction’ has appeared to most people as an adolescent genre, the province of time-wasting fantasies. This has been the great strength of this genre as a vehicle for the inculcation of the ideology favored by the Cryptocracy. As J.H. Towsen points out in Clowns, only when people think they are not buying something can the real sales pitch begin. While it is true that with the success of NASA’s Gemini space program and the Apollo moon flights more serious attention and respectability was accorded ‘science fiction,’ nonetheless in its formative seeding time, from the late 19th century through the 1950s, the predictive program known as ‘science fiction’ had the advantage of being derided as the solitary vice of misfit juveniles and marginal adults.” (205)
Thus, “science fiction” is a means of conditioning the masses to accept future visions that the elite wish to tangibly enact. This process of gradual and subtle inculcation is dubbed “predictive programming.” Hoffman elaborates: “Predictive programming works by means of the propagation of the illusion of an infallibly accurate vision of how the world is going to look in the future” (205). Also dubbed “sci-fi inevitabilism” by Hoffman, predictive programming is analogous to a virus that infects its hosts with the false belief that it is:
- Useless to resist central, establishment control.
- Or it posits a counter-cultural alternative to such control which is actually a counterfeit, covertly emanating from the establishment itself.
- That the blackening (pollution) of earth is as unavoidable as entropy.
- That extinction (‘evolution”) of the species is inevitable.
- That the reinhabitation of the earth by the “old gods” (Genesis 6:4), is our stellar scientific destiny. (8)
by Paul and Phillip Collins ©, Feb. 1st, 2005
The actions taken by the Bush Administration in the aftermath of 9-11 have caused muckrakers from across the political spectrum to take a closer look at the hidden hand guiding the current President. Researchers, both left and right, have identified the same enemy: a faction of the elite known as neoconservatives. The exposure has led to mounting opposition against the neoconservative agenda from numerous grassroots activists.
Now, several neoconservatives are launching a counterattack. The strategy is one of vilification. In an article for National Review, Michael Rubin characterized the neocons’ opponents as anti-Semites obsessed with conspiracy theories (Rubin). Max Boot continued with the “conspiracy theory” angle, claiming that the neocons’ opponents have overactive imaginations:
“A cabal of neoconservatives has hijacked the Bush administration’s foreign policy and transformed the world’s sole superpower into a unilateral monster. Say what? In truth, stories about the ‘neocon’ ascendancy-and the group’s insidious intent to wage preemptive wars across the globe-have been much exaggerated. And by telling such tall tales, critics have twisted the neocons’ identities and thinking on U.S. foreign policy into an unrecognizable caricature.” (Boot)
Why have the neocons’ retaliation been so aggressive? Do they simply wish to “set the record straight”? Are Rubin and Boot merely trying to correct several misconceptions over neoconservatism? The tone of their rhetoric and apologetics suggest another motivation: obfuscation. The neocons realize that continued exposure will eventually lead to the destruction of even the most well constructed disguise. One individual who realizes that the neocons have camouflaged their real intentions is Pulitzer Prize winning author Seymour Hersh. Hersh characterized the neocons in the following way: “…one of the things that you could say is, the amazing thing is we are been taken over basically by a cult, eight or nine neo-conservatives have somehow grabbed the government” (Hersh). Cults are usually very adept at the concealment game. Many times the masquerade is so effective that a group’s own members do not even realize they are part of a cult. What lies at the center of the cult of Neoconservatism?
Originally Published at Conspiracy Archive on 2008/10/18
Peter Joseph is naive, and has been swayed by one after another “teacher.” In the first Zeitgeist – a Hegelian concept coined by Johann Gottfried Herder of the Bavarian Illuminati – he was obviously enamored with ‘Acharya S’ and her occult Theosophical “secret tradition” interpretation of ancient history. In ‘Addendum,’ he has found a few new (solution-oriented) gurus of the same ilk.
The one-time New Age Theosophical Christ-Maitreya, J. Krishnamurti — thrust upon the occult, Utopian socialist underground at the beginning of the 20th century by Theosophy head, Fabian socialist Annie Besant and pederast-Freemason, C.W. Leadbeater — begins and ends the film. For something that purports to espouse “a modern, non-superstitious based understanding” of the world, well, let’s just say that it is hypocritical and deceitful not to even identify the theosophical current throughout both films, or the outright socialism of the latest. Though Peter Joseph hasn’t admitted his Theosophical debt, at 1:35:37 he tips his hand by the obscure mention of “intellectual materialism” – a term used by Blavatsky herself in Lucifer magazine (also, see here for another theosophic source) – and touts the “true divinity” of Man (1:48:25). New Ager aka “economic hitman”-Perkins has experienced the seething energies of Lucifer as well. At 1:43:07 he talks of the bliss of connectedness and our “God spirit,” while an “Illumined” man makes a gesture with his hands of a triangle in front of the sun.