by Miles Mathis
First published January 11, 2016
As usual, this is just my opinion.
In this paper I will tell you what The Matrix films are really all about. I know that a lot of people have already tried to do this, but I have a different reading. As you know, I don't write on a subject unless I have something new to tell you.
I will start out by hitting the surface and then going deeper. If you have watched the trilogy of films, you know the first one was pretty tight and entertaining. It had some problems, but it was easy to watch and brought up some interesting topics. The other two films were a big disappointment, even to fans, since the scripts were lazy and meandering, with huge contradictions. As usual in these franchises, the writers and producers seemed to have loaded all their ideas into the first movie, relying on special effects in the second two to cover the fact that they had nothing left to say. Most people agree with me on that, and I am not stating anything extraordinary.
I recently watched all the bonus material for the trilogy, since someone gave me a big boxed set called The Ultimate Matrix. We get a lot of behind-the-scenes footage, some of which surprised me. To start with, I had always thought Keanu Reeves was not too smart. I had found him to be paper-thin in all his roles, including his role as Neo. He came precariously close to ruining the whole film with his mock seriousness and silly Kung Fu poses. He had always seemed to me to be the poster boy for flat acting
—all the way back to the first thing I saw him in, which was Dangerous Liaisons—and I wrote that up as due to a lack of intelligence. Well, I now admit I was wrong. In the bonus material, when not in a role he was animated, charming, and seemed very intelligent. He impressed me as someone who might even be interesting to hang out with. Maybe he had gotten a lot of bad direction, or maybe he just isn't a very good actor. Who knows? But he isn't stupid. He came off in the bonus material as a lot smarter and a lot more interesting than most of those around him, including the so-called Wachowski brothers.
That last comment doesn't include Laurence Fishburne, since Fishburne also came off as very intelligent. That didn't surprise me, since I have always been impressed by Fishburne (except, perhaps, for the fact that he is in Hollywood). I first saw him in Othello, where he is awesome. That still may be his best performance, although I haven't seen them all.
Which brings me back to the Wachowski brothers. Honestly, those two guys came off as barely literate or functional. For myself, I don't believe they wrote or directed anything. I don't know who inserted them into this story or why, but my guess is they are rich kids who wanted to see themselves in the credits, so Daddy arranged it somehow. I am not even convinced they are related. They look nothing alike. I also don't believe the whole sex change story with “Lana” Wachowski. It fits too seamlessly into the current programs, supporting other stories like that of Bruce Jenner. We know they are messing with our minds—and especially our sexualities—and this is how they do it.
In fact, I am not even convinced Lana is the same person as Larry. Here is why:
This side by side comparison shows they may have made a switch. To start with, notice the large mole on the lip of Lana. Are we supposed to believe that a sex change operation or drugs causes you to grow prominent raised moles on your face? How about the arch of the eyebrow to your right on Larry. Somehow, that is gone with Lana. Now look at Lana's neck. Again, two new moles where Larry had none, and no scar where the Adam's apple was shaved. And do sex change drugs really make your eyes get that much bigger? How does that happen? Also strange that we never see Lana's ears. Why is that? Finally, Lana simply doesn't have enough skull above her eyebrows to be Larry. Are we supposed to believe they shaved the top of her head off? Lana may or may not be a tranny: I couldn't say without more research I would not wish to do. However, I am not convinced she is the same person as Larry.
While we are on the subject—and while I am disbelieving now everything I have been told—I am not so sure that we have been told the truth about sex change operations. Think of it this way: do you really believe trained surgeons are lopping off healthy, undiseased body parts just to suit someone's body image? Wouldn't that go against their Hippocratic oath? You know, do no harm. The actual phrase is “noxamvero et maleficium propulsabo”: “I will reject doing harm and mischief”. And yes, doctors still take this oath. I don't doubt other parts of the story, but it seems strange that our hyperactive legal system would allow doctors to remove healthy genitals for cosmetic reasons. It doesn't seem like something that would be legal. After all, these procedures are risky. Even straight women have died from botched boob jobs, which would seem to be one of the least invasive procedures. Once you start rebuilding genitals—which, after all, are also the locus of urination—the risk of complications goes way up. Just a few decades ago, they were throwing people in jail for homosexuality, and there are still some very strange laws on the books concerning anal sex between consenting heterosexuals. But we are supposed to believe that the lawmakers have reversed field to the extent that they now allow licensed surgeons to rebuild genitals and re-assign sex? It doesn't add up. It looks the hectic swing from one species of madness to another, and since we have seen that much of the madness of the past century has been manufactured, I suggest this madness may be as well.
Another thing that no one ever questions is the lumping in of transsexuality with homosexuality. We have the LGBT classification, which has never made any sense to me. What does the fourth category have to do with the first three? Most homosexuals are not any more sexually dysphoric than the rest of us. Most gays don't want to be women, they just want to have sex with men. And most lesbians don't want to be men. Many seem to be repulsed by men, so why would they wish to be one? I have talked to a lot of gays about this, and most seem as mystified by it as the rest of us. Some have said they don't like being lumped in with trannies, because it may harm the cause just when they are making progress. A couple even suggested to me that may be the point, which I hadn't thought of. In other words, what if the movement had been infiltrated with the goal of pushing it too far and creating a backlash? I do see some signs of that, so maybe—like everything else—it is not an accident. Something to think about.
Just to be clear, I have nothing against cross-dressing or cross-identifying. Sexually, people can do whatever they wish and not offend me—as long as I don't have to watch it. But when we see the government underwriting and seeming to promote not only gender re-assignment but radical body surgery, I get suspicious. It doesn't seem like something the government should be doing, or would be doing, so it strains logic. Also a red flag is the fact that I am not allowed to question this. According to the current rules of social discourse, I am supposed to clap wildly for everything reported in the media as an advance, without looking closely at it. That by itself is a reason to look closely at it.
Now let's go a bit deeper. Included in the bonus material is a documentary called The Roots of the Matrix, where they have hired a number of university philosophy professors and writers to try to convince you the films are very deep, tying them to philosophers throughout history, including the
Buddha, Plato, Hume, Kant, and Nietzsche. This is all misdirection. But before I tell you exactly why and how it is misdirection, I should tell you why the films were made. Once you understand that, you will immediately understand that The Roots of the Matrix is all a blowing of smoke.**
In the bonus material, they admit the films have a layer of concepts borrowed or bastardized from Gnostic Christianity. Many have attacked the films in that way, especially mainstream Christians. And while that analysis is not necessarily false, it misses the point. The Gnosticism in the film is just another layer of frosting and another layer of misdirection. It was inserted to give analysts another path of confusion. I have to believe that many of these analysts were planted, including both Christians and non-Christians, in order to keep you off beating the bushes. But we will come back to that later.
In many papers on my science site I have shown how the mainstream is trying to sell you physics as an illusion. In the mainstream science journals, we see articles almost every month now with titles like “Is Gravity an Illusion?” or “Is Time an Illusion?” They are also trying to sell you the idea that reality isahologram. One of the premier theories of the Black Hole is that the hole is a hologram. But it isn't just the Black Hole. In many quantum mechanical solutions, they have presented the idea that reality is a hologram of some sort. Even these hologram theories are strange, in that they aren't really claiming reality is made of light. They use the hologram to imply that reality does not exist. They hide it away in a fake 2D surface or in virtual particles or in nothing at all, trying to make you believe the universe is non-real.
[Addendum, February 8, 2016: This psy-op has been accelerating in the past few years. In 2008, it went into overdrive, as you can see by thisstoryfromAugust2015atSpace.com. It is called, “Is Our Universe a Fake?” and is by Robert Lawrence Kuhn. He is the one who hosts the Closer to Truth series on PBS, now in its 15th season. In 2008, the third leg of the series began, called Cosmos. Consciousness. Meaning (God). This nauseating series shows just how far “science” has fallen in the past half century. Kuhn isn't even a scientist. He is an investment banker and corporate strategist. His bio is beyond spooky. For instance, this guy now hosting a science show on PBS got his start in 1972 coordinating a “theology project” for the Worldwide Church of God. I am not making this up. It comesstraightfromhismainstreambio. He has “CIA front” written all over him. Here is a list of “intellectuals” who have appeared on this program, so you can add them all to your spook list:
Scott Aaronson, David Albert, Andreas Albrecht, Peter Atkins, Francisco Ayala, Julian Baggini, David Baltimore, Simon Blackburn, Susan Blackmore, Colin Blakemore, Nick Bostrom, Raphael Bousso, Rodney Brooks, Sean Carroll, Sarah Coakley, Gregory Chaitin, David Chalmers, Deepak Chopra, Francis Collins, Robin Collins, William Lane Craig, Michael Crichton, Paul Davies,[12] William Dembski, Daniel Dennett, David Deutsch, Frank Drake, Willem Drees, Freeman Dyson,[13] David Eagleman, George Ellis, Wendy Freedman, Murray Gell-Mann, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, Alison Gopnik, A.C. Grayling, Susan Greenfield, Neils Gregerson, David Gross, Alan Guth[14] Stuart Hameroff, John Hawthorne, John Hick, Donald Hoffman, Nicholas Humphrey, Chris Isham, Brian Josephson, Subhash Kak,[15] Michio Kaku, Stuart Kauffman, Christof Koch,[16] Steven Koonin, Lawrence Krauss, Ray Kurzweil,[17] Robert Laughlin, Stephen Law, Brian Leftow, John Leslie, Andrei Linde,[18] Rodolfo Llinas, Seth Lloyd, Elizabeth Loftus, Juan Maldacena, Hugh McCann, Colin McGinn, Alister McGrath, Ernan McMullin, Alfred Mele, Marvin Minsky, J.P. Moreland, Nancey Murphy, Yujin Nagasawa, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Timothy O'Connor, Don Page, Roger Penrose, Alvin Plantinga,[19] John Polkinghorne, Huw Price, Martin Rees, John Searle,[20] Michael Shermer, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Huston Smith, Quentin Smith, Lee Smolin, Robert Spitzer, Paul Steinhardt, Galen Strawson, Leonard Susskind, Richard Swinburne,[6] Raymond Tallis, Max Tegmark,[21] Kip Thorne, Guilio Tononi, Michael Tooley, Peter van Inwagen,[22] Alexander Vilenkin, Keith Ward, Steven Weinberg, Geoffrey West, Frank Wilczek, and Stephen Wolfram.
All those hired phonies are leading you Further Away from the Truth. I have already previously mentioned many of them either on my science site or in recent fake-event papers, including Chopra, Davies, Dennett, Gell-Mann, Gross, Guth, Linde, Maldecena, Penrose, Shermer, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Thorne, Weinberg, and Wilczek.]
This is not really surprising, since mainstream physicists have been pushing virtual reality for decades. Starting in the early parts of the 20th century, they were no longer able to solve problems sensibly, so they began fudging solutions with virtual particles. Virtual particles were ghosts that filled equations. They could do anything you wanted them to, and then disappear at the end of the equations so that you didn't have to conserve them. This was very convenient for mathematicians and mathematical physicists, because it allowed them to cheat to their little hearts' content.
So, in the beginning, this virtual reality was simply used as a fudge. But later those outside physics discovered other uses for it. Just as the idea of heaven had been used for centuries to keep people's eyes off the real action, virtual reality could be used in the same way. The rich had long sold the poor a bastardized form of Christianity that caused them to always be looking toward an afterlife, instead of this life. Things would be fair in an afterlife, they were taught, and God would put everything right there—which had the effect of leading people to overlook unfairness and corruption in this life. In other words, it was found it was a lot easier to steal from people if you convinced them this life was just an illusion, or that it was less important than an afterlife.
However, the rich people pushing this scheme decided sometime in the 18th or 19th century that they wanted to get rid of Christianity, mainly to steal its tithe. The project went into high gear in the US in about 1875, when theyimportedTheosophy as well as several other gambits we have looked at in previous papers. Marxism was also used for this purpose, and it had been imported just before the Civil War. But after 1880 its importation was accelerated. Since they were trying to kill Christianity, they could no longer use heaven and the other old diversions. They needed a Modern replacement. For a while they used corrupted forms of Eastern religions for this purpose, and they still are using them. But since the Eastern religions contained some good ideas, they had to be careful. These old religions were dangerous because they were harder to control. Over the centuries, the masses had straightened these religions out to a certain extent, retelling the stories to make them useful. The last thing the billionaires wanted was for Eastern religions to take firm root in the West and start doing people any good. They were importing them only to cause confusion and to help destroy Christianity, you see.
So for decades they were looking for something just as destabilizing, but more controllable. They finally thought they found it with Modern physics, which they had built from the ground up, and which they could continue to manufacture in any way they liked. It offered many ways to misdirect the gaze, and best of all, it appealed to the most intelligent of those they wished to control. It had a sort of faux- complexity and authority that was capable of fooling even the brightest.
As you now see, that is where films like The Matrix fit in. It refers to a lot of fake quantum physics and futuristic computer technology, including AI. All these things are used to misdirect you into the idea that reality does not exist. All the various scientific and philosophical frostings of The Matrix— including Gnosticism—are ultimately in service of that one idea.
You are a manipulated brain-in-a-tank. Furthermore, the only way out of that tank is via some esoteric philosophies, paradoxes, and koans—which also do not make sense. Hence the Oracles and Architects and Merovingians, spouting high-sounding nonsense. Given all this, you are led to believe the best action is to stop seeking sense or consistency, to embrace the contradictions, and transcend reality via drugs, meditation, or occult studies. Not surprisingly, the producers are happy to supply you with any number of occult studies you may wish to pursue, including Kabbalah, Gnosticism, Plato, Isis, and dozens of others. They have a suggestion for every predisposition. After seeing the film, you may wish to get into spoon bending, for instance, since you have been taught that the spoon does not exist.
Now, I am not telling you the mind doesn't have any untapped abilities. I believe that it does. However, the truth is they don't want you to tap them. So they are giving you advice that will guarantee you do not tap them. Believing that the spoon is not real is the worst advice you can get, on any level, physical, spiritual or otherwise. Not only will it ruin any normal abilities you have—since you will be constantly dropping spoons—it will also prevent you from doing anything “paranormal” with spoons. You will never tap into the Force if you believe it isn't real. You have to believe it is real, not only in the sense of “it exists”, but in the sense of “it exists physically”. It isn't virtual, it isn't a computer program, and you are not a brain in a tank.
In the film, they lead you to believe that you can control your reality only if you are a brain in a tank. Neo manipulates the matrix by entering the matrix, where he is a program. In this way, you are led to believe reality is manipulable by your mind only because it is not real. However, this is just the opposite of the truth. A brain in a tank has no power. It not only has no power over reality, since it is not part of reality, it has no power over the program. A brain in a tank is not a programmer, it is a programmed. It is not a thing that manipulates, it is a thing being manipulated. Therefore, thinking of yourself as a brain in a tank is the surest way of becoming a better slave.
This is one of the few sensible things the Merovingian says, although it is buried amongst such a clutter of absurdities few will find it. Morpheus says reality is choice. The Merovingian corrects him: choice is an illusion, created by those with power. If you are in a brain in a tank, your reality is false, and so any choice you think you have made is also false. Compare this to what we have discovered about the false choices you are given, which always come in pairs. The controllers offer you two choices, which seems to confirm your freedom. However, since the truth is hiding in a third place not offered you, your freedom is near-zero. Your only remaining freedom is your freedom to go off the grid.
In truth, you can only achieve things because you are not a brain in a tank. The fact that you are real is what allows you to influence reality. You would think that goes without saying, but things are now so topsy-turvy that it looks like a revolutionary statement. Therefore, if you wish to influence reality more, you must believe in reality more. You must know that both you and the spoon are real, and that there is no separation between you. You are both real in the same way. You are made of the same things and are recycling the same charge field. This charge field connects you at all times, and it is real. It is not mystical, occult, or esoteric. The field is made of the same thing you and the spoon are: photons.
You see how The Matrix and Modern thought in general seem to be leading you to this connection, but are actually leading you away from it. They are teaching you the connection is made by embracing the unreality, when the truth is the connection can only be made by embracing the reality. Star Wars misdirected you to some extent about the Force, but the newer movies like The Matrix misdirect you far more. Star Wars nefariously mixed some lies with the truth, but The Matrix inverts the truth almost completely.
This is why the philosopher professors and writers in The Roots of the Matrix are all paid to misdirect you. They refer to many famous philosophers in history, but not surprisingly all these philosophers are also misdirecting you—I assume on purpose. These philosophers are all specialists in creating confusion and manufacturing disconnections. For instance, Plato is referenced several times, both for his allegory of the cave and for his claim that the wisest man is the one who realizes he knows nothing. Although he is not taught this way (since he is promoted by the rich controllers), Plato was the first and greatest Western nihilist, and the idea of the cave and of the wise man are two of the tallest examples of that. The allegory of the cave disconnects you from this world by telling you it is only a shadow of the real world. You see how it does the same thing the idea of heaven does: it puts your gaze elsewhere. If you are searching for a real world behind or beyond this one, you naturally neglect this world. You put your energy and concentration in the other world. While you look away, the rich people steal everything you own.
But it is even worse than that, because it isn't just a matter of having your money or your things stolen. Your wife and kids can also be stolen. Your entire life can be stolen. While you are seeking heaven or digging through the wall of the cave to find reality, all the useful and wonderful things you could be doing are also being prevented. You are neglecting to do what you were put here to do.
Plato's perverted idea of the wise man achieves the same thing, since it inverts the truth. By definition, the wisest man isn't the man who knows nothing. The wisest man is the man who know the most. Yes, even the wisest may think they know some things they don't, or may think they know more than they know, but that really isn't to the point. Because they are mistaken on some things does not imply they mistaken on all things. If Plato is right, and the wisest man is the one who knows he knows nothing, then there are no wise men and there is no wisdom. I don't think much of society, but it was never as bad as that. Humans have always underperformed, and the 20th century was the worst case of that, but even so, much is known and there is much potential for wisdom and knowledge.
But those two ideas aren't even the most nefarious of Socrates or Plato. In The Republic, Plato builds the first fully conscious fascist state, the first dystopia, and he does not do it as a warning. One of the nastiest things he does there is destroy all families, taking children from their parents and raising them by the State in vast gymnasiums. Given the basic horror of such a concept, it is difficult to understand how Plato is still promoted in schools. Except that, we must remind ourselves who is promoting him in the universities: fascists. Our lovely governors have mined the past for the nastiest examples of fascist philosophy, government, and everything else, and then sold them back to us as a “liberal” education.
You can see why Socrates, the hero of Plato dialogues, was tried as a corrupter of the youth. It took me a long time to see it, but that is precisely what he was. He inverted the truth and sold it as a novelty, just as the Moderns do. The only thing that doesn't make sense is his being condemned to death by Athens for it. You would have expected him to be an agent of the State, selling this confusion at their behest. That is what we see now. Either Athens was not as corrupt as we are, or the story we are told is a cover. Perhaps they faked the death of Socrates and retired him, as they do Modern agents.
Notice that all the historical philosophers promoted in The Matrix are selling some variation of this nihilism first sold by Plato, and that all the philosophy professors interviewed are doing the same. For instance, Kant is most famous for dividing the world into noumena and phenomena, phenomena being the appearances and the noumena being the reality. He taught that everything humans experience is phenomena, and, like the shadow on Plato's cave, not real. Before him, Descartes taught the mind- body dualism, by which thinking became primary to physical action or the physical world. This allowed for much of the manufactured duality after him. Berkeley made some of the best substantive arguments against Newton, asIhaveshown, but then dived off into a strange solipsism, inwhichonce again reality evaporated behind a ridiculous mist. It was the false dualism before him—all the way back to Plato—that allowed him to do this.
Some will say the ideas of these men are beyond any proof or disproof, but I have shown that isn't true, either. Philosophy is usually thought to be so nebulous it is just a matter of opinion whether you find it interesting or useful, but that is not so. In that paper on Berkeley, for instance, I show that Berkeley's ideas are horribly flawed, in that they are full of obvious contradictions. He simply fails to make sense. And yes, he is trying to make sense. The same can be said of all other philosophies and physics, which are never beyond a sensible or logical critique. Most of them are surprisingly easy to shoot down, which makes it all the more surprising they are still promoted as fascinating or even true centuries later. One can only conclude they are promoted as part of some conscious misdirection.
Hume also makes an appearance in The Roots of the Matrix, and this is apropos since he was another premier creator of confusion. His job was to insert doubt even in the least obvious places, and to thereby seem to undercut all science and rationality. For instance, he is most famous for showing that you could not prove a link between cause and effect. In some ways he was right, of course, since by his definition of “prove”, you cannot prove anything. But again, his point is just more pettifogging, since, as Karl Popper later showed, it doesn't really matter if you can prove causality or anything else in that way. No one before Hume had ever claimed that you could prove anything to that extent, and nothing was riding on it one way or another. Science doesn't work that way and never did.
Hume was again prominent in the early 20th century, when Einstein and others resurrected him to continue the confusion. Einstein disagreed with the lords of quantum mechanics in some ways, but one place he agreed with them was in driving around cause and effect. HemisreadHume,claimingHume haddisprovedcauseandeffect. But this was never true. A failure to prove is not a disproof. Hume showed cause and effect could not be proved, not that it could be disproved. Hume never showed the least indication against cause and effect, and neither has anyone else. New physics has purposely misread some new data, trying to indicate action at a distance or other mysticism, but as I have shown onmysciencesite, they have done this only by ignoring simpler and cleaner explanations at hand.
The only one not given proper credit in The Matrix is Sartre, who took this fake dualism about as far as it could be taken. Like Kant, Sartre divided reality from experience, but he called experience “existence” and reality “essence”. He did not then jettison essence as either unknowable—as with Kant or Hume—or as a realm of ideals—as with Plato. No, he did them one better, by admitting the reality of this essence, but claiming the reality of it was horror. In his famous story Nausea, he tells of picking a stone up on the beach and contemplating its full “being”. What was this stone, beyond his experience of it? The answer, nothing. [And so the title of his most famous book, Being and Nothingness.] But not nothing in the sense of “having no qualities”. No, it was even worse than that: this stone was, at heart, a gaping black void, instilling fear and NAUSEA. Sartre dug to the reality within the stone, and promptly threw up.‡
Now, just ask yourself this: do you think someone who thought that way about life would be capable of bending a spoon with his mind? Even more to the point, do you such a person would be capable of saying no to his governors? No, what would be the point? Such a person would view the old-style resignation as positively delicious. Compared to his own daily nausea, the Christian or Buddhist longing for death would be relatively rapturous.
There are two major philosophers I still need to address, and Baudrillard is the first. He is again used to prop up the “no reality” idea. He claimed that reality had been overwritten by layers of simulation or fakery or lies, so much so that the reality underneath had disappeared. However, most intelligent people read Baudrillard as an allegory, not as a straight story. His illustrations are meant to be taken figuratively, that is, not literally. He was not saying that the real world had turned to tatters, as in all the trees had had turned to dust and the sky had gone to rags and atoms had exploded into tiny bits. That would be pretty easy to disprove. No, the real world is still there, though a lot more polluted by our detritus than it ever was. What Baudrillard was trying to get across in a colorful way was that both history and current culture had been saturated with so many sets of lies, the truth underneath had been almost obliterated. It was a similar point I made recently: I have discovered that so much of recent history has been faked by Intelligence, I wondered if anyone in government was keeping track of real history, so that future societies would know what had really happened. In that way, Baudrillard is correct. In human society, the simulations far outnumber the non-simulations, to such an extent it is now nearly impossible to tell fact from fiction.
However, as you now see, that has nothing to do with reality. It has to do with truth. Truth has been obliterated by the simulations. Any true history has been obliterated by the lies. But reality has remained untouched. Some things happened and some things didn't, and selling the lies as truth doesn't change that. Selling fiction as fact doesn't make it fact, does it? For instance, Jim Morrison either died when and as we are told, or he didn't. The story is one thing and the fact is another. If the story is fiction, then it didn't happen. Like Schrodinger's Cat, Morrison is either alive or dead. If he lived on, he lived on, and the general acceptance of his death didn't kill him. As soon as his death hit the papers and everyone agreed to it, his heart didn't immediately stop. In that way, simulation has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
But most people aren't too good with concepts or even words. They don't differentiate between truth and reality. They treat them as the same thing, so that when Baudrillard tells them a story that implies the truth has been killed, they think reality is also dead. The producers of films like The Matrix then play on that confusion, confirming the mistake those people have made in their feeble minds.
Modern physics has mined that very same confusion, as my reference to Schrodinger's Cat makes clear. The feeble modern physicist has been fooled by his superiors into thinking a cat in a box can be both alive and dead at the same time, and what allowed for that confusion is once again the inability to differentiate between two words. The physicist confuses his state of mind—which is uncertain—with the cat itself, which is in no state of uncertainty. The physicist's ignorance can in no way transfer through the box and imprint on the cat. Neither can the equations. The equations may be in a state of uncertainty, due to incomplete input, but the state of the equations tells us nothing about the state of the cat. Equations are equations and cats are cats, and just because you have applied the equations to the cat do not mean the equations have imprinted on the cat.
When it is put that way, most average people can comprehend the difference. It doesn't really take a giant IQ to penetrate these things, it just takes a bit of clarity. But the controllers are careful to deny you that clarity. They are careful to never state things in a sensible way. Just the opposite. They want to be sure you remain confused, so they always present these problems to you in the most complex terms.
The last philosopher I need to address is Nietzsche. As usual, he is lumped in with these others, although he is the only one that doesn't belong. He is presented to you as the premier nihilist by both sides, although he isn't. In other words, both the fascists and anti-fascists tend to accept Nietzsche as a proto-fascist. Normally this is simply because the anti-fascists accept the fascists' history, and then begin critiquing it. They don't bother to read it for themselves. For example, I have seen several critiques of The Matrix and other Hollywood films by contemporary Christians on Youtube, and they are often mostly correct in their analyses—except when it comes to Nietzsche. They copy and paste the standard mainstream presentation of Nietzsche as a nihilist or fascist and then go from there. Since Nietzsche did indeed attack Christianity viciously, it is not surprising to see Christians counterattacking, but I don't like to see him misrepresented nonetheless. It is important to cleanse him in this current analysis, since as it turns out, he was the first to slay most of these beasts I have named above. He was not a dualist in the sense we have been discussing. He did not believe in a world behind this one. He did not believe there was anything unreal about this world. In fact, he did everything he could to bring the reader's gaze back to this world. I am certain he would have seen The Matrix as a creation of what he called “The Spiders”, and would have chopped them up far more efficiently than I can.
What I mean is that there is another depth below the depth we have been traveling, and Nietzsche would ask me to take you there. For we have to ask why the billionaires are so keen to control us. So far I have only shown you money and control for its own sake. But Nietzsche showed us otherwise. He showed us deeper psychological reasons, and these reasons end up tying together further loose ends. You see, Nietzsche wasn't outing Intelligence, as I am. He was outing priests. These were his “Spiders”. In doing so, he wasn't attacking religion or what we call spirituality as a whole, and it important for everyone to understand that. He was attacking a type of person. He had found that the defining quality of such a person was resentment. He said that the type of person who felt the need to control others was mainly driven by a blinding hatred of those he controlled, and that this hatred was borne of feelings of inferiority, not superiority. His Spiders were people that were constitutionally malformed in some way, so that, for instance, they could not see or create beauty. Others might suffer from an innate inability to remain healthy, due to an inability to avoid corruption. There were various causes, and the causes weren't important. The fact was these people existed, and as they got older, they became more and more corrupt and more and more filled with hatred for the uncorrupt. They tended to gravitate to high positions in government and clergy, because they yearned for these positions. Money and power both acted as substitutes for the virtues or abilities they lacked, and in these positions they could act out their hatred against those with virtue or ability or health.
I felt compelled to mention this, because it is clear this type of person has multiplied and evolved in the 20th century, reaching greater levels of power, wealth, and malevolence. These are the people behind the schemes and projects of the last century, and although they usually aren't priests anymore, they are Spiders in the Nietzschean sense. So you see, Nietzsche didn't cause or promote the current malaise, he warned us of it. He posted the loudest and most prescient warning of the 20 th century of any philosopher, but he has been spun like the rest. His philosophy is most often turned on its head, and he is sold as the opposite of what he was. The Spiders have flipped him.
Now let us move on to the next topic, which is free will. The Roots of the Matrix spends many minutes on free will, but gives us the same old misdirection. We are told that cause and effect and free will are contradictory, since if cause and effect is true, the universe is deterministic and there in no room for free will. Everything is predestined and the future is fully predictable. This is simply false. It would be true only if there were only one effect for each cause. In that case, yes, the universe would have to be deterministic. But we know that there is no one-to-one relation of cause and effect. This has nothing to do with chaos or any other modern theories or math, it is simply a matter of logic. Free will and cause and effect are completely compatible, since let us say free will is true. Does that make cause and effect false? No. After your decision, whatever it is, you still perform some action that causes some other action. Free will indicates which action, but it has nothing to say about cause and effect. You will say, “Yes, of course, but it is the reverse that is the problem. We aren't saying free will destroys cause and effect, we are saying cause and effect destroys free will”. It is true that cause and effect would seem to allow for existence without free will or someone making choices, but that doesn't mean there isn't free will. Because you could live without cookies is no argument against cookies. To begin to make an argument against free will, you would have show some strong evidence that all decisions are completely determined by prior input. No one has ever begun to show that. They simply suggest that maybe that is the case, but that isn't an argument or a demonstration.
Also curious is that the same people that give you this “argument” against free will also tend to be the ones quoting Hume or Godel to you about how nothing is provable. We see that in this Matrix promotion, where both Hume and determinism are pushed by the same people. But of course if you can't prove the link between cause and effect, it is going to be very difficult to prove that all actions are completely determined by prior input. The statement “all actions are fully caused by prior input” is of course a general positive statement, and these guys have supposedly proven you can't prove one of those. Therefore, they can have no possible proof against free will. Funny that Hume and Godel and so on are always arguments against you, but are never against them.
Which is just to say, even if you argue that all evidence in such a case is circumstantial, still the fact remains there is a huge pile of circumstantial evidence in favor of free will, and absolutely no circumstantial evidence against it. The same goes for cause and effect, for which there is so much circumstantial evidence it could be called a tautology. There is zero evidence against it. No one has ever shown us an event that was uncaused.
“Aha”, my opponent will say. “No event was ever uncaused. Therefore even a person randomly flailing must have all his actions fully caused, which counter-indicates free will”. No it doesn't. A person randomly flailing isn't exhibiting free will to start with. He is consciously or unconsciously trying to avoid making a decision, and is leaving his actions to chance. It would appear that he is able to do that to some extent, allowing events to proceed to some default position—which may or may not be predestined. But it is no argument against choice since he can retake control of his actions at any time, overruling that default.
As usual, the paradox of free will is a manufactured one, born of sloppy definitions. Yes, the paradox might arise if you defined free will and cause and effect in very tight and frankly unnatural ways, but we have no reason to believe those definitions pertain and every reason to believe they don't. The paradox is not only not necessary, it is actually highly unlikely. Which leads me to believe it has been pushed mainly to create confusion, like everything else. It was certainly inserted into The Matrix movie and discussion for that reason. It has little or nothing to do with the plot, and doesn't strongly assert itself until we come to the Architect scene in the third film. That scene is one of the most
confused and contradictory in the entire trilogy, since the Architect doesn't seem to have a clue what is going on. Like the Oracle, the Architect tells Neo a mishmash of lies or false prophecy, including the prophecy that the door he goes through is the door to save Trinity. He chooses to save Trinity, remember, but she dies and Zion is saved. So either the Architect switched the doors on Neo, or he didn't know one from the other.
Also notice here that there were only two doors. Neo's choice was Trinity or Zion. But Neo and the Architect should have known there are never only two choices. There are never only two doors.
I will be told the Oracle switched the doors, but where did she get that power? She is supposed to be a creation of the Architect, just another program, so how can she switch doors on him? Besides which, she never seems to know which way is up, either. First she tells Neo he isn't the One. Then she tells him he isn't there to make a choice: he has already made the choice and he is there to experience it. But later she reverses field on that, telling him he must make a choice whether to choose Trinity or Zion. Large parts of the script appear to have been written simply to stir your brain. Which is precisely what I am telling you: most of the “philosophy” in the movie is shallow misdirection, meant to keep you from noticing the load of stupid propaganda they are massaging down your throat. The main piece of that propaganda is selling you higher levels of control under the guise of freedom, and that is accomplished by disconnecting you from reality, logic, and consistency. Instead of tying you more firmly to reality, making you her ally and confidant, they are making you her enemy and assailant. This will ensure you cause the current architects very little trouble.
There is a side-effect of this analysis which may be useful to some of you. Once you understand what The Matrix is and what it is intended to do, you can better categorize those selling it to you. If you don't have a copy of The Roots of the Matrix—and I assume you don't—I will post a list below of those referenced in the documentary, as well as those who appeared as experts. I would suggest you mark them all as compromised.
But before I do, I want to conclude by telling you who I think actually wrote The Matrix. It clearly wasn't the Wachowski brothers, since they don't seem capable of writing a coherent grocery list. They didn't write The Matrix any more than they wrote V for Vendetta.☼ They look to me like fronts for Intelligence. This script was an important production of Langley, but not the Langley I have been exposing in recent papers. The people who wrote Jack London's bio, or Fidel Castro's, aren't the ones who wrote this script. It was written by a top team, possibly the top writing committee they have. It is the same committee that writes the propaganda for Scientific American and the other top science journals, since it has all the same markers. They have been instructed to promote this breakdown of
reality, and they are very good at it. They hit you from every angle and reference all the top misdirection of history. They cross-pollinate all fields with a fairly consistent lie, from science to art to film to psychology to current affairs. They have a longterm plan and a huge budget to see it through.
That said, even this team seems lazy or overconfident. They either passed the ball to a lesser team for the second two movies, or wrote the scripts between more important projects, after too many snorts. It looks like the first movie got a rare hook into the current psyche, a hook they should have wished to set. Instead, they basically let the fish swim away. I guess they figured the fish was swimming in a very small and shallow pool and couldn't go far. The stupid fish would always be available later for another nibble. Maybe they are right, maybe they aren't. All I know is this fish has finally wised up.
*appeared in documentaries
Donna Bowman*
Stewart Brand*
Henry Brighton
Howard Selina
Richard Appignanesi
John Brockman
David Chalmers*
Andy Clark*
Peter Chung*
Antonio Damasio
Daniel Dennett*
Hubert Dreyfus*
Julia Driver*
Esther Dyson*
Frances Flannery-Dailey*
Christopher Grau* Karen
Haber
Richard Hanley*
William Irwin*
Steven Johnson
Kevin Kelly*
Christof Koch
Ray Kurzweil*
Peter Lloyd*
Bryan Magee
T. J. Mawson*
Colin McGinn*
Michael McKenna*
John Partridge*
Howard Reingold
Mark Rowlands*
Rudy Rucker*
John Searle*
John Shirley*
Rebecca Solnit
Bruce Sterling*
Sherry Turkle
Iakovos Vasiliou*
Christopher Vogler*
Rachel Wagner*
Cornel West*
Ken Wilber*
Take note of the last entry, since I have been asked about Wilber. Here, we see him gushing over The Matrix trilogy, including the second two films, as if they were the highest creation of contemporary art. I recommend you watch his performance and come to your own conclusion. There is also a nauseating interviewofhimwithLanaWachowski on Youtube.
At first I had Chris Thornton (U. of Sussex) on this list, since he appears in part 2 of the bonus material of the Matrix: The Hard Problem: The Science behind the Fiction. However, I removed him when I realized he was the only one in the documentary who told the truth.† He admits there is basically no science behind the fiction of AI: it is all science fiction. Almost no progress has been made in robotics since the 1970s, and the fear that robots might become sentient is a planted fear—planted to make you think we are much further along the robotics road than we in fact are. It reminds me of what Wendell Berry said about AI back in the 1990s: he said that the danger was not super-intelligent machines, it was sub-intelligent humans. We see this exhibited in the Matrix bonus material by all the ridiculous experts (one of whom places Descartes in the wrong century). Thornton rightly says that all the bloviating about a technological singularity is simply to cover the embarrassment of admitting we can't even jump the first hurdle of AI technology. Robots can't even do simple tasks, much less exhibit complex personalities.
Everyone else in the documentary is not only spooky, they are paid liars, and Thornton's admission shows the lies for what they are. In my opinion, Kurzweil, Dennett, and Wilber are the most dangerous, because they are the most convincing. They have an authority or excitement that will fool you. Don't let it. Remember, Dennett is one of the FourHorsemenofAtheism, so he is a nasty creature. And Kurzweil is perhaps even nastier. He has claimed that he predicted the Soviet Union would fall due to cell phones and FAX machines, and that it did so for that reason. So he is not only nasty, he is famous for just making shit up. He is also the one that has been telling us for years that nanobots are going to do all sorts of things, including entering the bloodstream and outperforming white blood cells. Like most of his claims, this is just a ridiculous fantasy; though I hope he volunteers to be the first infected with nanobots. That should save us from having to listen to any more of his rattle.
**You can see clips from this documentary on Youtube. Search on “Return to the Source Matrix”.
† Warning, there are two Chris Thorntons on Youtube, both of them from the UK, and neither of them this guy.
‡ For a contemporary presentation of this idea, see the film Altered States, which was popular back in the 1980s.
☼ Of course, Alan Moore wrote it. Curious he asked his name not be listed in the credits.
Comments