The Prisoner and Prison Planet

I'm not claiming that this post is the result of an original thought of mine. I fell victim of programming, alas, but I simply can't resist to draw the connection and add a few words of my own.

First perhaps the background: The Prisoner - Checkmate.

And now what we might want to see before it:



Big deal, indeed. But it can of course be turned different ways, this warning. We might be warned or Alex Jones might be warned as well. And neither is it fixed what we would be warned of. Would this be a warning of people doing something under the guise of doing its opposite or would it be a warning of us drawing the wrong conclusions seeing fire being fought with fire?

Honestly, already the trailer of that film State of Mind - The psychology of control made me think of the Checkmate episode of The Prisoner, but seeing it roled out really borders the bizarre and I have to admit that I couldn't sit through it all.

Automatons, who can be programmed any which way, huh?

So, you have to send them to the Kindergarten, so that they would want to fight to uphold law and order in their country? Because otherwise they would be completely indifferent to invading marauding armies? Like that of Napoléon? Who, on the other hand, come to liberate people, give them their God given rights and all the while fighting for such noble causes make their leader's cousins kings all over Europe?

No doubt that anybody who wanted to resist such plans needed a massive amount of brainwashing.

So, as far as that is concerned, it's already clear on which foot the shoe is.

But I want to nevertheless go into a detail concerning the operation of an army to give some understanding of actual facts, namely that of the difficulty to make soldiers fire only on command.

This isn't as simple as you might think, if you haven't been in the army yourself. There really is a strong urge to fire when you see fit, as you will know, if you have been part of some military exercises. But if you haven't, here's an example from today to illustrate the point.



So, next we have to look at some very basic facts concerning the military order until the French Revolution. This is a subject, which isn't properly understood by most, the facts are simple enough, but the rationale behind them is, as it would seem, not.

Stanisław Andrzejewski correctly observed that the medieval military order sucked in every possible regard: neither were there many knights, nor were they part of a strict hierarchy, nor did they feel even much of a desire to come to the help of their fellow knights. It couldn't get worse. But where Andrzejewski saw decadence, conquering families becoming fat on their conquests, the reality is that Europe was ruled by the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church wanted to have small, inapt armies for the greater good of the whole continent and achieved it by guiding the conquerors along that path. (I've already written on Andrzejewski in the past: bereitschaftsfront.blogspot.com/2012/03/zur-klassifikation-militarischer.html)

As the ideological power of the Catholic Church waned, the other realms of power followed suit, until Napoléon finally ushered in a new military era, namely that of mass armies, organised in strict hierarchies and brainwashed to believe in the righteousness of their cause, culminating, as Andrzejewski would have it, in the Red Army.

So, that is the background of the decision of the Prussian army to change its military model. After Napoléon went too far (to the east) and was subsequently defeated at Leipzig 200 years ago, the Prussian army came to the conclusion that it had to increase its number of soldiers, if it wanted to be able to compete in the future.

But it faced the same problem that Americans are facing today in Afghanistan, the common people were simply not soldier material, they would, because that is what it comes down to, simply not fire only on command. So, as a remedy, Prussia introduced the mandatory school system, that much is true. However, it wasn't much of an individual choice. The whole process is highly deterministic.

In the absence of higher binding forces like ideology or convention, and ideology waned since Jan Hus and convention broke with the French Revolution, the most primitive force, that is violence, will necessarily become the dominating binding force and it will just as necessarily, as a method to increase its power, start to usurp the higher forces, that is try to shape them in its interest, of which National Socialism is probably the crowning achievement, not so far, but in the cycle that we are currently passing.

All of which is described in the Revelation. The return of the Son of God is a point in the life cycle of ideologies, namely its conception at the darkest hour, the winter solstice, so to say, whereas the time of greatest liberty, the brightest hour, is when the ideology begins to unravel, just like the sun starts to sink at the summer solstice, and the time of the greatest fruits of an ideology likewise falls into its autumn.

So, we're already in December now. And quite honestly, how could anybody believe that we're already past the darkest hour, if the pledge to work towards the holy counts for naught in public affairs or, if that would rather be spring in the cycle of an ideology, if there isn't even a desire anywhere for it to count?