Dear Reader, I thought I’d introduce the Okie Devil’s latest missive with a selfie of me and MEROVEE Frank in the Red universe…
*It appeared the day we remote viewed the movie, Clicky? …/lights up… Blimey… /drags…*
… Poor Frank is having terrible trouble with pollen and we hope he feels better soon…
*/plumes smoke… Actually, Blue universe Frank posted about the heatwave today… /smokes… *
… I have a separate shambles brewing on this week’s remote viewing of the ‘Unbreakable’ trilogy, and will post that this weekend…
*/tuts… Spoilers, Clicky…*
… But for Cade’s take on the movies, and more besides, keep reading, Dear Reader. And enjoy! ❤
*******
Sup douchebag. Or, douchebags…if there are more than one of you. Doing OK today? Wanna travel a potentially dark path? Me either too neither also.
Q: Why do Christians hate Satanists?
A: ? ? ?
The concept of Satan and/or Satanism springs from your own mythos, right? So I really don’t see what you get in such a twist over every time that/those particular part(s) of your own bullshit is mentioned. Seems like all you need to do in order to defeat Satan or Lucifer or the Devil or whoever, is edit them out. Redact their evil ass(es) from The Bible.
Problem solved
But wait, you can’t do that can you? Not only does God say not to change one word, but you can’t remove the opposition. The opposite is what allows the entirety of the structure(s) to stand in the first place. Man, you guys are staring down the barrel of Gnosticism aren’t you. I mean, you’re gonna have to face the fact that you’re eventually gonna have to blame God for everything at some point, and I get the feeling that this is almost the entirety of what makes up the basis for Gnosticism…
blame God
Or if you want to avoid those pesky Gnostic conundrums, you can just keep Big Red in The Bible, God is off the hook, problem solved? Is that how this works? I’m asking because I don’t know.
^Iron Maiden- The Prisoner^
You really don’t think I think you’re a douchebag, do you?
You aren't, right?
I wouldn’t sweat being called names…
X: Can I add something here?
Cade: Oh, hello. I’m sure you can add something with a modicum of effort.
X: How do you figure that you completely forgot that your favorite Iron Maiden song even existed?
Cade: Woah. I woulda expected a question like that to come from 0: or T:.
X: Anyone but me?
Cade: Pretty much, yeah.
0: Do you have an answer?
Cade: Welp, you’ve kinda muddied the waters as to what question needs to be answered.
B: No…you did that.
Cade: Muddied the waters?
B: Yes.
Cade: I realize that. But X: typically doesn’t start conversations via a rather detailed question.
Z: Are they typically more of an “observational” type of instigator?
Cade: Yeah. Fuzzy, but knowing.
F: What in the hell does that mean?
Cade: Welp, can I answer the original question first?
T: Will that give you time to think about how to respond?
Cade: Yes. And in answer to how I could possibly forget that my favorite Iron Maiden song even existed? Time.
X: Time, and…???
Cade: Time and rejection.
X: Rejection?
Cade: Yes. I started to “reject” heavy metal music when it started to get kinda…
Z: Foofoo?
Cade: Yes. Foofoo, or fufu or whatever. Frilly. Sparkly. Glam.
Z: You wanted to stay in the dark.
Cade: Yeah, something like that. I was just beginning to understand the dark, become comfortable with the dark.
X: And then?
Cade: Light.
0: Too much focus on the dark creates a glare.
Cade: Now that you put it like that, yeah. Like flicking on a light just as your eyes have adjusted to the dark.
Z: Or coming indoors on a bright and sunny day?
Cade: Yeah that too. Not grey as much as a weird mish-mashy rainbow of colors trying to find where they go/where they need to be.
X: That’s quite the description. Ever thought of it like that before?
Cade: Not really. But now that I think about it, it’s almost like shoving a rainbow flavored sno-cone into your eye.
T: How many time do you think you’ve heard that song The Prisoner?
Cade: A bunch. I used to listen to it over and over.
T: The song has a lot of colors.
Cade: Indeed it does. Up-tempo with a down-tempo intro, clarity, confusion, decision, anger, hope…
X: …and rejection.
Cade: Yes! That song does have some “rejection” overtones in it doesn’t it?
X: I hadn’t noticed.
Cade: lolz
X: 😉
F: Ahem.
Cade: I gotta scroll up, because I forgot what you asked.
F: Don’t bother.
Cade: K.
X: He’s gonna “bother” you know.
F: Why would he, when I specifically requested that he not?
0: Because he wants to know.
T: He thinks he does.
B: In the event the question is raised again.
Cade: Do I need to be here for this conversation?
F: Don’t do what I asked you not to do, and the problem is solved.
Cade: Not from my vantage point.
F: You scrolled.
Cade: Indeed I did, and in answer your original question, “knowing an answer” does not necessarily mean that you know how to provide that answer to a particular individual?
F: You were thinking of anecdotal evidence as you typed that.
Cade: Of course I was.
F: To relate the answer?
Cade: I would say, “to better relate the answer”, but that’s just me.
F: And why is that?
Cade: Because I can have the answer to a question…
T: But that doesn’t mean that you understand it.
Cade: Correct. Even less so with respect to answering an individual.
F: You know a lot of things you don’t understand?
Cade: Um, I think I need to be careful in answering that.
X: Booya.
Cade: Booya indeed.
F: What does that mean? “In your face F:?”
Cade: No. It is a correctness in the moment which buys more time for contemplation on if and how to answer your question.
F: Wait, you are saying you have answers to questions, and you don’t understand these answers, therefore you are hesitant to share these answers you have, simply because you yourself do not understand them?
Cade: Yes. Not always mind you.
F: What the hell does that mean?
Cade: Wow, my head is suddenly a train wreck.
Z: If only you were able to find a relatable anecdote, you wouldn’t be in this mess.
Cade: Tru dat.
F: You probably just have an inner desire to talk. Therefore your first instinct is block direct answers so as to inspire conversation.
Cade: Welp, that’s complete bullshit. I’m typically told that I have the finesse and delicacy of an asteroid slamming into the Yucatan Penninsula.
0: He ain’t lying.
F: How so?
A: Usually, he gives very direct answers in order to avoid conversation.
Z: Dry as the desert.
X: Heartless as stone.
T: All to avoid confusion.
Cade: Oy vey.
0: Oy vey indeed.
Cade: Avoid any perception of being deceitful.
X: Take the beating.
Cade: Forever and always, take the beating.
X: Booya.
F: Take the beating?
Cade: Get it over with. The beating is going to come irrespective of how the information is provided.
F: No justification? No rationalization?
Cade: Wait a moment here, anyone reading that might become confused as to who is rationalizing what.
Z: And why.
Cade: And why.
F: I’m confused.
Cade: Yes, I have many answers. Yes, I have many answers that I personally do not understand. Yes, I have grown hesitant in providing said information when asked for it.
F: Perhaps you are trying to avoid these beatings afterall?
Cade: Do you know what comes after?
F: Can you explain that? I don’t understand.
Cade: After someone asks me “do you know…”, and I answer directly and succinctly, do you know what comes after?
F: Another question?
Cade: Exactly. What I know, then after I tell what I know comes the question of how I know it.
F: And then?
Cade: Its a mess.
F: So, you know a bunch of stuff, but don’t know how you know it.
Cade: There are libraries you know.
F: Meaning…what?
Cade: We encountered eachother. It’s highly unlikely that I know something that others don’t know. So if you want a different source, there are plenty available.
F: Wait, is this about synchronicity?
Cade: Somewhat. Time. You want something in a timely manner, I give it to you, perhaps that saves you some time from having to go somewhere else to get it.
F: And if you don’t answer my question?
Cade: Then perhaps I was not the one that was supposed to give you the information you needed. I’m not a fucking ATM machine.
F: And what is that supposed to mean?
Cade: Go ask an ATM machine for a bottle of Dr. Pepper a bag of Cheetos and find out what I mean. Might ask the ATM machine what it thinks of the new Avengers movie whilst you are at it. Chat about the weather. Perhaps ask for investing advice or get them to comment on your wardrobe choices.
F: I would not do such a thing.
Cade: I don’t care if you would or wouldn’t.
F: Why don’t you care?
Cade: Because I don’t. “Fuzzy knowing”, I would think anyway, is not as much about whether or not to provide information requested, but how to provide the information. A “rock” is not just and only “a rock”.
F: It is if it’s a six mile wide asteroid slamming into the Yucatan Peninsula.
Cade: That isn’t a rock at all…it’s a missile.
0: If I may be so bold as to interject, this is getting a bit long, don’t you think?
Cade: It is indeed.
F: …
If you want answers, I got em’. Step right up and get your answers.
^A Flock Of Seagulls – Space Age Love Song (Official Music Video)^
Ya know, I gotta admit…
DROP EVERYTHING and read this RIGHT NOW! Seriously. Full-length, six-section Ebook with searingly urgent and immine… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
David Wilcock (@david_wilcock) June 25, 2019
…I didn’t have the slightest desire to drop anything upon reading the text of that tweet. In fact, the only thing that I had a sudden desire to do, was that I seemed to have a sudden desire to NOT go read your full-length six-section ebook with its searingly urgent and imminent message. And what’s with the Pepe The Frog MOAB? Didn’t Alex Jones get sued for using shit like that?
Hey you! Yeah, you…the one who is reading this right now. Do you even know what a MOAB is?
Moab
Moab, Utah
Moab (Disambiguation)
GBU-43/B MOAB
THERE we go! That last one is what we are looking for. It’s not a daisy-cutter. What’s that? You dunno what a daisy-cutter is? Welp, you can go look it up your own damn self if you wanna. Anyway, I get the feeling that whatever this searingly urgent message is, is prolly more along the lines of investment advice and/or some kind of corporate signaling. That’s just me being conspiratorial tho.
^The XX Intro HQ^
It’s not that I don’t want to grow, it just that I’m not always real keen on growing backwards. Har har. Get it? I don’t want to GrOw…backwards?
I funny
^Calexico – Guero Canelo^
Are you accepting, of being unaccepting?
Just pondering how someone gets their feet entrenched in concrete.
Like, did you have to agree to that?
Also, aren’t feet multi-purpose?
^Thievery Corporation ft. Gigi Rezende – Pela Janela [The Cosmic Game]^
Movies are supposed to be entertaining. Movies are supposed to be titular. Exciting. Interesting.
Entertainment. Movies are something you are supposed to want more and more of. With respect to those concepts…
Q: Does the blending of “the hideous” within a wrapper of “entertainment” muddy meaning(s)?
A: ???
More than that, would you know if movies had switched in their usage/utilization between a medium of entertainment, and one of entrainment? Not indoctrination, as much as entrainment. An intentional mixing/blending of concepts in order to manifest certain emotions that typically operate on different frequencies and/or carry different resonances?
Lemme give an example. Recently, the “antihero” archetype has become quite prevalent in movies, and especially superhero flicks. There’s nothing new about the antihero, but the depictions of them in movies is quite new. Ace Ventura is an antihero. The Man With No Name is an antihero. Frankenstein’s Monster is an antihero. Charles Kane is an antihero. The Shadow is an antihero.
Wait a minute here…there’s nothing new about antiheroes, except in superhero movies. Depictions of superheroes with flaws…maybe that’s what is new here. But that can’t be, because all superheroes have weaknesses. So why is it, that I would get the idea that someone is trying to use subtleties in the medium of movies to influence my outlook on certain things? Oh, that’s right, it’s because there are fucktons of people out there who are battling over the hearts and minds of the masses.
Maybe that's why I'm confused
^Sorten Muld – Bonden og Elverpigen (lyrics)^
What do you get, when you try and unconfuse someone who is not confused? Like say, I am a someone who already has the same ideas about perfection as you. If you think that I am someone who does not share your views on perfection, and you start hitting me with concepts specifically designed for those with opposing views, how would I react to those concepts? Nodding agreement? Or is confusion the more likely outcome. After all, wouldn’t you be preaching to the converted? That leaves me with no other conclusion than to wonder why in the fuck you are talking to me at all. Recruitment? Initiation?
Some kind of security check?
^Renegade Soundwave – Cocaine Sex (LP original)^
Here’s the dealio, I started writing this whatever yesterday morning, and yesterday afternoon, I watched a coupla movies that confused the living shit out of me. Quite sure they confused me because I didn’t understand the characters and their motivations. But the movies were Split and Glass.
Split (2016 American Film)
Glass (2019 Film)
What in the fuck is a stealth sequel?
The Wiki page for Split says that Split is “Hollywood’s first stealth sequel”. Anyway, I was kinda confused by the motivations of the character in Split. But then again, I had a tough time trying to decide if Split was a metaphor for government(s), more than it was a story about some nutcase living in a bomb shelter/prepper bunker.
The reason I thought the movie might be metaphorical, is because killing is the only answer. And not just and only killing, but theft, thievery and overbearing/obtrusive enslavement. Murder is also theft, slavery is supposedly illegal as is involuntary servitude. I’m kinda avoiding the topic of kidnapping because I’m trying to understand any points that Shyamalan might be trying to make in the subtext. Kinda sad really, because I sometimes feel that I can’t watch and enjoy a movie without nitpicking the fuck out of the story for “hidden meanings”.
Le sigh
It gets worse tho, because I then watched Glass. Oy vey, it only got muddier from there.
^public enemy – lost at birth – Apocalypse 91…The Enemy Str^
Glass seems to focus on the concept of ‘Due Process’.
Due Process
‘Due Process’ is top down. That means in order for the concept to be valid, it must be respected and honored from top to bottom, at all times.
This is the Achilles’ heel of every superhero, and the eventual destruction of every supervillan…when and if to respect someone else’s rights. I guess this is why the concept is ever-present in comic books. You’ve got people who are sick and tired of waiting for the slow wheels of justice to turn, and they take matters into their own hands. We’re talking about folks here who likely trust these systems of government implicitly, and when these governments and their systems don’t deliver? Anger and rage are swift amongst the converted.
These governments get their due and proper from us after all, on time and without fail, otherwise these governments and their arms of retribution are swift and firm with us. It’s almost as if these government are indifferent to our taxpayer-on-taxpayer crimes. Wait, I meant to say citizen-on-citizen crime(s). But yeah, this third party is indifferent as to what has transpired, and even if anything has transpired. After all, they are late to the party. But at the start of the movie Glass, the “heroes” are being accused of denying criminals their right to ‘Due Process’. In other words, the government wants their piece of the action. Ironic that this character who accuses the heroes of denying rights to ‘Due Process’, themselves denied the heroes their rights to ‘Due Process’.
I’m not going to spoil the movie further, but I’ll just say that both movies are some really great stories with fucktons of flaws. I almost get the feeling that these flaws are intentional, only because I know that Shyamalan is a clever motherfucker and a great storyteller. But let me add one last thing here real quick…
Good Samaritan Law
Yes, whether you know it or not, there are indeed laws that dictate behavior. Laws that eradicate choice completely, and lead to a ridiculously twisted web of “what I would have done in that situation” types of debates.
/me rolls eyes
^Madeleine Peyroux – J’ai Deux Amours^
So…there is a law…it states that you must stop and render aid if you see a car crash.
So…there is a law…it states that you cannot carry a pocket knife on your person.
So…there is a car crash in front of you. You stop because you are legally obligated to do so.
So…a person in one of the cars is trapped because the seat belt is jammed from the impact.
So…the car is on fire.
So…you have no way to cut this seatbelt because knives are illegal to carry.
So…you are required to be a superhero, but your hands are tied.
So…this law required you to stop and watch/witness this person burn to death as you stand helpless.
Yep, it’s a mess.
Good luck!
^Renegade Soundwave – Thunder^
Don’t ask me how in the fuck this started off with contemplating the concept of defects in your own religion’s mythos, and wound up contemplating comic books and movies. Just kinda…happened that way.
^Los Twangers – Vista Cruiser 69^
Is it possible to plan chaos? I bet a healthy dose of order would help.
Sorry, just really lost in this concept of onscreen retribution and/or vengeance. But then again, I guess onscreen forgiveness would be boring as fuck. A superhero wandering around absolving criminals of their crimes? What a snoozefest. The hero could just as well stay home, kick their feet up, have a beer, eat some Doritos and watch television. That would be a good show model for product placement tho.
“You're watching...The Hero That Wasn't!, brought to you buy...”
^Melody Gardot – Iemanja^
