Although the television is a mind-control device, like the internet, full of garbage, sometimes you can find something good—but that’s when your guard should be up most of all.
Last night, I stumbled upon Fritz Lang’s masterpiece, Metropolis, which is now almost one hundred years old.
You can watch the entire film, for free, below.
The work concerns cybernetics.
The work concerns robotics.
The work concerns doubles.
The work concerns the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
The work concerns decimal time.
The work concerns a central bank.
The work concerns the Tower of Babel.
The work concerns the driving of people into cities.
The work concerns secret underground facilities.
The work concerns ancient catacombs where people are sacrificed to Moloch.
And the work concerns false flag attacks.
But, then, the work holds out the wrong idea that the so-called heart—irrational, impulsive, and easily controlled by cybernetically stimulated glands—should govern our thoughts and actions.
And, then, the work holds out the wrong idea that the Tower of Babel could be good.
And, then, the work holds out the false solution of Communism.
And, then, the work holds out the false solution of Christianity.
Meanwhile, the work is full of satanic symbols.
In one way, it’s as good as The Prisoner.
But, then, it has as many wrong answers as Q-Anon—a plot I destroyed on this website.
Metropolis signals controlled opposition, while it suggests insanity, and unstable point of view, much like another masterpiece of German Expressionism: The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari.
How did I run into this obscure film on mainstream television, when I turn on the thing so seldom?
Was it a coincidence?
Or was it like all the other stupid enemy moves I have described?
It’s one “meaningful coincidence” after another….
It’s just like the synchronicity put forward by Carl Jung, who lectured at Tavistock, worked for OSS, and heard voices in his head.
Why do I find myself calling the film “the work?”
Why does its discussion of head, heart, and body evoke the same-named Work taught to me by the students of spymasters?
They almost had me going.
They actually think they can co-opt the Gurdjieff Work….
But, still, Metropolis is an excellent film, so check it out, as I correct the earlier mistakes in this article, and, just like Gurdjieff, find myself drinking his favorite drink, armagnac, usually far too expensive, but now in bottles with unbelievably low prices that just so happened to appear in my local liquor store.
Usually this quality would cost seventy dollars, but suddenly I’m finding it for thirty-five, as they drive down the price, nationwide, just for little old me.
Here’s my message back to the Deep State, the Masons, and the Illuminati, as, once again, I humiliate the fools at the Tavistock Institute, British Military Intelligence Section Seven, Army Seventh Psychological Operations, Lackland Air Force Base, the Office of Naval Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency:
Thanks for the armagnac, suckers!
Return to my homepage, where you can scroll through more articles, by clicking the site title at the top of the page or at www.fightingmonarch.com.
Follow my website, which you can easily do for free.
That way you can get new articles as they come out.
8 thoughts on “METROPOLIS, CONTROLLED OPPOSITION, & FAKE SYNCHRONICITY”
Thanks, Pal! I have not yet watched Metropolis, but I will now that you’ve shared the link.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I caught only part of it the other night, so I’m updating the article, as I write, and enjoy this masterpiece of German Expressionistic Film, while I work on a bottle of cheap armagnac.
The contemporary work of literature that Metropolis recalls, for me, is Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, while I have never read the Russian, We, by Yevgeny Ivanovich Zamyatin, on which Brave New World, like George Orwell’s 1984, is based.
Meanwhile, it turns out there is an interesting twist, as the imbeciles were actually trying to use this movie against me.
Yours in my cups,
Reblogged this on Menschenkind.
I am on your mailing list and I have a question for you re: Lara Logan, if you have time.
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
Logan’s own account describes a sexual assault, not a “rape.” To wit, she claims she was saved from “a fate worse than death.” What does this mean if she was raped? Put another way, by her own account, she wasn’t raped, she was assaulted. But allegations of rape provoke visceral reactions in a public that doesn’t question much of anything, so intel agencies have motive to fabricate such a story. At worst, it sounds like her clothes were torn and she was groped (assault). Otherwise, her story is contrived to justify increased US military activity in the Middle East. Please tell me what I am missing, here.
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
You’re dead wrong. Rape survivors often don’t describe their assaults in specific terms because they don’t want to relive them. Mrs. Logan had multiple hands and objects, including wooden sticks, from flags, violently shoved into her sex organs, so that she had to have numerous surgeries while she was kept in the hospital and afterwards. She walks with a limp today because of the horrific abuse to her body by Arab scum put up to it by Israeli trash in Mossad, English garbage in MI6, and American degenerates in CIA. Mere rape would have been nothing next to what she endured. You can read a fuller account of what was going on around this excellent and heroic lady, not to mention some of the disgusting details of her assault, in my two articles on the subject, which are two of the very first I wrote on this site.
Your question, like your commentary, is both stupid and offensive–not to mention completely irrelevant to the article above.
Don’t write back.