/lit/ - Literature

Mary Poppins.
The very idea behind surrealism is magic, the perversion of reality, the subversion of God's natural order.

>>4403187
>so you also think the majority of art is satanic and misleading?

Yes. Shakespeare is a great example. Shakespeare was an Elizabethan par excellence, and what characterized the Elizbethan age was magic, witches, secret spies, and an opposition to the Catholic Church. All of the surreal imagery that we have is based on Elizabethan England. Alice in Wonderland (Queen of Hearts represents Queen Elizabeth I) and Mary Poppins are both based on the Elizabethan era. Shakespeare is full of mysticism and sorcery.

>don't you think perhaps the use of satanic imagery is sometimes necessary in order to come to a cohesive and emotional argument for good?

Let's put it like this. At the end of Romeo & Juliet the protagonists die, and so the "moral of the story" is that the vanity of young love can have dire consequences - but that didn't stop the entire play previously from glorifying that young love and from causing generations of people afterwards to become enamored by the idea of "romance". Young girls still watch that play today and swoon over Romeo. Look at Scorcese's "Goodfellas" - that ends badly too, but that didn't stop the entire preceding part of the film from glorifying gangsters/the mafia is some way, and young kids still watch that film today and swoon over that kind of lifestyle. When Goethe wrote his Sorrows of Young Werther he glamorized young love just as Shakespeare did, and many of the young people who read Goethe's book killed themselves just as Werther did for their transcendental attachment to their beloved. You see the point? It's not enough just to tack on a "moral" at the end. That does not justify it. You have to consistently and throughout the work be telling the reader that the things that are being presented which are evil, ARE indeed evil. You can't glamorize them and say that, "well, we are only showing how things look from the character's perspective. Of course to them these things are glamorous and tempting, and so in order to be true to nature we have to portray these temptations properly". You have to condemn the Devil when he appears on stage. You can't make him look beautiful for the entire play and then reveal his true face at the end, because people will remember the glamorous part which is 95% of the play and forget the 5% at the end.

>>4403165
This one isn't even subtle, lol.

When the music's over
When the music's over, yeah
When the music's over
Turn out the lights
Turn out the lights
Turn out the lights, yeah

>"Light" has special significance. It means wisdom. However, to the occult "Light" also refers to the "Light-bearer" (the literal meaning of the name Lucifer). When Kanye has "All of the Lights" in his song he's talking about the revealed wisdom, "Light", that is contained in his music. The same with this song.

For the music is your special friend
Dance on fire as it intends
Music is your only friend
Until the end
Until the end
Until the end

>"Dance on fire" states what is going on spiritually - you're being possessed by unclean spirits, by satan. "Music is your only friend until the end" is saying that Satan is very good to those who give him his soul, until death comes. See the image for passages from Flaubert's "The Dance of Death" and Marlowe's "Faustus".

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside

>No comment. I don't think the rest is even worth commenting on. It's obvious what is being said. Much more subtle is Bob Dylan's "Mr. Tambourine Man", where the tambourine man is the devil, the pied piper. "Mr Tambourine Man, play a song for me, In the jingle jangle morning I'll come followin' you." - Lucifer is the "son of the morning". Jay Z and Kanye also use the word morning in this way. Bob Dylan was quite exceptional with his lyrics. He makes those occult references with a lot of finesse.

>>4403161
Classical music is no different. Here is an extreme example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7Wp3p3did4
There are classical pieces that are pure; but there are also very many that are no different spiritually to the pop music that I've been talking about.
A rule of thumb is that if the music gets you to think of God then it is good, but if the music is there "for music's sake" or "art's sake" then it is bad, and if the music has any reference to things like pagan gods, temples, rituals, revolutions, etc., then it is evil.

>>4403163

I honestly feel very doubtful whether or not I should be revealing these things to you. It's like I'm dangling a great temptation before your eyes. I might well be doing the Devil's work.
Let me assert, Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour. If you do not not believe in Him you will surely perish forever. If you worship the harlot or the Beast you will be sent to the lake of fire. Be warned. This isn't a laughing matter, I'm actually way, way, way, in over my head on this matter. This thread is going to be last correspondence on 4chan. I have extreme doubts of what it is that I'm doing.

>>4403152
3. It's part of their ritual, they involve you in their ritual. Did you know that while the planes were flying into the Twin Towers George W. Bush was sat in a classroom with children chanting, "kite, hit, steel, plane, must"? I discovered this recently (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhWqfPeerbo).). They let you know subliminally about these events before they happen. 9/11 was foreshadowed in popular films and television before the event. The reason is that they like to involve us in their rituals. They view themselves as the "all-seeing eye" at the top of the pyramid, and view us as having our eyes closed. So when we see things like 9/11 happen, which are pagan ritual sacrifices, the idea is that we are COMPLICIT with these things in our souls. That we know what they are about, in our deeper selves, but that we let it happen - we worship the Beast. At the end of Lorde's video she says, "we're on each other's team, and you know, and you know, AND YOU KNOW." That's how it ends. We know that the elite are on each other's team. We know they are part of a secret society. BUT WE DO NOTHING, WE CONTINUE TO WORSHIP THE THINGS OF THIS WORLD - PLEASURE, SEX, LUXURY - AND WE CHEER ON OUR "ENLIGHTENED" MASTERS FOR MAINTING THIS ORDER OF THINGS.

Again, events like 9/11 and the lyrics of pop music do not have to be interpreted in this spiritual/religious/symbolic/occult way at all, but they who control the media offer us clues that they OUGHT to be interpreted in this way. Watch Eminem's "Rap God" - why is there any need for all the cutaway shots to Bible verses and Biblical events? It's because they want you to "open your third-eye", to realize what Satan is offering you, what he will give you in return if you worship him.

It's extremely evil. Knowing these things is a kind of curse. It leads you into greater temptations. A man that thinks that the world is dominated by a small group of men and that there's nothing that he can do about may well be tempted to extreme apathy in his life, if not suicide. But a man that knows that the Whore of Babylon will give him power and sex and let him in on the secret club that runs the world will not be apathetic in life - he will either run away from the world and towards God, seeing how evil it is, or he will fornicate the world and perish forever.

This lapdance is by no means the most evil thing in the world. What makes it sinister is that they ritualize it, that they make it "divine". Without a doubt this entire performance is tame compared to what goes on in these temples, but it gives you an idea where they are at spiritually. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOJ9Tfa9UV0

>>4403148

OK, here's my view of why they put these symbols right in our faces. You'd think that if they were part of secret societies that they would want to keep things as quiet as possible and not reveal a thing, wouldn't you? You're wrong, and here's why:

1. They like to flaunt their power. They like to put it right in your face that they are your masters.
2. They are tempting you. When Selena Gomez, representing the Whore of Babylon, says in "Come and Get It", "when you are ready, come and get it", it's the great harlot saying that if you want to have all the pleasures of the world - fame and fortune, luxury and sex - she'll give them to you, if you fall down and worship her in your heart and soul. When Lorde sings "look upon your greatness, and she'll send the call out" - that is the Whore of Babylon saying the same thing, that if you look at yourself as being great - as having an immortal soul that you can sacrifice and bargain with - then "she", the great harlot, will purchase that soul and give you the whole world in return. When Britney Spears sings in "Work B**ch", "You wanna hot body, you wanna Bugatti, you wanna Maserati, you better work bitch", that is the great harlot saying to all the women in the world that she will give them access to the pleasures of the world if they will work for her. When Beyoncé sings in "Run the World", "My persuasion can build a nation. Endless power, with our love we can devour. You'll do anything for me", that is the great harlot saying that she has power over the nations and that you worship her. When Lady Gaga sings in "Do what U want", "You can't have my heart. And you won't use my mind but. Do what you want (with my body)", that is the great harlot saying that she will let you fornicate with her to your heart's desire, but her heart and mind will always remain above and beyond you, and she will be master over you. All this pop music is the Whore of Babylon whispering in your ear, calling to you, telling you that she "loves" (lusts after) you. Once you realize this you will realize how powerful pop music really is. When you imagine all those young girls grinding against strangers in night clubs to the sound of "Do what you want with my body" you'll realize the power of pop music, that its intention is to get the soul of man to worship the Beast. It's easier to imagine if you put your little sister in the Nightclub.

>>4403083
> I have trouble being afraid of a talentless seventeen year old inbred bitch from New Zealand or katy perry's dumb ass.

You ought to be. They are very good at what they do.

>>4403068
Not today m8. If you watch Kanye West's "Power" video and will.i.am and Bieber's "#thatPOWER" video it leads me to believe that the Antichrist has been born.
When Kanye sings "no one man should have all that power" - he means the Antichrist, which he represents in the video.
When Bieber sings, "and, oh, I'm alive, I'm alive, I'm alive. And, oh, I can fly, I can fly, I can fly. And, oh, I'm alive, I'm alive, I'm live. And I'm loving every second, minute, hour, bigger, better, stronger, power", he's talking about the Antichrist, which he represents in the video.

I've just noticed, actually, that "will.i.am" is a reference to God, who calls Himself "I AM THAT I AM" in the Torah, and Christ calls Himself by the same name in the Bible. "WILL I AM", is a reference to God - "I AM" - and the "Will". The "Will" is an important part of Nietzsche's philosophy (who I don't think was an active satan worshipper / illuminati btw, I just think that he succumbed to extreme pride and was misled by satan), and of Aleister Crowley's (who was a satan worshipper. In fact, he is probably the most famous). "Do what thou WILT", is a famous phrase of Crowley's.

Like this guy says
>>4403093
It doesn't really matter whether or not they read those texts, but even so, I imagine that most of them do considering how many of them talk about selling their souls to the devil and practicing the occult.
Look at what Kanye gave his Kardashian this Christmas: http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/kardashian-2013-christmas-card-tribute-illuminati-entertainment-industry/

The point, however, is that the lyrics/song can be interpreted in many ways. Most of the songs lyrics can be interpreted as applying directly to the singer's personal lives, so that when Kanye sings "no one man should have all that power", he isn't referring to the antichrist, he's just referring to his own stature in popular culture. And when Bieber sings "I'm alive" he's just talking about his own excitement about being alive, and not the Antichrist's. And when Katy Perry sings, "you're gonna hear me roar, louder, louder than a lion", she's not referring to any relationship between the Whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation and Christ's title as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, she's just talking about feeling confident about herself in her personal life.
HOWEVER, the videos always offer us a lens through which to interpret the lyrics. If Kanye's song "Power" is supposed to refer to himself and himself alone, then WHY DO WE NEED ALL THAT SHIT?

>>4403107
Coolness isn't relative either. Like I say above. The thing with "coolness" is that it isn't very well defined, but it still not relative as everybody understands that the characters on The Big Bang Theory are not meant to represent "coolness", whereas Vanilla Ice is.

>>4403098
And if by "coolness" you mean Vanilla Ice coolness, then that it isn't relative either, because clearly Vanilla Ice is cooler than you and I.

>>4403090
No, I haven't. I will look him up.

>>4403098
Well some Mountains are colder than others . . .
I suppose if a man stands at the bottom of the mountain he can assert that it's colder than the where the other man is at the top of the mountain, where he is freezing to death - but he would be wrong.

>>4403085
I've not read Weber but some of his instints seem sound to me. Like when he diagnosed Modern consumerism as being a late term symptom of Protestantism - that's something that I think only a few people are far-sighted enough to see, I think.
Kierkegaard said something similar.
>"When Catholicism degenerates, what form of corruption will show itself? The answer is easy: mock holiness. When Protestantism degenerates, what form of corruption will show itself? The answer is not difficult: shallow worldliness. But in Protestantism this will show itself with a refinement which cannot occur in Catholicism."
>"[I]t can come to the point in Protestantism when worldliness is honored and venerated as godliness. And that, I maintain, cannot happen in Catholicism.... No wonder Luther very quickly got such great support. The secular mentality understood immediately the break.... [T]hey grinned in their beards ... at Luther ... that chosen instrument of God who had helped men so splendidly make a fool of God."

It's a shame that Weber could not see that the very idea of "Progress" is ULTIMATELY nothing but a pantheistic notion that History itself is God and God is "revealing himself" as History transpires, "culture" becoming more and more cultured and "truth" becoming more and more true and "morality" becoming more and more moral. Hegel summed it up pretty well. He tells you what it's all about, because he takes the naive notion of "progress" that the secularists have and reveals the spiritual reality beneath it, he shows you what it really means to BELIEVE in "Progress". It's kabbalah, a messianism. Everybody is waiting for the Messiah who will give us the Great Revolution and usher in the New Utopia, the New Atlantis.

>>4403080
God. He is the arbiter in every case.

>>4403057
Muddy thinking. You're under the false impression that what you have is "science" and "rationality" and what they have is mere "religion" and "superstition". That is nothing but bigotry and blindness.
"Humanity should strive to better itself through science and rational thinking" is the premise of secular humanism, which functions as a religion, a belief system. What you have is a belief system, not something called "rational thinking". Rational thinking is a tool, a means - not an end. Muslims apply reason to their religion, Christians apply it to theirs (see: the great philosophers in both traditions). When you make "rational thinking" your end, what you have is idolatry, worship of something worldly. This happened in the French Revolution - they dressed up a woman as the "goddess of Reason" and worshipped her as though she were divine. That ought to strike you as abhorrent, and ought to enlighten you as to the true nature of your beliefs, that "humanity should strive to better itself through science and rational thinking".

>>4403050
"Tallness" and "goodness" are equivalent terms in my argument/logic. A height relativist thinks that tallness is relative; a moral relativist thinks that goodness is relative. They are both complete nonsense, of course, it's just that people would be much quicker to see the insanity in the former but not the latter, and the reason for that is that they are thinking emotionally, not logically. They WANT to be kind to others, to accommodate for their feelings, and so they tell themselves that if one person says that a thing is good and the another person says that the same thing is evil they can both be correct . . . even though that contradicts the most basic law of logic, the law of the excluded middle (that something cannot be both true and false).

>>4403045
>uses "common sense" in a philosophical discussion
>in a philosophical discussion

Don't flatter us.

>>4403039
That's not my argument.

This is my argument. Mt. Everest is taller than other mountains. We know this because we have a fixed ideas of what "tall" and what "mountain". What the moral relativists are saying is that "tallness" is relative, and that to some people the hill they grew up on is taller than Mt. Everest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2JuxM-snGc

>>4403032
Your friend has been brainwashed.

>So I said what if the Third Reich survived thousands of years like Hitler intended, would that make it okay?


Yeah, that's the thing. The idea that all cultures are equal has been fostered in academia stereotypically by Jewish men. Hypocritically, however, these same Jewish men wanted to brand the Third Reich as the incarnation of Evil itself. They want moral relativism for goy cultures and the moral absolutism of the shoah for their own.

>inb4 banned because "no /pol/ outside of /pol".

"All morality is relative" is a moral statement. If all morality is relative, then so is moral relativism.
It's the "only a sith speaks in absolutes" contradiction. It's a catastrophe of logic and common sense.

Wrong in terms of morality or in terms of truth?
It's wrong in terms of each.
Moral relativism is self-defeating. If good and evil are "relative" then there are no such things as good and evil, there are only preferences and perspectives. It's like saying that the position of the North Pole is "relative" and that some people have a different idea of where the North Pole lies than others. Nonsense; by definition the North Pole is at a fixed point on the globe. If the North Pole is relative then there is no such thing as a North Pole, because the entire point of the North Pole is that it is a universal standard, a reference.

:o

>>4392428
>Christian philosophy has, like the Hebrew, uniformly attributed moral and physical evil to the action of created free will. Man has himself brought about the evil from which he suffers by transgressing the law of God, on obedience to which his happiness depended. Evil is in created things under the aspect of mutability, and possibility of defect, not as existing per se : and the errors of mankind, mistaking the true conditions of its own well-being, have been the cause of moral and physical evil (Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, De Div. Nom., iv, 31; St. Augustine, City of God XII). The evil from which man suffers is, however, the condition of good, for the sake of which it is permitted. Thus, "God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist" (St. Aug., Enchirid., xxvii). Evil contributes to the perfection of the universe, as shadows to the perfection of a picture, or harmony to that of music (City of God 11). Again, the excellence of God's works in nature is insisted on as evidence of the Divine wisdom, power, and goodness, by which no evil can be directly caused. (Greg. Nyss., De. opif. hom.) Thus Boethius asks (De Consol. Phil., I, iv) Who can be the author of good, if God is the author of evil? As darkness is nothing but the absence of light, and is not produced by creation, so evil is merely the defect of goodness. (St. Aug., In Gen. as lit.) St. Basil (Hexaem., Hom. ii) points out the educative purposes served by evil; and St. Augustine, holding evil to be permitted for the punishment of the wicked and the trial of the good, shows that it has, under this aspect, the nature of good, and is pleasing to God, not because of what it is, but because of where it is; i.e. as the penal and just consequence of sin (City of God XI.12, De Vera Relig. xliv). Lactantius uses similar arguments to oppose the dilemma, as to the omnipotence and goodness of God, which he puts into the mouth of Epicurus (De Ira Dei, xiii). St. Anselm (Monologium) connects evil with the partial manifestation of good by creation; its fullness being in God alone.

>>4392427
Yeah, Cato the Elder spins in his grave hearing statements like that.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm