Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Alchemical Symbolism in Politics

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Chasm View Post
    I had no idea about a book on the Chinese language. But there is some interesting references to his work in The Textbook on Harmonics, by Hans Kayser. I possess this book translated from German to English by Ariel and Jocelyn Godwin.
    It is my bible. I'm a language buff as well and possess the book The Archeometer, by Yves Saint Alveydre. it's an incomplete work but very informative. After conversing with you just briefly, I can see that the book is very master race like, with Wotan being the master language. I guess I can thank you for the new insight.
    Kircher and Leibniz were very interested in language and one of their fascinations was the iconographic alphabets. The BIG goal for them was to create an universal written language (or iconographic alphabet) that could be "read" by anyone regardless of their language. Leibniz couldn't complete this task, the closer he got was a book on the Chinese language (which he completely misunderstood)... whilst Kircher tried many ways, but none of them truly worked (he tried to decipher the Egyptian language in his Oedipus Aegyptiacus... and then he tried a different way, by patiently creating a set of dictionaries in which each word was numbered... so his idea was to write something like "23450 451 5678 9856 2383" and then each person would be able to pick the dictionary that had the correspondences in his mother language and replace the numbers with words again, but the experiment gave him worst results than google translate).

    Gonna check the book on harmonics you mention, I don't know it, but I've been recently reading a lot on music and hermeticism.

    As for the Archeometer... it's OK, but hardly my favorite book.

    I don't get what you mean with the "master race of books".

    Quote Originally Posted by Chasm View Post
    Youre absolutely correct! Berlin had the whole tv broadcasting thing under lock. They were the ones to first air the olympics.
    If I recall correctly, Berlin had degraded into a cesspool of a fetish haven after the Great War. A lot of seedy films were being made and Hilter and Goebbels had issue with this. It wasn't the stuff of the master race.....
    So he cleaned it up by having his people inject his moral ethos into the new German films. Still, I haven't looked deeply into this. Hitler really is an accidental discovery to me.
    Well... it's not really like that.
    Germany had, before 1933, the biggest and BEST film industry of the whole world.
    The typical films were not "seedy" at all... neither "indecent". They were deep and very claustrophobic... and, quite often, quite "dark" and obscure. Besides from being also filled with esoteric allegories.

    When Hitler came into power, he wanted to make exclusively "Nazi propaganda films" (direct propaganda). Goebbels deeply disagreed with Hitler on this issue and thought that "direct propaganda" was a bad idea for films... and he became, as Minister of Propaganda, the official censor of all the scripts. So, finally, it was only possible to film what Goebbels wanted.
    Unlike Hitler, Goebbels thought that it was a good idea to make "indirect propaganda films"... so under his claw, a new genre was invented, which is often informally called "mountain films": films where a group of males had some sort of adventure at a mountain and confronted a problem, but together they would find a solution to the problem and become "heroes". In most cases they were escapist films without any depth and designed to keep the audience "happy". And then a second genre that became important was comedy, but they were really bad comedies too.

    The films were SO BAD that Goebbels forbid film criticism or any kind of "review" of the films in any media (newspapers, magazines, etc)... As I've said, even the most rabid Nazis thought that these films were completely idiotic. That's how the German Film Industry was destroyed.

    Hitler was not in love with the idea of Goebbels, but he trusted him... He made an exception with "The Triumph of the Will" (by Leni Riefenstahl), which was certainly a "direct propaganda" film... but it was a rare case (there are a few others "direct propaganda films", but the immense majority of films followed the idea of Goebbels, "indirect propaganda").

    Anyway... the morale of the story is: Who is to blame for the success of Hollywood??? Hitler and Goebbels!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Chasm View Post
    I will try and find it so that I can watch it. Sounds interesting for certain.
    Yeah... a life without watching "Metropolis" at least once is not worth living!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by dev View Post
    This is a very good point. Some of my all time favorite films are M and Nosferatu... but the list is long when it comes to the German contribution to the art of film. Basically instead of going to film school watch Nosferatu a few times. Everything you need to know is there.

    But it is more than that... the great German heritage has been tainted by Hitler... music, books, painters...mention Germany to someone and they are more prone to conjure up Hitler than Beethoven for instance.

    And never forget that Hitler tried to copy the Roman Empire, which was ironically destroyed by the Germans (of old).

    Germany has given so much, and it is a shame that all it will be remembered for is some little puppet working for the relatives of George Bush.
    Yes, "M" and "Nosferatu" are master works... and exactly the kind of films that Goebbels hated.
    Germany had a rich tradition of experimental art, but as you've said, it was completely destroyed by the Nazis.
    The only interesting art that was created during the Nazi era was by those who were opposed to Nazism. John Heartfield was a damn genius... and I must say that I love and admire Ernst Jünger, whose courage is unrivaled; probably the only author who had the guts to write strong words against Nazism and managed to stay alive due to his good reputation (He even forbid the Völkischer Beobachter, the official newspaper of the Nazi party, to publish any article by him, forcing them to publish his letter in which he stated that he was opposed to the National Socialist party and refused to be used by the party as "propaganda".

    Besides from his courage and being the amazing writer he was... when he writes about Alchemy, the beauty of his words is probably unrivaled.

    As for Wittgenstein... !!! Definitely one of my two favorite philosophers of the late XIX century, early XX century (the other one is Henri Bergson). Funny, the two of them were Jewish... Hitler would not approve my tastes! (The two of them are, in my opinion, a must-read for anyone interested in alchemy).

    By the way... both Wittgenstein and Bergson could perfectly be used to explain the question you asked in a different thread: "Why alchemy is not pseudo-chemistry?".
    A Wittgenstenian (am I inventing this word?) answer would be that chemistry is constrained to the realm of logic, but logic is unable to explain its own sense... the sense comes from something else that is "above" language and logic and is transcendental in a real way... and that's what alchemy works with... and that's what chemistry CAN'T work with.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    I don't get what you mean with the "master race of books".
    I only meant to convey how the book may have been written with racial emphasis in mind after considering that the author claims Wotan as the master tongue. I only say this in light of what we've discussed so far. The book deals a lot with harmonics as well. It attempts to do what Kircher and Liebniz undertook in creating a universal translator.
    Well... it's not really like that.
    Germany had, before 1933, the biggest and BEST film industry of the whole world.
    The typical films were not "seedy" at all... neither "indecent". They were deep and very claustrophobic... and, quite often, quite "dark" and obscure. Besides from being also filled with esoteric allegories.
    I've no reason to disagree Zoas. The "thread" that I'm following is what happened after the Great War and what led to WW2. This is the context of my investigations. What did Hitler convey through his obvious symbolisms to the British and its allies?
    You appear well informed of the era. I'm looking for any crumb that I can find to help me form an educated opinion of what the truth really is about Hitler.
    I absolutely believe what you're telling me.
    But is it myth about the moral state of Berlin coming out of the Great Depression? The elder Germans I've spoken with claimed that Hitler cleaned things up. He gave Germans pride again. He was a leader and privy to the stirrings of other nations. This we know for certain. My father in-law tells me how people weren't allowed to gather in the streets to talk. Hitlers name was not allowed to be mentioned.
    I realize war measures require acts of security, but are we getting the whole story?
    I don't want to be misunderstood, perhaps one day I'll happen upon a long lived alchemist who'd enjoy telling me about his midlife. I'm simply looking for truth whatever it may be.
    When Hitler came into power, he wanted to make exclusively "Nazi propaganda films" (direct propaganda). Goebbels deeply disagreed with Hitler on this issue and thought that "direct propaganda" was a bad idea for films... and he became, as Minister of Propaganda, the official censor of all the scripts. So, finally, it was only possible to film what Goebbels wanted.
    Unlike Hitler, Goebbels thought that it was a good idea to make "indirect propaganda films"... so under his claw, a new genre was invented, which is often informally called "mountain films": films where a group of males had some sort of adventure at a mountain and confronted a problem, but together they would find a solution to the problem and become "heroes". In most cases they were escapist films without any depth and designed to keep the audience "happy". And then a second genre that became important was comedy, but they were really bad comedies too.

    The films were SO BAD that Goebbels forbid film criticism or any kind of "review" of the films in any media (newspapers, magazines, etc)... As I've said, even the most rabid Nazis thought that these films were completely idiotic. That's how the German Film Industry was destroyed.

    Hitler was not in love with the idea of Goebbels, but he trusted him... He made an exception with "The Triumph of the Will" (by Leni Riefenstahl), which was certainly a "direct propaganda" film... but it was a rare case (there are a few others "direct propaganda films", but the immense majority of films followed the idea of Goebbels, "indirect propaganda").
    This is amazing information Zoas, gives me perspective. I appreciate you sharing all of this and being fairly unbiased in how you respond to my inquiries.
    Anyway... the morale of the story is: Who is to blame for the success of Hollywood??? Hitler and Goebbels!!!!
    And now their productions form public opinion. I love the invention of television;
    But it's uses (at least here in North America), is all about sodomizing the public both mentally and physically...the commercialism acts as a vehicle for this imho!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,564
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Chasm View Post
    sodomizing the public both mentally and physically...
    What do you mean by 'sodomizing'?

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chasm View Post
    sodomizing the public both mentally and physically...
    What do you mean by 'sodomizing'?
    Taken in its full context, it means the public is being mentally reamed through the abusive psycho-physical manipulation occurring via commercialization and its adjuncts.
    These may include subliminal messages and all other tactics devised to tap the potential or pocketbooks of the consumer. The greater context of the comment was that television in North America is largely used negatively against the populace.
    Last edited by Andro; 09-09-2016 at 09:50 PM. Reason: Quote fix.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts