26/11/2016

Endgame - Conspiracy

Thoughts On: Endgame: Blueprint For Global Enslavement

Alex Jones' political and historical endeavour to expose the corruption of the elite few and their ploy to enslave the world.


As of now, with this post, I have put out over 175 entries, I have covered over 100 films, published 6 screenplays and...

... I have something I need to open up about.

This is something I've never been quite explicit about. Not explicit and up-front enough.

This has to change.

I've decided to speak the truth on what I actually think.

I have a firm belief in people, in this world, in our past as a species. With this belief comes a responsibility, a responsibility to both myself and all of those I manage to come into contact with. We are very clearly guided by a broken system. We have been for a long time. Corruption is a deep wound in our society. And government, globalists and liberal media exploit this. They are the inherent evil that establish themselves as the elite, that skew a capitalist structure poisoned by greed and socialist lies to breed nothing but a fascist regime whereby the dictators of our lives become the vast expression of the acutely malicious, vein, vindictive and bloodthirsty heathens sent from the sable depths of a seething hell that wants nothing more than to rise and consume all that is good on this Earth.

Recognising this, I want to make a call to you, a call that--I'm joking.

Ok, despite my assing around, I have a respect for this film. I have a huge amount of respect for Alex Jones too. I can't listen to or take him seriously, but I respect him nonetheless. As I've said many times on the blog, I'm not one for politics. However, beyond politics are ideas, and beyond ideas are people. I have an interest in that middle ground - the ideas - and conserve some amount of respect for the latter; people. When looking at politics you often see a dogmatic divide, one labelled left and right, conservative and liberal. I like Alex Jones on the basis of his conservatism and how that fuels his character. His objection to change, to globalisation, bigger government, such and so on puts him in a mind-set I think speaks quite well to this political dichotomy of left and right. With liberalism, you often see a push for change. In terms of the things brought up in this film (globalisation, eugenics and so on) this change is quite a scary proposition. This is where the root of conservative objection comes into play. There is an objection to the convolution of boarders and government for fear of corruption, power vacuums - things going wrong in general. In the same respect, there is a fear of A.I, technology, social engineering - all in the hands of the wrong people. I think we can all understand these fears and so comprehend conservative ideas. In recognition of this, I find respect for Alex Jones. He essentially sees something he doesn't like and objects to it in a way I can only see to be genuine (though slightly crazy). And when people are genuine, when they have succinct conviction and don't mean to harm you, they become acceptable. You may disagree or not be on the same page as them, but you often manage to respect them. This is how I see Alex Jones. However. whilst we're talking about a film of his, I don't want to talk much about politics or the film's grievances. I'll get into why after a quick review.

Endgame is clearly a very opinionated film that is easily dismissed as conspiracy. It attempts to transcend this with its incessant conviction and technical facade, however, there are major faults in this on two levels; the argumentative and philosophical. We'll put the latter on hold for a while and touch on the way we're presented with evidence by Jones. In short, there's a lot of assumption and not much evidence, in this film. Sure, there are references to newspapers, legal documents and so on, but the veracity of them as evidence for Jones' points are very questionable. This is what gives the film the strong tone of banal conspiracy theory. However, I won't delve into trying to disprove, prove, counter-argue or explain the absolute plethora of just... stuff... that is thrown at us with this documentary. This is primarily because I have no idea what I'm talking about in this respect. I won't pretend that I comprehend global politics even slightly - all I do is talk shit about movies. This is why I won't/can't talk about politics extensively in respect to this film. Moreover, I don't think this kind of thought or political endeavour is for the average person. In the same respect we leave boxing to Ali, Tyson and Pacquiao, I think we should leave governmental conspiracy to Alex Jones. This is a convoluted proposition as it suggests politics should be left to a select few - which is arguably anti-democratic and/or elitist. Nonetheless, I hold this perspective on politics in general. How can we say democracy truly exists when most of us really don't know what we're talking about? We don't really know what a king's, president's, prime minister's job is. We don't know what goes into their everyday. We don't fathom how a country works. I doubt many people running it do, but that's only because we're all human. There's simply too much to society, the system far too complex, as to run it perfectly or even have an idea of how to do this when we all have to live our own lives and have a general lack fucks to give. For this reason, I stray from true political beliefs. I hold ideas and uneducated opinions, but I try not to take them too seriously. Yes, this is a lazy position, one that accepts the state of the world as a futile inevitability, but, as I said, I leave Jones to fight the good fight, to engage in his InfoWars.

Having gone through all of that, we can delve into the interesting aspects of this movie: the thought processes behind it. To get into this, we'll pick up on the second major downfall of the documentary; it's philosophical approach. This is why I respect, but don't really listen closely to the things Alex Jones says. He jumps to the crux or the conclusion of his points without really delving into the issue. The most prominent example of this is his speculation on eugenics near the end. He postulates that because Nazis, Mao, Stalin, chemicals and so on that the Bilderberg people are going to create A.I that will enslave us all. There is no attempt in here to break down what eugenics are, how it's not necessarily an evil death-cult-creating concept of oppression. Sure, there's example of this in history and if we bring A.I about, we're going to be thrust into a very precarious time whereby humanity could just go all Terminator Judgement Day, but isn't fucking around with technology what we kind of do best? Strict conservationism around this idea of A.I and transhumanism (people evolving with technology, transcending what we are now) makes you pretty boring. And I think that's the major argument for liberalism - it's fun. You get to think about sci-fi ideas, utopias and other romantic shit. Conservatism is a bit more pragmatic and... well... conservative. Nonetheless, the approach to these ideas, conservative or liberal, needs weight, and with that comes a philosophical argument, one that breaks a complex issue down into comprehsibly human terms. There is no explanation as to what Alex Jones thinks or wants beyond a few trigger phrases such as 'good', 'evil', 'right', 'wrong', 'power', 'individual', such and so on. Because of this, he makes no cohesive arguments as to what's wrong with A.I. He implies that governments will use it to enslave us... but again, this has no weight. This leaves him with little pragmatic sway and a weak thematic connection with his audience; one that is completely reliant on political beliefs brought to the film. What this does is render the film pointless in some respects - especially if it is a political call to action. It becomes a film for those who probably already know about Bilderberg, who think the government is corrupt and that we have to fight to stop oppression. Jones is then rallying a group of his own people, a kind of fan service or virtue signalling, by alienating on-the-fence or opposing viewers with intellectually flat arguments and philosophical advocations.

There is, however. a strength to this kind of filmmaking that, again, I respect - and kind of enjoy/support. This film very much mirrors how Alex Jones engages in debate. If you look at an interview he had with Pierce Morgan in 2013 (link here - P.S one of the best interviews ever) you see that Jones doesn't really want to engage in 'debate', much rather a monologue or rant. This is not really a bad thing. A great debate is a complex exchange of succinct points that build towards one truth - one that is usually somewhere between the two opposing sides. Conversely, Alex Jones is a great advocate of the monologue through his approach to 'debate'. Morgan tries to approach things almost as a lawyer, only asking questions he knows answers to, not talk to Jones, but to the audience (as if they were a jury). This is not really a great form of debate. It's much more tactical and personal than a simple exchange of objective ideas. It's variations on poisoned debate that make 'great debates' a true rarity. For this reason I think it's more responsible for someone to seek out monologues, to view singular sides of a debate at a time. No, you shouldn't just watch Alex Jones if you want to engage in a cohesive political discussion. You should seek out many differing opinions to try to grasp the subject from many angles. Debate is not a great way to do this. And in saying debate, I simply mean trying to get all of your information from one source. Let each opposing/varying source shout their monologue at you so you can come away with what you think is of worth. This is what the documentary at hand does. It tells you all it can without interruption. It's your job to find the counter-points, to work out what is right and what is wrong. This only furthers why I won't go into the specific politics of this film - I shouldn't be a source anyone listens to - not at all. The best takeaway of this movie though is definitely the advocation of the monologue through Jones' style. This is what makes him the seemingly genuine person he is, but also what makes the documentary work as a narrative piece. There's a flow to this documentary and you can very easily be swept up by it in a way that is tantamount to entertainment.

This is great thing to recognise as a story teller of any kind. To inform is often to entertain. The best example I can give is stand up comedy. As Joe Rogan says, a great comedian gets on stage and thinks for you. This is the crux of comedy in my opinion. Comedy is not really about fact and fiction, it's about emotion, about letting go of intellectual discourse with subconscious reflex. The great comedian thinks for us because we literally let them channel into our unconscious system through ideas. It could be Jim Jefferies talking about a vibrating egg up his ass or Eddy Murphy screaming about G.I Joes, poo sharks and busted eyes in the bathtub, but we let these comedians, through theme, channel into how we think, forcing laughter out of us. Whilst the latter examples are emotional ways of a comedian thinking for you, there's also intellectual ones. It can be Bill Burr's commentary on feminism and the wage gap with comparison to the Titanic or Joe Rogan on Egyptians, pyramids and dumb people, but with this interlectual comedic embodiment, the stand up artist is feeding us conceptual points and making us think of them in the same way as they do - as is evident by ensuing laughter. This paradigm of embodiment is the same in all arts. We allow artists to emotionally manipulate us to translate, through screens, canvases or off of stages, ideas; to make us think their way for a while. This is the crux of why I support the monologue as a form of argument - it doesn't involve a fight over attention and it frees an artist/speaker to be as expressive and succinct as they can manage. Moreover, what this concept of the artist thinking for you says about many forms of public communication is that you have to entertain. A huge factor of embodiment is resonation. This is why I make the point with stand up comedy. Whether there is an emotional or intellectual approach to this communication, the subject/audience must be put into a trance, they must be convinced that the words of the comedian are worth taking in. To do this there must be an establishment of both dominance and weakness. In other words, the comedian must communicate he is like you, but also a little bit better than you, for you to listen to him. After all, why would we listen to someone we have no chance of understanding and/or has nothing to say? By them being like us, we know we can understand them. By them being somehow better than us, we know they're worth listening to. Knowing this as an artist or entertainer, you can begin to see the mechanics of informing.

With Alex Jones presenting himself as the everyday middle-American, a religious man who loves freedom and family, he attempts to put himself on our level. With his aggressive assertion of conspiracy he also attempts to show himself to be worth listening to. And such is the flow and draw of his monologue-like-narrative outlined. It's all about us sharing a space somewhere between him stepping into our shoes and us stepping into his. This is the reason I bring up this film. It is a great demonstration of a very powerful narrative voice, but a simultaneously immersive narrative. Whilst I wouldn't say this is a particularly good film, this is quite a significant one under the guise of conspiracy theory and politics because these are such divisive concepts. Alex Jones demonstrates, imperfectly, how to go hard and most definitely not go home with this idea. His powerful narrative voice is one that engages us into insane ideas that you shouldn't take too seriously unless you're up for some serious shift in perspective (that may be utterly misguided) but also cushions the blow of these crazy theories with character you can find yourself respecting. Of course there are many that might think Alex Jones is just crazy, ridiculous and annoying, but I think this film has a lot to say about story telling in general. This film is ultimately a lesson in absurd character work and constructing a far-fetched plot/narrative meaning. Focus on conviction, on the the mechanics of informing and its symbiotic relationship with entertainment, and you may just be able to produce a narrative that both says something and has an archetypal character that begs to be delved into. Seeing Endgame in such a context, I can't help but respect this film.






Previous post;

The Last Warning - Where Did Superimposition Go?

Next post:

The Sword In The Stone - Cinematic Rules

More from:

amazon.com/author/danielslack

No comments: