Village of the Damned: Original Evil

One of the key, and most positive, concepts of Aryan philosophy is “Original Nobility” – the idea that the initial condition of all sentient life is noble (against the exploitation others), but this is then lost over time in the material world. This notion implies a high opinion towards children and their perspectives on the World. Some would be quick to dismiss children as just naive or idealistic, but the fact is that they are just idealistic and there is no intrinsic negative connotation to that term. The real reasons why ideals haven’t gone anywhere in the past decades is because no one takes them seriously, no one wants to put in the honest work that is required to realize them, or simply: people are willfully submitting to a lower condition of existence. A condition that is becoming fully defined by its material needs and increasingly further removed from working towards idealism. This begs the question: what will life fully severed from nobility be?

John Carpenter’s 1995 film Village of the Damned provides a certain perspective on this topic that can be called “Original Evil.”

The Ominous Start
In Midwich, a quiet town along the northwestern coast of the United States, a mysterious event causes the populous to suddenly fall unconscious. Upon awakening exactly four hours later there is much confusion as to what happened. As far as it is known, the event was contained to just the town and with a definite boundary of where people fell unconscious. The presence of a mysterious government scientist seems to suggest that a sinister experiment took place, however Verner the scientist, appears just as clueless as everyone else. Things start to get really interesting some months later when all of the women of childbearing age in Midwich are revealed to be pregnant. Doctor Chaffee, who knows all of the townsfolk through his work, initially thinks this to be a grand coincidence, however there are factors that lie beyond conventional explanation.

First, each pregnancy dates back to the day of the mysterious event. Second, one of the women hadn’t seen her husband for months prior to that date as he was away for work and she swears to not having an affair. Third, the youngest of the town’s women, a seventeen year old, was still a virgin. Lastly, there is the fact that all of the kids are born at the same time during what appears to be night. This is a common theme in horror fiction, especially stories that involve transformation or creation of some sort. For example, in Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, the monster is finished and awakens at just after one in the morning. Further ominous signs are that the “virgin birth” ends up being “stillborn” though this is only the word that Verner uses to quickly describe the situation before taking the baby and hiding it.

The Infiltrating Brood
The book off of which this film is based is called The Midwich Cuckoos, referring to the cuckoo bird that slyly inserts its offspring into another bird’s nest to be raised by it. This infiltration strategy becomes more and more apparent with the town’s newest members. The new kids, who were all brought into (or onto) this world in such a uniform fashion, go on to look and act likewise. They bear different faces, but the boys and girls each have identical hairstyles and similar features. That last part suggests that they are genetically related on a level of close family, and this family connection is definitely from out of town.

As the brood grows they begin to show early signs of superior intelligence as well as the ability to mind control via a paralyzing stare. This latter part is the story’s most iconic element, but also thematically most relevant in describing just who, or rather what, these kids are. Mara, Chaffee’s daughter, is given soup in one scene, which she promptly rejects by dropping the bowl. Her mother, concerned, asks if it was too hot, but Mara just unleashes her stare. Mara’s mother then burns her own hand in the pot that is still cooking soup and then commits suicide by jumping from a nearby seaside cliff. In a later scene, a nurse accidentally uses the wrong liquid (thinking it to be eye drops) during a check up and burns one of the kids’ eyes; this causes prompt retaliation from the others who use their stare to get the nurse to blind herself in one eye using the same liquid. It seems that an eye for an eye is not enough for this brood. Using their mental powers, that also enable them to read minds, the brood preemptively deals with all perceived threats.

With the eye scene the alien kids are directly linked to the Jewish idea of “an eye for an eye,” but they take it a paranoid and brutal extreme that directly reflects Israel’s savagery against Palestine – it is virtually all preemptive and meant to preserve the “Jewish State,” meaning the “country” as well as the “state of affairs” that works so well in the Zionists’ favor. The mind power in the film is, essentially, an ultimate form of materialistic control, one that gives the manipulator direct control of the subject with so much as a stern look – it is instantly deployable reins right onto the victims’ minds. The master has gone from repeatedly coaxing his subjects and diluting their perceptions to simply controlling their brains with his own will. This ability is nothing short of what the Zionists wish they could do and what they work for with each breath. This is the complete opposite of the Aryan ideal.

The town’s pastor, Reverend George, presents a spiritual explanation of who the kids are: “…but what of those in our midst who do not have individual souls or spirits? They have one mind that they share between them, one spirit. And they have the look of man, but not the nature of mankind.” Interestingly, the large Christian cross hanging in Reverend George’s church, visible behind him during this dialog, has a small Gnostic cross at its center. The kids are revealed to possess a hive mind, whatever one sees, feels or knows, the others instantly know too. This is how they all react in unison and get the nurse to blind herself in the clinic. An action against them by one, leads to a hostile reaction by all of them against the one. The kids are very wary and constantly eye all those around them. In effect, they act as if there is someone out to get them at all times, they possess no trust or compassion for those different than they are. They see their own brood as separate and superior meant to exploit humans’ weaknesses.

There is also an interesting series of shots of closed down businesses and derelict parts of town before we see the first shot of the brood who are not infants anymore, but approaching their teenage years. This is how we’ll see them for the rest of the film. It cannot be a mistake that their maturation is juxtaposed with the decay of a once happy society. Remember that the arrival of the presence that had impregnated the town’s women had ruined a town festival; it was a foreshadowing to the ruining of all happiness in this humble society. From the early suspicions and fears (the psychological breakdown of the townsfolk), to the decay of the town’s economy, which didn’t destroy the society as much as it kept it in a feeble and continuously exploitable state, the alien brood effectively monopolized the town to suit most of their needs. Since, no one could afford to travel or move out, the secret of the kids’ existence was largely contained.

SubverZion
The scenario presented here seems to be a prelude to another John Carpenter film, They Live. In that film, the alien infestation is widespread, but here it is only beginning. They Live also has a scene with a preacher who, despite appearing in a very small part, speaks about the true nature of those subverting society: “They use their tongues to deceive, the venom of snakes is under their lips. Their mouths are full of bitterness and curses and in their paths nothing but ruin and misery.” In that film, there is much discussion about the ruin and widespread poverty in society, which is just a continuation and expansion of the downfall that Midwich has experienced here. The preacher’s speech uses the same symbol as Christ in his words to the Pharisees (Talmudic Jews) whom he called a “brood of vipers.” In They Live, the street preacher is seized by police and hauled off never to be seen again, while in Village of the Damned, Reverend George eventually goes mad and tries to kill the kids by himself, but the brood subdues him with mind powers getting him to commit suicide. Words are necessary, but not enough by themselves. Lone Wolf antics, too, are folly. Wielding a broadsword, but not knowing at whom to swing it, is effectively useless.

Chaffee, like most of the towns still living residents, had been quite complacent to the will of the brood. Part of his passivity is that his wife gave birth to one of the kids, Mara, who seems to be leader of the pack.

Chaffee has also been passive due to the fact that he is at a loss for what is really going on. To him it is totally beyond understanding. This is essentially a demonstration of the limits of empirical knowledge. Chaffee has simply been observing and trying to make sense of it, but observable information is often intentionally incomplete or muddled specifically to be confusing.

Earlier in the film, Verner had said: “when you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Chaffee’s passivity has prevented him from taking this advice seriously. Verner is not connected in anyway to the town, thus her outsider perspective has been devoid of the emotions everyone else has been going through. To a degree, this has helped her figure out that the brood is, in fact, of alien origin, but it also leads to her downfall. Verner has been exploiting the situation for her own research and thus, simply conducting her own empirical investigation. There is then no real surprise when her efforts to deal with the brood amount to nothing for the town and death for her. Since, no plans have been made to contain, isolate or eliminate the brood, there is inevitable bloodshed. The government finally intervenes with armed response, but the soldiers are mind-controlled by the kids and wipe themselves out. Bluntly put, this was the typical Gentile response to a dangerous situation: simply run in with guns and shoot the bad guys! The way everyone in the film has tried to deal with the kids at this point is, essentially, the mirror of how the brood works. One side is clever, calculated manipulation leading to an increasing subversion; the other is fearful and futile physical reaction.

The townsfolk are afraid of direct action and even when they try it out of desperation by starting a lynch mob, all hopes are lost as the mind control of the brood turns the weapons on the ones wielding them. This oddity reflects the real-life stubbornness of reaction Gentiles, who know that the battle is asymmetric, yet they always act and react as is the odds are even: pure brute force. It’s like punching a tank: even though it’s a one-on-one fight, you’re not going to win this way. The same with overcoming a parasitism: you can’t just cut it out and throw it in the trash, which leads to the parasites last form of defense – mutually assured destruction. Chaffee eventually thinks of a way to kill the brood with a clever tactical approach and which finally creates the desired result. Chaffee’s victory actually has some of the most direct Aryan symbolism in the entire story. By thinking intensely of the ocean (something great and powerful and part of the natural world), he figures out that it is possible to block the mind reading and control of the brood.

By this point, the kids have moved into a barn just outside of town, since they did not want to mix with the other school kids. Chaffee has been their teacher here and they have developed a certain degree of trust in him. Really though, their cynicism remains as they are simply confident that he won’t do anything against them, that he has been frightened enough so as to effortlessly be part of their will. It is this hubris that leads to the brood’s destruction. They demand that arrangements be made to get them out of town so that they can spread to other parts of the country and continue their infiltration. Chaffee shows up at the agreed upon time, but with a bomb in his bag. He is nervous and the brood senses that something is wrong, but when they try to read his mind, but all they see is a brick wall. Chaffee is blocking them in the same way as he had done with the ocean before. Only in the last second to they break down the wall and get into his mind and see the bomb, which promptly goes off and tears the entire barn apart.

Chaffee’s final action was self-sacrifice as well as a clever move on an asymmetric battlefield and in the end it is the only thing that amounted to a success against the brood. Similarly, in The Lord of the Rings, evil is also defeated because it assumed that no one could strike at its core. Hubris always ends up destroying those who think that they are better or somehow “chosen” to rule over others. This isn’t pride, as Judeo-Christianity would have people believe, but rather it is rampant megalomania. Chaffee had been under the delusion, sprung from many factors, that the brood and the townsfolk could coexist, but Mara simply told him: If we coexist, we shall dominate you. That is inevitable. Eventually you will try to eliminate us. We are all creatures of the life force. Now it was set us at one another to see who will survive.” The “life-force” seems much like the Jewish idol YHWH, which sets its subjects in enslavement and then seeks credit for their “salvation” if they please it enough. Essentially, the Jewish version of a higher power, be it YHWH or this “life-force,” is just the highest possible formulation of self-obsession and self-gratification as it seeks to get all of its subjects to please it via ever changing and arbitrary demands. This is the demiurge of Original Nobility. This is Original Evil.

1960 vs. 1995
There is a 1960 film version of this story. It was directed by Wolf Rilla, a German, thus it is no surprise that his version has some quite obvious Aryan bashing, but too bad for Rilla and Co. that their film bashes “Aryans” with the Jewish propaganda version of the concept as its basis.

The brood in this version is described as having blonde hair, however due to the film being shot in black and white, there was an ambiguity that Carpenter seized upon in his 1995 version and gave the kids platinum blonde color hair. Platinum blonde hair is most often seen in children and tends to get darker with age. However, there are certain aspects of the brood’s hair that are clearly not natural, most notably the luster, its always perfectly combed arrangement and uniform color tone. In the 1960 version, the hair was realistically disheveled slightly and lacked the uniform tone. Additionally, the kids’ clothes go from the formal (or stereotypically “conservative” look) in the 1960 version to all grey outfits that do not match any others seen in the 1995 film.

Carpenter’s version of The Village of the Damned also changes the leader of the brood to Mara, a female, from the original’s David, a male. In the 1960 version, David is said to have the potential to be the next Einstein due to his apparent genius, yet David just ends up being a maniacal power hungry manipulator. This is a may very well be a reference to the Jewish story of King David, after all the name David was specifically selected for this character. However, in Carpenter’s version we get an interesting twist: it is the female Mara who is Chaffee’s “child” and leader of the brood. This serves as an indicator of Jewish eugenics in which it is the mother’s side that determines the Jewishness of a child – the original evil. David appears in Carpenter’s version, but as the black sheep of the brood who does not fit in. Unlike in the previous film, the kids here are paired, but it was David’s partner who was the stillborn baby from the birthing scene.

David doesn’t go up in flames along with the other kids since his mother snuck him out of the barn before the bomb went off. Over the course of the film, David had become the outcast of the brood, since the loss of his partner enabled him to understand human grief – he began to have compassion for the humans of the town. Without his other half and through contact with humans, he had become half-golem/half-person, so to speak. However, the film doesn’t end on this cheesy and naive note. The last we see of David is when his mother is taking him away from the town so that they can start their life anew. It is here that the film really becomes the unofficial prequel to Carpenter’s film They Live – all looks normal, but the alien infestation is still out there. Even by the end of They Live, Carpenter does not show outright solutions (he almost never does), but what he does do is present the problem (albeit in metaphor form) and shows the start of the course of revolutionary action. The rest is up to us. A real life struggle, our struggle, is what is really needed to wrap things up.

Another ZioBluff
One last thing that I would like to bring up is this rather interesting, but Jewishly ridiculous op-ed piece, which, in part, discusses this film. It brings forth the absurd notion that the Nazis’ final contingency to dominate all Jews was to establish the State of Israel. The main evidence to this notion is that the Israelis who have the most influence, but appear the least in public, are light-skinned Ashkenazim. There are some Ashkenazi (AshkeNAZI) Jews in Israel who are unlike any other I’ve ever seen. They radiate cold. They are unfeeling and robotic – they are, in a word, Germanic. And most of them are located in the big cities and found in the topmost positions in business and intelligence – but not the Knesset, because those are Jews most in the public eye and so they have to look Jewish.” says the author of aforementioned op-ed piece. This is the old and thoroughly debunked, controlled opposition idea of “Zionism = Nazism.” It is the Jews’ way of “criticizing” the crimes of their regime, while at the same type propping up the myth that holds it up.

Conclusion
By making films like this, like They Live, as well as another particular one that I plan to look at in the near future, it is no surprise that John Carpenter was never a Hollywood box-office success. He points out the nature of subversion with a particular precision, free of much abstraction and rooted in our real world that it is no surprise that the brainwashed mainstream never quite picked up on much of his work and, in particular, on the more daring films such as this one.

Related Information:
They Live

About Miecz Elizejski

Kindling a Kampf deep in Zionist-occupied territory.
This entry was posted in film and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Village of the Damned: Original Evil

  1. Mark Hess says:

    Miecz,

    You have done great justice to a film that has been grossly underrated and unfairly ignored. Not only is the film’s content intriguing, important, challenging and thought-provoking; it is also made with great technical and artistic skill. The pacing, the music, the script, the way it is shot and framed, the acting and the use of color are brilliant.

    One of many pieces of the dialogue that impresses me:

    ——————————

    Alan: Respect? No. They don’t even know the meaning of that word. Why bother? It doesn’t make any difference what we do.

    Jill: Alan, we need you.

    Alan: What am I gonna teach them? What am I possibly gonna teach them?

    Jill: Humanity.

    ——————————

    Anyway, thanks so much for doing this review.

    Sincerely,
    Mark Hess

    Post Script:

    I may have misunderstood what you meant, but I wanted to point out that this movie was made and released five years after “They Live.”

  2. Mark, yes I know that “They Live” was released earlier, seven years earlier, in fact, in 1988, while “Village of the Damned is from 1995. That is why I called this film an unofficial “prequel.”

    Sequel = released after and story is chronologically later.
    Prequel = released after, but story is chronologically before.

    For example, the newer Star Wars movies that came out between 1999 and 2005 are PREQUELS to the original trilogy from between 1977 and 1983.

    So the idea that I try to put forth is that “They Live” shows an alien infestation of Earth in full swing, while “Village,” which had come out after, but can be seen as earlier along the “alien infestation timeline,” since here the aliens just begin their infiltration. I also call “Village” the “unofficial” prequel as it is an idea that I thought of for this essay. I am convinced that Carpenter knew what he was doing with this film and made it to roughly fit before “They Live,” but it is still a connection for the audience to make. Carpenter puts in many subtleties into his films and rarely points them out.

    • Mark Hess says:

      Miecz,

      Thanks for the clarification. I think my brain jumped a track, as I was so glad to see this excellent review. Plus, I knew that 1995 minus 1988 equals seven, but I wrote “five.” Scary.

      Sorry.

      Anyway, thanks again.

  3. It is curious how in the majority of Hollywood films, especially in the thriller or horror genre, priests and preachers are often protayed in a positive light, and often in a sacrificial role or harbingers of uncomfortable truths. Maybe the children needed a yarmulke on top of those wigs, lol.

  4. Mark Hess says:

    Miecz,

    Again, my apologies for my rather idiotic misunderstanding of what you wrote about the time and narrative sequence of They Live and Village of the Damned.

    Have you seen John Carpenter’s Vampires? If you have, what are your thoughts about it?

    I ask because that is the one Carpenter film I have seen that truly leaves me baffled. I have seen it at least three times, and, after each viewing, I had a very nasty taste in my mouth. Was he trying to show how irrational, ridiculous, anti-human, brutal, ugly and hyper-masculine the Judeo-Christianity of The Church is? Like I said, I do not get it.

    Your insights would be much appreciated.

  5. Delenda,
    Members of the clergy, or simply “pious people,” as film characters have an odd role in horror movies. The blood and guts aspect that permeates so many of today’s horror films (such as “Hostel” by Eli Roth [Jew]) is completely secular. This film actually shows a religious character, in a small role, but giving a dialog that contains one of the film’s key ideas, so Carpenter did break with Hollywood “tradition” here, but then succumbed (or willfully ceded, I suspect this might be the case) to it by having the Reverend go nuts, get drunk and start shooting.

    Mark,
    I have not seen “Vampires.” Since I like Carpenter’s work, I will likely get around to seeing it at some point, but right now I have another movie of his lined up to write about followed by some non-Carperter essays. That said, have you seen “Prince of Darkness?” It is from 1987 and I think it is a superb horror film… its symbolism can be directly applied to Zionist takeover. However, since it is essentially another film about subversion, a topic I have covered a lot recently, I will just put that on a recommended viewing list, and go on to cover other topics for a while.

  6. Mark Hess says:

    Miecz,

    Yes, I have seen Prince of Darkness. I agree that it is a superb horror film. It is, indeed, one of my favorite films by Carpenter. I find it odd that three of his best movies, Prince of Darkness, They Live, Village of the Damned, are also three of the most neglected and underrated. Perhaps, I should not find it strange.

    I hope that I have not colored your future viewing of Vampires. It could very well be that I missed something important.

    After all, I must admit that, when I saw The Wild Bunch the first two times, I found it extremely ugly and offensive, as if it were an exercise in reveling in much of what I hate. When, years later, I watched it again, everything kind of clicked, and it became one of my favorite movies. It could have had something to do with the fact that, in the years between viewings, I had seen Cross of Iron, a film that moved me immediately and very deeply, and that made me quite interested in our sensitive, brilliant, disturbed, lost and destructive Sam.

  7. Ariki says:

    Great review Miecz.
    I haven’t seen Village of the Damned, but I’m a bit of a fan of John Carpenter’s movies, so perhaps I should. My favourite of his is probably his 1982 film The Thing, but I remember seeing They Live as a kid and I liked it then, even though I really didn’t understand its true implications.

    But back to Village of the Damned.
    I have just a small observation: the leader of the brood’s name is Mara. In Buddhist scripture Mara is a demonic character like the Christian devil. When Siddattha Gotama becomes determined to achieve enlightenment and become the Buddha, whilst meditating he is tempted by Mara and his daughters, Tanha (craving), Arati (aversion) and Raga (passion). But like Christ, Gotama sees the devil for what he is: self-doubt, baseness, passion and the addiction to pleasure. But Gotama let go of these obstacles to Buddhahood and so denied Mara and left him powerless.

    Interestingly the word “Mara” comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *mer meaning to die, and so in Buddhism Mara represents a “spritual death” should he lead one to temptation. Perhaps the meaning of Mara has implications in your interpretation of the Village of the Damned?

  8. Ariki,
    Seeing that the film intentionally juxtaposes the growth of the brood with the decay of the town, you may very well be onto something. I have been writing from a sort of Christian point of view of Aryanism purely since I was raised Christian. I have no doubt that Carpenter incorporated a variety of spiritual ideas for his films. He really tried to radically expose the nature of subversion by exploring it from many points of view: The Thing (as biological parasite), Village of the Damned (as infiltrating alien race), They Live (as judeo-capitalist elitists), Prince of Darkness (as spiritual demiurge), Ghosts of Mars (a movie I didn’t really like, but the pandora’s box theme ties in the excesses that Aryanism seeks to combat). Thus, it is no surprise that a wide variety of symbols can be extracted from his work and he definitely intended it to be like that.

    His movies don’t “name the Jew,” but his examination of what is essentially a Jewish process is so spot on that it doesn’t matter if he calls out the Chosen or not, since the evil in his films can only be directly applied to the Jew. This also makes the point that “Jew” is just an arbitrary name, it is what they stand for and do that Aryanists hate.

  9. rob says:

    what is also very interesting is the scene in which the wife of the pastor leads an angry mob, and encounters exactly 6 of the children. Could this be an allegory for the star of david thus representing jewry?

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s