Entrapment or enslavement can be rendered more effective by making the way out more complicated. Physically obstructing or convoluting the exit path, such as making it a maze, can accomplish this effectively. The movie Prisoners makes use of this technique. It sets up a False Dichotomy to limit our perception of the problem, though there is an additional ulterior purpose, and that is to ultimately make the audience satisfied with a False Solution, thus giving the illusion of escape.
As we’ll see, one of Plato’s classic ideas will serve as the real solution, and the one that the film intentionally avoids.
Two Main Players, Two Opposite Sides
First, we have Keller Dover, who is played as the model American Traditionalist Conservative. Dover is a Judeo-Christian, a self-employed business owner, a family man, a gun-owner and a “prepper” living in a suburban town. In the film’s first scene, Dover is with his son on a hunting trip, and he recites a prayer while his son holds a deer within a rifle’s sights; then “Amen” and the kill shot. The parallel to ritual sacrifice is quite obvious. They even eat the deer for a holiday meal. Dover is scruffy haired and has a bushy beard-mustache combo, making him look vaguely Jesus-like, and he’s a carpenter just to drive the nail all the way in and complete the implication.
Second, we have Detective Loki, who is played as the “enlightened” man. He is a dedicated professional public servant, and also a free thinker not bound by dogma nor usually compelled to be overcome by his emotions. Det. Loki is played by a good-looking and Aryan-phenotype leaning actor, but phenotype is just one thing, it’s not everything. Actor Jake Gyllenhaal is Jewish, which goes right with his character’s Freemasonry, revealed by a ring on his left hand’s little finger. Additionally, Det. Loki also has various esoteric tattoos that ultimately show he is bound by his own brand of dogma.
From an Aryanist point of view, both characters are a mix of good and bad. Dover is clearly a disciplined and skilled worker, a responsible gun-owner (by standard of the law, his hobby of hunting is not commendable) and the fact that he’s a “prepper” shows that he thinks long-term and is pretty well organized. However, his Judeo-Christianity gets the better of him and he goes down a path of Old Testament/Tanakh inspired vengeance and wrath. Det. Loki is also skilled at and dedicated to his job, which is a public service and thus can be commended. However, his Freemasonry is a false enlightenment in that it is just the same ritual and tradition-based convolution as Judeo-Christianity, though dressed up differently. These two characters set up the film’s False Dichotomy.
Symbolism of Names
The names for the principal characters in this film bear some significance.
First, there is the character with the name that is most likely to draw attention to this theme, Detective Loki. Quite the unusual name whether “Loki” is his given or family name. The name is an allusion to the Nordic god Loki who in one tale saves a child by outwitting the kidnapper. This name choice also suggests that Det. Loki has a higher, perhaps spiritual, element. In looking at the text of the tale, however, we can see that Loki triumphs over his opponent, a giant, by striking at his shins and at a time when the giant is stuck in a window. The bears a resemblance to the Tanakh tale of David and Goliath in which the Jew David defeats Goliath, a giant (or probably just a sizable human when one factors in the Jewish tendency to overstate for dramatic purposes), by striking at his ankles. Thus, we see Det. Loki’s true Jewish/Masonic identity unveiled.
Second, there is Keller Dover and his wife, Grace. Dover married a woman named Grace and this suggests that he was probably not raised religious, just adopted a religion just as he took “Grace” into his life. However, this quickly breaks down after the couples’ daughter is kidnapped. Dover gets viciously wrathful while Grace breaks down into depression. The fabric of the good life proved to be quite thin. Additionally, “Keller” is German for cellar, this suggests that Keller’s cellar is a part of his identity, which it of course is – he’s a “prepper” with a fully stocked basement. “Dover” bears the word “dove” within it, though this seems to be ironic as Dover hardly symbolizes peace, or his sense of peace is as fragile as a real dove.
Next, there is Franklin Birch who is Dover’s friend and whose daughter is also kidnapped in the same incident. The given name could be seen as a reference to Benjamin Franklin, a US Founding Father and Freemason. “Birch” suggests nature and not religious dogma, and Birch is decidedly more tranquil and is taken aback by Dover’s wrathful path. However, not all is well here as Birch’s wife has the name “Nancy” which comes from a Hebrew name meaning “grace,” thus we are back, in a not totally obvious way, at the Jewish/Masonic theme again. This kind of sleight of hand will matter later.
Also, we have Alex Jones, a name many in the alternate media have heard before. In the film, Alex Jones is initially believed to be the kidnapper of Dover’s and Birch’s daughters, however the police determine that, “Alex Jones has the IQ of a 10 year old” and thus could not have committed such a crime by himself. This proves true as it turns out that Jones is a pawn of the kidnapping mastermind. The real-life Alex Jones is the world’s most famous Zionist Correct “truther,” a supporter of the “prepper” sub-culture, and a noted critic of secret societies such as the Freemasons who are humorously settling a score with this film. The idea that Alex Jones, the film’s character, is merely a pawn is part of the films sleight of hand.
Double Whammy – False Dichotomy & False Solution
First, we have the False Dichotomy: Traditionalist vs. Freemason. This attempts to limit the realm of perception and our identifying of the problem. The film makes a strong case for this illusion as Dover is shown to be ruthless, brutal and totally overcome by his emotions, which mirrors his devotion to religious dogma. Additionally, Dover is shown going on recourse to alcoholic intoxication during the film. In one scene he states that he hasn’t had a drink for nine and half years. Given his character arc, this suggests he gave up alcohol, became a born-again traditionalist Judeo-Christian and married “Grace.” This works for a time, as he becomes a productive self-employed craftsman, but then falls apart after the kidnapping. He kidnaps and tortures the suspected kidnapper of his daughter. He uses his craftsmanship to create a torture chamber. In short, Dover becomes and inverted version of his self at the start of the film. This flipped version probably bears some resemblance to who he was before his being born-again. Dover’s obsessive search leads him to symbolically die as he literally finds himself in an underground space by the end of the film. The thing is that he actually winds up there out of his own free (albeit manipulated) will, and this is basically a continuation of his own decision to go on the destructive path, just that, in the end, it also proves to be self-destructive.
Trapped, alone and seemingly dead, who could possibly save him?
This is where Det. Loki comes in, the ever calm, cool and calculating professional. Even in his first scene with Dover, Loki retains his rational stance, while Dover becomes emotionally overcome and angry. This happens in virtually every encounter that the two share in the film. Loki has a few tense scenes, including one where he smashes his office computer’s keyboard, however these are short fits and doesn’t go on any recourse. This is humanism showing a disciplined human, who’s flawed, but ultimately collected, unlike Dover. The film doesn’t outright favor either character, but the stage is set.
Second, we have the False Solution: the “enlightened” Freemason saves the saves the delusional traditionalist. It is Det. Loki who figures out that Dover is stuck in a hole and thus we can speculate that he pulls him out. The film doesn’t actually show this, it cuts to black, however Det. Loki clearly hears the whistle that Dover is blowing and we can reasonably infer this outcome. It is what the film has been driving at the whole time. With this, the first graceless, then Judeo-Christian Keller Dover is born-again (yet again) this time as a Freemason.
The Illusion of Escape
The film’s key idea is that of a maze, or more specifically: a boundless, ever unfolding maze, one in which no matter how far an escapee navigates, turns or dead ends keep appearing. This idea is first communicated in the film’s main promotion poster seen at the start of this article. Note the tagline: “A Hidden Truth. A Desperate Search.” Also note that the maze shown in that image has no clear boundaries, no start and no finish.
The maze is symbol for brainwashing, or the preventing of a sentient mind from acting according to its individual will.
Back to the film: one evening, the town holds a candlelight vigil for the kidnapped girls and here Det. Loki spots a suspicious hooded figure that runs and escapes. Sometime soon after, that same hooded figure breaks into the homes of the two kidnapped girls, thus confirming his connection the crime. Grace Dover noticed the hooded man and provided enough information to Det. Loki about it so that the police can get a sketch produced, which is soon recognized by a store clerk. The store sells children’s cloths and the man would buy some in addition to spending some time admiring some small mannequins. As it turns out, this man, Bob Taylor, is obsessed with drawing mazes all over his house walls and recreating child kidnappings and murders. This is because he was once kidnapped as a child, but then inexplicably released. This experience has totally overcome him and he relives and recreates it as often as possible by stealing children’s clothes, drenching them in pig’s blood and hiding them in large trunks with live snakes. When in police custody, Taylor just draws unsolvable mazes and eventually shoots himself as police try and question him.
The kidnapping puppet master is an old woman, who used to be a committed mother and Judeo-Christian, however, her child died at a young age driving her to despair. This tragic event also made her lose her faith. Along with her then husband, she tried to make other parents go through the same suffering hoping that they too will turn their back on religion. It was an act of vengeance against the Judeo-Christian deity, Yhwh, using Yhwh’s own methods, thus it, the demiurge, became alive in her.
The proxy, Alex Jones, was for carrying out the actual crime. He was brainwashed and kept appropriately ignorant and thus would never tell the police anything. Or if he came close revealing the details of the crime, memories of his own kidnapping and abuse would surface and drive him crazy and also to suicide as we saw with Bob Taylor.
The film thus seems to be an indictment of dogmatic traditionalism, herding and continuing pain into the next generation, things that Judaism and Judeo-Christianity do very effectively. The puppet master of the kidnapping essentially acts like a herder, which is the archetype of Judaism, one who herds animals for personal gain. In Judaism this spills over into society and there are subjects blindly devoted to their faith and unilaterally respect the words of their elders. Related schools of though are Judeo-Christianity and Confucianism, with the former being a direct continuation of Judaism and the latter an independently developed, but wholly parallel, incarnation from East Asia. The unending cycle of pain is the unending maze shown in the film. No matter how far generations go, they are still left with the pain of the past, they cannot escape from it, and more importantly, they cannot imagine an alternative. So when confronted with any problem they look to the past. Dover repeats the violence of his religion, just like the old woman did. They were both prisoners in the maze.
Interestingly, Dover’s friend, Birch, refuses to participate in the torture of Jones for information. The character Birch was already linked to Freemasonry, his link was a subtle sleight of hand, and here it plays out in full. The film apparently indicts religious traditionalism, yet at the same time it shows Freemasonry to be the answer, and thus a new cult driven by traditions and rituals, by secrecy and elitism props itself in the place of the old one. This is not a real change, rather just a redressing. It’s the illusion of escape.
Perhaps an unintentionally revealing aspect of the last scene is that Det. Loki saves Dover at night. There is only artificial light shining, no Sun. Thus, the boundless maze is the film itself. Like in the cover image, there is only darkness and the turns keep appearing to keep society locked in the same patterns that have been slyly redressed.
The Aryanist Point of View
The film’s sleight of hand was the hiding of any possible third choice from the audience, that is the essence of any false dichotomy, which goes back to the Jewish herder archetype. The herder says to his cattle, “stay inside and be safe, go outside and be in danger.” Staying inside means slavery, going outside may very well mean danger, however, it does not take that much thought to imagine alternatives provided that we are willing to do so. For one, if slaves revolt in unity they can almost always overpower a slave master and his clique. That example is a bit dramatic compared to the choice we have here, which is to just imagine and alternative to the film’s solution: “Enlightened Judeo-Freemasonry saves outdated Judeo-Christianity.” Thinking laterally, if “Judeo-Christianity” is the problem, how much of a solution can “Judeo-Freemasonry” really be? Not much of a solution at all. It’s just a redressing of the problem.
Now let’s take the film’s problem, a kidnapping in a small town, and see how it would hold up in an Aryan society. Specifically, let’s just take the Aryan ideas of society and put them into a context of a small town, such as the one seen in the film.
Would a deranged kidnapper be able to nab two children in a society where citizens don’t live in isolated, fenced off capsules and barely know their neighbors? Or better, how could one possibly foster such anti-social views in an all-inclusive Folk Society?
Would a deranged kidnapper be loose for long in a society in which all citizens have had state-mandated military training, weapon skills and ownership, and take turns going on neighborhood watch duty in groups?
To put these few suggestions into practice, it does not take the complete Aryanization of society, just an organizational step at the local level. In a country like the United States, where gun ownership is high, if people got together on a neighborhood and town level for this effort, with perhaps some coordination from the county level, neighborhoods would be safe. Professional police could then actually concern themselves with actual police work (e.g. investigations, compiling reports, etc…), instead of monitoring citizens and filling arrest quotas. Obviously, this sort of organization only makes sense if everyone agrees to work within it honestly. And that takes a Folk mentality.
In the film, the woman behind the kidnapping specifically mentioned ruining other families as her main motive. Thinking laterally, we can see that kind of situation could be avoided by reevaluating our concept of the family unit itself. The traditional family – the current Western form of which only really began in the 1950s and is not holding steady as not many people marry as quickly as before – is the smallest unit of division in current society and it is promoted as the most desirable state of being, especially by tribalist religions. Thus, to combat tribalism and the notion of the bloodline, which leads to in-group favoritism and Mafia-style social and institutional structures, we can replace it the notion of the Folk, where the health of society as a whole is considered. With Folkism, society will be arranged to allow members to use their skills and talents to work for the betterment of the whole without distractions and extraneous commitments deemed sacred by Tanakh/Confucian/tribalist traditionalism. This way each individual will be able to stand out through their own achievements. This is not a utopian promise to end all crime or even all the motivation for it, however it is a promise to better the cooperation between honest and productive citizens, which will reduce crime. This is a key step to eliminating the idea that others are our property, whom we can tell what to do solely based on age and social status, such as the children of today.
This is a key step to creating a Folk structure where all members are seen a fellow teammates and learn cooperation from the start of their lives not obedience as is taught today. This was the idea behind the Hitler Youth program in National Socialist Germany.
“It is for this reason that I have formed the supplementary organization of the Hitler Youth and endowed it with the bold motto – Youth must be led by Youth.” ~Adolf Hitler, Table Talk
Judaism and it extensions impose the idea of Original Sin – all a born with a defect only Yhwh can forgive if you’re obedient enough.
Aryanism appeals to the idea of Original Nobility – all are born pure and this state should be lived in and explored as much as possible without interference of those already scarred by material reality, namely adults.
The key idea was to allow for the cultivating of a branch social structure within which adults do not interfere with children’s lives and activities. The organization of the Hitler Youth was the first step while the goal was a radical reforming of the entire social fabric, in other words, a society in which older children directly oversee care of younger children. Interestingly, this already occurs in certain orphanages in the developing world. The generational chain still there, albeit totally transformed and freed from Tanakh/Confucian notions of “respecting the elders.” The new arrangement is a genuine compassion-based arena of personal relationships.
In order to see how we can see something so radically different, we can consult one of Plato’s classic ideas: The Allegory of the Cave.
Plato’s classic metaphor is applicable to understanding a new worldview. To see a new worldview, it takes a more than intuition. We must also have the courage to reevaluate ourselves within the context of the world.