Jack Smith movie reviews:            Date 01-08-2001

Dracula 2000

The current movie out, that’s not making a lot of commercial progress, is Dracula 2000. Scary movies, the Frankinsteins’, the Draculas’, they are so close to giving you the truth, all the time, that they don’t even conceal it. That’s why, probably, most adults don’t like scary films. They just think they’re scary films and don’t go. The kids watch em and the kids never make any association. In the movie Dracula 2000 yes, our friend Dracula has been cooped up in a coffin, in a private vault, underneath this business or this commercial building in London, England. And the proprietor of this business is well over a hundred and some years old. And he’s built this very, very tight vault just to keep this one coffin, with no means of opening, no [la] clasps or anything that appears visible. And in that coffin is the remains of Dracula, which was put out of commission early in this guy’s life. And he realized that Dracula could never be killed. But there were ways of putting him into a suspended condition, in which if you guarded him and he couldn’t escape, he couldn’t reap havoc on people and society. So this gentleman, that owned this building, and that had actually gotten Dracula locked up, in this coffin, years and years ago. Was the trustee for society, protecting society from the evils of this vampire.

What happens is, a woman who worked for his establishment for several months, assumed and presumed that there must be something of tremendous value in this vault, because it had twenty-four hour security and a huge bank-like vault door. So, she got her friends together and they decided to break the bank vault, open it up, and steal the valuables inside. Once they got to that position they were amazed that there was nothing of value except one thing that looked like a coffin, which they couldn’t open. But the woman said, “Look you stupid people that’s what he wants you to believe, is that there’s nothing here except dead people. That’s where he’s kept all of his diamonds, gold, silver and valuables, in the coffin. Thinking that you wouldn’t take it, so lets take it.” So they took it. Now, for some unexplained reason they loaded the unloaded coffin on an airplane headed for America, private airplane, which seems somewhat improbable but hey, don’t shake the rafters. While they’re on their way to America, one lunatic succeeds in gettin the coffin open and he finds, much to his chagrin, yes there is a body in there. But it’s not in as bad a decayed condition as he thought it might be. And what was really good is there was a cross in there with huge jewels on it. And so he figured there might be other jewels in there too and about the time he’s willing to pick those clean. All of a sudden the body comes to life and does him in. Which happens to the other people on the private plane too and the plane ends up crashing into a river outside of New Orleans in America.

The proprietor of the establishment in England, when he finds out that the coffin’s missing, decided he’s privately going to go to retrieve it. And he takes all his silver bullet firing guns and all of his other things with him. And he gets the interest of a young man, that worked for his company, that was like a son to him. And he was told to stay in England, but he didn’t obey and he followed the proprietor to America. And was later informed that this was a vampire they were after. And he did exactly what anybody of your friends would do if you tried to explain to them what’s going on. They’d go, “Yea right and, you’re crazy and, that’s stupid.” So he didn’t believe in vampires until the physical vampires appeared and he had to believe because he had the evidence. The interesting aspect of this movie is the history they get into on the myth of Dracula. Because, the old man said to this young boy, that was quote, his son, actually he was in his twenties. He said, “I know I told you in the past when we were talking, that Dracula was a myth.” He said, “That’s not true, it’s reality, That’s who we’re looking for.“ And then he went on to say that the alleged myth of Dracula started [in] in Eastern Europe in allegedly the fifteen hundreds. But he said, “Dracula goes back much, much older than that time.” That Dracula is known by different names and different personas in different societies. And as they’re tracking down the concept of Dracula an the kid was interested, “Well then where’d he come from?”

They got into the discussion that vampires don’t like Christians and vampires don’t like Christian artifacts. They don’t like the cross. And the kid said, “Well what about silver.” And the discussion takes Dracula back to the concept that he is the personification of Judas Ascariot. Who when he betrayed Christ and Christ died on the cross, tried to return the silver. And that return of the silver, as the evidence of his betrayal, was why the vampire hates silver and why he hates the wood stake is it reminds him of the cross upon which Christ died. And even though Judas Ascariot went out and tried to hang himself, the concept is that he can never die because he did not get the forgiveness for his sins. And so he is basically the living dead. And now at this stage of the game he’s angry with Christ and the Christians for failing to forgive him. So that’s where the concept of Dracula 2000 goes in that movie. Now what’s going on, is that, they’re trying to once again close up Dracula and all of the converts that he’s made. To once again take him out of harms way, of the people, put him in a condition again where he’s either cooped up or, eventually kill him entirely.

Now lets go back and analyze a couple of things that were going on with Judas Ascariot. Number one, he was the treasurer for the disciples. Number two, he was the only disciple that was not from the tribe of Benjamin, he was from, I believe, the tribe of Judah. All the other disciples were from the tribe of Benjamin. Probably Judas Ascariot did not intend that his betrayal of Christ would result in Christ’s death. Because he had been around Christ enough to know that every time the public authorities tried to trap him he always escaped physically or legally, by way of his knowledge and expertise and his powers. So wasn’t the plan of Judas Ascariot, to extract 25 silver coins from the Scribbes and Pharisees, to enrich the bank account of the disciples, knowing that in most likelihood the information that he provided would do them no good because with the powers of Christ he would escape any potential liability whatsoever? So they’d have both the money and Christ would not be in any peril. However, when Christ was executed we do know that Judas Ascariot, it was not like, ”Oh well so what, I’ve still got the 25 that’s the breaks.” He actually felt remorse for what he did because he tried to go back and undo it. He tried to return the coins, the payment. If you understand what Judas Ascariot did, he was the witness that brought public charges against Christ. So that the public tribunals could start their process.

Judas Ascariot was not the only one that screwed up all the time in his relationship with the Lord it happened to Peter a whole bunch too. But there was an entirely different result in the way Peter screwed up, in his relationship with the Lord, than what happened with Judas Ascariot. If you’ll understand the difference it’s [as] as basic as what we’re talking about right now in the private law forum and in the public law forum. Because, when Peter screwed up he went to a private remedy and when Judas screwed up he went to a public remedy. The private remedy was to accept the wrong and to go to Christ, repent your sins and ask forgiveness. Which meant now, by your acceptance of Christ’s acceptance of your offer, you were redeemed, and the debt was discharged through Christ, and Peter was a creditor to the Lord, a title-holder by way of the private remedy of grace. What Judas Ascariot did is he went to try to purchase back the liberty of Christ by returning the 25 pieces of silver (or 30) ‘scuse me, 30 is the number of the blood of Christ. So when he went to try to purchase it back it was in the public venue. What Peter did is he sought an operation of law. END TAPE 2 SIDE 1

What Judas was doing in counter distinction is Judas was executing the law. If we bought Christ’s slavery with thirty pieces of silver we’ll purchase it back by returning the thirty pieces of silver and we’ll execute a release, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. However, when the public would not allow the repurchase of the liberty of Christ and Christ died. Then Judas Ascariot went out and hung himself, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a death for a death; it’s an execution of law. Peter was operating in law by way of the lessons that Christ taught in the New Testament. Judas Ascariot was still lost in the death of the Old Testament trying to execute the law at common law. What you’re seeing in Hollywood’s version of Dracula 2000, is you’re seeing people accepting for value Dracula i.e. Judas Ascariot, execution of law. That was the public turned loose again to destroy the people. And the only ones that knew about it. And the only ones that were dealing with it was the trustee, the fiduciary, the one who owned the building that had Dracula locked up. And the young man who was quote, “his son” that inherited the position. Who now were acting as fiduciaries to do an operation of law ta remove the public Dracula from executing the law and killing society. And by the end of the movie the question is, have we finally got rid of the public sector’s execution of law, is the private law of redemption, grace, operation of law gonna come in or is Dracula gonna be turned loose again? Do you understand what Hollywood is putting in all of these movies? They’re bringing it right to the forefront.

[cont. … after “Traffic” review]

It’s right there, Hollywood absolutely knows what’s going on. Dracula 2000 is preaching the gospel better than any one of the State licensed churches. They’re telling you flat out, that, here we had Judas Ascariot who believed more in money, he was a banker, and he tried to execute the law through his banking establishment, and he killed Christ. So, what he ended up doing is he maximized the public and destroyed the private world. And here you have people, the heroes of this movie, that are trying to bring the private government back, and keep the public in check. There’s people out there that say, “There is no separation of church and State.” That’s because they don’t know the definition of the church, and they don’t know the definition of the State. Scripture says, in the New Testament, “God wrote the law in your heart” so you are the church. The building is merely a building; the church is within the people. On Sunday morning you do not get up and go to church. You get up and go to State, because it’s a State registered, State licensed facility. And the State-licensed preacher is preaching the public policy of the State Government. There’s a separation of church and State because the church is in your heart. And your private capacity is separate from the public State, and the public State can write no legislation against the private party. But they write all kinds of legislation against the physical so-called, “quote, church, unquote,” building because that building is not the church it’s registered, licensed, to the State. Even if it’s not a 501-(c) (3) entity, if the property is deeded on the county recorders office, the property and all the impertinces thereto are the State’s. Therefore in the building, of the Baptist temple, in Indianapolis. Unless they have removed that property from the deeds office, unless the people that make up that facility do not have a bank account or a checking account system with the federal reserve, they are not a church they are the State.

There is a separation of church and State, when you recognize that the church is the collection of the private people who have the law that they follow written in their heart, not written on some parchment in a library, in a public building, in some public corporate city. Hollywood’s got it straight, just about everybody else in the public sector’s got it wrong. They are the voice crying in the wilderness, I’m not saying that they follow the Son–of-God. I’m saying they are a voice crying in the wilderness, nobody’s paying any attention to them. If you can’t learn from those people you think are your friends, you better start listening to the people you might think are your enemies. Because your enemies want something from you, and in order to get it from you and not violate the law, they must inform you of what they’re up to, so that they’re in compliance with the law. And since they’re the ones that want something from you, they’re the ones that have got to tell you what they are doing. They’re the only ones that know, you better start paying attention. ‘K that’s all the time we have this week, Lord willing we’ll be back next week again.

As transcribed by: Majic