All posts tagged cult

Who can you trust?

A short pre-amble: I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything; if you feel the “New World Order” is a myth dreamed up by nuts, well, best stop reading now. This is not for you—I’m not here to persuade you; it’s not my agenda. People need to think for themselves and decide for themselves, hopefully after doing some digging from as many independent sources as possible…but I doubt this occurs very often today. So whichever.

This is for people who have reached a certain level of consciousness, I suppose, or even merely possess an open mind or consider themselves “free-thinkers.”

So, now that no one at all is reading this entry, I’ll continue. The question is repeated: Who can you trust?

If you’ve wisened up, become more aware, you might say, “Well, shit, man, certainly not the fuggin News!”

Aye. Good. That’s good for you, my friend. It’s the perfect place to start.

Once we break free of the State-run propaganda ministry and begin to burst out of our socially engineered shells, the world seems dark and scary. That’s because it is. And it’s supposed to be this way. And this is what adult beings face, adapt to, and endure as fully grown natural forms of life on this planet.

We just never knew it because the “West” has created a nursery for us, a land of fantasy, with as many distractions and sources of pleasure and escape that you could ever conceive; a way of life that the remainder of the world does not know, and has never known. It’s all delusion. It was done to infantilize us. To keep us in a progressively child-like state, so that eventually we would whole-heartedly accept the (Global) State (and those who engineered it) as our parent, our guardian and master, to obey them and have the same respect for them as we would our mother and father. They want to be loved by us—they want to be gods again—and whoever they allow to live will be their utter, unflinching, abject servants. And, fucking hell, it has worked. These fuckers know what they’re doing. They want us to embrace our own subjugation and misery; they want us to help them enslave us. They want to be able to kick us in the teeth a few dozen times, and then have us smile a bloody smile, thank them profusely, and beg to lick their assholes.

Don’t believe me? See ancient Rome. See ancient Sumer, Babylon, Greece, Egypt. It’s already been done. It’s happened before, and it will happen again.

I dont see any evidence of this happening today and we have Bill of Rights and all sorts of things!! u r crazy!!!!!

Patience, child. Just wait . . . just . . .wait . . .

Actually, there is a lot of evidence to be found, but I’m not getting into all that right now.

For folks who have been conditioned to not really think for themselves, it can be a grueling task, sifting through internet media sites which claim to be alternative or independent. It can become utterly overwhelming.

Why? Because there’s no way to know what their actual agenda is. Some are up front about it—they’ll talk about “workers” and the “classes” and so forth, the easily identifiable rhetoric of the Marxist (the elites’ current Useful Idiot of Choice—at least for the last two hundred years). And this should be avoided more gravely than any religious site regarding any religion (with the exception of the Eco-control-freaks, the feminists, and the racists—the anti-Jewers).

But others seem to be completely cool and harmless. When you’ve been confined and guided information-wise for most of your life to accept only what “Authority” tells you, any other source is met with intense and irrational skepticism by default. In other words, a closed mind. And likely some “learned helplessness” as well.

What happens is we—rather than thinking—immediately lunge for some sort of Authority, some symbol, clue, anything, or anyone who will tell us what we’re supposed to believe; what we’re supposed to think. Because we have know idea—when in doubt or when something confuses the hell out of us, we fall back to the familiar…this is no secret—once we lose a belief system based upon lies, we become incredibly vulnerable to even worse beliefs.

Here’s a great measuring stick for deciding whether or not you actually believe in a Force above and beyond our material world—because we only seem to seek out Authority when we actually have no sense of “God” or a “Higher Power” or whatever it may be, something non-material that’s greater than we are. And we get used and abused by facades of Authority which are always based in the material. (Symbols; idols. Stone and gold statues. It’s happened again and again; every movement becomes religion and then becomes a cash-cow (and control grid) for the ruling oligarchs. The institutionalization of a spiritual philosophy.)

When we have this Faith, let’s call it, we are not so desperate to frantically dash towards some illusion of Authority. We already know; we are secure. Plus, I think, our more spiritual memes seem to have more of an immune system regarding the more material memes.

Once we shed certain old memes, we are in many ways like an addict who has stopped a drug—his physiology (specifically in the brain) has been changed and so now he is vulnerable to another drug, or another thing that acts like a drug upon the pleasure center of the brain. So, when we lose our old childhood memes, we are desperately seeking new memes. This is why Christians who have shed their faith or just lost it, for whatever reason, almost always turn to another religion sooner or later. This is how the New Age (old Pagan shit with a new clothes) junk fills the desperate so quickly, and so deviously. New memes enter, and the high has returned. The only way to sustain the high is to recruit new members—every time the meme spreads, the carrier gets high through the process.

[The neopagans are getting revenge on Christians, it seems, since it was the Catholic Church which went way out of its way to gobble up those pagans on the borders of the New Roman Empire; the Mother Church.]

This is also why many people who have quit a certain drug become such fanatics—preaching their new anti-drug gospels is actually getting them high. Poetic…

It’s just part of our biology that gives us chemical rewards for learning, and teaching.

Anyroad, we seek out Authority.

“Oh, this guy’s a DOCTOR, well then, I will pay attention.” The Professional, of course, is an extension of the Authority. (They were the original priests and priestesses who worked in the temples and served their ruling oligarchs, those who claimed divinity under names such as Isis, Kubaba, Ishtar/Astarte, and later the sordid cast of characters that comprise the mythology of all the Iron and Bronze Age empires and city-states.) He or she is a State-Approved mouth-piece, in essence.

And so that’s the problem. You run through a gauntlet of bullshit, of all sorts of people who titter and boast to their friends later that they fucked over someone and took their money. Liars. Cunts.

And if you make it through this meat-grinder alive (without falling for even worse bullshit), you’re left in a jaded, bitter state, and your first instinct is to not believe a fucking thing.

But if you still have an open mind, and your soul has not been sold—nor have you sold yourself—then you might be fortunate enough to come to something that has the most truth in tact. And maybe that’s why you’re reading this right now. I dunno.

What I do know is that all this junk happened to me, and I understand it well.

Myself, I never heard of the New World Order until about 1996 (in a Ministry song called “NWO”—New World Order); I’d never heard any politician talking about it, any professional, any TV station, any movie, any book, no one. I knew nothing about it. Had no idea what it might be, and I didn’t care.

It wasn’t until I began uncovering this feminist agenda (in earnest from 2004-2007), as well as researching the 9/11 conspiracy, that I first heard of the word, “Illuminati.” And, at the time, like most people, I dismissed it as the ravings of the religious.

When I began reading (Rich) Zubaty’s stuff in 2007 (and, dammit, I hope you’re still alive, bro), his truths, new ideas, and right-brained approach to writing really helped clear away many of the old memes infecting my mind, and planting a few new ones (which were really pre-historic ones, not new at all; just repressed and forgotten).

It helped me, first, to forgive women and, second, to realize that they weren’t to blame for what I went through in my life.

Anyway, it wasn’t until I found out that there really was an organization called the “Illuminati” that I began to take this stuff seriously. This was around 2011. It disturbed me, but it didn’t surprise me; I knew for years that JFK was assassinated by his own people (government types), and I had never trusted the Establishment, not even as a kid. But how I was duped in such things as the JFK Conspiracy was that I was convinced it was an evil deed carried out by Republicans (conservatives); given I was an atheist at the time, and anti-religious, it was natural to just assume that Republicans were rich Christians and thus my enemies.

[It was the same way we were duped by the Michael Moore films—Fahrenheit 911 anyone? There’s no inquiry in this film into the real minds behind it all; it was simply blamed on the “neocons” and it was reinforced that the poor liberals were the good guys who cared and shared and wanted the world full of yummy candy and fluffy bunnies. What’s diabolical about Moore’s work is not what he reveals; it’s what he omits. And what he omits is the entire truth. Because he has an agenda, and everything he does is for the furthering of this (not actually his) agenda. He’s a shill. A hypocritical, deceptive fraud. A cunt.]

And shortly after that I began researching it and this “New World Order.” So, I’m really late to the game here. I feel like I’m the last player to dress and arrive out on the field for the big game.

Why was I so late?

I probably would have gotten into it a lot sooner—maybe my mid-20s—but I was consumed in the UFO Conspiracy. Yes, I was a teenage flake. Well, twenty-something anyway, and not really a flake but a believer, for sure. I studied it for years (age 22-27). This distraction wasted years of my life, untold hours of writing and reading, and seeking out more and more information, trying to arrive at the truth. The lack of evidence and bizarre leaps of logic accumulated to such a point that all I had were a million more questions, an addiction to codeine and chronic headaches and chronic depression, and confusion.

Confusion. And that was the goal all along. I began to realize that getting into this shit ultimately lead to despair; what could I do about alien entities in league with power structures of civilization here on Earth? It was out of my control. It was all pointless.Yeah, the aliens have been coming here for thousands of years, and everyone knows about them, and that’s why it’s all a big cover up? There’s simply no other explanation except for alien intervention? Well, the believers never think about anything else; they’re obsessed. They’re religious. You question them and when it reaches something they cannot answer, they turn and start insulting you and attacking you, making claims about you. That’s when you know you’ve just toppled a house of cards. It was built on conjecture, New Age horseshit, and all manner of sketchiness.

Finally, I just quit and decided: there were more important things to think about, such as the dismal, miserable, wretched disaster which was my life.

My final thoughts on this UFO shit…

Show »

Now, don’t fucking talk to me about “oh it’s arrogant to think we’re alone in the blah blah blah.” Alright? I’ve spewed that shit for years. It is irrelevant. It’s like studying the history of sails while the ship is sinking; yeah, it’s interesting, but it’s not helping anyone or working towards a solution for anything. Who is going to benefit from your escape into fantasy? Obviously, only those who constructed this distraction in the first place and have fed it through sci-fi literature and TV and movies.

“OMFG how do you explains all the sightings of ufos and all the people whove been abducted lolol???”

1. Natural phenomena explains a lot of it; experimental aircraft probably explains most of the rest—yes, I believe the technology we have today is old. Everything we see has probably been around for centuries, hidden, because that’s what these people know how to do best: hide shit. It is their only real skill (other than controlling others); they’ve been at it since the Flood. They are members of a sketchy religion surrounding hidden knowledge. What the fuck do you think they’ve been hiding all these years? A found alien spaceship?

Please tell me how in the fuck does a super advanced species (capable of annihilating the entire planet with death rays) not destroy humanity when they’ve had thousands of years to do it?

“OMFG the Annaukizskites want to enslave us!!!’

Want to? So they have not done so, even though they’ve had the means? What’s stopping them? God? Satan? The pink elf people on Planet X? Magic? Superman? What?

And how the fuck do you know their names?

And sticking probes up our anuses does what, precisely? Can’t they scan us somehow? If they can beam us up from above tree-top level, why can’t they beam us up from orbit? Why would they need to descend into our atmosphere at all? Why do they mutilate cattle and make artistic designs in fields? Are these aliens pranksters? Misunderstood artisans? And what the fuck do you expect me to do about it all? None of this makes any sense at all.


And so it goes. On and on and round and round. Madness. The answers inevitably edge into some New Age religious crap. There really is no discussion possible with a zealot; all he wants to do is convert you. And that’s it. And all you want to do is get him to question some of it, just a fucking little. But he never will. He’s gone. Gone. And he ain’t coming back. They have him.

I think these oligarchs have had technology monstrously more advanced than what the masses knew about, and they’ve gradually brought it out when it suited their purposes. This is how their paid stooges in high positions of academia manage to invent such wonderful things, out of the blue; it’s how these people can effect prophecies too. (You say something will be invented, although it already has; then you wheel it out right on schedule, and the masses gape in awe. And offer their support and allegiance to the Wizards. Great Magix! Ohhhhh…they have sway with the gods… I say fellows like Nostradamus were insiders of this hierarchy.)

Anyway, I will admit that some UFOs are simply a mystery and probably always will be. You just have to be humble enough to admit that we don’t know everything; the universe is a fucking big place. If it’s arrogant to say we’re alone in the universe (and it’s arrogant to think that other life forms aren’t intelligent in the first place, that only humans are or could be), it’s also arrogant to presume they’re coming here for us. It’s arrogant, as well, to presume you know what they are and why they’re here. Go check into this batshit crazy shill:

It’s also very limited to presume that the only explanation of an unidentified flying object is alien origin.

Unidentified! Calling it “alien” is identifying it—with no evidence whatsoever. So, it’s not a UFO since you’re telling me what it is, without an open mind; it’s an AFO (Alien Flying Object). You’re guessing and accepting something that has been designed for you to accept; like a child brought to a playground…some distraction while the adults talk. You’re so fucking brainwashed with this shit you can’t even understand what I’m saying and you can’t even come up with an accurate, non-State given name for these things!

2. I think abductions are conducted by covert agencies of governments, and special effects are employed, drugs are given. I don’t know to what purpose except to convince people they’ve been kidnapped by ET.

This can be done very, very easily. They were able to do it even before WWII ended, for crissakes.

Bottom line…

Possibility is not evidence. Probability is not evidence. Anecdotal tales is not evidence. Weird things in the sky is not proof of either alien visitation or alien intelligence.

Government agencies guarding some strange building and allowing “leaks” to slip out regarding what’s inside is not evidence of a conspiracy, necessarily; it’s in fact more evidence of a cover-up based upon disinformation.

Build something, restrict all info about it, and stick soldiers in front of it with guns, and what you get is throngs of people trying to stick their noses into it. What’s in that building? Probably nothing at all; it’s a campaign to lease large tracts of real estate inside your head. The more you compulsively seek the “truth” of bogus shit, the less likely you will be to ever come near the Truth of anything.

As long as you swallow their bullshit, your mind is theirs. What consumes your thoughts controls your life. You are deluded, on purpose, all the while thinking you have touched the truth. Yet all the while you have become a tool for the very forces to which you were initially opposed.

Now, I’ve touched upon this shit before, but I feel it’s imperative to finish the subject. So, onto the Delusion part of this…

So, okay, I’ll just come out with it: every movement based on freedom and truth is infiltrated and hijacked, in order to cause division. Division is necessary because it destroys unity. Those oligarchs in control today have one great fear: us. If we ever got our shit together and became unified, they’d be finished. And they know it. (They’ve seen it many times—obviously, I’m not implying that these are the same folks, that they’re immortal; no, they’re more fanatical than any religious type we’ve ever seen or heard about, more secretive, more connected and organized, as a group…they plan generationally and seem to have inhuman patience, which is why I suspect some believe they are mythical or other-worldly beings. But they’re not, they’re as weak and flawed as we are. Weaker and more flawed, in fact. But that’s another subject.)

How has the Truth Movement been co-opted? The resurgence of the UFO cults, as I’ve already mentioned, the one that got me.

I suspect it was meant to increase the rift between religious members and non-religious members; implying that scenes and writings in various religious texts were the result of alien entities and their various types and designs of flying saucers…well, this means that these religious folks’ beliefs are not true; they’re not “gods” or “God,” just little green men. Little grey men. Blue creatures from other worlds. Whichever, pick a colour and size and invent a name for them and their planet of origin (or say they came through a wormhole), grab your crystals and Taro cards, and you’re on the way to the New Age (neo-pagan) agenda.

So, the hi-jacking of the Truth Movement consists of the following…

I. UFO religion.
II. The Reptilians.
Which is just a tangent off the UFO cults and other paranormal stuff, which is all leading back to neo-paganism, billed as New Age Spirituality. Ego worship, Wiccan garbage, astrology, and similar utter nonsense, sucked up quickly and greedily by weak people.

And I don’t exclude myself as being weak—I fell into shit that seemed to promise strength and brotherhood. It’s easy to get into if you’re isolated and feeling weak, physically, emotionally, spiritually, whatever. So, I’m not putting anyone down.

It’s just Paganism coming back. You atheists think things were bad under so-called Christian Rule, spend a couple years under this new shit coming, and you’ll be fuckin begging to have a Bible-thumper shout at you that you’re going to Hades.

III. Satanism.

Now, I think this was an invention custom-made for Christians (who these elites seem to despise more than any other group), and it was set up a long, long time ago (see Lilith)). Of course it works for Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. But Christians I’ve found seem to have more of a fixation on this figure, and all the demons and angels that go with it.

So, let’s review: we have the group called the “Illuminati,” which is just a name that I suspect merely wink-wink-nudge-nudges towards the view that Lucifer is behind this global plot.

This is what made me first go Pffft when someone mentioned the Illuminati to me. It was designed to do this.

The UFO and Reptile crap is meant to draw in the non-religious, even though it’s full of the religious.

What these three things have in common: the average person can do absolutely nothing about it. What can you do to stop an alien invasion, either by ships or by giant lizards coming out of the earth? What?

And you can do nothing about Satan or Lucifer either—unless you join a religion and band together and pray, and hope for Christ to return and smite this evil entity. Or whatever. But you’re not directly involved…

The intended psychological effect is helplessness.

Okay, I’ll do one more:

IV. The Jews.

This one covers the race angle; the KKK and White Supremacists were set up by the elite cock-smokers for this very purpose: division.

I almost fell into this one, too; it took over a decade for me to figure out what was going on.

So, the Jews are behind everything. Zionists, ZOG, all of that shit. And I think some Jewish people are put in place to fuel this delusion.

Now, what can the average person do about shady figures in the upper strata of society, with big nose noses and evil grins, rolling about in swimming pools full of gold coins?

Nothing. Only their racist leaders know what’s to be done: send all the impure races back to ______. That’s it. That’s the old dead horse they’re still beating. And always will.

But I can’t blame them, really. I never believed in the Star Trek philosophy (again, it took years for me to comprehend exactly what I hated about this show), mixing the races and ending up with one dull, mediocre, light-brown ball of mashed potatoes. What species in nature has ever done this? Why would it?

Tigers don’t work with leopards; coyotes don’t live with wolves; some species of deer will hang out with other species, if they happen to be on the same prairie…but once they’re done eating (it was only tolerated to add a few more eyes—scouting for big cats and packs of wild dogs—in the mix, while they ate), they go back to their own kind. They don’t live together. Even the zebra are wise enough to know not to fuck the wildebeest.

Now, see what I’m saying here: I do not believe in mixing races; every race is unique and cool in its own right; why would we want to destroy that? We piss and moan when the rare three-banded whatever frog of wherever goes extinct…but it doesn’t bother us that an entire people were bred out of existence? And no, I do not think my race is better than anyone else’s (quite the contrary); it’s just different. But we should not be tossed in together, forced to live together, and have our inherent tribalism provoked and aggravated so continuously—to what fucking end if not an inevitable global empire?

Why are we being herded towards this psychotic conformity by people we don’t know, never voted for, and never even met? Who is going to benefit from all this engineering? Us? Have we so far…?

Every time humans are duped into gathering in some city, what we naturally do is separate and stick to our own. This is our deep biology at work; something wants us to be unique and different, and not all the same. I think this for men and women too; we should not be around women all months of the year. The only result of this has been the blurring of genders, the weakening of men, and the strident sense of entitlement and the utter confusion (and sometimes near madness) of women. And members of each gender who cannot stand their opposite half.

This is division, it’s not what I want—which is exactly what we were twenty thousand millennia ago. Freedom and balance was what we used to enjoy; differences and challenges, strength and honour, and the capacity for compassion, humour, and a healthy life in which we understood our place in the world.

What we’ve been forced to endure has been the opposite of this: we’ve been rolled into one amorphous blob, and yet we are more divided and fucked up than at any point in our history. Racism is worse than it was in the 1960s; and there such a rift between the genders that I’m not sure if it will ever be repaired, fully.

Enough of that.

So, what we have is Alex Jones (Lucifer is guiding the elite to create a New World Order) calling David Icke (Reptilian aliens are the elite) a turd in the punch bowl…although he’ll interview David on his show.

Then we have Mark Dice (Lucifer is guiding the elite to create a New World Order) making fun of Alex and calling him this and that, even though they used to work together and now do again.

Then you have the really serious religious types (who probably believe absolutely everything told in the Bible; giants, people living 900 years, talking animals, and all manner of magic and miracles and God talking and so forth, none of which happens anymore) calling Alex a shill because he won’t claim that the Jews are behind it all. Like Bill (Lucifer and UFOs are behind it all) Cooper fanboys. And because Bill died, now they reason that because he died (because he knew too much, or something), and Alex is still around, Alex must be a fake.

And then you have Alan Watt, who I suspect might be the closest thing we will get to someone who (a) knows a fuck of a lot about all this stuff, (b) is not falling all over himself to make a truckload of money out of this, or gain fame and celebrity status out of it, and (c) appears to be telling the truth without an intense and blatant agenda like so many others.

Yes, Alex Jones has an agenda aside from the obvious; I sense he’s sincere about the ’cause,’ but he is a Christian and all this fits neatly into the “End Times” scenario that most religious people have been conditioned into believing, and I suspect this Apocalypse story was designed for this reason. And these elites put their plans into action, in the last couple of centuries, they’re fulfilling the requirements as well for the End of Days stuff.

Alex also makes a lot of money off this stuff; his set-up is very professional looking, and his face is everywhere, on everything. I’m always suspicious of this behaviour—Mark Dice is the same. Nice clothes, smiling face seen everywhere, and lots of things for sale.

Buy my book and learn the truth! Because we need your help…but only if you’ve got money. Poor people no welcome.

So, if this is their philosophy, how precisely are they different from these “elites?”

Why are any of these guys still alive, if the NWO is so powerful and so close to completing their goals?

And I’ve already given Icke more attention than he deserves. He can fuck a duck. I’m 99% sure he’s an insider douche.

I don’t trust Dice. He might be alright, but he just rubs me the wrong way.

Alex Jones? I dunno. Still wondering about him. Sometimes he’s got me convinced; sometimes, I start asking myself questions. I’m about 85% sure that Jones is the real deal (maybe 50% for Dice).

Jesse Ventura is another guy I like, but I’m still not 100% sure about him. I’m maybe 90% sure he’s one of the good guys.

Rich Zubaty, I’m about 95% sure he’s the real deal.

Alan Watt, maybe 90%. I’m not sure of his religion, and so I’m not sure about his agenda.

All of these folks have an agenda outside the conspiracy business and conspiracy culture.

But don’t we all have our own petty little agendas?

What is the result of all this?

Consider: say you find 99 people who are aware of the New World Order coming. Now, together you make 100, and that would be quite a force, a great beginning. But say you were one of these evil elite whack-jobs…how would break up this force.


Get 30% of them to believe it has something to do with UFOs. Get 5% to believe that it has something to do with Reptilians. Get 20% to believe that it’s all just a big Jewish plot. And get 40% to believe that it’s the End of Days and this is the way the Anti-Christ is coming to claim “his” empire.

What’s left?

Five percent.

Five people out of every hundred who is not distracted with fucking fiction (not to mention that only one person out of a few thousand would actually believe any of this anyway; so the numbers might look like 5 out of 5,000 of the regular John Q Public). While everyone else fights among themselves until it’s too late, you and your small force is simply insufficient to do much. Besides, two of the five won’t fight because they believe in peaceful protest only.

Yep. Math really is fucking merciless.

What does this equal?

Doom. Division equals doom.

This is why I don’t think these globalists will be stopped (or even can be stopped at this point) even if we could get our shit together, which we just won’t; only through a truly united resistance will we eventually prevail. And I’ll fight with them (the types of people I’ve mentioned above), Christians and atheists alike, since our only goal at that point will be freedom, even though my kind of world “disorder” or natural society will never happen. If I survive the shit hitting the fan, and survive the resistance, if we win before I die (of old age), I’ll be back on my mountain by myself, I expect. Once more, I will not fit into the civilization they will either take over or rebuild.

And then it will start all over again, because we will never eradicate the planet of every member of these globalists…like a cockroach, they hide and creep back in when the lights go out.

The only way to be sure is to prevent the technology from progressing—more and more I understand the minds of those men thousands of years ago, those men who came up their one male deity, and the laws and stipulations they had to try to enforce; they’d encountered these evil cunts before, they lived through what we’re going through now.

Anyway, it’s tough to find sources truly independent and not infested with some goddamned agenda.

How can you tell? Hmm? How do you tell who’s the real deal?

Well, you can’t. Like anything else, there no absolute certainty. It’s never 100% and so you have to take a chance—I’ll use the unpopular word, faith, here, because that’s what it is.

Well, considering the techniques of the powers that be, and their current level of technology, well, I’m not sure one could be 100% sure the person they’re watching on YouTube is “good” or “bad” or just one of the money-grubbers cleaning up on the fear that permeates all society as the shadow of the Globalist Agenda ramps up.

How do you know?

Ask questions. (And ignore the little yipping trolls everywhere seeking to discredit someone just to jam their own demented version into your ear. Beware the “_______ is a shill” or the “________ is disinfo.” These fucking little twats never back up anything they put forth; they either drop their tiny speck of feces and run away, or they parrot what someone else said. They’re the fuckin shills. They’re the motherufckers creating division. Ignore these tools.)

What is this person saying, and why is this person saying this? What is motivating this person?

What the person is saying must be researched and checked out; if you can check out and confirm 55% of it, odds are the rest is right on too. I’ve done this with Zubaty (checking out maybe 80% of what he said) and Jones (about 75%), and so now I know most of it and don’t have to look up much that someone like Alan Watt is saying.

In fact, I’ve never heard anyone who thinks along the same lines as I do and has said/written so much of the same things as I have…than Zubaty and Watt. The three of us have invented our own wheels—of course those two are many years ahead of me.

I discovered Zubaty in 2007; Jones in 2011, along with Dice; Icke I’d heard about back in 2008, but I never got into that shit. Alan Watt I had not heard about until less than a couple weeks ago, so, 2014.

More questions to ask:

What are their family connections? Have they ever worked for a corporation or government? How much money do they have?—because the more they have, the less you should trust them.

How much of what they say they know do they share? Do we need to buy their book to know “the whole story?” What’s the context with which they share this?

Why, if they are so sincere and desperate to stop this hideous plot, would they not share the knowledge and not profit from it? What it their real agenda—money?—an inevitable Christian State?—or a free and open society in which, above all else, people have the inherent and inalienable right to be left the fuck alone?

Who is their real enemy—these globalists, or those whose religions differ from their own?

Above everything else, trust your own instincts.

Take me for example. If I had “my way,” we’d all be hurled back into the Stone Age. And no rulers, no organized religion, no business. Just trade and barter, and living how you want. People could believe what they wanted, but no organization, which was always meant to convert and consume outsiders; assimilate. We’d be nomadic hunter-gatherers. There would be few rules or laws; I’d like to redevelop the conscience of humanity somehow, to its original state, so these things would be givens again and no formal law would be necessary; but one big rule would be about technology—come to a point and stop, for fuck sakes. I’m not anti-tech; I’m anti-Progress. I’m anti-insanity. Like “God and Mammon,” as Jesus warned, you cannot serve two masters. You can’t serve a natural way of life and Progress at the same time. It’s one or the other. One’s always material; one’s always spiritual.

And you always have a choice, and the time to decide.

When you have a great way of life, getting “better” is not needed…and in fact becomes the opposite of what was intended. Would there be a place for gays? Sure—they could go far away from us and start their tribe somewhere. Do as you like, just stay away from our tribe; I don’t hate you guys and gals, I just want to live among heteros only. Sorry, I guess I’m a dinosaur.

Et cetera. Pure fantasy. It will never happen. But if I had “my way,” that’s what I’d do. Free us all. Regress back to a sane state.

Realistically, without god-like powers and time-traveling ability, if I had my way I’d just live in the mountains somewhere, as naturally as possible. I’d have a mate and children, and I’d have a few neighbours nearby, and we would be nomads who perhaps winter in the same spot. The men and the boys would take shifts being away from the females on month-long hunting trips, so that the genders weren’t constantly squished together. Materialism would have to be out-lawed, I’m afraid, if we could not agree on a philosophical mode of doing things. This would be the only area I will never compromise. Never.

Everything else is basically fine.

And I know this wouldn’t work either. Which is why I’m no longer an idealist—if you’re looking for a blue-print for the perfect utopian society, keep looking. I don’t have it.

Hmm. How about this: first, a planet like Earth would have to be confirmed livable and uninhabited; second, a massive ship would have to be built; third, a few thousand Natives would be darted, tranquilized, put into suspended animation, and the ship launched for that planet; lastly, after the Natives were removed by drones and set into the new nature (regaining consciousness on some sort of time delay), the drones would destroy the ship and then self-destruct into a billion microscopic pieces.

Then the Natives would wake up, without knowledge of the machines, and begin their new life. Meanwhile, every nuclear and biological weapon on Earth would be activated, detonated; all sources of water poisoned, all of the atmosphere obliterated; all complex life destroyed, including all of us.

There. We’re taken care of; the evil we do cannot escape and infect other worlds, and yet the best of our species will survive. And eventually life would return, over a few thousand years, with the planet being left alone to recover, in God’s good time,  as they say.

So, go ahead—attack my agenda, but that would be mine if I ever had means to do it.

Which is impossible, so my only real agenda is just living free and being left alone, either by myself, with someone else, or in a small group.

Anywhat, it’s always good to challenge shit, and not to dismiss something in haste. Give it a chance, look into it, and then decide.

So, I dunno. Take what information you can, find allies (even if, like me and the fellows above, we don’t agree on everything), and for the love of all that’s green and good in the world, think carefully before joining groups.

As far as protest goes, well…

Let’s just say you’re taking your chances. I wouldn’t recommend it—protest is utterly pointless at this stage of the game. No change will be effected—the only potential outcome would be opening the eyes of people who do not know what’s coming and-or do not care.

As for signing petitions, no. For fuck sakes, no! You do know your name gets put on a list, right? You do know you’ll be treated as a “terrorist,” right? You do know that this system is all a fucking facade and nothing will result except the eventual incarceration of you and probably other members of your family?

Just don’t do it. Your kids are going need parents.

Anyway, be careful of groups. They are always the first thing infiltrated by the establishment. If the foxes have invited all you chickens into their little club to fight some common enemy, well, that’s how the devious operate, and if you remain in a suspiciously alert state of mind, you will be able to sniff them out. Keep your senses sharp, folks. It’s going to be tough fighting through all this rubbish, all these distractions; fighting each other; and fighting our own conditioning and mistrust to try to get involved somehow and fight for freedom before getting fucked up before the battle starts…when all the while we should have been fighting the real enemy, the engineers of our demise.

I really hope people start smartening up regarding this “peaceful protest” horseshit; this isn’t Vietnam. They don’t need our support, our votes, our permission; they don’t fucking care; in fact, they don’t need us any more at all. The hippy movement is dead; you’ve been brain-washed to angrily beg for shit, but all that’s all over.

It will not work!

Start stashing weapons and stop using your real names online.

It’s not “Wake up, people!”

(Waking up is not enough anyway. You can be “awake” with one eye shut, yunno?)

It’s Grow Up, People!

Only adults can reach solutions and take action; children merely cry, scream, and beg for help.

Stay healthy, folks.

“It’s become a dangerous country, Sir, when you cannot trust anyone any more. When you cannot tell the truth.”

—Jim Garrison.

Saw a post of something over on Mullet’s site—here’s the link to the text—that made me chuckle, and then I did something stupid. I started thinking about it, and here’s my apeshit reply below (yeah, crazy shit alert; don’t even bother reading it, seriously).


I’m impressed by how accurate that basically is (except that agriculture came first, then beer).

The original liberals were the gatherers; the women. The original conservatives were the hunters; the men. The conservatives were kneeling and praying before the hunt, and painting the struggles of life upon the walls of sacred caves (initiation caves). The liberals were carving stone statues of fat women, who they figured were divine figures of fertility; they were also carving the first tenants of the fertility cults to come.

(Of course, by the time the liberals were able to seize power and create the first city built around a temple, the conservatives had been subdued and were now doing all the stone carving; here is the birth of the Masons, and then Freemasons later. It was said that the Freemasons differed greatly in a few key ways, such as they got paid and had some rights.)

What it is not included in the above version: twenty thousand years ago, the liberals started naming everything and began to observe the constellations (the conservatives dug Orion, who they envisioned as a heavenly portrait of Sky Father, a figure out of the Great Mystery, the Creator, who they felt keenly during the long fall hunts; and they dug the North Star, that was about it), but, in true control-freak fashion, the liberals began making up stories about stuff to do with how the sky moved—soon they started erecting monolithic blocks of rock in certain spots, in certain arrangements, and then made claims of knowing the future.

The conservatives were more interested in the simpler things in life—music and an occasional mushroom vision with the shaman to gain insight into themselves and their place in the world. They had already mastered fire, and the bow, and saw no need for all the rock grinding and shiny-stone-seeking. It was thought among some conservatives that chasing game all over was pissing off some of the liberals, since their stone ritual crap required a stationary sort of lifestyle, and the liberals argued that they could plant more seeds and catch animals, fence them in, so you never have to chase them.

But the conservatives stood firm: they had to keep moving, keep after the herds, along side the lions and wolves. Besides, sitting in one spot too long—they knew too well—tended to exhaust too many resources too soon. It lead to starvation and death. It ended with great holes in the world. Plus, it was not honourable to cage a beast for meat, or for any reason; in the hunt, the game has a better chance of escape than the hunter does of feeding his tribe that day. They’d decided; they would not sit still anywhere for long. And the conservatives were respected.

Perhaps it was only a gesture of goodwill that the conservatives let the liberals make jewelry out of the mammoth tusks from their northern hunts (the conservatives, artists themselves, saw it more as a craft than art, but that was okay, it kept them busy), but after a while the liberals wanted more jewels.

It also leaves out the part where the liberals somehow end up suckering all the conservatives into doing their work on the farm, too. When the liberals convinced all the people that a great disaster was coming, and then it was confirmed (say, a comet slamming into a hill on the day it was predicted) by the elders of far away tribes, the people grew afraid and began to side with the liberals more and more.

Soon there was an agreement to enter into a semi-nomadic way of life; the liberals domesticated cats and dogs, and began planting much grain. Populations grew as never before.

Inevitably the liberals carved themselves a stone goddess and built temples (then stone towns near rivers) and surrounding farms,  eventually forcing the people to offer up their male sons as sacrifice to their goddess. (Astarte; Ishtar—Inanna, Dianna, Isis, etc—which is where the word, “Easter” comes from). Some boys were castrated for blood sacrifice; in some places they were thrown into the fire, and “Sign” was read from their screams and writhing; other sacrifices were also burnt offerings (wicker cages set alight with the males within).

This liberal empire spread from Arabia and Mesopotamia to Persia and India, then to Egypt and Greece, around the Black Sea; diluted versions reached the shores of Germania and Spain, North Africa, China and Japan. Later, strange versions spread back down into Africa, to the edge of Australia, and other versions reached Scandinavia and Russia, and then the British Islands. Some believe (and there is evidence that) it even reached Mesoamerica, where the Aztek (Olmec) liberals established an agricultural system of temple-centric city states, and continued the torture and sacrifice of the children and other captive Natives from the jungle.

At the heart of it all, in Asia Minor, the liberals grew rich and made a great Garden, and more and more the people worked on this Garden, taxed, and having to live in squalor. But the small ruling group of liberals grew arrogant and wanted more shiny stones; they held the secret knowledge, and began to see themselves as superior to these drones which they could order about the farms. Society grew decadent with excess and waste, and the conservatives suffered great poverty of spirit, and stranger and more violent rituals came about. And there were more sacrifices when droughts got bad.

The ruling class of liberals became inbred, trying to keep their royal line pure, and maniacs and human abominations slithered out of the human gene pool. They became more and more cruel, brutal, vicious; diseases sprang from them; and when they had all the power and wealth they craved, they entered into more and more extreme perversions, and extreme experiences. Obesity, hedonism, bestiality, and vice reigned among the aristocracy. They drank blood; they enjoyed raping children and listening to them scream, sob, and plead. This was the perverse, mutated and putrid form humanity had taken that is written about in a large collected work (see: Noah) to follow, same characters, same event, same result, different names, different messages.

And then the Flood changed everything. Entire towns were being wiped out, and the liberal oligarchy could not stop it; hell, they didn’t even know it was going to happen—and they were supposed to know; they held some “divine light of knowledge,” didn’t they? Weren’t they enlightened, illuminated?

The people started not to think so; the world seemed to be ending, and they lost faith. There was a great uprising. The people were told later that the gods were angry with the filthy, cruel, evil oligarchs and the flood was their punishment (one of the liberal oligarchs laments that she should have concerned herself more with living beings rather than riches and objects and pleasure). Later still, in a great book, the people would be told that the Deluge was the result of a wicked, sinful, greedy, evil-doing populace. Actually, both reasons were true.

Good thing the conservatives built the Ark and saved one town—when they resettled the Fertile Crescent later, they would start building large walled cities, to prevent any future flood from destroying their great works.

Around the time of the—last—Flood, 5600 BC, the conservatives took back religion and some degree of freedom (the world’s first civil rights movement) and entered into a covenant with the ruling liberal aristocracy, which was a matriarchy, all of which brought about the age of Kings (Sumer). Gilgamesh was the first; he sold out his conservative brothers to a large degree, but things had improved for a while. Nevertheless, the Kings that followed increasingly became cruel and violent, being swayed by the ever-growing court of liberals around them. Members of this court would grow into a shadow government.

By this time, resources had run out in Mesopotamia (over-farmed; devoid of trees; top soil gone due to pastoral herds eating roots everywhere for many centuries—and the Arabian desert was born), so the ruling liberals began using temple prostitutes (and beer) to draw in the sweaty, hairy, hunting conservatives from nearby woods, converting them into a soldier class, to protect the liberal King’s wealth and to be used as an armed force to conquer neighbouring tribes (and stealing their resources). They would tell their people that bad monsters lived there—demon creatures who must be destroyed—like what Sumeria first did to Lebanon (for timber, since Sumer had none), making slaves out of the vanquished. It was the invention of propaganda and set into motion a pattern of tyrannical, raptorial foreign policy that every nation since has copied (and Rome perfected).

Another condition of this covenant was marriage. It was still based upon husbandry (the domestication of wild animals—which is of course where the word “husband” comes from; old Norse hus = house + bondi = dwell, build, cultivate), but the conservatives were being treated a bit better than they had been before the Deluge, what with the third class status and their slum residences located away from their mates and offspring and all. Parts of this old covenant remain: the ring, a smaller symbol of the golden crown of ruling liberals, and the genuflection (kneeling, which is what commoners do in the presence of royalty, the old liberal elite) upon proposal of marriage.

The fashion of the era changed dramatically for conservatives: before the liberal invention of agriculture, they had long hair and beards, wore leather pants and shirts and coats, as well as furs; and after agriculture they were clean-shaven, perfumed, donning jewels if they were of high enough standing, and they all wore dresses like the liberal aristocracy had stipulated. (The lower in society, the lower the skirt; the priests and others wore the longest gowns. They still do to this day: see judges and the Pope.) It would not be until the early settlement of the Americas before conservatives started wearing pants again.

Some time during this, male cattle replaced male children in sacrifice (even though men were still being circumcised and made into eunuchs); this is why in many places the bull (or ram) is revered, and in India it’s actually held as sacred and not killed (yes, they will eat beef if someone else kills it; it was never “sacred cow;” it’s in fact “sacred bull”), which is common knowledge. Vegetarianism began not as any sort of “healthy lifestyle,” nor was it about eating meat at all; it was originally about what the gods/goddesses of the liberals of old were eating.

However, even though boys stopped getting their balls chopped off for Astarte, male sacrifice continued in a more subtle form: seasonal warfare.

And of course by the time of Jesus, with all the “I am the lamb” stuff, the “I am the sacrifice” stuff, well, this doomed the liberal cult of Astarte and her ilk. The next true conservative social movement began, and the practice of almost all forms of animal sacrifice faded away (although some forms of plant sacrifice remained—ever offer your sweetheart some flowers?—you’re carrying on an ancient ritual of offering life to the idols of the liberal aristocracy).

Male sacrifice crept back under the Catholic Church (once the Eastern Roman Empire absorbed the conservative movement of Jesus, the castrati was eventually formed: the practice of castration of young boys for the Church choirs), with no doubt much liberal infiltration to bring “Mary” (the pig goddess Astarte wearing a nun’s costume) back into observance.

Things started looking grim for the conservatives again, but then Martin Luther came along and another religious revolution took place—and the Protestants were born.

The conservatives did alright for a while, although the devious liberals were at it again. They had begun a secret society called the “Illuminati,” a much more organized and connected organization than the other types they’d tried before, and came up with a plan for overthrowing the conservatives and their pesky Elohim-type one-god stuff; lingering in the Pagan shadows, they had continued their religious rituals and practices, but now they were gaining new minions fleeing persecution from the out-of-control Catholic Church, which they had also infiltrated to a large extent.

After discovery in Bavaria and further persecution, plotting their revenge, they proceeded to infiltrate the Masonic organizations, then later the banks. After all, they had invented money as another tool to draw in wild, good-hearted and hard-partying conservatives out of their forested places and into the cities. And enslave them there doing something called “work,” which remains a sub-religion to this day, now more specialized as a “trade” or “career.”

And we all know the rest—things have come full circle: the conservatives are once more under the cloud of liberal tyranny, whose scientific collaborators have brought the entire planet within their grasp, and they are pressing hard and gaining ground fast as they implement their “New Secular Order.”

There. Just filled in some crucial gaps…okay, but his was funnier.

Show »

[Well, it’s time I finished clearing my chest (of these last bits of nasty phlegm) and be rid of these subjects once and for all.]

Part Two

The Cult Of ‘Love’ (continued)

In her book, The Polygamous Sex, Esther Vilar delves into the nearly taboo subject of love—that is, the subject of love as a state in which it exists between social mammals (and probably other types of life forms that care for offspring); the stronger caring for and protecting the weaker, as well as the mere act and drive of reproduction to continue the species.

I need post a big chunk of it here, because she nails it right on the head.

How is it possible that an experience every adult must have had at least once in his life, a phenomenon thoroughly explored by generations of psychoanalysts, the favorite age-old theme of writers, composers, artists, can still be the subject of so much misunderstanding?

What is love?


If we are going to speak of love, we must begin at the beginning: that we live and find ourselves surrounded by life must be based on certain principles. Where there is life, in other words, on this or any other planet, there must be some process that tends to create life out of dead matter. Now if we mean, by life, the general principle of change — what Darwin calls variation and selection — then death, or destruction, must be part of the process, or else we would quickly run out of the stuff upon which change subsists. A living being must, accordingly, fulfill at least three ‘basic principles’ of life:

sustain its own life (self-preservation)
pass on its own life to another organism before death, so that life can go on (reproduction)
preserve the life of its offspring until it becomes capable of taking care of itself (nurture of the young)

A human being’s life depends as much as any other upon these principles of self-preservation, reproduction, and nurture of its young. Without them it could not exist.

The instinct of self-preservation is asocial, in that it is concerned only with the self. Reproduction and nature, on the other hand, are social mechanisms. Reproduction — sweetened by the sex drive, perhaps because it is not a sufficiently powerful motive in its own right — cannot be accomplished without a partner. And the breeding or nurturing instinct is also directed outward, towards others.

Those others, whom we need to satisfy our social instincts, are — depending on which of these two drives they serve — our sex partners or our dependents, objects of our protection, protégés, wards, whichever.

Clearly these two social instincts are the biological basis of love, since their most intense and lasting manifestation — the attachment to a sex partner or to one’s own child — is love. To have a lover or a beloved is happiness. The lover seeks out the beloved for the satisfaction of his sexual needs as frequently as possible, and says, ‘I love you.’ When the relationship breaks up, he-she suffers pangs of ‘unrequited love.’ This condition lasts until a ‘new love object’ is found.

When the love object is one’s child, natural or adopted, one protects it. The protector will risk his life for his dependent, will want only the best for him-her, will assure him-her of his love. To lose the ‘child’ means great unhappiness. It means to have lost ‘the thing I loved most in all the world.’

No matter which we are referring to — dependent or sex partner — we use the same word for what we feel: love. And yet the same word designates two radically different kinds of bond. To arouse the protective instinct, the dependent must fulfill certain conditions greatly at variance with the conditions that make the sex partner attractive, and vice versa. The specific characteristics of the other person determine the nature of our biological response. Ultimately they determine the kind of love we shall feel for that person.

Ultimately, “love” cannot be possible for the protectees, only the protector.

(By the way, check out her book, The Polygamous Sex, sometime.)

The protector only feels it because he needs a reward for all his hard work (protecting and providing for a family). Praise does cause chemical reactions in the brain that result in a type of pleasure—and the absence of shame is a form of relief from pain—but neither of these would last for long.

Similar to the pleasure center of the brain making us “feel good” when we have sex—as a reward for procreating, even if we have no intention of multiplying—the protector and provider gets a headful of yummy cvhemicals to keep him doing what he’s doing. Essentially, he’s getting high.

There are all kinds of chemical (the synaptic connections within our brains) reactions going on, from the first wiff of one’s pheromones, to neurotransmitters and Dopamine, Endorphins, Serotonin, et cetera. It seems that men and women receive different chemical rewards for what they do.

For females, the chemical that keeps them involved is oxytocin.

In February, 2009, PBS did an article called…

Love Is a Chemical Reaction

Young, a researcher at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University in Atlanta, studies the neurobiology that underlies pair bonds — what nonscientists might call love.

In an essay in the journal Nature last month, he laid out evidence that scientists may soon be able to tie the emotion “love” to a biochemical chain of events, and might someday even be able to develop drugs that enhance social bonding — in much the same way that pharmaceuticals today can help regulate emotions like anxiety and depression.

But, Young says, it’s not a love potion. “The holy grail is a drug that might be able to enhance the social abilities of people with social disorders like autism.”

In his lab at Yerkes, Young studies rodents called prairie voles. Unlike 95 percent of mammals, prairie voles mate for life.

“They form a lifelong bond,” Young said. “They nest together, they raise a family together, they have another litter. So they have this really intense bond between them.”

In a series of studies, Young found that the hormones that produce that bond are the same ones that promote parent-child bonding in many other species.

For females, that hormone is oxytocin.

“We can take a prairie vole female, inject her with oxytocin, and she’ll bond with whatever male is around,” Young said.

I think the same thing occurs in human females, say, at a bar…after a few drinks, a toke, and a few moments of much laughter (which produces pleasurable sensations in the brain the same as any drug or mound of chocolate or sex act, just in slightly different ways and levels).

One concept that gets a lot of flak is hate. It is, evidently, “negative,” but can anyone prove that? If it leads to things that are negative, maybe I can see it then—but “love” leads to as much negativity, pain and “heart-ache.”

If “love” is just another drug, then what is “hate?” Something that makes you feel bad? If “love” is chocolate, then “hate” is nasty and strong whiskey…that does not get you drunk at all? Can you get high on hate? Motivated perhaps, like anger, but I see no evidence that hate can get you high. Perhaps through adrenaline levels, but that’d be it. It is hardly a high like morphine…

Well, whatever “hate” is, it is not the opposite of “love.”

The Value of Hate

No, I am not “pro-hate.” When I speak of “hate,” I’m not talking about racism, or the kind of popular notions of hate that suggest that it is a strong dislike for one group of something.

If I nearly drown as a child, I might a have a fear and strong dislike for being in the water—it doesn’t mean I’d hate all water. I’d still take showers or have a bath, and I’d still drink water…but I might sneer when gazing at the ocean.

If I am stung by wasps, I might grow to hate wasps. That “hate” is simply strong dislike based upon fear—fear of being hurt or injured, obviously stemming from a previous experience.

In that sense, this type of “hate” is helpful—due to it, I will avoid all waps and situations in which wasps may sting me again; thus, I am protecting myself from future injury by hating that which has caused me harm or pain.

Pain is, after all, just a simple mechanism the body employs to notify you of injury—the secondary feeling of anger is meant to motivate you to stop the pain and-or prevent it from happening again. “Hate” is therefore just an intense, extreme version of anger or mixture of anger and fear, though it appears to be a different and more complex species altogether. If anger is just a reaction to pain and fear, a motivating element to an organsim, causing it to act to preserve itself or others, then hate must be similar.

When I see a logging crew cutting down a forest, I do feel hate—not at the loggers…I understand their ignorance and denial regarding what they think they’re doing; they feel they need money, and they do it for a pay check. No logger goes off in the woods in his spare time to cut down trees for no reason and no currency. He only does it for a bit of money. So I can’t blame and hate him for trying to make his living, as misguided and destructive as I reckon it is. He is merely a tool being used by a larger, more sinister beast.

No, I hate the corporation that ultimately profits and cares not in the slightest about the carnage and its after-effects; and I hate the governments that authorize the corporation to castrate Nature for only greed, since governments profit as well; and, finally, I hate the greed, since that is the underlying motivation for all this destruction for profit.

To me, it is murder—wrongful killing—and unnecessary; the lumber is not needed. There is enough wood in the world right now that we never need to log again if we use and reuse what’s lying around. Moreso, there are other building materials we can utilize that are not as destructive to world ecosystems and devastating to the planet in general.

It is no different than killing a baby to sell its body parts to someone, and I would hate those who took part in this murder, and the greed behind it.

So? Does this hate have value?

Well, that depends—probably not so much on its own, as it is, but if it leads to constructive, positive, or destructive (to the evil forces at work that seek to wipe out Nature in order to get richer), then of course, yes, it does have value.

If, due to this hate, I join a radical group that interrupts the activities of loggers, saving several acres of frontier forest somewhere, and-or help fight evil, raptorial corporations who restlessly and ruthlessly exploit the world’s “natural resources,” then of course hate has value.

(What something does or does not do is the only determining factor as to whether a thing is “good” or “bad.” Not many things are “good” or “bad” simply as they are, doing nothing… As it has been argued—correctly—a gun is not “bad.” According to our laws and general social norms, of course, killing someone with that gun, not defending oneself or others, is “bad.”)

“Hate” gets a bad rep, and is consequently underappreciated as a strong motivating force.

As much as “love” exists as a chemical reward for procreation and the rearing of offspring, “hate” exists for a reason.

It has a function. It is also just as necessary therefore.

In conclusion, “love,” in my opinion, is merely another form of control and another species of slavery—like an addiction. Being “enslaved by a drug” is basically no different than being enslaved by a mate; in which you “miss” the mate when they’re gone, in which you keep returning to the mate because of the “feelings” involved, even if you don’t particularly “like” the person (on an intellectual level or for whatever reason).

At the heart of any cult is a series of chemical reactions in the brain that keep it all going; it’s a slave’s reward for remaining a slave…

But at any rate, I am wrapping up this subject, since this is the perfect theme and segway into…

Part Three


Happiness is not a cult. It is not a religion, although those who “believe” in it can behave very much like religious zealots. It is simply a drug. A state of being high.

Last year I spent months in treatment for drug addiction, and I learned a lot. One of things I learned—on my own—was that those wanting you to get along in your life free of drugs essentially encourage you to replace your chemical dependency with another, more ‘natural’ one. The literature I read seemed to want me to do things to produce the necessary chemical reactions rather than applying them myself, directly. So: manipulating events and circumstances (and in some cases, people) so that I can “get high” without drugs or alcohol.

“Happiness” was brought up a lot. But I’m never been a believer in happiness; like any drug encounter, there are predictable patterns, same as happiness. In short, what goes up must come down.

In long, the drugged out feeling of joy (euphoria) is pleasurable of course, but without exception it is followed by a crash. What is a “crash?” Picture an airplane spiralling towards the earth and hitting the ground.

(The “crash” of “happiness” is known well as “unhappiness.”)

Better yet, if you’re not a visual person and not a drug user, go buy the biggest slurpie/slushie you can find, and drink it all. You’ll be buzzed for a while…then, eventually, you will crash. Your ‘mood’ will plummet, your energy level will drop, among other slightly less noticeable effects.

(Apparently, glucose in the blood stream causes the pancreas to release insulin, which is a hormone helping the body’s cells to absorb sugar from the blood. Tryptophan (is the reason you get sleepy after eating too much turkey, and) is produced during the absorption, and it’s transformed into serotonin. And we all know what this it. Too much sugar and you’ll get a “happy rush,” followed by the sugar low or crash, which seems to be the onset of hypoglycemia. And this will cause you to be tired, lacking energy, and it will depress your mood.)

But everyone knows what such a crash is like. Everyone has experienced a high (the stimulation of the pleasure center of the brain by whatever factor), which we call “happiness,” followed—sooner or later—by the rapid downward slope of this feeling.

Thus I began to view that which I was reading as…inhernetly flawed. Or at least simply not completely honest. What? The Government wasn’t being truthful?

Well, from a governmental perspective, no, they don’t want you to use drugs—you can drink, as long as it isn’t too much; consumers are better when they do not have brain damage and are thus unable to work and pay taxes and bills; plus there are asocial side effects of too much alcohol, not to mention a burden on the health care system—since they do not profit from that. They want you to be “high on life.” Which means “high on a lifestyle.” Very few of the highs they wish you to experience come from things that do not make someone somewhere some amount of money…

So, if you’re feeling good due to an object (a new car!—a chocolate bar!—the latest iPhone!), social situation (fun time with friends at a movie!—sex with your lucky lady!), or series of events (water-skiing, rollercoaster ride, et cetera), chances are that someone is profitting from your “happiness.”

What? How can someone be profitting from having sex with Cupcake? Well, what things need to be in place before that happens? Unless you’re a smelly, hairy hippy (and so is she), start naming all the products you buy each month—your clothes, shaving devices, stinking liquid and deodorants and hair-care stuff, including haricuts, skin care products, from showering gel to nail clippers. And there’s more, but that’s just you.

What about your apartment, or house? What’s in it that was not there when you were single and playing World of Warcraft alone? What’s changed since you got a girlfriend? What did you buy to make yourself and your dwelling appealing or just acceptable?

Many men like to maintain the illusion that nothing changes when they get a chick, for a while, or that they don’t take great care and exert massive effort in trying to get a girlfriend in the first place, but the fact is that almost all of them spend a lot more money—because chances of getting laid only improve with the material state of him, his appearance, his grooming and hygiene, and the type and value-status of his automobile, and (very important) the type and status of his nest (where he lives).

In many cases his clothes and shoes, for example, need a vast upgrade to be acceptable to the female. And I’m not even getting into money spent on flowers and others gifts—the bribes they demand—or money soent on dates, dinners, occasions, movies, trips, and all the gas burned taking her here and there for this and other stuff…

Mind you, I can’t blame women for this wanton materialism, shallowness, and greed…it’s just the way they are. Remember, women account for 80% of every material thing purchased on this planet. Which means the shelf space in stores are devoted much more to women—an 8 to 2 ratio with men—because 8 out of every 10 objects bought in the world are purchased by women or for women.

Nine-hundred-and-ninety-nine times out of a thousand, he’s just thinking of getting some pussy—but she’s thinking of a lot more, and everything about him (more than what he does: what he has or can get (for her)) is on her mind. He’s being measured and gauged as a provider as well as a protector. He’ll go off with his friends and maybe tell them what a nice ass she has, but she’ll go off with her friends and discuss if he’s going to be making enough money in a few years to support a family and buy a house, and an SUV.

Anywhat, it’s a no-brainer that guys wanting to get laid will spend a truckoad of money if they need to, and that couples spend a lot more money than singles who are unattached to anyone. Married folks spend the most money—this is (one reason) why large corporations have often been so overtly conversative—yet I think this has been changing over the last little while.

There are not many things you can do (that make you feel good) that do not profit somebody.

they appeared to me grave and almost sad even in their pleasures

“In America I saw the freest and most enlightened men placed in the happiest condition that exists in the world; it seemed to me that a sort of cloud habitually covered their features; they appeared to me grave and almost sad even in their pleasures.”

–Alexis de Tocqueville, from Democracy In America.

I read that book in my early twenties. Perhaps it influenced me more than I was ever aware. That’s probably a good thing—the book was a masterpiece.

It is a strange thing to see with what sort of feverish ardor Americans pursue well-being and how they show themselves constantly tormented by a vague fear of not having chosen the shortest route that can lead to it.

The inhabitant of the United States attaches himself to the goods of this world as if he were assured of not dying, and he rushes so precipitately to grasp those that pass within his reach that one would say he fears at each instant he will cease to live before he has enjoyed them. He grasps them all but without clutching them, and he soon allows them to escape from his hands so as to run after new enjoyments.

In the United States, a man carefully builds a dwelling in which to pass his declining years, and he sells it while the roof is being laid; he plants a garden and he rents it out just as he was going to taste its fruits; he clears a field and he leaves to others the care of harvesting its crops. He embraces a profession and quits it. He settles in a place from which he departs soon after so as to take his changing desires elsewhere. Should his private affairs give him some respite, he immediately plunges into the whirlwind of politics. And when toward the end of a year filled with work some leisure still remains to him, he carries his restive curiosity here and there within the vast limits of the United States. He will thus go five hundred leagues in a few days in order better to distract himself from his happiness.

This was written in the early 1800s. Savagely amazing.

Death finally comes, and it stops him before he has grown weary of this useless pursuit of a complete felicity that always flees from him.

One is at first astonished to contemplate the singular agitation displayed by so many happy men in the very midst of their abundance. This spectacle is, however, as old as the world; what is new is to see a whole people show it.

The taste for material enjoyments must be considered as the first source of this secret restiveness revealed in the actions of Americans and of the inconstancy of which they give daily examples.

He who has confined his heart solely to the search for the goods of this world is always in a hurry, for he has only a limited time to find them, take hold of them, and enjoy them. His remembrance of the brevity of life constantly spurs him. In addition to the goods that he possesses, at each instant he imagines a thousand others that death will prevent him from enjoying if he does not hasten. This thought fills him with troubles, fears, and regrets, and keeps his soul in a sort of unceasing trepidation that brings him to change his designs and his place at every moment.

Since his observations, it does not seem that much has changed—except that perhaps it is so much worse.

One last big quote…

If a social state in which law or custom no longer keeps anyone in his place is joined to the taste for material well-being, this too greatly excites further restiveness of spirit: one will then see men change course continuously for fear of missing the shortest road that would lead them to happiness.

Besides, it is easy to conceive that if men who passionately search for material enjoyments desire keenly, they will be easily discouraged; the final object being to enjoy, the means of arriving at it must be prompt and easy, without which the trouble of acquiring the enjoyment would surpass the enjoyment. Most souls are, therefore, at once ardent and soft, violent and enervated. Often one dreads death less than continuing efforts toward the same goal.

Equality leads men by a still more direct path to several of the effects that I have just described.

When all the prerogatives of birth and fortune are destroyed, when all professions are open to all, and when one can reach the summit of each of them by oneself, an immense and easy course seems to open before the ambition of men, and they willingly fancy that they have been called to great destinies. But that is an erroneous view corrected by experience every day. The same equality that permits each citizen to conceive vast hopes renders all citizens individually weak. It limits their strength in all regards at the same time that it permits their desires to expand.

Not only are they impotent by themselves, but at each step they find immense obstacles that they had not at first perceived.

They have destroyed the annoying privileges of some of those like them; they come up against the competition of all. The barrier has changed form rather than place. When men are nearly alike and follow the same route, it is difficult indeed for any one of them to advance quickly and to penetrate the uniform crowd that surrounds him and presses against him.

The constant opposition reigning between the instincts that equality gives birth to and the means that it furnishes to satisfy them is tormenting and fatiguing to souls.

One can conceive of men having arrived at a certain degree of freedom that satisfies them entirely. They then enjoy their independence without restiveness and without ardor. But men will never found an equality that is enough for them.

Whatever a people’s efforts, it will not succeed in making conditions perfectly equal within itself; and if it had the misfortune to reach this absolute and complete leveling, the inequality of intellects would still remain, which, coming directly from God, will always escape the laws.

However democratic the social state and political constitution of a people may be, one can therefore count on the fact that each of its citizens will always perceive near to him several positions in which he is dominated, and one can foresee that he will obstinately keep looking at this side alone. When inequality is the common law of a society, the strongest inequalities do not strike the eye; when everything is nearly on a level, the least of them wound it. That is why the desire for equality always becomes more insatiable as equality is greater.

In democratic peoples, men easily obtain a certain equality; they cannot attain the equality they desire. It retreats before them daily but without ever evading their regard, and, when it withdraws, it attracts them in pursuit. They constantly believe they are going to seize it, and it constantly escapes their grasp. They see it from near enough to know its charms, they do not approach it close enough to enjoy it, and they die before having fully savored its sweetness.

It is to these causes that one must attribute the singular melancholy that the inhabitants of democratic lands often display amid their abundance, and the disgust with life that sometimes seizes them in the midst of an easy and tranquil existence.

In France one complains that the number of suicides is increasing; in America suicide is rare, but one is sure that madness is more common than everywhere else.

Those are different symptoms of the same malady.

Americans do not kill themselves, however agitated they may be, because religion forbids them from doing so, and because materialism so to speak does not exist among them, although the passion for material well-being is general.

Their will resists, but often their reason gives way.

In democratic times, enjoyment is keener than in aristocratic centuries, and above all the number of those who taste it is infinitely greater; but on the other hand, one must recognize that hopes and desires are more often disappointed, souls more aroused and more restive, and cares more burning.

Tocqueville was especially boggled by this (North) American concept: “the pursuit of happiness.”

He saw that the people here, just like today, engaged in the futile striving for prosperity, another name for which is “happiness.”

Forgive the long quotes, but this is another dimension of the concept of “happiness” beyond pure chemical joy.

When someone asks you, “Are you happy?” the person is not interested in knowing how many opiates are flooding your brain, such as what happens when “fun” is encountered; the person is more interested, for whatever reason, in your general station in life and how you feel about your lifestyle overall. Perhaps it is asked so that the asker can gain some insight into his-or-her own level of contentment within his-or-her own lifestyle. Perhaps the asker actually only desires to talk about his-or-her own lifestyle…which will create more chemical reactions in his-or-her brain.

(Often people will ask a question not for want of any answer but rather for an opportunity to speak about themselves.)

I think Tocqueville understood that “happiness”—a state of contentment with one’s life, in general—can only occur when it arrives…meaning that pursuing it, chasing it, gathering material goods to facilitate its appearance…is ultimately impossible.

But I would never use this silly, simplistic and childish word to describe something so elusive and so profound as a general state of feeling meaning in one’s life.

I would use “purpose.” The “sense” of accomplishment and satisfaction in doing what you do is not a chemical reaction…it is not physical, not physiological, not material at all. It comes from somewhere deeper. I hesitate to say “spiritual,” yet what other word works? Intangible, profound, deep, and immaterial. You pick the word then.

Whatever it’s called, true contentment is something not many of us have actually witnessed. We have heard rumours of it among Tibetan monks or whoever living in a hermitage on top of a mountain or wherever, but it’s all vague and tangled up in such lofty and impossible religious terms such as “enlightenment” and we don’t understand it. And we don’t really want to—it’s too hard and complicated and we wouldn’t want to bother even if we understood a fraction of it. We don’t see it, we don’t experience it, we don’t know what it means. There are no examples around for us to run into. It’s a myth. All we know is what the TV and the Internet tells us—material this and tasty that, and whatever’s “hot” and sexy for the other. It’s a tidal wave of bullshit that smashes right into the Ego, and the Ego loves it and wants more. So that’s what we do: serve the Ego.

And so we go back to our old habits, and go back to work, and set up another date with “Jennifer,” and go to another movie, and pull out our wallets, hoping to purchase another fleeting, barely satisfying feeling—“they appeared to me grave and almost sad even in their pleasures.” And we feel empty afterwards, and there is a pain somewhere, when we begin to crash.

A state of non-happiness is obviously the answer to the horrible cycle of the drug addict. But how possible it is to refrain from feeling good in any way? Who would even want to try?

Chasing The Dragon

It is not possible—chemical reactions exist for a reason, they are inherent and cannot be controlled or removed and should not be.

The point is that gearing your life towards obtaining some “state of happiness” is exactly the same as what is called, “chasing the dragon.”

The first high you receive from your brain, however it’s achieved, is the best and can never be repeated or duplicated—this is the curse of “the first time.” The first drug, the first set of parted thighs and the feeling involved with all of that experience, the first of anything that produce pleasure—it’s all the same action in your head. It’s the first high.

And the striving to regain that feeling is what they call chasing the dragon—because dragons do not exist and you cannot catch the tail of something that does not exist. You run after an illusion, a mirage, and never, ever, reach it.

The first high is what happens in your brain—I forget all the technical jargon, but essentially it just means that your brain is altered after that high, and no other high will feel the same.

In Vancouver, I witnessed crackheads chasing the dragon—not to get the first high (ever); but the first high of the day. Like I probably said (or will say), time away from the drug seems to reset the brain a little bit. Eight hours’ sleep and by early evening, the crackhead can get a decent high, the first one of the day. The next one is not so good, and it’s really all downhill after that. But he tries and keeps trying, until he’s out of crack and crawling on the floor looking for the fabled white lump that must have fallen somewhere…

(Now, I’ve never tried crack; I’ve only cocained it up for a few months as a youth, and have observed crackheads now and then. So, I don’t pretend to be an expert here. Yet I have been addicted to codeine for 18 years, and I do know a few things for sure.)

The more you get high, the more your brain changes. You also build up tolerances and it takes more and more to feel as you once did.

Ever have a lot of sex? I have. More than once a day, every day? Same thing…it gets boring, the feelings get dulled. More will not help. All that will help is staying sex-free for a while. Some people try getting into kinky stuff; however, it is a form of extremism that ultimately does not work. You can only get so extreme, then what? Boredom is back. Stopping is the only answer…but addicts have trouble stopping.

Ever snort a lot of coke? I have. After a while, your tolerance level increases, and it takes more and more white powder to get you high. All that can restore some of that glorious high you used to feel is to quit it for a while.

Ever smoke a lot of weed? I have. You will build up a tolerance. I smoked so much last year that I needed a few bong-hoots just to achieve the high I had gotten from a tiny bong-hoot. I needed two joints, chain-smoked, to achieve the same high I got from half a joint. The only thing that helps is to lay off weed for a month or, better, two or three.

Your brain chemistry begins to return to normal. The same thing actually occurs with drugs that are legal—including anti-depressants. You become a pharmaceutical junkie, and you brain gets re-wired.

Such is “happiness.”

Some, including myself, no longer seek these chemical reactions, no longer manipulate circumstances or people, no longer seek out the events that get us high, and of course no longer directly cause these chemical reactions (using drugs).

When these chemical reactions happen, they happen. Enjoy them, but let them leave and learn to not miss them (withdrawal). It requires ego-work, since the ego is all about what feels good, especially material goods that bring about chemical reactions in the brain.

Like the feelings, as waves from the sea, that come and go; they don’t need to be named and studied. Or talked about. Feel them, unidentified and mysterious, and enjoy them, no matter what they are, and let them go. The “bad” ones will go away on their own; they require no management or “help”—if they rarely leave, then it’s your life that probably needs a radical alteration, since something is obviously not right. And 99% of the time it has to do with your physical state, trying to adapt to your environment, or the deeper sense of purpose and meaning to your entire life in that environment.

We live with a lot of contradictions and falsehoods—and one of the biggest is that your environment is fine…the problem is you. The truth is the environment is synthetic, abnormal, and polluted and diseased and utterly toxic to your soul or “spirit.” It is a poison cage wtih pretty decorations and lots of toys. Whatever troubles you are having will almost always be due to where you are and what you are doing.

But that’s just my opinion. So, carry on…

And the “good” feelings? When they go, don’t mourn their passing. They’ll be back.

That is the trick. Seek nothing. What comes to you will come to you. Sometimes you need to be quite patient, but it always comes. Like I learned regarding weather: do not wish or hope for a certain type of weather, simply be patient, and endure what’s there, and whatever you want will eventually arrive. In its own good time. Your ego will hate this—and that’s a good thing. What your ego hates is good for you and your overall state of health.

Your ego is just the infant in you that never grew up or went away; it is the selfish, self-preserving, self-absorbed, self-serving, want-need confusing, greedy “me! me! I want! gimme-gimme!” little brat within your mind. It wants stuff, and when you get stuff, it wants more stuff. New stuff. Stuff like that other kids has… And everything it believes is yours. Like an infant—it’s all mine, mine, mine, and so I stuff it all into my mouth.

Surrendering your ego is denying your ego, and it is a form of suffering. Hence the wise saying: when you’re hurting inside, the only thing in there that’s in pain is your ego.

Once your ego has been obliterated, there is no more internal pain, no “heartache,” no misery, no agony of the soul. You will even stop “missing” things and people to a large extent. And when you lose something, there might be a momentary feeling, but it fades quickly and “oh well” will be the signal to move on and let it go.

Ego loves being attached to objects—denying it that means reducing the amount of objects (material goods) you possess, and overall not being preoccupied with them. Loss is often reported to be a defining moment in adulthood, and loss is about ridding us of attachments or having them stripped from us. Ego loves tasty food that’s bad for you—and it loves getting flattered and praised and complimented. Ego loves attention. Ego loves comfort and security, and warm fuzzy faces smiling in a friendly (accepting, inviting) way.

I think the ego is the worst enemy a human being can have or will ever have. Long ago, we were initiated and moved into an adult world as hunter-gatherers, a world that did not revolve around that which feeds the ego but rather that which starves the ego—the big baby within. The big baby wants a plump tit to suck on and wants to be covered in soft blankets, stroked and soothed, and wants to just feel good…and it screams when anything interrupts its hedonistic lifestyle…growing up means getting along in the world without a pathological need for comfort, security, pleasure, things that taste yummy, things that makes us feel good. Growing up means battling our egos and giving up on the shallow, hopeless pursuit of fun and happiness. It is the stuff of infants.

Seeking out things to make us feel good = feeding the ego = the commencement of addiction, not adulthood. Pride is ego; self-esteem is ego.

We are memetically infused with bullshit that does not profit us in terms of our health and sanity, our minds and souls; it all profits others, but we have been conditioned through memes to believe anything they tell us—and of course judge and dismiss shit like what I’m saying, or what many others have talked about…

(Yes, I’m quite aware maybe a handful of people on the planet will read this and not think it’s bullshit, either because they already knew it or because they’re minds are more open and less infected with memes. But that’s okay. The truth is frequently unpopular and hard to accept.)

I think we are still children. What once happened to make us into adult beings has been severed somewhere back among the ages, and now we’re simply large brats, oversized infants, pretending as best we can to be ‘grown-ups,’ while the powers that be, the evil rulers and the rich custodians of all systems, laugh at us and make a killing from our blind misery and endless labour.

But that’s just me. Back to the subject before I end this…

People often comment that “good things” come to those who wait. It’s true. They always tend to say that they get something awesome when they’re not looking for it. And that is the point, that’s it in a nutshell.

I suppose, it takes, in addition to patience, a bit of faith; some belief that all will work out, be in balance, and that forcing it won’t work. Trying to control it won’t work—trying to control how you feel is how addiction begins.

Hence, surrender your ego.