White Guilt

White Guilt, i.e. people of European background feeling shame for the atrocities and oppression their ancestors have committed on other races, is just a modernized form of feeling of racial superiority. “White people” who are trying to be very politically correct, not to offend people of other races based on a shallow understand of history subconsciously believe they are somehow superior to other race, and feel ashamed for that. Therefore they are trying to apologize for the misbegotten fact that they are better than others. White Guilt is simply an upgraded and softer, yet more insidious, version of White Man’s burden. After all, Europe based “white” man’s culture has conquered almost the whole world. It has “proven” itself to be superior.

I do not believe this sentiment in “white” people is in any way a racial thing, that they are somehow racially inclined to feel superior. Rather I’d say it is a cultural thing. Probably partially due to the influence of the Illuminati bloodlines. The idea of the “white” race as somehow unified entity is a construct. Being a Finn I’m “white”, but I do not feel ethnically connected to central Europeans just because we look racially more alike compared to other races, does not mean there is some deeper connection. Culturally we are part of the Greco-Roman philosophical tradition and Christian tradition, like all of Europe. However, that is something external, and also a forced connection to Europe. Internally we are a separate ethnicity. To know how the Spanish feel about the English for example, you really have to ask them. This idea of Europe as a homogeneous entity, of being ethnically European is not real in any organic sense. It is a forced idea, a construct. A lot like the idea of the European Union.

The connection between all Western people is, however, the imperialism and machinic destruction of anything natural that we have been willingly enslaved to. Even today few Westerners fail to see the folly of all of Western civilization. Individual ethnic groups within Europe, such as Germans, English or French (even though they might be divided to smaller groups) are more or less natural entities. However, all the individual groups have been enslaves by the Western culture which is at the end of the day nothing more than a machine set to devour all that is beautiful and natural. Yet only a minority of us see it. People may recognize that imperialism that took place over a hundred years ago was wrong, but they do not recognize the neo-imperialism that takes place under the guise of “free-trade” or “humanitarian wars”, or the Orwellian oppression in our own countries. So instead of having White Guilt, which is actually just a for of racism (even though I hate to use the word, as it is over-used for various minor issues), Westerners should have Western Awareness; being born into this demonic machine should make us recognize the unfortunate fact, rectify the sins of our ancestors and make sure we do not follow them in aiding the machine.

This collaboration of “Europeans” with this machine is not out of any inherent evil in “Europeans”, rather I’d say it is a kind of childish trust. Living in fantasy instead of reality. A child abused by his parents who flees reality into his imagination.


Cause of Anti-Semitism

We in the Western world have been conditioned by the media to accept Jews as somehow different from the rest. It’s worse to kill and hate Jews than it is of other people. Moreover we have been fed lies about the Holohoax and the right of Jews to inhabit Palestine. I’m Finnish and I’ve never met a Finnish Jew. There are some, there are a few Finnish celebrities who are Jewish, and unfortunately they enforce the negative stereotypes. When I was a kid I didn’t really know what Jews are nor cared about, yet through television I had been taught to believe they are somehow different. Unconsciously I accepted that. Then I accepted it’s bad to kill and oppress them, since it makes sense it’s bad to do that to anyone. However later I learned many of the things I had been told about Jews were wrong, and that many bad people in the world are, at least seemingly, Jewish, and use that to shield themselves from criticism. That made me hate Jews.

That is how it is done. Media tells you Jews are different. They tell you Jews are either better than you, or somehow more delicate. Like unicorns and fairies playing in the meadow. They couldn’t do harm. Unfortunately they are people too, and can do good and bad. Going through the experience of disillusionment you realize the humanity of Jews, including the fact that Judaism is used as an excuse to commit many evil acts, yet somehow the feeling of Jews being different, indoctrinated into you by the media, lingers inside of you. After all, now you see the evil committed by Jews, or under the guise of Judaism, and anything Jewish shines like a beacon in the night. You focus on it because you have been taught to focus on the Jews. It is the Zionist media that is the originator of most Anti-Semitism in the world. Both two definitions of it; hatred of Jews, and criticizing Zionism.

I already wrote about this previously, but I’m doing so again after watching Alex Jones trying to evade the “Jewish question” on his show after a caller told him how Jews might join the effort against the NWO if it was pointed out to them how Judaism is used for evil. Jones got very defensive about the issue and babbled something about how the Aztecs and Chinese were able to commit evil massacres even without the presence of Jews. I’m not saying Jones is a total shill or anything, I don’t think so even if half the world does, but I don’t trust him either. I merely disliked his way of evading the topic. Whether he was doing merely out of “civility”, i.e. not talking about too controversial topics, or due to political or financial reasons, I don’t know. Unfortunately Jews are a multifaceted issue in conspiracy theories. A very complicated issue, which should be tackled head on, and not pussyfoot around it because of political correctness.

Negative Space

Sometimes you come across quotes that manage to encapsulate something very profound expressed in a practical way. I discovered one yesterday when watching Truther Girls’ videos on Youtube. Sonya, I believe is her name, was pointing out the fallacy of some guy’s accusations that many celebrities were played by actors. The same guy had accused her of being Sarah Palin… Sonya said she knows how to draw portraits and is therefore adept at spotting differences in facial features. She says the following:

“When most people look at a face, their brain kind of interferes with their ability to see what’s really there. You have a kind of dictionary of symbols in your mind. You reduce everything to symbols. So if I ask you to draw and eye, you would probably come up with something like this [she draws a crude eye]. And if I asked you to draw a hand, you might come up with something like this [draws a crude hand]. When you learn to draw from observation, what you learn to look at are the negative spaces. Your brain hasn’t developed any symbols for the spaces around objects; the negative spaces. So it’s easier for it to see them as they really are. It’s the negative space that will tell you how something truly looks. That will tell you what it’s shape really is.”

I really suck at drawing, so her advice, even though pretty good, wouldn’t help me. However I think that is what we conspiracy nuts do when we see conspiracies and hidden influences that the public has no idea of. We look at the negative space. We see when something is amiss, or rather something protruding from the background that shouldn’t be there. Being able to do this requires some experience or natural tendency to look at the thing that isn’t there. The “sheeple” don’t look at the negative space, as they have no training in it. Furthermore they’ve been told by society not to do so. Instead they look at the things they see. Looking at news stories, for example, if you rely on the main stream media to give you an intelligent and accurate description of events, you wont even come close to truth. They expect people to use their Dictionary of Symbols to fill in the blanks. Media feeds you certain symbols and then does all it can to enforce them into your psyche. Let’s say there is some sort of false flag, or “unfortunate tragedy”. The media feeds you contradictory information. To anyone viewing the subject objectively, the media and the government can be seen to be dishonest. However the public believing in symbols like “the government is good” or “the media doesn’t lie” they are unable to understand what happened in a tragedy, such as Sandy Hook. Therefore they blindly obey the government, because they agree that it was terrible and something must be done, yet they are unable to muster one coherent thought on what actually happened. They live in a world of symbols unable to see things as they really look.

The way to break out of this prison of seeing only symbols, somewhat contradictorily, is to stop thinking. If your frame of reference on reality is completely skewed, using said frame to try to make sense of things will only make it worse. Therefore, one should stop thinking, and start perceiving. Perception starts always with what isn’t there. If I want to look at a pretty girl there has to be empty space between us. I cannot see her through a concrete wall.

I may have mentioned a quite from Carlos Castaneda previously, where Don Juan says something like look at the shadows objects leave, not the objects themselves. That’s a another way of putting it.

The video:

It’s all a Conspiracy!

Coincidence theorists mock my kind by saying we take isolated incidents and find connections between them when there is none. Fair enough. I can play that game too. Let’s take a look at the nutty conspiracies “normal” people believe in.

They believe it actually matters who you vote for in an election. Every few years you go to vote, choose a guy or a gal to give your vote, and then maybe they get elected. The person you vote for is supposed to make your life better somehow. I don’t see any connection with ticking a box or pushing a button in a booth to making a difference in your life. First of all, I don’t see the connection with voting and who gets elected. Assuming the elections are fair in the first place, one vote does not matter! It makes no difference at all if I vote in an election or not. Yet some people get upset when I say I didn’t vote, and claim I have no right to complain if the government is bad. One vote to the right, left or nowhere makes no difference. Secondly, even if it did, it still doesn’t matter since whoever gets wins the election does the same decisions anyway. I also don’t see how they are supposed to represent the people. I see no ideological, emotional or intellectual connection between the government and the people. All I see, if someone gets into office, be it president or an MP, they get a fat paycheck and become a celebrity so they can act like they’re important for a while. I don’t see anything relevant in this dog  and pony show of politics, if you are interested in things like freedom or independence. I think you have more power in voting for your favourite pop idol on a TV-show. Then you’d at least have some chance in affecting whose annoying songs you have to hear on the radio for the next two years.

People seem to believe there is some connection in working hard in their job and “making it big”. I don’t see the connection. I just see people wasting their time doing a job that serves little purpose and most people hate doing anyway. There might be some people who have worked hard and earned lots of money, but that’s just a coincidence. Only nut jobs believe there is an actual connection.

I don’t see a connection with social institutions and the abstract concepts they claim to espouse. I don’t see a connection with churches and spirituality or God, no connection with charities and helping the destitute, no role for schools and universities in spreading wisdom, no connection with the justice system and justice, no connection with corporations and free enterprise, no connection with the medical establishment and health, and certainly no connection with political institutions and freedom. Not to forget love and marriage (go together like horse and carriage).

Ordinary people live in their delusions. They have different activities they do and various concepts they claim to believe, yet very little connection between any of them. They are like a madman who sees ball of yarn, a mouse, safety pin and a man in white coat. He manufactures a complex fairy tale in his head about their significance, when in fact they are merely random objects the person happened to lay his eyes on.

Very few things the “sheeple” interact with and believe in have any connection. I challenge you to prove me wrong. Hunger and food is… somewhat connected, but you might argue most of what they eat isn’t food. Entertainment and being entertained has probably a connection for the majority, although I find most of the main stream stuff boring at best. The notion that a government cares about what is good for people is a ludicrous, and scary, conspiracy theory. As if the politicians conspired together to make your life better? Hah! Same goes for multinational corporations making money, which in turn helps the economy, and supposedly that aids the people in some way. A nutty conspiracy theory.


As I child I was presented with two explanations for the origin of life and the human race: Evolution and Creationism. I quite happily chose Evolution, since it made at least some sense, and I hated everything related to Christianity. On a quick glance Evolution seems reasonable, not a bad idea really. It’s when you try to understand what the concept actually is and what it claims about reality you get into problems.

In my early- to mid-twenties my first proper doubts about Evolution began. I saw a nature documentary on TV. In it were insects that looked like sticks, and another species of bugs that looked like bird shit. Both apparently had this look in order to protect them from predators. I couldn’t understand how such abilities could have developed randomly. It seemed quite deliberate to me. It even got me trying to develop my own theory I’d later call Purposeful Design. That was before I had heard of Intelligent Design. However, I sort of dropped my theory, partially because of Intelligent Design. If the Christian Right was having similar ideas as me, I must have been wrong.

The first problem I have with both Evolution and Intelligent Design is their name. I’m a language student first and foremost, not certainly a biologist nor an ontologist. The term Evolution has the innate assumption that biological lifeforms change over time for the better. Supposedly even Darwin didn’t like the term Evolution, he preferred Descent with Modification, i.e. lifeforms descend from their parents, but the new lifeforms are modified in some way. Even the word evolution is wrong for unconscious random processes that main stream science claims is behind everything natural. For the same reason I dislike the term Intelligent Design, as intelligent, or having intelligence, is usually regarded as something very positive and admirable. Both terms are oozing with values of those who support them. Had Evolution been called Descent with Modification, and had it merely been stated that lifeforms tend to develop from simple to more complex ones, I’d have no problem with it. However if it is claimed lifeforms evolve from simple to complex. One might say the the word “develop” also contains inherent value judgments, but I don’t think so.

I don’t know much about biology, so I cannot say much about the details of it, however the influence of Evolution can be seen almost everywhere in modern Western society. Everything is assumed to evolve. Be it societies (from tribal to monarchy to democracy), technology (which in a sense can be said to have evolved), or even values and ideas (superstition and religion has “evolved” into atheistic scienticism). One simplified way of looking at this ideology is to say that based on the modern idea of everything constantly evolving is that whatever that happens is good as it things have evolved. For example development of atom bombs, mass produced popular culture of hi-tech tyranny is by definition a good thing, because it has evolved from something simpler. The Theory of Evolution, according to my knowledge, makes no such claims. It is solely concerned with the development of biological lifeforms, yet it has had this side effect, or possibly the main effect if we look at it from a conspiratorial standpoint.

The main problem with Evolution is the nonsensical notion that it has happened by accident. Random forces have created all of these highly specialized functions lifeforms have, from eyes, to wings, to sonar, to various ways of protecting themselves, to consciousness. Lets say there was a the primordial goo with amino acids and stuff. Somehow they developed into amoebas, gradually they developed into marine animals, then to amphibious animals, to land based animals, birds, lizards, mammals and so on. Humans included. That could very well be, but in no way was it accidental. I’d rather say there already was consciousness in non-material form in existence. It existed, yet not as a physical entity. What that consciousness or consciousnesses were is another question. However for some reason it wanted to experience itself in matter in various forms. Thus somehow it helped lifelessness develop into life so it could possess these material forms and experience life in myriad physical creatures and plants.

One could say it’s a merger of both Evolution and Creationism. Yet, it’s still just an idea. I’m not saying I believe it. I don’t know what we as humanity even know or can know about the origin of life, or of various species. I believe in empirical experience rather than theories. If life somehow started on this planet billions of years ago, no-one was there to see it. If humanity somehow evolved from apes, none of us were there to see it. Regarding Evolution all we have is circumstantial evidence. Bunch of bones and fossils that only tell the story of different kinds of human-like creatures which had lived a long time ago. The scientists choose to interpret the existence of those remains to mean that first there apes, they evolved into Australopithecus, Paranthropus and countless other fancy names until they evolved into Cro-Magnon and modern humans. That raises new questions as well like what are the Neanderthals, as supposedly they are not the ancestors of humanity? How about Annunaki genetic engineering? It sounds like a reasonable possibility to me.

I digress. Back to accidental evolution. If animals and plants randomly develop from simple to complex ones with better abilities to survive, then there should be countless failed experiments. I don’t mean just species that went extinct. Rather our depository of ancient species should look something like a mad scientist’s laboratory with monkeys with four asses, canines with no eyes, snakes that kill themselves with their own venom, one-legged hamsters… If nature is an insane and inane inventor that combines different things, with no understanding of its actions, until the creations manage to take care of themselves, there should be countless of failed experiments littered all over. Trial and error produces a lot of errors, especially when the scientist has no intelligence at all. If it’s all random, there should have been even animals, countless animals, that did not even know how to eat. To program the instinct to eat when hungry is not a simple thing. It must have taken a lot of accidents to get it right. We may take it for granted, but if there was no consciousness at all how did the first animals know how to eat, hide from predators, or copulate? Would they have even known how to rest? They could not have had the instinct to rest when tired, since it too is a programmed reaction. A lot of animals must have killed themselves due to overwork simply because they did not know how to sleep. How about animals with no asshole? They eat until they bloat and explode. If nature works like this, as the scientists presume, nature looks a lot like H.P. Lovecraft or Giger, but much more gruesome and with even less purpose than Lovecraft’s meaningless universe.

Reintroduce the Caste System

Nowadays we are supposedly equal, because of democracy and all that crap. It’s untrue for two obvious reasons. First of all we are not equal in the political sense we have the 99% and the 1%, or we could divide the 99% into various groups where one has power social power than the other. Secondly, we are not equal. Equal means “=”. As in 1+1=2. Equal means to be the same. I am not the same as you, you are not the same as Bill Clinton or Sarah Jessica Parker. Male is not equal to female. In a very abstract sense one can say that one human being is equal in value to another, however when we get down to the nitty gritty, your mom, your dog or your lover is not equal in your eyes to some guy living somewhere far away you only hear about because they have died in a terrible accident. You might think it’s unfortunate, but if the same happens to someone you care about you feel it is horrible.

Maybe then, just maybe, a hypothesis, the way things were, when there used to be aristocrats and commoners, things weren’t so awful. When we look at history, yes it was pretty bad for the majority of people, but the principle of having different social classes might not be such a bad idea after all. For the last few millennia the upper classes have been dominated by selfish, sadistic scum, but the commoners haven’t been much better than them either, since they haven’t managed to rid themselves of the oppression. As I tried to highlight in the two previous articles, people aren’t the same, and it seems some people, a great many people are incapable of independent thought and consideration. They always ask society to tell them what to do instead of using their own reason, intuition or morality to do so. In effect they are people who want to be ruled. Independence to them is scary, or perhaps incomprehensible. Even if society says to them: be independent, they may repeat the meme, but do not grasp the essence of the concept.

I hope I am wrong about this assessment, but I see the idea of everybody getting it, enlightenment, awakening, whatever, very unlikely. I would like to be proved wrong. The masses have always been the masses with little sense of their own. I have to see it for myself to believe otherwise.

When the Aryans conquered India and introduced the caste system, maybe it was not a violent offensive. Perhaps the Aryans were wise educators. Maybe they had a highly developed spiritual science which enabled them to see the inner potential in a person. You’d become a good craftsman, he’ll be a great hunter, she’ll be a fine statesman, but that guy, while he has the ability, he would abuse it for his own gain. Perhaps that is how and why the caste system was introduced. Later on, Indians forgot the spiritual science and the system degraded into something morbid and oppressive.

I really don’t know much of the details of the story of Aryans in India, so maybe they were just a bunch of rampaging invaders. I should look more into it.

But continuing on with the hypothesis, maybe the origin of all class systems is similar. The most capable of moral and intelligent leadership became the leaders, sorcerer-kings or whatnot. Over the course of time, the institution degraded and was taken over by self-serving psychopaths. Maybe aristocracy isn’t simply the result of the 13 Illuminati bloodlines trying to take over. It might have had an older, loftier origin, which was later infiltrated by those families.

I said a lot of maybes and perhapses in this article, as this is all very hypothetical. I am not promoting the introduction of a class/caste system, I am simply trying to look at humanity and it’s tendency to gather in societies from a different angle. To me, at least, it seems very much a reality that not all men are equal, to kid ourselves due to ideological reasons that they are can only bring more problems and disappointment. Moreover if we were to come to the conclusion some sort of class system is preferred, in the current state of the world it too would be hi-jacked by those who certainly should not be running things.

Sense of Balance

Continuing or expanding from the last article, the Human Entity the and Shepherd. I would say that what has made people like me realize intuitively that there is something very wrong about society, is that we have a sense of balance. When we see mass consumerism, celebration of all things superficial equated with the notion of freedom and democracy, and perpetual war justified with various sorts of chicanery, even though we do may not possess the rational faculties to understand how and why it is wrong, we simply realize the situation is imbalanced. Out of touch with natural way of things. The masses too probably possess this sense of balance, but theirs is just very weak. When I was younger I felt many things were wrong, but I couldn’t express it in words or rational ideas why that is and what should be done. I believe I just felt the imbalance in the world, and it made me angry, because I couldn’t understand the whole situation. I couldn’t even ask all of the hows and whys, even though I knew they have to be asked.

On the other hand, I think the masses possess some sort of social sense. They sense what is acceptable in society, and what is not, fairly effortlessly. They see the social structures, hierarchies and all that stuff, and know how to behave without upsetting the situation. My social has been rather poor, but gotten a bit better lately. Many things that people have taken for granted have seemed alien to me. Even though lacking that sense I felt alienated, it was probably a good thing, because the social sense has been exploited by the conspirators to manipulate people. If society says you must support the military even though they murder civilians, or support multinational corporations because “it’s good for the economy” which exploits the poor, the masses do so because for their social sense is stronger than their sense of balance. (I would argue that true morality is ultimately about having a sense of balance, whereas fake morality comes from the social sense, i.e. basically obeying what society tells you.)

Originally the social sense was probably a beneficial thing, thousands of years ago. It allowed people to understand each other emphatically and work together for a common goal. However at some point it was hijacked by psychopathic conspirators to use against people.