What is Jesus?

By Jesus here I do not mean the pseudo-historical or theological character that supposedly existed 2000 years ago in the middle-east. I mean the saviour figure who dies on the tree and comes back to life to redeem us. The esoteric idea behind Jesus. This old archetype is supposedly associated with Osiris, Mithra or even Thor, as well as Jesus.

I grew up hating Christianity but in my mid-twenties I became more accepting of their beliefs. Around that time I also saw Zeitgeist, which has a section on these similarities of Jesus to other, older religious figures. Whereas Zeitgeist tried to lead you to believe the universality of the saviour figure to be proof that Jesus is fake, for me it had the opposite effect. It was the first time I thought perhaps the story of Jesus is more than a fairy tale. It is not just some story made up in the middle-east a short while ago (2000 years is a relatively short time) but something inherent to humanity. An integral story we re-write in our image every now and then.

While I am not certain how universal this saviour figure actually is, as many have disputed these various connections between Jesus and other mythological characters, but I’m fairly certain the story is much older than 2000 years.

According to my understanding Jesus is the ego, or rather some inner function of the individual that the concepts of our culture have no word for and “ego” is the closest equivalent. The ego is supposed to die, but you won’t get rid of it. Only after it has died it ceases to be a pest and can begin to work for the good of others, and oneself. In Matthew 15:21-28 Jesus calls Canaanites dogs and says “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” In his book Two Babylons the author Hislop commented something along the lines that only after his death and resurrection Jesus became the universal saviour. Before that he only served Israel, or personal gain as the story was written from an Israeli perspective.

The ego serving mentality that still is ruling our civilization has not killed the ego. The Christ is not resurrected, and thus causes suffering by self-centered action. However the other, post-modern, ideology which states the ego is completely harmful denies Jesus completely. Is that Satanic, or is it Satanists who try to hoard Jesus to themselves and disempower others? Ego is our conduit between two worlds, the world of flesh and spirit. Flesh is dumb and immobile without spirit to animate it, yet the spirit is impotent in the physical realm. That is where we need mind which is the state between spirit and flesh. Something the spirit can communicate with, and which can command flesh. Perhaps that is what it means that Jesus is half human, half God. The ego/ mind/ Jesus is an intermediary between two connected yet separate aspects of us.

The lie and the sin the church has committed is teach Jesus is something external from us. A character in the distant past, divine being somewhere out there in heaven, something superior, a crucifix on the wall, an idol to be worshipped. The church has turned an inherent aspect of ourselves into an external idol. It has perverted our selfhood. It has made us sinful by not only teaching us false doctrine on Jesus, but ripping him out of our flesh. By sinful I mean something which is harmful and meaningless, not something that some external patriarch will punish us for. Deliberately shooting yourself in the foot is a sin, as it is harmful to you, and it serves no purpose. The same is true for worshipping Jesus as an external deity.

This is my understanding of Jesus. No doubt it is flawed and limited, but I can say it is my honest assessment that I have reached at this point in time.


Objective and subjective and cute

Modern scientific thought regards only objectively existing things and ideas real. There is an intrinsic belief in a reality which exists objectively as the same things regardless of our perceptions of it, which do differ. Because we perceive that reality differently our perceptions are seen as flawed, while this objective reality is real and superior to us. The problem is there is little empirical evidence to suggest that objective reality even exists. Sure, it sounds reasonable to assume it does, yet it is not very reasonable to assume anything.

Physical items that we can measure and quantify are deemed real, whereas more subjective, less concrete things are regarded mere human notions. That tree is 7,3 meters tall, it is measured, it is real. That cat weighs 4,6 kilos. They are objective facts. Anyone who does the measuring correctly will reach the same conclusion. Emotions, psychological states, perceptions cannot be measured in such a way, so they are seen less important, perhaps even pointless. “Cuteness” is a rather vague concept. Most of us understand what it means, yet it is difficult to define what cuteness is. Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines it as “attractive or pretty especially in a childish, youthful, or delicate way”. Not a bad definition, yet something is missing. The words fail to describe the feeling a person experiences when he or she sees something cute. Cuteness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. However that is only partially true. Some things are inherently more cute than others, even though many might disagree. Kittens and pikachu, are somewhat universally cute, even though there are many people who would disagree. Also cuteness is not related only to appearance. Behaviour or a voice might be cute as well. I’ve been called cute in few occasions, although if you see me walking down the street would won’t associate me with kittens and pikachu. We can say that the concept of cuteness is very complicated, even though many of us understand quite easily what is or is not cute, except middle-aged men who are trained to disregard cuteness.

Modern science would say that attributes like dimensions and measures, and cuteness are quite different in their nature. But are they? Cuteness is a relationship between the perceiver and the perceived. Both participants have some attribute in the them that elicits the emotion of cuteness in the perceiver. Concepts such as meters and kilos are somehow objective then? No, they are merely thought of as objective. A tree is a certain height even though you do not measure it. If have the concept of “meters” in your head when you measure the tree, you perceive it as being 7,3 meters tall. That too is a relationship between the perceiver and the perceived. The tree has the inherent attribute of a certain height, and the perceiver interprets it in meters. The difference between meters and cuteness is that cuteness is an emotional response in the perceiver, and meters is an dispassionate, intellectual reaction. Yet intellectual responses are in no way more real than emotional ones. Another difference is that cuteness is a somewhat universal response, I believe. Various people in different cultures throughout time have had the concept of cute. Or perhaps I am assuming too much. Whereas meters are a cultural construct. You can only perceive something as meters if you have been taught the concept. No doubt the height of the tree is the same regardless of what unit of measure you use to measure it, meters, feet, or some other, yet all of them are merely an attempt to make reality bend to human rationality by explaining something. There is a difference between seeing the height of the tree and making your own conclusion about it. Be it an emotional one, “it’s so tall/short” or an intellectual one “it is 7,3 meters tall”. I mean, the height of the tree is what it is, converting that height to an abstract concept such as meters, does not take you closer to the hypothetical objective reality any more than having an emotional reaction to the tree does.

All of our experiences in the outside world are a relationship. Perhaps as far as the outside world exists is as one party of that relationship. Our attempts to rationalize that relationship into something universal and objective might be nothing more than a delusion due to our unwillingness to admit our limited relationship to reality.

The Illuminati Card Game

Every now and then a claim surfaces that the Illuminati card game predicted 9/11, the BP oil spill, or some other act terror or false flag. Those claims always fail to convince me. I happen to own that game. I bought it ten years ago before I was “awake” or was serious about conspiracy theories. I had an interest in them, but due to social pressure I was persuaded that they are not important. I’m a gamer. I play computer games, table-top roleplaying games and board/ card games. I had played Illuminati at a friend’s place and I enjoyed it. When I saw it on sale in an online game store I bought it.

Illuminati: New World Order (INWO) was released by Steve Jackson Games in 1994. INWO is a collectible card game, along the lines of Magic: The Gathering and many others, where you have to buy a few starter decks (consisting of 60 around 60 cards) and booster packs (around 15 cards) to build a deck to compete against other players. An older version of Illuminati is a non-collectible card game, which means you only buy one set and get the cards, similar to board games. The original Illuminati was released in 1982. Both games are similar, but one might say INWO is an advanced version of Illuminati. I possess the set of INWO, the collectible card game, of which I bought the Deluxe INWO pack which includes the Factory Set, i.e. a copy of each card in the game. INWO is also the game which has earned notoriety on the internet. The cards you might have seen online in videos and articles are of INWO, not the original Illuminati.

As I already said I haven’t bought the conspiracy theories regarding the card game. I see it as a fun game (or at least I thought it was fun back then, now I’m tired of it). The designer of the game Steve Jackson was inspired by The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, and other conspiracy theories. Any connection the game has to real conspiracies or conspiracy theories is due to research, in my opinion. Some of the cards of the game seem to be describing events that have happened, because the designer did his job well. He researched conspiracy theories, and used them in his work, the same as a good author would do for a book. A novel about a doctor might have convincing medical jargon due to proper research, even though the author has no training in medicine. I doubt greatly that there is predictive programming included in the game. In fact, when INWO was in development the FBI or police raided the office of Steve Jackson Games and confiscated their computers. I’m pretty sure the Wikipedia page used to mention this fact in the past, but now the fact seems absent.

Let’s take a look at claims regarding some of the cards. The card Terrorist Nuke has a picture of two tall buildings, one of which is exploding in the middle, resembling the WTC. The effect in the game is that using the card gives +10 to the power of a Violent group, which I interpret as you use a false flag to rally the people for a war or other violent operation. Resembles 9/11, doesn’t it? The buildings are probably depicting the WTC, yet it’s not 9/11 the card is alluding to, but the 1993 World Trade Center bombing which was supposedly perpetrated by Muslim extremists. Another card I’ve heard weird claims about is Oil Spill. Someone has claimed it refers to the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. However if you just look at the card you see a bird covered in oil, and behind it a ship is sinking with the word “Valdez”. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill happened in 1989. In the card Pentagon there’s a picture of the building with a big explosion in the middle. According to claims this is also refers to 9/11 when the Pentagon was hit by a plane/ missile. The exception is that the explosion is in the middle, and looks a bit like a mushroom cloud, whereas the 9/11 explosion was to the side of the building. I must admit I’ve always thought the picture to be odd, but I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with 9/11.

The logo of Steve Jackson Games is the all seeing eye and the pyramid. It is used in all of their board and card games. I’ve always thought of it as a joke. So is the Illuminati game. Steve Jackson, as he is the designer of the game, was obviously interested in The Illuminatus! and conspiracies. It doesn’t mean he believed them when he made the game. In pre- 9/11 world there were many people who were interested in conspiracies, yet were not quite sure what to make of them, as the conspiracy was not so obvious to all of us as it is now. Perhaps he even wanted to expose the Illuminati in some way by making the game. I see no reason to think the existence of the INWO card game is that is some sort of Illuminati plot to screw with us somehow. It’s possible, sure, but I’ve yet to see any evidence of it. Steve Jackson might have nefarious connections behind the game, but if that is the case, please investigate it first, and prove it before accusing a game of being some sort of esoteric conspiracy. It is a game, a humorous game, with some serious underlying themes. I enjoyed playing it in the past, and it taught me some basics of how conspiracies work.

Interestingly according to Wikipedia INWO was designed by Brandon Marek. However, in the rulebook which I have in my hand, it is said it was designed by Steve Jackson. I don’t see the name Brandon Marek anywhere in the rulebook.


Illuminati: New World Order: http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1552/illuminati-new-world-order

Original Illuminati: http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/859/illuminati

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati:_New_World_Order

Is Oligarchy the only Government?

I suggest you first watch this excellent video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdS6fyUIklI

In case you cannot I’ll quickly run through its contents. The video describes five types of government: monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, republic and anarchy. However the video points out monarchy never quite exists as the monarch does not hold power by himself, he always has a clique of allies. So in fact a monarchy is an oligarchy, i.e. rule by a small group of people. The video does not clearly define anarchy. At times it refers to it as having no laws, other times as no government. In the end anarchy is dismissed as temporary at best. Democracy is called Majority Rule, which of course is not a good thing is the majority are stupid or selfish. Republic is seen as the best option, where the rule of law is ultimate, not the will of the masses. The republic is the middle way between anarchy and tyranny.

Sounds nice at a glance, and I really do like the video and think the people who made it are intelligent and earnest. However… let’s start with anarchy. Anarchy is the only form of “government” I see viable on a long term. Anarchy means “no ruler”. There is no king (or any modern interpretation of king such as a president or a prime minister) who can tell you what to do. Anarchy does not mean absence of rules. It is impossible for human beings not to have any kind of rules. Every family has some sort of rules, be they written or unwritten, strict or loose. Two flatmates sharing an apartment will have some rules, even if they do not write them down. “My stuff is in this cupboard, your stuff is over there.” “I take out the trash on even numbered days, you take them out on odd days.” People have rules. Most animals have rules. Wolves have their alpha male, they have the concept of territory. Bees have their system of society, and the dance they do to tell others where to find honey. The idea that anarchy is the absence of rules is preposterous, especially since the commandment against having rules is a rule itself.

It might be that anarchy has no laws, since I don’t really know what makes law so especial. All my life I’ve been hearing mumbo jumbo about the importance of law and its power. I can understand the concept of rules, or rather pacts and agreements between people, but laws, how are they different? Why should we hold them in high regard? Why does it matter is something is or is not a law? According to my understanding laws were first invented by kings in the ancient Mesopotamia to enforce their dictates on the subjects. It was to protect the property and sovereignty of the king, i.e. his right to pretend he’s better than others. I still fail to see the connection with morality and justice and law. To me it seems very much an invented thing. Propaganda the ancient patriarch used to make the subjects obey.

I don’t understand how law is somehow above human beings, especially since human beings made the laws. Does it mean the people who made the laws are superior somehow? In the ancient times they used to claim many laws came from God, which at least would give the law some authority, but the problem is, I and many others, do not believe in those gods the laws supposedly came from. In modern democracies/ republics the laws did certainly not come from any god, so why are they so special? I think the whole concept of law is archaic patriarchal propaganda. Sort of like fire and brimstone, but more refined.

If you argue that law is more like dharma. A cosmic law of harmony. Beyond the ideas of men, or even physics, it makes more sense. It might be the origin of law, which was corrupted over time into man made rules. Nothing cosmic or harmonious about them. Laws and rules can only work when everyone within the community knows what they are, understands them and agrees to follow them. In our society we have countless laws written in incomprehensible jargon that only lawyers can decipher. Also we are born into society and expected to agree to the rules, since we have little choice when we are young. This sort of law is tyranny.

So what do I think about the republic? I don’t see it as a viable option either. The author of the video used the USA as an example. Either have a republic or an oligarchy. Perhaps at some point they had a republic, I don’t want to get into that argument now, but now they certainly have an oligarchy. Their laws did not manage to save them. The Bill of Rights, the Constitution are nice pieces of paper. They have agreeable ideas, but that is what they are words on a piece of paper. They hold no power. When the people are free they have no need of any “rights” or laws granting them this or that. The greatest purpose the Constitution serves is that it can point out the various crimes already perpetrated by the ruling oligarchy. Mind you, it didn’t manage to stop them getting into power.

I would say if you want a government, it will eventually end up being an oligarchy. You might argue though, that it isn’t necessarily an oppressive oligarchy. If the oligarchy consists of strong, moral people their government might be so as well. Still sounds like a fairy tale to me.

I listened to Stephen Mehler’s interview on Red Ice today. He said something like (or his mentor Haqim had said) that things that are written down are never completely true. The truest teachings are always oral, not written in stone. In other words that which can be named is not the Tao. Writing down a few words can not give you anything or take something away. It can inspire or demoralize you at most.

The Solution

I hadn’t written anything in a few weeks because I was traveling in Japan. Now I’m back in Finland, my home and native land. I’ve been feeling quite lazy as of late, but I’ll try to continue writing the blog when I have something to say.

Instead of highlighting the problems we face I’ll give you the solution. It is very simple, yet often not that easy. It is not something you can buy from a supermarket, plug in and gain freedom and enlightenment. The solution requires imagination and courage. That is something which is common for all of us. Details vary. For some it might require great physical effort, mental effort, social effort or all of the above. It might consist of destroying something harmful or creating something new. Most likely we need to let go of our old perceptions, find a new angle and make an effort to make it work for us.

Why is our world so fucked up? Why are there so many problems? Simply. We listen to the wrong people and ideas for what life is. The ruling principles, and the people perpetuating them, are dated at best, idiotically clueless, or simply evil. Most socially and politically powerful people in our world are either psychopaths or working for them out of stupidity. The solution to this is, to stop adhering to their commands. Very simple. Don’t do as they say. They cannot hold your best interest at heart. It matters little whether they do this out of conspiratory malice or stupidity. Existence of evil and idiocy in this world is not a problem. Our compliance with it is.

Once we recognize the advice for life coming from the top; from governments, corporations and churches is wrong, we can feel liberated. I did, when I realized that the way I felt in my heart and knew in my reason was true, that I had a better understanding of what is real than the figments fed to me by society in its many guises. Once you realize that you cannot live your life according to the dictates of any authority save your own heart and conscience, you can start to live life your way. Make your own kind of music, as they say. It does not mean you live with blinders on, ignoring what happens around you, caring only about what you want. It is the authority of society that tells you to ignore that which is real and focus only on certain things. Live your own life according to your rules, but remember others are doing the same.

That is the solution. Unslave yourself from the dictates of the authority you are chained to. Live, explore, invent or destroy your way by finding your own path. What this means within the confines of each individual I cannot say. There is no red pill you can take. No easy solution you can buy or ritual you can repeat at the sake of your consciousness. To live your own life is to be conscious. To live a life as told by another is to be unconscious. Be free or be a slave. Only you can make the decision.