The Reptilian Consciousness

I saw this article called: “T-Rextasy: Dinosaur-on-Girl romance novels are apparently a ‘thing’ now”. It describes a few books by Christie Sims. Some of the titles are “T-Rex Troubles”, “Mating with the Raptor” and “Ravished by the Triceratops”. All of them seem to portray an erotic relationship between a human female and a dinosaur. There’s also more “normal” stuff called “A Weretiger in Heat”. Also there is computer made CGI porn on the internet with dragons and stuff having sex with girls. So apparently sexual fantasies about reptiles is indeed a ‘thing’ now. Hopefully not a popular thing, though.

Everybody has their perversions, and I’m not one to judge who finds what sexually appealing. Having a liking for girls in bikinis, garter belts or in a playboy bunny costume is a perversion too, even though a more normal one. Personally I find the idea of getting excited sexually about dinosaurs fucking disgusting, but I have no desire to portray any self-righteous indignation because of it. I was excited about dinosaurs too as a kid when Jurassic Park came out, but in a different way.

I’ve remained somewhat agnostic regarding the whole reptilian thing à la David Icke. I’m convinced there is some truth behind these reptilian claims, but too many questions still remain. This reptilian symbolism is spreading further, and I don’t think it’s merely a case of repeaters repeating stuff. I think there is some reptilian consciousness out there that is either trying to manifest on Earth or has been here for a long time is being forced into the open. Or possibly a combination of the two.

On one level, on the conspiracy level, the reptilian consciousness has been there for a long time, and now because of people like David Icke and Stewart Swedlow, is being brought into public consciousness. We have the reptilian brain, which I think was named that way for a reason. There are dragons and reptiles in our ancient myths, but… I think that is all relevant information, yet there is something else there. The reptilian consciousness wants itself made public.

The media has been seeded with countless reptilian hints and allusions for decades. The most obvious being the original sci-fi series V, where evil reptilian aliens mask themselves as humans to fool people. It was made in the eighties, long before Icke got into the reptilian business. There was Jurassic Park and countless other dinosaur shows and movies. Just last year it was reported on main stream media that some scientists postulate that intelligent dinosaurs may live on other planets. The new Avengers movie had interdimensional reptilians invade Earth. Shamans and westerners who take shamanic substances like Ayahuasca speak of reptilian beings that pretend to be our gods or something similar. Possibly even David Icke was used deliberately as a vehicle in making the reptile gnosis public. Why would they want to do that, you might ask.

This is all very much hypothetical of course, but the way I see it is the reptilian energy, or the type of consciousness it is, cannot manifest on Earth as it is. They must first get people to accept their reality on a subconscious level, so we can begin to change the “vibes” on our planet to become more hospitable for them. They are using the Hundred Monkey Syndrome against us in a way. They must change the mental and spiritual frequencies of humanity and the Earth to become suitable for them. I believe Chemtrails are also related to this somehow to shape the Earth on the physical level.

What their ultimate agenda is, what they wanna do here, if the reptilians can get here, I cannot say, except I cannot be anything good. The way the reptilians would manifest here may not mean we’d see reptilian aliens walking about. It might happen only on a spiritual and psychological level. This reptilian porn phenomenon might be a sign they are already manifesting here, and using people as vehicles for their cravings.

It should be obvious, but despite this being nasty stuff (for people who take this stuff seriously) we mustn’t be bogged down by fear. I try to look at this stuff with the curiosity of a child. As a kid I liked stories about invaders from outer space or somewhere out there, even though I knew they were fiction. Now that I’m no longer a kid, and I’m beginning to realize that stuff might be real, does not mean I should paralyzed by fear. I’ll rather be energized by wonder.


By the way I realized this is my 100th post. Yay. Congratulations to me!


The reptile novels:

Do Intelligent Dinosaurs Really Rule Alien Worlds?:


Spiritual Laziness

The vast majority of humanity is extremely lazy when it comes to the big questions of life. They rely on “experts” to tell them who they are, where they came from, why they are here and what they should be doing. They have the priest, the scientist, New Age guru or pop star to tell them what is what, because it’s too bothersome for the people to sit down on their asses to figure things out themselves. They can be ever so industrious when it comes to working that tedious 9 to 5 job, slaving at the coal mines or playing the stock market to make another million. Yet when it comes down to the question: ‘why am I doing this?’ most people choose to ignore it or find someone else to fill in the blanks. And, in the immortal words of Harry S. Plinkett, that spells lazy.

Main stream religious institutions are either a joke, or do just the opposite of what they promise, which is something a lot of people have already realized. However, one might think this motivates them to look for answers themselves, either due to mere curiosity or anger for having been lied to, but apparently not. Instead they find the next best thing. Something that looks very different, but is much of the same. There is the religion of Science (notice the capital S, which means it is very loosely related to science). It tells you were a cosmic accident that has evolved into all of this, and the story doesn’t sound too bad actually, until you start to look into it. A bunch of theories, i,e, ideas someone with a fancy academic title came up with, such as Big Bang, life accidentally came forth from non-living matter, and consciousness just happened to happen… erm… let’s not think about that. Consciousness isn’t even located in the brain, which was just sort of assumed to be true for Science knows how long. Then there are people who are put off by traditional religion and the sterile and assumption-based Science, the New Agers.

I personally haven’t had many experiences with New Agers. Mostly what I know about them is from books or the internet, but there was one guy I met during the Occupy protests couple of years ago. Yes, the protests spread even to the Finnish city of Turku. This guy I met there was pretty open about his unorthodox beliefs and it was sort of interesting to talk to him, since Finns tend not to be very talkative and most people I know are quite down to earth. I’m not, I like weird stuff.  Yet couple of things in the New Age guy bothered me a bit. First of all his behaviour seemed quite egotistical, meaning he was flamboyant and wanted to be noticed for his beliefs. Another thing about him, which is most significant relating to the theme of laziness, is that when I told him I study Chinese and Japanese, he said he’d like to do that too, but since we’re all gonna be telepathic in a few years there’s no point in learning new languages. I guess he was referring to the 2012 Mayan prophecy (this was prior to that), ascension to the next dimension or who knows what.

Laziness, I believe, lies in the heart of the New Age movement. They’re always waiting for the next big thing to happen. Ashtar Command to send their ships, ascension, enlightenment or whatever. I sympathize with many of the themes of New Age, I really do. The same as with Science, the ideas seem appealing when you first look at them, but in New Age you quickly find there is no substance behind most of the ideas. They look pretty, but ultimately there is no meaning behind it. Sort of like a music video that pretends it is telling a story, but really is just using scenes that look interesting without connecting them in a meaningful way. Science isn’t as hollow or weak. It can withstand many blows and scrutinies, but when you dip it in water it sinks. I can also sympathize with the desire to find a rational pattern in all of nature that can be understood and passed forward to later generations. Alas, when you actually look into it you find that the cosmos is not a very rational place, at least not in the way that we understand reason. Quantum physics, the nature of consciousness, synchronicity and simply the abstractness and subjectiveness of meaning make that fact fairly clear.

We have all of these excuses for lazy people to not ask the important questions so they can remain the semi-rational automatons they are. There is really no other reason why people hold on to these beliefs implanted onto them by others except laziness. Well, there is fear, but that word is so passé.

The Eye in the Pyramid

I’ve long wondered what the Eye in the Pyramid, or the All Seeing Eye, notorious for being the symbol of the Illuminati, means. It must mean something since it’s on the US dollar bill, used often on MTV music videos and occasionally in movies. Even if the numerous instances of the symbol on the media and culture is merely there to make fun of conspiracy theorists who try to uncover the trails of the Illuminati, it means something. I doubt it was put on the dollar bill as a mere joke, then again, who knows?

Other instances of the Eye in the Pyramid can be found in the Orthodox church. It is slightly different to the symbol on the dollar bill, but I’d say it is basically the same. According to Klaus Dona a relic which is almost identical to the symbol on the dollar bill was discovered in Ecuador, South America. It’s supposedly several Millennia old thus predating any European influence, if it’s genuine.

So it seems the symbol was used in the ancient world and it is still used, but what does it mean? Perhaps the answer is very simple. The symbol used by the Orthodox church refers to God or the eye of God. The Powers That Be in our world have trademarked the symbol as their own, but it is probably not originally theirs. I’d say the symbol is an archetype for God in the collective unconscious or on a hyperdimensional level, which people unconsciously recognize as such. The nasty Powers That Be tell our subconsciouses that they are God, which either makes people obey them willingly, as can be seen by the countless insanities and atrocities that humanity has been a willing, yet unwitting participant of, or those who see through the lies understand how evil the Illuminati is, yet they still believe the symbol is theirs, and therefore believe the Illuminati is omniscient and omnipotent. Basically the symbol is used for very effective false advertising by the Corporatocracy.

What this God that the symbol actually refers to is, is another story. Let’s just say it is something with power and authority. It may not even have anything corresponding to it in our existential reality, meaning that the symbol is merely a symbol of an idea. As itself it is powerless, but people seem to be very happy to give great amounts of power to various different kinds of symbols. [Add Confucius quote here.]


Klaus Dona pyramid:

Orthodox church All Seeing Eye:

Spiritual Evolution

Is Spiritual Evolution an illusion? A faulty assumption based on popular contemporary thought coated in Scienticism. I’ll try to explain what I mean by Spiritual Evolution. It does not mean merely the act of getting better in spiritual matters. I certainly regard myself as having “evolved” intellectually, morally and spiritually in the course of my life, except that Evolution is not the correct word here. I’d rather call it me having grown up.


Growing up is a notion as old as man. At first you’re a baby, you grow into a child and eventually you grow up to become an adult. A lot of people used to do it in the ancient days, but not anymore. Now they grow to become teenagers, and sort of get stuck there intellectually, morally and spiritually. They just lose their youth. Growing up is archaic, we’d rather evolve, but since we don’t know how, we’ll let the machines do it for us.


I sort of digressed. Evolution is a concept that emerged in the public sphere in the 19th century, Charles Darwin being the most famous proponent of it, but he wasn’t the first or the last. What it gave us was nasty stuff like Eugenics among others. Also I would say Evolution took the individual responsibility away from growing up. Now we evolve as a species, and I cannot be held responsible for the evolution of an entire species, so it’s not really my responsibility to grow up. Evolution took ideas we already know like things change over time and children inherit attributes from their parents and marketed these old ideas in a new, more generalized way so we’d think it was an original scientific breakthrough and we bought it.


Before someone raises their hand and objects that the Theory of Evolution talks only about the evolution of biological organisms and nothing more. I know that is the case, yet that is not the case. Evolution is, and probably was since the beginning, first and foremost a social ideology. The ideological construct that things (be they ideas, societies, machines, species) evolve from simple to complex can be seen in the attitudes and assumptions of countless people, especially those who deny it is there. If I was really snide about it, and I don’t see why not, I’d say Evolution is merely an excuse to explain anything that happens as Evolution without taking any conscious responsibility. “The British Empire killed unarmed people and enslaved countless races.” “That’s just because they were more evolved. Survival of the fittest and all that, you know.” “Corporations control what we eat and think.” “Yes, that is how our society has evolved.”


Let’s get down to this idea of Spiritual Evolution. There are stories and claims of spiritually “evolved” beings like angels, ascended masters and spirits. Let’s say for the sake of argument that they are real. I have no problem thinking they might be real, but I have no evidence or experience to say they are. Let’s just say they are real. They understand reality from a higher perspective. That is all. It does not necessarily mean they are more evolved. Perhaps an angel was born, if that is the right word, already as an angel. I think that is the case in Judeo-Christian religions. It does not mean it had to go through an arduous process of trial and error over a long period of time to somehow evolve into what it is. Compare a human being and an ant. A human has a higher perspective on life, simply because of his size and his intellectual capacities, even though the ant has his own insight into life in ways that people cannot comprehend. Perhaps that is the case also with these spiritual beings. You are born a certain way, and it is up to you whether you waste that life doing nothing or reach the potential that you have.


The idea of Evolution with different phases is probably, at least partially, a Masonic idea. Freemasons have their degrees, and they have to ascend the pyramid one step at a time, and all that. Sounds sort of like Evolution, where different hominids are depicted evolving gradually into a different species until ultimately reaching homo sapiens. Even if Evolution is Masonic does not mean it is incorrect or evil. It simply means it is a Masonic idea, and since I’m not a Mason, and I shouldn’t accept their beliefs unless research leads me there.


The problem with the concept of Spiritual Evolution is, if we want to become spiritually more aware, which is something we should strive for, is that the idea that we have to evolve might hold us back. If I think it is a long and arduous journey, I will make it just that. When in fact, enlightenment or whatever you want to call it, could come in a moment as you let go of attachments to beliefs. Moreover the idea of Evolution could lead to all sorts of hierarchy. “He is so much more spiritually evolved than me or you, since he’s been writing books for decades. We cannot criticize him.”


The key to waking up from this slumber that all of us are in one degree or another in this Matrix might not be a process at all. It does not require a progression bar to fill up like when a computer is loading a program. Rather it might a story. Our personal story which is supposed to be interesting. One that has moments of discovery and wonder, as well as bits of conflict and desperation. It’s not an interesting story if all we do is walk down the same road and as we reach a milestone we collect one Enlightenment Point. Collect a hundred and you become enlightened.

Philosophical Fighting

Philosophy is fascinating. I think deep down most people understand that, yet the way it is expressed often is not so accessible. That is why philosophy has the reputation of being boring, too complex or pointless and fanciful daydreaming. Most European philosophers write in a overly verbose and technical way. They really don’t have to.

Last winter I started reading Heidegger’s Being and Time (Sein und Zeit), since I’ve heard a lot of good things about him and wanted to know more, but… The book is just full of dancing around the issue without getting to the point. Sort of like so much foreplay the girl falls asleep since you don’t get down to business fast enough. It wasn’t even too complicated for me. The book just disappeared from my conscious thoughts after a while and I didn’t even make it halfway through. I didn’t make a conscious decision to give up. Merely lost interest. I’ll probably finish it some day…

A few weeks ago I started reading Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. It’s quite interesting and I intend to finish it. It’s certainly not too complicated, but still there’s too much faffing about. Too much of the old philosophical gonna-wipe-my-own-ass-before-someone-else-does-it stuff. What I mean by that is philosophers aim to be as precise as possible in order not to be misunderstood and that no-one can twist your words against you. That’s a good thing, except when 2/3 of your book is simply covering your ass against assault (getting ASSsaulted is no laughing matter) you can get into the ‘people who trade freedom for security deserves neither’ -territory. Rather than making your words a philosophy tanks with spikes and explosives, I’d have some mutual respect and attempt to understand what the meaning is behind someone’s words. Everyone understands most words differently. Even something as common place as “cat”. People have very different associations with it. I like cats very much, but someone might hate/ fear them very much whereas most people are somewhat neutral in the matter, viewing it as a furry animal. Instead of trying to project your own preconceptions onto someone’s words, you should try to understand what the other person means by those words.

Philosophy, and science, should be accessible to everybody. Not hidden behind volumes of special jargon and obscure concepts. In fact, I don’t believe this verbose philosophical tradition is only due to striving to be precise, but it is also a form of intellectual battling. See hundreds and thousands of years ago they didn’t have computers and internet (shocking, I know) so the geeks couldn’t duel with each other on discussion forums or Counterstrike. Rather they had to use books and letters to do that. “Ha! My logic is stronger and more piercing than yours. Thou art a noob.” I believe this macho desire of one-upmanship and competition is one major factor why both philosophy and science have such a specialized jargon. Each field requires an initiation process that takes years before you can really get into it, just like the most popular competitive online games.

That’s my two cents anyway. I’m probably gonna take some flak for it, but meh.

Bug with ‘Mechanical Gears’ Discovered

I just saw this article which says (and there’s a picture too):

“A plant-hopping insect found in gardens across Europe – has hind-leg joints with curved cog-like strips of opposing ’teeth’ that intermesh, rotating like mechanical gears to synchronise the animal’s legs when it launches into a jump.

The finding demonstrates that gear mechanisms previously thought to be solely man-made have an evolutionary precedent. Scientists say this is the “first observation of mechanical gearing in a biological structure”.”

So there’s something in nature, a bug, that has mechanical gears, which is supposed to be a man-made object. According to the article it is “found in gardens across Europe”. Really? I assume then it’s a new species, since if it wasn’t don’t you think someone would have noticed?

Why am I getting so excited about this you might ask, and I shall answer. I think we might be seeing “evolution” in action, and not the usual Evolution claptrap, but how it actually works; consciousness guiding the formation of matter. Now that we have had gears for a few centuries at least, they have become a normal, unremarkable part of our evironment. Seems like not only the collective cosciousness of humanity has accepted them, but also the consciousness of nature has accepted gears as useful and unintrusive. Therefore the mind of nature has seen fit to “experiment” with the form.

That’s what I think anyway. It might be due to genetic engineering or a weird mutation, but I don’t think so.

The article:

Aggressor Sympathy

I find it difficult to sympathize, i.e. feel the same emotion about the same thing as another person, with most people. Their concerns don’t seem pertinent, and moreover they don’t seem concerned with things that are important. I used to question myself, if there’s something wrong with me because of this. now I don’t think so. I’ll introduce one aspect that the “average person” seems to experience that I don’t, which I call Aggressor Sympathy.

Aggressor Sympathy is sympathizing with the perpetrator of a violent, immoral or criminal act. What lead me to devise this notion (I’ve no idea if psychologists have a different term for the same phenomenon) is the curious reaction the general public has to many tragedies. One such thing is suicide bombers. At least in the past the public seemed shocked and horrified more by suicide bombers rather than ordinary warfare. I on the other hand felt willing to blow yourself up for your cause is courageous, even if it’s not admirable nor wise, whereas killing people by firing a gun, dropping bombs or piloting a drone to kill people is sort of lame. Also people are generally horrified by suicide, and offended by the notion, whereas I’ve considered it a personal choice. Why the people feel that way is, according to my reasoning, due to Aggressor Sympathy. They can imagine themselves in the place of the aggressor, the one committing suicide simply for the sake of suicide or to kill others, and as they do not want to die, they feel horrified. When they feel Aggressor Sympathy for the soldier pulling the trigger or piloting the drone, their emotional reaction is lighter as this kind of violence has little effect on the aggressor. That’s why there is no outrage from the “main stream” people about drone strikes, because it doesn’t make them feel anything.

Let’s look at Aggressor Sympathy from other angles. 9/11 for example, people can sympathize with the notion of zealous terrorists hi-jacking planes and committing suicide strikes on buildings. They can sympathize, meaning they can imagine how it would feel, and they don’t like the feeling, so they hate the act and the idea, but they cannot sympathize the conspirators of an inside job to murder their own countrymen to further their political goals. This idea does not make sense to them as the juvenile public is still stuck in the archaic notion of us vs them. One country/ religion/ ideology against another. One team is red, another is blue, and they fight. The public cannot sympathize with people who see things differently.

The public sympathizes with the authority, which is the greatest aggressor and criminal there is. Be it Bush/ Obama, the pope, the CEO. They sympathize with the aggressor, that the decisions they make cannot be easy, and furthermore they project their own childish benevolence onto the aggressor. “If I was in that situation, I’d do the best I can.” They cannot sympathize with the notion that the CEO only cares about profit and his career, not the man working for his company. The politician cares only about his agenda and paycheck, not the people he is supposed to represent. The priest cares only about power over others and not closeness to God.

Perhaps the public condemns criminals like rapists, robbers and murderers too, because they know the aggressor will be punished harshly if and when they are caught, and they fear that fate. The act of violence and the fate of the victim does not concern them so much.

Perhaps I’m wrong about this. Perhaps I just don’t understand the common man and his motivations for supporting the system. Maybe I sympathize more with the victim, which has its own problems. I tend to see the whole of society as an aggressor, and the people as the victim. The real problem in cases like these is reacting with emotion to begin with, and not looking with your eyes and thinking with your mind.