We don’t take kindly to Your kind around here

There is this common archetype of redneck people living somewhere far off from civilization who do not like outsiders. They feel threatened by the new ideas outsiders might be bringing them. This is simply due to the fact the rednecks like the way they are living and don’t want it to change. Those who might be harbingers of change are viewed as dangerous or evil. However, it’s not just the rednecks who are like this. We all are.

We all have our ideas of how things work, and generally like to assume we are right, and unless we are feeling intellectually brave we do not like those beliefs to be threatened. Christians who believe in the wisdom of the Bible do not like people to point out the various scientific fallacies espoused by the book. Likewise “scientific” materialists do not like religious and spiritual people, or quantum physics, to point out many of the fallacies of modern science. A liberal believes a successful society is achieved a certain way and those who do not agree are labeled selfish or stupid conservatives, and vice versa. Someone who believes in the current social order do not like conspiracy theorists highlighting the manipulation and dark aspects of our society. And conspiracy theorists who believe that the Illuminati is behind everything don’t like people proving that some things are not a conspiracy, and lash out on them with accusations of being a sheeple.

We all engage in this sort of intellectual redneckism in one way or another. It’s not something to be ashamed of, but rather to be recognized. At times we do not feel so strong to take on perceived threats against our beliefs, so we retreat into the comfort zone. That is also quite acceptable. However we should not view that comfort zone as reality, as how things really are, but as a sign of our weakness have yet failed to overcome. Modern life, compared to how things were before the digital age, is much more complex in many ways. We are confronted with countless ideas that oppose ours every day unless we shut ourselves from that. This does not apply only to important social, moral and spiritual issues, but to things like our favorite music or movies. Sometimes it can be difficult to accept that someone seemingly rational human being likes Star Wars episode one, for example. If bombarded with things we are hostile to continuously we may feel the desire to shut down. For example, I spend too much time watching all kinds of nonsense on Youtube every now and then because of this. However, we should realize the problem lies with us and our inability to handle reality at times, not with the reality itself, since many of the things we feel threatened by are not really dangerous to us.

Somebody who has a different opinion to you is not inherently a threat to you. That should be obvious. A Creationist and a Darwinian Evolutionist should be able to converse about their beliefs without feeling the need to make the other see things their way. Sharing of information should not be battle for survival. It only becomes that if you choose to view the information as a threat. That is not to say there are no real threats in this world, there are. Such as the encroaching global police state, Monsanto and GMOs and stuff like that. That is precisely why we should distinguish a real threat from an illusory one of our own creation.

Occult Themes in Popular Fiction

In recent years many supernatural things in movies and books have gotten very popular. Supernatural stuff such as magic, vampires and other occult concepts. We have Harry Potter, Twilight, Underworld with Kate Beckinsale’s latex outfit and countless other vampire stories. We’ve had similar themes and creatures before in horror movies in the past, but the difference is the monsters used to be bad guys, nowadays they are protagonists. Some people in the conspiracy and alternative movement, as well as traditional Christians, have commented how it is evil that they introduce the young people into the occult or make magic sound desirable.

I disagree with their reasoning, although I am disgusted by many of these pop-occult (poppult?) pieces of entertainment. I do it for artistic reasons, not moral reasons. I would be happy if young people looked more into the occult to gain real understanding of things. No-more are we chained to the church that threatens to burn you if you are interested in the occult, also we are shaking loose of the materialist sentiment that there is nothing occult out there (or in here). It is only natural to be interested in mysterious and hidden things, the problem is people get their fix from superficial pseudo-occult entertainment instead of exploring the real thing. Occult merely means hidden. If something is hidden, we can extrapolate that there is something there, a truth, a hidden truth. Therefore search for the occult is search for hidden truths. I see nothing negative in that. As Jesus said: the truth shall set you free.

Vampires can be considered occult, since they are supernatural creatures and tend to hide, often in plain sight in modern stories. I think it is safe to say vampires exist in some sense, not necessarily literally, but symbolically. Vampires are parasites and our society is very parasitic. While traditional parasites are ugly pests, modern vampires are sexy. It is cool being a sexy parasite compared to an ugly and weak victim. The British royal family is related to Vlad Tepes, Dracula, they have proudly admitted it. Who’d be more parasitic than them anyway? They even used to drink human blood (perhaps not just used to). If the reptilian stuff is real, it would make the reality of vampires more literal.

Magic in popular fiction is depicted as Harry Potter spouting his pseudo-latin incantations and things happen, or wizards launching fireballs from their fingertips in World of Warcraft. That is not real magic. What it actually I cannot really say, but my understanding, or the perception of those who believed in magic in the old days, is the ability to use one’s consciousness or will to shape reality. Whatever that is achieved by using “supernatural” means, technology or psychology is irrelevant. Nevertheless, it is safe to say many of these popular fictions that deal with magic have little to do with the real thing, unless you’re talking about movie magic. While the magic depicted in Harry Potter is childish the movies and books have certainly enchanted countless people world-wide.

In conclusion it is the superficiality of these seemingly occult stories that we are being fed, that is the problem with them. It makes the viewer think the occult is nothing but this superficial fiction, a quick fix of entertainment to distract you from the routine. But the occult refers to a hidden truth that you won’t find in the crap the advertisers force feed you where-ever you go.

 

Link: British royalty dined on human flesh (but don’t worry it was 300 years ago) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389142/British-royalty-dined-human-flesh-dont-worry-300-years-ago.html

Am I an Indigo Child, erm adult?

Indigo children is a popular New Agey idea of children born in the 80s or later who are somehow different, in a good way. They’re supposed to usher in change for the better and all that. They don’t really conform with the rules of society.

This article called “The Indigo Child and How to Recognize One” describes 17 characteristics of an Indigo and says that if 11 to 13 match with you, you are an Indigo. What each of the characteristics actually mean is not quite clear, and is up to interpretation, but based on that list I’d say I’m an Indigo. Things like “Born in 1978 or later”, “Possess a deep desire to help the world in a big way” and “Has a history of depression” certainly describe me. Whereas things like “Strong willed” and “Independent and proud” don’t really say anything at all. It’s too generic. And I’m certainly not psychic, which is one of the characteristics.

So I’m an Indigo. So what? Does it make me special? No. In fact, I think most people who’d even consider reading an article about Indigos possess many of the “characteristics” of an Indigo, because they are interested in weird stuff. Normal people tend to dismiss such things as superstitious nonsense. Wikipedia describes Indigo-ism as akin to the Forer effect, which simply means the definition is so vague it could point to anyone. I find myself agreeing with Wikipedia, which is something I generally hate to do. Which leads me to suspect there actually might be something to the idea of Indigo children.

The concept originates from psychic Nancy Ann Tappe who studied the auric fields of people. According to the aforementioned article: “she noticed was that 80 percent of the children born after 1980 had a new deep blue colored auric field. She called this new color “indigo”.” I don’t know much about human auras, except from fiction such as sci-fi, anime and roleplaying games, but I’m inclined to believe there is some significance to them. If Tappe’s claims of changes in the colours of auras of children is true, it means there is some significant change in people going on.

However, many of the New Age sites on the internet that like to throw the Indigo child term around, don’t seem to be looking at the auras of people. They rather describe a few generic characteristics that many people possess, and tell them they are different to stroke their egos. Everybody likes to be special and unique, alas many of us, don’t actually want to do anything special, since it can be bothersome, and if you try it and fail, it can feel quite disheartening. Therefore we’d like to think we are special, and by our mere existence we make a difference without us actually getting out there and putting ourselves on the line. But it doesn’t work like that. It is more important what we do, than what we think we are. It is not enough for us to feel we are not part of the pack. I’m certainly like that. I have to struggle to actually do something, to get out there to try to make a difference, instead of bathing in the self-perception that I’m somehow different. I might be different, I might even be one of those Indigos, but it doesn’t matter unless I act different. Unless I do something to prove I am here to make a change. And if I do that, it doesn’t matter whether my aura is indigo, pink or brown.

 

Links:

The Indigo Child and How to Recognize One http://www.2012-spiritual-growth-prophecies.com/indigo-child.html

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigo_children

Intellectual Feudalism

In our society there are institutions for explaining what you should believe. There is someone on top, be it a person or a group or something more abstract, and they tell you what is true. If you don’t believe it you are either stupid or crazy. I call this Intellectual Feudalism. We have lords who tell us what to believe, and if we do so without independent thought and investigation, we are intellectual serfs.

In the past our lord was the church. You believed what they said or burned at the stake. Nowadays the church isn’t as powerful as before, although it does wield a lot of influence in same places and among certain types of people. Yet the practice hasn’t changed. Now we have countless “official” sources, be they government or academic, or corporate that has the appearance of being government or academia. You have to believe what the government says or you are a conspiracy theorist. You have to believe what academia says or you believe in superstition and pseudo-science. This, of course, is simply mind control. On some levels it done deliberately to control people. Yet a lot of people sincerily believe in the intellectual authority of an abstract authority figure and attack you if you do not comply. They would be intellectual serfs (an alternative for sheeple?).

Everything about this Intellectual Feudalism isn’t necessarily bad. Sometimes governments do know better (or rather the people working for the government) about some issues, whereas the general public does not, and acts appropriately in those situations in the best interest of everyone. Academics too have a lot of actual knowledge in some issues, whereas in others they blindly follow dogma. So the problem is not inherent in having these intellectual authority figures, but rather when people blindly accept them. It is a way of evading responsibility. “I don’t know how humanity came to be, but since they say Creationism/ Evolution is the answer I believe them. I don’t want to face this difficult issue myself.”

The fact that we have institutions that oppress us is not really the fault of the institution, even though I’d gladly get rid of them, but of the people who want them to oppress them. Since the intellectual feudal master gives the serf intellectual security, the serf is happy to sell his soul for it. So say no to Intellectual Feudalism. Don’t be a serf!

What is a Conspiracy Theory?

Let’s get back to basics. The term Conspiracy Theory is very much maligned and associated with crazy people. However there is nothing crazy about the words conspiracy or theory, so what makes the combination of the two crazy then?

Let’s look at the meaning of the word conspiracy. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary gives these explanations: “a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal” and “the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal”. I like both explanations. It also mentioned that conspiracy is an “Agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means.” Reminds me of fascists like Hitler and Bush-Obama.

What sort of people conspire then, you might ask. I’d say most people conspire in a way, but the most common association with conspiring people are “bad guys” such as secret societies, politicians and other criminals. However other people can conspire too, such as the resistance movement in Nazi occupied France did certainly conspire against the Nazis. Whether they attacked German soldiers or conveyed information to the allies they did harm to the Nazi occupation and broke the law, since the Nazis ruled France and could write the laws. The French resistance are generally regarded as “good guys” in my opinion. Generals conspire when they devise military strategy which is meant to harm the enemy. Corporations conspire against people by their advertisement strategies to fool people into buying their products, not because they need them, but to make the people want them. Even regular people conspire against their friends and relatives out of spite or even greed on occasion. You go to a movie with some friends, but you all agree not to tell that one guy, because he’s sometimes annoying and go without him. Heck, even farmers conspire against livestock to feed them and take care of them only to butcher them when the time comes.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines the word theory as follows: “an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events”, “an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true” and “the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject”. That doesn’t say much, does it? A thing that says something about something. We have the Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, theories on development of society, theories on homosexuality and so on. Basically a theory is an attempt at explaining why something is as it is. Except not quite. I’ve encountered the exchange on a few occasions that person A says: “The Theory of Evolution is just a theory. It does not mean it’s true.” And B counters: “It still based on decades of scientific research and observation. It’s still the best explanation we have.” I agree with both arguments. (Those who’ve read more of my blog should know I’m not a big fan of the Evolution stuff, but it still the best scientific theory regarding our origin I’ve heard. It’s just that if I speak one word of Arabic and my friend doesn’t speak any, I’m the one who speaks the best Arabic here.)

I’ll de-digress, i.e. get back to the point. A theory is an explanation about something with some basis in fact. For example, I’m looking at a tree outside my window with half of the leaves yellow and the other half green. If I was to say the other half is yellow because someone poured paint on it, since it’s not factual at all. The leaves are yellowing because it’s autumn, and I’m pretty sure biologists have a very good theory on why the leaves turn yellow. The point I’m trying to make is, some things that are laughed off as conspiracy theories are not really conspiracy theories. They are more like conspiracy stories.

There is a guy called Andrew Basiago who claims he was involved in US secret project called Project Pegasus which involved time travel and going to Mars. He, and another guy who was with him William Stillings, claim that Obama was also on Mars in the seventies. They personally met him there. There is a co-incidence theorist article titled: “Beam Me Up, Obama: Conspiracy Theory Claims President Teleported to Mars”. But Basiago and Stillings’ claim is not a conspiracy theory! It is merely a description of what they claim is their personal experience. It is not a theory. I went to the supermarket and bought bacon and eggs. That is not a theory, it is a claim about my personal experience (and untrue at that). Now I want to clarify I don’t believe their claim. I’ve listened to couple of Basiago’s interviews on Youtube. He doesn’t sound like an obvious fraud or crazy, but I still don’t believe him. That’s not the point. Basiago is making a claim which sounds outrageous and crazy, and some idiot of a journalist calls it a conspiracy theory just because of that, even though there is no theory involved.

Let’s look at a proper conspiracy theory, 9/11. There’s little doubt that 9/11 was a conspiracy whether or not you believe the perpetrator was Al-Qaida, the US government, Mossad, all of the above or time travelling Obama from Mars is irrelevant. 9/11 was a conspiracy, a complicated one at that. Therefore to ascertain what transpired on that day one must theorize. After all, the police often have conspiracy theories too. They see a crime which seems complicated enough to have been perpetrated by more than one person, which makes the crime a conspiracy, and in order to solve it they must engage in theorizing of sorts, i.e. they could be called conspiracy theorists. Take a few facts from 9/11 such as the fact that building 7 fell down even though no plane hit it, it looked like a controlled demolition and Larry Silverstein’s “pull it” comment, we have a solid conspiracy theory right there. 9/11 was a conspiracy, no doubt there. And we can theorize on who participated in the conspiracy based on those facts. That is a conspiracy theory. There is nothing funny about it. It doesn’t make you crazy to think about it. But, we only have a theory so far. It does not mean it’s true. It is however based on concrete facts and anyone with half-a-brain cannot dismiss it with laughter.

There is nothing funny or stupid about the words conspiracy or theory, nor should there be any such notion regarding the combination conspiracy theory. Yet, language doesn’t always work that logically. Words acquire new meanings over time for various reasons. To deny the connotations that “conspiracy theory” has to crazy or outrageously silly stuff, would be aching to claiming “gay” merely means “happily excited” with no connotations to homosexuality. Even though you can use the word gay in the old-fashioned meaning, which can be understood by the context, you cannot completely eliminate the homosexual undertones that modern readers see in the word, and therefore must take it into account. Same is true for the term “conspiracy theory”. However, I don’t think it is quite the same thing, (I don’t believe there is any conspiracy behind the changes of the meaning of the word gay). Even as a teenager I understood that politicians and other socially “important” people conspire to get ahead in society, and had a hard time understanding why people are so emotionally biased against conspiracy theories. Moreover we have the conspiracy theory that the CIA is behind giving the stigma to the term to dissuade people from discussing the conspiracies the CIA practices. As with all theories, it does not mean this is necessarily true why the public regards conspiracy theories in this pejorative way, but there are certainly facts to support it. I would certainly say this stigma the term has is Orwellian Newspeak to dumb down people so they couldn’t even think about the conspiracies the government is waging against them.

I’ve written about this topic many times before, and I’ll probably write about it again, since it is important we understand what words mean. If we are to communicate with each other, which we must, and I mean actually communicate, instead of spamming popular memes to experience the emotion of belonging, we must understand what words mean. I am filled with disgust and disappointment when I see useful idiots such as the journalist who is making fun of Andrew Basiago’s claims. I have suggestion for you: how about simply having a look at what Basiago has to say instead of using his obvious “craziness” as an excuse to boost your ego. You might actually learn something. I don’t wanna live in an Idiocracy (movie reference).

Links:

Beam Me Up, Obama: Conspiracy Theory Claims President Teleported to Mars -article http://www.universetoday.com/92359/beam-me-up-obama-conspiracy-theory-claims-president-teleported-to-mars/