The Social Contract and the Heart of the Conspiracy

The concept of the Social Contract is that people unconsciously sign a contract as they are born into society to obey the norms of said society. It has been argued by many in the conspiracy community and opponents of Statism that such a contract does not exist. I’m not so sure I agree.

I don’t recall signing any social contract upon birth, nor after it, yet I’m going to argue that the majority of people do. Those people are the heart of the conspiracy which governs society. They’re certainly not the brains, though. More than the shadowy secret societies, intelligence communities, political marriages which can be detected influencing things from the background, yet never quite being able to be pin-pointed as to what their real nature is, the unwashed masses are what give life to the conspiracy. The secret conspirators are there merely to direct it.

Modern life is rubbish. Society is a lie. Civilization is a conspiracy against nature. Deep down Joe Public knows it, yet he has signed the social contract with the devil to ignore reality; to contribute to the noise of civilization to cover the truth with nonsense. Civilized society is a Utopian dream at best, a horrible Dystopian hell covered with colourful curtains to obscure the truth at worst. No matter be the civilization our modern global one, ancient Chinese or Roman, Christian or Muslim medieval civilization. It makes little difference. It always has the surface of veracity and wholesomeness, but the pleasant visage of being civilized is always contrasted by the flip-side of oppression, lies and suffering. Deep down the public knows this. The elite controlling and oppressing the public may not realize it as much as the public does. Yet they have given their consent to play their role in this movie or play called civilization.  “All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances”.

Nothing gets you more enemies than telling the truth. The reason why people get angry and aghast by various revelations about the impropriety of socially esteemed figures is not due the impropriety, but the inability of the people to hide it. People are not angry at the NSA for spying on them, but because the NSA broke the social contract by failing to keep their actions secret. People are not disgusted at pedophile priests and politicians for molesting children, but their inability to hide it. Same goes for most scandals such as Watergate. While incidents such as the JFK assassination and 9/11 are clearly inside job conspiracies, the elite have been able to muddy the waters enough for the masses to pretend plausible deniability.

All of society is a sick dance on the part of the masses that want their illusions, their fake pleasures and achievements provided by the movies along with the pain and the failures, which are equally fake. Their partner is the shadowy conspirators who they hire or summon to entertain them. The masses are not deluded because of years of manipulation and social engineering, it is the other way around; they want to be asleep so they allow any snake oil salesman that comes by to have their go. The sleep of reason produces monsters.

The notion that people are innocent little babies who are corrupted by the evil Illuminati is wrong. The people are the ones who willingly enable the Illuminati to exist. They summon the demon from the dark abyss. This is exoteric Luciferianism in my understanding. I understand Luciferianism as the religious or ideological desire to supplant the natural with the artificial in an attempt to make man into God. Civilization desired by the masses is never holistic nor natural. It is based on black magic, i.e. forgoing important steps of the natural process to create something artificial, such as building a house without a solid foundation. As with all black magic it can work for a while, but it will crumble eventually.

If “they” wrote the social contract and I didn’t, what makes me different then? I don’t know. All I know I always felt oppressed, conspired against, by society long before I heard anything about the Illuminati, Freemasons or even the military industrial complex. For a kid growing up in the nineties the conspiracy was simply society with it’s countless minions. I’m not sure whether signing the contract is done at birth on a spiritual level, or whether it’s done some moment at youth, a decision for a moment of glory, or even a moment of peace, in exchange for your soul. Everyone feels oppressed by society at some point, but perhaps the difference between those who sign the social contract and those who do not is the decision to accept the artificial and man-made ephemeral laws, or natural laws, real within their hearts.

Ideologies are Pointless

Or rather ideologies are pointless at best, most often harmful. The notion that we have to have some preset code guiding our behaviour is preposterous. Especially if the code has been made by someone else, especially someone who may have lived and died long before we were born. Or perhaps the origin of the ideology is unknown. It is simply there, and people try to follow because it is there. By ideologies and codes I mean anything ranging from Christian and Confucian values to secular humanism or libertarianism. They can work when used as a general reminder of what is good and what is bad, but one mustn’t let their ideological dogma override their common sense or intuition.

If a person is moral, he does moral acts by nature. If he lives in Christian environment he may use his Christian upbringing as an excuse for his good acts (helping the needy), where in fact he would have done good things regardless. If a person is immoral, he does immoral acts by nature. If he lives in a Christian environment he may use his Christian upbringing as an excuse for evil acts (torturing heretics), where in fact he would done so regardless. Of course the division of people in to moral and immoral people is an artificial ideology itself, but you can get a general sense of their “nature” by observing the fruits of their labour and behaviour over a long period of time. So called moral people do make mistakes, moral, practical, intellectual and social ones, and vice versa bad people can occasionally do good things. It’s the big picture that counts.

What makes someone moral is an innate thing, but what is innate does not necessarily mean it is inborn. A person can be born good, or he may absorb certain lessons from his environment to forge his behaviour and sentiments to make him grasp the difference between right and wrong. Morality, and all sorts of understanding, must be innate. It serves no purpose to have a list of things you must or must not do. It is only for simulacra who do not understand what being alive means. Someone who has to follow such external programming is more aching to a robot or other type of automaton rather than a living being. The simulacrum follows the program and can fool people for a while, and other inauthentic people as himself, but those who are truly alive, who experience the multi-faceted meaning of life will sense their fakeness one way or another.

Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative is the lowest kind of morality there is. It states: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” No. That is not how a living human lives his life. Sometimes you do wrong things, even morally wrong things, yet in due time you realize the harm you had done, and it will lead you to do something great. For example I’ve always known that joining the military is not an honorable thing. However, there are lots of veterans (especially Americans) who joined the military out of sense of duty or honour or some punchline from a first person shooter computer game. In the military service they were forced to commit various immoral acts, which would eventually lead them to reflect their life in a brand new way. I could get on my moral high horse to say what idiots they were to begin with, since I never even considered it a good idea to do what they did. Yet it’s not as if I haven’t done countless other mistakes, I just never made that one mistake of believing in militarism. In the personal journey of most people the mistakes they make, especially the moral mistakes, are what force them to wake up.

You cannot have a law dictating to you how to behave. No categorical imperative. You have to take responsibility for yourself. Most people would agree that murder is wrong, and as a general rule it is good not to commit murder, but I’m sure there have been situations when murder was the most moral option. Trying to change the wording makes no difference. If someone attacks you with an axe and you shoot them in the head in self-defense it’s still murder. Murder in self-defense.

If you try to follow some abstract, inhuman ideology you will either get disillusioned, which is good, or go crazy, and probably become morally corrupted. Real, natural morality is something you cannot define. When you try to do so, you take away its spirit. It too becomes an ugly simulacrum. The same goes for freedom. Anything or anyone who simply lives loves to be free. It does little good to have ideologies and constitutions saying you are free, or should be free. A great example of how ideology corrupts is in the Chinese movie Warlords (at least I thought so when I saw the movie 5 years ago). In the movie Jet Li is an idealistic and morally determined character in the beginning. He becomes friends with some bandits who aren’t as moral initially. They don’t care about ideologies, they just wanna live their way. In the end of the movie Jet Li’s character becomes corrupted by the inability of his idealism to handle reality and he becomes the bad guy. One of the bandits becomes the good guy.

So fuck all ideologies, and fuck Kunt (pun intended, maybe).





It is said the music you like expresses something about you. You like a certain kind of music, because you can relate its message to your life. That’s why I’ve always disliked pop music and mainstream music. As The Smiths put it in the song Panic (I’ve never liked them that much either, but at least appreciated on an intellectual level):

“Hang the blessed DJ
Because the music that they constantly play

When I was young pop music used to superficial and simple with a catchy tune, i.e. entertaining and stupid. As I possessed a superiority complex even back then, I didn’t want to admit that I sort of liked some pop songs, even though I thought they were stupid. Nowadays pop songs don’t even have the catchy tune. There is no longer no reason within the song itself to like it. It’s just sound that on the surface seems like music, but has no spark, no hook. No beauty. Twenty years ago the attraction in pop songs was superficial, but it was there. Now it’s stuff like Rihanna. No-one can listen to that stuff, because they like the “music”. No, they like it because of the hype, the media machine promoting it, peer pressure and attraction to sexual images. The pop songs themselves contain nothing to be attracted to, so the companies must build an outer layer to confuse people that the music is interesting. Compared to something like the Spice Girls, which was stupid and superficial, but they had at least some catchy tunes. I thought back then that people who like pop music are as stupid and superficial as the music, yet that was at least human. Pop music nowadays isn’t even human, and I don’t mean that in a nice Lovecraftian mysterious way either.

Back in the nineties I thought most of the music they played on mainstream media was crap, but at least sometimes they played some good stuff. I don’t really know what they play on MTV and channels like that anymore, but I’m under the impression it’s 100% crap. Maybe it’s just due to the level of bad music having sank even deeper I think they don’t play good music at all, maybe they do. I really don’t care since I can find good music on the internet without relying on TV channels.

What is good music then? I had a revelation last year. I lived a year in South Korea, and came to the conclusion they must have the worst music in the world. I don’t mean K-pop, since I much prefer K-pop to Western pop, even though I dislike it too. In Korea music seems so dominated by big business. You go to a night club anywhere in Seoul and they just keep repeating the same 10 songs all over again. As if the Illuminati told them “these are only songs you can play or else…” It’s not that the kind of music they play in Korea is not to my liking, but there is no variety, and no genuineness. All of it is crap spewed by the corporate machine to inundate the masses. Possibly young people never learn that there are alternatives. I also visited Japan last summer and the music there is much different. I felt so happy going to a music store and hearing rap or hip-hop wasn’t the same commercial stuff. I don’t like rap/ hip-hop, but at that moment I understood someone probably resonates with this stuff. It was real music, the artist expressing himself, and the people who listen to it must actually like it. Opposed to people who live in Korea who have little alternative, unless they are mavericks who go out of their way find good music.

The distinction between good and bad music is then, if it’s actually the artist expressing him/ herself or a corporate product manufactured for monetary/ social engineering purposes. That is the only objective assessment I can make about the value of music. Except that bad music seems to have the old school superficial yet entertaining kind of music and the horrible screeches from the dark abyss kind of modern music.

Let’s talk about what music I like personally then. What do I resonate with. I started listening to the British band Blur when I was 11 or 12. The genre is called “Brit-pop” but it’s not quite as “pop” as Spice Girls or Backstreet Boys. I still sometimes listen to them even though I don’t resonate with the music so much anymore. When I was a teenager I became obsessed with PJ Harvey, and Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds a bit later. I could relate to their hopeless romantic songs before I had had any actual experience with romance. Now that I have, I don’t resonate with them so much anymore. I still like them, but not nearly as much as before.

Being “awake” or a conspiracy nut, you kind of want to find musicians that are struggling with the same issues as you, so many of the stuff you liked before may not speak to you as much as before you “woke up”. Nowadays there are more and more videos on Youtube and conspiracy sites of songs whose lyrics deal with conspiracies and other pertinent issues. Yet the many of them seem musically average with mentions of popular conspiracy theories in the lyrics. I’m not impressed. That music is more of a political statement than a musical attempt to transcend the conspiracy, which is a good thing socially, I guess, but artistically not so. And the artistic significance of music is ultimately greater than it’s social significance. That music is more than a warcry than music.

There are some bands that deal with conspiracy and spiritual issues that I relate with greatly: Angelspit, Icon of Coil and Apoptygma Berzerk. Angelspit is an Australian industrial duo with quite dark and powerful music. Probably my favourite band these days. Their songs deal with, critisize and are disgusted by a lot of the shit going on in our world, but is not too preachy. The music comes first, the politics second. The song Kill Kitty has lines such as:

“I say Alien, you say salvation
I say government, you say Free Mason”


“I said I gave a shit but I lied
my apron says illuminati child”

Channel Hell goes:

“My friends use to show off their tatts
Now they talk about filling their bank vault
Mellow is the new fad
Your life is fucked and it’s all your fault”


“Angry youth reduced to ultra-conservative nervous frightened children
It was supposed to dangerous
It was supposed to be risque
Now it’s cheap and mass produced
Now it’s in a bargain bin… on sale”

The song 100% says:

God is in control
Watch the dot
Take your meds
Obey my demands
Trust my dog
Time for surgery
God is in control
Watch the dot
Take your meds
Obey my demands
Trust my dog
Shut your eyes you’re dead]

Televised mass poison
Spitting at the screen
Keep the masses deluded
With fabricated dreams

Powdered God in a bag
From the Vatican
I want you to fuck off
As hard as you can”

I just fucking love Angelspit. Icon of Coil is an old electro band of Andy LaPlegua who is better known for Combichrist these days. Combichrist is pretty nice too, but I prefer Icon of Coil. You Just Died goes:

“We built a flagship on a lie
We built our honor on a lie
We built our pride on a lie
We built this world on a lie
We built a flagship on a lie
We built our honor on a lie
We built this world on a lie
Now we’ll repair it on a lie”

Another song, Simulated, talks about the control system around:

“You’re incapable to think or breath for yourself
We pull the strings, cut off the wings
We’re in charge of all the peace and of all the noise
You think there is a God, you are only toys.
You’re incapable to think or breath for yourself
We pull the strings, cut off the wings
We’re in charge of all the peace and of all the noise
You think there is a God, you are only toys.
You’re toys”

Apoptygma Berzerk is a Norwegian band, and not as “heavy” as the name suggests. Their songs aren’t generally as dark as the previous bands. The song Eclipse is quite spiritual:

“As we dwell inside the safe zones that we’ve made
Where nothing but earthly pleasures seem to matter
The only light we see is from the screens
No will to feel or explore the forgotten dimensions”

Kathy’s Song combines biblical creation with Commodore 64 into a spiritual love song. Apoptygma Berzerk’s latest album Rocket Science has many quite obvious conspiracy references.

A lot of “truthers” and conspiracy nuts seem to have a “flower hat auntie” about music. Sometimes they comment that since something is a bit dark, it’s nasty. That’s not true at all. A lot of the music I like is dark, and the world we live in dark and nasty. I guess I like the music I listen to to reflect that, and to show something beautiful can arise from this quagmire we are in. I also abhor a lot of banal music which I guess reflects the life of the everyday man or woman who is only concerned with everyday stuff.

One song deserves a special mention. It’s “Yet Another “9/11 Was An Inside Job” Song” from an amateur called Scootle Royale. I heard it once 3 years or so ago and I still remember it. It’s cute and quaint so I had to find it again to share it here. This article has gone on long enough and I have to finish it, even though there are other bands I’d like to talk about.



The Smiths – panic:

Blur – Country House:

PJ Harvey – The Garden:

Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds- The Curse of Millhaven:

Angelspit – Kill Kitty:

Angelspit – Channel Hell:

Angelspit- 100%:

Icon of Coil – You Just Died:

Icon of Coil- Simulated:

Apoptygma Berzerk – Eclipse:

Apoptygma Berzerk- Kathy’s Song:

Rocket Science:

Yet Another “9/11 Was An Inside Job” Song:


The Snowden Affair

This isn’t such a current topic anymore, but I’d like to express my opinions on the “revelations” of Edward Snowden about NSA spying. I’ve never really thought we should take Snowden’s whistle-blowing at face value. I haven’t looked deeply into the information he’s shared, nor to his personal history. Other people have done that and suggested various explanations, such as the Snowden affair being part of rivalry between CIA and NSA. I’m not going to go into that. I’ll just focus on how I’ve seen the affair discussed in public.

First of all it’s been pointed out in the alternative media that the information about all of the spying is not new. The information had been out there prior to the emergence of Snowden. Certainly it wasn’t news to any proper conspiracy nut. Whether or not we actually knew it was happening, we “knew” it already. I’d go as far as to say, that even the “normal” people, the “sheeple” knew it. The thing was that they just weren’t allowed to think it. A lot of people get their sense of what’s real and what is not from the issues discussed in the public. In many ways to the mind of the common man something is not real unless the mainstream media says it is. Deep in their mind they may understand what the truth is, or at least that an issue is worth considering, but they suppress their reason and intuition if the social norms say you should do so. Now with the Snowden revelations it has become socially accepted to talk about government spying. I doubt that is an accident.

When I first heard about Snowden it was through Facebook. One of my “friends”, whom I consider a “useful idiot” for the establishment, shared a link about NSA spying and Snowden. I was perplexed. Why would he be sharing information that is usually confined to the realms of conspiracy nuts such as myself? Sometime later I saw a group on Facebook, which sometimes posts insightful stuff, sometimes crap, post a picture or an article about what a hero Snowden is. We should kneel down before him to kiss his feet or crap like that. I wasn’t sold. I don’t like being told whom I should revere. It looked more like a psyop to me.

The good thing about the Snowden affair is the information about NSA spying has become public knowledge, even if he wasn’t the first one to say it. I don’t resent Snowden for it. In fact, I don’t resent Snowden at all. I hate the hype machine around Snowden. But he’s no hero, especially compared to the countless conspiracy researchers who have poured years into their work, dedicated their lives to exposing all the crap going around behind our backs. First you have to acknowledge their heroism, before you can mention someone like Snowden who got into fame because of the mainstream media of the whole planet wanted to make him famous.

The bad thing about the Snowden stuff is that it keeps people trusting the mainstream. A lot of people are starting to question everything, abuse of governmental power being one such thing. They are on the fence plagued by an internal battle to hold on to the Matrix of mainstream reality or to jump into the deep abyss of leaving the consensus behind. The more idiotic the mainstream media becomes, the more people are losing faith in it, and possibly starting to pay attention to the alternative media who try to find out the truth. I’m not saying the alternative media is telling the whole truth, but I do think many people working in alternative media are genuinely interested in finding out the truth and telling it to others, which the mainstream media certainly is not doing. Because of this the mainstream needs to at least appear intelligent and relevant. People who were suspecting that this spying is going on were starting to look into alternative media for answers, but now they have the Snowden affair to drag them back to the main stream. Same thing with Wikileaks and Julian Assange. Give them bread and circuses coated with a little bit of truth to keep the masses happy.

I’m not saying the Snowden affair is merely a conspiracy to keep people interested in the mainstream media or something stupid like that. It’s purpose is to keep people attached to the mainstream belief system. The Mainstream Matrix. Also it serves as a distraction. Snowden affairs offer talking points for people to pointlessly argue over back and forth. Is he a hero, is he a traitor, yadda yadda yadda? People keep playing their rhetorical tennis matches while the military industrial complex keeps tightening the net around us. The Snowden affair is a distraction. Also it offers new keywords to program people new emotional responses; Snowden -> good. NSA – >bad. Government -> scary. It oversimplifies the issue of government surveillance as well. It becomes a juvenile heroic epic of Snowden against the monstrous NSA. You’re supposed to associate government surveillance with NSA, and disagreeing with it you are a Snowden fan. The whole public sphere of discussion is a mash-up of teenage fads. It’s fashionable to like Harry Potter this week, the next week it’s Snowden. Last week Kony sucked, now it’s NSA. Next week it’s gonna be something different.

You can call me paranoid or whatever, but I for the life of me cannot see any genuineness in the Snowden affair. It’s too neat and manufactured.

Is it such a good thing to unify?

Reformists and revolutionaries often try to get people to unite against oppression. While as a short time solution it is a fine idea to unite to dethrone tyrants, in the long term it is more likely to help tyrants gain more power. The various problems in our world aren’t really due to disunity, but unity of people. For thousands of years kings and anyone with a flashy enough banner or an attractive ideology has been able to unite bunches of people to wage war on others. Weak people want the feeling of unity to excuse themselves of responsibility. Were people unwilling to unite we never could have had wars, since only a handful of people would showed up in the battlefield.

Nowadays people aren’t so much united to wage war, but they unite for pointless recreational activities in support of anything that does not matter. People unite to support their favourite sports team, their favourite politician, their favourite Harry Potter book and meaningless crap. They don’t unite to actually do anything. They just support something, and allow others to make decisions for them.

It would seem that when people unite to do something good, it is a temporary union. Let’s take The Lord of the Rings as an example. The various Free Peoples didn’t really like each other. The elves and dwarves didn’t like each other, the human kingdoms weren’t that friendly with each other. They merely tolerated one another. But they realized they needed to unite to beat Sauron. In the course of the war they even began to like each other a bit, since they noticed they hated Sauron and the orcs even more than the other races. When they no longer have that external threat to worry about, the societies will start to drift apart again due to differences. And maybe that’s the way it should be.

Maybe any notion of a unified world is a utopian dream at best, or a tyrannical nightmare at worst, such as the New World Order. The idea might seem appealing on the surface, but when you get down to the details it doesn’t sound so good. The same goes for any institution or ideology. When they are first formed the people behind it may be genuine and able to do something good. However, after some time when the spark which first created that beautiful thing is lost, the institution should be dissolved or it will become corrupt. Either the founders will leave or die, and they will be replaced by the new generation which won’t possess the same abilities and morals of the previous one. They may be earnest, or they may already follow in the footsteps of the founders out of pride or greed. My mother has pointed out several times how the social democratic party did countless positive reforms for the working man in the 60s, to justify her misplaced hope that the same party of today would do something good as well, which they won’t of course, since the social democratic party of today is similar to the old one in name only.

During the Occupy protests of 2011 there was even one Occupy tent in the town I live in here in Finland. I visited the place a few times and was generally happy to see it. Especially back then I felt I had no-one I could talk to in person about all the stuff I write on my blog, so I thought the tent represented change and awakening in people’s attitudes. However, it was difficult to strike up a meaningful conversation with people there. One reason was of course, that we are Finns, and not very talkative by nature. It’s not easy to have meaningful discussion with a stranger. Interestingly, the most interesting and meaningful conversation I had there was with an American guy. It’s difficult, possibly even counterproductive, to try to unite with a bunch of people who I don’t know and have little in common with. It would end up in disaster.

The real danger in every act of unification of masses of people is, there is always an authority directing it. In the local Occupy protest I once heard one of the regular members of the group talking that the head of the organization in Spain wants to promote certain books for all Occupiers to read. The guy saying seemed a bit skeptical of the command, but still was probably intending on following it. And that’s the problem. For huge groups of people to unite, they need an authority; a leader, a government, a church, an ideology to dictate how to behave. Even if the authority were to be a benevolent one, or the ideology a good one, it would eventually be corrupted or infiltrated in some way. In my experience unity works well only in small groups were the people all know each other and understand each other’s viewpoints.

In conclusion, I’m not so sure unification for a Cause will solve any problems. We need only to unite for long enough to disunite those who do harm, once that is done, we should go our separate ways. There can be no global police state or Luciferian empire without unity, and consent, of vast amounts of people. Disunite everybody.

Let’s get rid of Emotional Attachments to Words

Words are used to program us by creating emotional attributes to them. We hear a certain word, and we’re supposed feel a certain way and therefore act a certain way. Terrorism; fear. Conspiracy; crazy. Some words create opposite emotional results based on the culture of the person hearing it. For atheists the word God brings up images of stupid, irrational belief and for theists it brings a positive sentiment. For many atheists the word science evokes positive images of almost God-like infallibility, whereas a lot of people who have realized the so-called scientific institutions are as corrupt as any other institution, the very word science might bring up negative images.

The best thing is to get rid of our emotional investments into words. A thing either is, or is not, something. Bombing civilians either is or is not an act of terror. It does not matter how you feel about it, or about the word terrorism. 9/11, or even the existence of civilization, is a or is not a conspiracy. It does not matter what conspiracy theory you prefer to explain it, or if you prefer to think the word conspiracy is meaningless. Instead of arguing whether or not God exists, someone should first explain what is God.

Words are also hi-jacked by certain groups. For example, God has been hi-jacked by churches and religious institutions, as if it belonged to them. Science has been hi-jacked by academic institutions. Only governments can determine what constitutes an act of terrorism.

My pet peeves about this hi-jacking are words such as skepticism, science and of course conspiracy. When I was a child, I used to think of myself as a skeptic, i.e. being skeptical of things “everybody knew” to be true. Such as we “knew” UFOs were not alien space craft or anything interesting like that. We “knew” there was no telepathy or telekinesis. Being a skeptic I liked to entertain the opposite view, that maybe we don’t know the truth about it. However, it seems the word skeptic has been hi-jacked by people who have no skeptical bone in their body. They just accept what the establishment wants them to. Of science and conspiracy I’ve written before. Science should merely refer to the process of looking for the truth, with no external attachments either way. The word science itself should be bland and neutral, yet for a lot of “believers” the very word science invokes joy and grandeur. Researchers should be excited about individual objects of their research, but science itself should not elicit strong emotional responses. Conspiracy also is a fairly normal social act perpetrated by human being for various reasons. There is nothing odd or crazy about it, nor should every act of conspiracy be somehow connected to the Illuminati.

I think words and language are quite interesting. Yet by adding emotional triggers to words, one diminishes the multi-dimensional purpose of each word. Words mean something, your emotional complexes don’t. At least not to other people. Especially since most of them have been programmed into you by others.