Collectivist Violation

I just watched a video by G. Edward Griffin called How Socialism, Communism, Fascism are All the Same. He criticized collectivism and I felt like I wanna have fun bitching about the idiocy of collectivism too.

Collectivism is concerned about the Greater Good™. The rights of the group surpass the rights of the individual. Or as the Vulcans in Star Trek state it: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Let’s explore what this means. Two wolves and a sheep voting what’s for dinner embodies collectivist ideas. Also if two guys see a girl walking late at night and feel horny, the girl has to service the needs of the many or she is simply evil and selfish. A country with a population of 10,000 wants the natural resources of a country of 1000, so it is their right to go get them.

Now you might argue that that’s not how it works, I’m just trying to pick a fight, and I am. Because that’s not how collectivism actually works, even though according to their philosophy it’s supposed to work like that. Two guys can’t just rape a girl, despite their needs outweighing the needs of the girl, because there are laws to protect people. Yes and no. There are laws to protect the interests of the state, or whatever abstract construct is supposed to rule over the collectivist society. The collectivist demon does not care for the rights of any individuals, rather it cares about the condition of their property. The girl is the property of the state, as are the two aspiring rapists. Two individuals do not possess the right to rape another without the mandate of the state. However, if such a mandate exists, rape is allowed, such as in ancient times in some places the king had the right to have his way with a girl the night before her marriage, supposedly. The TSA in the US has the mandate of the state to violate and rape people. Killing others is forbidden too, as they are property of the collective, unless the state declares war.

Any non-aggression principle rarely seems to applies to collectivists. For them someone is to be praised and protected when he or she benefits the values of the collective, if they don’t do so, or hinder the collective, they deserve any aggression coming their way. This applies to communists, fascists, statists, modern leftists, socialists and totalitarian humanists (as Keith Preston calls them).

The insanity, and why collectivism is a disease, and not simply an opinion on how people should organize themselves, is that it is based on constructed delusions. The will of the collective is never some harmonious understanding between all individuals, as it is for the Borg in Star Trek (at least before the Queen was invented). It is usually the will of a small oligarchical group leading the collective. If such a group does not exist, the collectivism would be pure insanity. Supporting any collectivist ideology is simply the act of selling one’s soul, and relinquishing responsibility to some nebulous authority.

Any human community is a collective of individuals, and as such you are morally responsible for others to some degree, but what collectivists do is try to abdicate the responsibility for a quick fix so they can be mindless minions of the herd to benefit from it. The human collective does exist, but it ends and begins with the individual, and individual responsibility.

 

Links:

How Socialism, Communism, Fascism are All the Same: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=005cahIsSXE

Advertisements

Infiltration and Watering Down of the Truth Movement

As of late I’ve run into a few observations about the “Truth Movement” (I hate the label but meh [I also dislike meh]), how a lot of people are just fakes and in it for the fear porn and attention. I’m not really surprised. As anything gets popular enough it will attract all sorts of parasites to feed off of the popularity. It happens to every cultural movement, subculture, ideology and lifestyle. At first something is new, weird and revolutionary. In the beginning it’s obscure and ignored, then more people find out about it, and they begin to oppose and ridicule it. However, if the movement persists some people begin to notice there’s profit to be had it. This might mean financial profit, emotional profit or social profit. Then there’s an influx of parasites into the movement who try to water it down to suit their lukewarm nature. They’re in it for the party, not the essence, the deeper principle behind it.

Gandhi said: “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.” However he forgot to add; “then they infiltrate you and try corrupt what you stood for.” Speaking of Indian stuff, there was a small museum in the Incheon airport in South Korea. It had some historical excerpts on early Buddhism. It was said that the Buddhist monasteries originated simply as communities for the early Buddhists who were not accepted into society. As Buddhism grew more popular the communities morphed into more formalized monasteries, and become corrupt. Reading the description there at the airport really made me feel like the early Buddhists were alternative, philosophically minded hippies who rejected the artificiality of society, but the movement was devoured by the masses to be part of their culture. Also fairly recently a guest on Red Ice radio commented on the early Buddhists that they actively challenged many beliefs of society and confronted people to question their beliefs, opposed to now when Buddhists simply want to remain quiet and distant from reality.

The same process can be seem in countless cases. I mentioned hippies, and certainly it applies to them too. Originally they were anti-war, anti-consumerism, but then they were infiltrated by party hungry masses who just wanted free sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. The same could apply to Christianity, except they’ve become the opposite of sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. Take the punk and anarchy movement of the seventies, and nowadays Avril Lavigne and Blink-182 are called punk. Or the rave parties of early nineties Europe. They used to be illegal, with drugs and stuff, but that too was watered down to legal stuff. Apparently the term rave originates from the Beatniks of the fifties. This corruption and watering down has affected even the video game culture. I’ve played computer and video games all my life, and back in the early nineties my kind were shunned by jocks and other proper people. Yet nowadays almost everyone plays some sort of video games on their phones, the jocks have their EA sports games and so on, and video games have become big business, which means that notions such as fun and creativity is often disregarded by committees that simply try to ram in enough popular trends to make a game that sells. I see the emergence of the first Playstation console as the major influence in popularizing video games. I’m not blaming Playstation, it was a great console, but look at Playstation 3 and 4…

So in short, whenever a small group of people come up with something neat, and they make it last, a bigger group of people will want to take a shit all over it. What can we do about it? I guess we simply have to persevere. Those who see a deeper meaning in Truth, than mere an excuse to party, must hold on to the truth, and expose the frauds when they pop up. Eventually, hopefully, they will die out and move onto another trend to parasite off of, and leave those of us who are concerned with the truth to explore it. The conspiracy culture, as well as spirituality and New Agey stuff, is becoming a fairly popular subculture in our world, which means it will and has attracted all sorts of people. It has been infiltrated, and by that I don’t simply mean infiltrated by governments and their likes, but by people who naturally are parasitic. People who only want to have their Bacchanalia or Saturnalia. To party all night wearing the latest trend t-shirt, which right now is “9/11 was an Inside Job”, and then move on to the next trend. Those people cannot see the deeper meaning in things. They are distressed by it, but they recognize the power a new idea, a new way of doing things has and they want to have it for themselves. To do that they have to water it down, to dumb it down to their level.

I read a great article comparing the original Robocop movie to the new one. The old one had heart, and some deeper meaning to it, but the new one (even though I haven’t even seen it I have a hard time believing it could be good) is merely a hollow shell of the old one. Some people only see the shell and therefore only care about the shell.

 

Edit:

Just found a video on Youtube with Internet Aristocrat talking about the same topic (around 25min or so): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrih2LmNgPw

 

Links:

Truth Movement Is An Embarrassment As Of Late: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB4u-g7Z6Oc

2/05/2014 — Weather Modification , HAARP is closed?, Youtube Disinfo — Freedom Frequency: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqirX-2egfY

Sheilaaliens 2014 Update; Corrupt ‘Truthers’; Google Search Dumbing Us Down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-HlP0y6BjY

The New Robocop is what Robocop Meant to Kill: http://gawker.com/the-new-robocop-is-what-robocop-meant-to-kill-1522915976

Society vs Community

I often criticize society. I’d almost describe it as the root of all evil (or the foremost symptom of the root of ultimate evil). Therefore I should probably explain what I mean by society, and how it differs from community.

Community refers to the people around you, i.e. the community. A community may manifest itself in many ways. There can be the regular community of people who live in the same town as you. There can be an online community on forum you frequent. The people you interact with in your workplace or school is a community. So is the circle of friends you hang around with, or people who share the same hobby and interact due to it. A community is a collective of real people who interact with each other in a regular or semi-regular basis. While community is not inherently a good thing, it certainly isn’t bad. It just means the people around you. Your neighbour, and in these days your neighbour might live on the other side of the world because of the internet and other technologies.

Society on the other hand is a social construct. A collectivist delusion. A product of social engineering possibly. It is an ideal attempting to artificially integrate every single community within a national state into a single society, for example. Or integrate various nations into the Western civilization, i.e. Western society, or the integrate all people into a single global society. Society treats people as statistics. The Average Person, Public Opinion, the Common Man. All refer to an artificial entity, not to an actual flesh and blood human. At best, society is a generalization. At worst it is an excuse for oppression and coercion. You are told to do what is good for society, to sacrifice yourself for the common good. But as society doesn’t really believe in real people, but intellectual constructs based on people, you’ll only be helping a construct, if even them. You’re expected to follow public opinion, or at least pay lip service to it, but public opinion does not refer to the opinion that the majority of people have generated by themselves. Public opinion is most often implanted by the media onto unwitting people. Society is merely a means for an empire, or the head of an empire, to delude the masses to believe the actions said empire does to gain more power is in the interest of everyone.

I’m not saying community is good and society bad. Well, I’m saying society is bad, or at least almost always bad. I guess a delusion can lead to positive results on occasion. Society is an artificial, man-made concept, whereas community is a natural one. A community consists of real, live human beings. If those human beings are assholes, your community might suck, but since you are a part of that community you should take a look in the mirror and think what you can do to change it. Society though, is a rough generalization at best. It can work as a broad description of tendencies of a certain large group of people: “Finnish society likes ice hockey, coffee and alcohol.” True, but only as a generalization, and it should not be used as an excuse to coerce others to follow the values of a society. Didn’t the Nazis send people into concentration camps for “anti-social” behaviour? If I’m not here tomorrow, I’ll be at the camps too for not being overtly enthusiastic about ice hockey.

The Djinn World Order

I heard about Rosemary Ellen Guiley a couple of years ago. She’s been researching paranormal stuff for 30 years. Her most intriguing stuff is her work on the djinn. I read her book The Vengeful Djinn soon after I discovered Guiley. The djinn are of course supernatural beings of Arabic and Islamic (and pre-Islamic) lore. Although according to Guiley they are not limited to the Middle-East. European description of fairies matches that of the djinn to a great deal (and fairy encounters bear a lot of similarity to ET encounters).

The djinn are the Hidden Ones. They live thousands of years (as will their agendas). They are shapeshifters. They might remind you of the reptilians, and they should. Rosemary Ellen Guiley’s new book (but probably not the newest) is called The Djinn Connection: The Hidden Links Between Djinn, Shadow People, ETs, Nephilim, Archons, Reptilians and Other Entities. I haven’t read it yet, but the title seems self-explanatory, meaning all of those beings are connected to the djinn in some way, or might be different personas of the djinn. I’ve always had problems with the reptilian story à la David Icke. I thought there is truth to it, but something is missing, and the missing link might be the djinn. To be fair I discovered Guiley through David Icke’s website.

None of this info about the djinn and other entities is new for me, like I said. I heard about couple of years ago, but for some reason now it’s starting to make sense in the bigger picture, I guess. Maybe I’m just letting go of that nagging self-doubt and skepticism regarding all of this crazy spirit and paranormal stuff.

What does the New World Order have to do with this then? I’ve never really accepted the New World Order narrative. Just as with the reptilians, something was missing. While it is obvious the New World Order announced by George Bush senior on 9/11 1991, mentioned by many others since, and advertised by Alex Jones ad nauseam, is a “thing”, it’s probably what everybody thinks it is. It is also obvious that the world is heading to a global Orwellian or Huxleyan Brave New World dystopian prison, but I’ve never agreed that it is the final product. It was always supposed to be one phase in the plan, though a very big and important phase. I think the so called Illuminati want the people to be aware of the iniquity of our system and its leaders (à la Externalization of the Hierarchy). As is indicated by the Snowden Affair. There’s gonna be oppression and suffering, death and atrocity, but the New World Order will be defeated, and that is the plan.

After the destruction of the NWO the real Djinn World Order can arise. The blue-beam fake alien invasion may be part of this. Perhaps they bring fake ETs to save us and tell us they are the Elohim, Annunaki or the ancient astronauts, and they are our space brothers and are here to help us. They’re more likely to be human-djinn hybrids. Maybe there won’t be any alien invasion/ disclosure event. It could be the fake global messiah scenario. It could merely be a secular political faction with a nice and cozy philosophy. It might be a combination of all scenarios. But the game plan is that they make humanity suffer and struggle for survival, and we manage to beat them. After that they want people to lay on their asses, twiddling their thumbs while they bring on a new deception that sounds sweet, feels squishy and warm so people buy it. And it will seem really tempting. It will seem like there is no downside to accepting whatever they are offering. But be aware the true conflict is a spiritual one. We must reject whatever magical snake oils they have and hold on to whatever each individuals deems righteous and holy.

This might sound religious or something, but it’s not. I’m sure the djinn have a practical agenda from their point of view, and it isn’t to conquer humanity with tanks, planes and surveillance cameras. What that agenda is though, is a mystery. It might merely be Matrix-esque human farming for energy. Maybe the djinn want to change the nature of our reality in some way to allow them to exist on our vibration, or something-ish. Maybe they just wanna rule the earth with their deception. They still probably wouldn’t do it openly since they are the Hidden Ones, they’d more likely pretend to be the space brothers or reptilians overlords. Don’t buy into the Harry Potter hype.

The New World Order has been called Satanic, or Luciferian. Lucifer was the light-bringer, also the Biblical account of fallen angels and stuff is similar to some story about fallen djinn. Prometheus stole fire from the gods, and the torch is a common “brotherhood” symbol, such as the Statue of Liberty or the Olympic torch. The djinn were created of smokeless fire. There’s gotta be some sort of connection, right?

 

Links:

Rosemary E Guiley interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7inZxTou5lI

The Games we Play

Our lives are run by games. We are told we must follow the rules, compete, try to be on top or fall down and be crushed. Society itself is a game, a set of arbitrary rules. If we manage to play the game well we are “successful”, if not we fail. I like games, I’ve been playing all sorts of games all my life. Computer games, board games, games using toys with friends as children, team sport games. They’re fun when you do it for fun, but when you begin to think it is real your life becomes a prison.

Society is a game, but one you’re supposed to take seriously, and society itself consists of myriad mini-games. There’s the career game, the politics game, economics, education too is a game. Science and religion, both of which are supposed to provide answers, are a competition whose dogma or theory is the most popular one. They used to say the world was created in seven days, and anyone who disagreed was silenced. Now the top dog is the explanation that the universe popped into existence in the fraction of a second (or something). If you question that, you are out of a job. The point in a game is not to question the game when you play it, but to be the best, to eliminate opposition. It’s fucking silly that people are playing all sorts of sports where they are running after a ball, or playing video games where they kill countless numbers of monsters. The activity is quite pointless when you think about it, but it’s fun. People enjoy these activities, and you can’t blame them for it, but you can blame them when they continue playing a game when they stop enjoying it.

The Online Etymology Dictionary has this to say:

 

“game (n.)
Old English gamen “game, joy, fun, amusement,” common Germanic (cf. Old Frisian game “joy, glee,” Old Norse gaman, Old Saxon, Old High German gaman “sport, merriment,” Danish gamen, Swedish gamman “merriment”), regarded as identical with Gothic gaman “participation, communion,” from Proto-Germanic *ga- collective prefix + *mann “person,” giving a sense of “people together.”

Meaning “contest played according to rules” is first attested c.1300. Sense of “wild animals caught for sport” is late 13c.; hence fair game (1825), also gamey. Game plan is 1941, from U.S. football; game show first attested 1961.”

 

It’s supposed to be fun. You’re supposed to experience joy and amusement playing games. A lot of people don’t enjoy playing the society game, nor fiddling with economics and politics and all that stuff. So lets call them sick games compared to games that are fun. You are forced to play sick games in order to survive in the world, and they are merely enforced by other people, not by natural law. You have to fight to get money to be able to get food and shelter. It’s a game, and not a fun one. There are some people who like it, but I’d wager most people don’t. There are all sorts of social norms you have to follow, arbitrarily set by something or someone you will never even meet, however if you don’t follow the norms you are ostracized by others, possibly even thrown in an institution. These are games, sick games, not actual requirements set by nature such as eating and sleeping.

One line in the etymology explanation is quite interesting: “ga-collective prefix + *mann “person,” giving a sense of “people together.” A game is something people do together for fun, unless it’s a sick game. Although the original meaning of game does not seem to have any requirement to have rules, I think nowadays most associate games with rules. That’s fine, it’s natural for people to be together and agree on some sort of rules of conduct. However, we should remember you don’t need to play a game in order to associate with people. We tend to forget that.

Hunting, or the prey you hunt, is also called game. As the Etymology dictionary says this meaning came to be in the middle-ages. Perhaps our sick games are derived from this practice. In the hunter-gatherer past hunting was something you didn’t for fun, you did to live, but in more civilized times it became a past time which some enjoyed. The same was later applied for politics, economics, science and religion. Somehow the rules that are associated with games took over the practicality related in such matters (yes, religion, or rather spirituality, is supposed to be a practical matter). I’m just guessing here though.

To return to the point, our society is a game, a sick game, with a set of arbitrary rules we expected to follow. There is even the concept Game theory, which is used in economics, political science, and psychology to study the mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers, according to Wikipedia. It’s all a game. There’s nothing wrong with playing games occasionally, but when the game hi-jacks your sense of reality you have a problem. Whether you play World of Warcraft or are following the stock market 24/7, it’s a problem. If you do it now and then because you like it, it’s fine. You have to keep in mind though, that you have to choose what game you want to play.

Links:

Etymology: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=game&allowed_in_frame=0

Game theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

The Earth is Flat!

Last night I saw a Truther Girls video on Youtube featuring Arron the Barbarian, husband of truther girl Sonya. The video was called “Why Do People Think The Earth Is Flat?”. Unsurprisingly they were discussing the flat earth issue. Arron said he was taking seriously the claims that the earth is flat. Yes, some people still believe the earth is flat. Silly as it might sound, I reminded myself that most things that people believe are stupid and wrong, especially the most popular beliefs, so why not consider the possibility that the earth might be flat. Besides, Arron is a wise man, and a bit crazy, so if he’s looking into it, there might be something to it.

According to my understanding the standard modern flat earth theory claims the earth is shaped as it is depicted on the United Nations logo. Around the edges are high walls of ice. The North Pole would be in the center and Antarctica maybe doesn’t exist then? At least planes don’t fly over Antarctica so there’s something there people don’t want to see.

un

I’m not so convinced by the flat earth theory itself, but there are some details worth highlighting. One of them is the claim that the earth does not move or revolve around the sun, or anything. The earth is stationary and it is the heavens that move. I find that an intriguing notion. In modern times we’re all indoctrinated by the idea that the earth moves and revolves around stuff from childhood, and we’re told our stupid, superstitious ancestors thought the earth doesn’t move. We learn it so young, we never even think to question it. I’m not saying the earth doesn’t move, I’m saying I don’t know, and I haven’t questioned it before, but I should. We all should. How do we know what the scientists are telling us is true? Where’s the empirical evidence? I don’t have much faith in their theoretical calculation or consensus that it does. That is not science.

There’s one scientific experiment from the 19th century by George Biddell Airy that supposedly proves the earth doesn’t move. Something to do with tilting a telescope and putting water into it. It’s called Airy’s Failure, the failure meaning that his experiment failed to prove that the earth is moving. Flat earthers claim it proved just the opposite. I won’t explain it in detail since I don’t really understand it that well, I’ll add some links in the bottom.

For the flat earth theory to be true, there would have to be a vast conspiracy hiding facts about the shape of the earth, and distorting images from probes sent into space and pictures taken by astronauts. I already believe that’s true, I just don’t know what they are actually hiding so it’s not a stretch to say they could be hiding the flatness of the earth.

However, I’m not so convinced by the flat earth thing. I’m more pleased by the rebellious attitude of flat earthers. Later last night I discovered the channel of a guy called Steven Christ. He claims, or as I interpret his explanation, is that the earth like a snow globe. The earth, the ground, is flat, according to him I think, but the sky is literally made glass. A dome. There are huge chunks of ice hanging from the glass, and sometimes they fall. They are called Megacryometeors. It is sort of like we are living in the hollow earth, or the earth is like a Dyson Sphere. The difference to a Dyson Sphere is that the sun is not in the middle, but on top. Also the stars and space is not vast and infinite. According to Steven Christ the stars are really small. They are swimming in ether, which I think flat earthers also think.

I’m not sure how realistic this model is, but I do think it’s fascinating. The idea that there is a glass dome covering the earth is so crazy I cannot help think it might be true. And the ice. I’ve been bombarded by various claims of a new ice age. Especially on Red Ice Creations they have had a couple of guests talk about it, and some articles probably too. This winter has been really cold. Even the crappy movie Day After Tomorrow predicted a new ice age.

Another fascinating idea about Steven Christ’s model is that the heavens are quite different to what we are told. That’s what I’ve been puzzling over as of late too. Perhaps outer space does not exist as such, but what we see with telescopes is a visual representation of something intellectually distant for us. I once heard someone describe that the huge distances we perceive to exist between stars may be a physical representation of our distance from them spiritually. In old times magicians, prophets and shamans used to go into the astral (meaning star) plane to commune with spirits and stuff. Astrology describes heavenly bodies as wielding great influence over our lives based on their movement, as if it was great cosmic machinery that runs things on earth. As above, so below. Or rather, if we think of the world as computer simulation, the Matrix or something, the astral plane could represent the code, the program, which tells the visual things on the screen, i.e. the physical, what to do.

Perhaps I’m just crazy for entertaining these ideas, but at least I am crazy by myself. The difference between crazy and not crazy is that what the masses believe is sane, if you believe something else you are crazy. I may not understand complicated physics that well, but I do understand social habits of people, and by observing people and society I have noticed two things; 1. People tend to believe what is popular, and things are made popular by repetition. Truth plays little part in the process. 2. The beliefs of the people are usually, and especially in today’s world, really fucked up and wrong. For these two reasons I will proudly question the cultural memes on the shape of the earth and its behaviour in the cosmos.

Links:

Why Do People Think The Earth Is Flat?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY4NoewDmIM

PoliceStateRadio: http://www.youtube.com/user/PoliceStateRadio/videos

Airy’s Failure: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.95;wap2

George Biddell Airy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Biddell_Airy

The Earth is Flat 100% Proof Pt 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9yELehWHxE&list=PLtU-t2hZMFNB1DcD4oISqFN4QqFua-dnh

Steven Christ: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheFoxStevie/videos

Megacryometeor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacryometeor

What sort of world would I want to live in?

I usually bitch about the countless things that are wrong with people, society and the world. Well, I just like bitching about things that suck. But let’s look at things from another angle; what sort of world would I wanna see.

I’d like to live in a world where people can be who they really are, and discover what they are, meaning if someone is an asshole they can be an asshole, and if someone is a saint that is OK too. And of course if others don’t like the asshole they can make their opinion known and take steps to not have to suffer the presence of said asshole. For this to be possible people would have to be able to communicate with each other honestly without worrying about the latest social engineering program that says you mustn’t criticize a certain faction, ethnic, religious or political group or popular fad, and get rid of the programs that say you must not be interested in this or that phenomenon or you are crazy.

I’d like for people, and the society surrounding them, to be authentic. This means the way they deal with reality and the problems it sometimes causes has to be natural too, instead of artificial ways. For example the way human communities divide resources can be a problem, or at least a challenge. Nowadays the seemingly best solution is to use money to make sure everyone gets at least something, and they can have some influence over what they get. At least it’s better than any totalitarian solution where the state dictates what you get. Still, money is a really bad way of handling it, and an artificial solution.

I wanna live in a world without money or a government (or any other artificial institution telling people how to live). Yet, of course, it would lead to even bigger problems if we were to try to design a society with certain prerequisites such as the absence of money. Money is an artificial, man-made middleman that gets in the way of human interaction. Replacing it with another artificial middleman would not be better, like ice hockey. Now society says “you don’t have enough money in your bank account, you have to be homeless”. It would not be an improvement if society said “you have not scored any goals in ice hockey during last month so you have to be homeless”. Equally artificial, and equally silly.

The solution to this problem is not to have any particular ideology, that includes (or rather excludes) ideologies that say that you mustn’t have money, or government. Let’s just live. Most animals can do it without great efforts, including mammals which includes humans. The only caveat is that we have to live as real living beings, animals. Human beings are animals, and the word “animal” is derived from Latin “anima” which means soul. Quite contradictorily people have for a long time wanted to separate themselves from the rest of the animal “kingdom”, and attested we have souls and they don’t. An animal by definition has, or is, a soul. Human’s who wish to separate themselves from it, separate themselves from life in order to become robotic, losing their souls and accepting programming. This programming can be anything from traditional Christianity or materialistic Atheism and Darwinism to any lame-ass political ideology. Long story short, you know how to live. Stop complicating it with crap you learned from so called intellectual or religious authorities.

Let’s get back to the contradiction that I want to live in a world without money or governments, yet I don’t want to advocate any ideology that promotes those ideas. How to deal with it? I think a town in Alaska may be on the right track. The town of Talkeetna has had a cat for a mayor for 16 years, and it seems to be working for them. This might be the right approach. Instead of viewing these ancient, and in many ways oppressive, habits of humanity as something to oppose fervently, maybe we have to accept they are there, but not take them seriously. We can have money, but understand it’s a toy. Doesn’t matter if it’s gold, silver, plastic or Bitcoin. We can have a world government, but let’s crown a plastic hamster as the emperor of the world. Money and government (and countless other human habits of behaviour and belief) are completely stupid and unnecessary, but if you aggravate the proponents of such silly ideas you’ll create more conflict. By believing that Statism or Capitalism, or Crony Capitalism, is so evil you inflate their importance beyond what it actually is. The problem is not any particular ideology, but the notion that an ideology can be superior to reality or another fake ideology.

I want to live in a world that is out of control.

 

Links:

Mayor of Alaskan Town Is a Cat: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304500404579127644142609328