Effects of Computer Games on People

Every now and then vague accusations arise about the harmful effects of computer games on people. I’ve played computer and video games pretty much all my life and most of my friends play games too. I think that makes me qualified to say that games indeed can have negative effects on people, however almost always these articles and studies that seemingly criticize games leave me unconvinced of actually saying anything relevant. They are usually written by an outsider, somebody who does not seem to have much personal experience on gaming. It’s like an alien trying to observe humanity and criticize them based on their outsider information. They may have a few poignant insights, but overall they miss the main issue.

First of all, video games are a part of our culture, same as anything else. They are an act of storytelling. They can be profound art or superficial entertainment the same as books, movies and music. If this claim surprises you or you disagree with it, that is merely ignorance on your part. Video games are a fairly new genre of storytelling having existed a bit over 30 years, and therefore they are not as solidified and legitimate art form in the minds of some, but that is their problem. A hundred years ago many people probably didn’t consider movies a legitimate art form, but nowadays I think most think so.

Video games being a legitimate art form does not exclude them from criticism, I’d say it’s rather the other way around. However, one-sided criticism is just stupid. Games also have positive effects. For example I have learned a lot of English from games in my youth, they can bring people together as friends and games are usually fun, which is why people play them.

Speaking of one-sided criticism, all my life I’ve been hearing someone getting on their soap box and denouncing violent video games for causing aggression in children. I previously made  a post on violent video games. When I was a kid I saw violence in video games as a form of artistic expression. You got to do something nasty and forbidden, and it felt nice. In the game Syndicate you controlled a four person team of cyborgs. You were able to kill cops, civilians and cyborgs from rival syndicates. It was fun, especially killing civilians, since it was completely senseless and something you didn’t see a lot in games back then, before Grand Theft Auto. There must have been something wrong with me, since I never wanted to go kill people in real life, just in the game. I’m crazy like that, I can tell the difference between reality and a game. Man, I was fucked up. I screw up their theories about games making kids violent.

I see a lot of this so called concern over video games as another expression of the Nazi book burnings. People who haven’t played games fearing them for being “different” and wanting to get rid of them. That is not to say there aren’t harmful effects to gaming, but let’s be reasonable about it.

I read a couple of articles from 4 Mind 4 Life which prompted me to write this post. An article called “Effects of Video Games on the Brain of Children” and another is “Effects Of Video Games On The Brain: Men More Likely To Get Addicted”. First of all the former article says: “there are some studies demonstrating a connection between video games and a hostile demeanor as well as disturbed eruptions.” Yet it doesn’t offer links to these studies. This is common, in my experience, to criticism against video games, vague accusations, no concrete proof, even though it is true. Video games have made me angry many times in my life. Less nowadays than in my youth, since if a game starts to piss me off, I tend to stop playing. Still, I’m not convinced that this aggression has anything to do with whether the game has expressions of violence in it or not, as is often assumed. It has more to do with whether the game sucks or not. Games can make you aggressive and angry, it’s a given. I’ve experienced this myself many times and observed in my friends. However, despite what the critics seem to hint at, that games make people aggressive, I’d say that games limit the aggression to games. In their private lives, gamers aren’t usually aggressive, even when they should be. Many gamers direct their aggression toward virtual foes, instead of real ones. Games can render them apathetic to society, having little will to combat the real enemies that conspire to enslave us further.

The article says: “Perusal of these studies [what studies?] and my own experiences with children while they play video games has led me to believe that video games do in fact influence the actions and thoughts of the person playing them. So far it’s proven difficult to discern whether or not the player is impacted after the game has been shut off, or what the magnitude will be or how long that change might endure.” I don’t understand what the point of this article is, if it is trying to be critical of video games, since it clearly has no actual evidence to back up any of it’s assumptions. I’ve experienced the after-effects of gaming many times. The strongest would probably be Team Fortress 2, which is a first person shooter where a red and blue team try to kill each other and complete objectives. If I play it for two hours straight afterwards images of the game flash in my subconscious, which is freaky, and perhaps sort of cool. I doubt the game affects everyone like this, but I don’t play so much fast paced 3D action games so I’m usually drawn deeper into the 3D world than people who are more used to it. Other after effects can be that I dream I’m a playing a game, while I’m sleeping. However, this isn’t limited to video games, I have also dreamed I’m playing a card game, so the effect is more related to games, not video games.

I think it’s funny, even though I’m defending video games, I can come up with more evidence about their harmful effects than an article that is trying to be critical of them, since the article does not even offer any link to the supposed studies. My source for my studies is me. Take it or leave it.

The other article I mentioned at least names an actual researcher and an actual study. Allan Reiss from Stanford University School of Medicine did a study that men get more easily addicted to games than women, which is hardly groundbreaking news. The article says something about territoriality and men being conquering tyrants (yeah, I’m sort of mis-quoting the article, but I’ll give myself the liberty to do that based on the fact that even though the article mentioned the study, and offered a link to the Stanford University website, there is no link to the actual study, just the front page. I mean how fucking lazy can you be?). My understanding of why many men are drawn to games is that men are builders and warriors by nature. We like to be able to affect our surroundings. In the past men used to build houses and castles, and fight wars, but nowadays we aren’t taught the skills and are expected to rot in our cubicles, and also we have morals qualms about wars, so we do those things in a virtual environment.

In conclusion, games do have negative effects, but so does everything else. Games also function as bread and circuses to distract us from important social issues, but so does everything else. The effect of games on people should be studied, and we should be critical of them, but let’s not be one-dimensional dick-wads about. If you think games are harmful for people, go play one yourself first. Then you can experience the harmful and the beneficial effects of it.



Syndicate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4jQ2ZFvPVg

Effects of Video Games on the Brain of Children: http://4mind4life.com/blog/2010/01/16/effects-of-video-games-on-the-brain-of-children/

Effects Of Video Games On The Brain: Men More Likely To Get Addicted: http://4mind4life.com/blog/2008/07/08/effects-of-video-games-on-the-brain-men-more-likely-to-get-addicted/

Video games activate reward regions of brain in men more than women: http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2008/february/videobrain.html



Trinity of Action

This is my attempt at defining three different types of action one should engage in to live properly and sanely: Observe, Reject and Express.

Observe means you should observe your environment. This applies both to your immediate environment and the global environment. If you’re walking down the street you should be paying attention so you won’t be run over by a car running a red light. When cooking in your kitchen you should be paying attention you don’t forget to turn off the stove and make your home catch fire. Quite simple. In a global context this means you should be observing what happens in the world, even if you cannot directly affect it. What are the elites and other criminals conspiring against you, what sort of environmental disasters corporations are working on, and so forth. You have to pay attention.

Reject refers to not buying any of the crap they try to sell you. Don’t buy into the hype they try to make out to be the most important thing ever. They spend a lot of time and effort creating Harry Potters, political parties and talking points to distract you. To give you the impression its something that matters. It doesn’t matter, so look away. Although, other things you cannot simply ignore. In that sense you cannot merely reject them, you have to oppose them. Monsanto GMO, RFID chips, the latest war they wanna start. You have to make it known in some way that you not only reject them, but you want to prevent them from happening or spreading.

Express is the most important part of the trinity, however, if you forsake the other two, you cannot express yourself freely. The best universal “rule” for the meaning of life, I can express, is that you are here on this planet to express yourself somehow. It may be the more traditional artistic expression such as painting, music or writing, but there are countless of ways to express your you-ness. Engineers do it by designing interesting new technologies, scientists can reveal new facts about reality, or grandmothers can bake cakes to make their grandchildren happy. All of these are ways of expression. I think we are supposed to leave a mark on this world, your artistic footprint, and not avoiding it like it was some negative “carbon footprint”. Ironically the Global Warming hoax is an expression of somebody’s deceptive abilities. (Even though the popular Global Warming, or Climate Change, that it has suddenly morphed into for some reason, is a hoax, it does not necessarily imply the world isn’t getting warmer, only that the reasons why it is happening are false.)

The distinction between Reject and Express must be made. Some people spend most of their energy “opposing the New World Order”, for example, and they forgo the need to express themselves. In that way they contribute more to expression of the nasty people who want to create the New World Order, instead of creating something better themselves. You are supposed to “oppose the New World Order”, but not stop there. You must not give your life away opposing it, rather oppose it so you can do what you really wanna do. You cannot let the battle define your life. I think this is how we defeat it.

Ultimately all of these conspiracies we are subjected to are about control. Control means you let someone else dictate who you are and what you do. Someone else tries to cajole you into manifesting their expression in place of your own. If you define yourself as someone who is here to fight the NWO or the Illuminati, then you let them define you. We’re supposed to go beyond it. It is not our goal to defeat the New World Order; the NWO is merely a hurdle we must bypass on the road to doing what we really want. The goal is to contribute to this world with your personal artistic expression. The NWO wants to prevent you from doing it, therefore it must be defeated, not because it’s somehow noble to fight such a grand enemy.

You must Observe the world to know all of the bad, and good, stuff in it. You must Reject the pointless crap, and oppose the harmful. Then you can Express yourself freely.

Lose your Anchor

We feel comfortable being anchored to a belief system or a cultural identity group. We shouldn’t. Kick away the anchor and let the waves take you where they may.

Let’s take something like 9/11 for example. According to the culture most of up grew up in, before 9/11 in the nineties the government was there for the people. It may have not been perfect, the government may have made mistakes, but they always “tried their best”. We were anchored to that world view. It was unfathomable the government would ever murder its citizens only to justify more theft and murder elsewhere. However, as those with an ounce of courage and half-a-brain looked at the evidence, it was hard to come to any conclusion other than the above-mentioned had in fact happened. Then you begin gradually drift away from the anchor, but you are still anchored to a certain belief system.

You hear theories on 9/11 such as there were no planes; they were holograms. The WTC towers were brought down by energy weapons, not explosives, thermite nor jet fuel. According to the world view we absorbed in the nineties, those things too are quite unfathomable. So we reject them simply because it doesn’t fit into the fictional mythology in our minds. I don’t think we should.

However (there is always a however), many of us, as we start to recognize the falseness of the old belief system, and we reject it, as we should, we want to find a new belief system. A new point to attach the anchor. That we should not do. We may reject the old flawed beliefs and detach the anchor, but then we adapt a conspiracy tradition. It’s always the most “crazy” explanation. It must have been holograms, it must have been energy weapons. We adopt the explanation which opposes the conventional view the most. We should not.

Let go of any anchor. Otherwise you won’t be intellectually or spiritually free. Float in your little boat in the vast ocean of craziness. Let the waves guide you, yet don’t throw away the oars. Don’t be  a victim of fate. You’ll need to exert your own power when you see the little island you wanna visit, or when you have to fend off sharks with frickin’ lasers.

The point which exists there to fix your anchor at was usually put there by somebody else in the first place. If you let them fool you into anchoring at their port, you fall under the particular delusion they are selling. You let them script your reality. That is not to say you should ignore advice or guides, it merely means don’t buy the whole package. No-one will ever tell you the whole truth, but it does not mean they cannot tell you important bits of it.

I’m all for craziness. I do think the most crazy explanation is often less false then the seemingly sane one. For me, though, being anchored to something is too normal, which is the wrong type of crazy. I wanna go off the deep end and beyond. The truth is always more crazy than you can theorize in your conspiracies or philosophies, Horatio.

You also shouldn’t think I am promoting some New Age “create your own reality by merely sitting on your ass and ignoring reality”. That’s clearly a something someone else constructed for you to anchor yourself to.

Usually a Cigar is not just a Cigar

The way conventional conspiracy theorists view the world mirrors how conventional co-incidence theorists view it. Their outlook is similar, but the conclusions they draw are opposite. The conspiracy theorist looks at suspicious world events and, rightly so, recognizes there is something beyond the surface. However, often they come up with a forced conclusion that is somehow related to something in their belief system, be it the Illuminati, Jesuits, Jews, aliens or the NWO. The co-incidence theorist criticizes the conspiracy theorist for this, and rightly so. Yet when the co-incidence theorist sees these suspicious world events, he might recognize there is something beyond the surface, but he understands he cannot know what the underlying actors and factors are, so he decides there is nothing there worth considering. It will, unfortunately, lead to more ignorance.

Myself being more of the conspiracy theorist outlook, I prefer that outlook, yet I can understand the desire of co-incidence theorists not to create more confusion by idle speculation. So I propose the kind of outlook that leads you away from dogma and ignorance into knowledge and understanding. Conspiracy theorists too, just like regular people, can be very dogmatic in their beliefs, which is not how they should be. Question everything should be the motto for most of us. At least, even if you look at events from a dogmatic viewpoint, you are still looking at them, which does not apply to the co-incidence theorist who washes his hands of the affair like Pilate.

The famous quote from Sigmund Freud goes: “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” It is true, but the underlying implication is that usually a cigar is not just a cigar, which is something most co-incidence theorists fail to recognize. It is mostly a matter of convenience to see a cigar and say it is a cigar, anybody can do it. It is more difficult to see a cigar and say what it actually is. That is the mistake many conspiracy theorists make. It’s not so difficult to say that something is not really the cigar it looks like, but it is extremely difficult to pinpoint what it actually is. We often pretend we know what it is, even though we don’t. Still, it works both ways. Let’s say a conventional conspiracy theorist and co-incidence theorist see a UFO. The former says it is an alien flying saucer, and the latter says it’s a weather balloon. Both are wrong, making an assumption based on their belief system. The UFO is naturally a transcendental cyborg unicorn chrysalising into a new cosmos in the minds of billiard players.

I tend to see everything as not being as it seems, even though sometimes things are that simple. I’m happy to be wrong in those cases, since most often I’m not. Also it does not mean there is a conspiracy behind everything, it simply means things always have a deeper meaning to what it looks like a surface, which is missed by anyone with a dogmatic view on things.

There can never be a functioning social system

All sorts of politicians, philosophers and social scientists try to come up with the best system to tell people how to organize themselves within a society. There’s democracy, communism, theocracy, socialism, capitalism, anarcho-capitalism, anarchy, feudalism, tribalism, republic and loads of others. They all promise a lot, but never deliver. “This system would be perfect if only _______.”  The _______ never becomes reality, at best such conditions last for a short while.

Let’s give up then. Our grand ideas of how things should work are always doomed to fail. Woe is me, woe is me. No.

Lets give up trying come up with some universal system for everybody. That is all we need to do. What works for me might not work for you, and vice versa. Also what worked for me when I was 20 years old may not work for me when I’m 40. You have to play by ear, observe the environment you live in. A social system is basically a bunch of habits of social interaction between people. Sort of as described by Rupert Sheldrake’s Morphic Fields. We form habits. For example I have a habit of getting together with my friends every weekend to play roleplaying games and drink a few beers. I would say it works for us quite well. I would even recommend it to others, but I’m sure the majority of humanity would not be interested, or they might even be disgusted by the notion. To each his own.

The same philosophy should be applied to more complex social issues, i. e. see what works. What do people find suitable for them. There is, and never can be, any all encompassing social philosophy for describing according to what sort of habits people should organize themselves to follow.

Myself, I consider anarchy the only morally agreeable system. Note: anarchy means no king or ruler, it does not mean the absence of rules. I am certainly against abstract laws and complex jargon that the average man cannot understand such as we have today, but I don’t object, and I would assume same goes for other “anarchists”, to people having agreements or commonly agreed rules together. While I do think it would be possibly to have a small community based on mutual anarchic agreements which would work well, I don’t think it would be a suitable model for all of humanity, since it seems that the majority of people want someone to tell them how to live their lives. If we were to have our little anarchic community living in happiness, the masses next door could and would probably be taken over by some form tyranny and eventually it would threaten the anarchic community. There is the If Only ______ in anarchy.

The desire to have a perfect social system stems, according to my observation, from laziness and/or fear. Abdication of responsibility. The notion seems to be if we had the perfectly working social system life would go on just like a dream without hardships, flowing like magical river with no dam in sight. We wouldn’t have to worry about a thing. There is this assumption that society is a mathematical formula, if you can crack the code, if only we can organize everything just perfectly it would work itself out and we could just sit back and relax. Sorry, that is not how life works. You will always have to work hard, there will always be times of tribulation and uncertainty mixed happiness and success. The only way to rid ourselves this problem is to have a Brave New World-type scenario where everyone is drugged or microchipped to become less than human.

Now that we live in the global community of interconnected rules and authority figures, and nation states with governments we still have all sorts of hardships we have to face. The contribution to solving these hardships that the externally imposed social system provides is, in my opinion, the inability for us to solve our own problems. There is always some external authority figure that you have no personal connection to who is expected to solve your problems. And sometimes they even do that, but often they don’t. In the pre-modern era is you wanted a house to live in, you built one. If you needed food, you hunted for it or grew it yourself. Now we have all sorts of laws and regulations, and bureaucratic hoops we have to jump through, to even consider doing so. We cannot do anything for ourselves, both in the sense we aren’t taught the skills to build houses and grow food, and there are laws and social obstacles to stop us from doing so.

This is what we have gotten from the belief that there is a social system that can solve our problems for us. The only true social system is interaction with the people around us, and modernization has made that even more difficult than before. Do you talk to your neighbours, do you know their names? I don’t, not really.

The Everpresent Alien Consciousness

Almost ten years ago, few years before I “woke up”, I did a philosophical thought experiment. I wanted to understand why human society is so fucked up, where we are heading and who or what is directing it. The scenario that seemed more likely was that there is an alien consciousness ruling over humanity. The oppressive system with all sorts of insanity such as consumerism and propaganda didn’t seem like human oppression to me. It’s a very human thing for someone or some oligarchical group to want to be king, to exalt itself over the rest of humanity to gain privileges and goods and services not available to others. It has happened over and over again in history. However where we are now looked different. It didn’t seem like human society was there to merely serve the vain ego of a megalomaniacal individual or group of individuals. There was an alien consciousness behind it.

At the time I thought the alien consciousness would be a bunch space aliens, ETs or something along those lines. Alien conspiracies were familiar to me from science fiction, but weren’t something I would entertain seriously. As I didn’t quite believe in the existence of such beings, I didn’t know how to proceed. I was certain though, that the guiding principle in society wasn’t anything quite banal as human greed, lust or even ignorance. Back then I could only tell myself it’s this construct I called aliens, even though I wasn’t sure how the construct would correspond with reality. Now I can say that it does. There are different ways to interpret what this alien consciousness is, as alien merely means: “foreign, nonnative or differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility”.

Now that I examine the alien consciousness I can divide it into two different possibilities; alien beings from other planets or dimensions, or the alien consciousness is a demon constructed by the human mind and perpetuated in the collective consciousness of humanity through cultural norms and beliefs. Whether the alien is the former or the latter is an ontological question I cannot answer, but I do believe it is there.

However, I’d like to discuss other ontological questions regarding crazy alien stuff. Earlier today I listened to a discussion by The Beard World Order with Tom Secker, James Corbett, and Guillermo Jimenez. They talked about how everyone has a limit while researching conspiracies when something starts to sound too crazy, such as the theory that no planes hit the World Trade Center on 9/11, rather they were holograms. To the three men this seemed like it was on the limit of what they think is crazy, but at least worth considering. They really should spend a few days studying Freeman. They didn’t even get started with the crazy stuff.

I think the technology probably existed in 2001 to project plane holograms hit the buildings, however I’m not that convinced that is what happened back then.

The Beard World Order sort of laughingly discussed reptilians, and high-lighted some of the stupid and superficial claims about reptilians and aliens. They rightly said that when someone believes a completely off-world and outrageous story, they can justify anything with it without looking at the evidence. For many people the entertainment factor of a conspiracy theory is more important than the factuality behind it. There are loads of cases on the internet about many conspiracy theories relating to the “supernatural” or extraterrestrial that make no sense. I think Before It’s News website is full of them (even though not everything there is like that), for example. However, The Beard World Order indirectly suggested, or at least that is how I understood their discussion, that all conspiracy theories about reptilians and aliens is simply “Hollywoodism” or trying to find a quick and simple answer for everything. That simply isn’t true.

I would counter the secular, “stick to the politics”, level conspiracy thinking by saying that it is them who want a quick and simple answer. They don’t want to complicate things so they don’t look at the “weird stuff”, the stuff that could not exist according to our everyday understanding of reality, yet it seems to exist anyway. I know it’s difficult having certainty when researching any conspiracies, 9/11 has countless conspiracy theories and no-one can say which one is closest to the truth. If you add aliens, occult and other weird stuff into it, it becomes even more confusing. Yet that is what you have to do if you want to find out the truth.

Let’s look at the reptilians, again. The most famous, or notorious, exponent of the reptilians theory is of course David Icke, even though he’s not the first or the last to do so. He claims he met a bunch of people in the nineties, while researching conspiracies, who told him about the reptilians. At first he didn’t want to believe it, but eventually he had to take it seriously so he went public with the information. I believe this is all true. I mean Icke is being genuine when he says this. It does not mean, however that the people who told him about the reptilians were telling the truth. They might have been feeding him disinformation, either wittingly or unwittingly. So I don’t know how much of Icke’s reptilian info is correct, but I believe he was trying to find out the truth, even though his quest took him to strange places. Icke has shifted his story to a slightly different direction over the years. While he does not dispute the reptilian claims, his descriptions have become more general, referring to Djinn, Archons or interdimensional entities more often than reptilians. One thing has always bothered me about the reptilians; if they’re shapeshifters, how can you say the reptilian form is their real form?

While I am somewhat sceptical of Icke’s older theories saying that reptilian shapeshifters are ruling over humanity, I do think there is strong evidence reptilians exist. They just might not be quite what Icke said. In Graham Hancock’s book Supernatural the author recounts the experiences of shaman Michael Harner (originally from the book Way of the Shaman, I believe). Harner had met reptilian beings in altered states of consciousness who had said they’re the progenitors of humanity or something. The indigenous shamans in the South American country Harner was in said that many others meet them too and what the reptiles say is not true. Some of Rick Strassman’s test subjects during his DMT experiments had recounted experiences with crocodile-like entities, some of the test subjects were raped by them. This was mentioned in DMT: The Spirit Molecule.

Based on this I would say those reptilians exist in some sense. An important question is, of course, whether the reptilians exist as external entities apart from humanity, or if they are external manifestations of something within the human psyche, such as the reptilian brain? However, whichever the question is correct, the question we should ask what does it mean if something is internal or external to humanity to begin with? It was suggested by Ingo Swann that there is only one consciousness in the universe, and all of our individual consciousnesses are isolated portions of that consciousness. Or something like that. I find that idea intriguing, and potentially very true. In this sense, everything we perceive as external is merely a perception, and what would that make the reptilians then?

To get back to The Beard World Order discussion, I have to say I respect James Corbett immensely, and he has done a lot of good research, and I hope he continues doing so. I don’t remember if he personally said anything about reptilians or other weird stuff in a strictly pejorative manner in the discussion, but he didn’t set things correct either. Corbett has his down-to-earth way of doing research, which he is good at and I’m not suggesting he should become like Icke or something and start researching UFOs and reptilians. I’m just saying you cannot take simply one aspect of research, and ignore others, or label them cooky Hollywood entertainment. As clichéd as it sounds, everything is interconnected.



Alien: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alien

Beard World Order: http://www.corbettreport.com/uncorking-conspiracy-beard-world-order-01/

Freeman: http://freemantv.com/

Why is it so difficult to accept that assassinations do happen?

Every now and then it’s reported in the media that someone died of a suicide. At other times people die in “accidents”. There may be a mention that “no foul play was detected”, or not even that. And you’re expected to believe the story at face value, not wonder about who might benefit from their death, or how can they be so certain it was suicide or accident. That’s the thing which has always annoyed me to no end, that they act as if it was written in stone; “it was suicide. Nothing to see here. *yawn* Move along.” Do people really believe that stuff, or do they just pretend to out of fear of being labeled a conspiracy cook?

People do die in accidents, and they do sometimes commit suicides, but it has always bothered me it’s the default assumption when someone dies. When someone dies in a suicide, I think you should always suspect it was a murder first, if you cannot find evidence to support the theory, then call it a suicide. Assassinations do happen, people are killed due political or financial motivations. It is a practice as old a civilization itself. Deal with it!

I think the reason why people would rather believe that someone has committed suicide than they’ve been murdered is that it makes them feel more secure in their world view. They like to think of the world as “civilized” and pretend certain kinds of crimes don’t exist, or they’re rare. It is more comfortable to think someone simply felt unhappy and killed himself. Another reason, of course, why attention is not drawn to assassinations, even when they are obvious, is that the people who practice assassinating as a way of doing business don’t want you to look at their illicit activities. Therefore they try to propose alternative scenarios to steer you away. Still that is not to say that the “Illuminati” or any other vast conspiracy is behind every assassination, instead murdering others to get them out of the way has been practiced by politicians, businessmen and other practitioners of criminality for aeons. Some of them belong to large organizations or secret societies, others are “small time” criminals.

For me, I guess it’s the opposite to most people. I feel more secure in my world view when I found someone has been assassinated. It reminds me of the sick and hypocritical nature of civilization (note: not of all human interaction, rather this social construct we are expected to believe). Yet I am not abhorred by the idea that some people want to kill themselves. Believe me, its not new to me. If someone really wants to commit suicide, I’m happy to allow them the freedom to do so. However, framing someone’s murder as a suicide detracts value both from the life of the person murdered but also of people who truly have committed suicide.

The textbook example of “suicided” people, i.e. people who were murdered but it was framed as suicide, was David Kelly, the UK weapons expert who “committed suicide” in 2003. I think I’ve bitched about him before, but his death was so obviously murder you have to be a fucking idiot not to see it. I’m using the word “idiot” here in the sense of being ignorant of the facts how the world works, or as Wikipedia states: “having bad judgment in public and political matters”.

I was, however, driven to write this semi-rant by the recent “suicide” of the CEO of Bitcoin Autumn Radtke. I’m not a fan of Bitcoin, but it seems like Bitcoin had been a victim of some sort of conspiracy to drive it down as of late. Maybe, maybe not. That would certainly give Radtke a motivation to commit suicide, and I think suicide in this case might even be what happened. However, out of respect for Radtke as a human being, and out of general decency we should first assume she was murdered. Since it is conceivable she was, and there is bound to be someone who benefited from her death. I think it is prudent to give her the credit that the work she had done was good enough to get her killed for whatever reason. Also out of the desire for justice, we should not let the criminals, if such people exist in this case, escape. If however it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, or whatever, that she was not murdered then it is prudent to say she committed suicide.

It just strikes as fucking odd they can even put the words “unnatural death” and “suicide” in the same article. Then again, I’m a crazy conspiracy nut. Pay no heed to what I say.



David Kelly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)

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

Radtke suicide: http://rt.com/business/radtke-bitcoin-death-singapore-134/