Gnosis and knowing how little you know

Feeling somewhat exasperated talking to people who pretend to know something significant, when in fact they know just enough to know something, but don’t really know enough for it to matter, I can’t help but think of Socrates’ idea: Wisdom is knowing how little we know. If sounds a bit too abstract, I’ll give a few examples like people reviling Russia’s president Putin simply because that’s how the Western media has told them to think, and an internet journalist (who is sympathetic to Russia) telling he knows better than the Russian leadership how Russia should handle it’s foreign policy and get rid of ISIS in Syria.

I genuinely don’t know enough to make a definite judgement, and I get the same impression from most of these other people don’t know either, except they fool themselves into thinking they do. I’m not trying to be witty or make myself seem smart by being intentionally evasive or anything like that. It’s just that I don’t understand the big picture of global politics, although I’d like to. I don’t know what how I should view Russia and Putin, is it fair in any sense to call them the good guys. Maybe, maybe not. I just don’t trust them. But I can say I “know” the European and American leadership are the bad guys. You can use Socrates against me on this one, if I’m wrong. I still don’t know what ISIS is. It seems it’s a creation Mossad and CIA, but then again maybe it’s just the convenient explanation. Social commentator and world-traveler Morris has said several times the media wants everybody to hate ISIS so maybe there’s something we’re not seeing.

But I don’t wanna get bogged down by politics. Let’s just end it by saying no-one, or very few, know what’s going on, although many like to think they do.

The beginning of wisdom is acknowledging the limits of one’s knowledge. It is sometimes called the Socratic paradox: “I know that I know nothing”. However, from the original mental blank slate you can begin to know “something”, but there is a different between knowing and knowing that you know. That is the dilemma behind all knowledge. We all know “something”. Be a fisherman who knows how to catch enough fish to make a living, a basketball player who understands the physics behind the bouncing ball, and a historian studying ancient history. They all know something about their trade, what they’ve devoted their lives to, but they don’t know everything. The results of their work is proof enough that they have some knowledge behind their actions: catching fish, scoring points, and understanding history. But no fisherman can catch all the fish in the world, no basketball player can score of the points in a match, and no historian can know all of history.

The problem with claiming “I know that I know nothing”, or claiming that “Nothing can be known”, is an assumption that you know something that you do not know. If you know nothing, how could you know claim to know something (i.e. that you know nothing)? It is not truly a paradox, but a logical fallacy, especially since everyone of us knows “something”. Be it your own name, how strawberry tastes like or that Paris is in France. Likewise, saying “Nothing can be known” is nonsense, not a paradox. If you think nothing can be known, how can you claim to know it?

The dilemma with knowledge and ignorance is being able to distinguish between what you really know, and what you think you know. I think we can agree that I know English, since I’m writing this, and anyone reading this also knows the English language. It does not mean I know the meaning of every word in the English language, it does not mean I do not make mistakes or misunderstand some things (especially since English is not my mother tongue), but I know “something” about English. I guess that is the key to true gnosis.

The ancient gnostics had the audacity to claim something can be known, not only of the external, physical world, but also of the metaphysical realm around us. I cannot help but agree with their sentiments. I do believe something can be known, not only of the banal facts like “fire burns” and “ice is cold”, but of the meaning of life, our purpose, of truth and lies, of God and the devil, or Aeons and Archons, of beauty and ugliness, of nobility, of love and other of these concepts our digital age of ones and zeros find difficult to comprehend.

But I’d like everyone to make clear that we can know “something”, but I am very skeptical that we ever know everything. That we can have 100% proof of anything. There’s the distinction. Distinction between a “holy” book or “scientific” consensus on a matter, and actual practical knowledge and understanding of how things really work.




Who Was Socrates? – 8-Bit Philosophy:

Morris’ channel:


We are the 3%

When Occupy Wall Street started in 2011 they brought up the catch phrase “we are the 99%” in opposition to the 1% controlling most of the financial assets on this planet. At first I was excited by it. Solidarity, unity and all that good shit. However, eventually I became disillusioned by their rhetoric and I realized I’m not really part of the 99%, nor the superrich in the 1%.

I see the 99% as the masses, the clueless or angry mob. Their heart may be in the right place, but their brain isn’t. For the 1%, the parasites, it’s more like the opposite. They’re devious, but devoid in human morality. So where do I fit in? Michael Tsarion has used the rhetoric, and others after him in the alternative media, that in the American independence war only 3% of the population fought against the British. While I’m not American, and I am quite skeptical of how much the independence war should be seen as a “good war” instead of, let’s say, a plan to establish a Masonic state, still I’ll take the rhetoric.

I think we in the “truth movement” or alternative information community or whatever convoluted term you wish to employ, are the 3%. We actually want to change the world for the better, or perhaps return to a sane state that has been perverted by conspiratorial parasites. And I do believe we have a good chance of accomplishing it, even though it might not seem obvious this is the case.

Let’s be clear about one thing; not everyone who is interested in conspiracies or spirituality or other non-mainstream information is in the 3%. As the ship of the mainstream masses is sinking, some from the 99% are trying to join the “truth movement”, because they always need some group to belong to. Without any mass identity they feel lost. Contrasting this with the genuine 3%, I would say we generally dislike being part of any group, but we can recognize the fact we need to unify and organize in some sense to be effective. I would say we are the true elites, not the parasites on top leeching our energy. We should be running things, not to satisfy our pride, or to become the new parasites, but since clearly somebody has to, and no-one else is even remote qualified. Not the masses, and certainly not the parasites, and I don’t expect the Ashtar Command to step in to save the planet anytime soon. Yes, this is a very elitist position I hold.

I am an anarchist at heart, but I recognize anarchy is somewhat an idealistic thing, which may not work out in practice. It requires sovereign individuals who are capable of recognizing the sovereignty of others. Quite frankly I doubt most of the 99% are capable of this. From what I see, they want a king to rule over them, but they want a good king, not a bad one. So why not give them one. Supposedly according to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, oligarchy is the best form of government, but it is also very difficult to maintain. I also made a post sometime ago saying that oligarchy may be the only feasible form of government. The problem with the plutocrats in power now is not necessarily that they have an oligarchy, but that they are utterly corrupt. What if, just imagine, people with both morals and brains were to take power what would happen? They say power corrupts, and this may be true, but more than that I do believe that people who are already corrupt seek power. What if people who do not seek power were to gain it?

I know an oligarchy refers to a group of people, while a king is a single person, but no matter what, a king would have a group of advisors around him, which would create an oligarchy.

I think it’s time we let go of our egalitarian fantasies and recognize that we are not all equal. We may have been created equal, but after that great differences in our levels of equality develop. We need an elite to tell the masses how to live properly, and this is not unfair imposition on them since they tend to want someone to tell them what to do. And we need throw the serpents out from positions of power. We are the 3%. We have to rise above the 99% and the 1%. I know mathematically this is fuzzy, and I do not care.

Is Michelle Obama a man?

For some time now I’ve heard rumours that the wife of Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, is a man. I’ve been curious, yet somewhat skeptical of the whole thing. Joan Rivers joked about it too before her death, or told the truth, whichever way you wanna you look at it. I just finished watching a video that presents some convincing evidence that she is he, but I’m still not that convinced. I’ll link to the video below.

The video starts off with pointing out that men tend to have a longer ring finger than the index finger, and women have it vice versa or both are more similar. Michelle’s ring finger is longer, and her hands look masculine, as the video points out. Also the video points to Michelle’s broad shoulders and other body proportions that seem more masculine than feminine. Good enough, although the video says several times the body proportions presented in it are that of a typical male and female. So the analysis doesn’t prove anything except that Michelle’s body is atypical of a female, and does look masculine, yet it does not necessarily imply Michelle was born a man.

The video also shows a few pictures where they claim Michelle Obama has an Adam’s Apple, and a dick, basically. I think one of the Adam’s Apple pictures looks convincing but the others do not. Not quite sure what to think about what Michelle Obama has between his/her legs either, and I don’t know if I wanna know.

I’m not trying to debunk the video or anything, I usually hate when  people do that, but I am not convinced by it either. I need more evidence. Moreover the video shows a couple of pictures of tennis player Serena Williams, and claims she is a man too. Clearly she has masculine traits, but it could be due to her intense training, or steroids or other hormones. The same could apply to Michelle Obama.

Maybe I’m a just conspiracy nut, but it’s difficult for me to trust people making claims like Michelle Obama is a man. Even if she was, so what? It’s not like it’s the darkest, and most harmful act of the deception the US government has done. Even if it is true, it’s still a wild goose chase. Barrack Obama is  gay, and Michelle is a man. Oh gasp! Sounds like a soap opera. While people are debating Michelle’s gender chemtrails get sprayed, wars in the Middle-East and Ukraine keep escalating, GMOs are fed to people, banksters keep enslaving people more with their control of money, and so on.

Michelle Obama could be a man, but then again I can’t help but look at the whole story from another angle that it’s a psyop to distract us from truly important stuff. And if I wanna get really conspirational about this, and I do, it might be used to cover up a bigger secret about the Obamas. For example, according to conspiracy researcher Freeman Obama could be a clone of the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaton, Michelle is a clone of his mother, and the children of the Obamas are clones of Akhenaton’s children. I’m personally not convinced this is the case, but I do respect Freeman’s ideas a lot, so I don’t want to dismiss them either.

I don’t have any conclusion to this story, except that paranoia and skepticism are virtues. Keep you tinfoil hats on, you’re gonna need them.




Michelle Obama is a man-video:

Joan Rivers on Michelle Obama:

Freeman on Obama Akhenaton:

Suppression by Government and Conspiracy is at the Heart of the Western Civilization

Europeans generally view our identity as Westerners dating back to ancient Greece and Rome. The philosophical tradition of the Greek city states combined with the Roman political might and all that. That is the background for our collective identity, although individual nations certainly have their individual histories, but overall we’ve all been affected by Greek and Roman tradition in one way or another. Simple enough, I assume. Then let’s look at two well-known men from ancient Europe, Socrates and Julius Caesar. Or in particular, their deaths.

Socrates is regarded as the father of European philosophy. He liked to make people question the things they thought they know, and he was put to death by the government for “corrupting the youth” with his ideas. Suppression of ideas and free speech isn’t just some anomaly that happened to happen by co-incidence because of the Patriot act or whatever. It has always been there in Europe from ancient Greece, to medieval Catholic church’s control of thought and speech to modern censorship and forbidding the questioning of the Holocaust etc.

Julius Caesar was arguably the most famous person ever to live in the Roman Empire, and very possibly the most famous political figure ever in the history of Europe. Do you know how he died? He was conspired against and assassinated by a bunch of Roman senators. If you think conspiracy theories are just some modern thing coined by delusional minds I’d recommend looking in the mirror and seeing who really is delusional. The next time you try to brush off information which disturbs your world view as a “conspiracy theory” and laugh, think again. Conspiracy and assassination have always been, and still are, at the heart of European politics.

If you don’t know who these two men were, you’re not a Westerner. It’s as simple as that. And if you’re a Westerner who thinks the government engages in censorship and violation of human rights only in places like China and Iran, I suggest you grow up. And if you’re a Westerner and you proudly “never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories” I suggest you get back to your child-like fantasy garden of Eden with a benevolent computer God where you can be free and innocent in your happy state, and not soiling yourself with knowledge of evil, as the omniscient computer God will take care of you. Not recognizing evil empowers it, so keep your ignorance and your evil in your Utopia.

Oppression, conspiracy and other nasty stuff have always been present in our culture. I cannot fathom how some people can convince themselves this is not the case. I am not saying this means we should throw our hands up in the air and say it’s hopeless, because evil exists. No. I’m saying evil exists, so we must be aware of it and prepared for it. Always.

Demythologizing the Nazis

I’ve found Hitler and the Nazis quite intriguing ever since I was a teenager. Their meaning and my perception of them has changed many times from the ultimate evil to anti-heros who hopelessly struggle against the forces of banal reality to create a world of magic and mysticism. Adolf Hitler especially has been a fascinating character for many us of us, mainly because he is more like a comic book character than a historical politician based on the countless fictional accounts we’ve heard about him. When I was younger I found him interesting because he was the ultimate bad guy, and I was interested in villains.

Very recently the alternative media and the “truth movement” has become quite active in revising how we view the history of the Second World War, Hitler and the Nazis, which is admirable. Most of what we think we know of them is from movies, video games and other fictional accounts, and the just tend to assume the general story is correct. I am greatly in favour of destroying the illusions we have about Hitler and the Nazis, yet we should be careful not to construct another mythology around them once we shatter the old one.

Let’s look at the old mythology before examining the new one. Years ago, long before I questioned the Holocaust and all that, I noticed many of the books and videos dealing with Hitler and the Nazis have to remind you every now and then how evil they were, instead of pointing out the evil acts the Nazis committed. Sometimes they just make stuff up, or simply don’t source their material, so you can’t say whether it is real or not. For example, a website called The History Place has an article on the Holocaust which quotes an alleged speech from Hitler he allegedly made “on the Eve of” WWII started. In the speech Hitler refers to himself as a prophet and threatens “the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe” if the Jews manage to plunge Europe into a war again. Unfortunately there is no source marked for the speech so I have no idea if he said that or when. It would appear the ending of the speech is what Hitler said after the Reichstag fire in January 1939, as the Holocaust History-website states, but the references to Hitler being a prophet have been added by History Place.

Furthermore there are countless movies and games where Nazis have mechs and robots, are using occult powers for their benefit such as the Indiana Jones movies (and games), or build roads out of gravestones like in Schindler’s List. Some of those may make interesting entertainment, but they are hardly valid sources of information for serious students of history. A fairly recent genre for nerds is Nazi zombies. German National Socialism has been completely removed from its original context, and made into a comic book villain along the lines of Dr. Doom or the Borg from Star Trek (an episode of Star Trek: Voyager actually compares the Nazis to the Borg, The Killing Game if I recall correctly). The underlying message between these fictional accounts is that the Nazis are evil, and do crazy, unpredictable stuff to reach their goals.

Enough with the old myths. The new myths that some people seem to be directly or indirectly promoting is that Hitler was some sort of saviour for the white, Aryan, or Germanic race against the Zionist forces trying to create a New World Order. While I admit it would appear Hitler was trying to fight against the same forces that are controlling the world now, I don’t think it’s quite healthy to engage in excessive hero worship. First of all, Hitler was not Emperor Barbarossa reborn, since he did not manage to liberate Germany, although he may have wanted to be. See Operation Barbarossa. In the end, Hitler was a loser, and his legacy has allowed the Zionist forces to flourish ever stronger than before. Furthermore, Hitler was a politician, and I wouldn’t place too much faith in one. Yet at least he was an extraordinary one, but you’re free to make up your own mind whether you think he was a good or a bad one.

Still, when I read quotes like this from Hitler I can’t help but think he was onto something: “It is a small, rootless, international clique that is turning the people against each other, that does not want them to have peace … It is the people who are at home both nowhere and everywhere, who do not have anywhere a soil on which they have grown up, but who live in Berlin today, in Brussels tomorrow, Paris the day after that, and then again in Prague or Vienna or London, and who feel at home everywhere. They are the only ones who can be addressed as international, because they conduct their business everywhere, but the people cannot follow them.”

What I want to see is that we look at Hitler and National Socialism as objectively as possible. This should be self-evident, but contemporary history has made quite clear this has not been the case. Let’s take Hitler and Nazis out the comic books and sci-fi movies and put him into historical and other serious books and movies for adults. Let’s be adult about Hitler.



History Place™ on the Holocaust:

Holocaust History: Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag of January 30, 1939:


Operation Barbarossa:

Internal Clique speech:

Bloodlines, Richard III and the Golden Fleece

I saw the news that Richard III’s bones had been discovered, and apparently confirmed to have belonged to him. Also DNA analysis revealed that one of his relatives, Edward III, Richard’s great-great-great grandfather if I understand correctly, had had a son who was not actually his but another man’s. John of Gaunt was not actually related to the Plantagenet House of York dynasty, but to others. And from his offspring was spawned the House of Tudor, which ruled England for a long time. There’s even a TV series about them that I have not watched.

This discovery of different lineage apparently puts into the question the of legitimacy the Tudors and the current Queen of England’s claim to the throne. While this is all intriguing it got me thinking about other stuff: the story we are given about Richard III.

And don’t take my word for the connections between these houses and bloodlines. I may misunderstand some details.

We are given the story that Richard III was a terrible person. He killed two children to usurp the throne, one of them was Edward V, the rightful king of England. After two years of rule Richard III was defeated by Henry Tudor in battle. Shakespeare even made a play about it. “A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse.” I suggest looking into what Joseph Atwill said about Shakespeare.

As we all know, but seldom believe, is that history is written by the victors. What if Richard III wasn’t such a bad guy after all? We do not know he killed the two boys. What if, for example, he knew them and himself were under threat from another faction like the Tudors. Perhaps he simply sent the boys to a safe, secluded location to protect them and assumed to throne for the same purpose. I don’t know if that happened, but we shouldn’t trust the description of his enemies either. But it’s possible Richard III got the Hitler treatment.

Anyway, Henry VII defeated Richard III and became king. I’m no expert when it comes to English heraldry and history, I just recognize some familiar names, so I decided look what Wikipedia says about him. Right there is a painting of Henry VII with the description that he’s wearing the collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece. I wondered what’s that then and clicked the link. Sounds like a not-so-secret society.

The Order of the Golden Fleece received his name from the Greek myth of Jason and the Argonauts. The Order “is an order of chivalry founded in Bruges by Philip III, Duke of Burgundy in 1430, to celebrate his marriage to the Portuguese princess Infanta Isabella of Portugal, daughter of King John I of Portugal. It became one of the most prestigious orders in Europe.” Sounds boring but later it’s said:

“It [the Order] received further privileges unusual to any order of knighthood: the sovereign undertook to consult the order before going to war; all disputes between the knights were to be settled by the order; at each chapter the deeds of each knight were held in review, and punishments and admonitions were dealt out to offenders, and to this the sovereign was expressly subject; the knights could claim as of right to be tried by their fellows on charges of rebellion, heresy and treason, and Charles V conferred on the order exclusive jurisdiction over all crimes committed by the knights; the arrest of the offender had to be by warrant signed by at least six knights, and during the process of charge and trial he remained not in prison but in the gentle custody of his fellow knights.”

Reminds me of a clique of internationalists with no allegiance to any nation but to each other. Also possibly in sense the Order has inherited at least some traits from the Knights Templar. Also: “Who, to carry off the fleece of Colchis [the destination of the Argonauts], was willing to commit perjury.”

Nowadays the Order of the Golden Fleece is split into the two orders: the Spanish and the Austrian Order. (Like Freemasons?) Wikipedia lists the living members of the order. The Spanish Order in particular was quite interesting. It mention royals like the king of Spain, princess Beatrix of the Netherlands, and even the emperor of Japan and king of Thailand. But then there’s Javier Solana and Nicolas Sarkozy, the former president of France. What the? I thought the order was only for royalty. I recognized the name Javier Solana from the news and stuff although wasn’t that sure who he was. Wikipedia says he was “European Union’s High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, Secretary General of the Council of the European Union and Secretary-General of the Western European Union”.

So what is the Order of the Golden Fleece? It has been part of European royalty for 500 years and now has spread to Asia too. And it has regular politicians and bureaucrats in it too. Seems like an important thing. I don’t remember even conspiracy researchers talking about it, which doesn’t mean that they haven’t. It simply means they haven’t talked about it so much that it has stuck in my memory.

One comment on royalty and their bloodlines before I finish. It’s often assumed in the conspiracy theorist world that all their bloodlines are evil reptilians shapeshifters, either literally or figuratively. I am not convinced its that simple. I’m more leaning to the story that the origin of these royal bloodlines is something more benign, but it was infiltrated by the literal/figurative reptilians. Passing the English throne from the Plantagenets to the Tudors may be such an occurrence.



Does Richard III’s DNA question Queen’s right to the throne? Hunchback king’s genetic comparison with distant cousins reveals an illegitimate child in royal family tree:

Richard III:

Monty Python, Hospital for over acting, Richard III ward:

Joseph Atwill on Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah:

Henry VII:

Order of the Golden Fleece:

Javier Solana:

Selfishness, False Selflessness and Emotional Consumerism

It is often assumed that people are selfish. Especially in modern times, since we are expected to want more money, sex, success, new technological gadgets, and a lot of people do want those things. But most of them do not want them out of selfishness, but because they feel obliged to want them. It is the collective which imposes these artificial needs onto people, and makes you feel like there is something wrong with you if you do not.

I wrote about this stuff in my e-book Concordia ab Chao, which can be found at the bottom of the blog, over 3-years ago. I am not particularly proud of the very amateurish way I expressed myself it in the book, but I stand by most the basic ideas I highlighted back then. Anyway, let’s get back on track.

Many of the desires we have nowadays have been made up by the masterminds behind consumerism. Sure, we all want sex, money and success to some extent, but we are trained by society to want more than we need. This is hardly a revelation to most people, but the solution isn’t to go to some pseudo-spiritual retreat where you learn to let go of your selfish desires. We should rather embrace our selfish needs, which simply are the things we need.

Selfishness is not a negative thing, nor does being selfish necessarily mean it will create conflict with other people. Selfishness is merely acting according to one’s nature. Is a wolf selfish if he wants to catch a rabbit to feed himself? Should we tell him to stop living as a wolf should because it hurts the feelings of the rabbit? Conversely is the rabbit selfish in an egotistical way if she escapes from the wolf and leaves him to starve. Should we tell her to stand still and fill the wolf’s stomach?

We become confused by consumerist values and ideas not because we are selfish, but because we are too empathetic to what other people expect of us. Sometimes we simply have to say “no” to things that are not in our best interests. It may hurt someone’s feelings, but so what? If those people truly care about you, they’ll understand.


False Selflessness

I call it False Selflessness when you do something that potentially harms, because it you believe it helps somebody else. A fine example of this occurred in Texas couple of months ago when a Yoga studio had to cancel its Bollywood-themed party because someone thought the party could be offensive to South Asians. I’m not sure if any South Asian was offended, but simply because some nebulous entity somewhere in the constellation of Eredanus might feel offended something we shouldn’t do anything. This hypothetical thing that may or may not happen is more important than things that actually do happen, since I’m pretty sure a lot of people felt offended, hurt or disappointment by their party being cancelled. But no-one wants to be the bad guy and point the obvious.

Another thing I’ve heard here and there is when people justify the insane policies of governments and their corporate cronies: “It’s good for the economy.” And therefore you should shut up and sit down. First objection is, are we sure the policy is good for the economy? Second, which overrides all else is: why the fuck should we care if it’s good for the economy if it’s clearly bad for human beings. But we don’t want to be selfish, we don’t want to upset the economy.


Emotional Consumerism

For the last couple of decades it’s been fashionable for Westerners to be concerned about people suffering in third world countries. Feed those starving African children! Free Tibet! Support Palestine! Compassion and hatred of injustice is a good thing, but alas many people are content feeling an emotion of compassion for the less fortunate, donate some money to charity, and watch a Help Aid gala on TV for some Noble Cause. Sorry to break it to you, but those things do nothing. If you really care about an issue, I suggest you actually do something about it. Like Ken O’Keefe and Max Igan, they actually went to Gaza and did something, instead of simply feeling an emotion that makes them feel spiritually higher, or give money to some global organization.

I call this Emotional Consumerism, although I’m sure if it’s really an accurate description but it sounds funny. It’s about caring about a distant cause that you cannot, or will not, do anything about… partially because it is distant to you. It gives an easy way out. You can think of yourself as noble, but since it happens over there and you are here you cannot be expected to fix it. And should you try to fix the problems in your own country and neighbourhood, you’d have to get your hands dirty, so you’ll manufacture an excuse of self-sacrifice and not caring about your own well-being.


How is Wanting an iPhone selfless?

You might be wondering how False Selflessness is connected to the stuff I mentioned in the beginning about wanting consumer goods. It’s all tied to the same basic phenomenon, or the same emotion: trying to fulfill the expectations of somebody else. And usually not even an actual person, but an abstract concept like starving African children or South Asian who might be offended. You want iPhones and knickknacks because you are told they are the status symbol for a successful person. You want to give money to people you’ve never met, because that’s what a good person is supposed to do. But they’re not the thing you want to do (with the small exception of the people who actually have done something). A few people actually go to Africa to build wells and stuff, which is great. The rest of us who don’t, we shouldn’t flagellate ourselves because we are not as altruistic as them, since actually it would merely be a manifestation of our envy of seeing them as better people than us. Both the False Selflessness and consumerist desires are based on envy and the need to be socially accepted by an abstract entity.

You have to find what is good for you. Don’t feel constrained by a nebulous measuring stick that is always out of reach, especially since we don’t know who made those standards in the first place. I’m sure J.R.R. Tolkien did selfishly what he wanted to do. He didn’t prostrate in the ground, asking The Collective what is generic and inoffensive to do. His books have inspired countless people from all walks of life for over 50 years. I’m sure anyone can find plenty of examples of when people did exactly what they wanted, and it ended up befitting others. That’s just how life works.




Bollywood party: