As I child I was presented with two explanations for the origin of life and the human race: Evolution and Creationism. I quite happily chose Evolution, since it made at least some sense, and I hated everything related to Christianity. On a quick glance Evolution seems reasonable, not a bad idea really. It’s when you try to understand what the concept actually is and what it claims about reality you get into problems.

In my early- to mid-twenties my first proper doubts about Evolution began. I saw a nature documentary on TV. In it were insects that looked like sticks, and another species of bugs that looked like bird shit. Both apparently had this look in order to protect them from predators. I couldn’t understand how such abilities could have developed randomly. It seemed quite deliberate to me. It even got me trying to develop my own theory I’d later call Purposeful Design. That was before I had heard of Intelligent Design. However, I sort of dropped my theory, partially because of Intelligent Design. If the Christian Right was having similar ideas as me, I must have been wrong.

The first problem I have with both Evolution and Intelligent Design is their name. I’m a language student first and foremost, not certainly a biologist nor an ontologist. The term Evolution has the innate assumption that biological lifeforms change over time for the better. Supposedly even Darwin didn’t like the term Evolution, he preferred Descent with Modification, i.e. lifeforms descend from their parents, but the new lifeforms are modified in some way. Even the word evolution is wrong for unconscious random processes that main stream science claims is behind everything natural. For the same reason I dislike the term Intelligent Design, as intelligent, or having intelligence, is usually regarded as something very positive and admirable. Both terms are oozing with values of those who support them. Had Evolution been called Descent with Modification, and had it merely been stated that lifeforms tend to develop from simple to more complex ones, I’d have no problem with it. However if it is claimed lifeforms evolve from simple to complex. One might say the the word “develop” also contains inherent value judgments, but I don’t think so.

I don’t know much about biology, so I cannot say much about the details of it, however the influence of Evolution can be seen almost everywhere in modern Western society. Everything is assumed to evolve. Be it societies (from tribal to monarchy to democracy), technology (which in a sense can be said to have evolved), or even values and ideas (superstition and religion has “evolved” into atheistic scienticism). One simplified way of looking at this ideology is to say that based on the modern idea of everything constantly evolving is that whatever that happens is good as it things have evolved. For example development of atom bombs, mass produced popular culture of hi-tech tyranny is by definition a good thing, because it has evolved from something simpler. The Theory of Evolution, according to my knowledge, makes no such claims. It is solely concerned with the development of biological lifeforms, yet it has had this side effect, or possibly the main effect if we look at it from a conspiratorial standpoint.

The main problem with Evolution is the nonsensical notion that it has happened by accident. Random forces have created all of these highly specialized functions lifeforms have, from eyes, to wings, to sonar, to various ways of protecting themselves, to consciousness. Lets say there was a the primordial goo with amino acids and stuff. Somehow they developed into amoebas, gradually they developed into marine animals, then to amphibious animals, to land based animals, birds, lizards, mammals and so on. Humans included. That could very well be, but in no way was it accidental. I’d rather say there already was consciousness in non-material form in existence. It existed, yet not as a physical entity. What that consciousness or consciousnesses were is another question. However for some reason it wanted to experience itself in matter in various forms. Thus somehow it helped lifelessness develop into life so it could possess these material forms and experience life in myriad physical creatures and plants.

One could say it’s a merger of both Evolution and Creationism. Yet, it’s still just an idea. I’m not saying I believe it. I don’t know what we as humanity even know or can know about the origin of life, or of various species. I believe in empirical experience rather than theories. If life somehow started on this planet billions of years ago, no-one was there to see it. If humanity somehow evolved from apes, none of us were there to see it. Regarding Evolution all we have is circumstantial evidence. Bunch of bones and fossils that only tell the story of different kinds of human-like creatures which had lived a long time ago. The scientists choose to interpret the existence of those remains to mean that first there apes, they evolved into¬†Australopithecus,¬†Paranthropus and countless other fancy names until they evolved into Cro-Magnon and modern humans. That raises new questions as well like what are the Neanderthals, as supposedly they are not the ancestors of humanity? How about Annunaki genetic engineering? It sounds like a reasonable possibility to me.

I digress. Back to accidental evolution. If animals and plants randomly develop from simple to complex ones with better abilities to survive, then there should be countless failed experiments. I don’t mean just species that went extinct. Rather our depository of ancient species should look something like a mad scientist’s laboratory with monkeys with four asses, canines with no eyes, snakes that kill themselves with their own venom, one-legged hamsters… If nature is an insane and inane inventor that combines different things, with no understanding of its actions, until the creations manage to take care of themselves, there should be countless of failed experiments littered all over. Trial and error produces a lot of errors, especially when the scientist has no intelligence at all. If it’s all random, there should have been even animals, countless animals, that did not even know how to eat. To program the instinct to eat when hungry is not a simple thing. It must have taken a lot of accidents to get it right. We may take it for granted, but if there was no consciousness at all how did the first animals know how to eat, hide from predators, or copulate? Would they have even known how to rest? They could not have had the instinct to rest when tired, since it too is a programmed reaction. A lot of animals must have killed themselves due to overwork simply because they did not know how to sleep. How about animals with no asshole? They eat until they bloat and explode. If nature works like this, as the scientists presume, nature looks a lot like H.P. Lovecraft or Giger, but much more gruesome and with even less purpose than Lovecraft’s meaningless universe.


Reintroduce the Caste System

Nowadays we are supposedly equal, because of democracy and all that crap. It’s untrue for two obvious reasons. First of all we are not equal in the political sense we have the 99% and the 1%, or we could divide the 99% into various groups where one has power social power than the other. Secondly, we are not equal. Equal means “=”. As in 1+1=2. Equal means to be the same. I am not the same as you, you are not the same as Bill Clinton or Sarah Jessica Parker. Male is not equal to female. In a very abstract sense one can say that one human being is equal in value to another, however when we get down to the nitty gritty, your mom, your dog or your lover is not equal in your eyes to some guy living somewhere far away you only hear about because they have died in a terrible accident. You might think it’s unfortunate, but if the same happens to someone you care about you feel it is horrible.

Maybe then, just maybe, a hypothesis, the way things were, when there used to be aristocrats and commoners, things weren’t so awful. When we look at history, yes it was pretty bad for the majority of people, but the principle of having different social classes might not be such a bad idea after all. For the last few millennia the upper classes have been dominated by selfish, sadistic scum, but the commoners haven’t been much better than them either, since they haven’t managed to rid themselves of the oppression. As I tried to highlight in the two previous articles, people aren’t the same, and it seems some people, a great many people are incapable of independent thought and consideration. They always ask society to tell them what to do instead of using their own reason, intuition or morality to do so. In effect they are people who want to be ruled. Independence to them is scary, or perhaps incomprehensible. Even if society says to them: be independent, they may repeat the meme, but do not grasp the essence of the concept.

I hope I am wrong about this assessment, but I see the idea of everybody getting it, enlightenment, awakening, whatever, very unlikely. I would like to be proved wrong. The masses have always been the masses with little sense of their own. I have to see it for myself to believe otherwise.

When the Aryans conquered India and introduced the caste system, maybe it was not a violent offensive. Perhaps the Aryans were wise educators. Maybe they had a highly developed spiritual science which enabled them to see the inner potential in a person. You’d become a good craftsman, he’ll be a great hunter, she’ll be a fine statesman, but that guy, while he has the ability, he would abuse it for his own gain. Perhaps that is how and why the caste system was introduced. Later on, Indians forgot the spiritual science and the system degraded into something morbid and oppressive.

I really don’t know much of the details of the story of Aryans in India, so maybe they were just a bunch of rampaging invaders. I should look more into it.

But continuing on with the hypothesis, maybe the origin of all class systems is similar. The most capable of moral and intelligent leadership became the leaders, sorcerer-kings or whatnot. Over the course of time, the institution degraded and was taken over by self-serving psychopaths. Maybe aristocracy isn’t simply the result of the 13 Illuminati bloodlines trying to take over. It might have had an older, loftier origin, which was later infiltrated by those families.

I said a lot of maybes and perhapses in this article, as this is all very hypothetical. I am not promoting the introduction of a class/caste system, I am simply trying to look at humanity and it’s tendency to gather in societies from a different angle. To me, at least, it seems very much a reality that not all men are equal, to kid ourselves¬†due to ideological reasons that they are can only bring more problems and disappointment. Moreover if we were to come to the conclusion some sort of class system is preferred, in the current state of the world it too would be hi-jacked by those who certainly should not be running things.

Sense of Balance

Continuing or expanding from the last article, the Human Entity the and Shepherd. I would say that what has made people like me realize intuitively that there is something very wrong about society, is that we have a sense of balance. When we see mass consumerism, celebration of all things superficial equated with the notion of freedom and democracy, and perpetual war justified with various sorts of chicanery, even though we do may not possess the rational faculties to understand how and why it is wrong, we simply realize the situation is imbalanced. Out of touch with natural way of things. The masses too probably possess this sense of balance, but theirs is just very weak. When I was younger I felt many things were wrong, but I couldn’t express it in words or rational ideas why that is and what should be done. I believe I just felt the imbalance in the world, and it made me angry, because I couldn’t understand the whole situation. I couldn’t even ask all of the hows and whys, even though I knew they have to be asked.

On the other hand, I think the masses possess some sort of social sense. They sense what is acceptable in society, and what is not, fairly effortlessly. They see the social structures, hierarchies and all that stuff, and know how to behave without upsetting the situation. My social has been rather poor, but gotten a bit better lately. Many things that people have taken for granted have seemed alien to me. Even though lacking that sense I felt alienated, it was probably a good thing, because the social sense has been exploited by the conspirators to manipulate people. If society says you must support the military even though they murder civilians, or support multinational corporations because “it’s good for the economy” which exploits the poor, the masses do so because for their social sense is stronger than their sense of balance. (I would argue that true morality is ultimately about having a sense of balance, whereas fake morality comes from the social sense, i.e. basically obeying what society tells you.)

Originally the social sense was probably a beneficial thing, thousands of years ago. It allowed people to understand each other emphatically and work together for a common goal. However at some point it was hijacked by psychopathic conspirators to use against people.

The Human Entity and The Shepherd

All human beings are not the same. Also if we look at the whole of humanity as a single entity it would make sense that different people have different functions, just as the body has many different organs with different functions. It’s been said that there is gonna be the great awakening, and everyone is going to get “it”. While I want to believe it is true, I have a hard time doing so. The majority of people simply seem incapable of independent assessment of themselves and their situation. They expect someone else to tell them who they are and how they should live. I’d say that has always been the case in known history at least. We’ve all been subjected to the same brainwashing programs, eaten the same poisons they feed us, aspertame, fluoride. All that crap. Still some of us saw beyond it. We realized the world we saw was not the real one, it doesn’t have to be.

The awakening, whatever it is supposed to be, whether we evolve beyond the physical to develop new senses, new ways of perceiving reality or we simply learn how to live as free human being without exploiting each other and nature. I’m leaning on the latter option, even though the first one would be nice to see happen. But I won’t believe it ’till I see it. Perhaps the awakening is that the minority of us manage to free ourselves from this prison, make sure the ones who enslaved us cannot do so anymore, nor cause more needless destruction, then the masses will follow us. Maybe that is how it is supposed to work. The mass of humanity is, in a sense, unconscious. They lack the spiritual capability for genuine philosophical reflection and they will always follow the ones who have the capability, or claim to posses such a capability. Maybe we have let them down instead of the opposite. The sheeple are sheeple and there’s no changing it. We might be at fault for thinking there is something wrong with them. Instead of blaming them, we should be guiding them. The masses follow the one with the most power or conviction to lead them. For the last few millennia the people capable of holistic reflection, of true benevolent leadership have failed to play their part.

According to Michael Tsarion only 3% of the population fought in the American war for independence. That is how we have to do it too. We have to fund our own strength, something wholesome to strive for and stand behind it. Once we show a better way for the masses they will follow.

We all have our roles to play. I’m not an engineer. I don’t know how to build trains or houses, nor tanks and bombs. However I do know that trains and houses are much better for living than tanks and bombs. It seems that many engineers don’t know that as they’ve been building them for a long time just because their boss has told to do. It is our time to tell them to start making something more useful. That is how the entity that is the human race is supposed to function.

What I describe here is just a theoretical model, I’m not sure I believe in it either, but it might be able explain someone of the inability at communication between people. There’s also the danger of using the idea to divide people into conscious people and sheeple. That isn’t the intention, or rather if people can be divided into two categories, accept it without making any judgment about it. If the sheeple are sheeple, be a shepherd. I sure as hell don’t want to be any sort of leader, I don’t want followers, but I seem to have a better grasp of what is happening in the world than anyone around me. I personally know very few people who are “awake”. Most are “asleep” or if they’re a little bit awake, they are very confused. I should do something to help them.


Boring people try to use mathematics to prove whatever they want to be the truth to seem like the truth. In reality it’s merely dry rhetoric masquerading as fact. I’m not saying mathematics is useless or anything like that. It can be a useful tool for converting observed information of the real world into units for analysis, or something like that, for people who can think mathematically. Doesn’t work for me, but I can appreciate the Fibonacci principle, fractals and stuff like that.

When I was a kid I thought the outer space is really big with lots of planets and galaxies out there, there must be life, aliens, green gooey things there somewhere. However scientists said the chances for life existing on Earth is so astronomically small, it’s even more unlikely there’s life somewhere out there. It pissed me off, but I didn’t how to respond so I kept quiet. Now it’s fairly obvious to me that the scientists were pulling their odds out of their asses since this planet is full of life in myriad different forms. It seems very likely that life exists on Earth. So why not somewhere else?

However a few days ago I was listening to Red Ice Creations again. They were interviewing some Alien Scientist guy. He said that the universe is so big, the odds are very likely there is life out there somewhere. He didn’t convince me either. He used the same fallacy the scientists of my childhood (not any actual people, just the ghost of the scientific community that haunted me) to try to prove the opposite. BULLSHIT is bullshit even if it’s TIHSLLUB. How about going out there and taking a look instead of masturbating into your calculations in your den?

I’m not knocking mathematics, I’m bitching about people who have a bunch of numbers made up based on assumptions and wishful thinking mixed with a bit of real data. I’m talking about people who claim Big Bang happened or that Dark Matter exists because the numbers say so. Same goes for Evolution, even though not sure if mathematics has much to do with it, yet it’s mere theory, little empirical experience. I’m not saying that those three things are necessarily false, just that I’m not buying it based on rhetorical mathematics.

Try to use maths to calculate the combined age of the children of my grandfather. To be able to do that you need a lot of information. First of all you need to know which of my grandfathers I’m talking about. You’d need to know how many children he has and their ages. I didn’t specify do all of them have to be alive or not. Pretty much impossible task unless you’re with the CIA and can find out stuff about me I don’t know. Yet our hypothetical mathematician might try to do that. Assuming he’s read my blog he knows I’m 30 years old. Then he goes into probabilities. He assumes that the parent who is the child of the aforementioned grandfather was at least 20 when they had me, so he/she would be 50 or more. He think that the average family has 2.3 children, however was back when my grandfather had kids, people used to have more, so he might think there are 4 or 5 kids. He might try calculate their averages and so on. Basically guessing without having a clue about reality. I don’t have a problem with people guessing, but when they try to claim it’s science, it annoys me. Seems to me a lot of so called science is merely guesswork based on knowing two or three variables in the equation, but missing at least as many. That’s what I call it, guesswork. Nothing wrong with it. A hamburger can be a hamburger, but don’t say it is a fresh vegetable just because it has some lettuce in it.

Probabilities are bullshit. I’ve played various games of chance over the years using dice or cards. The probabilities may say it’s entirely unlikely to be able to roll six sixes in a row only a single die (singular of dice), yet things like that do happen. Someone can argue they are just probabilities, numbers used as a guide, they don’t have anything to do with reality. What’s the use then? And moreover, probabilities are used to make all sorts of pseudo-scientific claims such as the existence/non-existence of aliens. Based on my experience, empirical evidence, there are other forces that affect dice and games of chance. I’m not just talking about dice being unevenly balanced, but some people seem to have very good luck, others have bad luck. I’d say it has something to do with their attitude. Somehow they are able to affect their die-rolls on quantum level or something, either that or they intuitively know what results will come next and act accordingly. It doesn’t mean that the one with the good luck always wins, but they seem to have some control over it.

Probabilities are best when used to prove that people who rely solely on mathematics don’t know what the fuck they are talking about.

Solve et Coagula

I’ve been watching Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood and little while ago Red Ice radio mentioned the alchemical concept of solve et coagula, break apart and put back together again. It got me thinking about society again, and how I’ve always felt apart from it. Being a conspiracy nut and a general weirdo, an outsider, it never made sense to my how people accept what is the dominant state of affairs to be what it is. As if because that is how things are currently, that is how they should be. Plainly put, who people accept the government they have to have validity simply because it is their government, why they listen to the music on the radio just because it’s on the radio, and so on. Granted, I’ve sometimes done the opposite; just because something is popular, I refuse to like it, such as Harry Potter. Yet there are various popular things that I like too such as anime, Game of Thrones TV series and Asian girls.

Anyways, solve et coagula. I’m very happy not to be like those people who accept things based on what their told, because to any with half a brain it is obvious that many things we are told to accept as real or a reasonable course of action are false, even evil at times. Be it corporate governments and their wars, Orwellian police state, Satanic pop music (not necessarily because of the Illuminati symbolism in the videos, but the music itself. Maybe I’ll write about that some day.) or destroying the Earth for money. In that sense I feel lucky to be apart from the majority of humanity, even though at times it causes me great frustration when I look at humanity. I cannot fathom their blindness, yet on the other hand many people who don’t seem to have any holistic understanding of how things are, are able to do many things I cannot. It is foolish for a drop of water to think it is somehow separate from the ocean, so it is foolish for me think I am different from the rest. Merely my path from the clouds and rivers to the ocean is different from the majority. I went through the severs, ended up in a gold fish bowl for a while, it was knocked over by a cat…

Maybe it’s time I rejoin humanity. Bringing my unique perspective, and detachment to many fallacies they revere with, me. This has probably been the point behind it all. Solve et coagula. Turning base humanity into gold. (Not me alone, but countless others with similar detachment to the masses.)

Football Physics

Modern science over-emphasizes the role physics in understanding reality. It’s as if you tried to understand all of society through football. Society has many different aspects to it. Families, friendships, culture in various forms, educational, religious and political institutions, big and small businesses, past time activities and so on. One those past time activities is football. Trying to explain all of reality as physical mechanistic processes is like trying to understand the complexity of society through football only. Trying to describe what society is, how would should behave in society. It’s much easier to focus on football than society to describe those things, as in football there are certain fairly absolute rules. The aim is to win. Winning is accomplished by kicking the ball in the opposite goal (or running with the egg to the other side of the field for yanks). There are also things you must not do or you are penalized. The same is not true for society. There is no clear way to win. One could argue there are right ways to live in a society and there are wrong ways, and you can certainly get penalized for doing the wrong thing. However it can, and should be, argued that who is that gets to decide what is right and what is wrong. There’s not much leeway when arguing the rules of football, because if you change it too much it won’t be football anymore.

Where physics fits into all of this is that it is only one part of the greater whole. Existence is much more than being simply a collection of atoms. There are emotions, thoughts, desires and experiences involved as well. Dilemmas about right and wrong, success and failure. Existing isn’t merely a mechanism. Physics is one part of the whole. The reason why scientists choose to focus on physics is that it is the only part where they can have certainty, or at least a semblance of certainty. It is easier to understand what makes a good football player than it is to understand what makes a good member of society. He has to be fit, be able to do teamwork and many other things I wouldn’t know since I don’t know much about football. It’s easier to focus on one part of the whole than the whole itself, simply because the part is smaller than the whole. When looking at the whole, you get a more holistic picture, but it is also difficult to say anything for certain.

Football is somewhat mechanistic. There is definite purpose behind every action a (good) player makes. For that reason managers can analyze the situation and the potential of the players to make the most of it. Meticulous analysis can lead to significant results. Same goes for physics. Yet the same approach does not work for everything, such as culture. If you compare Japanese and Korean culture to each other you find many differences. However if you compare them any European culture, let’s say English culture, Korean and Japanese cultures seem more similar to each other. You can try to analyze the reasons, such as historically England is a Christian country with a Greco-Roman philosophical heritage contrasted with Confucianism and Buddhism in Japan and Korea. Yet each country’s unique culture is more than merely the dominant religious and philosophical ideologies suggest. There is always something unsaid, unseen yet it can be sensed when looking at the culture. How the people behave, the atmosphere in a country, in each individual town is different. Still if you focus too much and talk to an individual he or she may not represent his or her cultures prevailing norms, yet they are a part of that culture. It is difficult to pinpoint where one culture ends and another begins, however it is an observable fact that Korean, Japanese and English cultures are all distinct.

The same goes for life. There are predictable and mechanistic things such as physics. Then there are more fuzzy areas in life. Equally, possibly, even more real yet you can never put your finger on it.