Sheeple vs Oligarch

When I look at the human race and its behaviour for the last few millenia I can’t help but picture two types of people emerge; the dumb sheeple and the dastardly oligarchs. They are locked in an abusive relationship, that both despise yet are unable to free themselves of. The oligarchs shell them with lies, abuse, insanity and the sheeple take it all saying: “I’m sorry, honey. I’ll do better next time.” The oligarchs despise their pathetic spouse, yet get a certain sense of power and superiority over battering their partner, so they are not motivated to find a new direction to their lives. The sheeple are simply so fearful and hurt they abhor looking at their sorry situation with any truthfulness. They cannot admit to themselves all the shit they willingly put themselves through really doesn’t have to happen. Instead they’ll drown their sorrows in any fantasy or form of escapism they can find. Be it religion, ideologies, entertainment, alcohol…

Yet there are others. People like me. I really don’t feel like I fit in either side of the 99% vs 1% spectrum. Many of the 99% are nice people to hang around with, but they seem unwilling or unable to understand that there is more to life than what they are told or what the see on the surface. The truth is always hidden. Sometimes in plain sight, other times under several centuries, or miles of dirt. And they don’t even want to try to seek that truth. They play any game the oligarchs tell them to without question.  The 1% at least have a method to their madness. They live their lives based on sort of goal, consciously trying to pursue something they believe in. The goal might be insane and malicious, but at least they don’t live their lives reacting only to stimuli; go toward pleasure, avoid pain, like the sheeple.

There have always been all sorts of dissidents. Either they keep their mouth shut and try to pretend to get along or they try enlighten people. In those cases they are silenced like Socrates, or just ignored and they go crazy due  the inability of humanity to understand common sense, like Nietzsche. So really there are three types of people. The sheeple, the oligarchs and the outsiders.

This is all labeling and stuff, so don’t take it too literally. Yet I’ve asked the question many times and will continue to do so: why am I different? Why have I had difficulty aligning myself with the consensus reality ever since childhood? Why do others find it easy, or if they don’t find it easy why don’t they try to find another way? Where does the distinction lie? Is it genetic, my upbringing, is there a spiritual difference, intellectual? How? Why?

I really don’t know why, but at least I’m happy to notice the number of outsiders seems to be growing. Even though I’ve met only few of them in real life.

Being a man

As a man I am very disappointed with the vast majority of members of my sex throughout the last few millennia. Some more or less New Agey people say we are moving from a male dominated consciousness to a female one. If that is the case, as a man who has actually has acquired some understanding what it means to be a man, I couldn’t be happier for it to be true.

When I was younger I didn’t quite like the whole male image I was being sold about being dumb and simple nationalist who only likes sports and beer, and all that package. Being male that created some sort of identity crisis, I guess. Even though men are supposed to be smarter, better and more independent than women in everything they do, society tells you you’re not supposed to question things, just follow orders like a good boy. Being a man means obeying the rules and traditions set who knows when, by who knows who. That of course contradicts with the idea of being smart and independent quite a bit.

Now that I have grown up, somewhat independent and understand basically how things work, I don’t think the “traditional” idea of man to be man, but rather a goblin of sorts. In many sword and sorcery kind of fantasy worlds there are goblins who are small cowardly creatures who delight in making others suffer more than they do. They gladly follow a leader, such as an orc, who is bigger and stronger than them. They take orders from him out of fear and sadistic respect, as the suffering of others is the best form of escapism they know from their sorry condition.

For millennia men have oppressed women, but it’s of course not that simple. That would be just feminist claptrap. Men have also oppressed other men. They’ve repeated the idea (coined by someone, sometime) that women are weaker and inferior, both men and women have gladly accepted that false notion. Men have had the insane idea that they have to control women, as if men know how women are supposed to act. How can men tell women how to be women? They can’t. By the mere attempt to do so they destroy part of what it means for women to be women. And men by their very nature adore women; by trying to control women, they harm the femininity that gives men a reason to live.

As a man I see the way women sometimes act is simply pointless, irrational or stupid, such as worrying for a long time about the colour of the drapes or some other minor detail I couldn’t even consider having significance. Yet I cannot fathom why I should try to control the behaviour of women who are doing such things. If I don’t like it I can just walk away, or if the house is burning and the women do not notice it due to their drape dilemma, then it’s my duty to intervene. Any man who has the excessive need to control his wife, girlfriend, mother, sister, as traditional “civilized” societies teach you, has a small dick and is trying to compensate by acting like a tough guy.

Being a man is about having courage, resolve, strength (mental, and physical too to a degree), wisdom and compassion. The traditional “civilized” idea of a controlling, rule enforcer man is a lie that only stupid weaklings buy into. So many men throughout history have bought it, and it saddens me. As that is the case, I hope the future will allow women to be themselves and grow into whatever they will, instead of some corporate Girl Band poster girl image pseudo-emancipated women. I am certainly not a feminist or anything of the sort. I merely understand that is best for both men and women.

Homo Servus

I haven’t written anything in the blog since a week ago I moved from Finland to Seoul, South Korea. It’s been pretty busy around here.

Ever since I was a teen regarded humanity as a slave race. People seemed very happy find some sort of king or government to bow down to. A hierarchy or authority to obey. I never quite understood why. I wasn’t all tough and macho “I wanna do things my own way, fuck everyone else”. No, I just didn’t quite understand the need for complicated hierarchies. Also the desire to gain all sorts of fancy titles was alien to me, and the idea felt suffocating.

In my late teens, I figured the reason human beings want to tie themselves down to these authorities is because the human condition is simply unbearable. This procedure somehow reduces the pain of being simply human. As I was teenager and my life was painful, it was difficult to imagine existence as human could be anything else. I figured out years before I heard of Jordan Maxwell that governments own people, simply because they do. The clearest example was that people are not allowed to harm themselves, for example by taking drugs, since they are property of the government. I didn’t regard this relationship as any sort of conspiracy, I figured deep down everyone knows this, but possibly it’s better than being freely human.

It was difficult to cope with the usual American (and thus Western) propaganda, We’re Free ’cause We have Democracy -claptrap. It didn’t feel like freedom or look like freedom, but I couldn’t exactly distinguish why it isn’t freedom or what would be freedom and drowned in the wave of repetition. The movie The Doors has a great scene where Jim Morrison is doing a gig and shouts at the audience something like “Are you free?” or “Do you like being free?” and the audience says “Yes”. Then Morrison replies with “Bullshit, you’re all a bunch of slaves.” It was one of most liberating scenes in any movie.

In my early twenties I read a book called Myths of the World (or something like that). A fairly main stream book about mythology from around the world. In the chapter about Sumerian myths it was mentioned the gods created humans as worker slaves, because they got tired of work. It was a Eureka moment for me. This is it, this is why humans desire slavery, they were created as slaves. It made perfect sense. I wasn’t familiar with Zitchin’s idea at this point (but the author probably was).

So for me humanity almost is synonymous with slavery. Whether we were tampered by the Anunnaki, or completely created by them, doesn’t matter in this respect. Based on my experience and observation of history humanity has deliberately chosen slavery over and over again. The only salvation is giving up that humanity, ceasing to be tied down by ideas. Either giving up false desires in sort of Buddhist way or evolving into something else, be it fourth dimensional light beings or Nietzsche’s übermensch. Ultimately though, this is an issue of semantics. What does one mean with the word human. I’m not saying my definition of the word is the correct one, but it is the one experience has taught me.

Collectivism vs Individualism

Instead of whining about my crappy youth I’ll do write something else for a while. Every now and then a viewpoint or an idea is labeled collectivist in the “awakened”/alternative/conspiracy nut world. Soon after the preference for individualism is stated and defended. I too prefer individualism to collectivism, however…

First of all both are isms, and isms tend to suck ass. Really no exceptions there. Some seem less bad than others (Buddhism vs fascism), but an ism is still an ism. Moreover there shouldn’t be a conflict between collectivism and individualism, since we as human beings are a collective of individuals. We only need to realize that. Every human being is an individual. Even if two people are born in the same town, to the same race, in the same culture, go to the same school, believe in the same religion and so on ad nauseam, they still will have numerous differences. Different ideas, experiences, genetics, and a different soul. Only by brainwashing, lobotomy or turning people into mindless cyborg slaves could one take the individuality away from people, and even then the core being of the person would be an individual, albeit a suppressed one. However, almost all people live in a collective consisting of other humans, and prefer to do so. The main reason why persons who lead an alternative life style with beliefs that greatly contradict the beliefs of the masses grow eremitic because the people around them do not conform to their outlook on life. They still have inner desire to interact with other members of their species, they just find it difficult to communicate with others in a meaningful way.

Instead of bitching how sheepish other people are, even though justified yet ultimately pointless, we should learn to be our best in this collective of individuals so that others can stand us. Act with compassion and kindness toward especially those who are lost in sheepleness, without letting parasitic individuals take advantage of you. Both the collective and individual are important, I don’t see much point in arguing which one is more so.

The Media

I didn’t need David Icke or any other professional conspiracy nut to make me feel apprehensive toward the media, although they did later help me understand it better. My disrespectful relationship toward the media started in my teens. I was into Magic: The Gathering and other the collectible card games like Star Trek, later on I got acquainted with roleplaying games, and I hung out with the Warhammer crowd, even though I didn’t play it myself. Around the time I was fifteen our school held some sort of press week where all of the students were involved in media related projects. I, together with a friend, wrote a news article about Magic: The Gathering, where we explicitly mentioned it is not a roleplaying game, despite the common misconception that it was. The press chose our article as the best one, the main reason probably being we plagiarized half of it from a Finnish gaming magazine, although we didn’t see it as plagiarism since we had no idea what we should be doing and needed a model to help us produce anything at all. When our article was mentioned in the local news paper they mentioned Haukipesukone and Associate had produced the best article where they introduced the roleplaying game Magic: The Gathering. We were livid. We even had told out teacher that it is not an RPG, and she claimed she had told the press, yet this had happened.

From this incident I learned two things: to be successful in the media you can basically come up with any story, whether fabricated, plagiarized or simply wrong as long as it sounds good, and there’s no obvious way of getting caught. OK, I didn’t quite think like that at the time, but in hind-sight that observation is appropriate. The second lesson, the one we cared about, was that the media had completely missed or ignored the social commentary we were passionate about, i.e. Magic: The Gathering is not a roleplaying game!

Later on, whenever the media mentioned Magic, roleplaying games, Warhammer or anything relating to that sphere of experience, they made stupid mistakes, or simply sounded dumb. I remember thinking, as a teen, if the media cannot be trusted with getting the story right when it comes to fantasy games, how can we trust them in other issues? Alas, over 10 years later I would realize how right I was. Maybe if I got back to reading the butchered news stories that had annoyed me then, they’d at least have some redeeming qualities. Fantasy games are easier to understand than global politics, economics and all that, after all.

9/11 happened when I was nineteen. Around that time I didn’t know much about politics and the stuff they talk about on the news, but I had figured I should try to find out. I just didn’t know where to begin. 9/11 gave me the incentive to start following the news. Gradually I gained a better understanding of the world, yet of course, a rather limited one as the main stream media isn’t there to inform you. At least I can say it acted as a stepping stone to following real news years later.

In 2003 the US with the aid of Britain and some other countries invaded Iraq. I followed the war pretty closely on the TV rooting for the Iraqis hoping to see many Western soldiers dead. BBC World showed almost continuous footage from Iraq and I watched. Then the “suicide” of Dr. David Kelly happened. He was obviously murdered in order to cover up something, probably relating to the Iraq war, and possibly by someone in the British government. You really had to be quite dumb or dumbed down not to see it was a murder. I expected the BBC to figure it out also, I expected them to at least mention the possibility of murder. BBC was a respected news organization after all. There was no mention of murder, not on the BBC or on any other channel that I looked. I couldn’t fathom how couldn’t they see the obvious. Of course there wouldn’t be mention of it, but I was too naive to think the media actually cared about the truth. The whole incident left me disgusted and confounded, and made me weigh my sanity vs the sanity of the world.

As a teen, even before 9/11, I viewed the Islamic world to be backwards and boring, their only hope to embrace the democratic, materialistic ways of the West, as that was what I had been told in the media. I, of course, had had no experience with Islam nor hadn’t met any Muslims, and was generally fairly uninterested in the region they inhabit. I had been told to hate a people whom I knew nothing about, and I had had no reason to question it. It wasn’t a burning hatred, but rather a distant disdain filled with smug sense of false superiority. You know, the usual European liberal brew. However, since 9/11 the Islamic world had gained a much bigger role in the media, and in the beginning I had been afraid, hateful, suspicious, strangely accepting or whatever emotion they wanted to sell us, of Muslims. In the course of time, though, I came to realize how the media tries to makes us feel a particular way about them, and many other issues. I’m proud to say it was around the year 2006, before I was properly “awake”, that I came to realize how Iran was being systematically demonized, probably in order to give the US an excuse to attack them, should they so desire. It was quite simple actually, there are never any good news about Iran, with only focus on the bad stuff that happens there. It didn’t mean I began liking Iran, but nothing is so black and white as the way Iran was being portrayed. I don’t like being told what to feel.

Media treatment of Israel and the Zionist agenda was also something that made me see how manipulative the media is. However, I don’t have time to go into the Jewish issue here. It demands an individual post, or two.

Conscious Conspiracies

The concept of conspiracy is refreshing viewpoint to the main stream world view where everyone is an automaton who only lives to satisfy his or her immediate needs, or merely to stave off boredom. Around the time I was twenty, it seemed that most people of my age, and society in general, only looked forward for the next Friday when they could get drunk or, if really lucky, get laid. Society intent on acquiring more money, seemed only to be looking forward to the next yearly quarter to score more profit.  I figured there must be something more to life than this. Some more conscious way of living. Why weren’t those people even wondering whether they way they live their lives, the way they have organized their mind and beliefs, makes any sense? I didn’t know how I should live, but I figured one should have some sort of conscious understanding of life despite the claims of society that it’s just crazy talk.

Modern science teaches us life is just a cosmic accident, societies are formed because of complex intersocial processes, but basically the effects conscious action are left to a minimum. It was a horrible thought, and somewhat cognitively dissonant as well, as on the one hand we are told man is the culmination of evolution, the master of his environment, the only intelligent form of life in the universe, yet we are victims of instincts and needs learned from the environment and inherited through genes. Where did purpose, consciousness, telos fit in in all of this? Surely there is some difference between an individual who takes the time to examine the world, himself and the nature of the cosmos in order to understand how to live, and how his way of living affects the rest of the world, compared to a good citizen who does as he is told and goes to work, watches sports on TV, drinks beer, fantasizes about J-Lo’s ass, complains about the government, but goes to work and pays his taxes anyway? Especially since it’s not hard to see that many things in our world are simply wrong, you just have to be 5% awake to see that. It would be a scary thought had we gotten ourselves into this mess with no conscious action at all.

The majority of humanity is obviously acting like unconscious automatons, no doubt, yet that cannot be the whole story. All my life I had endeavoured for some degree of conscious realization of reality. There must be other people who have achieved more than me, especially people who had had more time to do so than a mere 20-year-old. As the world is a shithole based on satisfying the basest needs, we default back to the lowest common denominator, if there are people acting consciously, the majority of them would be malevolent, purposefully contributing to this monstrosity. If we resort two a childish dualistic approach, we can say that the existence of conscious benevolent people is few at best. If then we are to think there are several conscious people who contribute to the way the world is, it wouldn’t seem logical at all to say none of the co-operate with each other to fulfill goals they share, at least partially. In short, conscious malevolent people have conspired to construct the world we live in.

If conspiracies are just crazy talk and I’m delusional, kill me now, as the alternative is unbearable. The alternative would mean humanity is trapped in a cycle of pursuit of unconscious desires we do not understand despite our perceived intelligence and spiritual faculties. We are like a highly advanced robot follow the commands input into it, yet with incomplete programming we repeat a loop with no understanding of it. But this is all bullshit, throughout history there have been countless people in various culture who have sought conscious understanding of the world, they have had thoughts of deep insight and created works of beauty. Philosophers, artists, writers, thinkers, philanthropists and people of all walks have been conscious, more than automatons. No-one has had all of the answers, but they’re proof enough of benevolent conscious people. Why then haven’t they had more beneficial influence? For some part it must have been absorbed by the ignorance of the sea of unconscious people, but such people are ultimately weak. They couldn’t be the sole reason. Throughout history dissidents and independent thinkers have been persecuted, marginalized or murdered. One factor in that would be conscious conspiracy to suppress information harmful to their hegemony.

Eschatological Ruminations

It’s often remarked in the conspiracy and “alternative research” community how people seem to have an odd fascination with end of the world scenarios. Book of Revelation, World War III, Ragnarök, Mayan 2012, one version of the Nibiru story, and the Finnish favourite The Russian Invasion. I’ll elaborate on my own perspective on the issue.

Basically my reasoning over 10 years ago was: the world sucks, my life sucks, I want it to change, the only possible end I can imagine is destruction of it all. Teen angst, loneliness, failure to establish significant relationship with the opposite sex in high school, and general dislike of most things in society made my life rather unenjoyable. Which isn’t that uncommon in high school according to my understanding. If we add my antipathy toward humanity for all of the oppression, wars and suffering  humanity has wrought throughout the centuries and desire for retribution, an old fashioned apocalypse seemed like a rather welcome occurrence. However, life seemed too stable and unchanging. I basically perceived the world to be imprisoned by American lead capitalism. Then 9/11 happened. I found that to be pleasant surprise for the possibility of WW3 and the end of the world began to seem at least a somewhat conceivable. On top of that I felt hopeful that the soulless American money machine wasn’t invulnerable if a bunch of Taliban extremists living in a cave could inflict such damage. Another fine example of how you can convince yourself to believe anything, no matter how ludicrous, as long as you want it to be true. Hindsight is 20/2o, but had I not been consumed by the desire for destruction and revenge, it shouldn’t have been difficult for me to see through the obvious faulty nature of the official 9/11 narrative.

After 9/11, my hopes for the end of the world had acquired at least some ounce of validity. I could conceive of a possible end to the repulsive capitalist ideology enslaving the world. 9/11 gave me hope. A few years later I entered university, the internet also became an everyday tool for me. I had of course used the internet occasionally ever since the late nineties, but during that time it became a normal affair for me. I dabbled in reading about all sorts of esoteric stuff like occultism, the hollow earth and Nibiru. I didn’t read any of Zecharia Sitchin’s books, I didn’t dare. I found the story fascinating, I read all sorts of internet rumours about Nibiru, but I was afraid to really delve deep into the idea of Nibiru, because deep down I believed it couldn’t be true, so I didn’t want to look too deep. Yet I so wanted it to be true. Nibiru was a promise that the materialist, “scientific” world view according to which only boring things are real, might be shattered. Yet I was too cowardly to see it through. On the other hand, it was another harbinger of doom. One story was something like when Nibiru comes it going to rip earth apart, or the Annunaki or going to kill us all. Both seemed desirable scenarios.

I believe it was around the year 2006 that I first heard about the Mayan calendar end date 2012. Somehow it seemed more plausible, and back then 2012 seemed so far away in the future. Another promise of apocalypse. It seemed reliable and mystical as well. A few years after, I was familiar with some versions that 2012 might not mean end of the world, but end of the world as we know it. Maybe our world could change for the better. I still preferred the old school payback for humanity for its sins, yet I was at least open for a different narrative.

Now, in August of 2012, I don’t think this year will be any more significant than the last or the next one. I think all of them are going to be important years. The world will change for the better. It’s for each individual to decide are they going to change alongside with it and help the process, or resist out of sheer idiocy. I don’t think anything too significant will occur on December 21st, however I still wanna keep my eyes open on that day.

That is my lust for the apocalypse in a nutshell. It no longer affects me, but I wouldn’t call it a mental disorder or anything like that. It too, like many other painful things in my life, was a process. No pain, no gain. Human beings are often fascinated by tragedy, and us Finns are melancholic and pessimistic by nature (or should I say culture), that combined with the genuine desire for the world to change can result in eschatological dreams.