Saturday, March 2, 2013


Fully realized I've had a big enough breakthrough to do another blog entry after 2 years, however brief: I have achieved legitimacy as a gifted enough songwriter, though not much of a singer, I must confess. A former employment afforded me a decent multitrack recorder, mic and classical guitar (already have keyboard); I've presentable demos for the first time. To the extent words can express, my songs are my tribute to and connection with my higher power. If I keeled over from cardiac arrest or stroke or whatever, I'm pretty sure I'd be good to go now. Cheers and peace.

Currently have 3 songs, working on 2 more, and if one thinks I'm lyrically controversial now, just wait until I finish the one about 9/11.

MP3s are finally up.  (June 12)

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

What is Alien?

Alien doesn't mean only the foreign or unknown. In short, alien is only as it does, and it means different things to different, or hugely different, people/beings. Those who are alien are not necessarily, or even primarily, if really at all, about any physical-chemical-genetic differences. It comes down to big or huge enough differences in political-spiritual values, and if applicable, other major enough personality differences. Being de facto alien is an infinitely more determining factor of alien-hood (if you will) than the literally, physically alien.

Perhaps this entry's title could have been "Who is More Alien?" It seems those who are more ignorant, isolationist and alienating of others and themselves would most qualify as such. Those who are supportive enough of rule by secrecy are more alien, and that best defines the clear, if not vast, majority of Earth humans today - the dominant culture. Look within, for the biggest aliens are you, to whom it applies.

Apparently the only thing that separates me from most folks on this planet is, again, my nullification of the credibility-validity of mere (political and religious) beliefs and strong emphasis on the desire to learn more scientific, objective-by-definition truths - that which is beyond what is allowed by the dominant culture or government as we know it. Is that alien enough? However, I want to believe I'm part of a larger minority than is now apparent to me. Hopefully there aren't as many sleeping sheeple as there seems to be.

Since the political world as we know it has been dominated by evil, pathocracy, greed, corruption, rule by secrecy etc. since whenever time before recorded history, it kind of makes sense, in its own sick-and-twisted way, that the only unseen beings with any power and influence on this rock would be likewise malevolent. Obviously I hope that's wrong, and there will be truly worthy ETs and/or nonhumans whom we will formally befriend and align with... and too soon isn't soon enough, if so.

Haven't really been into blogging for a good while, and don't plan to be any more. That is, I'm holding out for something truly perspective- or paradigm-changing, at least for this writer. I guess I've become used to listening to the clock tick and crickets chirp.

Saturday, September 4, 2010


Antitheism, or "new atheism," probably means different things to different people. (I believe the term was coined by Christopher Hitchins). What it means to me is the refusal to refer to any unseen/unrevealed intelligent beings as gods, or to a Supreme Being (concerning at least this planet), if applicable, as God. It's the rejection of the cowering, fear-driven slave mentality, the strong conviction that everything (and everyone) in the universe or multiverse is simply science, regardless of how much is undefined, unknown. The words "paranormal" and "supernatural," for examples, shouldn't exist. Or antitheism is the avoidance of shallow, hollow, ego-inflating (by definition) idolization (worship) of any being who's more advanced than the better, more rational-unbiased, "kinder, gentler" type(s) of Earth humans of this era. Again, all intelligent beings are equally entitled to all knowledge, methods, technology etc. they/we can comprehend and undertake, provided said beings are equipped with the moral-ethical stuff for proper usage of such new things.

I don't see how anyone can call himself or herself an antitheist without being very clearly against rule by secrecy in general. Secrecy is the enemy of knowledge; greater knowledge results in better living through better science. Those who complain about religion-based problems should be complaining equally loudly, or really even louder, about secrecy-based government(s).

Proudly, I am and always will be an antitheist, or I suppose barring any very solid proof that would make me be otherwise.

To me antitheism isn't at all atheism - believing there's no unseen intelligence of any kind involved in any way on this planet. Such belief is every bit as reactionarily religious as whatever of religion by the traditional definition... I can only hope my take on antitheism is the most objective one that will be (somehow or eventually) universally taught.

On a different note, apparently it's most commonly believed that the reason humanity has yet to make Contact with "ET" (if ever) is because most of the population is "not ready" for it. I submit that "not ready" really means not interested or not caring. Translation: ignorance and apathy. And a large percentage, if not the vast majority, of those who aren't interested in Contact are, frankly, not worthy in the first place, as far as I can tell. Oh well, it's no skin off my nose. Whatever happens, I'll never let the pathocracy (that rules the dominant culture) get me down and/or drive me crazy. (9/4)

Obviously lack of worship doesn't, or wouldn't, diminish love and admiration (at most) for this apparently hypothetical Single Superman in his swooping down, cape a-flappin', to save the day. (9/6)

The clear majority, and perhaps vast majority, of human beings either desperately need to believe they're the center of the universe, or simply prefer to be isolated in their own little ego-tripping, purely imaginary (psychotic) superiority complex. (9/19)

Sunday, June 6, 2010


Rule by secrecy, or government as we know it, is the real or primary cause of the ecological catastrophe in and adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico.

It's a cinch that transparency - real transparency, not the phony baloney, half-assed (at best) "transparency" people like Barack Obama espouse - in government is the catalyst for greater knowledge, which governs all things political, spiritual, scientific and educational in general. If, beginning in 1947, the National "Security" State would never have been permitted to exist, the greater knowledge the public would have received would have resulted in, for instance, our being able to quit using poisonous energy sources like petroleum, coal and nuclear power, at least soon enough. Or if it wouldn't have worked out that way, at least we could say we exhausted every possible effort, like an intelligent enough species would do. Certainly the crude oil required for manufacturing solid products could be extracted from land-based wells only, assuming oil would be used for anything at all.

So, to whom it applies, please carry on with your blaming BP for its safety violations of the blowout protector as the "cause" of the oily disaster, or whatever other weak, small time criticizing. Such huffing and puffing is purely farcical. It's the equivalent of screaming for Band Aids when major surgery is needed. It's ignorance to the degree of psychosis. Everyone who's comfortable enough with anything resembling the beyond-gargantuan level of secrecy that runs everything (at least now) is responsible for all environmental destruction. Rule by secrecy equals rule by fear/cowardice, ignorance and greed. Period. You have only yourselves to blame (to whom it applies).

It's difficult to put into words, but I'm getting a feeling that Earth humans are entering a new phase that's all about determining the overall worthiness of the species. Soon enough it will be sink-or-swim time. Will there be a strong enough migration away from the passive, reactive, wallowing, breast-beating weakling routine? Will enough people choose to forget about their meaningless egos and get rid of their mere (political and religious) beliefs in favor of the desire for objective reality? (6/6)

Good Christ, one would think that now, of all times, is when any (overall) reasonably intelligent species would welcome anything and everything that even might solve huge problems like the oily Hell - any advancement at all in science and knowledge in general. Such a process can begin only by abandoning rule by secrecy. Then we can see what divine or whatever stuff of higher science will ensue. But noooo, too many are still too robotically programmed to wallow in the same old pathological shit, with their thumbs buried you-know-where. Sad doesn't begin to describe it. (6/20)

OK, this is way frackin' weird: See from the 3rd-to-last paragraph to the end of one of my earliest entries titled Oil Spills & Time Bubbles. Was the undeniably mysterious reduction of crude oil in the Gulf recently the work of an unseen intelligence? If so, damn, I wish they would have removed more of the shit, and made it obvious enough, but yeah, ditto that "Prime Directive" business I've written about, repeatedly enough. Or what else am I missing? (8/13)

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Prison Bitch Planet?

Need to be clear that the B word is absolutely not gender specific in my mind. No misogyny or sexism here. A bitch is probably best defined as anyone who displays a high enough level of that ever-nauseating combination of ignorance and arrogance, and that's not to insult actual female dogs.

I believe the most fair comparison for the human race (at least as we know it) is with other intelligent species located not in the galaxy proper, but in its outer rim hinterlands, assuming there is an at least respectable amount of intelligent life among the millions or billions of solar systems in the Milky Way outer rim. We should be compared only, or at least primarily by far, to those who have a view of a dark night sky, closest to black void space as we are. Of course the majority of the galaxy, the ones who live on worlds where they see more densely packed suns/stars in closer proximity, more light, must not be discounted. Fairness, however, seems to dictate our having the most in common with worlds of similar light conditions, along with similar enough biodiversity where applicable.

My big burning question is this: How often are worlds in substantial physical (nighttime) darkness ruled by substantially (figuratively) dark people as on this world? Or put another way, how many "civilizations" here in the outer rim are, primarily or dominantly enough, the product of, well, bitches? There are the ruling class bitches, those who control governments, economies, industries, religions and media, and their at least willing enough supporters-enablers who are, if you will, the classic prison bitches or enslaved dupes.

Is the outer rim simply where the seen and unseen scum of the galaxy dwell? If so, is this galactic area eternally the Hell Zone for all worlds, or the vast majority, with intelligent life? Is there any hope for any real improvement on this rock? I certainly want to believe there is, but I obviously don't claim to know, though I always deny pessimism as much as reasonably possible.

Many who believe they're excluded from bitch-hood actually aren't. Or to put it as fairly and kindly as possible, there's an overall level of ignorance, including and especially among those who consider themselves more "informed" or even "enlightened," that bears enough of a resemblance to full-fledged bitchery. Prime example is on "alternative" discussion sites. Too few have ever touched on the true center, or real cause, of the sociological problems among humanity, which is the entire secrecy-based concept of government (as we know it) itself.

Too many are too busy confusing influence with real power. To whom it applies, they or you stomp their/your feet and scream and swear up and down that everything is controlled by the Bilderbergers, CFR, the Masons and/or those ever-specific, brilliantly descriptive (*sarcasm*) names like Illuminati and NWO, but when faced with the reality of what government is actually made of - where the actual power and money control rests - all one gets is the does-not-compute blank stare. In the United States, for example, it's the National "Security" State and everything within the Black Budget that are the real power. Everything happens within the construct of real, tangible government, not, at least ultimately, by the influence of any secretive, non-government societies or groups, or if there is a single, tiny cabal that pulls all the strings, you can bet we don't know its name. So, unless or until enough people are critical enough of the most concrete construct of government, nothing will ever change.

Quit bitching, or wallowing in bitchery, and focus on where the problems truly originate. Demand real change and quit voting for the same old corrupt assholes. Happy New Year

Sunday, November 22, 2009

"Annunaki" Devolution

This theory is based on the premise that the true origin of human civilization goes back farther or much farther than Mesopotamia/Sumeria, and said "civilization" was merely the beginning of recorded or known history, not all intelligent human history. (It should be noted that the Harappan/pre-Hindu people and the earliest known Chinese/Yellow River communities existed at the same time as Mesopotamia). I assume, correctly or not, that at least the oldest megalithic structures (pyramids etc.) are from a lost era of technologically advanced people, though apparently advanced in a way other than technology as we know it now.

It strongly appears there were a morally deficient (to say the least) people who took over sometime between the time of the most ancient megalithics and a certain amount of time before the Sumerians and their contemporaries. The "overlords," or whatever the f they were, of the time might have been, and I personally have a hunch (rightly or wrongly that) they were, involved in genetic-physical manipulation of humans in order to turn them into the most servile and ignorant creatures anywhere, but it's a cinch they, the "Annunaki" (creator "gods" of the Sumerians), were the first ones to introduce religion as the primary way to manipulate and brainwash the population. The difference between the original Sumerian religion and the original monotheistic religion Judaism, which quite obviously was stolen from the Sumerian creation story, was that the Sumerian totalitarianism was completely literal and blatant about humanity being nothing more than a slave race.

Judaism, and then particularly its two overgrown Abrahamic offshoots (Christianity and Islam), were, and still are, more subtle in their enslavement of their subjects, but no less enslaving. They had enough time after Mesopotamia to rework their idea and sell it in a prettier-looking package. It was/is more difficult to resist the attraction of the notion of a Single Creator of the entire infinite, incomprehensible universe.

The utter slavery of the very idea of a "god," and then later an alleged single, omnipotent "God," is the original and biggest example of devolution. (There's no real reason to believe slavery, in any conceivable form, has always been the way for humanity, dating back to prehistory). All intelligent beings have equal rights to equal access to all knowledge and activity that they can actually comprehend and undertake. There simply should be no masters and no slaves. What a concept.

To the religious (or religious enough) people who would say I "just don't get it" and am unable to tap into the Power of God, which simply means the most enlightened portion of the intelligently unseen, to improve and make a real difference in my life, they or you couldn't be more wrong. Spirituality isn't dependent on religion, and one need not be convinced (without proof) of the existence of a Single Creator of the universe in order to be in touch with the divine. There's no need to elaborate further. No worries here.

Forgive me if it turns out I'm just another case of "oops, wrong planet."

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Moral Intelligence

There's a difference between morality and moral intelligence. I believe the majority of human beings (though not sure how large a majority) are morally good enough overall - understanding that no one is perfect. Apparently most people have sufficient morality, which essentially means proper enough adherence to the "do unto others..." rule, not doing, or sometimes saying, anything excessively pathological to anyone else. However, it appears a majority here (at least now) also sorely lack moral intelligence at the same time. Moral intelligence means the political-governmental policies and laws, of which now are very secrecy-based, that are permitted by the (apparent) majority in any given nation. Excessive pathology is as it does and is allowed. The proof and results are basically everywhere every day. Most people are concerned only with morality in their own lives, not with the evil in their "leadership" to which they blindly and passively acquiesce since time immemorial.

The at least primary cause of lack of moral intelligence is the valuing of beliefs over truthful, objective reality. The most emotionally-psychologically healthy and mature people are the ones who are honest and humble enough to reject mere beliefs and have the desire for (objective-by-definition) truths/facts. Such desire is a spiritual place apart from the extreme, beliefs-based (religious and political) system of today of which only those who are already in that place can truly understand... or fathom at all. Words can't really describe it. We need more people who not only don't claim to know anything that isn't very solidly proved, but who also don't believe, or strongly enough, in pretty much anything established as the "norm" in the currently entirely too insane, secrecy-based political setting. These people alone are the only ones who are reasonably unbiased and stable enough. Of course it's not possible for any intelligent being to be utterly without beliefs and bias, but there is a level of collective consciousness that has no part of rule by the plainly too irrational, pathological.

We need people who are honest and kind enough lovers of freedom and nature. Forsaking beliefs and desiring facts allows cooler, calmer heads to make the better decisions and take the right actions. Conversely, political and religious beliefs, effectively by definition in that which is less than foolproof, airtight, ironclad etc., are what fuel the massive insecurities of out-of-control egos and fears that wreak basically all havoc in the world as we've known it. The fallacy of blind faith doesn't apply strictly to the traditionally religious.

I'm certain moral intelligence is nurture, not nature. With the right policies/laws and education, folks can finally get their... stuff... together. There's no reason to assume otherwise.

The "civilization" on this rock, at least as we now know it, needs some kind of official No Confidence vote.