Sitenews Minimize
  • 30/12/18
    Fun fact - AKPCEP has a Google Page Speed score of 100/100
  • 26/12/18
    You wonder how any of this worked in the first place.
  • 13/03/09
    Still here! Please visit the forums and join in the discussions. If you have any questions or comments please contact Alexander.
Link Button Minimize
link to https://www.akpcep.com

Use this to link

Valid XHTML 1.0
Valid CSS

ROBO-K3WL

Posted 30 June 2003, 7.44 pm by Jake

Robocop Flash Vid

So cool you'll wish you were never born. Although I already wish you were never born, but I don't matter. Just click the fucking link already. If your connection is l337.

Oh, and Alexander owns us all, and would sell each of us to African slave traders for a mere chocolate-covered vanilla ice cream bar.

Scientology deaths

Posted 30 June 2003, 6.27 pm by Alexander

This site makes for interesting reading. If you didn't think Scientology was some creepy, messed up cult before - you will shortly.

How to be a hum0n

Posted 30 June 2003, 4.37 am by hoodedfreak

I am currently unemployed, spending the majority of my summer days volunteering at the SPCA: Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Since I?ve started here, I?ve seen/heard some sad things.

Kittens dropped off at the front door in the middle of the night.
Stray dogs found by the highway, shivering and covered with burrs.
Rabbits that have been in small cages so long that they cower in their cardboard box homes whenever anyone attempts to come near them.
Rats with chunks of hair falling out.
Budges with barely any feathers left on their small pink bodies.

There are greater horror stories in the world of Animal Abuse than what I've witnessed within a month there, but I don't know why.

Is it that a hum0n, so badly needing to assert its control and power over another living thing, chooses the species that cannot speak about its mistreatment? Are these people who abuse anything, from their children and wives to a four legged animal? What drives a hum0n to hurt like this? Insecurities? Behavioural problems? Poor mental health?

Or is it that adrenaline rush a hum0n gets from exerting its rules over another? I certainly know how tantalizing that tastes.

* * *

We got a dog when I was in Grade 6, after having a plethora of hamsters, and being told time and time again that we would never get a dog, not in a million years. One day I came home from the most horrible sports camp I had ever attended, fighting my constant breathlessness from the severe asthma that had hit me that year, to find a non-shedding pup waiting in the backyard.

I cried.

One day it got into the garden, and was digging up plants, which was a definite breach of the rules. The brave, noble 12 year old I was marched right up to the dog and struck it, and in a loud voice said, "No!"

The dog whimpered, dropping its tail down low between its legs, and quickly scampered away. I had struck an animal. Not only had I struck it maybe a bit harder than I should've, but it didn't need to be struck at all. It was the rush. This amazing feeling that took control of me and said, "Here's your chance. Take it." In the heat of the moment I saw a chance for control over another living thing, and I took it. A little too hastily.

I've never felt like such a hum0n before.

10 000 YEARS AGO

Posted 29 June 2003, 9.33 pm by The Green Mamba

I used to hate history … endless reams of facts screaming at you about people who died long ago … I couldn’t see the point. But there’s a distinct difference between the history they teach you about in school and History. The first is about a series of events leading up to the present … the other teaches you what it means to be human.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…”

That’s what the Bible teaches us … and that, to many people is the beginning … the Genesis of the Universe and all the life that it contains ... no further questions. For those of us who seek answers beyond that … history always fails … but not necessarily History. We delve deeper … not only into the history of human nature … but into the very nature of all existence … to the very beginning.

Every religion, every culture has a myth detailing the origin of life and in recent years the similarities between the various myths have fascinated me greatly. Dragonfly is an expert at it and unlike me, can give exact details of not only events that are similar, but even similarities in the symbolism contained in the various origin myths. Once you start looking at these, one thing becomes more relevant than any other … they all have a common origin. Somewhere beyond the endless reams of information and religious symbols lies the truth … and for some strange reason (or maybe Reason is the cause) … the truth has become obscured by time.

Daniel Quinn (Ishmael) successfully pinpointed the birth of Modern Culture to the “invention” of agriculture, in the Fertile Crescent, 10 000 years ago. His conclusions came about because of his research into pre-history. With archaeological evidence as his only source for making this conclusion, some might still find grounds for an argument.

Recently however, I received this email from Dragonfly, with the following quote from The Path:

Castaneda writes that the shamans of his lineage see the human being as a luminous egg when in a type of Shamanistic State of Consciousness, a luminous egg made of infinite fibres of energy, which in-turn connect to everything else in the universe. Now, also in his lineage is the belief in “flyers” (although for them it is an empirical, witnessed fact, they would say), predators that feed on the energy of human awareness, or more specifically, self-interest or self-centeredness.

“The flyers are not metaphors. They are not the IB’s. The flyers are predators who feast on the glow of awareness on our luminous eggs. More recently, the nagual Castaneda has said that the flyers are responsible for the "installation" of our egocentric thinking processes, about 10,000 years ago. The mind is the fifth column, a foreign installation. The seventh Toltec art, discipline and impeccable action, makes our awareness unpalatable to the flyers.”

10,000 years ago, when, according to Daniel Quinn, man decided he was the centre of the universe, the product of evolution. What interests me is that this comes from a completely different arena than Daniel Quinn.

That was the start of our search … and the more we searched the more we found…

Modern day sorcerers say that taking energy from this realm is tricky because the inorganic beings do not dole out their energy for free and want something in return. Warriors say that this realm covets the energy of organic beings because it is so different from their own. They say that humans of ancient times knew about the realm of the inorganic beings but the only concept that has survived from this knowledge is the idea of "selling your soul to the devil".

"Castaneda's teachers differentiated themselves from the sorcerers of ancient times, saying that their aims were drastically different. While the sorcerers of ancient times used their abilities to dominate others and concentrated their efforts on the manipulation of awareness within the world as we know it"

If they were more aware than normal people, perhaps they were keyed in on more energy, and thus their effect would be much more than just a normal persons.

Could this be yet another vital clue in determining the origin of religion?

If the sorcerers of old, with their great capacity for energy, created or shaped the Beast, it all makes sense. The Beast is in every person more or less, because of the inter-connectivity of all things via The Holographic Universe theory. The sorcerers of old are in us now. Those people and those societies that were closer to the Beast than others manifested It, and thus started the momentous movement of what we call civilisation, in various points of the world (Aztecs, Chinese, Egyptians, etc). Also, distant healing is a kind of proof to this point. We can affect others through our persevered intention. Also, if the sorcerers of the old world and of present day use energy to stop ageing, then it’s a good idea to look into “anti-aging” techniques of the world (usually falling into two classifications: external, like elixirs of the middle ages, and internal, like in Taoism).

It is both frightening and reassuring ... seeing The Beast unfold ... knowing your enemy is the first step to defeating it.

Under normal circumstances I wouldn’t have given Castaneda a second thought and neither would I have expected anybody else to. Frankly … on its own it sounds like one man’s mumbling about whole lot of mumbo-jumbo … that is, until you look into Quantum Physics and find startling similarities between what he describes as “the realm of inorganic beings” and “The Holographic Universe”. Only then did I realise that under the watchful eye of human logic, these similarities just shouldn’t be there … and yet they are.

Next ... AN ELABORATE LIGHTSHOW

Introspective? Perhaps.

Posted 29 June 2003, 5.26 pm by Arguile

I've been noticing that I've been bubbling over with creativity these days, but it's been nothing but lyrics and poems. That's unusual for me, because before I met my band, End of Story, I had been in a bit of a poetic slump.. but the sudden surge of lyrics has done very little to convey what I feel. I feel almost like I've restrained myself to a certain way of writing, and thus am unable to get across what it is that I feel and think. This may prove to be another one of my shitty writings that are "written like I'm writing the next great book." But, I feel the need to get this out in paragraph form instead of via stanzas and choruses.

For the longest time in my life, my happiness and future were dependant upon others. I planned my future around where other people would be and what other people would be doing. But people change, or mature, or distance themselves from you, and if you try to plan around them, you are left irreparably alone and even more stranded than you were before. These days I've gotten back to the basics on who I am and what I do, mostly because of myself, but quite a bit of it came from someone else as well. I've learned that those you once held on a pedestal will change their outlooks on life to better suit their own gain, and that's absolutely and positively fine. No one should change what makes them happy for someone else.

I miss being part of a collective... it requires less thinking and less individual action. Everything you do is for the good of the collective, and when you do something to please yourself or act on your own behalf, it's seen as a threat to the collective and therefore cause for controversy and anger. The only way one can advance in life is to act on their own behalf and do what makes them feel good without any thought of the greater collective being. Now, some people may feel like this is about a situation in particular, but it's a vague example given and meant to be applicable to numerous situations. Whichever situation it plays to in your life first is a matter of personal taste, and not my fault.

I am myself, I am an individual, and I am someone who knows who I am. I remain myself through all circumstantial happenings, and no outside circumstances can alter that, underneath everything you see, I am who I am. That's what Yahweh meant in the bible, I believe. Christians to take it to mean that "I am everything and nothing at once"... and while that fits in with the Christian aspect of what they need to absolve from a fairy tale, that's not how I picture it. The way I see it is that God is nothing more than who we are meant to become; when he says "I am who I am" that is a representation of the more enlightened method of thinking. God knows that he is nothing more than we make him, and similarly, we are nothing more than we make ourselves to be.

Introduction

Posted 28 June 2003, 3.22 am by The Green Mamba

"...Yes I know my enemies

They're the teachers who taught me to fight me
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are American dreams..."
- Rage Against The Machine

Before I start this six-part series of posts, let me explain a few things:

Most of what follows will not make much sense unless you read at least some of the source documents. Obviously all would be better ... but I know that's a hell of a lot to ask (It took me the better part of two weeks to get through all of it).

Source Documents:
Michael Harner - The Way of the Shaman
Fusion Anomaly - The Matrix
Fusion Anomaly - The Holographic Universe
Fusion Anomaly - Edgar Mitchel
True Mind - The Path
Neoro Energetics - Dreaming Realities
Gnosticism Reborn
Warrior Traveler - Los Voladores-Flyers
Science & Spirit - Light, Matter & The Zero-point Field

In addition to these, every ancient religious text that I have read "indirectly" substantiates these ideas in one way or another ... thereby confirming my belief that there is certain amount of truth in every ancient belief ... albeit obscured through time and human interpretation.

You also need to know what we are talking about when we refer to The Beast. For those who have read Daniel Quin, it's Modern Culture ... for those who read Robert M Persig, it's the Giant of NY ... Castaneda calls it "the flyers" ... but for us it can also mean Society, The Media, or basically anything that shapes and controls our behaviour within The System (separately or as a whole).

The posts themselves were not written as one coherent thread (Still on my things to do list). What happened was that while Dragonfly was reading up on Shamanism I was busy investigated The Holographic Universe and somewhere in the middle of it all we started bouncing ideas back and forth. We got pretty excited when we realised that we could either substantiate or contradict each other by cross-referencing our research. We got so involved in the discussion that we had two sometimes three emails going at once, which resulted in some threads crossing over into another or just breaking up across emails. New ideas spawned searches for new information spawned new ideas.
I tried my best to reconstruct the threads into various points of discussion, but as you will see, some threads contain points of interest that are relevant to others. Over and above that, we neglected to use different fonts/colours in our emails and at the end of the day I couldn't even remember who said what when, so at times I becomes we and you becomes us.
Lastly, I refrained from making any final conclusions. I will say this however ... the basis for all our ideas are not isolated to either Shamanism, Quantum Physics or our own personal beliefs, but are instead collaborated through cross-referencing one field with another. Some of the things mentioned here were entirely new to me (preposterous at times) and had I neglected to read any one of the sources mentioned, I would never have come to the conclusions I did. What you choose to accept and what you decide to reject will depend entirely on your perception ... and how far you are willing to shift it within or outside of The Holographic Universe.

Heavenly Creatures

Posted 24 June 2003, 9.19 pm by Acheron

I am worried this so-called review may turn into some horribly misogynist rant about the teenage mindset that worships Labryrinth and unicorns simultaneously, as Heavenly Creatures is a movie that appeals to and ultimately betrays such sensibilities.

This 1994 film was co-written and directed by Peter Jackson. It marks a rough midpoint between gore marathons like Braindead and the much more refined Lord of the Rings. Heavenly Creatures is based on the true story of Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker, two 14-15 year-olds in 1950s New Zealand. Kate Winslet (as Juliet), although of slightly lesser importance in the script, definitely steals the thunder from Melanie Lynskey (as Pauline). Even if her character is reprehensible, Winslet plays her role brilliantly. For Lynskey the opposite is true: Pauline is a character worthy of empathy, but Lynskey's horrible acting definitely precludes such feelings.

My true contention with the movie lies in its directorial slant. It seems the vast majority of moviegoers empathize with the two protagonists. Some people even call this movie their favourite. A "gorgeous" work. However, what little sympathy anyone could carry for these two girls, who spend most of their time elaborating their fantasy world, is obliterated in the film's final, gut-wrenching scene. Many people (at IMDB, anyways) simply cannot bear to watch this scene, and I agree it seems a little incongruous with the rest of the film. Peter Jackson may skew the character development to increase his movie's shock value, or perhaps the fantasy world he constructs for the girls is simply too enthalling to realize just how psychopathic they are. If he set out to justify or even properly explain the actions of these two girls, he falls short of the mark - or he vastly overshoots it. It all depends on if Peter Jackson was trying to mold his audience into little Juliets and Paulines and suddenly pull the rug out from under their fantasy world, or if he simply wanted to warp any little kids who accidentally saw his movie. Until I see more of his films, either possibility is entirely plausible.

Nonetheless, Heavenly Creatures still comes as recommended viewing. If you are a puerile girl who loves insanity, fantasy worlds, or crap like Labyrinth, you'll probably love this movie, and sit there bawling with Juliet the simp. If you're a guy, you will probably hate this movie for its overabundance of female insanity, but I would call such hatred healthy - therapeutic, even. This movie is what you should watch instead of beating your wife. And everyone who hates traditional- or British-style society (with emphasis on the 50s, medicine, school, and therapy) will feel a little vindicated by Peter Jackson's convincing setting.

Stupid titles don't belong on a smart website.

Posted 24 June 2003, 6.30 am by Crucias

My essays were written to be read. Unfortunately, I assume when I write that my audience has read everything else relevant to the topic. If you're confused, IM me or something and I'll explain what you don't understand.

Also, if I seem a little behind on thinking, please bear in mind that I am only 16. Not intended as an excuse, just an apology. Here you go.

I've written about love before, but now that I don't have Mr. Lewis reading them, I can be as coarse and opinionated as I like. Expect much of this, reader, whoever you may be.

I don't approve of love. Don't take this to mean that I don't think love exists; because it does and I know it. I simply don't approve. The fleeting pleasure you get from it is hardly worth the subsequent pain and misery. I lay claim to such knowledge, having been in love twice thus far.

First it was with Bailie. If you read my other essays, you'll know that I wrote a little about her. There I told you of how she affected me; here is what happened. I avoided her because it is what I do. And we broke up. I think. This hurt me more than I knew it would. It pushed me farther down the road I was taking, which was the one of stupidity; the one that led me to Greg's domain. There was hardly a waking moment in the next few years in which I didn't think about her. I wrote letters that I never sent. I tried to find a way to call her, to see her, to talk to her. I found a way, eventually. Recently I found her e-mail address and spoke to her through a messenger program. Of COURSE, I would do the exact same thing I did when I saw her last. Of COURSE I would stop talking to her for no apparent reason. I've stopped calling this cowardice, if you haven't noticed. It really wasn't. There are others who would do the same.

Falling in love with her was one of the happiest times of my life. Breaking up with her was one of the most miserable. But it's okay. I'm done thinking about her. Bailie is a person now. A person I don't know anymore. A person far away from me. Just the way I like my past: far away.

As I said before, love isn't what you see in movies. Love is what you see on Jerry Springer. They get together, break apart, and throw chairs at each other in a murderous rage.

Next it was with Jennifer. Which was a little better, because this time I knew what I was getting into. But I didn't realize that fact that I'm a shy bastard. I spent a lot of my time refraining from what I wanted to do, out of fear of looking like a jackass. She's a year older than me, by the way. She knows more about love than I do. I really did love her. I kind of still do. But I'm actively supressing that feeling. She has Tj. Or T.J. Whichever. She hardly needs me when she has someone else closer. Someone who's not shy and willing to do things for her that I couldn't if God/the gods himself/themselves told me to.

Love causes pain. Love makes pain. Sometimes, people are lucky and love causes more love and they can never get enough so there is never too much love. But some of us get our fill after a little while.

I really, really envy the people who aren't afraid of love. I want to be a person who can talk to girls. I want to be a person who can fall in love and not be terrified every second of it.

But I'm not. I am who I am. And I'd hardly know who I am without the pain in my past telling me.

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

Submissions Minimize

0 Articles awaiting authorisation

Users Online Minimize

Members: 1 Guests: 42
Google

Art Collection Minimize
Click for larger image

In 2018 I started painting again. This was one of a series of acrylic sketches I did to relearn techniques and revisit my skills from art college.


Chat Minimize

Hmph

80s candy bars were pretty good

only because i traded it for a candy bar in the 80's.

lol we all know you don't have a soul ghoti

my soul for some carbs...

But of course!

Yo ! Does this work ?

Support

If you wish to help AKPCEP grow, please use PayPal.
RSS Newsfeed: https://www.akpcep.com/akpcep.rss
Articles posted are copyright the respective authors and may not express the views of akpcep.com. All other content ©Alexander King 2001-2019. ver 4.0
This page was built in 0.0120 seconds