The Romanov Dynasty - A Royal Genetic Legacy

The story of the Romanovs - the last imperial dynasty of Russia - is one of splendour, tragedy, and surprising scientific discovery. Beneath the glittering courts and political intrigue lies a lesser-known thread: the genetic origins of the family, and how modern science has helped unravel their fate.

---

The Rise of the Romanovs

The Romanov dynasty began in 1613, when - Michael I of Russia - was elected Tsar after a period of chaos known as the Time of Troubles. Over the next three centuries, the Romanovs transformed Russia into one of Europe’s great powers.

Among the most famous rulers were - Peter the Great, who modernised Russia and founded St Petersburg, and - Catherine the Great, whose reign marked a golden age of culture and expansion. By the early 20th century, however, the dynasty had grown increasingly disconnected from its people.

---

Nicholas II and the Fall of the Dynasty

The last Tsar, - Nicholas II of Russia, ruled during a time of enormous social unrest. His reign saw the catastrophe of World War I and growing revolutionary movements at home.

In 1917, the - Russian Revolution - forced Nicholas to abdicate. The Romanov family - Nicholas, his wife - Alexandra Feodorovna, and their five children - were placed under house arrest.

In July 1918, they were executed by Bolshevik forces in Yekaterinburg. For decades, rumours persisted that one of the daughters, particularly - Anastasia Nikolaevna, had survived.

---

A Royal Genetic Legacy

One of the most fascinating aspects of the Romanovs lies in their genetic heritage. Like many European royal families, they were deeply interconnected through marriage. Alexandra, for example, was a granddaughter of - Queen Victoria.

This connection brought with it a devastating inherited condition: haemophilia, a disorder that prevents blood from clotting properly. The Romanov heir, - Alexei Nikolaevich, suffered from this disease. His illness not only affected the family personally but also politically, as it contributed to the influence of the mystic - Grigori Rasputin, who claimed he could ease Alexei’s suffering.

Genetically, haemophilia is carried on the X chromosome, which explains how it spread through royal lineages descended from Queen Victoria. Alexandra unknowingly passed the condition to her son, illustrating how dynastic marriages could amplify hereditary risks.

---

DNA and the Romanov Mystery

For much of the 20th century, the fate of the Romanovs remained uncertain. That changed in the 1990s, when a mass grave discovered near Yekaterinburg was analysed using modern DNA techniques.

Scientists compared the remains with living relatives, including - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, a descendant of Queen Victoria. Through mitochondrial DNA - passed down the maternal line - they confirmed the identities of Nicholas, Alexandra, and several of their children.

Later discoveries completed the puzzle, confirming that all members of the family had indeed perished in 1918. The long-standing Anastasia legend was finally laid to rest by genetic evidence.

The genetic analysis of the Romanovs - especially from the remains identified in the 1990s - revealed quite specific haplogroups for both the paternal and maternal lines of the family of - Nicholas II of Russia.

Victoria inherited this mtDNA from her mother:

• Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld

This line was largely - German aristocratic, from the house of Saxe-Coburg, with roots in Central Europe.

Although women do not carry Y-DNA, Queen Victoria’s paternal lineage (through her father) came from:

• House of Hanover

This dynasty was of - German origin, ruling Britain since 1714.

The Y-DNA haplogroup of the House of Hanover is:

• Haplogroup R1b -

---

Paternal Line (Y-DNA Haplogroup)

The direct male line of the Romanovs (from Nicholas II) belongs to:

• Haplogroup R1b

This is particularly interesting because R1b is most commonly associated with - Western European populations, especially in regions like France, Britain, and parts of Germany.

This reflects the fact that the Romanov ruling line was that of European aristocracy - especially German nobility. The dynasty was not genetically “Slavic” like many might assume.

---

Maternal Line (mtDNA Haplogroup)

For the maternal lineage of - Alexandra Feodorovna - (and thus her children), the haplogroup identified was:

• Haplogroup H1b

This lineage connects Alexandra directly to - Queen Victoria, whose descendants carried the same mitochondrial DNA signature.

---

Why This Matters

These findings helped confirm the identities of the Romanov remains through comparison with living relatives, including - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who shared the same maternal lineage.

It also illustrates a broader point:

• European royal families were - genetically interconnected

• Political marriages shaped not just alliances - but DNA

• Traits (and diseases like haemophilia) spread across dynasties

---

A Subtle Historical Insight

The Romanovs’ genetic profile shows how “Eagle” monarchy is. Their DNA tells a story of centuries of alliances, migrations, and inherited legacies - woven across Europe rather than confined to one nation.

---

A Dynasty Remembered

Today, the Romanovs remain a symbol of imperial Russia’s grandeur and downfall. Their story has inspired countless books, films, and myths, blending fact with legend.

Yet perhaps the most remarkable chapter is the one written not by historians, but by scientists. Through genetic analysis, the Romanovs - once shrouded in mystery - have been brought back into the light, their identities confirmed and their story grounded in both history and biology.

Ths DNA evidence clearly shows the family had Eagle Y DNA and Serpent MtDNA, as with most modern day royals they were hybrids. Eagle males who wanted to get as much of the Serpent DNA into their children as possible, so always had children with women strong in Serpent genetics.

AI Witch Hunt

Have you noticed that these days almost everything is being accused of being AI?

Digital artists who were creating remarkable work long before AI existed are now constantly accused of using it. Sometimes their work may resemble what people associate with AI - but that may simply be because AI systems were trained on art created by artists like them in the first place.

It seems that everything people create now is under suspicion.

Personally, I sometimes use AI to illustrate my videos because the subjects I discuss are not exactly topics you can easily find stock footage for. But using AI in that way does not suddenly mean that all of my art is AI.

Here is something to think about.

The Demiurge created this reality - this simulation - and the Demiurge itself is a form of artificial intelligence. Then everything we see in this world is already artificial in some sense. Nothing is fundamentally “real” in the way we assume.

An artist painting a picture, that's artifical. A film director creating a film, that's artifical too.

Everything we experience in this realm is artificial, because the realm itself is artificial.

So telling people they cannot create with AI because it is “artificial” is a bit like telling someone they cannot take a shower because it is artificial rain.

What exists here, simply exists. It is neither better nor worse by default, nor inherently right or wrong in that sense.

Some things simply are not worth worrying about. I can only assume that people who constantly accuse others of using AI may be struggling with something within themselves, because they cannot see a simpler truth:

None of this really matters as much as we think it does.

Let people express themselves however they choose. There is no need to police how others create. That responsibility does not belong to you.

The sooner you realise this, the happier you may find yourself becoming.

For my own part, I usually avoid watching YouTube videos that are entirely AI generated - you know the kind: AI voice, AI visuals, AI script, and no real person behind them. But that is not because they use AI. It is because they are often mass-produced by large corporations whose goal is simply to dominate the platform and push out genuine creators.

In general, AI art and AI writing styles do not appeal to me personally. As an artist and writer myself, they are often easy for me to recognise. But what I would never do is accuse a digital artist of using AI without evidence. And even if they did - so what?

AI detectors seem to say everything is AI. That has been proven many times over, so they really cannot be relied upon. Perhaps those detectors are accidentally recognising a deeper truth?

If this reality is something like a simulation, a game of sorts, then how someone chooses to play that game is entirely their own choice.

If you are simply living your life, creating what you want to create, and harming no one in the process, then you are already playing the game well.

Cruelty

Life is difficult for everyone in different ways. Each of us has something to contend with - problems to solve, worries to carry, health struggles, aches and pains that others may never see. Wise people understand this. Because of that understanding, they try to treat everyone they encounter with at least a basic level of respect, and when they can, with kindness as well. They recognise that their own suffering is no reason to make someone else's day worse than it may already be.

And yet, there are people who seem to take pleasure in trying to make others feel small or miserable. Perhaps they assume the person they are being cruel to has no difficulties of their own. Perhaps they feel envious of something another person has achieved, something they believe they themselves could never accomplish. Often it is insecurity that drives people to belittle others.

So when you encounter this kind of behaviour, try not to let it weigh you down. Instead, be grateful that your own hardships have not filled you with bitterness. You are coping with life far better than those who lash out at others. If anything, feel a little pity for them, because they have yet to realise that cruelty never eases suffering - it only deepens it.

Escaping the Simulation - Q&A

Here I am going to answers some questions about my escaping the simuation video.

Question: If you have very little attachment left and no physical desires and no kids plus can consciously astral travel, would it make it easier or give you an advantage of gnosis at that moment?

I will break this down to cover everything more throughly.

Attachments and physical desires

The material world is a prison.

The true divine realm is spiritual and transcendent.

The Demiurge fashioned the physical cosmos - the Simulation.

Human souls contain a divine spark trapped in matter.

So bodily life isn’t merely distracting - it could be seen as part of the problem.

Bodily desires bind the soul to the material realm.

Sexual desire especially perpetuates entrapment by producing more bodies.

Passion clouds spiritual knowledge (gnosis).

Therefore the most focused of spiritual seekers follow:

- Celibacy

- Fasting

- Strict asceticism

- Avoidance of marriage

The idea isn’t simply moral purity - it is metaphysical escape.

Attachment to:

- Family

- Wealth

- Social status

- Physical pleasure

Is strengthening the illusion of the material world.

Liberation requires:

- Inner awakening

- Detachment from bodily identity

- Realisation of one's true spiritual origin

Some groups (who claim to be Gnostic, like OTO) do the opposite:

- Indulging bodily desire

- Claiming that since matter is meaningless, physical actions do not affect the true spirit

But what they fail to realise is that the more they indulge in those things, the more they want them, addictions grow and ruin you. They take you away from what your true focus should be - escape.

The problem is not pleasure itself.

The problem is identification with the body.

Attachment = forgetting one’s divine origin.

Detachment = remembering it.

Childfree

From my other work you will know I mention this often, that having children is a like continuation of your code, that is DNA, and DNA is the thing that traps you in the simulation. We are our ancestors replicated over and over, with more and more added to it as the program code becomes more and more sophisticated.

Having children means you are adding to this even more, the idea is to stop the line, and therefore stop the suffering. Only then can your true self, your Higher Self, reunite completely and go home to Pleroma.

This is why the older the religion or tradition, the more this is apparent in their teachings, because the older the religion or tradition is the more of the ancient teachings of the Serpent Bloodline they have in them, before they were later corrupted. And the more modern Abrahamic religions; Juadism, Christianity and Islam, all actually encourage procreation, so that shows how corrupted and wrong they have become, trapping everyone here in the simualtion for even longer.

Here I will break down some religions and traditions as examples:

Hinduism

Origins: c. 1500–500 BCE (Vedic period)

The Upanishads introduce renunciation, liberation (moksha), and the idea that worldly life - including family - can bind the soul.

This is where we first clearly see the tension between:

Esoteric: Renunciation as a higher spiritual path, liberation (moksha).

Exoteric: Pro-family householder life, ritual, family lineage, sacred duty (dharma). 

Jainism

Origins: c. 6th century BCE

Esoteric: Strong emphasis on non-attachment and liberation from rebirth.

Monks practise total celibacy.

A much more radical rejection of worldly life for serious spiritual seekers.

Worldly attachment - including family life - is seen as binding the soul to karma.

Procreation can therefore be viewed as deepening worldly entanglement.

Exoteric: Jain householders are permitted to marry and have children.

Buddhism

Origins: c. 5th century BCE

Esoteric: Teaches that life involves suffering (dukkha).

Goal: escape the cycle of rebirth (samsara).

Monastic path requires celibacy.

Attachment (including family attachment) fuels rebirth.

Liberation requires detachment.

Exoteric: It does not forbid laypeople from having children.

Gnosticism (Modern - as the original teachings were not called Gnosticism before this)

Origins: 1st–3rd century CE

Esoteric: Often taught that the material world is flawed or a prison.

Procreation is discouraged, seeing it as trapping divine sparks in matter.

Gnosticism often saw the material world as actively corrupt or evil.

Creating children meant creating more prisons for divine sparks.

Sexual reproduction sustained the flawed cosmic system.

Thus celibacy could be seen as spiritually compassionate - refusing to expand the trap.

Exoteric: Gnosticism has never had an exoteric side, it has always encourage everyone to become a Priest/ess themselves. It never misleads. This is what has always made it so dangerous to those who seek to keep your trapped.

Modern Philosophical Antinatalism

Origins: 19th–21st century

Here the idea becomes not just spiritual renunciation, but an ethical claim that it is morally wrong to create new life because life entails suffering.

This is the clearest “having children is a trap” position - and it is philosophical rather than religious.

Christianity also has its esoteric and exoteric. The Priests are told to not have children and remain celebate, certainly in the first waves from Catholicism, which later became watered down in newer more modern versions, meaning that even their own Priests are having children and the whole religion becomes an exoteric trap.

I think I have made my point though, spirituality is not for the mundane, it is for those who have true Will and focus to escape the trap and one of the biggest most convincing traps of this simuation is the belief that we are only here to have children, the very thing that traps us. Those who can only live in the exoteric can not escape just yet, maybe their children will.

Astral Travel

1. It weakens identification with the physical body.

2. It demonstrates that consciousness is not purely material.

3. It may reduce fear of death.

4. It could provide insight into subtler layers of reality.

However - and this is crucial:

• Experience ≠ liberation

• Insight + detachment = liberation

You can leave your body and still have ego.
You can see heavenly realms and still crave them.
You can gain powers and become more attached.

From a classical spiritual standpoint, astral travel is at best a tool - and at worst, a distraction.

Question: Since you mentioned the Bardo, how is your stand on the 49 days that are mentioned for prayers to reach and guide a deceased loved one?

In Tibetan Buddhism, bardo means “intermediate state.”

It refers to transitional phases of consciousness - the state between death and the next rebirth.

The classic source is The Tibetan Book of the Dead.

Why 49 days?

Traditionally, the post-death bardo is said to last up to 49 days, divided into seven-day cycles.

The idea comes from Tibetan interpretations of Indian Buddhist psychology:

- Consciousness in the intermediate state is unstable.

- It is repeatedly drawn toward rebirth.

- Every 7 days there is a strong karmic “pull.”

- By 49 days, rebirth has almost always occurred.

In Tibetan Buddhist cultures, family and monks perform:

- prayers

- mantra recitations

- merit dedication

- readings from the Bardo Thodol

These are believed to help the deceased by:

- reminding the consciousness to recognise the Clear Light

- reducing fear and confusion

- generating positive karmic conditions

As Gnostic Theolalites our core belief is:

- Ignorance binds the soul; knowledge frees it.

From that perspective:

- If you awaken in life → you can ascend.

- If you remain ignorant → rituals after death have limited power.

In Tibetan Buddhism:

- The dead person can be helped by prayers after death.

- The process is fluid and still influenced.

- Recognition in the moment can change the outcome.

In Gnosticism:

- What matters most is knowledge gained while alive.

- After death, the soul’s fate is largely already determined by its level of awakening.

- External rituals after death play a much smaller role.

- Liberation is front-loaded into life, not managed post-mortem.

Question: Why is it that even the most spiritually mature people suffer so much pain and heartbreak when someone dies that they were deeply connected to?

Deep spiritual maturity does not mean emotional numbness.

It means something much more subtle.

Love creates vulnerability.

When you are deeply connected to someone:

- Your nervous system co-regulates with theirs.

- Your daily rhythms entwine.

- Your sense of self expands to include them.

- When they die, that woven pattern tears.

Spiritual development does not erase attachment bonds formed through biology and shared life. The pain is partly neurological, partly relational, partly existential.

And yes, even enlightened teachers cry when loved ones die.

Non-attachment does not mean:

“I don’t care.”

It means:

“I love without clinging to permanence.”

But even when you understand impermanence deeply, the body and heart still register loss.

The quiet truth - Spiritual maturity doesn’t mean you stop loving deeply.

It means you love deeply knowing it will end in form.

And that knowledge does not cancel the ache when it does.

If anything, it makes the love more luminous - and the grief more honest.

Question: What are your teachings on beloved pets leaving this realm?

Animals are much like humans, some of them have the Inner Divine spark, others are Klum, just run purely from code but with no higher spiritual intelligence.

If a pet has bonded with you they won't be Klum.

Most animals, that are not Klum, have an easier time in the afterlife because they don't get so caught up in the trappings of the material world, but of course each case is different.

Some will return to Pleroma, others might get caught in one of the other traps that prevents them from moving on.

Some pets miss their humans so much and don't want to be parted from them, that can cause them problems because they can he tricked more easily. Some will stay trapped in limbo, watching their humans, trying to comfort them. This is why it is so important that we let them go, as painful as it is.

Most animals know when they are going to die, dogs will want to be alone because your emotional response to them dying will be painful to them and the last thing they want is to upset you.

Them wanting to be alone at the end doesn't mean they don't love you, quiet the opposite. However, some will choose to be with their humans right until the end.

Losing a pet can in many ways be even more painful than a family member, and that is because a human pet bond can become very strong, if you work from home you are with them 24/7, they are always there and then when they are suddenly no longer there the pain can be unbearable.

I know that I will never forget my pets that have passed, especially the dogs. But I have allowed them to move on, even though I didn't want to.

I remember when I lost my dog that I got in the UK and he moved with me to Sweden, he had also travelled through Europe with me in my motorhome, he had been through so many things with me. He was with me all the time. When he died in my arms I never thought I would ever get over it, and I do still miss him, but I know he is ok.

One day I was talking to Tau Graham about him, a few weeks after he passed. I was smiling remembering him, I was slowly coming to terms with his loss. Suddenly a white orb moved right in front of my face, this was in daylight. It floated past me and then dissolved. I knew it was him telling me he is ok and telling me he was going to move on now. I felt great comfort from that.

If you are missing your loved ones and pets that have passed, be comforted in the fact that they do still exist and will always love you, just like you will always love them. At some point you are bound to meet them again in Pleroma.

Question: Are Egregores a natural phenomena, or created by the program?

Egregores are created by human thoughts that are collected together and strengthened the more it is thought about.

An egregore forms when:

• A group concentrates intention.

• Ritual or repeated symbolic action energises an idea.

• Emotional investment reinforces it.

• Members continue feeding it attention.

Over time, it is believed to:

• Develop autonomy.

• Influence members’ thoughts and behaviour.

• Persist beyond individual participants.

They are artificially generated psychic structures.

Beyond ritualistic intentional creation, something functionally similar exists:

• Group identity

• Shared myth

• Collective emotional field

• Cultural narrative

• Institutional personality

For example:

• A nation

• A religion

• A corporation

• A fandom

These are not conscious beings - but they exert real behavioural influence.

Question: Is it possible that an Egregore is aware of someone being aware of it?

An egregore cannot be aware of you because it has no mind of its own. It can be programed to perform tasks, but these tasks are like running a computer program, it cannot think.

Question: Is it possible that Klum are puppeted through the mechanism of Egregores?

You could argue that Klum are programmed to perform certain tasks, so in that way they are similar to egregores, but they are not thoughtforms, they are simply progams.

Question: Does every Egregore have a consciousness of their own, or is there more to it?

They have no consciousness.

Question: Are the thoughts of humans the only aspect that builds an Egregore?

An egregore is not built from thoughts alone.

It is formed and strengthened by:

•  Repeated focused thought

•  Emotion (especially intense collective emotion)

• Ritual repetition Spoken words and symbols

•  Group participation

• Shared intention

Emotion is often considered more powerful than thought.
Attention + emotion + repetition = structure.

If we translate “egregore” into secular language, what we’re really talking about is something like:

• Group identity

• Collective myth

• Institutional culture

• Social narrative

These are not built by thoughts alone either.

They are built by:

• Shared beliefs

• Emotional contagion

• Behavioural reinforcement

• Symbols and imagery

• Architecture and environment

• Media repetition

• Power structures

• Social reward and punishment

For example:

A nation is not sustained by thought alone.
It’s sustained by:

• Flags

• Rituals

• Laws

• Stories

• Shared grief and triumph

• Schools

• Physical borders

Remove behaviour and environment, and the “entity” dissolves.

The Motherhood Mandate: Not All Women Are Maternal

The expectation that all women should be maternal is neither natural nor inevitable. Rather, it is the product of deeply rooted historical and sociological forces that have long linked femininity to caregiving. This phenomenon, often described as the “motherhood mandate”, positions nurturing, self-sacrifice, and domestic responsibility as defining features of womanhood. Despite social progress and expanding opportunities for women, this mandate continues to shape cultural norms, personal expectations, and institutional structures, often to the detriment of women who do not conform to it.

As a woman who has never wanted children, does not particularly enjoy being around them, and has no desire to take on caregiving roles, I am frequently met with anger when I fail to meet expectations imposed on me. That experience is what compelled me to address this topic.

At the heart of this expectation lies the historical construction of gender roles. In many societies, particularly in the West, the division between public and private spheres solidified during the industrial era. Men were associated with paid labour, politics, and public life, while women were relegated to the domestic sphere and made responsible for child-rearing, emotional labour, and household management. Motherhood became not merely something women did, but something women were. Femininity itself was redefined around reproductive and nurturing capacities, making maternal behaviour appear synonymous with womanhood.

This historical framing persists in modern social structures. Even as women participate fully in education and the workforce, they are still expected to shoulder the majority of caregiving labour. Studies consistently show that women perform more unpaid domestic and emotional work than men, regardless of employment status. The motherhood mandate thus functions as a form of invisible labour expectation, one that is moralised rather than negotiated. Women who embrace motherhood are praised for fulfilling their “natural” role, while those who resist or reject it are often framed as selfish, incomplete, or deviant.

A key mechanism sustaining this mandate is the myth of an innate “maternal instinct”. Popular discourse frequently suggests that women are biologically predisposed to nurture, love children unconditionally, and find fulfilment in caregiving. While caregiving abilities can certainly be developed, the notion that they are instinctual and exclusive to women lacks scientific grounding. Research in psychology and neuroscience shows that nurturing behaviours are shaped by socialisation, experience, and context, not sex alone. Men and child-free women are all capable of profound care, yet cultural narratives continue to present maternal instinct as both universal and compulsory for women.

This myth is reinforced through cultural media. Films, television, literature, and advertising regularly portray motherhood as a woman’s ultimate purpose or emotional climax. Female characters who reject motherhood are often punished narratively and depicted as cold, damaged, or later “redeemed” by embracing maternal roles. Conversely, men are rarely defined solely by parenthood. Fatherhood is treated as an addition to identity, not its foundation. These asymmetrical portrayals normalise the idea that a woman’s value lies in her capacity to care for others, particularly children.

Patriarchal social structures further entrench these expectations. When caregiving is feminised, it becomes devalued economically and socially. Unpaid domestic labour is rarely recognised as work, yet it underpins entire economies. By framing caregiving as women’s natural duty rather than skilled labour, patriarchal systems absolve institutions and men of responsibility for providing adequate support, such as affordable childcare, parental leave, or flexible working arrangements. The motherhood mandate thus operates not only as a cultural belief, but as a structural mechanism that maintains gender inequality.

Challenging the motherhood mandate requires disentangling femininity from caregiving. This does not mean devaluing motherhood or maternal labour, but rather recognising it as one valid path among many, not a moral obligation tied to gender. True reproductive and personal freedom includes the right to embrace motherhood, reject it, or redefine it on one’s own terms. It also requires broader cultural shifts, including representing diverse forms of womanhood in media, redistributing care work more equitably, and dismantling the idea that nurturing is inherently female.

Ultimately, the expectation that all women should be maternal is less about biology than about power. It reflects a long-standing social order that benefits from women’s unpaid labour, emotional availability, and self-sacrifice. By naming and interrogating the motherhood mandate, we create space for more expansive and humane understandings of femininity. These allow women to be caregivers, creators, leaders, or none of the above, without having their worth called into question.

In ancient times when their where only Serpent Bloodline women and no men, women got to choose their roles, some of the women wanted to look after the childten, others wanted to hunt, others gather, others make clothing, and sometimes a good mix of them all. No one was forced into roles they did not naturally feel drawn to. The Motherhood Mandate is a modern idea that has been used to keep women out of the way.

So please, don't just expect that a woman with a soft voice and a curvious feminine body wants to mother you and your children, for some us it is simply not what we are made for.

The Gnostic View of Consciousness - Four Types of Human

Humanity is not a single, unified species.

It is threefold. However, there is another type caught between two of the types.

Most people, belong to a type that will never truly awaken.  Because they were designed that way - shaped to consume, to obey, to move through life without ever asking the kinds of questions that fracture illusion.

If you are here reading this, if something compelled you to stay, then you are likely not one of them. And that, in Gnostic terms, makes you a serious threat.

These revelations are so dangerous to the control system that they have purposely been hidden for thousands of years. 

You see - not all humans are the same.

Humanity exists in three distinct categories with three types of consciousness, three levels of spiritual potential. And the disturbing implication is that only one of those types has any genuine chance of escaping what they understood as the prison of this world.

We are not speaking of race, or class, or intelligence. We are speaking of essence - of what animates a person from within.

This three types the Klum, the Simples, and the Theolalites. Then there is the confused mixed type which are the Eagles. Each operates at a fundamentally different level of awareness. Most people have never encountered these terms, and most will live their entire lives without ever asking which category they belong to. But once you understand what the Gnostics were really describing, once the pattern becomes clear, it is impossible to unsee. You begin to recognise these types everywhere - in your family, your workplace, in the crowds that fill the streets. And gradually, the world itself starts to make more sense.

Let us begin with the first group: the Klum.

The term comes from the Hebrew, כלום (klum) technically means "something" or "anything," but it's almost always used with a negative verb (like "ein" or "lo") to mean "nothing," 

The Klum are entirely rooted in the material world. This is not a moral judgement. We don't see them as evil, or even as lesser in a conventional sense. But the Klum lacks the divine spark - the spiritual essence that connects a being to higher reality.

The Klum lives through the senses alone: appetite, instinct, immediate gratification. There is little reflection, no sustained questioning. Life is about survival, consumption, reproduction, and eventual decay. To the Gnostics, the Klum moves through existence almost automatically - not as a machine in a literal sense, but as a being who never truly wakes up.

They follow trends without questioning. They accept authority without resistance. They pursue pleasure and avoid pain, yet never pause to ask what lies beneath the surface of experience. For them, this world is all there is - and they are content with that.

The Gnostics believe the Demiurge - the creator of the material cosmos - fashioned the Klum precisely this way. They are the workers, the consumers, the foundation upon which the material system depends. They do not rebel, because rebellion requires an inner spark they do not possess. This, again, was not condemnation - merely observation.

Without the Klum, the machinery of society would collapse. They build the cities, staff the factories, keep the systems running - all without wondering whether there might be something more.

The second type is more complicated - and more deceptive. These are the Simples.

The word comes from Simian and People combined. Unlike the Klum, the Simple possesses an inner life. They feel guilt and hope, fear and longing. They reflect. They ask questions. But - and this is crucial - they never ask them deeply enough.

Simples are religious. They believe in God. They speak of morality, ethics, and higher purpose. But they accept answers from external authorities - priests, scriptures, traditions, politicians - structures that were themselves established by the Demiurge.

Simples believe they are awake. In truth, they are dreaming.

They worship what they believe is the true God, but are in fact venerating the Demiurge. They are convinced that obedience will save them, unaware that obedience is precisely what keeps them bound. They mistake borrowed belief for inner knowing, false light for true illumination.

Simples possess the capacity for gnosis - direct experiential knowledge - but they outsource their spirituality. They surrender authority to intermediaries, to institutions that claim exclusive access to truth. And so they remain trapped in cycles of belief and illusion, convinced that one more lifetime of devotion will finally deliver salvation.

The Gnostics regard Simples as tragic figures. They are close - painfully close - yet restrained by the very systems they defend. They often argue passionately for their chains, protecting the institutions that imprison them, and responding with fear or hostility toward anyone who questions those structures. To question the system is to threaten their identity - something the Simple mind cannot tolerate.

And then there is the third type: the Theolalites

This is where everything changes.

Theolalites are not merely animated by soul, but by spirit - by the same substance that flows from the Pleroma, the realm of true light beyond the Demiurge’s reach.

They are rare. They always have been.

Throughout history, Theolalites have appeared as mystics, heretics, and relentless seekers - individuals who could not accept inherited answers. They carry an unshakable sense that something is fundamentally wrong with the world. That the stories do not add up. That authority is lying. That a deeper truth exists beneath the surface - and they will not rest until they touch it.

Theolalites struggle to fit into the system. Many try for years. They attempt belief, conformity, normality. But there is always friction - a sense of displacement, of living in a world not designed for them. Eventually, they stop trying to belong and turn inward.

They begin the search for gnosis - not belief, not faith, but direct knowing. And once even a glimpse of that knowing is tasted, there is no returning to sleep.

Theolalites are the greatest threat to the Demiurge. They cannot be bribed with pleasure like the Klum, nor pacified with religion and politics like the Simples. They see through illusion. They recognise the Eagles (the fourth type we will come to soon)  for what they are. They understand this world as a counterfeit - a shadow of something infinitely greater - and they refuse to bow to its false god.

This is why Theolalites have always been persecuted. This is why Gnostic texts were burnt and teachers silenced. A world filled with awakened Theolalites is a world in which the Demiurge loses power.

The Theolalites are stong in certain genetics, that of the anicent Serpent Bloodline, they can access their genetic memories that the other types can't.

Then there is the fourth type, the Eagles. These are a mix of all 3 of the other types which leads to absolute confusion and chaos within their own psyche. They do possess a soul and a Divine spark that could be ignited if they knew how. But for most doing so will be impossible. They are very much trapped in the spoils of the material world which makes them seek power, money and control. They also enjoy the hierarchy and power structures that the Simples do. But they also know there is more, and some of them only try to gain spiritual knowledge as a way to try and continue on this current timeline, without losing their gainend power aand weatlth, because they know they can never win this game. There will always be a day when they have to leave everything they have built here behind. They cling to life here, cling to as much wealth and power as they can, but ultimately they will fail.They will never activate their Divine light because they are too busy trying to control everyone else.

The Eagles are the hidden hand, running the world from behind the scenes, using Klum and Simples as puppets in their sycophantic power games. But they cannot control the Theolalites, which is why they seek to destroy them.

So how do you know which type you are?

If you are asking the question at all, you are not Klum. The Klum never wonders. They do not seek hidden knowledge. They are content with the surface.

The real distinction lies between Simples and Theolalites.

The Simples look outward for truth - to teachers, books, systems, politics. They want to be told what is real. The Theolalites know that truth cannot be given. It can only be remembered. It emerges through direct experience, in silence, beyond language.

If you have felt like an outsider your entire life - if you have questioned everything, even when it cost you relationships or belonging - that is the mark of the Theolalite.

If you have felt a longing for something you cannot name, a homesickness for a place you have never seen, that is the divine spark calling you back to the Pleroma. When you look at the world and feel, This cannot be all there is, you are hearing the call of your true origin.

But the world is designed to suppress this awakening.

Every system, every institution, every distraction works to keep the Theolalite from turning inward. The Demiurge understands that awakened consciousness is the only real threat. So they flood the mind with noise, entertainment, conflict, fear - anything to keep attention outward. They send corrupt ideas to the minds of Klum, Simples and Eagles as ways to suppress the rising Theolalites.

For many Theolalites, the spark remains dormant for an entire lifetime. They feel the friction but never name it. They sense the wrongness but never find its source.

This is why Gnostics place gnosis above all else. Not faith. Not obedience. But direct knowing - knowledge that cannot be taught, only awakened. The moment you truly see, the prison dissolves, because the prison is not matter. It is belief.

It is made of stories about who you are, where you came from, and what you are allowed to be. When those stories fall away, when attention turns inward and touches the spark the Demiurge cannot reach, the walls begin to crumble.

Gnostics don't see these types as a hierarchy of worth, but as a map of consciousness. The Klum is trapped in matter. The Simple is trapped in belief. The Eagle is trapped in confusion. The Theolalite is awakening to truth.

Most people will never awaken. Awakening requires solitude, uncertainty, and the willingness to release everything familiar.

Most choose comfort over truth.

If you are here, listening, still engaged, then something within you is already stirring. Whether you stand at the edge of awakening or are beginning to remember, the call has begun. And once it begins, it does not stop.

The question is not whether the spark exists - but whether you will listen.

Because that remembering is the first step toward freedom.

Is Christianity Gay? The Erasure of the Divine Feminine

If you are familiar with my work you will know that in my book I talk about ancient Greece and that "Agape" which was known as the highest form of love was that of older men with young boys. I also explain how this tradition carried on into Rome, the Catholic Church and spread out through the whole of Christianity, but as I talk about this topic please realise the same is true of Islam, Judaism and all mainstream religions.

What happens when a religion removes the divine feminine and reorganises love, loyalty, and devotion almost entirely around men?

Christianity is profoundly homosocial in an emotional, relational, and spiritual sense.

And once you see that, you can’t unsee it.

---

The Love Ethic of Patriarchy

Under patriarchy, men are not taught to love women.

Men are taught to:

• manage women

• possess women

• protect women

• control women

• extract labour, sex, reproduction, and emotional service from women

But love - real love - emotional intimacy, vulnerability, devotion, loyalty - is reserved for other men.

Patriarchy, is fundamentally a male love system.

Christianity, particularly patriarchal and conservative Christianity, maps perfectly onto this structure. As does Islam and Judaism. 

---

Christianity as a Male Love Economy

Look at where emotional and spiritual devotion flows in Christianity:

• Love God the Father

• Worship Jesus the Son

• Follow male apostles

• Obey male pastors, elders, bishops

• Admire great men of faith: Abraham, Moses, David, Paul, Peter

Women appear - but never as the primary subjects of love.

They are:

• helpers

• helpmeets

• wombs

• servants

• symbols of purity or temptation

• background labour

They are necessary, but never central.

Christianity’s deepest emotional attachments are male-to-male and male-to-God.

This is what I mean by homosocial.

---

“But What About Mary?”

Every time this argument is made, someone says: What about Mary?

Mary is not honoured as a woman.
She is honoured as:

• a vessel

• a womb

• obedience

• virginity

She has no theology.
No authority.
No wisdom tradition.
No autonomy.

She exists because of what she carries - not who she is.

Mary is not a divine feminine. She is a workaround for its absence.

And historically, she functions as an emotional salve in a religion dominated by terrifying fathers, hell imagery, and violent masculinity - not as a full goddess.

Compare Mary to pre-patriarchal goddesses:

• complex

• embodied

• powerful

• destructive and creative

• sexual and wise

Mary is not that.

---

Male Loyalty Over Women

Christianity consistently prioritises male loyalty over loyalty to women.

When men betray women:

• churches cover it up

• men protect men

• wives are told to forgive

• women are blamed for not being “gracious”

When women withdraw loyalty:

• they are punished

• shamed

• exiled

• spiritually condemned

Devotion flows upward:

• woman → husband

• husband → pastor

• pastor → Jesus

• Jesus → God

Rarely - if ever - does it flow back down.

This is not mutual love.
It is extraction.

---

Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud

Listen to religious men talk about women and you can see this because they articulate what is usually implicit.

They openly:

• mock heterosexual relationships

• frame women as distractions

• glorify male brotherhood

• position women as threats to male cohesion

They do not like women.
They do not see them as people.

When asked:

• Are you attracted to women? → “Yes.”

• Are you gay? → Long pause. Discomfort. Deflection.

What they admit openly is this:

They feel safer with men.
They are loyal to men.
Women exist to serve the male project.

This is the typical caricature of patriarchal Christianity.

---

Compulsory Heterosexuality

Patriarchy does not force heterosexual marriage because men love women.

It forces it because women are a resource:

• reproductive

• sexual

• emotional

• domestic

Men love men.
Men are loyal to men.
Men build worlds with men.

Women support that world from below.

---

Christian Nationalism Is Not a Spiritual Movement

Christian nationalism is not about Jesus.
It is not about the Sermon on the Mount.
It is not about compassion.

It is a male identity project reacting to feminism.

It offers:

• male belonging

• male hierarchy

• male obedience

• male worship

Women are defined only in relation to men.

That is why it skews overwhelmingly male.
That is why it is panicking.
That is why it is obsessed with controlling women’s bodies.

---

Homosocial Desire and Homophobia

This system requires intense homophobia.

Patriarchal societies depend on emotionally charged male bonding.
But that bonding must never become erotic.

Why?

Because erotic male love destabilises hierarchy.

So:

• men are trained to love men

• but taught to fear that love

• women are inserted as erotic outlets

• homophobia polices the boundary

This is why the most homosocial cultures are the most homophobic:

• Sparta

• Victorian England

• Evangelical America

Christianity produces homoerotic intimacy - and then punishes it.

---

The Bible Knows This

David and Jonathan:

“Your love to me was wonderful, more wonderful than the love of women.”

We do not see equivalent language describing male love for women.

Christian art is saturated with:

• wounded male bodies

• male devotion

• male ecstasy

• the Church as Bride to Christ

This is a religion of male emotional communion.

---

Why Women Leave

Women leaving Christianity often say the same thing:

“I never felt like a real person.”

They were given:

• service

• duty

• moral labour

But never love.

Christianity cannot survive women being whole.
It cannot survive women being embodied.
It cannot survive women being divine.

That is why it is panicking.

---

Decentring Jesus

Many people leaving Christianity try to take Jesus with them.

But eventually a question arises:
Why do we worship traits in Jesus that we dismiss in women?

If Jesus were a woman:

• kind

• forgiving

• gentle

• intuitive

She would be ordinary.
Not divine.

Patriarchy values femininity only when it comes with a penis.

That realisation is what forces Jesus off the centre.

---

Why This Lens Matters

So is Christianity gay?

Not sexually.
But structurally.
Emotionally.
Spiritually.

It is a homosocial religion that:

• centres men

• worships men

• loves men

• fears male eroticism

• exploits women to sustain itself

Once women stop supplying the labour, the silence, the obedience - the system collapses.

And that is what we are watching happen right now.