Like this page? Then share it!
Dreadlocks Site Highly Recommends


My Dreads have there own Mind..

By MzRNMina, 2012-04-06

Hi Everyone I've been growing my dreads 3 years now...Now that I have gotton out of the dread hair fashion (meaning mantainedlocs).I am now enjoying allowing them and watching them do there on thing.

I always wanted very thick locs>>well they would have been if I would have learned more before I started having them interlocked and twisted. I know free form, I just left them alone, not completely but no more interlocking and twisting. I was wondering thou, I have a few Locs that have decided to have babies meaning limbs..One of them actually split in 2. To me its so pretty, but is this normal..and what is normal???lol I feel as thou it's spiritual..


Posted in: default | 1 comments

Starting dreads again

By Jacelyne Horton, 2012-04-05

Hey all,

I used to have dreads about 2 years ago. I kept them for around 5 months, went to a salon to have them done and the girl used the backcombing method and that was it. I hadn't done much research at the time, so the only thing I did in those 8 months to maintain them was go to the beach and "wash" them in salt water. This is what they looked like after 5 months. I ended up combing them out (which took 16 hours), but it goes to show you how loose they were.

I'm wanting them again, but this time for the long-haul and I'm wondering what the best method would be for my coarse/very thick/very curly hair. This time I won't be going to a salon. I would like to do them on my own. I moved to Colorado Springs and don't know anyone who would be able to help me, so I would like to do them with a method that requires no help from others. Also, I have a baby so I won't be able to dedicate several hours at a time. I'm thinking I'm going to have to do them one at a time (even if it takes months). I'm just not sure the "neglect/natural" method would be the right way for me since I never brush my curls out and in all this time, no dreads have appeared. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.


Posted in: default | 5 comments


By Outoftheloop, 2012-04-04

I got off work tonight, pulled 2 dollars from my pocket for a beer, walked half way across the parking lot just to turn around.


Ive only been a raging drunk for the last 5 years, and sure I like it, but I cant stay drunk forever.

However - a smoke would be pretty cool right now.

Posted in: default | 3 comments

7 Months

By Karrington <3, 2012-04-03

Hey there guys!

So I have been meaning to update with my progress but everything has been so crazy lately.. Anywho, my dreads are 7 months old as of April 1, 2012 and they are looking about the same I suppose.. Well actually a few folks on the street have said that I have "cool hair" or "nice dreads" which is comforting because I always feel like they don't look like dreads.

Anyways, a few things have changed in my life. I have decided to stretch my lobes and I have also taken a liking to the vegetarian lifestyle. It suits me more. hmm, what else....... Oh, my sister has been on the fence about dreading her hair as well and I think she might actually do it..

Other than that, everything else is pretty much the same. I'm gonna post some pictures later on in the week when I can find my camera :S

Until then Dreadlockssite :)


Posted in: default | 0 comments

Sea Salt

By Alejandro, 2012-04-02
Can you over use se salt your dreads and damage your hair?
Posted in: default | 1 comments

twist rip questions

By phil2, 2012-04-02

My last set of dreads I had for 4 years. Loved them a ton! Just chopped them two weeks for some starting fresh and want some dreads up on that Murs status. If I twist in and Rip small to med size dreads and let them just grow.. will I get congos? I have thick curly hair and its locks together well...let me know what you thinking soaring eagle and anybody else with good input

Thank you friends

Posted in: default | 1 comments

The Illuminati and the NWO, the truth about Adam weishaupts group

By Jakk Lyman, 2012-04-02

The real quick short version is---the one thing that links the right wing prior to the creation of the U.S. to after its creation---a fear of anything new and different, mixed with a strange and profound hate for Jewish people. I hope that got everyone's attention, allow me to explain:

Right wing, the term, arises from the time of the french revolution-it stood for those who sat to the right of the presidents chair-they were supportive of the monarchy, the aristocracy, and established church. They supported the divine right to rule, and considered it to be a natural this way they are connected to the right of today who support social hierarchy and social inequality as natural and normal.

Back in the day they were very suspicious of anybody who didn't think as they did (much as they still are) and anybody who was against the monarchy, the church, and social inequality was very suspect in their eyes. The Illuminati was such a group. Adam Weishaupt was essentially raised by Jesuits and was very critical of the church and became an atheist early in his life. His writings could easily be considered a sort of embryonic anarchism or proto-anarchism, for instance; Weishaupt writes of how any person wishing to join the Order of the Illuminati out of a thirst for power is acting contrary to the society's aims:

'If you seek power, might, false honor, excess, then ... we shall leave you to the consequences of your folly: our inner sanctum will remain closed to such a person. But if you wish to learn wisdom, if you wish to learn how to make people more clever, better, free and happy, then you are welcome amongst us three times over.' --Adam Weishaupt. To further support this I found that the Illuminati hosted the first anarchist speaker in Germany some years later. Since I'm familiar with anarchist history I can tell you that in the early days when people were first experimenting with the idea of rebelling against the monarchy the idea of a natural order amongst the people without rulers, nobility or authoritarian hierarchy wasn't as "fringe" as it is today. Also, in these early days, the conviction of these people was truly something to behold. Few people know that Gandhi found influence in "Fields, Factories, and Workshops" by Peter Kropotkin, Russian royalty by birth, he turned his back on his station and his wealth for his convictions about anarchism. Now the crux of the conspiracy theory rests primarily on 3 things. First that Weishaupt created the Illuminati at Rothschild's request, for which there is not one shred of evidence that the two ever met even in chance crossing (though its possible, they were both alive around this time, but then, so were a lot of people). Two, that they took over the Freemasons, escaped persecution, and survive to this day. It is true that Weishaupt saw the Freemasons as a possible source for prospects to his new group, however, the masons rejected him! His rather atheistic, as well as anarchistic politics and social ideas didnt jive with masonry. It should also be understood that masonry of that period was rather diverse from lodge to lodge which I could easily see as being used to support the idea that there are different levels of freemasonry for the wealthy elite.It wasn't until much later that freemasonry became a more homogenous group.Anyway, Weishaupt did find some people from amongst Freemasons, but these were few and probably folks who saw things differently than the masons as a whole. An example of this would be Mikhail Bakunin, commonly understood to be the father of anarchism (though he wasn't the first anarchist,he was a disciple, so to speak,of the first) he had joined the Freemasons thinking and hoping the society could be a vehicle of anarchist revolution.He wrote of his experience saying he quit the masons after a very short time, totally disgusted with the group. Its conceivable that there were many like him, joining the masons believing them to be a rebellious group only to find them frustratingly status quo for their tastes. These people would be eager to leave for a group like Weishaupt's. Mozart, actually, was in the Illuminati sort of keeping with the idea and evidence that they were not the rich and powerful, but the artistic, intellectual, political and social radicals of their time. Mozart was quite poor most of his life. Weishaupt himself never made it past "blue" masonry--a very low,entry level-and fashioned 3 degrees of Illuminism after masonic rituals (he includes 6 degrees, but the other 3 he made up-probably because he never made it that far in actual masonry). As far as them surviving to this day, the Illuminati was persecuted heavily for their radical ideals and all evidence shows them having been crushed due to state repression. They never got more then (maybe) a few hundred. The 3rd is that Weishaupt was into "satanism" or "mystery school" religious teachings. All the evidence we have of Weishaupt suggest he abandoned all religious influence and never took up any "alternative" religions.

To understand this further its important to understand mores of the times. Secret societies were sort of trendy, in part because of the repressive reaction to the enlightenment and the ideas that sprang from it, and part from something we still see today; the wealthy elite getting bored with their money and taking up the trends of the "common folk." The very same right wingers that were paranoid of these progressive thinkers and their secret groups were forming secret groups of their own! We'll talk more about them later. One of the main and more popular charges imprinted within the conspiracy narrative is the "Lucifarian" principle. During the late 17-1800's due to the different views that sprang from the enlightenment (science and freedom) "Lucifer the light bringer" became a rather common euphemism. It goes something like this--In the garden of Eden man was like an animal, a slave to ignorance, and thus a slave to god. Through an act of rebellion and science (disobeying god and seeking knowledge) he came upon self knowledge and thus the tools for freedom and became a fully realized human being. This is not a specific teaching, (I myself came up with the very same idea when I was 13 and being rebellious) and it is found in very non-religious non-ritualistic and non-symbolic/non-mystery school type texts. Still, as far as its connection to Weishaupt goes, it just isn't there. It is found in writings by Albert Pike, who references "Illuminism"but there is no evidence that this was an actual reference to the "Illuminati"being "illuminated" was a common term of enlightenment era adherents of democracy-Pike was a mason as well as a very strange and contrary character himself. At this time the right wing was reinventing itself in the formation of a democracy, Pike was a member of almost every proto right wing club of his time, including the know-nothings and native-ists. The Lucifer light bringer scenario I just mentioned can also be found in Bakunin's writing, (in God and the State) and I assure you Bakunin and Pike would probably have killed one another had they met--being on polar opposites of the idealistic spectrum. So in short, the "light bringer" scenario is not a specific teaching monopolized by a specific group, in all the places I found it during this time period it wasn't even connected with satanism (although there are Christians who would disagree from the perspective that all philosophy and theology that is not christian is satanic, but I'm restricting the term satanic to those who believe in a god named Satan). Actually, that narrative will re-occur in future articles, part of the hybrid of religious, political and xenophobic conspiracy paranoia takes "multiculturalism" and uses imagery of different religions and ethnicity's getting along peacefully and molds it into some nefarious new world order plot. Like if your political official is a Buddhist they are probably "satanic" and plotting to get rid of Christianity and make one religion. Sounds like partisan nonsense, but it does play a considerable role in the conspiracy narrative so I will look at whatever evidence is presented with integrity.

To further drive a nail in this coffin lets look at when this particular conspiracy resurfaced and was reinvented. Anybody who is familiar with the theory knows of the 13 bloodlines. What was once a conspiracy of commoners to overthrow the divine right of elite rule is now just the opposite! The narrative changed to fit the times. The monarchy or royal families were coming back to reclaim their power because they have some sick idea they have a divine right to rule us! Hmmm, divine right, sound familiar? Well, actually, I'm getting ahead of myself. The royal family deal wasn't really tacked on until relatively recently. No, they weren't royalty yet,not when it first really resurfaced, they were commies! Whats more, Jewish commies (of course). As its told today, Rothschild moved to a building in which Jacob Schiff would later be born in-(what a connection right)-anyway Jacob Schiff it is said bank rolled the Bolshevik revolution. Anyone else checking their shoes right now?. Well, prior to the Russian revolution the Russian monarchy was running POGROMS on Jewish people (basically persecuting and killing Jews). I don't know if any of you are familiar with the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' (the book Hitler used to justify his persecution of Jews)-anyway, it originated with the Russian monarchy to justify what they were doing before Hitler had even thought of it.The Russo-Japanese war rolls around and Japan found itself the beneficiary of a rather generous donation from a very concerned (very rich and Jewish) Jacob Schiff. Japan then went on to kick Russia's anti-Semitic ass. I'm sure that really alarmed a lot of people (particularly ant-Semitic jerks). Actually, it still does. There are rich people of every race and religion, however, Jewish folks have a reputation for really sticking together, particularly financially. I have no idea if this is cultural or what, but there have been enough Jewish anarchists (practicing and secular) that if there was some huge Jewish conspiracy it would have been blown open from the inside out long ago. Anyway, after Schiff helped the Japanese a rumor started that he was also behind the Bolsheviks. The "evidence" for this comes from the very same paper that was responsible for the "yellow journalism" nomenclature. A right wing nationalist paper known for making rather sensationalist claims. They had a story claiming Schiff's nephew told them that Schiff gave Lenin a large sum. This claim ended up in a State Dept. memo that had a list of suspected communists. The actual memo read like this: a name (then) JEW. It was, in short, a list of Jewish people with money. It even mentions the need to stop the spread of "international Jewry"and seemed more concerned with stopping the spread of Jewish wealth (capitalism) than stopping actual communism (which tended to liquidate private wealth into the coffers of the state)--I actually have a theory concerning the funding of Trotsky's red army, but that's for another article. In those days, as with these, the right is all about capitalism as long as its them making the money. The U.S. right wing in those days was eager to connect communism with Jews, and the "Illuminati" became that vehicle. The true fact is, there were a lot of left leaning Jewish people, Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were Russian born Jewish people that immigrated to the U.S. and were anarchists of legendary stature.However this "left" was made up of many immigrant groups and poor people of many backgrounds. The "Jewish" aspect was really just one of many attempts to drive wedges between the workers in the midst of a labor movement. After Russia and during as well as after Germany the Jewish people were in a sense easy pickings, there was already a wealth of anti-Semitic propaganda ready and waiting for anybody stupid, hateful or naive enough to believe it. Capitalizing on this fact was an ex-czarist officer who had previously got his butt kicked by the Japanese (due to Jewish funding) and more recently ousted by the communists---he had a bone to pick with Schiff and Jews in general- supporting the "Jews are behind communism" theory obviously worked to his benefit and interest, making him a rather dubious source of evidence. There are other more ridiculous connections, like the Rothschild name meaning "red shield" and the socialist flag being red--the problem with that (other than the fact there are alot of red things out there, one can hardly call them all commies) is that socialism wasn't invented yet. Rothschild took the name in like the 1500's, socialism didnt come about for another 250 years. But as we've already found, nothing connects Rothschild to Weishaupt or the Illuminati. The labor movement and industrial revolution really changed everything, people didnt trust the rich, the rank and file right wing was dirt poor and sort of caught in a bind. The poor ones supported SOCIAL inequality (primarily because they didnt have wealth) and they needed to separate the bad guys from their rich benefactors, (hence, rich Jews bad, rich wasps good). Conversely the rich needed to break up the labor movement by drawing lines between "us" and "them" (the rich aren't F'ng you over, its those damn Jews etc).

Finally, the symbolism. The eye and pyramid was NEVER an Illuminati symbol. As a matter of fact, it WAS a Christian symbol, as well as a Hindu symbol, (and though its called an Egyptian symbol because of the pyramid their eye of horus was just an eye--we added the pyramid) and the Masons didnt start using it until about 30 years after it ended up on the dollar. Or so they claim. There is definitely more to the symbolism within our government and its agency's than meets the eye--whether it's been fitted retroactively and how significant it is is debatable though.

Now, I didnt want to address the whole conspiracy all at once, I just wanted to remove the "Illuminati" and communist jew part. Mainly because the Illuminati was awesome and they are having their name drug through the mud (so the right can connect progressive ideas with the N.W.O.) and I'm tired of people thinking capitalist institutions are communist because they have the support of the state. Institutions of power can be communist or capitalist. This is a capitalist system, profit and extreme wealth inequality are CAPITALIST. No capitalists would support a "N.W.O." if it involved emptying their bank accounts and handing all their private property over to the state to dole out as it saw fit. Its absolutely ridiculous when capitalists take aspects of capitalist reality and hold it up to capitalist theory and call it communist when it doesn't match up. Capitalism needs the state to protect its property, without the state the rich get army's of their own and you end up with a monarchy or feudalism, its always been that way--you cant have an unfair economic system if you cant protect your ill gotten gains. Also, the Jewish thing is just leftover from the Russians, then Germans got in on it, and later the KKK, John Birch Society RIGHT WING SECRET SOCIETY'S etc etc the "Z.O.G." (Zionist occupational government) conspiracy. There is more to that however, like how the neo-cons got cozy with the Jewish state. Traditionally the right has always been anti-Semitic, then something changed. This change has fueled the paranoid fires of the extreme right. Also, since the creation of Israel, the Mossad and Israels heavy handed land grabs against Palestine have fueled a newer conspiracy that actually has some justification and merit. The problem is separating it from the traditionally anti-Semitic/crypto-fascist ramblings of the extreme right.----OK, again this was off the top, if it reads sloppy, sorry, I'll probably do a re-edit later like I did with the other articles. Any questions or curiosities hit me up--jakk....................................oh, any of these subjects that I pulled back from because I didnt want to get to off track that anybody's interested in I can elaborate on, like the neo-con Jewish thing, communism/capitalism and revolutionary history, whatever..some of it i will touch on with other subjects---of which I'm not sure what Ill do next.

I'm also starting a new "secret society" called, the Illuminati, in the tradition of Weishaupt. Im working out the particulars, but anybody interested should hit me up, in the interest of keeping it properly "secret" and out of the prying eyes of repression I'll only be using the internet for this in a very limited way. Its a work in progress.---Jakk

-----One small update on Weishaupt's group concerning the 6 degrees. Apparently the first three degrees are known to all Freemasons, and as Ive said back in the day the Freemason lodges were not all a united group, they varied from lodge to lodge. It wasn't until 1813 that the Lodges united the Moderns and the Antients-which is just an obsolete spelling of ancient- (the two factions that the various lodges fell under). The first 3 degrees go like this: 1). The Entered Apprentice; basically the initiation (symbolically into maturity/spiritual maturity) and the initiate is to consider charity to his fellow man and his relationship with god.2). The Fellow Craft degree; refers to the hidden mystery's of nature and science and has something to do about teaching one to be a human being and is considered a bridge to the 3rd degree from operative masonry to speculative masonry. 3). The Master Mason degree; this has to do with some guy named Hiram Abiff and a role play where the mason pretends to be this guy or something-the whole thing has to do with sticking to ones faith and avoiding the easy path of secular life they overcome the trappings of the physical body and attain unity with god. The next 3 were not official Freemason doctrine until the unification-called the Royal Arch (which is Mark Master, Excellent Master, and Holy Royal Arch) and each degree is controlled by a different chair (and gets a little more complicated from there). Anyway, considering the religious nature of the first three degrees and the nature of Weishaupt's writing and his attitude towards religion its more plausible that while he based his first 3 degrees on masonry they probably didnt resemble the masonic degrees much at all. As for the other 3, it may be they had not been invented yet, or that any degrees past the first 3 varied from lodge to lodge and did not become homogenous until the unification; though it really doesn't matter as its said that Weishaupt's last 3 were not based on masonry anyway. These 6 degrees are what is recognized by the Grand Lodge, I haven't found mention of the famed 33rd degrees. Although there seem to still be some variation within freemasonry as far as the Scottish and the English lodge is concerned. The Blue lodge (the one mentioned with Weishaupt) or Craft lodge or Ancient craft lodge all work the first 3 degrees. The appendant masonic orders (York's Rite & Scottish Rite) are somehow different. The more traditional (Blue ) represent English and Irish masonry--and apparently has recently caught on in the U.S. However, it is of some interest that it is within these last 3 degrees that allegory's concerning King Solomon's Temple appear. Its no secret that masons have some weird thing with that Temple as it appears in many conspiracy narratives.

Again, I make no suppositions or assumptions where the rest of the conspiracy is concernedI say only this; the Illuminati has nothing to do with it, the all seeing eye is not a part of the Illuminati, it is not a communist conspiracy, nor is it a Jewish conspiracy or a communist Jewish conspiracy. Any involvement of the Rothschild's and their banking system and debt control has nothing to do with the Illuminati, communism, or the vast majority of Jewish people. The Jewish state undoubtedly engages in the activities that every state does, and any attempt at turning this into a narrative suggesting a singularly Jewish conspiracy or threat should be regarded as nationalist crypto-fascism, unless it is presented side by side with a conspiracy of every state and their dominant populations to further their own agendas; in this context it would then be clear thats its actions are normal as far as nation states go.

Posted in: default | 0 comments

Beauty all around

By MamaTurtle, 2012-04-02

It never ceases to amaze me how easily it is to isolate and insult others. Society seems to dictate that physical beauty is all that matters and other attractive qualities are deemed inferior. I like to think that myupbringing gives me an unfettered view of everything that a person has to offer. A pretty face is merely one facet of an individual, not the entire package. I confess that once I was utterly obsessed with making my self "acceptable" pretty. Meaning, I wanted those around me to see that I could be pretty too and I was worth something because of it.

It didn't help matters that I had, and still do have, an emotionally and verbally abusive sister. She tore me down whenever I tried to pull myself up. It led to a very terrible period of time in my childhood. I was pumped full of antidepressants and constantly under supervision for suicide attempts. All while my sister continued to emotionally murder me. Nothing was ever done about her. Nothing has STILL been done about her. Just existing was becoming too much for my 12 year old self. One night when her torment reached new heights-she physicallyattacked me- and I snuck out. Unable to handle my parents doing nothing to protect me, I just walked.

It was strange, being alone under a blanketof stars. The hustle and sounds of daytime long since silenced. There was an almost ethereal quality to the night time, like the veryenergy was tangible and just waiting for an opportunity to reach out to me.Eventually, I ended up seated underneath a massive pine tree. I sat in silence, contemplating my life. The memories of what I truly felt and thought that nightare long sinceblurred. I can say that after that night spent under the protective cover of a pine tree, I was changed. It no longer mattered to me what she thought. I saw a spiritualugliness in her beyond description. It still festers in her to this day, blackening her very soul. I can however, thank her for acting as the catalyst of my own personal transformation. After that night, I no longer saw fat, skinny, ugly or pretty in the same light that society demanded of me. Instead, I saw a great beauty in everything and beauty all around. I'm 24 now, and my dreads are the final testament to my own transformation that started so long ago. I keep them as a tangible reminder that everyone, no matter what society has labeled them as, is beautiful in their own glorious way. My dreads are theend tothe story of an emotionally abused little girl.But also the firm foundation and beginning of wise, strong woman and mother.

Posted in: default | 2 comments

My husband's reaction to learning about me keeping my dreads:

By MamaTurtle, 2012-04-01

Yes, those were his exact words and face. He's still in denial. I regret nothing.

Posted in: default | 4 comments

about 3 inches in hair length and growing

By Gene Thompson, 2012-04-01

Just want to get an opinion from y'all about starting to re-lock my hair. Sorry about the picture on my profile guys, its old. My hair's about 3'' now, i wanted to include a pic but I'll probably post it next time. I know I can get a better opinion with a pic you guys can see. In the meantime, I finish my school semester in may and there arent much classes offered this summer because of the budget cuts. So I was planning to take the summer off from school and start job hunting. My hair's at an awkward stage right now pretty fro-ish and I wanna do something to it to look presentable for job interviews. The only thing I can think of is locking it. I dnt wanna cut it or do anything else to it so yeah. Opinions & suggestions will help! Thanx you guys.

Posted in: default | 2 comments
 / 210
Contact Form