It’s not a sin to be violent but

it is a sin to be violent or otherwise aggressive against the wrong person, in the wrong time and circumpstance. Nobody is entitled to harm by any means another who is not -at that very moment- harming or intending to harm. Nobody is entitled to harm another because of things he himself thinks, remembers from other places and times, nor for other made-up reasons of his own. And nobody has to tolerate such a thing either.

A person that tolerates getting bullied here and there and then goes home and beats his wife and kids because he doesn’t like the food is not only a sinner, he is a coward. And sinners and cowards are also those who seek social status in order to do that (or to otherwise enforce control) to others as well; the same are those who put them there and bully others in term to get a share of authority.

Force is granted only to those who can handle it and it is granted by oneself. And those who misuse it lose it. They then needs other tricks to pretend they have some.

There is no reason to put down those who can. And those who can will not use it in the wrong circumpstances nor will they try to hinder others from using it in the right circumpstrances, either.

It is all very beautifully aligned, untill crazy man-made laws and regulations enter so the least brave and the least honest can prevail over the rest.


Authority, gods and God

The evaluation that people in ancient times needed to believe in a God or gods may or not be correct.

The evaluation that godless people got over that and chilled isn’t that correct. Human authority is a strong indication of that, even if that authority becomes oneself.

I could sit and make a long list of almighty, unknown things that are said to rule men and whose authority is said to be absolute.

I am not writing that to suggest any of the above is untrue. I am making a different point; that the puzzle -or at least my own puzzle- gets solved when each label fits what actually exists.

A way to avoid becoming victimized

My logic in trying to undo things that I consider done is fairly simple; you backtrack what causes them.

You make something happen and it happens. You don’t make it happen and it doesn’t happen. Simple isn’t it?

What do you think would happen if I said ‘if you get hurt I’m going to give you money’. Don’t you think some of those who’d need money would get hurt?

And what would happen if I said ‘if are well, I will penalize you’. Wouldn’t that make some not be well in fear they would get penalized?

Such weird things can occur. And then -what do you know- the internet can get full of arguments among opposing parties, competing who is worse than whom because they think somebody will come and give them something as reward for being worse, as well as penalize those are better than them.

That’s volunteering to become worse than you are and protesting those that are better. And by saying ‘worse’ and ‘better’ I only mean conditions, not inherent qualities.

If you want a person to become hateful you should -of course- punish him whenever he is loving, and give him credit whenever he is hateful. I bet you can think plenty of examples that has occured.

That way good inherent qualities never become expressed, known. They can get so hidden one even becomes unaware of them himself. And he then thinks less of himself and of others as well.

Seriousness overload

I’ve found a bad thing about ‘doing better’ is that unless other ‘do better’ too, I have a hard time connecting. They just don’t get me. They think when I say a thing I mean something different. From my perspective, they take things too much ‘to heart’. They take a side (usually one of two) and if I don’t support that side, I stand on the opposite side, right?

To be honest, I’m not a serious person and I’m not concerned with projecting anything like that. I can have some trouble at times. But I spend most of my time fooling around, trying to have some fun, while maintaining my loyalty on the same time. I’m clarifying that because not being serious can also have such significance.

I just don’t take words and problems seriously, most of the time, because I don’t believe in them. And in the same manner I can also say words and talk about problems and be unaffected. So I enter those collective discussions about serious topics and I joke around and others get baffled.

I’ve found many of the problems I thought I had weren’t actually mine, but were rather ‘borrowed’ by others. And I returned them when I discovered that.

Does that mean I am careless, irresponsible, superficial? Not at all. I just don’t believe those things are related to being serious. That’s some false connection there. Being responsible and playing responsible with appropriate manners and outfit are not the same. And I really don’t dig trying to look proper.

The way I see it, being serious is very closely connected to believing and to being convinced. If I read something on the news, or if somebody told me something (some problem) and I believed it could be very serious about it. But most the time I don’t believe in things I don’t perceive.

So no, it’s not that I’m in a ‘bubble’. I’ve just given up my connection to some common bubbles. And I’m darn glad about it.

Understanding brings the only true ‘conquest’

Many times have I heard that great people of the past were war conquerors; people like Napoleon, Alexander, Attila… While others argue those people were bad because they caused damage to others, and thus they shouldn’t be deemed great. I agree with neither notion.

The only conquest is that of oneself, and the only damage done is done unto oneself as well.

What is missing from the evaluation that great conquerors were great is that their conquest collapsed about as fast as their aggressive expansion did; they were bubbles.

The countries and empires that grew more steadily and remained grown didn’t grow through war. They grew by reaching to other folks around them through trade, arts, and other constructive forms of communication.

It is a total lie that the ‘great’ bruteforce their ways into others lives. No they reach out and offer something of value that can be appreciated by the others too; for something valuable offered, is actually as valuable to the one that receives it, as he deems it to be valuable. And even gold would be of no value to a civilization that didn’t consider it to be that. And they could even rationalize and say ‘well, you can’t eat gold’; like some say about paintings.

If I -through this blog- communicate things that were -indeed- valuable to me, they would have no value to another if that person didn’t understand them. Value is not objective at all.

A reason why some ‘bad’ guys seem to be strong and expand is because they infiltrate something of value and corrupt it. Some folks will just join the strongest country and try to impose their ways to the world through it. At which time that previously good thing that was offered becomes poisonous. And the one who offers it becomes poisoned too.

Another reason is that the defender of an attack attacks himself. If somebody attempted to insult you, that insult would have to such value to you unless you said so to yourself. And if you counter attacked with another insult, the value of that insult would be the value you would grant to it yourself –but only for yourself. Unless you could make the other person harm himself, you couldn’t harm him.

A being with integrity exists with love in this universe, and the denying of oneself and the consequent denying of everything else turns that love into negative love –into hate. From that point on it’s own existence turns against it, only because it turns against itself.

It isn’t masochism to love regardless of what occurs, it is strength. And giving that to others, also gives that strength too, and you become stronger.

Love is a force

Love is a force that cannot be forced.

A warlord that can have others submit to him might cause their admiration for managing to do so. However, he can never truly force anyone to love him.

The ‘power of love’ is much more than just idle, romantic babbling.

The masters of a degraded culture whose driving values are the survival of the fittest and the sympathy for their followers that later on become victims of themselves, has degraded love into an insignificant chemical connection inside somebody’s head. And that’s because they neither have nor do they want such a thing, for that thing brings freedom. And being attached to unloved things is the only chain on could ever have.

Their love is as genuine as their power. And if you wish to be subjected to such falsehoods you can play along the games they set up for you to play; otherwise you can honestly perceive your own love and never have to fake to others that it is more or less than what it is either.

Anger is an explosion that exhibits temporary power and quickly fades, leaving ashes for both the anger and -potentially- the angered –some broken bones, illnesses, and irrationality.

Be (with) what you love and you will also experience true power.

Tip: Change nothing about what you perceive

To cause a reaction unto someone is a very indirect method of controlling him. That comes after the conviction one cannot do anything to another than to control him like that.

If somebody tried to control you gently and you refused that person could be liable to try to control you by more forceful means –by harming or by threatening to, or by doing so unto himself.

Don’t be mistaken, mere communication itself is control. When you perceive what somebody says or writes then that person actually controls what you hear or read. Whether -from that point on- a person does anything more than to just perceive what is said or written, or he feels good or bad for the next of his lifetime, is a different topic. What is done in a point in time doesn’t have to have any continuity, unless we continue it.

A trap we can easily fall into is to try to change or to destroy what we perceive. That doesn’t work, and we then try harder and harder becoming more and more reactive about what we perceive, and thus becoming more and more controlled.

If you could comfortable sit a hear a person swearing at you without reacting about it, then that swearing would have zero harm upon you. In fact if you reacted it would be you who would be causing the harm unto yourself.

I am not asserting now that one ought to sit and talk with everybody no matter what they say. In fact I think one ought to only talk with whomever she or he wishes to.

However, if a disturbing event occurs, the wrong thing to do is to try to do something about it. And I am not suggesting apathy nor ignorance, as those are trying to avoid perception, or worse. On the contrary, I am suggesting to perceive as much as possible, more than ever before. And I am suggesting that your actions must be independent to what occurs if you really wish to act independently. Otherwise you will be controlled. Your actions will be controlled by what you failed to perceive, and tried to change instead. Clear perception might reveal to you that a disturbing event is not even ‘disturbing’ unless you say so yourself. And that’s some change too!

What you perceive must one complete cycle. And you must let that cycle finish. And what you make happen must be another cycle; and you must finish that cycle too. And it must be you who determines what to make happen, instead of trying to change what you should be perceiving.

Destroying individuality –“silence means consent”

Individuality doesn’t mean selfishness. It means each person has it’s own unique characteristics; including it’s own perspective, opinions, free speech, free will and so on.

Pluralism used be inherent in ancient democracy. And pluralism means the practicing of that individuality in groups in order to -as much as possible- agree over common matters.

Modern democracy has swapped pluralism with two opposites. Everyone is supposed to categorize him or her self (as well as others) into one of two opposing forces, and that creates chaos. Later on, out of that chaos the middle emerges and it can get really ugly.

Silence doesn’t mean consent. For every day, every moment I am silent about gross crimes that I am not aware of, and even if I was it still wouldn’t mean that I agreed with them. And if I joined some group that claimed to oppose those crimes it wouldn’t mean they weren’t committing them themselves. In fact, facts may as well show the opposite.

That notion however is one of the baits used to force one join one of two opposing forces, adopt it’s perspective, will, speech and become one with it practically losing his own. Later on that force will collide against another and get stuck there colliding forever after. And that’s a way people get controlled by getting stuck; as the ones who control the will, speech, perspectives of those opposing forces control the populace.

By the way, ‘hate’ in Greek is called ‘misos’; and misos also means ‘half’ in Greek. Do you see the connection? One half opposing the other half, whether in a society or within a person himself (those two are interrelated) is how hate is like. Which is also why such group preach that hate will bring about freedom. How often does that happen?

War has always been connected to one half opposing the other half.  And I hate to bring up WW2-era Germany, because it’s become so mainstream to do so in an effort to revive that era. But Germany was having internal conflicts between the nationalists and the socialists right before the middle party took over, that combined nationalism with socialism. Some were literally killing each other on the streets before that. And out of the emerging middle party, later on Germany went at war against others too, and so on. And everyone has been itchy about it ever since. Could it be because the US baron Rocker-fellow provided them with the oil they needed and mr Stalin provided them with steel to build their arsenal? Does silence mean consent? Does opposition mean the opposite? Did anybody put Rockefeller on trial after the war? Did anybody send him to prison for treason like they did with the Japanese? Apparently not.

For that reason I call ‘BS’ to those who call upon ‘freedom’ when they actually try to make all fit into one of two sides in order to be controlled. Freedom is not being hateful, stuck, at war and dead. Being free from something means exactly not having to experience something, nor having to avoid it, oppose it and so on. But -indeed- being free to experience it, if you so wish to.

And that division into two parts is one part trying to take the others freedom away. How ironic to call that freedom.

Is the good too bad to be told?

I’ve noticed a tendency on social media and elsewhere to share only problems.

I don’t think it is necessarily bad. But if we think in scientific terms, something is as good as it brings us closer to what we try to accomplish, right?

You want to make soapwater so then if adding bleach to water doesn’t help, well you don’t add bleach. You add soap and you get soapwater. Logical, right?

If sharing a problems makes you feel worse about that problem than before but you keep on doing it for days, months, years should it be assumed that you actually want those problems? Because that’s where it actually leads to.

No, I’m not asserting sharing problems is bad –not at all. I think it can be great if you can bravely and honestly share a problem you are having. And it can even make it disappear. But I usually enter some social media space without any problems, and I leave with many. Because anyway, almost nobody shares his own problems. And most share other’s problems. They share the problems of people they don’t know, and they share problems they’ve never even encountered. And in doing so we all get them in the end.

But enough analysis about problems. What’s wrong with sharing the opposite? I think if I can’t share something, that’s a problem –and one of my own, and not another’s.

Why would I think that another wouldn’t want to read that something good had occurred to me, if he was indeed ‘on my side’ and wanted something good to occur to me? Or why would I need to fake that something good had occurred to me in order to have another feel jealous, or in order to have him think highly of me if I was really ‘on his side’?

A problem spoken as it is know by oneself (known, not read-about) can work instant miracles. But guess what, good things that one feels he cannot share, that one feels he needs to hide can become problems too, because the truth is hidden.

Knowing and speaking the truth, being honest is very basic. And in not doing so, false problems can become apparent, while they would otherwise not exist at all. So hey, (talking to myself) before you try solving Nicaragua’s problems, try being honest about yourself.

How both wings push for the same thing

Most probably, most politicians and their followers are not aware of this. But when you have two opposing forces pushing against each other alternately, the one that prevails is the middle.

Force one is the force called neo-liberalism, which -in short- asserts the right thing to do is to focus on and assist the largest companies grow larger and to have everybody else depend on them.

Force two is the modern democratized socialism which takes funds from neo-liberalism mentioned above and provides services (whether asked for or not) to those who couldn’t otherwise afford them –such as healthcare.

It is certainly much easier for a poor person to live in countries with strong welfare such as Switzerland today. Some might not even have to ever work and still have some money and some free services to get by.

But all that arguing about whether and how much large companies should get taxed, has left out and covered something of great importance: independent enterprise, entrepreneurship has nearly been prohibited. And the choices provided by those two ideologies mentioned above is to whether we should have more state or more capitalistic oligopolies. If this goes on what will happen is that less and less companies, less and less people will own more and more of the total wealth of the world, and taxing them so as to provide services to the poor will not change that scene, it will only increase it. In fact that has already been occurring and almost nobody pays attention as most are magnetized by and stuck on that conflict whether we should support the state or the capitalistic oligopolies.

I don’t want to have to work for a handful of people that will own most business so as to be provided with ‘free stuff’ I’ve paid for through my own work. In fact I don’t want to have to work for anybody. But that’s how the logical chain goes, and that’s how the flow of money goes like.

I’d much much rather be free to make my own money or to share them with people I work together with, and then buy services (or not) if and when I need them.

When those guys ‘tax the rich’ they tax the money the rich have made through their workers work. But they don’t give that money back to those workers to counter the ‘capitalist’s greed’. No no, they give it Bayer for free aspirin. They give to schools for free enforced education for free, so as to create good workers that will work almost for free. And they give more and more to banks because they’ve been spending much more than they can afford.

Whether you call this capitalism or socialism, this combination is an oligarchic scheme. And it is meant to -and it actually does- put most to be depended upon few to manage their wealth and their lives. How foolish could want be to expect for ‘solidarity’ from those to try to control everybody’s lives by force?