Some alternative history

It can be very interesting to examine some of those ‘alternative sciences’ that pop up on the internet and TV once in a while. It seems that not everything that everyone knows makes perfect sense to them by studying non-alternative science, and they look for answers elsewhere.

Out of curiosity I also had a look in some of those flat Earth videos that seem to be the latest trend and what I noticed was that at least one of those videos had been processed by computer so as to make the globe appear flat. I noticed that as they hadn’t processed the video too well; also because it’s harder to fool a graphics design insider with computer graphics.

There is however something that draws people near those flat Earth theories; that what know through mainstream science about the history of Earth is not utterly true. And although I don’t know everything about it either, I do have my own indications as well as speculations about it.

There are many indications and speculations about the history of Earth as well as of ‘the universe’ in mainstream science. There isn’t much proof though –just like there isn’t much proof about history in general. The past might leave some traces, and by examining those traces you’re tasked with building logical bridges in order to figure out things about the past that you don’t know. You see your boyfriend has lipstick on his cheek and you immediately figure out he cheats on you. Why not figure out his aunty gave him a kiss or that he has a boyfriend that put lipstick on? I mean indications are not proof. You have to speculate what is unknown. And knowledge is not what you’re told by your boyfriend either; it is what you perceive. And you perceive the lipstick on his cheek, and that’s all you perceive, and that’s all you know.

Knowledge is perception, experience. And it is not what you’re told, what you read. That’s something flat Earthers got right, and they have amassed such a huge fan base, even if -and that’s pure speculation- all the rest they claim is not true.

Here are my speculations and indications, and it is up to you one to know whether they are true or not. For starters, history has been much less grim and much more beautiful than talked about. In ancient times they did other things than killing each other and sacrificing their kids to gods. We didn’t just get away from ages of brutality and mad dictators to end up here and now in an age of peace. It is true, we do live in an era of relative peace, compared to previous centuries where country borders were fragile things. We do have some stability. But we have also lived through times much better than present times, by various means.

By studying history as well as by studying the present time news you only get the idea that the world is an ugly, dangerous, heartless place. And indeed, such instances can exist. But how come nobody focuses on what’s nice, good, beautiful about it too? How come nobody focuses on how to make our lives better instead of thinking what’s bad and evil? Oh they do, at least they pretend to. Most often when they -rarely- refer to something good, it’s something that it’s not really that good. That’s what they do. And if you took all they said and turned it upside-down you would be closer to truth.

A person who is driven by the past or by present events is not a free person. A free person thinks and acts regardless of those things. A person who tries to solve past and present problems, in order to have them solved in the future is a bit less free, for he is still driven by something. And even that sort of unfreedom is not as close as the nihilism that some breed, by informing us all how bad and pointless everything is.

Why do that? Because that’s how they can control. If your life is pointless you wont care to make it have a point, but they could. If everything is bad, you will be drawn to the good sanctuaries they offer. They both offer the problem as well as the solution in order to control; and ‘you’ agree with them, and play along –or to be more precise, you are played.

Since I do live my life by principles such as ‘if you don’t experience it, it doesn’t exist’, I do think some speculations and indications can be -more or less- closer to truth. And it’s better to have those than to have the nihilism that some want you to have, in order to control you.

I’m going to give you some information that can agree with or not. Bottom down, only I know can know truth for myself and only you can know truth for yourself. If you find this more true than what you’ve been told by others, good. If you don’t, then good again.

The material universe is not the only one universe. And the Earth is not the only inhabited planet in this universe either. God is not the only one God. There are universes, planets, and Gods. And the reason why we are unaware of this is because some wish to be the ‘only one Gods’, some wish to control it all. You can see that expressed in humans as well. The amassing of extraordinary wealth is not a matter of become able to buy food, luxuries and so on, it is an effort to control others. And the prohibiting all to amass wealth in order for some statesmen and bankers to have it all is the same, and one never solved the other.

Like I’ve said again and again, our bodies are not what we basically are. We are not a product of any mother nature. Mother nature is a product of this universe, and this universe is a product of joint creation of Gods.

The fighting who is better than whom, who is more God than whom led us to a state wherein we don’t even remember what we are. That happened very gradually, and there was a lot of beauty being created in-between by all of us –or at least many of us. And we have lived through much better times than this. But in turning one against the other, we only managed to reduce ourselves into thinking we are the humans, the puppets we possessed.

The relation between a spirit and it’s human body it’s similar to the relation between a man and his pet puppy. But through time we got more and more the idea of being what we possessed. And some -being aware of that- tried to pull us back, to set us free from that. And some did make it, and some others tried to stop them as they saw their authority over others being threatened. And thus we got religions (many more than we have today) becoming tools of enslavement instead of tools of spiritual liberation. Spirituality wasn’t meant to be a ‘let’s feel better’ thing. It was meant to be about spiritual liberation, becoming aware of what one is, what he can do, and knowing how he ended up here.

Needless to say a spirit is much more able than it’s puppet body; but in perceiving and in thinking as a body, it gets the idea it is weak, that it can suffer and so on. In fact it can’t. That’s is why one can be liberated from suffering by becoming aware of his spiritual nature, for a spirit can’t really suffer it can only witness suffering. And in witnessing suffering a spirit who thinks it is a body becomes more and more body in it’s thinking, because suffering works like a magnet to a spirit, as it gets drawn to protect the body from suffering. Protecting one’s ‘ego’, oneself is in fact protecting ones body. There is no need to protect oneself as a spirit, unless he has a false idea about oneself. Similarly there is no need for a spirit to become ‘God’ over others for we are all God, and trying to violate that has brought us to our knees –arrogance has led to humiliation.

How to return? I think the answer is obvious. Do you wish to honor God? Start by honoring yourself and you fellow God being.

Liability in describing bad realities

I once encountered a school of thought (and I have encountered many more ever since) which used to assert it was very bad to bring up, to mention anything ‘negative’, whatever that was supposed to mean. And the people that abided to that notion did press themselves as well as each others to be ‘positive’, whatever that was supposed to mean.

On the same time under the disguise of happiness and positivity some people who had assumed power seeked to muzzle whomever opposed them by using ‘positivity’ and labeling whomever disagreed with them as ‘bad’, ‘negative’, ‘faulty’ and so on.

That is a liability of not describing bad realities –that under the disguise of positivity negativity can thrive.

The closer one is to truth the better he feels, and the further away he strays from it the worse he feels, and that’s all positive and negative means with regards to humans. We all have an impulse for truth, no matter which direction(s) we choose to take in life. And to conceal a lie with ‘positivity’ is anything but truth, anything but positive.

On the other hand, if you follow that logic you see that it isn’t truth which brings about feeling bad, but it is lies. And that is the liability of describing bad realities –they don’t exist exactly like they’re described.

And if one has a tendency to adapt to asserted ‘reality’, (like it is thoroughly preached and covertly demanded by some, as they have made it synonymous to being ‘positive’)  one also has a tendency to adapt to (become) that asserted negative reality as well.

In other words, if one believes something bad, he then creates it himself, or even worsens it as he reacts against it.

A more direct, honest authority demands from others to do as he says, while a less direct, honest one describes how things are so they will be forced to adapt to/react against it. And it is always something negative, or fake positive thing, so they will become it.

What is the solution? The only true solution that thoroughly erases any problem, is the creating and knowing truth. Truth and lies are not black or white. One can be closer or further from them. And one step closer to them is one step closer, and one step further away is one step further away. And right and wrong can be very relative too to each condition, and to each person too.

Free advertisers

A person, a company, an ideology could pay another person or company to make advertisements on it’s behalf. However, that is much more expensive and and less effective than to have everybody advertise them for free.

Brainwashing could be defined as the inserting of ‘truths’ in a person’s thinking, without the person knowing about it, so as to control him. It is an enforcement, but a concealed one.

When somebody thinks he has to have a Mac or an iphone otherwise he will appear inferior others, that’s what he goes through. And that’s what he puts others to go through as well, when he does think others are inferior for not having one. Whether Macs and iphones are good or not is irrelevant, if somebody doesn’t buy them for them functionality but to show something to others. Seriously, I have nothing against products and luxuries, but I wouldn’t possess them for the sake of not appearing inferior.

Similarly, I wouldn’t support nor oppose any political ideology, religion etc so that others wouldn’t think bad things about me. But if one asserts one ought to be on somebody’s side so he wont be on some other bad guy’s side, or so he wont be -in one way or another- bad himself, there is an indirect, concealed blackmail involved. And when somebody buys a product or subscribes to some set(s) of ideas so bad things wont happen to him, and then he in turn shows that around, he becomes an involuntary advertiser, whether he calls himself that or not.

If you reverse all that process and have people not allow themselves or others to buy something or to befriend somebody or to subscribe to some set of ideas so they wont be bad, you don’t get anything different. You get the same force but in reverse. Reverse advertisement is reverse advertisement, and reverse blackmail is reverse blackmail as well.

So, I’m not really telling anyone to not have an iphone or a Mac or to not become a communist or a Scientologist so he wont have others throw rotten tomatoes at him. I’m not suggesting what anyone ought to or not do with regards to those things. I might (or not) agree with those things, and I might tell others about it too. But my own rights begin and end within myself. All I’m saying is be aware if you are controlled towards a direction or another without your known consent.

All that not allowing each other to be whatever they want to be, makes similar-minded people get together in closed groups (sects) and then bash at each other and never understand each other. And such conditions make the leaders of such groups particularly happy, as they use the subsequent necessities of war to impose their peace.

What suppression is made of

Today I see two main tendencies on the field of politics; one dictates what unfreedom must be like, and the other dictates what freedom must be like. They are both contradictory within themselves, as they say one thing and then they say the opposite, and that’s what they do as well. You get all sorts of ‘fight for freedom’ guys who impose their version of freedom through laws, through the police and the army. You get liberals, libertarians and neo-liberals who argue among each other what laws to be passed. All this ‘liberty’ and it’s about laws.

It takes at least two forces to have suppression; a single force is not enough. Both forces make two sides of the same coin, and what you get as result is being trapped in-between. And then somebody poses another coin against that coin, and then others do the same and you get a maze. And the most ironic thing to do is to call that freedom.

If there was a bully, that bully couldn’t suppress you unless you suppressed yourself first, leave alone that the bully himself is being suppressed as well. All your life you’re told to not use force, that force is evil and then one day you encounter a bully… So you get bullied and then you go bully another who doesn’t bully you, in turn. That’s what suppression is like. And all suppressive systems contain ‘using force’ as something evil, so force can be forced on them. And status quos wherein one suppresses oneself and then the other and that other suppresses another get formed. And then people go on TV accusing others they’ve never met of suppressing them, but they never accuse the ones that do suppress them, including themselves. And the accused feel suppressed too in turn -as nobody can talk back to their TV- and they turn against others they’ve never met…

You’re better off (more honest) teaching that everything in the material universe is evil, if you’re to teach that using force is evil for the material universe is made of force. And what they mean when they say ‘force is evil’ is that only you shouldn’t use force. Even those iconic, ‘serene’ pictures of sunsets and the happy people walking on the beach, that touristic companies use to get rich with are made of force. It takes force to move your body, it takes force to have a sun and everything else included.

Freedom doesn’t lead to chaos. Chaos is the result of colliding forces, and that is not inevitable in freedom. It’s just that without the freedom for those things to exist, none of those things could exist. Chaos is a product of freedom indeed but freedom is not itself chaos. And as chaos occurs more order occurs as a counter-measure. If you get more crime in a state you consequently also get more police.

Freedom is the one thing that cannot be defined, for if it is defined it is not freedom; although the defining it derives from freedom. I cannot tell you what freedom is, I could only approximate it by pointing out what unfreedom is. The same is true for truth as well. My freedom is my own and so is my truth. And if we can have our own without trying (in vain) to reduce each other’s we can have the perfect blending with each other, where one’s freedom can freely become another’s too.

Myths about intelligence

Brain size: If brain size mattered, if anybody really gave a damn, I should had been appointed to be among the rulers of this country or at least of my local area or something, since I’m quite a big-head –in fact my body is big in general.

Intelligent people think, stupid people don’t think: No, thinking does not imply intelligence, whether it is accompanied by speech or not. One can become unable to think due to thinking too much. It’s as if you had a room that had become overcrowded and no more people could fit in. One needs to be able to both start as well as stop thinking too, and at will. So not thinking doesn’t mean one is stupid either.

Intelligent people read books: Apparently somebody has figured out only intelligent people can also write book, or that there can’t be book that are utter rubbish. You know, just like anyone can blog, anyone can speak anyone can write books as well. And reading from people makes you as intelligent as hearing from people, as reading is but a way to communicate. That books=intelligence is an idea that circulates in school, which schools on one hand assert to help the intelligence of a child while on the other hand a school’s psychologist will insist that one’s intelligence can never change.

Intelligent people succeed in life: That can be very true if one uses intelligence to succeed. What is not true is that all have the same idea what ‘success’ is. I know I personally don’t care to rise through the ranks of any company that I don’t care for. One thing is for sure:  Although a relatively intelligent person could be duped to offer and be useful a dishonest group, one who is too intelligent wouldn’t care to offer to such a group by means that group would want the person to. See what happened to Socrates. Of course, from the state’s perspective Socrates was being unethical and stupid, but was he?

Ultimately, intelligence is closely tied to creativity. If one cannot freely create (and un-create) thought, one cannot freely be intelligent either. To get stuffed with thinking that inhibits free thinking is anything but being intelligent.

Intelligence is a personal matter and it is not a group matter although intelligent individuals can make an intelligent group. And specially when it comes to dishonest groups to have ones intelligence validated or invalidated means nothing –it can often mean the opposite.

The average

Average is THE criterion that certain elements in society use to judge whether somebody is a good boy or not.

It might not be obvious to an adult, but it is quite a pain for a child to become average. Don’t be too quiet nor too loud, don’t be too happy nor too unhappy, don’t be too lively nor completely dead. There is a demand on behalf of certain authorities in society to become that. And after one becomes that he might as well then demand it from others too. So it later on appears that’s how society ‘is’.

Children can get pretty ‘crazy’ on the other hand, since they haven’t yet undergone enough suppression so as to become average, and they can be a pain to an intolerant adult.

But how does one become average? Initially, in order to be that one needs to look outside. It isn’t an impulse that comes from inside. Thus it needs to be imposed from the outside to the inside. And what does that mean? It means that the person is ‘forced’ to be something, so as not to be too little of something (for example, ‘social’). And it also means the person is ‘stopped’ from becoming something so as not to become too much of something (for example, cheerful). So, in order to be that average there has to be a continuous controling oneself, so as not to get reprimanded, laughed at or other derogatory things, untill it becomes ‘flat’.

Eventually, the basic loss is that of oneself, as one becomes unfreer to express oneself like he otherwise would. And like some demand, one shouldn’t even ‘think’ of things that are not alligned with the average. To an extreme that would amount to all becoming copies of each other.

Such a thing can also help create numerous complications amongst people. Apparently, there can be a thing such as ‘too loyal’ or ‘too good’ as well. And that would also lead to not being ‘too trusting’ either.

Profiting from another’s suffering

The number of professions that would exist if human beings needed nothing from each other would be much smaller, unless new professions were invented.

If the was no illness or if one could cure it by himself there would be no doctors and no pharmaceutical industries becoming some of the richest on the planet. If one didn’t need capital to start a business or if people were generally more wealthy, the banks couldn’t lend money. If there was no excess of unemployed people compared to available jobs, almost nobody would agree to work for peanuts. If there were no STDs condom sales would drop dramatically. If people got along with each other more they would need to visit counselors less. And if there weren’t thousands of laws written in archaic dialects that one ought to abide to without knowing them, most lawyers would be unemployed.

Of course, I’m not asserting that all those people want another to suffer so as to make money. A doctor might indeed care to heal another, and do so indeed. And the same is true about all other professions. And such people should be the only ones entitled to make any money out of their profession, at all. However, if one’s job, responsibility is to handle something and he doesn’t do that, but he pretends to do so while in actuality he perpetuates, exaggerates or even creates problems so as to make money, we get some unfortunate conditions being created. If everybody focused on being effective instead of making profit, and if they were evaluated based on their effectiveness and not based on their wealth, this would be a much happier place to for all to live in.

Arrogance

Arrogance, ‘big ego’ is not thinking highly of yourself, it is thinking lowly of others; and those two things don’t go together. One doesn’t try to pull the other down because he thinks of himself to be high, but rather because he tries to get high that way.

It is a very different scene when one tries to stop and to pull the other down and when one tries to assist, uplift the other instead. If that could change, whole countries could switch from being poor and miserable and being bright and prosperous.

When all try to be humble, only the arrogant ones get happy. It is the wolves that all (others) to be humble sheep.

We are not dust in the wind. We are the dust and the wind.

Free Will

Above ethics, above what I like, dislike etc I put free will. I put it above those things because it is more basic. Without will those cannot even exist.

This can become easier to understand if one understand that free will does not mean ‘freedom of choice’. If you lived in France you’d have to choose between a banker and a nationalist in those recent elections. And if you detested one more that the other you’d pick the other, and that would be ‘freedom of choice’. It wouldn’t be free will though. Choices can be very limited. Freedom is the opposite of limits; it is unlimited.

No matter the odds free will is never really lost within an individual. It can be however part of his free will for his free will to be unknown to him.

You see a guy banging his head against a wall, and you tell  him ‘what are you doing?’ He says ‘I’m fighting against that other wall that’s behind me. That wall is evil; it will make your head ache, stay away from it.’ So he avoids that evil wall, and he bangs his own head against the other wall (the good one) all by himself, instead. He’s been taught those are the choices he has, and he believes it, and by his own free will he abides to that. If you tried to stop him from doing that, you’d be likely get attacked. Why? Because it’s his own free will to believe whatever he believes, to bang his head, and to blame the other wall instead.

I’m sorry but free will is above what is liked or not, and must be granted at all times. Try to take it away from one, and you lose your right over your own –and thus get attacked and so on. That is a terrific ‘life hack’. If you want your free will, never try to take it away from another.

There is vast difference between ‘I don’t care’ and ‘I don’t mind’. For me ‘I don’t mind’ means ‘you can exert your free will, whatever that is. And I wont feel threatened, bad, sad, this or that no matter what that will is’. Do you see how that granting of free will to another also means I keep my own? What if I was scared of somebody, wouldn’t I need to stop him from harming me? Wouldn’t I try to reduce his will? Oddly, if I did that, I might as well have that done to me as well. So my fear would come true.

There is no more complete freedom for one, than granting complete freedom to everything else. And there is no more losing control than trying to take another’s free will away –chaos ensues then. That’s what people try to do when they fight each other –to take each other’s free will away. And they -sooner or later- lose their own as well. That’s what resistance against what exists is as well, and that’s why it makes things worse.

I’m not suggesting to be apathetic; that would be ‘I don’t care’. I’m suggesting in order to exert your own free will, you must also grant it. Have yours collide against another’s and you have a problem. Let all be free no matter the odds and you are completely free.

Insult

The trying to reduce another through words, or by other means is not related to whether one is a ‘bad person’ or not, for ‘bad person’ means nothing objective, really. Who is bad for me might not be bad for another and visa versa. It does -however- meant something else; it means there is a need, an impulse of one to reduce another. And that impulse is not inherent in beings; it gets bought.

The number one reason one tries to reduce another is to keep his dirty secret(s) from being revealed. And the way one gets there is by having his secrets doubtfully revealed by another –doubtfully meaning not certain whether the secret is revealed or not.

If somebody wrote an article concerning -for example- pedophilia and another had committed something that resembled that, he would then need to prove that the article’s writer was bad, stupid, insane and so on, in an effort to keep his secret concealed. That’s what happens when people blame each other, and how that cycle becomes perpetuated by blaming each other.

Blaming cannot work unless the one blamed has nothing to feel guilty for. But on the other hand the impulse to blame is also caused by an effort to make oneself become ‘right’ when one also thinks of the opposite on the same time. It is a reaction against an action.

Do not confuse this with uncovering a plot to help another from being victimized. Blaming is about making another guilty. It is a form of punishment, war. Without guilts on behalf of the blamed one, blaming is of no consequence; and without guilts on behalf of the one who blames, there is no impulse to blame at all.

You will commonly find the punisher being the most guilty of all, compulsively putting guilts on others and trying to reduce their freedom so as to keep his secrets concealed. A guilty ruler or ruler wannabe will be trying to keep others in the dark and making them accountable for their misdeeds (whether true misdeeds or not) in order to keep his own misdeeds concealed.

Nobody is really obliged to have war waged on him without reacting. And on the other hand nobody is really excused to wage any war, nor to harm others by any ‘friendly’ means.

One is obliged to speak the truth, to be honest if he wishes to speak at all. And one’s truth should start from oneself. And that becomes difficult the more one lies about and hides from oneself in order to proove himself right. It’s those with the most impaired ability to criticize themselves that constantly engage in criticizing, reducing others.