Decriminalize life first

I’ve been hearing a lot about decriminalizing drugs lately. Actually, I was just reading about decriminalizing heroin and other hard drugs in some specific state. And on the more ‘liberty’ spectrum of politics, I’ve been hearing how dominating all space with few business, and disallowing (by law too) small business to grow is ‘freedom’. But because my belief in vague, symbolic words such as ‘freedom’ is not as bold as it used to be, I know if I made a cup of coffee and went out to sell it, or if I sold something like garlic powder as means to ease inflammation somebody would approach me and let me know I was breaking the law, unless he was very impolite and did more than just that. I would be doing something ‘dangerous’, huh?

I really have zero problems with decriminalizing drugs, guns, and other things that can bring about death (even if sweetly and slowly). But it’s hypocritical and inconsistent if one -on the same time- is not allowed to live, except through specific channels readily made for him so he’ll be earning barely enough to get by in the heavily regulated free market, and then put the blame on the zodiac, on God and on the Martians for his fate and blame his genes for feeling bad about it.

Now days, in the ‘free market’ it’s illegal to even collect rain water or grow your own potatoes, so you wont hurt Nestle’s and Monsanto’s feelings. But adopting ways to destroy yourself by fancy means should not be frowned upon, for it is your right, right?

Well, my own death is my right, indeed. My life is my right too.

Their defenses offend them

You know what, I’m ‘tired’ of mumbling my words because a respectful percentage of people wont have any idea what I talk about or thoroughly misunderstand and yet be thoroughly convinced they do understand what I write and say.

I’m going to nail the nail mercilessly, but I ain’t going to nail it to any person’s head. I’m going to nail it to their enemy’s head. Because although most love and worship their enemies some others strive to break free from them, and I’m here to serve them and not anybody else.

What enemy? I said it’s not a person. What is it then? It’s their straw man.

Your straw man is like a voodoo doll. Somebody beats it, and you somehow perceive it and you think you’re being beaten. You aren’t though. Moreover, it is you who beats it. Funny isn’t it?

If you get busy defending your straw man, you’re going to get busy being offended. And that offense cannot occur without your consent.

The defending oneself in life is a function of the mind –and it can become one of it’s main functions, the more one does it. And ironically, whenever you operate based on your mind’s contents you get the opposite than what you go for. The mind is rigged so you’ll get the opposite than what you go for and it will be done by means you don’t quite understand. The mind is a ‘tool’ gradually given to you by others that eventually turns against you, for that’s what it’s meant to do. It is like a computer that gradually sucks you in it’s own ‘matrix’. And one of the things you are given inside that ‘matrix’ is an identity or identities that you think you are but you aren’t –your straw men.

The operator of that mind and that matrix is nobody else but you, the spiritual being. However, as long as you operate and believe in it, the tool you yourself operate can be turned against you. That was a thought-up way to victimize spirits –to make them thoroughly believe that they were being victimized. And the reason for that was that they couldn’t possibly be victimized, but they could believe so.

What could happen to you as a spiritual being? Absolutely nothing. But something could happen to what you thought you were but actually weren’t.

Right; let’s get practical with this. The vast majority of thoughts a person occupies himself with stem from the mind, and that is why he can get victimized. Psychologists asserts no genuinely new thoughts can exist, that they all stem from or are combinations of the past. And although that is true for the mind, it is not true for the spiritual being. But psychology is not at all related to spiritual beings.

And I’d suggest those who want to, to focus on the spiritual being for it is no use trying to repair what is inherently meant to fail –the mind. Collective insanity, war, slavery are products of each participating person’s mind, that agreed upon appear to become collective. And when it comes to social as well as to person matters the mind suggests dumb solutions like ‘if I complain and blame others enough, others will feel guilty enough to do what I (the mind again) want them to’. Well, such stuff are not needed. Nobody needs to turn against another to solve anything. All you need to do is realize you don’t need that junk and quit using it, regardless of how it begs to be used, regardless how you’ve been taught to use it (those two are not irrelevant).

New thoughts can be made, but only from the maker of thought –the spirit. The mind is like a computer and it is not a creator itself. And although some aspire to create creative artificial intelligence, that is impossible for they themselves -on the same time- don’t believe genuine creativity can exist. Well, it can’t exist. It can only exist for a spirit. That is the genuine creator.

I’m not suggesting you should become stupid, nor a ‘believer’. I am suggesting you should become clever and quit believing, for that’s what the mind is about. You see a chair and you think ‘chair’. Well wrong, it isn’t a chair. It is what you’re seeing. The ‘chair’ is an additive concept you add to it by yourself while you’re looking at it. And that’s a lot of mind there. That concept is an old unoriginal concept ‘stored’ in the mind, from your past. The adding thoughts onto what you perceive is a completely unnecessary action; leave alone to dwell in thoughts that are not even vaguely related to what you’re perceiving.

Remember the ‘meditation’ I’ve talk about; perceive a spiritual being, without making any thoughts whatsoever. It appears easy and simple and there’s possibly not much to it huh? But how many can and actually do it? Do it and your life start changing vastly the moment you do it. I don’t mean you, I mean you life, all of it, just like that. This is not psychology I talk about. This is about you and your mind wont show you what you can do, but only what it’s programmed to. You deep inside know what you can do.


You have a lake, and from that lake you carve a river and that river is life. Life has a purposes or purposes and without purposes or purposes there is no life. The mere existence, ‘to exist’ is a purpose too.

Is that river a right or is it an obligation? I think the river preceded the existence of those concepts. But I know what legal rights means…

You block the river so it cannot flow freely. and on the block you carve paths that lead who knows where, and those paths are ‘rights’.

They are misleading as they appear as ‘freedoms’, only what is missed is that those freedoms wouldn’t exist without the blocks.

I could say my life is my right, but that wouldn’t be enough for it is my obligation too. I don’t have a choice whether I should eat or not. So, I don’t think that -despite appearances- anybody has the right to limit my life nor that I am truly obliged to obey.

That is the difference between ethics and laws.

Free will and values

You must have heard -more than once- about how values limits freedom, and about how in actuality there are no values and that they are all a product of oppressive religion. Without commenting on whether or not values exist, that pretended freedom from values is utter bullshit. For the same people who preach that also preach that we need to hire more police because our survival is threatened, as we can’t get along with each other. They are among the first ones to point the finger that another or others are guilty ‘wrong’ things. What’s the upset for and what’s so wrong is there is no right as wrong (no values)?

Travel to any place and time wherein people couldn’t get along with each other, wherein they stole from each other, raped, cheated and you will also find harsh oppressive governments as well as general oppression from one to another.

If all could be trusted to stick to some basic rules, we would never need any police. And we have police not because we don’t stick to some basic rules, but only because few of us don’t.

Values don’t suppress freedom. Values are organized into an hierarchy; that is to say some are more basic than others. The one most basic of all is free will, self determination and it is the one value most hated by police-state fanboys and girls. They say ‘if you have free will you’re going to kill, steal blah blah’. And of course by saying ‘you’ they mean themselves. Others say that free will can’t exist at all, and it is only a delusion, and again they only speak for themselves. A peculiarity of freedom is that it doesn’t have to be, to exist and that is true for free will too. Forced permanent existence is not freedom you see; it is a sort of unfreedom. And free will is not something all are willing to exert. Why? Because they would kill and steal and blah blah, they think.

Below free will, self determination we have other rules. And they are ‘below’ because they are a product of free will. Some see -for example- a commitment between two partners as a limitation, as oppression. And indeed some have practiced it like that (for financial and other reasons). But it doesn’t have to be that. Two can enjoy to play by that rule of sticking together without feeling their will violated, for it is their will to do it. But they should be able to exit that game any time if it is their will to do so, as the forced existence of something is not in alignment with the first rule of free will.

Although two or more people can make arrangements with each other, agree over new rules, values; each one has his own and under no circumstances should he violate them because he sees somebody else doing so too, nor because somebody else says that his values are not valid.

Although it doesn’t appear so, it is far more important for one to be alright, aligned with himself than to be that with others. In fact, if one is in conflict with himself he has harder times with others too, and visa versa.

One of the first things aspiring revolutionary dictators aim at, is the values of a person, a couple a group. He aims to corrupt them, to bring about chaos and to impose his own and inconsistent values in place of them, that will of course be thoroughly enforced, even in the name of ‘freedom’ if he is too dishonest. Don’t be naive so as to buy that. You know what yours are. You know when your own actions make you feel good and when they don’t, without additives -like drugs- that are aimed are hiding your feelings from yourself.

Be your own compass and you wont be mislead. And you will never need anybody’s guidance.

Selfishness and the commons

The funniest past of the argument whether ‘our society’ should be more self or more commons oriented is that neither truly exists.

It isn’t that selves and common things cannot exist. It is that what is referred to as ‘self’ and as ‘common’ doesn’t. Those are pure lies, constructs.

What is referred to as the ‘self’ in society is the name, surname and a bunch of numbers, and status symbols (education, profession etc) that one is given by and then identified as by society. If one goes further down into the rabbit hole society will also care to give him purposes, character, and sculpt one the way society wants him to be sculpted. Unfortunately, one will rarely be sculpted uniformly as he will be asked to be one thing while he will also be asked to be the opposite, which will lead to internal conflict, if he takes those things to heart.

However, no matter what society or whomever wants to someone to be like, that person will only be himself, even if he does carry those names, numbers, statuses and so on, and if he does believe that’s what he really is. Nothing can happen to anyone that can change what he basically is. And fortunately that is always something much better than what he is assigned with by society. No matter how high the status ladder he thinks he is, he is even better. But some might want to hold on to the artificial high to avoid the artificial low.

The commons, society are as artificial as those additive individual characteristics are. They are complete lies, pretenses. One goes out and says ‘the people want blah blah blah’ and he never asks anyone what they want. He knows the people, he knows what is good for them, what they want and he speaks on their behalf. But he’s never even met about anyone at all nor do his employees do that on his behalf. His employees only command and ask for money; they don’t ask. Nothing can be ‘common’ without common agreement. And nobody can represent another without asking him first. One could only pretend.

Both individuals and commons can exist, and it can be beautiful. However the pretended ones can be very ugly (metaphorically) for neither do individuals truly agree with what they’re told that they are themselves, nor do they agree with those false commons, even if after years of having been pounded with them.

What is yourself is what stems from you alone, and not from any society nor from anybody else. If the thought that bothers you is not of your own origin it is not your own. If your will is not of your own creation it is not your own. And if you discard all those you’ll be very happy to be what you are.

And if we start calling ‘commons’ those things that we actually agree about in common without needing to have a gun pointed at us, we can be very glad to have that too.

All the above does not depend on that artificial ‘society’ that is such a vague word ‘God knows’ what each person means when he mentions it. It all starts from you. And the more we rely on ourselves and those that we directly know, the less we will depend on imaginary monsters who are said to be the source of our suffering to make things go right for us.

Tampering is not controlling

It is an oddity that people who don’t control appear to be the most controlling and the most powerful of all.

You have a chair, you pick it up, place it elsewhere and you sit on it. You cook your lunch, eat it, wash the dishes. Although it is not common for such petty things to be called ‘control’, it is. And if somebody gave up all control for it is evil, he couldn’t even do that.

What is ‘evil’, what is upsetting about control and a reason why one could give up control is control that is not control; or in other words ‘tampering’.

What is ‘my business’ and what is ‘your business’? One can only control his own creations. If you can think of something you can also quit thinking it, for it your own. And that would be controlling that thought. If you could only think of something and you couldn’t quit thinking it, that would be incomplete control. And if you thought of something and another tried to convince you to think of something else instead, or to quit thinking it, that would be tampering.

Tampering is in fact an effort to reduce one’s control over his own creations. If you were a painter or something of that sort and somebody came over your head and criticized your work that would be tampering, and it wouldn’t be control. A painter could paint a painting from the beginning to the end, and he would completely control it, and it would be completely his own creation. But if I went there and told him he hadn’t painted the river ‘right’ (as if there was a ‘right’ way to paint rivers at all) I would be tampering with his creation. I would be trying to -even partially- claim ownership of his painting.  Or like it is falsely said, I would be trying to ‘control’ him.

That is -in fact- impossible unless the creator himself gives up his own control and hands it over to the other. And that wouldn’t even mean that the other would even control it. Look at those houses that have been confiscated because somebody couldn’t pay his mortgage. Most are uninhabited and left there to wither. Apparently somebody thinks it’s ‘better’ to have homeless people than owners with debts.

How to regain control over your life? Don’t! For ‘regain’ means something already exists beyond your control and you try to control it. That is impossible. What you can do instead is to create and completely control your own creations in your life. If you do that, and if you similarly allow others to control themselves and their own creations you can get out from the confusion of ‘common ownership’ wherein one tries to tamper with the other’s creations instead of controlling his own, and in the end nobody controls nothing.

Collective nothings

Imagine being in your own country. You decide to go to some pretty forest a lake and camp there. It’s an extraordinarily pretty place and what you’d expect to find would be more people doing the same. But you see nobody there except from police that rudely tells you you’re not allowed to camp. Why is it your own country if you cannot even camp somewhere?

Imagine having collected through fines and fares an amount of money for the ‘collective’. So you decide one day to go pick up your fair share. There are 10 people in the country and you’re one of them and you say ‘ok, I’m going to pick up 1/10 of that money and go’ but then a soldier threatens you to shoot you in the head should you dare to do so. What makes that money collective if you can’t collect your share?

Right now whether you like it or not, your country is going to borrow money in your name too to pay for previously borrowed money because of the ‘collective’. And you might as well never have any personal benefit out of that borrowed money. In fact, if you’re in the US know most of the 20 trillion dept is due to 3 wars.

Collective is a confusion. It is not free-for-all ownership. And who gains control of that? Those who create that confusion of course. They are the creators and thus the owners of that confusion too. ‘Collective’ means you take the blame if somebody happens to what is called collective, but you don’t reap the benefits. It means if there is a criminal all will be policed. It means if one borrows everybody pays; still he gets to keep the borrowed money himself or maybe give some peanuts to the rest so he’ll pretend he did otherwise.

There is no ‘collective’. There is only cause and effect. One or two or more cause something and then something happens. And if they do it in your name it doesn’t mean you did it. And if they say they do it for you (without your consent), it doesn’t mean you’ll benefit from it.

All that’s ‘wrong’ with a person is false ownership. Either something is one’s own and he is not recognising it, or it isn’t and he thinks it is, or he has some nefarious concept regarding what is his own and what is not. When somebody blames you because of your nationality, religion, or other group you might -or not- belong to (you can’t truly be a member of a group without your full consent) that’s the trick he pulls. When somebody blames you for misdeeds of his own and you have no idea what he talks about that’s the trick he pulls. And he might as well not even be aware of it himself. He might think he speaks the truth.

All the thoughts you ‘have’ that you are not in full control of are either not of your own making at all and you think they are, or they are your own and you think they aren’t, or you are too confused about that to even think about that. What is your own thought? The thought you are making yourself on your own determination. One can’t truly be the owner of something, be in control of something that is not of his own making. That laws can say otherwise is a different thing. I’m not talking about laws, I’m talking about actually being in control of something, without needing some external authority (like the police) to enforce it.

You can make your own intentions, thoughts, plans anytime and in any way you wish to. You can also ‘adopt’ others too and say they are your own. But that’s the way to trouble.

Do you wish to break free from external control? There is no external control, but you make yourself for yourself. And giving up control over yourself is a neat way to do it.

Things are not as bad nor as good

I understand ‘things’ is a very vague, general word. I am referring to the average opinion that I read by others through social media about how ‘things’ are like, how ‘the world’ is like.

There is a rule I’d like to share, and it could be of great help to you; hell it could as well save your life. If something, someone who is on your side turns you against a greater quantity of things, that thing is not really on your side. And because some few are thoroughly occupied with convincing others they are on their side, while others do not bother to do so, it so happens that few can mess many up. And all that adds up to reverse democracy –the rule of the minority. A rule that starts from few and becomes expressed through many.

What matters is not what one says he does but he actually does. And if I complain along with you because your father doesn’t give you any money it wont do any good to you. It could be good for you if I gave you some money myself. And specially if you were in grave need it would be hypocritical to swap giving you a hand with blaming your father.

Nobody who is really supportive of you will want you to turn you against your life, against yourself; for that will only be a neat way for you to get crashed. I’m not talking about changing yourself or your life now, I’m talking about turning against them, in specific. If you want to stick onto something, turn against it in hope that it will go away. Mythology aside, when did you have that actually happen?

The reason why many express ‘hostile’ perceptions how ‘the world’ is like is -in fact- due to the influence few ‘supportive’ people have on them. They don’t really express a perception, they express ideas they have been given –not their own perception.

Did the chicken make the egg or did the egg make the chicken? If ‘you’ go out with the mentality everyone and everything (except maybe some few or one) are against you, that’s what you will experience. Do you think anyone who you think to be a bad person ought to treat you well to prove his innocence? No she/he doesn’t. You could both pretend though, and betray each other. Being ‘nice’ to each other, and actually having faith in each other are not the same, you see.

Your perception of the ‘the world’ is not irrelevant to how you think ‘the world’ is like. And if you think that data you have about ‘the world’ are as valid as your own pure, direct perception, that’s what you create for yourself by yourself and that’s what your experience is as well.

What acceptance is not

By writing in here I might sometimes give the impression that I am a sort of a revolutionary or something of that sort. By I assure you, if you have thought so it is your own addition over what I’ve said. Yes, I have referred to injustice and lies, but I have never implied the solution is to turn against them. In fact, if you want to make sure you’ll have something then turn against it thoroughly.

I hear a lot about acceptance and being accepted and I want to write my opinion. The more I accept something the less I need to be accepted by it or to have others accept it. And if you want something about you or something group you might be part of to be accepted, then make sure you accept yourself first.

This is of course too free and too high a philosophy for democratic standards wherein one group tries to dominate another, being oblivious over it’s own disagreements with itself. Rarely one is allowed to examine the group itself by the group itself. One is supposed to always find fault in the other group. That’s how they keep groups cohesed –through war. They’re so busy finding faults in opposing groups they often don’t even know what their own group stands for. I don’t even know what right and left mean anymore. I want free will for all. That’s my political belief. And I don’t even need to try to impose it, for it cannot be imposed. Imposed free will would be an oxymoron.

Acceptance is not becoming what you perceive. If somebody puts on black clothes (like I often like to) you don’t have to put one on black clothes too to accept him or her. Acceptance is to receive, perceive him as he is, while letting him have his free will, letting him be, not resisting him, not trying to change or destroy him. Acceptance as ‘to become something’ (identification) is the ‘devil’ in some spiritual practices. It is what they try to resolve. Identification is not achieved through love. One becomes what he hates after he has been thoroughly overwhelmed by it.

Acceptance and love go together. And one of the highest (clearer) ‘levels’ of acceptance and of love I’m aware of is to consider what you perceive as part of you. And that can never be forced nor hindered.

‘The power of words’

Words have no power but the power one grants him by himself. And that power is valid for oneself. They appear to have ‘objective’ power only for as long and as much as we agree they have power.

If somebody spoke to you in a language you didn’t understand, he then couldn’t control you either, for words are control. You read or hear a word and you imagine something, and that imagination is how you interpret that word. It is your own imagination, your own interpretation. It is not the word itself. And if that word insults you, it is your own imagination again. So you see words can become a method to use ones imagination against oneself too.

Somebody says another that he is ‘stupid’ and the other feels bad about it for the next 15 years. But why? He would answer it is because of what he was told, because of the sounds somebody uttered at him (a spoken word) but it isn’t that. It is the significance(s) he adds to that sound he hears, himself.

We can become lazy enough to automatically interpret (googly or badly) all the words we read and we hear; and then through that automatic interpretation of our own we can also have automatic trouble. ‘Don’t read that, it’s bad.’ Why is it bad? It is bad if you think of something bad.

The instances that the average person’s survival is threatened by physical force (violence), starvation, illness are a tiny minority compared to the instances one can think his survival is threatened –all because of words. And he can have his thinking (and subsequently his body too) be driven by words to such a degree he can be thoroughly controlled by them.

It is not random that black magic is connected to words and other symbols. Symbols, like letters and words have no significance of their own either; but the significance one adds to them himself. If you draw a pentagram or a cross nothing happens to the universe, but if you interpret it something can happen; and it will be because of you and not because of the lines you’ve drawn.

Similarly, if you see a picture or even a movie and it has an effect on you, it will be the effect you create for yourself to have, the significance you yourself ass to that picture or movie. They themselves deliver no effect at all. It is all your own. And phobias and other adverse reactions can be triggered like that. And one can see a woman too and think of specific things; but those things, those thoughts wont be attached on the woman, but only exist in his own thinking. That we think certain things look good or bad is not a matter of what we look at, it is a matter of the significance we add to them ourselves.

Why am I bringing all that up? Because if you could quit putting significance onto things that bear none of their own you could discover ‘things’ are quite difference than you had been thinking all along. It wouldn’t be a world limited by the significance of words, but a world full of possibilities, and those possibilities are you.