Fake understanding

There can be a number of reasons why one might failt to be understood, and that’s rarely due to using bad grammar, syntax and mispelling words. Of course I know some whose writting style is much more artistic, pleasant and easy to understand than others including myself, but that’s not what I’m writting about now.

Words are often deliberately being given dual, triple or more meanings. A supporter of capitalism doesn’t understand the word ‘capitalism’ like a socialist does. Similarly a socialist doesn’t understand ‘socialism’ the way a capitalist understands it either. So even if they decided to ‘put their differences aside’ for a while and try to talk, they couldn’t truly understand each other unless each one of them used those words in the exact same meaning, although they could be pretty much convinced they actually did understand each other indeed.

Now beyond political factions, giving different meanings to words than they originally have can be done deliberately in order to create a ‘cult’. How do you create a cult? You give the impression everything outside the cult is evil and everything inside it is good, as well as that the cult group is a victim of the outsiders. You also make sure the ‘insiders’ can never understand the ‘outsiders’ to any great extent for then their fighting would end.

Religious cults aside, numerous other groups can exist that follow the same mode of operation. And the result is larger or smaller groups that cannot truly understand much outside that group and that they hate outsiders for reasons that they’ve been told.

That misunderstanding and hostility works as a shield protecting the cult’s drivers from being uncovered. Instead of them, those who believe them fight each other. In their minds they think they actually understand others because of what they’ve been told about them. But in actuality they make no effort to understand but they only accuse them, which -in turn- results in furtherly becoming misunderstood and consequently even more hostile. It’s a self-perpetuating cycles and it results in ashes.

What is the solution? If someone accused you of being something you weren’t it could result in yourself becoming hostile towards that person (or more than a single persons) too. But you see, that way you would be playED in a game others would had set up for you to be playED in, and that game wouldn’t had been set up for you to win in the long run. Fighting others will never make them understand you better. What would make them understand you better would be to make yourself, thoughts, intentions, actions known better, instead of sitting and arguing whether you are actually as bad as you’re told or whether the other is, which is what most often happens.

Understanding resolves misunderstanding or no-understanding. Always devote energy to the desirable and never to the undesirable. What you work towards, what you pay attention to, what ‘pay for’ you get. So if you want to be understood simply try to be understood. And if you fail, get better at it. And of course your will to understand and to be understood must exist before you should attempt it.

Of course, there is a minority of persons that simply don’t wish to be understood and consequently they have a much harder time understanding others as well, regardless of what they pretend. And that is because their intentions are not good, and they need to hide them. It is them who then spread misunderstanding amongst others. And putting others to fight acts as a good distraction hiding their own bad intentions.


Where do ‘public opinion’ and ‘common sense’ come from?

One of the number one tricks that have been used to control large numbers of persons as well as individuals has been denial, hiding, lying about the source; where does something come from?

One who is used to being controlled by such rhetorics might not recognize it with ease. But things don’t just ‘happen’. Something starts from somewhere and then it ends somewhere too…unless it doesn’t. So you really need to mark this down with bold letters —SOURCE. Everything has a source.

Knowing the source of something allows you to end it. Being oblivious to it allows you to perpetuate it. And if you’ve been taught to do something that now obstructs you from doing something else in present and future, it will help knowing the source of it.

The times that kings used to issue orders and took responsibility for having issued them is gone. Now those who wish to control deny that they do it, and unfortunately one can do that to himself too. So whenever you hear or read about the ideas of ‘the public’, of the ‘people’ or whenever you hear or read about ‘reality’, know those have have a source.

‘The people’ would have no idea what communism, capitalism were, what the rules of employing and of being employed were, how their relationships should be like unless somebody had told them. It didn’t just happen. Not to mention there is no such thing as ‘people’. There are individual persons and each one has the capacity for own thinking and one’s thinking doesn’t have to influence another’s by any means –although it could, with voluntary consent, with agreement. Similarly ‘reality’, ‘the times’, ‘public opinion’ come from particular individuals and because they’re not said to come from particular individuals, others accept them as ‘reality’, ‘the times’, ‘public opinion’ and so on. And then somebody comes and tells them to adapt to those realities and those times because ‘that’s how things are’.

Well, that’s not how things are, but they are made to be like that by using that system.

Every rule that you have ‘in mind’ has a source. The primary source is yourself, for if you don’t think of it it doesn’t exist for you. However, if you are not aware where that rule came from, where you got that idea from you make yourself liable to believe that rule is there all by itself, that it’s been inherent in you. But I ensure you if nobody had been ‘taught’ nothing that way, the world we lived in would be vastly different. We could then make our own thoughts and communicate them with each other without using other’s standards whether they’re right or wrong, and we could actually voluntarily agree with each other or not.

Of course one knowing this, he can discard all those exterior teachings and be himself once more. It doesn’t take much effort. All one has to do it to quit repeating thoughts he has received and be his own source, and be aware he is his own source.

The value of being precise

I personaly find gossip, pointing out what’s bad and wrong and other ‘negative’ things about another or others to be a bad thing.

Although it always felt yucky to me to participate in that, I’ve done it. But after a while I decided to no longer do so in my life. And although that consequently meant I could no longer participate in as many discussions as I used to because they were all gossip-oriented, it certainly raised the quality of discussions I participated in, and how they felt.

However, some times it might be needed that out of thousands of persons one might be doing something very harmful; not so that you will harm that person too in turn, but so those thousands wont be harmed. It’s better to protect the thousands than to protect the one, right? And it’s certainly better than to have those thousands attack each other; for when they do it’s because of the trash that few talk –meaning imprecise, general accusations and gossip. What those guys who put the many fight don’t tell is that they do so to divert unwanted attention away from their ‘sin’ by pointing out the sins of others. And they often do it for both sides, whenever there is a war.

I’m disinterested in reading which large and vague part of the population is bad and which one is wrong all the time. You know those political, religious, racial and other divisions… I know if I can reach ‘inside’ a person and really be understood and understand that person too in turn, the chances we’ll turn against each other are minimal or zero. Alas, I’m not often willing to do so. But anyway it strikes me with ‘surprise’ that those who wish to forcefully unite them, (as if they couldn’t do it themselves) turn one against the other too, as well. Something is contradictory about it. And contradiction is native in idiocies like ‘dialectic materialism’ wherein an opposing force, problem is the solution to a previous force and problem. That suggests that if you’re stupid and forceful in the opposite direction than the one before you, it will become clever. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works.

What you could do -however- to help a situation is to spot the exact source of a problem, instead of generalizing that ‘there are problems’ and ‘life sucks’ and that some particular group of people is bad and so on. You might even find the problems wasn’t as bad as you had thought anyway, but that hearing about it had made you think so. We have been made to think the more times they hear or read about something the more true it is. And propaganda masters know that well. But quantity doesn’t make something true, even if a truth is never really spoken.


Life if not something serarate from us; we do not truly act for nor against it and we do not really give nor take from it. Giving and taking would exist from a perspective of separation, but from a perspective of realizing that life is us that does not exist. What can exist is being more or less alligned with what our basic intentions are in life or in other words what the basic intention of life are.

Yes, life has some intentions and for that we cannot be absoltely free as life, although we are always free as ourselves. What does that mean? It means that although a gamer could have certain limitations inside the game he played, he has no limitations outside of it.

A basic intention of life is to exist, and so it exists. From that point on violating that intention, that rule can cause trouble unto the violator. On the other hand assisting life’s existence can bring joy. That is my understanding of karma.

One is not free to play the game and to violate it’s rules. If he does he becomes contrained. And even though it might seem that he becomes constrained by others, he -in fact- contrains himself.

That’s where the concept that ‘if you perform good deeds you will experience good deeds too’ comes from as well as the opposite.

By ‘life’ here it is meant all that exist in what is called life, not just ‘one’s own life’. You may decide to empower life from now on, and from that point on life will be empowering you too. And although it might seem that others will be doing that to you, it will -in actuality- be life who does that even through others, or better said it will be you.

And if by doing that you make some others outraged at you, it wont mean they will truly have any power over you unless you agree with them to have power over you. If you are lawful in life they will not be able to stop nor to otherwise harm you.

There is more freedom than we think

We have been made to think that which bars our freedom is freedom itself, because somebody’s written ‘freedom’ on it. And then we get suck with it and cannot move and wonder why we are not free.

You will never see ‘freedom’ written anywhere in freedom. In fact you will not see anything. For freedom will be yours to fill (or not) with what you will.

If freedom is what you seek go with the endless ocean of nothing than can become anything.

A great ‘test’ in life

How is winning in life like and how do you know you win?

An ‘expert’ or a crowd of people could applause and appear to be glad about something that you did, and that would suggest a ‘win’, but how would you know it was a win? And what if a person actually wanted to harm you and told you that you won whenever what you did was against you?

Although this might not be socially correct you need to have criteria for yourself what’s right and wrong for you. And because languages and the accompanying significance that are attached to them are not native to us either, it must be something beyond that. It must be something that comes from you.

There can be things that we can know that no words can exist for them. And because no words can exist for them it doesn’t mean they are less actual. However, since human words cannot describe every possible thing I cannot describe it either; I can only approximate it.

It’s been one of my standards in life to only connect to what I like; and it has worked out very well for me. Actually the opposite (connecting to what I dislike) doesn’t work well at all for me. It is pretty disastrous.

However, there is something above and beyond liking and disliking; and that is free will –free own will, self-determination. It is a thing whose existence is thoroughly denied by some and for very good reasons. One being that they think they cannot make a functional machine out of a society if it’s members can be aware of and exercise their own will. And so they try to make trash out of it.

Now, what does it mean that free will is above liking and disliking? It means you can create your own liking and disliking whenever you want, however you want. That is to say you can love, hate, feel good or bad at will. You can do it. In fact if you couldn’t do it, it couldn’t exist for you. And it doesn’t come from anywhere outside of you either, you either make it happen or it doesn’t happen.

So what’s that ‘test’ about? Hating is -in fact- suffering. If you could truly love suffering, it wouldn’t be suffering for you. Those two go together. And if you could love everything without conditions, without thinking whether it is right or wrong, suffering couldn’t exist for you. And because suffering is the only whip that can be used against a human being, you could truly be free from that, just like that. And that way you could ‘conquer’, win life as it would have no negative effect on you.

Yes, I can be very satisfied with some other things that are supposed to make a human person happy –buying something I like etc. But I always knew that wasn’t the point. The point is one needs nothing to be happy for happiness, love, it all comes from me, you, all of us. It doesn’t come from outside. It is not ‘injected’.

So, instead of trying to fulfill a condition in order to love, in order to be happy you can just be that, just like that, without needing to reside to toxic ‘happy-pills’ in order to reduce the suffering you might be causing unto yourself.

It can be quite a ‘test’ because society hasn’t been built with each individual’s liking and free will ‘in mind’. I know no social services have ever asked me, yet they insist to ‘serve’ me. And very few business are going to actually ask, most will try to persuade that I want what they want to offer. And if your friends and lovers think and operate like they do, too bad for you. Fortunately, mine don’t.

But although this might be a harder game than others one can still win. And that’s what the test is about. Just love; and no matter how stupid or fake or hateful something might be, it will be transformed for you, for you will experience what you create yourself.

The unknown forces that rule

Ideas such as the one in the title are brought about after one puts things other than himself and other than the group he belongs to (in this case society) to do things for him.

‘We’ want a number of things to happen without making those things happen, and when those things happen they appear to be out of our control, because we tell ourselves we don’t make them happen.

Apparently, it doesn’t occur to many who demands things like ‘jobs’ that those who make such a thing happen will be in control of those things and that he will not be in control himself. It doesn’t occur to many who wish to be accepted and loved that if they don’t accept and love themselves they will be dependent on and thus controlled by others.

Things are pretty simple. If a group of people need or want something and they make it happen themselves, no third and unknown person will ever be needed to deliver that thing to them.

If citizens don’t wish to be ‘disciplined militia’ while they consider there is a need for such a thing, they will need to hire professionals to do that work for them, and then those professionals will not be under their control, of course, since they want nothing to do with that matter. And then complaining that those soldiers take their taxes wont help.

The same is true for the police, for social services, for employers and for banks. If people could take responsibility for and create their own workable currencies and financial systems they wouldn’t ever carfe to hire other ‘experts’. And if somebody else hired himself nobody would buy. But among other things people get taught to buy that things like ‘experts’ do exist, and that they know and do everything better than they do, while people don’t even know what they know and do.

When words become the opposite of actions

You’re not going to hear more praising about things like love, freedom as well as condemning of the opposite in countries, person, families, groups that actually do the opposite.

It isn’t that praising is bad. But it matter how it’s done, how much pushing, pressure, force it contains. Good things can neither be forced nor hindered.

Force shows and comes after denial, separation; and just like one communicates his own thoughts alone and not another’s, his own thoughts he presses against too. So when somebody condemns something he condemns his own thoughts, and not the thoughts of another.

In others words, if you like something about ‘another’, that ‘another’ you think of is your own thinking and it is about the same with disliking. There is a difference though; disliking, hating means separation and thus it also means not knowing or false knowing, in contrast to loving, communicating, connecting and actually knowing what you are willing to connect to and love.

Group-think, democracy, dialectic materialism etc teach us to be interdependent upon each one’s (often- forceful) opinions –‘what’s wrong with this and what’s bad about that’. And it thus also gives the impression one’s critical opinions should matter for another, which also has as a consequence that one’s good opinions about oneself should matter less.

Yet one’s opinions only describe oneself, one’s own thinking and not another’s. And because one can conceive he knows all about another and become very convincing about that too, it doesn’t mean that he actually does.

For the same reason nobody could know me, you and another better that our own selves. And that is why it pays off to actually do so. For you will find that -ironically- the more pretentiously ‘knowledgeable’ one is about others, the more forcefully, convincingly he ‘knows’ them, the less he knows himself. And one is liable to accuse another for the very same thing he does on that very same moment, being unaware that he does it.

That is not bad. I am not being critical. It is actually very good. It means you can become absolutely tolerable about everything you think that’s ‘wrong’ about others just by handling what you yourself find intolerable within yourself, your thinking; at which moment those things will no longer be ‘wrong’.

What’s wrong about ‘hate’ if you can absolutely tolerate it? You would absolutely not hate it that way. It would not affect you adversely that way. And you could go on being your loving self and hate would not even exist for you.

‘Free speech’

‘Free speech’ is not just ciriticising what you read; specialy if you’re not free to decided to read it or not. For written speech is speech too.

There is no right and wrong free speech, nor are there right and wrong persons who should send and receive it, nor are there right and wrong conditions one ought to give or to receive it. If there are it isn’t free.

Nothing has to be said to anybody, and there is nothing that cannot be said to anybody.

Anything that regulates speech in the name of freedom is inconsistent.

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.