‘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.

A balance between acceptance and causality

I am very enthusiastic about this discovery, as I’ve been struggling with it the past few days. And although I don’t think it’s of much use to describe something rough, I think it can be useful to know when something rough has been dealt with and a lesson has been learned.

There is a misconception that acceptance means inability to make something happen. And in politics that is called apathy. You get overwhelmed by something and you accept it and that thing then controls you and you don’t control it, and you feel you ‘cannot do anything about it’ or so it seems.

It is not true. If you could accept all portions of your life as they are right now, not only would you not be unable to make something happen, but you would be in alignment (not resisting) with what you make happen, you would be in alignment with what you are.

This doesn’t have to be a process. It can be as simple as to decide to be that. It doesn’t take any analysis how things are. All one has to do is to accept what is no matter what that is.

Free will, the right thing and justice

The so called ‘right thing’ and ‘justice’ are not inherent ideas one is born with. Those are ideas one is taught throughout his life.

One ‘has’ his own impulse(s) what to be, what to create; and those may even vary from person to person. In fact he doesn’t ‘have’ them anywhere but he creates them.

The ‘how’s and ‘why’s one does not stick to his own intentions are not even related to what one’s environment does to him. It is solely related to what he does to himself or even to what he doesn’t do.

You must have heard of Crowley’s ‘do what you will’ motto. And I bet it must have crossed most people’s mind that ‘if one does what he wills, he will then harm others’. So then free will takes an evil significance. That notion can also be found on political talk as well, wherein the so called ‘free market’ is a source of evil in society, and that it must be checked, for it causes damage. A quick question and a bracket: In countries that are being regulated by thousands of laws, so many laws one needs to dedicate his whole life and career to learn (like when one becomes a lawyer) what is the significance of the words ‘free market’? I don’t see any point in arguing whether that market is good or bad since the term ‘free market’ is false in the first place. There just isn’t such a thing.

Similarly, an individual’s ‘free will’ is an absurd thing to say if that person is not indeed driven by his own will, but ‘freely’ drives himself based on what he has been taught in his life by his environment. And I’m not going to fight for anyone’s rights to his own freedom, if that freedom is not his own.

One can create his own free will, and that is the only true will he will ever have. Any other will that stems from anything other than himself is not his own, and it is not anything to be fought for. It is masochistic to fight for people’s rights to be driven by others, and it is hypocritical to call that ‘freedom’.

How does one lose his ‘free will’? One never really loses that as -like I said before- he doesn’t ‘have’ it anywhere. One creates it. And it can be his own creation too to be driven by the will of others. But why would one do that? The answer (or rather answers) can be very complex, and I don’t know them all. But I could point out some.

Some have been very inventive in inventing tricks to have themselves as well as others abandon their own free will. A popular method is to force or to hinder people from being and from doing certain things, and then put them to chant that it is their ‘freedom’ to do that. They say stuff like it is not freedom to have a single sexual partner. But what if that’s what one wants? Would he be more free if he did what he was told instead? Obviously, neither myself nor anybody else could tell you what your own will is or should be, for then it would be my own will and not your own. But if you did inherit my own will and called it your own, you would introduce a lie within your thinking, and I would then control you without you even knowing it. It is very different when two freely agree to have the same will, and when one tricks or forces another into thinking what he is told is ‘freedom’.

Regardless what one does to another, it is more important to pay attention to what one does to himself, for without one’s will to abandon his own will, that cannot occur. One needs to agree with another to have that happen. And before he even agrees with that, one’s loyalty to his own self, to his own will must be fragile.

One can have much more control over himself and over his life, his existence, his experiences than what one usually thinks. And for as long as he is shy in controlling himself, his life, he has to assert to himself that something else controls him, that something else forces him to do things, that something else deceives him, that something else doesn’t allow him to be himself. He can say that society controls him, or that his genes control him, or that his mom controls him through his subconscious. But if he indeed manages to create such a thing for himself, it will be by his own free will –it will be his very own creation to be controlled by something other than himself.

If you’re afraid to be what you will, to do what you will, to have what you will because bad things will occur, that’s what you do. And the irony is that bad things occur the more you abandon your own will, for you then make those things happen yourself. The further away you stray from yourself, the more you try to stop yourself from straying.

It is not true that one -having free will- works against others. It is true that the more one works against himself, the more he denies himself and his will, the more he assigns the bad things that happen to him to others and the more he consequently turns against others, as well. Even if one doesn’t agree with another, he will never feel he has to attack him unless he thinks his own survival is depended upon attacking him, which is -in most cases, if not all- entirely untrue.

Free beings that don’t have to connect with each other, can connect with each other. Free beings that don’t hinder themselves from connecting with each other, can connect with other. Free beings can co-operate or not. But with enforced connection, disconnection, co-operation, and chaos occurs. It is within the boundaries of un-free will that relative free will can cause trouble, otherwise one’s independence is guaranteed by his own free will, as one’s life experiences don’t have to be another’s too.

How to get rid of chaos in your life? Exert your own free will over it, with no remorse.

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.

Real hater

It is within the nature of fighting and of war to consider that the opponent who fights you is a bad guy. But what short-sighted people don’t notice is what their opponent thinks of them.

A real hater will not hate what is bad about you, but what is good. And that is -most often- not the case in war, in divorces and so on.

Everybody knows this, but few admit it to each other and themselves. If you wish to see how a person subjected to that knows this, notice how he might be afraid to be and do actual good by any means. One might not appear afraid to brag how he/she has fooled and gotten laid with a large number of people who were unaware of being fooled, but another who might merely wish to do it -not for any bad reason- might be afraid to do it. That is how the majority becomes a hostage to the minority that undermines it; from that perspective, to do good is to do bad.

The less free -internally- a person is, the more he imitates -badly- those who are freer. And you might find people who appear super-compassionate, brave, beautiful and so on, to be quite the opposite and try hard to conceal it. That is how such concepts get a bad name. And that is a way how the rest become unwilling to be those things, and they also become less tolerant, more irritated by those things –they become confused.

It is very common in today’s society to confuse those who -through their luck, skill, interest, work…- manage to become rich, and others who become rich through other’s misfortune. Thus people become divided into those who think nobody should ever be allowed to become rich, and that all those who become rich are good folks. What does that add up to? It adds up to honest people needing money and licenses to work, to pay taxes, and to some dishonest people to get unfair legal or illegal advantages over the rest, leading to monopolies and so on.

Work is -in fact- offering and it is not taking. An offering cannot be but voluntary, for otherwise it is slavery and theft. The same is true for anything else good that a person projects to others –beauty, intelligence and so on. An intelligent person is not one who makes the rest feel dumb, but rather (freely) shares his intelligence with others, thus making others more intelligent too. You will always find those who make others feel dumb being very unintelligent themselves, even if they can solve some equations. Intelligence you see is not about numbers nor about parroting book pages. Intelligence in life is that which leads to more and better life, and less intelligence brings one and those who agree with him closer to death.

Never hesitate to be and to do that which is good from your own perspective for another might disapprove. You might -or not- incite some real hate that way, but it is totally worth it, for those who will hate it are not up to any good.

Of course, deep down the basic enemy one can have is himself, or rather the denial of himself. That is why, how people make a good (for them) thought and a split of a second later make the opposite. One essentially opposes himself that way, and if he doesn’t do that nobody else can do it to him, and if he buys the fake ‘good intentions’ of others that are meant to keep him down he will also do it to himself.

You don’t have choices but you can be free

To do something so another bad thing wont occur is as much of a choice as to do something so you wont get beaten or otherwise punished.

This is all the ‘freedom’ society currently preaches. This is how evil gains support. You try to avoid evil, and you support evil. And what do you know, either way you get betrayed.

There is vast difference between ‘choices’ and ‘freedom’. If you want to be free you need to create what to be, you need to be it, you need to get rid of choices. If you want choices you have to pick from what you’re given. And you might as well find the those two opposites you are offered with are from the same person, who is cowardice and dishonest enough to not directly threaten you with punishment in case you don’t do as he says, but attributes the punishment to an opposition of his own making.


Justice is not about what is right or wrong. That is ethics. It is not about the police and about courts. It can exist whether those things exist or not.

Justice is ideas, sets of rules about how we can co-exist harmonically. One could argue whether the police and courts do that or not, but that’s not the topic now. I’m referring to the original meaning of justice.

Justice is related to what one gives and takes. It is asserted that there must be some balance between what one gives and takes. In justice one would not be expected to be permanently kind and receive hostility in return, that would be unfair. Similarly, what would not be expected to produce 10 bricks and get paid for the price of 1 brick (nor visa versa). That would be unfair too.

Justice is then about balance. It is neither about being kind nor hostile.

Justice is not inherent to the universe. We know from physics if you hit a wall the wall then hits you back. And we know of the old say ‘an eye for an eye’. But that is not a rule to make us peacefully co-exist. To demand from one to sit and get beaten all his life without defending himself doesn’t lead to peace, either; it leads to suppression.

If justice is freely agreed upon and correctly applied it nullifies harm and multiplies benefit for all willing participants. To be fair, if one caused harm he should make up for it, and if one offered something valuable he should be rewarded for it, in an analogous manner. If one broke a neighbor’s window he should get a new one, install it as well as somehow compensate for causing that trouble. And if one was kind to another, that other should be kind back to him too. That way, nobody could be a victim and nobody could be a perpetrator either. That way, imprisonment would be unnecessary.

So you see, present society has forgotten about justice too. Present society has swapped justice with suppression (get hit but don’t hit back), punishment and underpaid workers. Thus, harm gets multiplied and benefit gets nullified.

A neat way to have people get very upset about justice is to ask or demand from them to be fair and then be unfair to them in return. And some know that very well -they know the upset they cause that way- and they pretend they don’t understand, for upset is what they try to cause, as well as apathy regarding justice. A person who ignores how badly he treats you and yet demands to be treated nicely aims there; he tries to suppress you. A person who ignores your good offerings, and instead of that criticizes them like they were wrong, aims there too. In my opinion it is completely vain to expect or demand justice from a dishonest person who wishes to harm; to set double standards about justice is harm by itself. It is as vain as to be nice to such a person expecting to receive something genuinely good back. Odds are such a person will never acknowledge anything truly good about another. And in my opinion such people should just be spotted, and no further attention nor effort should be wasted on them.

Perpetuation of the unwanted

The delusion of choice between good and bad guys is vastly assisted by the notion that whomever criticizes the bad (and if it actually even is as criticized) must be good himself.

Anyone can be a critic whether he is an honest guy, a thief, a mass murderer. But definitely the worst of all can never genuinely find goodness in anything, but only assert so, about things that are actually destructive for all; which -in turn- gives the impression to those who believe them that nothing can actually be good.

We get bombarded daily by political and other criticism that in neither the short nor the long run bring about any desirable change; as almost nobody proposes any desirable alternative, but by calling upon bad situations in present some try enforce their own necessary evil.

By giving such solutions to perceived or asserted evil, we go from more evil to even more evil. By creating something desirable for most -if not for all- we would have something desirable for most, if not for all.

An actual solution is to focus in creating what is wanted and not in fighting against what is not wanted. That applies to group activities such as politics, to personal issues, to couples and to everything else.

One cannot fight the unwanted into non existence. One can create what is wanted to such a thorough degree that what is not wanted can have no place inside it. That is a lesson not learned from history, but what is taught instead is that evil is inherent in the human race. Do you think the guys who assert that are good or evil?

When was the last time somebody asked you what you wanted instead of telling you what to want? When was the last time you did that to yourself or others? Such a simple thing would bring about magical results. It would be a huge step towards an actual democracy.

About the status of having status

A man that can jump longer than another is better at doing that. A man that can solve math problems better than another is better at doing that. And man that is better at fooling other is better at doing that than another.

It is obvious and self-explanatory and I don’t need to point out the obvious. So what’s all that hassle about whos ‘right’ and better than whom –better in what? And respectively whats all that hassle about all being equal –equal in what?

As far as I am concerned I am always right within myself, unless I make myself wrong; that is to say I have absolute, undisputed rights over myself. That doesn’t make me right over another though –I have no rights over another. Only when we agree over something (like a competitive game), can there be a being more right or wrong, in relation to what is agreed upon. Otherwise there is no common ground to compete on.

Who bears the status of always being right? Everyone, for themselves, unless they say otherwise; and nobody for another unless they agree otherwise. If we agreed to be polite to each other and I was rude, at that point I’d be -more or less- wrong compared to our agreement. And that wouldn’t even mean I would always be wrong from that point on. I could at another time be polite.

It would mean absolutely nothing if I told another ‘he is wrong’. And it wouldn’t make me ‘right’ either. It is too general and based on agreement, but could put another to think which agreement I might be refering to.

Social status based on money is social status based on money. It is a potential agreement (and full of contradictions) one can agree with or not. It is not any law of God nor of any nature that I know. One says ‘I’m better than you because I have money’. Better in what? That guy might have inherited the money or worked for it (unlikely) or even stolen it. And anyway, who has asked each one and all whether they want to compete who’d going to make the most money? Is it any natural impulses given by some superior power? It seems that power forgot to give it to me.

Such abstract propositions like ‘I am right/you are wrong’ justified racist crimes in the past –a system which continues with racist propositions like ‘my grand grand parents made money, thus -due to inherited genes- I am now superior too, even if I sit and do nothing all day long, but gossip my friends to my other friends’.

Abstract equality justified communist crimes too, in turn. To assert we’re all equal in general -although it might sound kind- hides some traps. Among other things, it implies if somebody does something wrong, everyone is equaly responsible for it. Thus some feminists can’t tell difference between a rapist man and a non rapist man.

Nobody has rights over another, unless granted those rights by the other. And everyone have perfect rights over themselves, unless they deny those rights to themselves.

More dangerous than a lie

Nobody believes utter lies. For a lie to be believed it must be bundled with some truth.

Evil is believed and abided to because even an evil man is not truly evil deep inside. He feels the being evil matches with his evil environment. And although one might be determined to do the worst to another, that another might discard that possibility as untrue and have faith in his good intentions –he will never be completely certain though.

God –how many civilizations that had never contacted each other have believed in God, and how come? Some atheists assert it was because they feared death. Well, I would fear the possibility of eternal suffering much more than the possibility it would all end if I died. That’s not it. Others say those older guys were dumb apes and now we have evolved; ‘we’ nearly destroyed the whole planet  a few years ago, and now we’re about to ban love, sexual relationships and procreation. In what ways have we evolved, towards self-annihilation?
Everything everyone believes contains a portion of truth. If we could have some theoritical truth and we injected some lies within it, we would have a potentially dangerous outcome. And then another from an opposing side could point out that the whole bundle (the truth included) is all wrong, and whomever says otherwise is stupid or something. That’s what happens when one generalizes with left vs right wing, theism vs atheism and so on. They deny the whole thing they oppose including the truth. That’s how dangerous generalities are. One could say ‘people’ this and that, and another couldn’t argue. But who would he be talking about –‘people’ whom? Who knows billions of men and women?