Freedom is learned, not taught
The first thing to know about me is that my name is George Hara and I'm a man, as you can see below:
I am extremist. For me, it's all or nothing, usually. I prefer to adapt the environment to me rather than adapt to it.
Mind freedom, truth and stability are the most important things for me. I am a free thinker. I do not follow laws, rules, words and definitions, order, leaders, authority, or in general, monopolistic forces. It's possible that I may be forced to accept them, but I do not follow them in the absence of external human force. I follow diversity, choice, my inner nature.
I like science. I like it because it deals with reality (with points of view), not with "truths". Science does not try to prove anything, but to explain reality, that is, to sift through the false beliefs about reality.
I also like paranormal stuff.
I have no gene of intelligence.
Balance of life
I like to have a balanced life. I don't like stress. I can't concentrate over many problems at the same time.
I don't like to take, but I also don't like to give.
I don't believe in any supreme being that "built" the Universe. I don't believe in any religion. I believe in a universal consciousness since I am a part of it (just like any of you). I image that this consciousness is made of two principles: a father and a mother, masculine and feminine, the conscious level of Yang and Yin (symbol which is both dual and unitary). This consciousness is a creation of Nature; Nature was not created by this consciousness.
I have a philosophy about the Universe which is very scientific, logical.
My vision of the mind is based on instincts: all mental processes have their origin in the conservation instinct (which includes the reproductive instinct - the conservation instinct of a species) and in the diversity of all the things in the Universe.
I like to read. Some authors are: Grigori Borisovici Adamov, Isaac Asimov, Agatha Christie, Daniel Defoe, Arthur Conan Doyle, Alexandre Dumas, Karl Gjellerup, Frank Herbert, Jack London, Karl May, Jules Verne, Mark Twain.
Faithfulness derived from inborn sexual perspective
I am very faithful and dedicated. It's like this: when I really like something, I just can't let it go, I have go through with it. I always concentrate to the maximum for each important (from my point of view) thing.
I don't like to be touched. I actually despise the habit (and I don't do it), Europeans have, of pecking with relatives and friends; if you've gotten this far, I trust that you know the difference between pecking and kissing.
I like the Asian style of saying hello: no touching, just bending. I don't have a problem with shaking hands, but I like the bending stuff more. My body is mine and I don't do things because others want me to. I am not a part of the primordial soup where all life forms are one entity.
Pecking and touching are ways of programming the brain of the target to obey the initiator, ways of exerting control, ways of ensuring the existence of obedience. This is a semi-conscious, surreptitious behavior to program the targeted individual, the kind that most people subconsciously know how to use but avoid to admit that they are using it (since admission would result in the failure to achieve control).
Why no pecking? Because I feel no need to share my sexuality with any woman who wants to peck me or who wants to be pecked, nor do I need to let other people control me.
Most people accept a NO, but some of them believe that one has an obligation to either accept to be pecked or justify the refusal.
Try to say "no" to people who want to peck you, and you'll see that some of them will look to you as if you're some oddity, while others would ask you why you refuse, as if your body belongs to them and so you should let them peck you.
Some of them will try to use anger to make you feel embarrassed and guilty of your independence, to make you submit to their control, to make you do what they want.
I don't normally explain this thing, especially since the people who want a justification tease me insinuating that I should at least offer pecking in exchange (= sexual gratification) for (say) the cake being offered by a woman on her birthday, yet when I tell them that the motivation of pecking is sexual, they deny it thoroughly.
Unfortunately, I haven't always been this way (I'm talking about being able to say no). I've started doing this when I was around 15 years old. Now, I am simply saying "No pecking!" to the people who want to peck me. When some people ask me "why not?", I ask "why would I?". Rather that wasting my time and energy, I've come up with the essential answers.
I like virginity. I'm talking about both virgin people and virgin nature! I like things that are untouched, just the way Nature made them: as pure as crystal waters with their sparkling, fidget falls of rain droplets (oh… the poet within!). This is what virginity is all about, a symbol: purity.
I am jealous. My jealousy doesn't come from the fact that I don't trust the other person, but from the fact that I and most people have different views of the world, so for me there are very important things that are not important for others. If my trust is walked over I just draw inside myself, I become depressed. Basically, the jealousy has the same motivations that make me create: I have to know what is going on and I have to know why it is happening. Anyway, I never ask for more than I give.
I don't like women who go to men gynecologists and say that those physicians are professionals. How many of these women would be fine with the man they love to have sex with prostitutes and then say that prostitutes are professionals? I am not saying that men are innocent, but I am not talking about that. I also don't care what the physician feels. I care about what I feel, it's all about my feelings.
I don't like to undress (or stay undressed) in front of other people, not because of shame but because it is my will (I just don't like it), I just have no reason to do that.
I don't like to sunbathe, though I like the sun, because I don't like to undress (and also because I just don't like to slowly fry my skin).
I don't like in a woman (I am talking about common things here): makeup, long nails, very long hair (on head), dyed hair, jewels, leather clothes, fur (natural or artificial), high heeled shoes, coffee drinking, alcohol drinking (above some minimum level), smoking. Although I don't like makeup, I do like red lipstick... on a woman's lips.
I don't like body hair (from neck down). I don't like it on men, and I don't like it on women.
I like strong women, those whose character is the opposite to that of the submissive doll-woman. I like women whose behavior is a solid balance between strength and sensibility.
I don't want to have children because this is not the world for me to raise children in. When I was young, I've never felt the need to have children. As I grew older, I started having short moments, just seconds, when I felt extreme pleasure thinking that I would tell a woman to "make me a child". This drive is not strong enough to force me to make a child, but nevertheless it exists and it actually increases the chances of me making a child (I am talking about the chances on an evolutionary level, not specifically my chances).
I am a free thinker, an individual who destroys his own rules, who loves diversity and abhors monopolistic systems.
A free thinker is an individual who thinks from multiple points of view. A free thinker lives in a given context. He makes no attempt to force other people to live as he thinks it's best, but he tries to improve his life and thus the lives of all people around him.
A free thinker knows that he must use human behavior to analyze the interactions among people. He knows that people like rules, he knows that people like to force their rules on others. He knows these are the rules of the masses, and he can't interact with a mass of people using his own rules.
However, a free thinker must never forget his own point of view. If he does, he will become undetermined, weak.
A free thinker may think from multiple points of view, but he lives only his point of view.
I have no need to control or be controlled by other people. I have no need to force my ideas on the society. Therefore, I have no need to explain what laws a society should have, I have no need to describe what political, economic or social systems should be implemented in a society. Clearly, "implementing" means that a few individuals would enforce the rules they create, thus acting against the principles of a free thinker.
Being a free thinker, I would rather spend my time building a free world (describing a free society, the way it would be), than wasting my time trying to reform organizations which force their rules on everybody.
The main pillars around which my mind evolved, outside its inner nature, are yoga and science.
Some people who inspired me (unknowingly) are many book writers, some of whose names I wrote above.
Since I can remember (that is, since I was just a few years old), I have had some very strong ideas which I can't explain how I got them. I was simply too young to know them from somewhere, and there was nothing in my life at that age which could have influenced me so profoundly:
My work has been triggered by several clear-cut factors, starting from when I was about 12 years old:
The women to whom I was sentimentally attracted, played a crucial role in my mental development. They were like a fuel component, they were a significant drive in refining my personality.
I was always trying to impress them, to attract their attention, or if that was not possible, to improve their lives even if they didn't know it. Improving their lives is a fuzzy, distant dream because this desire didn't necessarily refer to each specific woman, but to women in general, to women to whom I could be sentimentally attracted.
As I aged, I was trying less and less to control them in my mind, in my fantasies (sexual or non-sexual), to give them more control so that a fantasy could resemble more and more with an interaction. Their mental representation from my mind moved slowly from being sexually dominated toward a partner with whom I could communicate as equal, but equal in the sense that we would both understand what makes the human mind tick, and not (just) in the sense that I would no longer regard them as sexual toys.
This change happened irrespective of the women's personality and behavior toward me, although those women who exhibited a personality compatible with mine had a more powerful effect.
I can say that the moment when I reached the "plateau phase" in the way I regard women today was when I saw a woman (in reality) with the facial structure of a typical roman woman (that can be seen in the frescoes left from romans).
She was simply breathtaking (well, when saw through the filter of my desire, at that time) and she impressed me so much that I blocked all my sexual fantasies about her, from the beginning; still, I can't do anything about involuntary flashes.
What I mean is that, just for her, I was willing to resist all the pressure resulted from not living those fantasies.
This has nothing to do with whatever guilt I may feel for having sexual fantasies. It has everything to do with what I am: a being able of self restrain at important moments (not constantly).
Why? Because a fantasy is a unidirectional experience, unlike a relationship, and this means that my mind would exert exclusive control over the woman during a fantasy, and so it would get used to that and behave like that in general (not only regarding women), in a manipulative manner, which would stop my mind from evolving.
A warning: if at some point in your life you decide to do a similar thing, understand that the resulted psychological pressure is enormous and could easily send an unprepared mind tumbling way below the evolutionary point from where it started doing this. This is because the subconscious would seek alternative means of obtaining sexual gratification. If you put a cork somewhere, it's going to blow somewhere else. Bravery without strength leads to destruction! The conscious care with which you need to replace your instincts is staggering.
We learn our entire life. We fight for control, we attack the systems created by others, we defend the systems we create. Such fights eat away time and energy, and only rarely improve our understanding of the human mind and of the world. The wasted energy could have been used for true learning, for personal control, for evolution.
As the saying goes, the more a human understands, the fewer words he needs to say in order to describe the world. Fewer words means that less time is wasted fighting with other people. The silence of the mind brings clarity of thought.
I call these words Essential Knowledge, and I have written them below.
Systems are prisons
Any system is a trap and a prison for the mind because it creates a place where the mind feels comfortable, a place from where the mind has no need nor desire to move on. Thus, the mind gets stuck in the same place, in endless immobility.
Hate is a prison
Hating something doesn't affect the subject of the hate as much as it affects the person who hates. The mind which hates enters in an endless cycle of pain, of hate, and can not and does not want to escape from it because it gets satisfaction from it (which is supposed to be only the pain of the subject of the hate, but is really not). Thus, the mind gets stuck in the same place, in endless immobility.
Freedom may be more important than Life
Some people might say that Life is the most important thing. But Life must be worth living. Of course, many people may find a life in prison more comfortable than a life which is a constant fight for freedom.
The desire to control other people's lives is evil
People are trying to control other people's lives by saying things like "it's for your own good" or "the good of the society requires that we do this". They are trying to impose their rules of behavior, there is nothing good about it.
This would not be a problem if such people would not have the resources needed to put their ideas into practice.
There have been certain periods of time in my life when "The System" tried to destroy me, tried to make me get in line with "The Program". These times are my demons, the ones I had to fight against to keep my inner nature alive, preserve my uniqueness, my contribution to the diversity of the Universe.
Hating these demons makes things worst. They feed with hate. So the only thing that I could do was to survive them and dedicate my life to things which would make these demons howl to the void for they have remained without a host to parasite.
Despite these demons, I am still functional, that is, sane and aware of their crimes.
The tools they use: an individual's shame and fear to expose them. These work because to confront and fight against them would require to recognize them as weaknesses, and who recognizes to be weak?
Usually, a human mind can't resist the conflict created by a crime perpetrated against it and by the pain resulted from the awareness of the crime. This happens because the pain is so great that the human mind either breaks or it hides the pain and its source.
The pain can be hidden either by manifested indifference, or by turning the pain into masochistic pleasure. And each time a crime is perpetrated against a human, his mind becomes weaker and weaker, and it's easier and easier to make it submit to future crimes. The mind's submission to "authority" is easier and faster when it is being told that a specific crime is normal and that the crime is for the good of the mind. The mind becomes so used with the crime that it considers it normal.
So, here are my demons:
The general lack of alternative to the lifestyle crafted by the flock instinct of humans, and the persistent attempts of the flock to destroy my individuality.
One year taken away from my life, true slavery for the state.
I had to follow 12 years of state regulated school. (The private school system is also state regulated, so there is no difference.)
Since I am hard-wired to resist any attempt to control me, for me this was mental rape. I consider that people who support state regulated school are rapists, and this is no metaphor. Certainly, it's not like what humans usually mean by "rape (of a woman)", but for me it's mental rape nevertheless.
The state regulated school system is a system where children are told to learn various things, grades what children know, and if they don't pass the tests, they are not allowed to move to the next level of learning, and are ultimately not allowed to get a job of their choice, regardless of their actual mental abilities.
In consequence, the children who don't obey the state regulated school must limit themselves to unqualified work and low paid jobs.
Many people confound state regulated school with learning. This is true only to the extent to which rape and sex are the same thing; there are clearly people who believe that they are the same.
Consider a simple analogy: even though voluntary sex may be great for a woman, it's rape to force a woman to have sex.
Just the same, even though voluntary learning is beneficial, it's criminal to try to destroy people's lives because they have not passed the tests.
But unlike the individual rape of a woman perpetrated by an individual criminal, the rape of the minds of children is perpetrated on a world scale, thus making the state regulated school system a crime against humanity... and this is no metaphor.
Military conscription requires a medical examination of the potential soldiers, which includes a nude examination where a physician observes any physical malformations and purposely inflicted wounds.
This happened to me when I was 17 years old, an age when I was too weak to say "fuck off" to the woman physician who did the actual observation. I call this rape, physical rape, and this is no metaphor. I call that woman physician a rapist. Certainly, it's not like what humans usually mean by "rape (of a woman)", but for me it's physical rape nevertheless. But the actual responsibility belongs to the organization that made this possible: the state.
This kind of (medical) rape, although not necessarily this intrusive, seems quite spread through this world's states. For example, european states have laws which force people to get a basic medical examination in order to be allowed to work.
And, if someone doesn't get such an examination, they are not allowed to get a job... anywhere. They can either accept this examination or starve to death (unless they can make money without getting a job). And this happens even though the Constitutions of these countries say that the right to work can not be limited.
Other cases of such rape happen in schools, where children are medically examined without any kind of parental approval. In some cases they are even undressed in order to perform a deeper examination for medical statistical purposes, without explicit parental approval.
Moreover, a same-gender physician is not doing the examination, even in spite of the explicit requests of the examined person. In fact, instead of immediately fulfilling such a request, this is met by physicians with shock as if the examined person is guilty of having a choice. It's not possible to talk about the professional ethics or personal moral of such physicians because one can't expect rapists to have any in the first place.
This kind of rape is justified in various ways, usually by saying "it's for your own good", "it's for the good of the society", or by physicians who say that they need to have a global view of people's health status. And because people would not do this voluntarily, they rape them.
Some people say that one does have a choice: either accept the examination or not. Well, that is true, but this is like saying that if a man puts a knife at a woman's throat and tells her to either submit to rape or die fighting against it, is a choice for the woman. As far as rocks can think, this is true, but sane people know that only the personality of a rapist can say that this is a "choice". Only criminals see choice in a death threat.
I am neither in favor nor against (physical) violence. I am against lack of choice, I am against stupidity, that is, violence without a strong cause or without logical choice. It is stupid to either wait (and accept) to be slaughtered, or to beat everybody up.
However, I have a strong tendency against violence because it costs more than its absence.
I believe in personal choices (that are not motivated by hate).
In your lifetime you'll meet some people who will use various questions and statements, usually combined with an aggressive tone or demeanor, in order to control you by blocking any reaction from you (because you would not know what to answer or how to react). Here are some responses.
The type of people referred to as "they" in the following imaginary dialogs are real people. They try to make you be ashamed of your behavior. They think that the guilt which you are about to feel would make you weak and easy to subdue. This is how the flock works: wannabe leaders try to take control of the weak individuals through behavioral manipulation. Don't let them! Adapt! Turn their weapons against them.
What do you have to hide?
You: Because it's my choice.
What do you have to hide?
You: Anything that criminals want to rob me of. Only slaves have nothing to hide, and no right to try hiding anything. If people were to hide who they are and everything they own, nobody could rob them, because nobody could know what to rob, how much to rob and who to rob from.
They: Are you calling me a criminal?
You: This conversation was not about you. / Are you trying to rob me?
Did anybody asked you anything?
I can speak what I want and when I want, except when criminals use force to make me shut up.
Don't you think it's more important to catch criminals than to have privacy?
Which criminals? The lawless ones or the ones with the law in hand? Obviously, you are concerned with the lawless ones, so I'll be concerned with the ones with the law in hand, the ones who destroy the souls of civilizations in order get political power.
When someone tries to peck you.
You: No pecking!
They: Why not?
You: Because I said 'no' and you have to respect that.
When someone tries to peck you.
You: No pecking!
They: Why not?
You: Because physical contact is intimate for me.
When someone tries to peck you.
You: No pecking!
They: Why not?
You: Why would I?
They: Because people do it.
You: I don't do what others do.
When someone tries to peck you.
You: No pecking!
They: Why not?
You: Because we don't fuck. / Because pecking it's for when you're fucking someone.
(Or as a guy once said to a woman, with whom he was not intimate, woman who was trying to hold his hand "Don't hold my hand because my cock will get up!")
(If you're shy, you could say "having sex with" instead of "fucking", but if you don't stand your ground when confronted with such people, they will push and push and push until you give in. Persistence through encroaching is a very used behavior because it works.)
They: You're so vulgar! Why do you have to be so aggressive?
You: If you don't like it, perhaps you should learn to accept a "no" when someone tells you "no", and then I would no longer have to show you clearly that you have to stop.
When you say that you don't want children.
They: You are selfish.
You: Actually, you are one of the most selfish creatures that ever lived. If you were not selfish, you would adopt children, but you can't do that because your children must have your DNA. You can't stand the idea that your DNA is not propagated. It must be yours, so, yes, you are one of the most selfish creatures.
But don't worry, unlike you, I'm not looking at you condescendingly, I'm not trying to blame or to humiliate you in order to determine you denounce your personality and follow mine. I am however stating hard-to-live-with facts (= your selfishness), the kind that makes you lie to yourself (by saying that they are not true) in order to be able to live with yourself, and even worse, mirroring your mental state onto other people.
Are you saving yourself for marriage?
(When someone uses an aggressive tone or demeanor while asking. If someone asked me this, I wouldn't even waste my breath saying anything. Some provocations are just too pathetic. This answer is here just to explain the psychological reason behind the question.)
You: So, do you have a question?
They: That was a question.
You: That was a provocation, your attempt to humiliate the sexual choices of the people who choose that, and who you think are weak and obsolete.
You are you an egoist.
(Some people believe themselves to be master manipulators just because they repeat techniques that they've heard, trying to shame you into submission.)
You: Thank you for the compliment! I'm trying very hard to be like this and I am very pleased with the results.
I am not a rebel, that is, I am not angry with authority. I am not a member of the flock, so there is no authority for me.
Everything you'll see written on my website, about me or my ideas, are meant for the people who want to live as free individuals, and for the future generations from a world in outer space, a world where those people who want to monopolize moral, justice and its enforcement throughout the Universe, will be unable to do so because the technology of the future will offer to the free thinking individuals the means to escape oppression.
Everything is a praise to the individual and a defiance to the flock. I am trying to show that the flock is at the very bottom of the evolutionary scale, and that reasoning and breaking away from the flock's instinctual reactions are necessary in order to evolve either individually or as a civilization.
All my life I had to constantly and actively fight against the flock behavior which surrounded me. Yet, I am a social being. I adore to communicate, but unfortunately my communication was very limited because people who are like me are not common.
All my life I thought there was one critical subject which I must learn: the way the human mind works. I am not talking about the way the brain works, but about the way the mind works. I learned a lot about the mind, I learned a lot about human behavior. A part of this knowledge is the flock behavior.
I started to understand the goods and the bads of flock behavior. Flock behavior is what binds a species together and increases its chances of survival. But flock behavior also means the dissolution of personal needs and the smoothing of evolutionary mental and physical spikes. The flock actively tries to force individuals who are different from the masses, to fit the know patterns, the average.
I learned that evolution happens in jumps. Evolution is not a smooth process. Evolution happens when the environment changes dramatically and the species must either adapt or get extinct. Whether small, huge or cataclysmic changes occur within the environment, proximal or far, the survival and evolution of a species depend on the diversity of the individuals of that species.
This means that spikes are a necessity for evolutionary purposes. Be they good or bad is irrelevant because there is no such thing as good and bad from the Nature's point of view. Life means diversity, and there is no individual, and certainly no flock (/ average), who knows what is required to succeed in adapting to new conditions of life. Adaptation either occurs, or the species get extinct; no species knows its path in advance, or it would not evolve anymore since there would be no need to change - everything would be known in advance.
But the more I learned, the more I knew I have to separate my life from the life of the flock. The flock actively tries to make me like it. I do not like that. I do not want that. I've realized that trying to tell the flock to control itself rather than individuals is futile and only wastes my time and energy.
I've realized that violence is not a way to evolve. But I also saw that losing aggressiveness means forgetting about the laws of Nature. Weak species and individuals do not survive during evolution. Losing aggressiveness means remaining uncovered in front of changes, it means losing the battle with Nature's forces.
During my life I had some "solutions" which attempted to "fix" society by reducing its control over the individuals. But that meant that the "solutions" were themselves control over society. This is not to say that I know what is good for a society, except for this: the only humans who know what is best for themselves are themselves and not the flock, not its leaders, unless the individuals ask for help.
At some point, it became clear that people are not willing to control themselves and prefer to try to control other people, so I stopped wasting my time and energy.
People who believe in their freedom must move away from this civilization. Unfortunately, currently there is no land on Earth where people, who believe more in their freedom than in the self-claimed rights of the flock, can live.
Though people could go underwater or on other planets (Moon, Mars, Venus), they would still lack the mobility which they need in order to preserve their independence from the flock.
There is only one thing which can provide the means to achieve the necessary freedom: gravitons. When humans will control the graviton (gravity and antigravity), they will be able to build spaceships which will also be used as houses. The graviton will give us energy, propulsion, weapons and shields at almost no cost to the individual.
People will use these spaceships to fly away from this planet, to live as they see fit. It is true that the flock will attempt to stop these people, but freedom will win because of its mobility.
Hopefully, I will write one day a science-fiction novel (called Gardener of Thoughts) about this type of society.
After many stormy years of Life, I have come to understand that even the essential knowledge is one too many words. What is the essence of evolution, of thinking, of thoughts? I now describe myself simply as: never again a member of the flock.
My main guiding principles are:
Whenever I was in a situation when it was difficult to choose, particularly in a moral situation, I wondered what would do, in a similar situation, an individual (or even an alter-ego of me) from an extraterrestrial civilization which is, perhaps, millions of years older than the human civilization, and supposedly just as evolved. This simple question forced my mind to push its limits in trying to find rational answers, to break away from following the flock's instinctual reactions.
I am in favor of choice and diversity. I am against monopoly and lack of choice.
Here are some good quotes. Many of them are ironic, so don't take them all literally.
Q: Do you think there is a God? A: I don't know about a God, but I've seen a few Goddesses.
One day you stop philosophizing and start building.
Freedom is the ability to say "No" and have that decision respected.
He who seeks knowledge deserves it.
A system is merely a trap and a prison for a free mind.
The Truth can come and go as it pleases, always wandering throughout the sleepy minds. But know this: It does not make itself, It does not change itself, It always follows You.
All the Beauty of the Universe shall remain hidden to You, not because It hides from You, but because You hide from It.
The real character of an individual is visible under pressure and when he is rejected, not when everything is alright for him and he is happy and loved by everybody.
Stop considering yourself and stop behaving like a victim. Stop sacrificing what you have good. Want to be happy, not to suffer. If you think that the suffering and pain make you morally superior, you'll end up suffering, living in pain and constantly making sacrifices, but you will not be morally superior, you'll just be deceiving yourself that you are.
Tell relentlessly to your consciousness to Stop hating and to Expand. Always trade the bad parts of your mind: ignorance, hate, rage. In exchange, ask for: knowledge, wisdom, beauty, peace. If at some point your mind gets locked in a loop of negative thoughts, tell it to stop. Nature does not care about good or bad, so it will trade its goods with your bads without hesitation.
It's true that the illusion of a desired future makes us lose ourselves in work, but I look at this as a fight with nature who gave us a destiny full of obstacles. These obstacles must be overcome because this is whispered by something deep inside our being. If we lose the fight or the chances that we meet on our path, it's not just our fault, but also nature's because this is all it gave us to fight with.
When a woman opens to a man, the man should not take, but offer instead.
Stupidity is the most horrible thing in the world. Yet, there is an even more horrible thing: being aware of stupidity.
Money is the liquid form of human interaction and equates the exchange of work, energy, effort, creativity and time.
Clothes don't make a person, but people buy (nice) clothes.
When told "There's a much higher Law for man. I'm sure you agree." - I don't. There is no authority over me. I follow my inner nature, that's all. I am a free thinker and recognize no authority over me. I lived to experience the Greatness of the Universe. I suffered so I could learn. I saw the Edge between Life and Death and I saw that there is no pain in Death, but only choice. I realized that I either fight or get extinct. A simple law of Nature. I had the honor of being shown the people who have fought their entire lives against their own ignorance. I have learned from Masters of Despair. I have learned from Gardeners of Thoughts.
Freedom is learned, not taught. Only those people who are motivated enough to learn on their own about freedom, might also be motivated enough to fight for their freedom and learn its true meaning. Those who wait to be taught are sheep in a flock.
Military drafting and the educational system of schools regulated by the state (as it is now anywhere in the world: punishing those who don't know / remember what "they teach") are the most destructive and ferocious blood sucking, flesh eating and rot making monsters human kind has ever created.
Honest men use wits, the others use monopoly of force.
A flock tries to bring together all the individuals and shape them to one standard, but a group has one cool feature - it's exclusive and has minimum admission standards.
Profit and freedom are not achieved through either the presence or absence of rules, but gained through competition among systems which implement diverse solutions to a given problem.
No matter about what situation you think that "private business can't do this, so we need someone to rob people and provide other people this and that", think like this instead "I'll get together with my honest buddies and build a reputable organization which would receive either business or charity funding, and we would provide people with what others don't. We will not rob people of their money and freedom, we will not rape the minds of their children to make them obey us, we will not kill those who do not obey our system (and who make their own system which doesn't rob, rape or murder)".
Eliminate from your mind the desire to control other people. What is left to argue about? Nothing! Nature moves on unchanged, with or without humans.
The flock instinct and the desire to control other people's lives on one side, and the ability to distinguish goodness from justifications for crime on the other side, are neither the cause nor the effect, even in the slightest proportion, of the excellence in an area of expertise, or what some people would call intelligence. The very fact that self-proclaimed intelligent people say that these things are related shows that they lack even a basic understanding of how the human mind works, of how intelligence and mental capacity differ, and that their egos are blinding their consciousness.
The world is moving only toward more democracy / socialism. That's because it's just possible to happen, it's the balance, preserved for the longest amount of time, between the highest level of control and the minimum rebellion... and the flock does have the tools for control.
Refraining from taking actions is not a crime because no action is taken against anyone. However, forcing people to do something remains a crime with or without justification. But most people believe that justifications for a crime make the crime acceptable (it's just a way to deal with their guilt).
Logic doesn't determine people to try to fix the world's wrongs. You either are a member of the flock who wants supreme authority to exist and think that you have a right over other people's lives, or you're an independent mind who despises authority. Those who are undecided can't be taught independence, they have to find it on their own.
I've come to see that when crime is defined, there are two kinds of people: those who put their money where their mouth is, and those who put other people's money where their mouth is (and, of course, who rob those other people beforehand). The rest is armchair philosophy.
For six years I had a nice childhood.
I was forced to attend the state regulated brain-washing machine called "school". From this point on, the state did its best to try to destroy my personality.
After 12 years of brain-washing I finally got free and started to walk my way. At this point I started working with computers.
I was drafted (that is, against my will) in the military, for one year.
In the year 2000 I bought a computer, I got connected to the Internet, and started working on FileMatrix.
From my point of view, I've succeeded in what interested me.