About me

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 am analytic, logical. When a good idea comes to my mind I just can't let it go, I have to write it down, otherwise I am really stressed because I might forget it. I have an average memory. However, my mind is extraordinary in creating connections between various pieces of information (either new or stored in the long-time memory).

My purpose in life is to create, to gather pieces of information and put them together. My mind likes to create and it likes complexity, and if I try to stop it, it won't leave me alone and will keep hammering me until I feed it.

I don't waste my time studying bad systems. My brain simply stores the essential information about a system for a very long time, usually many years. The subconscious processes this information and when it reaches a critical mass it tells me (= the consciousness) if the system is good, bad, or if it needs more information. Once an idea reaches my consciousness, it experiences an exponential growth.

Simply put, I feel what is right (though it may be more accurate to say that my subconscious filters out what is wrong), I feel the path which leads me to the right solution.

This, sometimes, puts me in a tight spot when I talk about a system with experts, because I know the result but not the way I took to reach the result. In such cases I am forced to look up detailed information about the system, at that moment.

Basically, my brain works in opposite ways from a scientist's brain which processes information in great detail in order to get to a result. Instead, my brain "jumps" the gaps from the input information and generates an extrapolated result.

Perception, emotion, reason and creation are all very intense parts of my personality. They all try strongly to manifest, but without trying to overwhelm the others. Reasoning and feeling are well separated, behaving rather like two individuals.

I like to have an 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.

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.

I like food (I'm talking about those made by my mother): beef salad, pike egg-fish, chocolate. I don't like fatty food, especially fat meat, but I do like lard (probably because it's "filtered"). Chicken breast meat is the vegetable of my choice. I adore watermelons, cucumbers, tomato juice, grape-fruit juice, orange juice... oh, and water and wine with bubbles.

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. The "spiritual" side arises from the diversity / randomness within the mind, diversity which is essential for survival, for evolution. I wonder if there is such a thing as a soul?!

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 hate the habit (and I don't do it), Europeans have, of pecking with relatives and friends. 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.

I don't follow useless habits which work just because of social inertia or because others want them to work (I mean, because some people want to touch others). I have a mouth and a personality, so I say NO.

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 tell them in short that I don't follow social habits; such people would not understand the longer explanation anyway.

Pecking is a form of control, both physical and psychological. Just 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 people have tried to use anger to make me feel embarrassed and guilty of my independence, to make me submit to their control, to make me do what they want. They've failed.

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 then play "innocent" (kind of hard to put this into words, huh?) with me. These women say that men gynecologists are professionals, so there is no problem with that. There is one: the way I (or any man who thinks like me) feel. Human behavior is driven by emotions (, emotional / human logic), not by mechanical logic. Humans are not machines.

For such a woman, the man she loves should have sex with a prostitute and then say to her that it was nothing: the prostitute is just a professional (just like the gynecologist) who did it with thousands of men, so it is nothing.

I am not saying that men are innocent, but I am not talking about that, nor do I care about men. I also don't care what the physician feels; I care about what I feel, it's all about my feelings. If the woman I love tells me she doesn't care whether the gynecologist is a man or a woman (and not just because she is ashamed to go to a man gynecologist) I feel something dies inside me.

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 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; I never felt any need to make children. This is because I just don't feel the need to, because I don't want the responsibility, because this is not the world for me to raise children in, and because it might mean that her (my wife) would have to be examined (= see her naked and sticking their hands inside her) by (many) physicians.

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.

Free thinker

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, he will stop changing.

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.

Here are some people whose works should be read: David Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Thomas Jefferson, Ludwig Mises, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Adam Smith.

You can find websites with information about economy here.

Pillars

The main pillars around which my mind evolved, outside its inner nature, are yoga and science.

Some people who inspired me (unknowingly) are: Milarepa (yogi; I consider him my mentor), Siddhartha Gautama Buddha (yogi), and many book writers, some of whose names I wrote above.

Creative triggers

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 naked body. I remember that the first time when this manifested I was about 3 years old. I was at the beach and I absolutely refused to undress like the other kids (of the same age).
The different way in which men and women were treated in the society. I have no idea how I knew that at 6, 7 years old.
Precious metals and stones. I used to image finding loads of gold coins, diamonds, emeralds and other colorful stones. Well, this happened at a later age, so it probably was imprinted in my mind by some books with pirates and islands and stuff.
An innate desire to understand how the human mind works.

My work has been triggered by several clear-cut factors, starting from when I was about 12 years old:

A radio science show where it was presented that if you have two hemispheres put together and voided inside, huge effort would be required to separate them.
A science-fiction story I read in a magazine. I liked it and I said to myself that I want to create something like that. I wanted to create something interesting which would reach a lot of people.
Newton's differential calculus. I read in book that he invented it (actually he was one of two) and I said to myself that I want to invent something like that. Eventually, this lead to multidimensional numbers and fluons.

Women as evolutionary trigger

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 to 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 looked like Claire Forlani, but Claire, though appealing, didn't impress me like that.

She was simply breathtaking 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 had nothing to do with whatever guilt I may have felt for having sexual fantasies.

Why? Because a fantasy is a unidirectional experience, unlike a relationship, and this means that my mind would have exerted exclusive control over the woman during a fantasy, and so it would have gotten used to that and behave like that with all women, in a manipulative manner, which would have stopped 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.

Essential knowledge

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 thoughts.

I call these words Essential Knowledge, and I have written them bellow.

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 is the most important thing in the Universe

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), but I don't.

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 monopolistic rules of behavior, monopolistic justice and its enforcement on everybody.

This would not be a problem if such people would not have the resources needed to put their ideas into practice.

Monopoly is evil

Monopoly is not bad, it is malefic. The worst of all is the monopolistic law of states because it creates a rigid, institutionalized system which can only become more and more regulated in order to "solve" problems, problems which it created in the first place.

A state (/ government) is evil

Some people believe that a state is necessary for a good life, some people believe a state is a necessary evil.

I do not consider either good or necessary the theft (through taxation) of half of the wealth of billions of people around the world, the rape of billions of children's minds (in the brain washing machines that are the state regulated schools) to make them to obey the system, and the murder of those who instead of obeying this system fight against it in order to defend their Life, Liberty and Property.

The inability of individuals to preserve their Life, Liberty and Property against the force used by states does not mean that states are honest or that they are necessary, but it simply means that states are so powerful that they can make everybody submit to the their control, and that individuals can't do anything about it. Inescapable crimes remain crimes nevertheless. The winner may be the one who is right in the eyes of the masses, but not in mine.

It's important to see the separation between the actions of those who claim to be good (= the states) and the actions of those who the state purports to be fighting against (= the lawless criminals). Regardless of the actions of the lawless criminals, regardless of the claims of the do-gooders, robbing and raping billions of people are crimes against humanity.

The preference of an individual to accept and deal with a state rather than with lawless criminals does not change the fact that the actions of the state are crimes, no matter how effective and experienced people are at hiding behind the finger and change the names of these crimes to "taxation", "state regulated school" and "institutionalized justice".

These actions will lead Earth in a monopolistic state which will poison diversity, uniqueness and individuality, which will ultimately lead to devolution. But what is worse is that this could endure long enough for Earth to spread its reach and "civilization" throughout the Universe, obliterating diversity and imposing its monopolistic view of Life.

What's the difference?

Some people point out that there is a clear difference between a democratic state and a fascist one, and that without democracy we could live under fascism.

We could, but that only shows that those people are comparing two evils, not proving that crimes are a good thing.

In analyzing the differences between a democratic and a fascist state, the most relevant distinction is that although a democracy uses force to control the masses of people, little violence is actually used.

Violence, here, means the generalization of the principle "guilty until proven innocent", and (usually) only then followed by physical violence.

Instead, insidious, encroaching behavior is the norm because this line of action gets people used with slowly loosing their freedoms and drives them to think that slavery is normal and expectable.

In contrast, fascist states use violence as the norm.

In the end, the difference between the two is not in their kind of actions, but in the way they exert control over people, with democracy allowing leaders to manifest their control to the highest degree without being generally tagged as "must-die" by the people they control.

Taxation

States force people to give, on average, half of what they produce, valued in money. Then, states redistribute that money in any way the politicians like, and they say that this process is for the good of the people.

But consider that a man puts a knife at a woman's throat and tells her to either submit to rape or die fighting against it. The rapist says to the woman that the rape is for her own good. So, is the rape for the woman's own good because the rapist claims so, or does the woman know her own good?

Generally, the woman will not die fighting because, biologically speaking, death has a higher cost than the pain resulted from submission. However, any sane individual knows that the rape is still a vicious crime, regardless of the claimed "goodness" of the act.

In the same way, forcing people to give up half of what they produce is theft, regardless of the states' claims for it being for people's own good.

And if you recognize that this is true, but you also say that all "we" need is honest politicians, I have to tell you that fantasy and reality are two different things. In reality, honest men do not want / need to control the lives of other people and thusly they will never become the politicians who run states. This is why states will never let people choose their own way in life, individually.

State regulated school

A state regulated school system is a system where children are told to learn what the state says, whether the children want to learn that or not, and then grades what children know (about what they were forced to learn).

Now, the state gives children the following "choice": children are not forced to learn what the state says, but if they do not obtain high enough grades, they are not allowed to move to the next level of learning, that is, learning about what the children actually want to learn.

(The private school system is also state regulated and is forced to follow the same rules as state schools, and therefore there is no choice for children.)

At the end of the state regulated school, children (who have now grown into adults) are faced with another "choice": if they don't finish the school with high enough grades, they are not allowed to work in the field they know, regardless of their actual mental or physical abilities. In consequence, the children must either limit themselves to unqualified work (and accordingly low paid jobs), or submit to what the state regulated school teaches them.

Even despite the fact that force is being used by the state against children, many people still consider that a state regulated school is good. But such a school system blends two things together in order to create a nice looking package for what is nothing but a crime: learning and rape.

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 stupefyingly beneficial, it's rape to force people to "learn" what they don't want to learn, and punish them (up to the point of destroying their lives) if they don't know what they are forced to learn.

But unlike the individual rape of a woman perpetrated by a criminal individual, the rape of the minds of children is perpetrated on a world scale, thus making the state regulated school system a crime against humanity.

Murder

The final punishment of the state against free thinking people is murder.

If, for example, an individual doesn't learn what the state says, that individual ends up working in jobs paid the lowest, unless he is an exceptional business men and can start his own business. And the souls of such people would slowly die because their dreams can never be fulfilled, because they are not allowed by states to manifest their finest abilities.

Another case is that many states have laws which force people to get a basic medical examination in order to be allowed to work. 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.

Also consider what would happen if any honest individual would not give up half of what he produces because he considers that taxation is theft. The state would first fine him. If the individual would not pay the fine, he would be sued for tax evasion. If the individual would not recognize the trial because there it is decided that the individual must be robed, the trial would sentence him to pay or be imprisoned. If the individual would still not pay, the state would send its law enforcement to grab him and imprison him. If the individual would defend his Life, Liberty and Property by any means necessary against those who want to rob or imprison him, including through lethal force, he would be shot dead by the state's law enforcement agencies.

The winner is the one who is right in the eyes of the masses, but this doesn't transform a crime into something good.

Fighting demons

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 I could do was to survive them and dedicate my life to things which would make these demons howl to void for they have remained without a host to parasite.

The tools they use: an individual's shame and fear to expose them (because it would be a recognition of weakness - the inability to resist to their attacks), and fear to confront and fight against them.

Despite their criminal acts perpetrated against me, I am still functional, that is, sane and aware of their crimes.

Usually, human minds can't resist the conflict created by a crime perpetrated against them 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:

Flock behavior

The general lack of alternative to the lifestyle crafted by the flock instinct of humans.

School

12 years of state regulated school, the equivalent of mental rape, an attempt to brainwash me, to get me in line with The Program. Fortunately, I resisted it and learned what Freedom is on my own.

Military conscription

One year taken away from my life, true slavery for the state.

Medical examination

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. 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.

This kind of (medical) rape 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 wanting to preserve his way of life and 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. Technically that is true, but sane people know that the rape is still a vicious crime, regardless of the "choice" given. Only criminals see choice in blackmail.

Violence

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).

Rules of life

My main guiding principles are:

Never control the lives of other people. Don't think that this means the absence of defense against the criminals who do (try to) control the lives of other people.
Don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you.
If I don't do it, who else would?

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.

T-shirt logos

Silicon free. On the breasts, of course.

Watch your boyfriend now. On the breasts.

Beauty. Clean and simple.

Boys / girls, smile if you want to have sex with me.

My quotes

It's possible that I read some of them (= the short ones) elsewhere.

Clothes don't make a person, but people buy (nice) clothes.

Freedom through superior fire power.

Paraphrase to "Peace through superior fire power". Peace is important only if there is freedom.

Stupidity is the most horrible thing in the world. Yet, there is an even more horrible thing: being aware of stupidity.

May (s)he see the Ugliness so (s)he can turn to Beauty.

I wished this to a new born of someone. Although I should say "congratulations" like everybody else in such occasions, I am not of the general idea that bringing a child into this world is good for the child.

He who seeks knowledge deserves it.

It's possible that I read this somewhere.

A system is merely a trap and a prison for a free mind!

It's possible that I read this somewhere.

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.

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.

Money is the liquid form of human interaction and equates the exchange of work, energy, effort, creativity and time.

Freedom is learned, not taught. This is because 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.

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.

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 instead 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 requires no justification and is not a crime because no action is taken against anyone. However, robbing people 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). In the case of crimes against humanity, like robbing through taxes half of what billions of people produce, I don't believe in justifications.

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 on 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.

Essential answers

In your lifetime you'll meet some people who will use various questions and statements 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.

What do you have to hide?

Anything that criminals want to know in order to rob me more efficiently.

If they reply "Are you calling me a criminal?", you can say "Are you trying to rob me?".

You can read more on this here.

What do you have to hide?

If I could hide who I am and everything I do, the state could not rob me through taxes of half of what I produce, because it could not know what to rob, how much to rob and who to rob from.

Did anybody asked you anything?

I don't need permission to speak, I can speak what I want and when I want, except when criminals use force to make me shut up.

Taxes are for the good of the people, to fight against criminals.

The good of the people is to not be robbed in the first place, either of their money or their freedom.

When someone tries to peck you.

You: "No pecking!"

They: "Why not?"

You: "Because it's my will."

When someone tries to peck you.

You: "No pecking!"

They: "Why not?"

You: "I don't follow social habits."

When someone tries to peck you.

The type of people referred to as "they" in the following imaginary dialog are real people. They try to make you be ashamed of your behavior. They think that the guilt that 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.

You: "No pecking!"

They: "Why not?"

You: "Why would I?"

They: "Because that's what friends do."

You: "Not in my world."

They: "What world is that?"

You: "The world of people who can say 'no' and accept when other people say 'no'."

They: "Say 'no' to what?"

You: "Say 'no' to people who want to peck them."

When someone tries to peck you.

You: "No pecking!"

They: "Why not?"

You: "Because pecking it's for when you're fucking a woman / man."

(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 during encroaching is a very used behavior of sheep... 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."

Goals

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 the Free World, 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 have been a rebel. 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 rare.

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. This means that 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 like to communicate, but I learned that trying to show to the "rational" flock that it is moving away from the natural laws of evolution, is futile and only wastes my time and energy. There are certainly gorgeous paths for me to walk on and see the beauties of the Universe.

I learned a lot and I saw that violence is not a way to evolve. But I also saw that losing aggressiveness means forgetting about the laws of Nature. Weak individuals do not survive during evolution. Losing aggressiveness means remaining uncovered in front of changes, it means losing the battle with Nature's forces, it means the dissolution in the Nature's nothingness, it means Death.

During my life I had some ideas which attempted to improve the bad situations created by the communal life style of the flock, by reducing its control over the society. But the more I learned, the more I saw that the ideas were useless because the human nature manifests fully through the flock instinct.

So I sought and learned more and found people who were thinking in ways similar to my way of thinking. My ideas turned away from my inborn desire to improve the life style of the society by finding the best compromise between flock behavior and efficiency.

The no-confidence voting was the convergence point of my study, as it attempted to allow people to limit the invasion of unnatural laws: human laws. Unfortunately, it became clear that people are not willing to take control of their lives and limit the abilities of other individuals to force their rules on everybody. People are actively looking for ways to transfer their responsibilities to other people, and then complain about the bad results of the actions of those other people.

So, I started wondering why am I wasting my time looking for ways to compromise between flock behavior and individualistic behavior, instead of concentrating on what I knew best? Finally, I stopped wasting my time and energy in a doomed quest for finding "solutions". This is not to say I know what is good for a society, except for this: there is no such thing as a good leader, and no such thing as good monopolistic rules. The only humans who know what is best for themselves are themselves and not some "representative leaders".

The only thing which is good for a society is natural law, yet societies become more and more rigid in their quest for some distant fuzzy goals called "welfare" and "equity". Not only they don't know that natural law is the one which makes any species (including ours) survive, but they decide what steps to take on this path despite their lack of knowledge of natural efficient systems, that is, profitable systems: economies. The most important law of an efficient natural system is profit. Species which can extract profit from the environment are the species that survive. Generalized profit is obtained in the presence of diversity, and in the absence of monopolistic safety nets.

Institutionalized law determines societies to become more and more rigid as regulations require more and more regulations. It is incredible that most people still believe, despite what happens in front of their eyes, that criminals are more afraid of laws than they are afraid of instant violent response (which could occur if there would be no institutionalized law).

Although I am very much aware that the life of a society is determined by the masses and not by individualistic forces, I am not interested in wasting my time and energy trying to find compromise solutions which, anyway, are doomed before they are born. I would rather work on the future, on the ideas which will shape tomorrow's world: The Free World.

The powers of the "leaders" must be limited, yet many people want the opposite. I am left with no alternatives other than indirectly trying to shape the future: the independence of individuals from the flock. In this future, individuals would be able to fly away from Earth, living in personal spaceships, beyond any rules other than the voluntarily accepted ones.

The represented democracies of today's world will lead the human civilization only toward slavery. 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.

This will start a competition between The Free World and Earth. The societies with communal life style will find themselves exposed to cataclysmic changes: the possibility to physically move away from them. But don't expect this to make them lose: the power of the flock is far too great! But at least there will be a different path to take for the people who want to control their lives instead of letting the "community" take control.

Hopefully, I will write one day a science-fiction novel (called Gardener of Thoughts) about this conflict between societies. The bad part is that it will take years to be ready.

Why is it "Gardener" and not "Gardeners"? Because it is a praise to the individual, because each individual must become a Gardener with his own efforts.

Essence of thoughts

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.

Biography

I was born on Friday, May 24-th 1974, around 21:00 local time.

For six years I had a nice childhood.

I was forced to attend the brain-washing machine called "school", starting from 1980. From this point on, the state did its best to try to destroy me.

My inborn personality manifested all this time, particularly by rejecting "their" normality.

In 1992, 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 in 1999, 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. From the flock's / society's point of view I've failed because I didn't get in line with the program.