Category Archives: society

Ideologies and group identities

Posted on by
22

I’ve seen an interesting way of thinking in the Western jurisprudence, a sort of an extreme individualism which sees every possible guilt only on a personal level, disregarding even the very concept of collectivism.

And yet we constantly see how people act in groups, with group bonds of belief and emotions, which create common thoughts and joint actions. When you have thousands of football fans breaking each other’s heads, your problem doesn’t exist on the individual level. It’s not individuals performing those actions, it’s the groups. Individuals are just instruments which the abstract group entity uses to assert its dominance, attitudes and beliefs. In that sense, nations really do exist as entities with emotions and willpower. Football clubs really do exist not only as administrative entities and players, but also as an idea that binds the fans into a group entity, connected on some very basic common denominator.

It’s very easy to get sucked into binding your personal identity with some group. When you do, it’s important to understand that you don’t become more than yourself, you become less. You don’t become something larger than yourself by identifying with a group, a group becomes something larger than it was by increasing its membership. You, yourself, simply ceded parts of your identity, and replaced your individual, personal thoughts with collective thoughts, collective emotions, beliefs and goals. It then becomes possible for you to attack people you don’t personally hate, but you hate them as part of your group identity.

For me personally, it’s interesting how I became capable of truly understanding some things about biological conditioning and inclusion of animalistic mechanisms in spirituality only after I chose to stop self-identifying as human. I literally stopped seeing my identity as part of that of human race, and started seeing myself as a separate species, that is still close enough to human to reproduce with humans, but no closer than a dog is to a wolf. I started seeing through social and reproductive strategies that were usually seen as spirituality, and my entire perspective on ethics changed. For instance, humans have no ability to tell good from evil if you separate it from what’s good and bad for humanity. For instance, if somehow some other species evolved on Earth which was far superior to humans, and the absolute karmic law would demand that humans go extinct like the Neanderthals before them, the humans would view that as evil. If an absolutely better species needed to go extinct in order for humanity to go on, humans would choose themselves. That made me think: what if all other ethical opinions commonly held by humans aren’t what God would want, but what the self-serving humanity wants? God would want sat-cit-ananda to manifest. Humanity wants there to be more humanity. That’s all there is to it.

As I said, it becomes interesting when you dissociate yourself from the group you implicitly belonged to since birth. You start noticing things, the same way you’d notice things if you dissociated yourself from some more obvious social identity, only with more profound, more liberating consequences. One of the most important things you notice is that people aren’t very interested in the truth, they are more interested at “being right”, being on the right side, and the right side is the winning side. It’s just an animalistic instinct of wanting to be on the winning side, because those on the losing side are traditionally either killed or sold into slavery. Also, if one side offers no advantages to you if you pick it, you pick the other side. Truth, reality, that doesn’t even show on your instinctive mind’s radar. Truth is what the winning side tells. Reality is that the winners live and consume resources. That’s what mankind is about, not God, not truth, not manifesting sat-cit-ananda. It’s about who gets to live, reproduce and have resources. God is what is invented to rationalize the winning side’s right to do what it does, and to allow it to keep what it had taken. If a real, true God existed who would question the order of things, he would not be acknowledged as their God. Essentially, if you had a-prefixed deities, where “a” stands for “absolute”, aGod and aSatan, and humans could choose which one is God and which one is Satan, what do you think, how would they do it? Using rational philosophy, metaphysics and transcendental ethics? Or by the criterion of being allowed to live, reproduce and consume resources?

What do you think what Allah or Jehovah are, in the absolute sense? aGod or aSatan? An entity that lets your tribe kill, plunder and rape, own sexual slaves and demands blood sacrifices, does that sound like the sat-cit-ananda Absolute that created the dual Universe in order to manifest His fullness as a multitude? From where I see it, from my non-human position, it’s either completely fabricated, made up as a sick fantasy of warlords and madmen, or it was inspired by Satan as a system of belief that will bind humans into groups that are most useful for his goals of keeping souls bound in ignorance and sin, and leading them to perform sinful deeds that will propagate their enslavement to this place.

I once heard an interpretation that a division between God and Satan is within religions and not between them; between individual ideas and concepts and not so much between whole ideologies. But I wonder. Some ideologies, as a system, seem to be consistently promoting beliefs that are conducive to ignorance, bondage and resistance to any change from that status, and people assume group identities based on those ideologies, aligning their destinies with the group vector.

So yeah, think about that the next time you cheer for your country on the football championship, when you identify with others based on what OS runs on your computer or a phone, when you identify with others based on your species, race, nation, religion or other stupid bullshit.

The only thing you actually are, is what you are when you stand naked before the spirit of God, in His light. Every other identity is a descent into some illusion or another, promoting and propagating bondage and suffering. And guess from which perspective your actions are going to be seen and evaluated when you die?

Live your life in such a way that you can stand before God, stripped of any kind of collective identity, and have God see your life as his own, something that was His manifestation in the relative world of duality. Because where you’re going, there are no football clubs, nations, races, genders or religions, and the only true judgment that is passed on any action is whether it is of God, who is sat-cit-ananda.

The flowchart of madness

Posted on by
Reply

I was thinking about hierarchy of belief and how it can cause apparently unrelated problems.

Let’s illustrate it with a flow chart which shows how a terrorist attack at a gay club becomes possible:

flowchart

Basically, you end up with very bizarre beliefs and behaviors that are a logical consequence of accepting previous, apparently logical and sensible steps. That’s how you get people who believe that Earth is flat, that dinosaurs were contemporary with humans and that Earth is some 6000 years old, but that’s also how you get people who get to believe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old. They just follow a different hierarchy of belief: for instance that the world is real, that its laws are constant, that it isn’t a simulation that’s running on some astral computer, that it all behaves linearly independent on existence of observers, etc.

If at least one accepted belief in the chain proves to be false, the final conclusion will be worthless. So when we see a terrorist who takes an AR-15, goes into a building and shoots people (whether they are gay, Jews, workers in an abortion clinic or audience at a heavy metal concert is irrelevant), we naturally think he’s fucked up in the head because his beliefs and actions are contrary to all reasonable and accepted behavior, but the thing is, you can’t just dismiss his internal flow chart. There is some decision-making process he went through and came up with those conclusions. It doesn’t happen at random. Also, people don’t just happen to join cults at random. There’s a flow chart: is there a God, are there people who know God and can lead others to God, is this guru one such person, how should one act when he meets such a person, and you end up shaving your head, wearing a saffron robe and chanting 16 rounds of Hare Krishna a day. The conclusion sounds ridiculous when you’re unfamiliar with the particular flow chart, but when you think of it, people are usually lead down the garden path of consistency with all previous steps taken, where one thing follows from another, until you get something that appears to be completely irrational.

That Muslim shooting 100 gays, he wasn’t irrational. He just accepted that there is one God, he’s called Allah, he sent a prophet called Mohamed who revealed the perfect and authoritative scripture called Qur’an, and there are also the Hadith about his life and sayings that clarify matters further, this is all authoritative and if one wants to be saved for eternal life he must adhere to those instructions.

That those internal flow charts exist is obvious; the true question is, what is yours, and what if it contains faulty premises that result in fatal errors?

Does owning guns make sense

Posted on by
3

I’ve been watching videos with Americans discussing guns. You know the drill: they want to be armed in order to protect their life and liberty, blah blah.

My question is: what is your opponent going to use to shoot back?

Let’s imagine several scenarios where a gun might be useful.

The first scenario is home defense against a burglar. Someone breaks into your house, is possibly armed, will possibly take your family hostage or harm them in some other way. Maybe it’s a personal enemy who decided to take revenge, maybe it’s a drug addict trying to steal your things in order to sell them. In this scenario, a gun is very useful. You’re not a victim, you can fight back and since you’re fighting from your known territory, the chances are you’ll win. In this scenario, the advantages of having a gun are so compelling, it should actually be obligatory to own a gun, and of course keep it locked in a safe so that your children can’t shoot themselves by accident or stupidity. The pros of owning a gun and being trained and prepared to use it for home defense so heavily outweigh the cons, it’s not even an argument.

The second scenario is personal defense in a public space. You carry a gun on your person in the street, at work or in a bar. If you’re attacked, you are not limited to your physical strength, and for women and weaker men this is a difference between being humiliated and beaten up in every physical confrontation, and being able to preserve your dignity. This is a strong reason for always carrying a firearm. However, if we imagine a realistic scenario, you’re not the only one who will carry a gun. If carrying a gun becomes the norm, it will be like the Wild West, where everyone wore a revolver like they wore pants. Altercations were very likely to turn deadly, and the fact that they were armed didn’t necessarily make people more careful, and they in fact got drunk quite frequently. So the problem is, you’re imagining a situation where you’re facing an arrogant bully, and if you have a gun, you can prevent him from assaulting you. The problem is, in a gun-friendly society a bully will always carry a gun, and a bully will practice with a gun the most. So you will basically only have normalized the escalation of violence, where you won’t have a fistfight against a stronger bully, you’ll have gunfight against a better marksman with a faster draw. In both situations you will be humiliated, but if a situation includes firearms, you’ll also be killed. Also, since the possible confrontation isn’t taking place inside your home against an invader, but in open territory, your actions will be scrutinized by a court of law even if you win. If the situation wasn’t clear, you may end up in jail. So realistically, the cons actually outweigh the pros, which is probably why American society migrated away from the Wild West model. However, there’s one situation where it’s good to be armed, and that’s a terrorist attack, of the “active shooter” variety, where you have one or multiple shooters who are indiscriminately killing civilians. If everyone is armed, this will completely discourage this form of terrorism, because it will look like an attempt of robbing a doughnut shop filled with cops. Not the brightest idea. However, have in mind that drawing a gun in an active shooter scenario makes you the prime target for the terrorists, if you’re the only one with the gun. That’s where my original question comes into play: what is your opponent going to use to shoot back? The San Bernardino shooters used AR-15 rifles and 9mm pistols. The Paris attackers used AK-47 assault rifles, hand grenades and suicide vests. Realistically, you’re going to have a pistol with you. It’s better than not having anything if you know what you’re doing and you’re lucky enough not to be killed before you can do anything or while attempting to draw the weapon, but you are still likely to be killed. If everybody is armed, your odds improve, but in that situation the terrorists are more likely to simply use the element of surprise and detonate a bomb. The better armed the target, the more likely the terrorists are to use stronger force. The worse protected the target, the more likely the terrorists are to deploy an improvised attack with light firearms or even knives. So basically, being armed and careful will help, but it will not solve the problem, because then you won’t have an active shooter problem, you’ll have a suicide bomber problem.

The third scenario is a temporary collapse of civilization due to some disaster, like hurricane Katrina, where the city infrastructure collapses, help doesn’t come quickly enough, and there’s massive looting and unrest. All the looters can be assumed to carry a handgun. Yes, if you don’t have a weapon, you potentially have a problem. However, if you do have a weapon, you will be very likely to become a looter yourself, or be mistaken for one, and killed. Also, your main problem isn’t looting, it’s having access to clean water and food, maybe medications. When you think of survival gear, think of water purification tools, not guns. The most likely thing to get you killed is diarrhea from drinking impure water, or infection from cutting yourself on something nasty and not having access to antibiotics. Here, again, the important question is what are you actually fighting? It’s lack of infrastructure, lack of essential resources, poor hygiene and looters. It might be more important to think about ways of bartering for things you need to survive than to think of survival in terms of repelling physical threats, although it’s useful to have a weapon.

The fourth scenario is one of the commonly mentioned ones, and it’s civil war against tyrannical government. Americans like to imagine it as a scenario from their war of independence, where some tyrannical force will take over, and some George Washington will assemble the freedom-loving gun owners who will start a guerrilla war against them and eventually prevail, because freedom supposedly always prevails. However, let me illustrate my point with some images.

This is Vukovar after its fall, in 1991. The Serbs are parading the streets of the fallen city, singing about their leader needing to send some salad because there’ll be meat, they’ll slaughter the Croats. All men of fighting age were either immediately shot or transported to concentration camps in Serbia where they were tortured, killed or exchanged for Serbs. The freedom loving men took up arms against the evil force, and they lost.

This is Grozny, Chechnya, 1995. The country was taken over by separatists who declared independence from Russia. The Russians were in a difficult situation, realizing that if they allow the Chechens to secede, their country might disintegrate. The Russians decided to win at all cost and, with a lot of help from pro-Russian Chechen forces, they won.

In American civil war, the South declared independence and tried to secede from the Union. After more than a million casualties and a country destroyed, the South surrendered.

If a civil war breaks out after totalitarian government takeover, there will be two realistic scenarios. Either you will be part of a small band of “terrorists” who will have little or no resources at their disposal and little or no support in the apathetic population, or you will be a part of a massive rebellion that will include a serious part of the armed forces, police and the national guard. In first case, you’re dealing with a Ruby Ridge or Waco scenario. You’ll be killed, regardless of how many guns you have. In the second case, you’re dealing with the American civil war scenario. You may win or lose, but having a gun of your own is of limited importance because if a wing of the military is on your side, you’ll be recruited into the armed forces of the rebels and you’ll be issued a rifle and other military equipment.

However, if you think you’ll be dealing with a George Washington kind of rebellion, that’s out of the question, that’s completely unrealistic. If a tyrannical government is in charge, the first thing they’ll do is create propaganda according to which owning guns is dangerous, and owning guns that are useful for military purposes is criminal, something only terrorists have a need for. They will have lists of guns and their owners, and they will send a SWAT team to your house to confiscate your weapons. You will be alone, facing an overwhelming force, and unless you run to the forest in time and become a fugitive from the law, you will be either disarmed or killed for resisting the law. The law will be what the fascists in power decide to make it. Nobody will ask you. The general population will obey the law, as always. They obeyed the Nazis in Germany not because they loved them, but because that’s was the law and that was the government. Most Americans will do the same.

I’ll tell you what the Yugoslav government did in Croatia as part of the preparation for Serbian takeover. They confiscated the weapons of the territorial defense, the guns that were supposed to be at the disposal of the people in case of war. Essentially, Croatia was disarmed. Then they began the process of the political takeover where all the power would be centralized in Serbia and dissent wouldn’t be tolerated. Nevertheless, Slovenia and Croatia declared independence and one of the first things we did was to capture the army barracks on our territory, with the little small arms that we had. We also bought weapons on the international black market. Essentially, we had to act like terrorists because the Serbs had complete control of the military. The police forces, however, changed sides, as well as some important military officers of Croatian nationality. We had to build an army almost from scratch; in the meantime, the enemy had everything from tanks to airplanes and warships. We were disarmed, but we had the advantage of every person being able to handle weapons, in Yugoslavia it was taught in schools as part of the normal curriculum, so the entire male population was able to fight as soon as they were issued a weapon. The fact that we were disarmed was a problem, but only initially. Very quickly, that problem was overcome and we crushed the Serbs militarily. So basically, it’s better to allow yourself to be disarmed initially, then bide your time, organize with a few friends, steal weapons so that they can’t be traced to you and form or join opposition forces. The initial attack at your freedom will succeed; your enemy will know what he’s doing and you won’t. He will come at you with overwhelming force. If you resist, you will lose. However, being armed isn’t the same as being prepared. If you’re prepared, you can allow yourself to be disarmed and still retain initiative and strike back later, when opportunity presents itself. Getting yourself killed in the initial power grab doesn’t help anyone but your enemy, so essentially, all those AR-15s that you Americans have at home because you’re “prepared”, be prepared to give them up, without a fight, peacefully. However, also be prepared to lay a siege on a police station later, steal the weapons and organize an armed resistance cell. That’s what civil war looks like, and forget being seen as a hero. You’ll be seen as a home-grown Bin Laden, and the general population will hate you. If this dissent manages to get support from a significant wing of the military, you have a chance.

So basically, that’s my take on owning guns with a purpose of being prepared. It sometimes helps, that’s true, but it’s perfectly useless against being dominated by a tyrannical government, because any such government will know perfectly well how to pull your fangs out. Again, ask yourself what will come for you. If it’s a burglar, no problem. If it’s a heavily armed SWAT team or a platoon of regular soldiers, what will your AR-15 accomplish beside making you a legitimate target and your death perfectly justifiable?

Challenges and mitigation of maleness

Posted on by
2

Wittgenstein said that if it is possible to communicate an idea, it should be done in a clear an unambiguous manner, or, if that is not possible, we should shut the fuck up.

It would be interesting to see his reaction to the politically correct newspeak that’s so widespread today. For instance, the word “challenge” frustrates me so much I wish to chain it to a rock in Tartarus where an eagle would eat its liver for all eternity, because of the extent of its sins against intellectual clarity.

Let’s first see where and how it is used.

A mentally impaired person is said to be mentally challenged.

A difficulty is called a challenge.

Opposition to idea or force is called a challenge.

So, what’s common to impairment, difficulty and opposition?

It’s like calling a black guy “a person of color”, although black is the absence of color, or like calling a blind person visually impaired. It tries to be sensitive and manages only to be ridiculous.

I know what the intent is. It’s that stupid positive thinking trend. If you formulate things in a way that implies possibility of positive action, it’s a way of motivational speaking. Like, every difficulty is a challenge, implying that you can overcome it if you have the right attitude.

Except it’s a form of passive aggression and can be probably the most dangerous form of sophistry ever devised. Let me explain.

If you tell a sick person that his sickness is a challenge, that might be useful if the sickness is curable. However, to tell that to someone with an incurable sickness only adds a layer of emotional suffering to his problem, because of the implicit expectation that his condition could be overcome if he were just strong enough. You’re basically telling an old person that old age is a challenge to be overcome, or a terminal cancer patient that cancer is a challenge to be overcome. It’s much less cruel to just call it a deadly illness. That way, the person at least knows it’s not his fault he’s going to die, because it’s inevitable. He can know that he did what he could and can now rest knowing that it’s out of his hands. Placing the burden of expectation on someone who has no way of meeting the expectation isn’t positive thinking or motivational speaking, it’s cruelty and insensitivity.

It’s similar with calling difficulties “challenges”. The implication is that you need to face the challenge and overcome it. However, this form of motivational speaking only makes sense if attacking the problem is the proper way to solve it. Sometimes, you need to accept that the problem cannot be solved and approach it differently, by completely avoiding it. For instance, you can call the speed of light a challenge, or you can call it the maximum speed limit. If you call it by its proper name and not some stupid motivational euphemism, you’ll be more likely to avoid the misguided attempts to go faster, and seek alternative solutions such as folding space. Implying that something is a challenge is to imply that you’re a real man only if you face it head on and overcome it, when that might be the stupidest possible way to approach it. It’s better to call it a problem or a constant or the insurmountable obstacle. Dividing primes isn’t a challenge, it’s mathematical impossibility.

And here we come to the reason why I find some uses of the word literally chilling. For instance, when some American general calls Russian and Chinese military force a “challenge” to America. Again I remember that stupid Batman vs. Superman movie, where Batman says that if there’s 1% probability that Superman could turn bad, it should be treated as certainty.

The danger of “challenge” as a motivational word is that it implies an aggressive approach. It doesn’t acknowledge one’s limits. It inhibits understanding that Russia’s power isn’t a “challenge” to America, it’s a limit of America. It cannot be overcome and it shouldn’t be attempted because a credible attempt at overcoming such a “challenge” will result in full release of nuclear weapons. It’s like seeing the fact that your neighbor has a rifle and a fence around his property as a challenge to you, and you attempt to overcome that challenge, guided by misplaced positive thinking, and get yourself shot. It’s not a challenge, it’s a limit. It’s something you don’t overcome, don’t cross, don’t go beyond, and don’t test. Instead of challenging your armed neighbor, meet him on friendly terms. Acknowledge your limits and respect his power. Don’t see his power as a challenge, see it as a given.

That’s a good example for showing how unmitigated male approach to things can be deadly. The male approach is to meet challenges head on and to overcome. It’s to see difficulties as challenges, it’s the way of thinking of a ram in a rut, trying to head-butt everything that looks like another ram. Not only is it silly, it can be very deadly when you try to head-butt a truck. There’s a good reason why biology developed femaleness; it’s because not all things can be usefully approached as challenges, because it’s much more useful to charm a neighbor than to challenge him. If he sees you as a charming and friendly person, his rifle is not a challenge to you, because he will use it to defend you as much as he will use it to defend himself. That’s the thing: powerful independent beings with guns and nukes are not necessarily challenges and opponents, they can be friends and allies. You just need to use the female approach and smile at them. However, if they try to take advantage of you, you need to apply the male approach and shoot them. That’s what I would call a balanced, realistic approach. A smile is good and a gun is good, you just need to know which to use when.

Responsibility

Posted on by
1

There’s an important thing that people today seem to misunderstand, or not understand at all, and I’d like to talk about it here a bit.

It’s responsibility.

You see, people today think they have rights. They don’t. You don’t have a right to live. You don’t have a right to be happy. You don’t have a right to feel good. Nobody really gives a shit whether you live, or you’re happy, or you feel good. When the state says you have a right to live, they don’t mean it in a sense that they give a fuck about whether you live or die, they mean it in a sense that if somebody other than the state kills you, they’ll punish him. That’s it. You don’t have a right not to be beaten up, robbed, raped and killed. It’s just that if someone does that to you, he’ll be sentenced to jail. You, however, will be having a dirt nap with blood and seminal fluid dripping from your bodily orifices. You don’t have rights of any kind, no more than that poor caged pig from one of the previous articles. The only difference between you and the pig is that when a pig fucks up, it is killed, and when you fuck up, you’re killed, and the one who killed you goes to jail if they manage to catch him and prove that he did it, and in America, for instance, in a third of the cases they don’t. So basically, your “rights” aren’t an impenetrable personal shield that glows around you and prevents all kinds of harm. They are merely a social construct that is meant to discourage inflicting harm on others by threat of retribution. If, however, you’re dealing with an attacker who isn’t bothered by law, your life is worth as much as that pig’s. You will now think that every attacker will be bothered by law, but you’re wrong. A rabid dog, for instance, couldn’t care less about the law and it might bite you. A drunk and stoned driver is too fucked up to care about the law and whether he hits you or not. A hardened criminal won’t give a fuck about the law, and, most importantly, the state won’t give a fuck about the law, because it owns both the law and you. If the state wants to kill you, you’re dead. If it wants to imprison and torture you without a trial, it will simply label you a terrorist and you’re fucked, because nobody cares what happens to terrorists, and since there was no trial where the charge had to be proven, they can call you whatever they want and get away with it. Essentially, there’s just that one simple label that makes the difference between a citizen and vermin that is to be imprisoned, tortured and disposed of in orderly manner, and the state took liberty to decide who gets labeled. So, good luck in trusting in the state to protect your rights. As far as the state is concerned, you have the right to shut the fuck up or be put in jail.

So, responsibility. You are responsible to take care of yourself. You are responsible for taking precautions against injury, theft, rape or other forms of harm. It’s your job. Once you’re fucked, it’s too late. When you’re that caged pig that is to be carried away to a slaughterhouse, it’s little comfort to you whether the hunter is to be punished by the state or not, because it makes precious little difference to you. Your job is to take precautions against being caught and killed. If you fail, you can have all the excuses you want, you can have all the emotions you want, and you can have the perpetrator punished or not, but there’s no conciliatory prize for failing.

As a spiritual being, it’s your job not to turn yourself into a fucking mess. It’s your job to take care of your spiritual condition. It’s your job to avoid mistakes, and if you still make them, to redress them and learn the lessons necessary in order not to repeat them.

Yesterday, my son came from school with a broken umbrella, and when I asked him how the hell did he manage to break it after only a week of use, he started fumbling about how it’s some other kid who bumped into him and what not. You know what I told him? I told him it’s his job to take care of his things. It’s his job to take precautions against having his things ruined. I don’t care whether it was this or that reason, because it’s always something. What I want from him is not to break things; I don’t want valid-sounding excuses for having things broken.

Everybody has a story that is supposed to excuse their shitty life before God. I’ve seen it, people literally chant bullshit in their heads about how it’s not their fault, how they had to do this or that, how it was their job and they couldn’t help it, how everybody else did the same and they couldn’t help it, how it’s normal to do things their way and if God wanted them to do different things he should have said something.

That pig, too, had an excuse. It was hungry and the pecan nuts were tasty. Nobody gives a shit.

God doesn’t give a shit about your excuses. It’s your job not to fuck up. It’s your job not to commit evil deeds. If you have to die so that you wouldn’t commit an evil deed, then die. It’s your job to live in a state of constant diligence and controlled consciousness. There’s nothing more important for you than to take care of what your consciousness looks like, to take care that it functions properly, that it isn’t contaminated by bullshit, that it is aligned with the light of God. If you take care of that, it’s easy to avoid sin, because it becomes contrary to your nature. If, however, you allow yourself to become a mess, everything becomes difficult or impossible. Sin is impossible to avoid, evil is impossible to resist, good is impossible to do. However, don’t think you’ll have a trial after you die, where someone compassionate will listen to your excuses. Nobody really needs your opinion, because all your actions and the actual reasons behind them are known to God. You might have forgotten why you did something, you might have rationalized your actions later, but God knows exactly why you did something, for every single thought, word and deed. So, there won’t be a trial, because your opinion is the most worthless form of evidence which nobody has a need for. You’ll simply get to be the result of your choices and you will filter out to the plane of existence that corresponds to that “frequency”. If you’re a saint you’ll join God, if you’re a loser you’ll move to Loserville. If you’re a slob you go to Lower Slobovia.

If you want to defend yourself and say “no, I’m not really like that”, great. Defend yourself by making choices that will clearly show you’re not “like that”. I don’t care for what you have to say. I am deaf to words, they do not move me. I care for what you choose to be, what you choose to do. I am deaf to excuses, they mean nothing to me. You know why? Because one of the first things that filled my mind when I decided that I should engage in serious spiritual practice, were excuses. Oh, I can’t do it now, because I live with my parents who are psychotic and abusive and I’m never alone because I share my room with my brother who is always working on some project there. I’ll have to get a job, get my own place, and then start my spiritual practice. It was only for a second that those thoughts filled my mind, but I instantly got it – it never ends. There’s always some excuse. There’s an excuse not to begin, there’s an excuse not to continue, there’s an excuse for failure, but the end result of having excuses will be my failure. There are no prizes for excused losers. So I immediately started meditating, at that moment. I overcame difficulties. I found ways. I invented techniques that work in difficult circumstances. I modified my mind, behavior, actions and approach in order to adapt and overcome. People think I was born with the abilities that I have now, but they are so wrong. Most of what I am now is the result of inventing ways to overcome problems in such a way that I won’t ever have to find excuses for failing, because I knew nobody really wants to listen to the excuses of losers. I’m sure there were dozens of engineers who tried to invent a brushless electric motor, and I’m sure every single one of them had an excuse why he failed and why it’s impossible. There’s also a reason why I don’t know their names and I don’t care about their sad stories, because Tesla solved the problem. I know his story.

Nobody will care to learn why you failed if you fail. It’s your job not to fail. It’s your job to find ways to avoid bad outcomes. That is the purpose of your life, the only significant thing you need to take care of; everything else is unimportant. If you don’t know how, figure out a way. If it’s impossible, invent ways that make it possible. We don’t know the stories of the stone-age men who failed to light a fire and froze to death. Nobody gives a fuck about their reasons and why it’s impossible. If it’s impossible for you, you will leave the stage and make place for those who found a way.

In any case, nobody will care about excuses. Those who succeed won’t have need for them, and those who fail are not important.