(Permalink) It is time for us to reappropriate politics.
Indeed, politics, according to the etymology, is the way in which we organize our society. We therefore understand its importance, and especially that everyone has the right to participate.
It is therefore our primordial affair, which belongs to all of us.
So it is up to us to make the decisions, not to «politicians» to whom we should obey.
Obedience to politicians is not democracy, it is feudalism.
It is not written anywhere that politics is a kind of soccer match or trifecta, according to the mind-numbing image of the media. This image is only a smoke screen, to lead us to disinvest ourselves from the management of our own society. We can even say, like the marxists, that this image is only useful to protect the interests of a minority. But I would rather say here that this politicking show is only the extension of the infantile ego of dominant psychopaths (chapter V-13).
But before going into more details, we have to make an observation: people are afraid of politics, they avoid getting involved, or even just talking about it with relatives. A situation which logically results in even more subjection to the politicians, further removing the solution of urgent or blatant problems.
On the contrary, people need to involve much more easily in political life: to give their opinion, to take part in meetings, associations, the drafting of agreements, etc. Without this resulting in disputes, social marking, divisions. And without waiting for absurd decisions to be imposed on us with a truncheon.
Thus we should be able to decide together things like economy, social minima, energy transition, immigration, without automatically having idiots bawling as violent as absurd opinions, which spoil the party, block any discussion and grab all the attention, when they do not straightforwardly start to imprison or kill people.
But for this, politics should be something friendly and easy to live with, which should be discussed with family, friends, at work, without the risk of seeing people getting blocked and angry.
Thus, the following sections will deal with what rots politics, then with the solutions. The continuation will be about the different neuroses of opinion, and then about complements.
(Permalink) Today (2016), most people see politics as something dangerous, which they should not interfere with, or even not discuss it with friends or family, at the risk of creating disputes, making enemies, be blacklisted at work or by the administration, etc. Or even fear of repression, arrests, etc. Indeed, even in countries which enjoyed several generations of democracy, there is still a strong fear of the GPU and other political polices, and many people fear, for example, having their phone wiretapped, or being subjected to administrative retaliation (an unfortunately founded fear, as I can testify of several examples)
For the more adventurous who look at politics through the mind-numbing filter of the media or electoral professions of faith, politics is a kind of trifecta, another game of the television, where we must vote for the candidates of the media, without really understanding the issues. And without ever winning anything, unlike the real trifecta.
This is lamentable, and probably one of the biggest frustrations we have to face in today's society. It is as serious and obscene as if we do not understand what a house is for, and we stay in the rain and in the cold, trying to protect ourself with tins and old clothes. The next chapter VI-11 will explain the manipulations which transformed this primordial activity into the shameful circus we know today.
The causes of this absurd situation are:
-The idea that the government «commands» the country. It does not command it, it serves it. Yet people obey it, as to a Lord of old, and even against their interest!
-The idea that the importance of politics would justify violence, repression, gulags, and their «democratic» variants (false accusations, arbitrary decisions, administrative harassment, files which take 50 years to be examined...)
-The appearance of a political class, similar to the nobility of the past, which purpose is to obtain social positions, and the corresponding wages. In these circumstances, the content of electoral professions or speeches is not intended to help people understand anything, on the contrary, but to please such or such category of voters, in order to get their votes.
-The idea that politicians and administrations are «serious» with their grey sadomasochistic view of the world, without vibrations, their costumes in fifty shades of grey and their authoritarian discourses, while we would not be «serious» when we talk about happiness, emotions, desires, spirituality, poetry, etc. All things which we cannot live without, and which should dictate all the political decisions.
-The manipulations of the elections, chapter VI-11
-The manipulation of the media and of wikipedia: for example, to say that the war in Yugoslavia was a war of religions, whereas everyone knows very well that the sole cause was the fascist Milosévic regime (chapter VI-12).
-Media manipulations: to mention many times some candidates, and not others. Knowing that the votes are in proportion to the number of citations in the media, it is easy for the latter to shape governments as they see fit.
-The manipulation of the media: talking about the debt as being our fault, whereas it results from a completely silly financial system (chapter VI-8)
-The «system» and the egregores (chapter VI-13)
-The dualistic attachment to ideologies, which results in the idea of incompatible and conflicting «political opinions». We shall examine these social diseases later in this chapter.
Chapter V-13 on sociopaths also describes ponerology, or how evil takes power over society. In practice, sociopaths are skilled in taking power over parties or countries.
We can summarize all these vicious and perverse activities under the name of pornpolitics ©, because they are a degradation of politics in the same way that pornography is a degradation of love. After studying pornpolitics in this section, we are to study eupolitics © in the following subchapter, this meaning harmonious and efficient methods for organizing our societies and making collective decisions (please refer to the greek etymologies, or to chapter VI-5 to fully understand the difference between these two words)
(Permalink) The following precautions can remove the causes of disputes in politics. Once this is done, people will be able to begin reconquering this area. OUR field.
(Permalink) The very first point would be to neutralise any idiotic or extremist opinion, whether in politics, social, science, spirituality or religion, inciting violence, segregation, disputes, falsehood, dangerous attitudes.
In politics: marxism (especially bolshevism, but not the ideal of social justice), anarchism (but not the liberty ideal), extreme right (even «democratic»), libertarianism (but not the ideal of concerned corporate), terrorism (any pretext any orientation), populism, oligarchy, plutocracy, exclusive nationalism, «positive law», and so on.
In religion: all forms of control, intolerance, rigid dogmatism (including atheistic fundamentalism), fanaticism, the refusal of ecumenism, sects, satanism (save special cases like the Yazidis who use this name in a different meaning), etc.
At the social level: the ideas of control, censorship, sadomasochist austerity and debt swindle, petainism (sacralisation of work and leaders), social classes, sexism, racism, conspiracy theories, manipulations, domination-submission, hazing, trolls, drugs (Including tobacco and alcohol), separation between sex and love, dangerous challenges, children without parents, and so on.
In science: pseudoscientific theories which deny or disparage consciousness, the refusal of climate change, the justification of pollution, vivisection, eternal expansion of population, and so on.
And when I say prohibition, it is not just a philosophical condemnation, but an effective remedy to immediately stop all these pathological expressions wherever they manifest. This is a matter of society. Many groups actually do it internally (often too broadly: prohibition of any politics or religion).
The reason why the prohibition is necessary, before any form of dialogue or persuasion, is that people professing such opinions are perfectly aware that they are wrong, or that they harm others, but they persist by defiance, or to «assert themselves». Any demonstration is therefore useless, as long as we cannot make them love life and truth. And experience always confirms. Well, strictly speaking, these people may understand, but it is a long process, during which we need to protect the society: do we wait that burglars «understand» before prohibiting burglary? No, we ban it first. The education work comes after.
Well, the problem here is well known: the «social sanity» approaches always led to dictatorships, often worse than the evil they pretend to ward off. The first reason is that sociopaths are always the first to seize the levers of any power, often under the nose of the very ones who built it. So the accession to any authority, political, scientific, social, judicial, spiritual, religious, social or philosophical leadership, guru, etc. must be conditioned to good mental health, proved by examinations.
But this will not be enough: the authority responsible for defining good or evil will have to be able to do so, and to do so master logical (scientific) reasoning, non-dual reasoning (chapter I-3), non-conceptual reasoning (chapter I-9) empathy and altruistic motivation. This last point is paramount, because it is the one which gives the direction!! It is this approach which I followed to write this book and create the above list of opinions to be prohibited.
If we do not fulfil the above conditions, well, it is better to abstain, and let anyone and anything express themselves... Indeed, trying to control the thought itself can only lead to Big Brother. It will therefore be enough to prohibit the public expression of these opinions, or any method for legitimizing them and gaining influence. The current chaos kills millions of people each year, but at least it leaves a chance to the good to emerge some day. While a control of thought would eliminate any possibility of evolution.
Well, I know, politicians will «not want». So that at least every one guards himself against the above opinions, and avoid their zealots, to ensure his own safety.
(Permalink) It is a fact of common observation, wherever people come together to decide collective matters: as long as nobody is acting in an hostile way, things go well, and people do politics without realizing. And they love it! Things go wrong precisely at the moment when someone begins to impose himself, blocks, gets angry or attacks. At this precise moment most people just leave.
">This can go very far: I thus knew someone who «had lived» in the French non-violent community «Arche de Lanza del Vasto» (understand: he probably was fired). This guy never raised his voice, but he had a way of «giving his opinion» in a systematic opposition, which left no chance for others, and blocked any discussion by immediately posing him at the centre. When a sociopath becomes non-violent... he makes of non-violence just another weapon for crushing others.
Thus reappropriating politics involves the resolution of conflicts, if needed by excluding people whose very purpose is to create conflict. They can even be offered treatment. We do this for sex offenders, right?
(">Permalink) It would be difficult to prevent people with similar opinions from organizing to increase their influence. Hence the political parties (or religions, organizations, enterprises, etc.). Problems arise when:
-These parties become mere tools in the hands of their chiefs (To avoid this, the members must not be submissive)
-A party maintains a neurosis of opinion (chapitre V-12) which filters reality: we not to see «our» defects, and we do not to see «their» qualities.
-The media ignore any group past a short list of parties, and other tricks denounced in chapter VI-11.
-Two parties forming a Yin-Yang dialectics consider themselves enemies (chapter I-3).
(">Permalink) Indeed, making joint decisions necessarily involves dealing with people with different opinions and divergent interests, who want to actuate different choices. The most common result is decisions which are pragmatic compromises, which thus must be accepted as they are.
However, there are often more subtle solutions than the mere compromises. Example: should halal foods be offered in school canteens? (A «fashioned» debate in 2017, but when I was a student in 1974, the university restaurants did, and nobody saw it as a «problem»). Rather than invoking «costs» or launching «great social debates» or «defending the republic» (not to mention letting racism and religious intolerance poison the discussion), a simple solution can be proposed: if school canteens are vegetarian, then no one is harmed, it is easier to organize and everyone wins. Unless one is sadistic against animals, but this is where we see the interest of banning cruel or extremist opinions.
(Note: this idea is so obvious that in France in 2017 it was proposed by several deputies and candidates, after I found it, but before I publish this chapter)
This example illustrates that avoiding clinging to the «defence of an interest» often leads to multiple or astute solutions, which ultimately better serve the interests of everybody, or offer more freedom, in a society where very different lifestyles and philosophies can coexist without hampering each other.
I elaborate a specific example in chapter VI-5 on sexuality, where diametrically opposed «interests» are found between fragile and chaste children, and adults who enjoy encounters and strong sensations. How can we guarantee the freedom of everyone without harming the others? With 1) a simple rule: «sex is private» (This is even not a novelty, hi hi hi) and 2) an easy technique to implement: meeting places with a signage telling the type of practice. Thus, everyone can find what he is looking for, or avoid what he does not like: even if a child accidentally steps on one of these signs, he can immediately understand that he must not go any further. But he does not need to know what the sign means exactly.
But the best example is in chapter VI-8 on economy: the True Transition Economy makes possible to accommodate together people with very different approaches, in a mixed society. Everyone works while taking the precautions he deems useful, depending on his greater or lesser confidence in others, or his conception of his interest, in a system which is still coherent, efficient and conducive to evolution.
(Permalink) We obviously think of egocentrism and «personal interests», which ruin the lives of billions of people. But we saw in chapter V-10 that the ego is more subtle: it is none other than the inference engine of the brain, which is to say the set of cerebral mechanisms which determine our thoughts, intentions, plans, etc. In the case of collective decisions, it tries to make us organize things in a certain way. No luck, being material phenomena, the egos cannot communicate with each other, and each has its own plan or vision! Hence disagreements without real cause, but forced to happen, if we do not control our egos. The very nature of the ego makes such disagreements happen even between people of the same opinion. Indeed everyone will want to manage the situation in his own way...
This point and the two preceding ones are a matter of psychoeducation. Only groups where people are sufficiently psycho-educated (chapter V-12) can function harmoniously, without disputes. This is why any project must include methods of psychoeducation.
Finally, pessimistic or masochistic views of politics assert that there necessarily are divergence of interest between groups or individuals. I say no, if we adopt a scientific ethic such as the one I describe in chapter VI-2 and following. Indeed, the only basis for justifying an ethic is the fundamental motivations of consciousness. The interesting point here is that following the fundamental motivations of consciousness cannot lead to conflicts, nor even to divergences of interest. Even in the case of shortages of fundamental resources, the application of the second and third principle of ethics leads to a minimum evil, which will always be infinitely better than any conflict and even democracy. (See Chapter VI-11 for the advantages and limitations of democracy)
(Permalink) «Media» means «acting as an intermediary». Intermediary between information producers (people who act or think) and those who need this information (people who organize their lives, vote, etc.)
This position allows the media to select the facts and format them, in order to influence our behaviour and our votes, according to the directives of the shareholders of the said media. And they don't avoid doing this:
-Systematic censorship of positive solutions (ecology, self-management, complementary currencies, non-violence, psychoeducation...) and total absence of any real reflection.
-On the contrary, focus on problems and sordid events, to make us feel bad and vote for extremist «solutions».
-Show politics, presented as an eternal silly confrontation between irreconcilable «parties».
-Denigration of spirituality and positive ideals.
-Showing psychologically scatterbrained people, without introspection («reality» shows).
Well, in this beginning of 2017, the media are posing themselves as firefighters (fact check) of the fires they lit up themselves (conspiracy theories, racism, extremism...). In hope it is not too late...
It should be noted that anonymous and uncontrolled «crowd sourcing» websites like Wikipedia can also be perverted like the media: we frequently find ideological interpretations, lies, biased pages or pages with a «baron».
We can theoretically imagine media which would do their job without falling into the above. This hope exists, and it is even strong: we saw it lead people to support the foundation of a newspaper like the French «Liberation». Hope quickly disappointed, in just some months, because such a project has so many stumbling blocks. There still is a movement of media criticism (for instance the French Acrimed, or Propublica). Not to mention fact check, which, interestingly, started on facebook and google, which are actually the new media of the future. Indeed we start to find there (2017) important publications censored by the traditional media.
But the ideal is simply to short-circuit the media, in order to go directly to the relevant information:
(Permalink) The interesting attitude, greatly facilitated by the Internet, is that people who have to make decisions about their lives, directly consult the sites of those who produce the necessary information, without going through intermediary media. Example: instead of hearing on TV that wind turbines are bad, we look at the scientific sites why they should be built. And everything else in the same way.
Indeed, more and more information is accessible to everybody, on the Internet, allowing everyone to approach the truth, if necessary by consulting the «divergent» information.
How does it work? Let us look at one example: is nuclear power good or bad?
On pro-nuclear sites we read the advantages of nuclear power. On an ecology site, we read the dangers of nuclear power. Who is right? Scientific sites confirm the dangers of radioactivity. On the economy sites we read that most uranium mines are exhausted anyway, while renewable energies are now cheaper. So, from wherever we start, surfing from site to site while checking and consolidating information, we all come to the same conclusion: we must stop this madness. And we can.
How does this become a «political decision»? Normally, by voting for a candidate who advocates renewable energies. Problem: today the candidates who do this associate it with even more dangerous things than nuclear power: liberalization of drugs, sectarian atheism, children without father (chapter VI-6) and so on. Be astonished why people oppose ecology afterwards.
However, we still have several levers in our everyday life: energy savings, choosing a supplier of green energy, investing in green energy, and so on. This is what the term «political ecology» really means, before the «Greens» made this word newspeak: acts of everyday life which build a different society, that is, political acts in the noble sense of the term. Thus each of us can «vote» in this way, which cannot be taken over, and which seems ultimately more effective than the self-castrating elections (chapter VI-11).
(Permalink) No candidate can propose the above points in his/her program. On the other hand, these points can be implemented immediately by each one of us. Things will evolve according exactly to what we shall do.
And if it is not started? Well, in this case, it is your job to start.
Ok, I reassure you: it is started. You were scared, don't you? :-D
(Permalink) The first thing here is that everybody involved in a given stake must be able to meet and consult together to make the necessary decisions together. This is what the «soviets» (councils, in Russian) were supposed to do, or which is done in self-management, general assembly of association, etc.
«Meeting» is not necessarily a physical encounter: the modern world created new possibilities: Internet forums, virtual worlds, and so on.
The objection here is that we cannot bring together a whole country. However, we see in chapter VI-8 on economy that the organization of economic activities fits very well with a structure which we called fractal. There are many local groups, with many stakes. Then, as the geographical scope of the groups expands, at the same time they become more specialized. Thus, each scale remains the human scale!
The same thing happens in politics, but with a difference: general decisions involve everybody. Therefore the fractal effect does not work here. However, economic decisions are contingent and variable according to circumstances, while political decisions lay down general principles which are much more stable and seldom need to be redefined.
But precisely these general principles are not things which we choose, even democratically: they also emerge from a scientific approach, which examines the consequences of our actions on the people who will undergo them.
Yes, this is a fundamental error of democracy: to think that we have to choose, and even only that we can choose, about fundamental points such as scientific theories, spirituality, or even morality, as described in this book. We cannot, for these things are determined in the world, including in the realm of consciousness. Trying to impose «political opinions» of any kind can only lead to future conflicts, because people will inevitably suffer, will be wronged and discontented. It is exactly as if we were to vote to see if gravitation exists or not. A populist vote on such a «choice» would inevitably make us... fall from very high! Presented in this way, the idiocy of voting for fundamental choices is evident: everyone knows them! Yet this is actually what people do when they vote on things like abortion (chapter VI-5), sadomasochist austerity, and so on. And they fall from very high... and accuse «the politicians» of betraying them !!
Thus any political attempt can be based only on an objective knowledge of the facts of consciousness and their consequences in society, as in this book. And we can easily verify that this is what has ensured the success of the positive groups which tried: to create a harmonious social life without conflicts or oppressive «system». Even if most of them had much more modest goals than this book.
Thus, what I write here is not speculation, it is a common and regular experience fact.
Once these sound bases established, then politics can become a pleasant, cool and appropriable domain where everyone can give his point of view and participate in decisions, without being rejected or manipulated by any «system». The great moments of the political life of a group, a region, etc. can even become great moments in everyone's life: festivals, celebrations, encounters, and artistic, economic, cultural exchanges, etc.
Such a way of doing things transforms society in depth: society is no longer a foreign or inhuman «system», but something pleasant, that we love, which supports us.
More importantly, politics, once freed from the ideologies, makes possible to deal with essential things, instead of idiocies listed on the stock exchange: nature, happiness, spirit, science, and perhaps other things.
This is how, not only politics can be appropriated by everybody, but in addition it effectively becomes pleasant instead of fearsome, a force of union instead of division, a global understanding of life, instead of ideological quarrels without meaning.
(Permalink) What so much disturbs classical politics are opinions, these terrible neurosis of opinion (chapter V-12) which make us hallucinate illusory «truths», and see imaginary «enemies». In more, dualistic opinions, which make us divide others into «good» and «bad», without nuances, justifying all the crimes: war, police repression, «class struggle», «superior races», «migrants», etc. Of course, since opinions are neurosis, created by the physical functioning of our neurons, without any intervention of consciousness, people make a lot of opinions about everything, at random, and often contradictory. (Our consciousness is nevertheless capable of eliminating neurosis and opinions, by science, free-will, psychological or spiritual training, see chapter V-12. It is quite easy, and I found how alone. But in facts few people do it). From this comes the variety of opinions on everything, although they can be gathered into a few broad categories according to the basic state of mind of the person.
Indeed, the neurosis of opinion do not appear completely by chance: according to their vibration (chapter V-17), people are more likely to contract such or such opinion, and less likely others. But the process remaining random (for example, depending on a first pleasant or unpleasant encounter), people still have lots of different opinions on everything, often incoherent or contradictory.
However, the main political orientations remain each linked to a definite vibration:
(Permalink) The neurotic attachment to capitalism results from an egocentric state of mind. The person suffering of such a state of mind seeks to take profit of others (which does not mean that all practitioners of capitalism have such a mindset: more and more do it because today it is still difficult to do otherwise). The supporters of capitalism readily present their system as «natural» and «inevitable.» As discussed in Chapter VI-11 on economy, it is not: the «market» and the inequalities it generates automatically, are the result of the competition between egocentric people, each struggling to pull the cover for them.
Contrarily to what think the marxists and left wing in general, we must understand that «the workers» are also egocentric and capitalist, contributing as much as the managers and banks to this system and to its inequalities. The proof: if they were not egocentric, they would have associated together in True Economy for long, instead of just... going on strike!
The methods of capitalism (money, contracts, wages, property...) are only palliatives, patiently developed over millennia of social life, so that people in such a state of mind can still do something useful together.
We could see in these palliatives only a form of pragmatism, if there was not a (very large) part of neurotic sentimentality: the partisans of capitalism use these palliatives to control others and prevent them from enjoying life (long working days, daylight saving time, ugly buildings, noise, poverty, pollution, domination-submission games, shame of being poor in front of «superior» people, black sadomasochistic suits, etc.)
Of course, a system which emerges only from the ego is necessarily harmful and out of control, and therefore to be eliminated without nuances. For this, True Economy (chapter VI-11) proposes an ideal economy, without ego. However, ego is not easy to eliminate, and therefore True Economy also proposes a Transition Economy, using the palliatives of capitalism (or of any other system) pragmatically, in non-Action, that is without the Neurosis of opinion.
(Permalink) In theory, the right wing should be the stable Yin counterpoint to the Yang ardours of change of the left wing, or to the revolutionary excesses. In practice, however, it is most of the time a mere force of inertia, of even a downward pull which always wants to make all our movements fall back.
What generally drives people to attachment to right wing is the taste for sadomasochistic games of domination and submission: worship of the leaders, authority, shame and submission of the plebeians to «superior» people, black or dull clothes, refusal of good vibrations (chapter V-17), fetishism of idiot social selection criteria (costume, haircut, makeup, weird heels...), control of all aspects of society, standards on everything and on nothing.
This taste for submission probably comes from ancient animal conditioning: the herd and its hierarchy, for example the cows who submit to a dominant male. These conditions are also found in chimpanzees, who form hierarchical and xenophobic tribes. It is therefore very probable that we have inherited genes which condition us to submission. And, as seen in chapter V-12 on neurosis, this submission goes very far, even to loving authority, even if it brings only suffering. Hence, this masochistic attitude of the majority, always supporting any authoritarian power, even against their interest, even if it ruins or betrays their country (war, austerity, anti-ecology, fascism, etc.).
Contrary to for instance marxism, most right wing politicians have no organized theory: their discourse, changing depending on the context (capitalism, feudalism, religion...) always amounts to an eternal opposition to any emancipation or initiative. Historically the right wing has supported all the reactions, all the divisions among peoples, all the wars, all the non-communist dictatorships, colonization, slavery, racism, inquisition, religious persecution, persecution of religions, feudalism, absolutism, oligarchy, castes, materialism, scientism, nazism, fascism, polluters, «traditional» drugs, idiotic or cruel traditions, junk food, misery, hazing, gangs, mafias, vibration-less music, dull colours, plutocracy, self-proclaimed European government, sadomasochist economic austerity, debt swindle (chapter VI-8), and so on.
Today (2016), the right supports the people in power at the moment: the new financial nobility, with their media clergy. But the right wing existed long before, and it accommodated itself equally well with other forms of power: nobility, army, feudalism, religion, antic empires, and even tribal societies with a leader.
Of course political parties with such an anti-everything program rarely have more than a few hundred members, where the left wing parties automatically gather millions. However, they get as many votes as the left wing: why then do people vote for parties which are against them? The only possible answer is: by masochistic submission to a painful authority. Hence the definition of the right wing I gave above, independent of its political discourse of the moment.
In any case, the present right wing even not represents the companies, of which it nevertheless presents itself as an emanation. For example, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon said shortly before he left office in 2016 that the business community was too involved in the fight against global warming, for the enemies of Mankind to stop them. As I write in chapter VI-8 on economics, it is the very blood of capitalism which is changing, and which ultimately proves to be the most faithful indicator of the spiritual evolution of Mankind.
Religious authority is the reason why simple believers, without any spiritual approach, vote masochistic submission to the right. And the loss of temporal power of the religious is the only reason why there are fewer «believers» today, in a world where there is yet more and more spirituality every day.
In general, it is advisable to be careful of everything which claims to be right wing. Indeed, traditional right-wing parties are useless, they have no project, no plans other than to keep power against everybody, paralysing our collective processes of political or social decision-making. The few interesting ideas and personalities would benefit from creating more positive movements.
It would be wrong, however, to indiscriminately reject everything which comes from the right wing: in front of the dangerous delusions of a disoriented left (2016) who wants to legalize drugs, change our children of gender or impose slave mothers (chapter VI-6), common sense has to find refuge somewhere. Thus the right balances the evil effects of the klipha of the left (see chapter I-4 for these technical terms). Be cautious however that it does not stirs up the klipha of the right wing: fascism.
(Added October 29, 2018): In France, the previous remark appears as a premonition: following the effort by the Marxist left to discredit itself, then by the socialists, we see the rise of a moderate new right, which does some interesting proposals, while the classical caricature right wing takes refuge in a party which name is already discredited by their American homologues: Les Républicains.
(Permalink) I also discuss marxism in chapter I-9 on ideologies, and in chapter VI-8 on alternatives to capitalism. Marxism claims to be the final result of the generous social reflections of the 19th century, when it is only their rigidifying into a single dogmatic ideology, a dreadful conception of the world frozen on an icy night of October 1917.
Adhesion to marxism results from a jealous state of mind, where everything that others have become an object of anger and guilt: to be beautiful, white, blond, rich, clever, spiritual, have big breasts, wear glasses, be the son of an army man (as I have been told many times), be American, European, Bhutanese, Tibetan, Israeli, autistic, and even a Rohan rider (yes yes I have seen this too). Marxists are ugly, embittered and incapable of enjoying life, and they cannot bear that we are better than them. This is why they create conflicts and guerrillas everywhere, so that people are sad and unhappy. If they cannot, then they engage in stalking of innocent people, trying to make them feel guilty with accusations of duplicity. Or they spread out all the horrors and injustices they can find. Marxist art reflects this state of mind: without vibration, dark, cold, tragic and masochistic, at the exact opposite of the colourful merriness of a true emancipation. This should be a sufficient clue to keep away from these people. Need more? The first casualty of the October Revolution was a piano, thrown from a window. The whole continuation followed logically.
Marxism has deceived many people, who supported it with enthusiasm, because it presents itself as a simple solution to social injustices: it would be enough to eliminate the so-called culprits designated by the ideology. Unfortunately, if we eliminate the most privileged, it automatically reappears others, through the play of competition between egos (see my study). Hence the failure of all attempts based on the elimination of certain people (communism, maoism), or even on the selection of «good» people (hippies, communities, etc.). The best proof is Cambodia, where the marxists slaughtered all the wearers of spectacles: the proportion of short-sighted people did not changed.
Told in more theoretical terms, the basis of marxism is an error of type of logic (Chapter I-5) called dualism, which produces the hallucination of seeing society separated into two groups, supposed to be the good and the evil. Hence the illusion as what it would be enough to eliminate some people to achieve a perfect happiness, and the ardour of its followers to slaughter. In reality, it never works, as the division between good and evil does not pass between people, but within each of us, between our spiritual consciousness and the delusions of the neurological thought (chapter V-10). Without forgetting of course that massacring automatically places us on the wrong side.
The reason why most marxist regimes failed in their generous aims is that their activists started with trying to reform others before reforming themselves. Thus they merely reproduced the old pattern of guilt and hypocrisy of religious fanatics, without proposing any effective method to actually become better. They considered themselves perfect, simply because of their opinions!
It should also be noted that marxism, and even the services of «certain governments», continue to restrain various political or social movements, such as the French Intelligentsia, anti-globalization, free software movement, the Greens, feminism, LGBT movement, psychoanalysis, «National liberation struggles», wikileaks, not to mention of course idiocies such as the «return to the cold war» and the massive associated campaigns of disinformation. In France, I saw it very well when I was a student, the leftists were moving towards trades such as a social worker, in order to be able to «re-educate» people. This is why I have had so many problems trying to get my children out of the sect: biased social inquiries, accusations of «religion», harassment, guilt, sexism, my children brought to secret meetings, etc. Sorry dudes, but no more than others I appreciate to be attacked for false motives.
Another subtle but also very dangerous marxist ideological virus (chapter V-12) is this feeling of having to do something urgent to save mankind. This can lead to unreasonable or terrible things, but «justified» by the coming revolution. Or the idea of an imminent change, which would justify, for example, to abandon our studies, our work, or our family. Similar ideological viruses are found in the New Age and numerous cults. Spiritually, these feelings are, at a certain point, a major obstacle to obtention.
All this makes marxism a fundamentally negative idea, to denounce, eradicate and forget.
Be careful, however, not to eradicate the ideal of social justice all together, as do the primary anti-communists. We are not primary anti-communists. We are secondary anti-communists. Our job is to liberate the social progress from the paralysing grip of marxism, and to restart the social reflections which have been under the bushel for a century now (1917-2017).
People who will analyse these books should be aware that I never was «right-wing», and thus my opposition to marxist ideology does not arise from some reactionary or capitalist mindset. What actually happened is that my early life ideals of social justice led me to consider marxism, which seemed to reflect these ideals, and to frequent this milieu which was anyway the only organized social alternative in the early 1970s. However I never formally adhered, quickly feeling not at ease with all the mental rigidity and dualism problems, at a time where understanding of non-duality was becoming available to the general public, through Macrobiotic Zen. I tried to help my mates to understand, thinking that this mental rigidity was not inherent to marxism. But it was, and when I realized I abandoned. Since I denounce marxism as a reactionary ideology which contradicts and rots so many important things.
(Permalink) The Left is in theory the heir of the social reflections of the 19th century, before they were stopped by the marxist catastrophe. In this respect, it is faithfully supported by everybody who wish for social progress, freedom, a better distribution of wealth or a more direct democracy. And there indeed would be a lot to do here, with all the advanced ideas on economy, money, business, society, ecology. This book is a contribution to this work.
The big problem, however, is that many «left» politicians today just content themselves to cash in the popular votes without actually offering anything more than the classic right wing, even going so far as to wear the same black sadomasochistic suits. And once elected, they do nothing but get their pay, taste caviar, and go to luxury restaurants when the right wing politicians invite them. Once drunk, they sign anything. Or even without being drunk, because most often they know nothing about these matters, and they ask the opinion of the «serious» right wing politicians before doing anything.
Well, this is a bit caricatural, and we certainly find more worthwhile people and positive ideas in the left. But their friends make sure to make them ineffective, or they pack them together with atheistic fundamentalism, gender theories, and so on.
The Left has an habit of defending science and secularism. However, it is a naïve victim of the phenomenon of oscillation between two extremes seen in chapter I-5: if, in the 19th century, to get rid of a bigoted and backward religion was a revolution, in the 21st century rejecting the spiritual renewal is a reaction, which as much leads to dangerous backward positions: materialism, rationalism (chapter II-6), drugs, anti-religion bigotry, atheistic fundamentalism, hijab hunt, etc. All positions which radically limit the left electorate to only the atheists. Thus the left, in order to survive without denying itself, must open to the real progress: to reintegrate the spiritual domain (and science) as the basis of its social or political ideals, and as a means to finally realize these ideals without reproducing once again the lame errors of the 19th and 20th centuries.
It is anyway difficult to do anything new on the sterile field left by marxism, with an hyper-allergic public opinion sensitised by decades of massacres and gulags. Even self-managers struggle to exist as a non-marxist left. The only ones who arrived at something are the Utopians of the 1970 years (see further on revolutions)
What could end up happening is that really advanced people end up totally rejecting this disoriented left which shoot at them in the back. This is what was to happen with ecology (the real one, the one of the 1970 years), and the reason why the left took so much trouble to infiltrate and neutralize it.
(Permalink) In whatever regime, political or religious, free or authoritarian, progressive or backward, we always find a majority of people who obey it, and accept to work for it without questioning the use of this work. And not only they obey, but in more they love this regime, and make theirs its opinions and purposes, even if these purposes are very painful for them. The cause for this fact is very well known: a majority of people develop a neurosis of submission (chapter V-12), like the cows in a herd, who make them love the dominant male. This submission can go as far as masochism: accepting and justifying the bullying by the establishment. Even in democratic elections, the simple fact that a candidate is labelled «establishment» (or «serious», the today form of «noble») is enough for him to gather a large share of votes, even if this candidate is ostensibly idiot or dangerous.
Nobody can free people from a neurosis, the only solution is that people undertake themselves a psychology and spiritual work for eliminating these neurosis, and become able to make opinions and decisions by themselves. This is the prerequisite for democracy and freedom, many years before any election.
You probably expect here that I get psychoeducation out again. But I would say that being able to think by oneself is even more basic: it is quite simply education in short, and the very reason why school and learning to read were made mandatory in the first place. Just a point was missed by the atheistic revolutions: reading the news is not enough to make the good decisions, if people have neurosis which filter facts and taint their feelings. So that any politician who claim to be a democrat or a progressive will immediately add to his program the teaching of basis of spirituality, at school and for everybody (chapter V-7).
(Permalink) Seeing the previous sub-chapter, we may think that shaking off the parasitic established order is a good thing. It certainly is, but there is a dangerous trap attached. We studied this trap in chapter I-4 and chapter I-5, and it is the very reason why we started this book with logic.
Indeed what happened with nearby all the revolutions (see next section) is that people just inverted values: atheism against religion, plebeians against nobles, workers against owners, cannabis against tobacco, etc. This is what I called an illusory revolution: simply exchanging values against others, without changing the degree of alienation to these values. In doing so, the neurotic obedience and adhesion to the ancient established order remains fully available to alienate us to the new established order. A switch which can be very spectacular and romantic to attend, but which does not really change our degree of suffering and alienation.
A similar situation happens when people take refuge in a parallel society. This is an efficient approach, which allowed science and spirituality to survive millenniums of oppression, and also allowed numerous social alternatives to exist. However the same risk appears: if we get neurotically attached to our paradise shelter, then it becomes another system, which in this case is called a sect or a cult (religious, social or political).
An useful conclusion here is that it is not the leader who makes the cult, but the neurotic submission of the members.
Another useful conclusion is that «the established order» is just a cult which succeeded.
These problems happen because politics changed, but people themselves did not changed, did not increased their degree of psychological mastery. So that the conclusion of this sub-chapter can paraphrase the one of the previous:
You probably expect here that I get psychoeducation out again. But I would say that being able to bring a real liberation from any established order is even more basic: it is quite simply education in short, and the very reason why school and learning to read were made mandatory in the first place. Just a point was missed by the atheistic revolutions: reading the news is not enough to make the good decisions, if people have neurosis which filter facts and taint their feelings. So that any politician who claim to really change things and liberate people will immediately add to his program the teaching of basis of spirituality, at school and for everybody (chapter V-7). So that people will be free to think by themselves, instead of just obeying the newspapers.
(Permalink) Populism only seeks to be elected, flattering the lowest instincts. Besides, this word is tricky, in two ways:
-It is not because we are poor that we are idiot or fascist. I am the proof of this.
(Thanks to the common government Sarkozy-Hollande for the demonstration: you lowered my retirement wage from 20%, but my IQ did not changed, so that your bully policy is a total fail)
-Unlike a popular movement, which supports the people, populism always ends up oppressing this people.
For the populists, thinking is difficult, even painful, and they are so destitute that they absolutely need to have their brains filled, even with any dirt. I have met people like this, having so much trouble thinking that they were physically tetanised. Populism can be recognised from its balderdashes, of course, but especially from the peremptory tone they are asserted. Of course, such a state of mind predisposes to extremism: fascism, marxism or religious/atheist extremism, as these extremes always seem simpler than a non-Aristotelian just milieu, or even a pragmatic compromise. It is this inability to compromise which makes the populists painful in family, and bad in business: they are thus found in the lower districts, in bistros, among the unemployed, social cases, and so on. Contrary to what sociologists say, in this specific case it is their state of mind which creates their social situation, not the poverty which makes them stupid.
While classical populism remains a very large footstool for classical fascism, it must be realized that other «modern» forms are just as dangerous:
Anti-science parasites many domains: alternative medicine, ecology, history (fictional archeology), etc. with absurd beliefs and dangerous ideas, which, with the media, can take unreasonable proportions (Anti-gluten, anti-electromagnetic waves, anti-contraception, anti-Darwinism, anti-extraterrestrials, anti-SETI, etc.), discrediting these domains and distancing serious supporters.
Conspiracy theories similarly distance people from politics, history, science, ufology (chapter VII-2), and so on. Again, the support of the media is not innocent: in such an environment it becomes very difficult to denounce genuine conspiracies (climate deniers, the power of banks, international anti-ecology and anti-social treaties).
The criticism of the politicians, justified as it may be, is a very slippery slope easily leading to extremism, despondency, libertarianism.
2017 vintage: Criticism of the system, once a tool for freedom, becomes the rejection of institutions which protect democracy and the rule of law. (French presidential elections, France 2017, where several candidates were sued for various embezzlement. Then they «criticized the system»... but they did not lost their political supports, thus demonstrating the existence of their own «system»!).
In a general way, populism is not to be taken as a serious political idea. Specific tests should easily detect the intellectual defects which produce it, for elections candidates and jobs of responsibility, yet without eliminating candidates of low IQ but high human value.
(Permalink) From a few moulds in the gutter of some dubious internet forums, conspiracy theories have been promoted in a few years to the rank of a «major political party» by the media. The basic idea of conspiracy theories, «fake news» and other «alternative facts», is that «the society» or «the system» lies on important facts, proposes a biased version of reality, or manipulates us in an underhand way (chapter VI-12). The main responsible of this frantic push are the new Internet media, fiery propagators of this piffle, that they hold as social norms, in order to hide the fantastic positive changes of the mainstream society in this beginning of 21st century.
It can certainly happen to everybody to trust a bogus source. But when this happens, we can unravel the truth by fact checking other sources, especially the people who produce the information: victims, witnesses, associations, etc. For example, the mother of conspiracy theories, the so-called Roswell extraterrestrial crash, cannot withstand a serious examination: the original FBI press release says that the «flying disk» was «suspended from a balloon», confirmed by three investigations, one by the military, one by the General Accounting Office, and one by private ufologists.
Also, the society in the years 1950 to 1980 was much worse than today, with real manipulations. But at the time nobody realized it, whereas the remaining evil today stands out in a much sharper contrast. Why then not to recognize the positive changes which are taking place today? The answer to this question leads straight toward the fundamental neurosis of the proponents of conspiracy theories and other foolishness:
Conspirationists do not like this emerging new positive society, because it wakes them out of their torpor and unhealthy little habits. Especially they do not like this moving and enthralling 21th century reality, which by contrast shows their own nullity and fatuity. So they take refuge in a dream, a dream where they are strong, a dream where they are right, a dream where they have the power to belittle others. A dream that their neurotic hallucinations (chapter V-12) will make them feel to be «the reality», all the more easily as it is based on the unobservable: imputations of intention, interpretations, deceiving appearances, etc. Or that it is «shared with others» in an «Internet bubble» which is for them a substitute of society, see a substitute of reality.
We could readily conclude that conspirationists must be deeply idiotic, or infantile, or psychiatric patients, to imagine that their dream will actually become the reality. Indeed this is often the case, but not always:
-The conspirationist knows that his speech is false, but he throws it into the face of others, as a means of «asserting oneself», of «making oneself interesting», or even pretending to «defend a cause». Which is a direct mockery against all the responsible people who actually defend positive or useful causes.
-The conspirationist may be intelligent, but profoundly manipulative and immoral. For instance a fake news webmaster, recently interviewed (March 2017), confesses cynically that he knows very well that his site is dangerous. But in his eyes the advertising revenues he receives «justify» his activity!!
(These mysterious «advertising revenues» which miraculously rain on certain sites are only an underhand way for the high finance to support such sites. The proof: a site like mine does not receive a single penny of «advertising revenues». Yet I did it right: a year at Google Adsense brought me... 10 dollars! This clearly demonstrates that ads are selectively supporting certain sites and not others. Anyway if high financial wants to support me, they can use the Paypal link at the bottom of this page, without I have to clutter my pages with picks of shoes and other bizarre advertising images. Precisely, they do not do it, QOD.)
-Of course, a sociopath will deliberately lie, to assert his ego and to place himself at the centre of the discussion.
These attitudes are not new, they always existed, in more discrete or more specialized forms. But to understand them and to name them allows to isolate them. This is how evil provides himself the energy for its own destruction.
Or how the Internet is becoming a kind of collective brain, able to clean itself.
If we keep with the metaphor of the ideological viruses (chapter V-12), we can compare conspiracy theories with ideological bacteria. Indeed, unlike viruses, bacteria have a complete genome, capable of functioning independently of an host. Similarly, a conspiracy theory is a complete and functional set of twisted «reasoning» and false «proofs», capable of bringing conscious acceptance, as with a true theory.
Thus, as with bacteria, we can propose disinfectants:
-Scientific education for all (complete, even if adapted to the level of everyone)
-Governments and elites loving the people, instead of crushing them with their superiority.
-An immunity, homologous to white blood cells, of counter-theories capable of attacking conspiracy theories one by one. Such counter-theories can easily be derived from true theories or known facts.
-However, conspiracy theories often are just opportunistic infections, proliferating wherever in society where there is a badly irrigated tissue, not receiving its share of wealth, knowledge or social recognition. Thus the most effective solution could be an alternative medicine revitalizing these parts, with more love in politics, and hygiene measures such as stopping unhealthy austerity policies and debt swindle (chapter VI-8).
(Permalink) I hesitated to place climate denial in a separate sub-chapter of the conspiracy theories, so much they have in common. Let us say that in more, climate denial actually kills people, including randomly among its tenants. Thus it more specifically results from a suicidal tendency, or from various psychiatry troubles producing an alteration of the perception of reality. Of course we also find the fascists here, who enjoy the denial of objective reality as a fantastic game of persecution (Like the sick ones in Orwell's «1984», torturing an innocent to make him admit that 2+2=5). Without surprise we also find here religious nutters who foster the affirmation of a dogma before the perception of facts.
As climate denial results from psychiatry troubles, or deliberate evil intent, it cannot be considered as «a political opinion», and its partisans must be excluded from any power or responsibility position, as for fascism. This is even rapidly moving toward being a second point Goldwin.
Advertising or promoting climate denial should even be illegal, on the same ground as promoting anorexy or suicide. For instance here is a real quote of The National Association of Anorexia Nervosa (ANAD): «Pro-Anorexia sites can pose a serious threat to some individuals, not simply because they promote eating disorder behaviors, but because they build a sense of community that is unhealthy. They lure the impressionable and persuade them that the Pro-Ana community is providing caring and nurturing advice». This can be paraphrased as (under my responsibility): «Climate denial sites can pose a serious threat to the society, not simply because they promote dangerous behaviors, but because they build a sense of community that is unhealthy. They lure the impressionable and persuade them that the climate denial community is providing responsible and economically sound advice».
(Permalink) We may be surprised to find ecology here: normally, ecology is not a «political tendency» and even less a party. Ecology is of importance for everybody in the same way, regardless of our political or religious orientation. All parties should therefore fully support environmental measures. Those who do not are dangerous nutters, who should not have a single vote.
If ecology does indeed find more an more support in all the sectors of society, including worth to note among company managers and investors, politicians are still in majority stuck in denigration, at best in minimization or electoral argumentation. Or they neutralize it with totally unrelated demands: sectarian atheism, legalization of drugs, children without a father, idiot beliefs (toxic gluten, harmful electric meters, etc.), and so on.
The history of political ecology is the one of an immense undertaking of taking over and making it newspeak, which is discussed with more detail in chapter VI-7. This situation makes that the political parties which pretend to defend it are not the ones who actually defend it: on the contrary, they rather confuse minds. Test your neighbours or work colleagues: many think that the «Greens» are bourgeois bohemians mostly busy smoking reefers. These backward clichés unfortunately do not come from climate-denier nutters, it is the image that the «Greens» actually give of themselves, when they defend the legalization of drugs, or horrors like children without parents. And this is why I never joined this party, even though I actively took part in the independent ecology of the 1970s.
Ecology is a need for everybody, that everybody must defend. However it must be based on sane scientific, social, economic, ethical and spiritual basis, if we do not want to make a new «religion» of it, and enter again in a cycle of arbitrary belief and oppression.
(Permalink) (Not to be confused with being politically neutral, for example in medicine or humanitarian action). As a «political movement», apoliticism goes much further than the mere refusal of taking a public position. It is contempt of the whole political thing, and therefore of society as a whole, like «I don't care»: indifference to the sufferings of others. This attitude has always existed, but it is found today, fuelled by the media, as a «youth movement», or «cool attitude». Of course on the day of voting, apoliticism manifests itself under its true antisocial nature, with defiant votes, or supporting the worst.
(Permalink) Fascism is euphemistically called «extreme right» because it amplifies all the sadomasochistic traits of the right and of the ideologies of power: fantasies of domination-submission, worship of sacrificial effort, arbitrary social norms, and so on. But the fascists add their own specific hallucinations: division of the world into «countries», «races», «religions», etc. (Whereas a non-fascist capitalist does not care much about these things).
There are cases of extreme dualism (chapter I-3) producing hallucinations of imaginary enemies. But what most often leads to fascism is sociopathy, hate or sadism. So that, contrarily to the right, fascists are not content with hiding from the plebeians in luxury villas: they like to have fun with actively persecuting people, finding pretexts, creating secret polices, laying accusations, torturing, terrorizing, etc. In fact, we can say that the authoritarian right is neurotic (which does not make it harmless) whereas the fascists are sociopaths (which always makes them dangerous, even when they refrain from killing or torturing).
Thus fascism (and of course any form of extremism, be it right, left or religious) is fundamentally different from the other political opinions, from its psychotic origin instead of neurotic. For this reason, fascism remains a psychiatric disease, an asocial party to be forbidden in any case. It can never be a «party like the others», even when it hides under «democratic» forms.
When we speak of fascism, we thinks of the nazis, who are in a way the ideal of all these people. However, it is a dangerous illusion to reduce fascism to only this extreme: in fact, this expression includes a whole bunch of dictatorial regimes, not necessarily violent, but which are nevertheless serious obstacles to our liberties and our lives. The relevant criterion is when appear censorship on art or ideas, persecution of clothes, religion, origin, lifestyle, etc.
Late francoism was an example of a «soft» fascism, which killed and tortured only supposed terrorists. Yet, socially, it was not better than nazism, and when it ended Spain had to pass through a recovering process.
We must also add that the fascists are not necessarily «right-wing»: for example marxists reverted racism against «Westerners», that is against the Whites.
But above all, fascism knows much better than the left to merge into the different grotty-punk cultures of the 2000 years: violent video games, halloween, zombies, sorcerers, «gothic» or «dark» music, all are just a mouse click away from the satanists and skinheads, while rap, tags and district gangs are unsurprisingly the mandatory place of recruitment for the nutters of the daesh. I was warning from these problems since 1990, and I specifically mention them in the version 1 of this book in 2000. But apparently «decision makers» prefer the daesh to my General Epistemology.
As fascism results from psychiatry troubles, or at least from a deliberate intent to harm, it cannot be considered as «a political opinion», and its partisans must be excluded from any power or responsibility position. If needed dangerous persons must be placed in institutes.
(Permalink) Any discussion of nationalism and other «identity» is a lie or manipulation, if it does not recognize that there are two fundamentally different meanings to this word:
1) The defence of a community (facing an invasion, deculturation, etc.) in a world of exchanges and solidarity,
2) The rejection of other people (migrants, races, «enemy» countries, etc.) in a world of violence and everyone for himself.
If the first sense is legitimate, the second can be rejected without nuances. However, in practice, a mixture of both is usually found. Worse, invoking the first seems to automatically arise the second. For this reason, references to races, nations and ethnic groups should be avoided, other than in concerts or country balls.
(Permalink) Of course, marxist extremists, anarchists, fascists or religious extremists, will not have the same speeches, and in any case they will not assemble. But these categories all have a common taste for violence and hatred of society, which is their first determining factor in their political choice of violence (physical or even verbal). Afterwards, their orientation to «right» or «left», «atheist» or «religious», depends on secondary neurosis.
These people are painful in politics, but also inept in family or work. Hence their habit of grouping themselves into organizations where they can compensate each other for their social inadequacies.
The only extremist I personally met were anarchists or extreme left. If nothing serious happened, I still must say that these people were all very unpleasant to live with.
(Permalink) The neurosis for entering these movements have in common the rejection of morality, and more generally of all the discipline necessary for a happy social life. For this reason, they also oppose any form of spirituality, especially religious. However, these are two totally different parties: anarchists are «left-wing», whereas libertarians are «right-wing» (hyper-capitalists, thinking, for example, that morality is a matter of personal choice, a very dangerous twist that I denounce in chapter VI-2). However, they have in common that the absence of any social, moral or disciplinary organization automatically leads to a feudal system of power from the strongest over the weakest. To call oneself an anarchist or libertarian without psychoeducation is therefore a dangerous extremist position, even if one is not violent.
(Permalink) This expression is already in itself a mind control trick. Indeed, the etymology says «a government by God», while the users of this word mean «a regime which is justified by religion». The problem is that, if God wished to govern, He would command Himself, or at least He would clearly indicate who his spokespersons are, instead of using intermediaries unable of giving proofs of their quality. So, under the guise of rejecting religious authority, this word actually rejects the Transcendence itself. All this just to take its place and replace it with capitalist authority... Variations of this word, like «integrism» or «fundamentalism», are also tricky: they insinuate that the foundation of religions would be fascist or dogmatic, while precisely we would need to return to the loving and spiritual foundation of religions. Therefore these three words are not to be used, as they actually insult those who employ them. (But I return this stick to the atheist fundamentalists, hi hi hi)
This clarification made, we can now speak of the real thing. Problem, I do not know any country which would actually be governed by God Himself. I therefore think that theocracy does not exist, and we do not need to discuss it further. On the other hand, there are countries governed by the priests of a religion, which we must therefore call papacracy, if we wish to avoid any newspeak. Now if papacracy is good of bad depends on if these priests are themselves good or bad!
Today the tendency is for political powers which are neutral in the religious domain. Nevertheless, it would be greatly beneficial to restore the spiritual foundations of politics: altruism, love, non-violence, good vibrations (chapter V-17), psychoeducation (chapter V-12), etc. and thus to entrust politics to spiritual persons. Some countries in Asia do it. In the 21st century it is not to do this which is reactionary and niny.
(Permalink) It should be reminded that the right-left game in politics has a logical foundation: in theory, the right and the left wings are placed in a quadripolar diagram (chapter I-4) between stability and order on one hand, and on the other hand, evolution, progress. Similar diagrams exist in virtually every field of politics. However this only works if people are in the top level of non-duality, where they do not take sides for one value against another. A serious political party will thus avoid such unnecessary side taking by proposing a program in which the values it defends are already harmonized in a non-dual way, without forcing us again into a century of as useless as bloody revolutions and counter-revolutions. This intelligent party will therefore act in one direction or the other, depending on what the situation demands, but always in non-action (chapter I-3), that is without neurotic attachment/rejection of either of the two values.
This is something which unfortunately virtually all politicians are unable to understand, because they are dualistic like pigs, taking side at random for or against such or such value. From there, and from there alone, comes the diversity of «opposed» political opinions, and the general state of high hogwash in this field. This incapacity places them, at best, at the level of compromises (democracy), at worst at the level of oppositions (dictatorships). We understand that this is the main brake to the evolution of society.
(Permalink) Different movements attempted to reform politics and society, sometimes on very interesting advanced bases. Generally these movements inject a considerable positive energy into society, and they move things forward... until they become new neurosis of opinion, and thus a new system, which becomes a brake in its turn.
(Permalink) Since the time of the French and American Revolutions, the old feudal-monarchical powers were replaced by republics, where the peoples chose presidents, deputies and local authorities (Some Kings and queens are still existing in theory, yet they have little power).
The idea of democracy has been a tremendous advance, but by the end of 2016 it appears that it is threatened by the techniques of manipulation of opinion (Chapter VI-11, Chapter VI-12 and Chapter VI-13). Thus it requires a significant upgrading. We speak of this in Chapter VI-11.
(Permalink) To begin with, socialism in the 19th century has little to do with the socialist parties of the end of the 20th century: it was a reflection on a better society, influenced by the French Revolution, Rousseau, Romanticism, etc. While some prefigured marxism and the left, others have prefigured ecology, by the romanticism and then by naturism. The separation between social left and romanticism-naturism was complete when all the «left» reflection was blocked by marxism. Only the self-management left remained independent (phalansteries, cooperatives), but from lack of spiritual energy they gradually melted into the surrounding capitalism.
(Permalink) Marxist revolutions all raised great hopes: to be finally free of this oppressive dominant class! Save for two small problems:
-Instead of removing a «ruling class», almost all marxist revolutions actually happened at the expense of particular social, religious or ethnic groups.
-The very idea of the «dictatorship of the proletariat» always led to dictatorships quite simply: once the levers of power are in the hands of a «representative», the temptation is too strong: nearby all the communist regimes became a dictatorships of a small group, which served its interests in the name of communism.
This situation made that almost all the communist revolutions degenerated, or were overthrown.
(Permalink) These movements existed for a long time (socialism and romanticism of the 19th century, naturism of the 1920s) but the enormous influx of spiritual energy in the 1960s and 1970s brought them back to life in completely new forms. Things began with the hippie communities: attempts to live a true socialism, or a true spirituality (both interpretations existed). However, these communities have encountered difficulties in living together without psychoeducation. These people could have developed psychoeducation. Some were talking about it, and it was while hearing these discussions that I myself started the process. But drug, marxism and atheism aborted this project.
(Permalink) Ecology (chapter VI-7) emerged as a solution to the terrible pollution and destruction of the 20th century, with technical proposals (organic agriculture, green energy, recycling, energy saving, etc.) but also with political and social proposals: direct and participatory democracy, local and self-managed lifestyles, non-violence, living close to nature, etc. As such, the ecologist movement should normally have taken the place of a left wing discredited by its compromises, its atheism and its brutal communist dictatorships. However, the Greens preferred the masochistic submission to this left, which froze ecology, as much in its evolution as in the votes. We can even say that today (2016) the majority of people with ecological sensitivity are spiritual, and thus they do not vote for a fundamentalist atheist left who speaks of repressing them, or who promotes drugs.
Indeed, the defence of nature is neither left nor right: it is a universal need.
But even before this political renunciation, the «Greens» had already severed their own spiritual roots, defending materialism, drugs, forced homosexual adoption (chapter VI-5), and so on. This is why, today (2016) people such as Pope Francis or the Dalai Lama, or independent associations such as Greenpeace and the Nicolas Hulot Foundation, much better represent ecology than the members of the «Greens». Or why Nicolas Hulot himself is so popular: he speaks of enthusiasm-raising solutions, instead of repressing people according to their religion.
Not to mention the scientists who launched the movement, and whom nobody honours anymore. The loss of scientific roots adds a lot of terrible consequences: scams like gluten-free foods, blurring of the definition of organic food, etc. (Chapter VI-7)
(Permalink) The New Age revolution took place virtually in secret, ignored by the media and society during the 1980s. The New Age has taken up the torch of free and non-denominational spirituality abandoned by the hippies. This resulted in the most beautiful artistic creations of the 20th century, especially in music and painting. New Age music (of which there are instrumental, synthetic, folk, religious variants) systematically explores the various positive vibrations (chapter V-17) associated with peace, nature or spirit. The New Age painting takes up magical or spatial themes. With the years it has diversified, with various inspirations, in particular the elves, the Celtic, or a very nice crossing with the mangas.
The problem, however, which happened with the New Age is the omnipresence of ideological viruses (chapter V-12), for instance that we have the right to write anything (as long as it looks spiritual), and it becomes «our truth». At a time when different sects were still powerful, the damage was considerable, and many followers were misled into ineffective, deceptive or dangerous techniques. Today there still are problems, and we saw more than one self-proclaimed «guru» landing in jail for financial misdemeanors or for not pretty things with children.
These conditions make that, in the end, people who have a serious spiritual approach now prefer to trust the great traditions and the authority of recognized masters (Christianity, Buddhism, Sufism, India, China). This is how beautiful things are ripening in the folds of classical religions.
It is also interesting to note that several organizations initially considered as «sects» in France are now recognized as official religions in India, for example Hare Khrishna.
(Permalink) If certain reactions are mechanical reactions to the excesses of an illusory or violent revolution, most result from conspiracies organized by the fallen powers, in order to regain their hold on us. This means that even a legitimate reaction always includes negative elements.
When we speaks of reaction, we thinks for example of the monarchist or Bonapartist reactions in the 19th century in France, or to the various racist reactions in the USA (KKK, racist murders by the police...). However, limiting our vision is dangerous: there have been several important reactions which took place before our eyes, without the media or school booklets naming them for what they are. Let us see:
(Permalink) This is technically a mechanical reaction to an illusory revolution which was supposed to bring freedom, peace, prosperity and democracy (see discussion, chapter I-5). But on several occasions were added elements of a true backward move, among others:
-The economic chaos of Boris Yeltsin
-Putin's return to the cold war
-In 2016 in Poland the attempt to recriminalize abortion (Important: before discussing this point, see the nuanced judgement of General Epistemology on abortion, chapter VI-5)
(Permalink) This is a real negative counter-revolution, organized against the ideals of non-violence and love in the years 1960-70. It is interesting to analyse it in some detail. It began with the punk movement, which presented itself as a kind of humour against the «sclerotic militants». But it nonetheless introduced the bases of a point by point reaction to the positive ideals of the time: masochistic dress style, morbid bodily changes, political lack of care, derision of kindness, derision of beauty and non-violence, denigration of the hippies, nazi signs (yes yes look in the archives of «Libération» of the time, if they dared to keep them), cacophonic music with black vibrations, etc. And it worked: while they claimed to act out of humour, everyone took them literally!
It is interesting to note that the punk movement very quickly had an important institutional and even governmental support: I remember very well seeing school education notices where the pupils were all represented in punks (It was a notice on the STD, so that it looked very dirty). Or the media taking over of words like «cool» (non-violent) to say «reactionary». Or advertising hype for Halloween, stories of sorcery, and so on. Thus the adolescents, and even children, received grotty-punkism as THE social norm, or as a «youth movement.» Hence the rapid progression of the movement, which quickly became dominant.
Then the movement diversified into different branches, as different sensitivities invested it for their own ends: skinheads, racist and sexist district gangs, «dark» music ( Black vibrations), drugs, etc. Which in the end laid the scenery for the return of the «serious» fascist parties:
(Permalink) The Europe of the immediate post-nazism was in a state of grace, from which all extreme right was banished. However, the present generations (2016) already «forgot» the Auschwitz fumes, which resulted in a «gentle» renaissance of the «foul beast». It began with «youth» movements, or «cultural» movements, such as the grotty-punk movement, fascist district gangs, dark «music styles», or «cool» populism, «youth style», «Internet style». All this invited the reappearance of the «serious» extreme right, eagerly supported and normalized by the media. Of course, this new far right, «gentle» and «republican» does not speak of «races» (yet), but it focuses on «the problems of immigration» or «of Islam», which is the same. As for their dear conspiracy theories, once enough stupids have gobbled up these hogwash, it is enough to «reveal» that the «illuminati» are in fact «the Jews», and we restart as in 1940.
(Permalink) This section is more pragmatic than the one on politics without pain. Indeed, it does not apply to an ideal situation in some future, but to the current situation in the upcoming elections. Nevertheless, it starts from the same principles: no extremes, no ideologies, no «interests», no anti-consciousness choice. And it leaves the responsibility of conflicts to those who want to create them.
It is not a party, in fact: it abstains from any «political line» which would necessarily reduce its base.
It is a gathering of cultivated people, academics, social, spiritual, and personalities oh heart, to the exclusion of those who dunked themselves in politicking. Ideally, the spiritual gives meaning, and the scientist guides the realisation.
However it has a minimum program:
-Absolute rejection of the single right-left party.
-No alliances with these parties: if votes are held, it is up to everybody to pedal in the direction of the bicycle.
-Prohibition of extremism, racism, xenophobia, intolerance, submission/rejection of society, etc.
-Selection of candidates on the basis of their competence, moral value, etc.
-No imposed costume.
-Abolition of toy children (forced adoption in inadequate families), sequestration of children in centres (autistic children), or torturing children by uselessly changing them from host family.
-Nuclear/climatic emergency: massively develop renewable energy plants: thermochemistry, aerothermics, off-shore (chapter VI-7) etc.
-Social emergency: abolition of sadomasochistic austerity policies and debt swindles (Chapter VI-8).
-Financial emergency: creation of real money, controlled by real people, for real needs, and protected from speculation (Chapter VI-8).
-Spiritual emergency: learn the methods of psychoeducation in school, and catch up for adults.
-Spiritual education: non-dual thinking, visualisation techniques, protection from autosuggestion (toxic electromagnetic waves, toxic gluten, etc.)
-Psychological education: protecting oneself from manipulation, false news, conspiracy theories, etc.
-Restore religious freedom while protecting from sects and extremists.
-Absence of stupid international positions, such as north-south or east-west division.
I discuss this program in more detail in Chapter VI-11.
(Permalink) I prefer to speak here of «innovative movement» rather than just of «revolution». Indeed, «revolution» is more specific, as this often involves a break, or even a conflict. While «innovative movement» is more general, also including more consensual or more progressive movements. Moreover, such movements may involve other aspects than politics, such as economics, ecology, morals (sexual revolution), or even techniques (industrial revolution) or the opening up of new means of expression (Printing, Internet, virtual worlds).
(Permalink) Many sociologists have studied the dynamics of such movements, how they are born, propagate, become the majority, then how they degenerate, becoming a new established order, and then a new means of control and oppression. Scientific analysis invokes phenomena of propagation, of percolation: beyond a certain number of connections in a network, a new idea «appears» and propagates without a visible origin (this is how the AIDS epidemic was revealed and propagated in the gay community in the United States, despite its origin in African poachers)
Without disavowing these useful scientific approaches, I would like to add a few entirely new and original elements emerging from the scientific considerations of Chapter V-6 and Chapter V-7: as long as the usual consciousness merely undergoes the mechanical chaining of the functioning of the neurons, then it cannot free itself from its neurosis, prejudices, and so on. Which keep it in mistakes, suffering and anti-social behaviour. An authentic innovation can occur only when the consciousness of a person is able to pass information to its brain, and to bring there elements of consciousness: science truth, ethics, meaning of life, sometimes information on the afterlife. Formerly, in societies where religion was the reference, this was called a religious revelation, and such a person a prophet. But in practice, everyone can do it, and today it is more humbly called an intuition, a vision, or even simply a new idea. All the great social ideas of the modern world have emerged according to this process, which has nothing fundamentally religious. But which is undeniably spiritual.
Once this is done, an innovative idea can bring an enormous energy (chapter V-17), through the understanding or the opportunities it offers. «Energy» here means of course that it will make people want to accomplish things, or to change other things. For example printing pushed many more persons in writing, thus greatly enhancing philosophy, sciences, novels, etc. As to ideas, they spread all the more easily as they bring energy. For example, in ecology, the simple denunciation of pollution does not bring energy. But ecological solutions like the energy transition have provided enough energy to change whole sections of society, even in capitalist companies.
After, we come back to the previous scientific considerations on the propagation of ideas: if somebody succeeds in convincing some «apostles», if the new idea or its followers are not eliminated by repression, and if it finds an echo in the concerns of the general population, or if it finds the support of some ruler or rich patron, then the new idea spreads, affects many people, and it can even become dominant.
What often happens from this moment is a process of degradation of the original inspiration of consciousness, in several ways:
To begin with, for people who hear of the idea, without being the original receiver, it is often only a neurosis of opinion among others. The person can be attached to it, and even adore it, it nevertheless does not necessarily constitute a seizure of power of his consciousness over his brain. Thus, held only by the physical determinism of the neurons, the idea can degenerate, without any more relation with its spiritual or scientific bases. Thus science has degenerated into materialism, or ecology into the gluten-free or «toxic electric meters»: ideas as false as the flat Earth, but which are neurotically accepted because they have a «green» look. Thus a person without scientific training cannot distinguish them from a true ecological idea, such as the problem of endocrine disrupters.
-Such persons adhering to an idea from simple neurotic attachment, without anymore reference to the original vision, are then unable to protect this idea from the pollution by external elements. An example of such polluting external element is misogyny, which appears in the founding texts of all the religions, despite the call of all the religion founders to love each other equally. Even scientific inspirations does not escape this kind of pollution, as with the «catholic» idea that population must grow indefinitely.
-Degeneracy of a non-Aristotelian view into an Aristotelian conceptual system, then into an ideology (Chapter I-9). In a non-Aristotelian system of thought, the process without «entropy» seen in Chapter V-7 allows everybody to easily understand the original spiritual inspiration, without error or incomprehension (without entropy). However, when the thought becomes Aristotelian, multiple sources of error appear: the process without entropy ceases to function. At this point, there are «debates», «interpretations», «currents» (entropy), which mislead the thinking of members and of external people (the case of the ecologist movement during its politicking taking over)
-As a conceptual system cannot have a demonstrable basis (Chapter I-9), once the observable basis in consciousness is lost (or in experience, in physics or medicine), then any system can be used by anybody (Marxism, politicking ecology smoking reefers, inquisition in the name of Jesus, etc.), even for purposes in total opposition with the original inspiration. At this stage, power greedy people can easily invest the movement and make of it a system of oppression (communism, Catholic fanaticism). If nobody does, then the movement simply goes down, because it has lost its original energy source and people stop investing in it (case of the hippie movement, self-destroyed by drugs and tramps (note 89) invading its communities).
-Finally a positive idea, or concepts, can be took over by dishonest people, for different purposes from the one for which they were proposed. For example the sexual liberation aiming at happiness in love has been distorted in anti-morals and rejection of the love feeling.
Here is how popular or important movements can degenerate and in turn become obstacles to freedom or to consciousness.
(Permalink) An example which foundation and history are well known is Christianity. It started from a single person without any social power or political power. He first touched a small group of «apostles», then a small local movement. This was already enough to be targetted by repression, which assassinated Jesus. However, Jesus was not a «tribal chief», and his adepts (the apostles) were not his neurotic submissives: they had already grasped the spiritual inspiration. So the elimination of Jesus could not eliminate his ideas or his movement.
In a second time, Christianity spread throughout the Roman world, thanks to travels (relatively easy at the time). Its leadership then moved statistically to the cultural and social centre of the time: Rome. That Christianity was able to survive four centuries of sociopathic repression is explained by its radical novelty, compared to the ancient religions: the promise of a paradise after death, where the Roman cult offered only a dull and sad underground residence.
However, seducing the Roman bourgeoisie needed the first priests to give up the radical vision of the almost «communist» common life of the early Christians (Acts of the Apostles), which was transformed into a simple requirement for prayer, much less «costly» than a true fraternal life of love and sharing. This could happen only because these priests themselves had lost the original spiritual vision: the interrogation of the consciousness «how to express love» was then replaced by a sterile logical analysis of the founding words. Fanaticism and ideology were also introduced during this period (Saint Irenaeus, gnostics...) as well as numerous deviations and even already «conspiracy theories» («Gospel» of Judah).
Thus, from compromise to stiffening, Christianity ended up becoming an ideology, seductive but ineffective, just prettier than the previous one. Thus, it could be accepted by the government, which made of it a dominant ideology (fifth century). From there, there was only one step to make of it a system of oppression: prohibition of the Olympic Games, repression of the ancient cults, etc. Oppression from which it emerges only today (21st century), as it has lost its temporal power over people.
Christians often validate their opinion by invoking the miracles of Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles say that the Apostles also performed such miracles after the death of Jesus. However, no miracle is mentioned later (or only sporadically, by some saints). Thus these sources precisely confirm when and by who the spiritual inspiration has been lost (or sometimes recovered).
Science undergoes exactly the same phenomena, even if it is less conducive of them than the spiritual domain. But science also has a spiritual component: the idea of rational approach (see chapter II-6 for the disambiguation of this word). And the degeneration of such a fundamental principle can have as serious effects as in religion: scientism, rationalism or technocracy are today among the main causes of degeneration of modern society, directly opposed to ecology or spiritual renewal.
The problem is less apparent in science than in religion, because it will not alter the «objective results of experimental method». But it can easily distort the interpretations and the significance of such results, and their social and ethical consequences, as much as in theology. Or more radically, decide which domain will be studied and which domain will not (chapter II-7 and chapter II-8). We could even go as far as fake «science truths» descending on base people, as unable to check them as Middle Age peasants were unable to check the discourses of the priests.
Some will scream heresy if I say that science can become in turn a kind of «religion», that is, a system of belief, and then of oppression. We are not yet there, but we observe significant steps in this direction:
-Theories arbitrarily elevated to the rank of «standard theory» (Moon formed by an impact, strings theory, genes determining our intentions, Hessdalen «scandium fires», etc.)
-Lowering level in several fields («experts» who contradict each others, «truths» based on too small statistics, publication bias, buddy referee, questionable popularisation, fake «predatory» science journals, Trojan horse «institutes», etc.).
-Increasing weakness in the front of the conflicts of interests and deleterious influence of some large companies (medicine, genetics, pesticides, Internet...)
-Lack of progress in ethics, neither to determine the right course of action nor to impose it.
-Whole domains are still ostracised (UFOs, psychophysics, consciousness, spirituality...). We even have cases of «science inquisitors» determining the «orthodoxy» of theories, and even of facts. (This is a delicate discussion, between real pseudosciences, ostracised real sciences and «official pseudoscience». See with more details in chapter II-7 and chapter II-8)
Speaking of this, I notice that my General Epistemology remains totally ignored, 17 years after the publication of version 1. Well, even standard theories were also ignored for decades. But, please, could we pass these useless childishness?
Let us remind here that the purpose of General Epistemology is precisely to avoid this drift of science: remove limiting ideologies, remove the filter (materialism) which selects «orthodox» science results, and remind that science progress in not always in a single direction, but that science can also invest other domains in different directions, sometimes totally unexpected.
Ecology at last also started from an intuition, based on exact scientific knowledge: dietetics, toxicology, thermodynamics, scientific ecology, etc. However, as many activists were rather opposed to science, knowledge of this kind has been «debated». To compensate for this weakness, the movement had to secure its bases in a system of dogmatic affirmations: the «specifications» of organic farming, impossible to modify in case of unforeseen scientific discovery (see chapter VI-7 for more details). Today this lack of control allows for the appearance of silly beliefs and scams: «toxic gluten», «carcinogenic glass wool», «harmful electromagnetic waves», «toxic meters», etc. We can reassure ourself with thinking that we are not yet in an oppression system, but this could happen very quickly: in France in 2016, when the very reactionary «loi travail» was voted in the parliament, only two Green deputies on 16 actually opposed it (by signing the two motions of censorship to block it), while other «greens» take part in the very racist hijab hunt.
-(Permalink) The leaders of the movement must be capable of non-conceptual thinking. Yes, but how to check it? Only adepts also capable of non-conceptual thinking can do so. It is only when this will be done that Mankind will stop slipping on its own turds. Reminding here that non-conceptual thinking is one of the first spiritual realizations, when we eliminate attachment to opinions and concepts. This is possible in a few years of training, with no peculiar difficulties, and should be taught at school. Non-conceptual thought is also the absolute antidote to ideologies and dualism. Teaching this should therefore be a public priority. Election candidates who do not put this into their program are not serious.
-If you do not know anybody able to check... then learn non-conceptual thought yourself.
-The leaders of a movement must be able to rediscover the founding intuition themselves. And therefore be able of basis of meditation: love, emptiness, light. And here too, the only way to check that they really do is also... to be able to check yourself.
-Non-conceptual thinking also offers some protection against taking over, since we are not attached to words or even not to concepts. Indeed only words and concepts can be taken over: people who are idiot enough for manipulating are unable to access the spiritual vision which produces them (see chapter I-9 for more exact definitions of these terms)
It is not to make pretty which I proposed to concretise my General Epistemology in an «university»: a network of people capable of non-conceptual thinking, working discreetly to spread the new foundations. Tradition used the gurus for this, but gurus ends up dying, or manipulators can imitate them: the basic followers cannot tell the difference. Only non-conceptual thought and renewed access to the realm of consciousness can perpetuate any movement.
-This is why close followers, or the hierarchy of a movement, must also be capable of non-conceptual thinking, and find again the spiritual founding intuition whenever they have to solve some unexpected problem in its light. This is also how science is maintained, by transmitting rational thought. On the other hand, a master without valid disciples sees his movement perish at his death. Or automatically degenerating into a sect, if he gave power to somebody unable of non-conceptual thinking.
(Permalink) Such a picture of the easy degeneration of any movement may seem very pessimistic. However, there is an element which does not appear in scientific or statistical analyses: fundamental intuitions can happen to anyone and anywhere. And they do not deprive themselves to happen more and more often. For example, it is noteworthy that a movement like ecology, which appeared as a tiny group in France in 1973, packed in a rag like Charlie Hebdo, could spread throughout the world in a few years, touching all the components of society, pass the iron curtain as if it did not existed, and even enter into dictatorships. This cannot be explained by scientific theories such as percolation: there was simply no open pores in the iron curtain. And at the time nobody was reading Charlie Hebdo save some youngsters of May 1968 in France.
The explanation, as we shall see in chapter VI-13 on Egregores, is that a given intuition may appear simultaneously in many persons. This is probably the most direct proof that there is indeed «something» which helps humanity, yet we cannot say what or who (See chapter VIII-9 on aid by extraterrestrials, chapter IV-6 on Logical feedback). This situation is even relatively recent (about 1967, with some antecedents in 5th Century BC). If this is indeed the case, then the feverish activity of denigration and taking over of positive movements could cost an excruciating price to its authors (far more than they are paid for their pitiful activity, in any case).
This leads to an indispensable conclusion: A simple and effective way to help humanity today is to join this meditation. Everyone can use his usual methods for this. From the little I could see, the guidelines are:
-Keep in a pure vibration, luminous, bright or pastel colours (chapter VI-9), etc. Even better, do not seek the physical sensations of the body, but the psychic sensations of yoga (the most accessible being the pranayama, the more developed ones being the Tantras).
- Do not wish the death of the bad, but that they become good. It is not to protect their bum that I say this, but for a reason which is much more important for us: our part of the job is to love everybody and to stay clean. Indeed only a tiny proportion of us actually finds ourselves in a position to take action against the bad. It is therefore useless to think of these things, it only defiles our karma and the one of society. Well, if ever you are in the 0.00007% of the population in charge of doing it, in the 0.00003% of your life to actually have a terrorist aligned with your weapon, then practice non-action without doubt or hesitation. Notice to Terrorists: Learn about non-action before you do your imbecilities.
Everyone can keep his religion or his spiritual path (it is even recommended). But in all cases one must remain in strict eucumenism. It is even better if one studies and understands the other spiritual currents. One can then use the non-conceptual view common to all (chapter I-9). It may even be the only official way to communicate in this domain.
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux.
Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.