Laziness is Just One Part of Human Nature

Laziness is Just One Part of Human Nature

Sorry for using a monkey for this post.

People are inherently lazy. That is how I see it. The mind demands ends by the least possible means.

Being lazy works for both the extremes: the lazy poor (the one who waits dole outs) and the lazy rich (the one who feast on somebody else's labor). They all wanted ends on lesser means.

Human nature is the problem of the world.

However, why this world is still rolling is that between those extremes there lies the staying power of men who never lost self-respect and dignity and well-intended ingenuity. They are the ones who recognize that ends must be acquired through means that need honest labor and real sweat and creativity.

So if human nature is the problem of the world, human nature can still very well serve to correct it. And it is the only way. Regaining self-respect and recognizing dignity are what makes humans happy and contented deep inside.

Where Did I Come From?

Where Did I Come From?

 Do I know where or how my dream world in my sleep begin? In the same manner, am I going to find out how this thing called LIFE started?

While immersed in a dream while asleep, no matter how I try, I can't know how did I arrive there. Puff! I am there! Snap of fingers and my consciousness is all into it. All physical senses are in it. I interact within it. Sometimes I feel fear, joy, anger and sexual orgasm. But what was the state prior to being there? What brought me in there?  I found myself in a park. Did I ride or walk?

And in the same sense, will I ever know how this life came about? I eat, exercise, take medicine, talk with people, talk with myself, have sex, cry, laugh, and sleep and to dream while sleeping. I can't even remember the first five years of my life. Who am I or what am I before birth? What does the statement "Be thankful you were brought to life" means? Thankful to what? To whom? For what? Will I ever know it? Why?

I can't really know the very start of it all. A dream? A life? What is the difference? Both worlds require awareness or consciousness  to be felt. Consciousness is the only way I feel this being. Which is the real "real" then? Or are they both dreams? Or are they both real? Or perhaps are they just one? 

The eagerness of humans to decipher the origin of time or the origin of life brought him to complex analysis of the realm perceived. Lots of theories about the quest. But I wonder a lot at this moment.. Since LIFE maybe is also a DREAM, will humans ever get to realize what is constantly sought after? With all the seemingly concrete ideas about this universe...maybe...maybe... the farthest distance human will ever reach, though humans don't recognized as such, is still NOTHING.

The work of the scientists to know the beginning of time is no more than like and can never be greater than or nobler than that of a person consumed in dream sleep whose assumed character is asking "how did I get here?". A scientist and a dreaming person have no distinctions whatsoever. Both of them are dreamers. Like the unique world that happens in a dream sleep, though consciousness is spent while in it, there will be no way to know how everything really started.

Maybe I am just beginning to kick myself off the bed of unconsciousness,"HEY WAKE UP!"

Being Poor is Just a Fad, Too

Being Poor is Just a Fad, Too

... for me, being poor depends on the collective view where the definition of poverty lies. each society has its own unique scale.

during primitive time, one can be considered rich if he lives in a cave. but when house was invented and became a trend, owning a cave became a subject of ridicule.

...the feeling of being poor, and the apparent inability to cope-up with the current lifestyle and trend, which is of course set primarily by well-off class as propagated by media, are the reasons why one has to work hard or go abroad. It is the desire not to be included in the bracket of society's current classification of poor that one has to really work hard to be able to stand out.

..in economic sense, owing to the palpable gap between the one who can afford luxuries and the one who barely eats 3 times a day, poverty scale can be well understood. however, because eating three times a day, I believe was also a luxury long time ago, I found it interesting to define poverty as just the relative feeling of it. it is just a thought that goes along to what society imposed unto itself as far as the difference between what it calls poor and rich is concerned. 

... because the definition of poverty depends on social trend, the feeling of being poor is much like a fad, too.

Next: Just a Journey in the Head

Next: Just a Journey in the Head

What's in the word NEXT?
It is anything supposedly after the NOW.
Of course 'next' is a moment that will never ever come.
'Next' will always be just a journey in the head. A thought.

Freedom is knowing the Truth.
They say, "The Truth will set you free....."
And the Truth is that you can't be somewhere else;
Nowhere is your only other choice. Funny.


But don't be afraid things becoming silly. 
Just pick yourself up for a ride to nowhere.
Soon it will bring you back to where you have been all along.
And fall back to the very place you have never left at all.

Depopulation: A Way to Save the Planet?

Depopulation: A Way to Save the Planet?

Mainstream people say over-population, threatens the environment. But in a manner they intended not to be clear to the public except to say resources would be depleted soon and we need to act about it or else. Is that all? 

I have something different in mind. And it is easy to see what they really want. For every thesis, there is anti-thesis. Their thesis: OVERPOPULATION. And the only precise concept left as an effective counter to it is the word DEPOPULATION. Under-population may come just as good but not as ink-saver. So they stick with the former term only with an agreement not to be vulgar at using this term. Al Gore was very cautious not to include this term in his book in a manner counterproductive to the mainstream campaign to stem population. Using the word depopulate sound so offensive to the very party depopulation is intended for - majority of the global population, which includes you specially if you're an Asian or brown, or worse, both. 

Now, what they would use in place of the word depopulate? Easy to snipe. The hard-to-miss "SAVE THE PLANET" mantra. And along with it comes sublime messages to pull you in with your own help no-less, with your own self-overdose of self-guilt that you are not a good son or daughter of Mother Earth if you don't agree with them. That even includes going along with the new breed of CO2-hating individuals.

Another is the worthwhile Family Planning which I previously think as truly humane approach until I found out Government will pass a law for more subsidies and give business to select contractors in exchange of higher taxes to the people and more annual government deficit budget for politicians to feast on.

Depopulation is really the antidote of this pesky overpopulation. Only that they would not tell it that way. That is what they planned. Of course they wouldn't tell you that straight face because by then you would react to it heavily and will cause others to wake-up. And you wouldn't expect them to do it right away. They are not that stupid. They would do it little by little you can't notice it until someone tells you just what I do now.

Slowly but surely they would do it in every way I could imagine.  Perhaps, they will introduce hybrid-compound in bottled drinks or off-commercial shelves foods to target genes for men to grow a penis that is extra-short incapable of shooting semen in a sufficient trajectory in the uterus (just my wild thought) and will thus fail to fertilize an egg every time.

Well, my ass' hole is not itching against what they really want. And in fact I might have contributed a lot to the depopulation campaign if only they have been honest what they really want from the beginning. But hell, they think all people are stupid (of course majority are). I don't belong.

However, I don't want to end this short trash talk with a negative note. Hopeless or hopeful as it could be, I dream for us to live together with genuine love with each other. Genuine love needs no government, much less government laws and more taxes. Only that at this moment WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHO WE ARE.

The Buddhist and Libertarian Connection

The Buddhist and Libertarian Connection

What do libertarians and Buddhist have in common?

My conversion to libertarian values was a smooth ride. But if there is a word that's more appropriate, I can't really call it as a conversion. I can't recall a time wherein I was following a different set of social values apart from what I already now know as libertarianism. I know I am already a libertarian since the beginning, only that knowing it as such came a little late.

As to the Buddha part, I am no Buddhist like the skinhead monks following a strict regimen. I am more of a free-style Buddhist. I used the term Buddhist for no other reason but to convey easily what kind of spirituality, if it is to be called as a kind, I have. People are familiar with the word "Buddha" or "Buddhist" that is why I found it beneficial to use it. It would me much more cumbersome to relate my message if I am going to use the terms like Advaita Vedanta, Self, Now-ness, etc. or perhaps the more mind-intriguing concept of Non-duality. So, for the sake of easy conversation, the title Libertarian Buddhist is adapted for me to use more often.

Why Am I Libertarian? 

My understanding is that all men are equal. Individual freedom or liberty makes it so. For if it is not, it would be a contradiction to my own intuition. The intuition of this self-owned freedom must also be existing in others. Self-ownership must be a common feeling among individuals. In freedom, everybody must be seen as equal. But self-ownership which entails the freedom to do whatever I pleases to do doesn't come without the inseparable pair of my personal responsibility. Since the sense of self-ownership is also the same with every person and out of this feeling arises the need of self-protection, therefore everybody must be accorded with respect as  the same as the respect I want others accord to me. No man, group or government shall violate my liberty instead everyone must move to protect this freedom.

There can only be either liberty for everybody or no liberty at all. Libertarians cherish the idea that every man has his own liberty, thus the name. Libertarians appreciates the morality of individual freedom.

Why Am I Buddhist?

I have been a spiritual seeker for several years. And I came to understand the essence of Golden Rule. At first Golden Rule may necessarily be fulfilled through an effort by having the self-restraint from doing untoward actions to others. I call it "through an effort" for it is indeed an effort to constantly remind the mind not to be reckless. But beyond making an effort there is an understanding. When that kind of understanding comes, the effort to constantly remind the self of Golden Rule is no longer necessary. Everything would be spontaneous. However, I will not expand this discussion on that respect.

Spiritual seekers, which I may call Buddhists for the sake of discussion, eventually come to the realization  that compassion and love is all there is. The understanding that everyone is part of everything will forever diminish the seemingly powerful motivation to advance one's own self-interest at the expense of others. Abiding as the wholeness itself will render each man as not existentially separate from anything. There is only one existence and it is called in popular term, Oneness.

Why Am I Libertarian Buddhist?

The connection between libertarians and Buddhists can never be simpler. Libertarian values are centered on individual freedom thus the aim is to use freedom to let everyone flourish towards self-perfection. But because this advancement of self-perfection and freedom must not come as such it may lay prejudice and destruction to the same freedom held by others, there must be an unfailing consciousness that such realization can only be maximized when and only when at the same time the inter-wind relationships with everything and everyone is well understood.  Also, while libertarians appreciates equality and freedom in moral perspective, Buddhist comes in terms of spiritual connections. The two can't be separated I believe. Thus, I am a libertarian Buddhist.

Just Leave Socialism to Ants Alone

Just Leave Socialism to Ants Alone

I have yet to find a capitalist ant, a self-proclaimed socialist ant, an ant bureaucrat, or an ant buddha. 

In the sacred unwritten book of Ant's Socialism, the following passage can be found: "For all kinds of ants, the following edict is to be seen as spontaneous: No individual ant or group of ants must utilize, monopolize, or limit in themselves any means of food production in all for the purpose of profit. All activity must be solely for the purpose of fulfilling each colony's survival demands and all of the ants' daily needs."

Humans are really dumbfounded how to achieve that. The ants already did it. I am baffled what kind of social theory might the ants have used to reach their current state of antly affairs. Humans must be envious of the ants, don't you think? Poor intelligent humans.

The Essence of Socialism

Being true to what socialism really means, and I mean the purest form of it, my tongue carries no bud of distaste to it. It is the pro-capitalism fanatics, those with insufficient and dishonest understanding of what they are fighting against, who are the ones who bring bad color to supposedly stain-proof socialism.  Why did I say insufficient and dishonest? Because as opposed to the popular idea that if it is government then it entails socialism. It is not. USSR, though labeled Socialist did not fail because of socialism. It failed because of the stupid and anti-ant idea that  government is the only way to achieve the goal. USSR failed because it tried to utilize the very same strategy which was warned not to be used - the monopoly of control or Government. Socialism can't fail. It's the machinery employed, thought to be the way to achieve the goal, that eventually breaks down.

The rationally ill-equipped capitalism subscribers are not  the only party to blame why socialism seems to be a bad idea. The substantial portion of fault must be put unto the people who were so excited at bringing in the anticipated euphoria of communal harmony as envisioned to be attained through socialism. 

Contrary to popular belief of Marx diehard followers that it was Marx who had ignited socialism to take-off, I suspect Marx himself must be the number one to blame why socialism reached it very much opposed status today. He tried to rush everything, didn't he? What he did is to entice the proletariat, or the working class, to rise in arms against the bourgeois, the middle class and wealthy, by saying they were exploited by the latter and it is the right of the workers, the alleged creators of wealth, to take back what they made believed they own. As a result, those  laborers, who of course majority of them lacked the wisdom Marx might have, can only manage to carry on up to the point of having a trigger-happy mentality. So everyone ended-up choking each other while hypocritically thinking it was all for equality and freedom. 

Ants versus Humans

So what separated the ants from humans? What is the distinctive quality ants have or might not have why they attained the spontaneous order of their society? In comparison, what do humans have and might not have that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to emulate the ants?

I came to see the reason, I believe. But it is a rather partially disinteresting thought. But on the other side, if really sought to attain, would be the key to the promises of socialism. And it is the "elimination of the intellect". Sounds so uninteresting. But wait. Be careful not to impress upon self that such intellect be erased in the literal sense by subjecting each human to some kind of genetic manipulation, a surgery, or anything that could render the intellect incapable of creative activities.