Analysis of the North Korea situation

The North Korea essentially holds South Korea hostage against American attack. If the Americans attempt to declaw North Korea by removing their nuclear potential, they will respond by a strong conventional/chemical artillery attack on Seoul. If that happens, say goodbye to Samsung and LG, to put it mildly. This would seriously threaten the technological potential of our civilization, and there’s no telling what the aftershocks would be. The threat against Japan is much less severe, because they can only reach it with rockets, and those are basically irrelevant within the estimated duration of the threat (read: from the time they hit something with the first rocket, and the time American counterforce response arrives) unless they use a nuclear warhead. This is unlikely, but not impossible, and if they succeed in detonating a nuclear weapon over either Seoul or Japan, the genie will be out of the bottle. America would be honor-bound to retaliate in kind and use either nuclear-tipped cruise missiles or nuclear gravity bombs over DPRK, which will form a precedent for the use of nuclear weapons. After that precedent is set, it’s months before someone else decides to use nukes to solve his problem somewhere else. Essentially, it’s a very steep slippery slope.

The Americans cooked up the current situation themselves, by relying on sanctions in order to attempt to humiliate and strangle the nations they hate. The sanctions increase hardships and isolation, and this further antagonizes the said nations and makes them more malignant. The best way to defuse tensions is to normalize the relations with commerce and cultural influences. DPRK is very far gone on the path of isolation and it would be very difficult to reintegrate them with the rest of mankind. They are, however, very much used to making lots of noise and making someone bribe them so that they would shut up. It’s so much a pattern, I don’t think they have any other mode of international relations, which in itself is a reason for concern, because it indicates a very deeply pathological state of affairs.

There are several ways of treating the problem. If we accept that DPRK is a given, meaning that they are what they are and we need to treat them as such, we have a very bad problem, because non-aggressive means so far did nothing to alleviate the situation because they interpret them as their enemies’ weakness, sanctions only further pathologize them, ignoring them is not an option because DPRK is in a very desperate state and will resort to increasingly desperate measures in order to initiate some response. The only remaining option is war.

If we don’t take DPRK as a given, but instead understand that societies are inherently malleable and can be influenced by incentives of various kinds, and if we understand that China under Mao wasn’t all that different from where DPRK is today, and the difference is basically that, although China continues to give lip service to Chairman Mao, they basically follow a newly carved path which has more in common with Confucian meritocracy than with communism, and that they are communist in name only, it becomes apparent that even the most closed, pathological and genocidal dictatorship can be transformed into something much more positive, within a timeframe of several decades, if they are allowed to connect with the rest of the world via trade and industry.

A sensible approach would be for China to offer DPRK a path forward – trade with them, open factories there, open lines of communication, create bilateral ties of partnership, but first seriously threaten them with complete nuclear annihilation unless they cut their foolish posturing, and actually be willing to kill them all if they do not comply. I intentionally say “China”, because South Korea, America or Japan would have less chance of success. Another reason is that if the Americans attack them, they will retaliate against South Korea and Japan. However, if China attacks them, they have no immediate response, because they can’t really hold China hostage. In fact, if they destroy South Korea and Japan, China would welcome that fact very much because those countries are both economic and political competitors. So, this would be the way to stop them while minimizing the chance for a DDPRK retaliation against the innocents.

Essentially, the best scenario would be for Americans to be so serious about wiping DPRK off the map, for China to decide it would be less harmful if they did it themselves, and if they were so serious about it that DPRK decides to opt for the path of cooperation and integration into the global community. However, in order for that to work, DPRK would need to know it has only two options, and that both are completely realistic, and no amount of bluffing will improve their position.

Another thing: people in the West act as if Kim Jong-un is the dictator in charge, which is ridiculous. In fact, he’s most likely a puppet installed by the military leadership. He was brought in, taught how to play a role, and he is more of a tool for controlling the populace, than a person in charge. The Western propensity for personalizing politics produced a potentially dangerous illusion that the person apparently in charge is the root cause of the problem. Instead, what needs to be understood is which fraction of the military controls the country, a deal needs to be made with this fraction, and Kim Jong-un needs to be taught to play a slightly different role, for which he already showed significant inclinations; he needs to be friendly with the West. In fact, I think he already made ouvertures in that directions, only to be mocked by the Western idiotic media, who didn’t understand his attempt to pull DPRK out of intellectual and civilizational isolation, and this mocking response forced him into a belligerent face-saving stance which would now be very difficult to change. Essentially, the West created the worst part of the current problem with DPRK simply because they decided to have fun bullying DPRK and its leader, which put him in a very bad position domestically, because if the West treated him so poorly, and he continued to treat the West in his normal friendly manner, it would locally be perceived as dishonorable, and obviously the military leaders would intervene in order to change his course. Essentially, by mocking him they forced him to go into a nuclear confrontation, which is a great example of dangers that stem from misreading other cultures. Now, the honorable way out would be to acknowledge his power and authority, but also to state that his belligerent stance will now have the consequence of a nuclear war within five minutes, and then offer a hand of friendship as an alternative. If there’s someone famous in the West who is perceived as friendly and positive in DPRK, that person could be used as a bridge to establish positive relations. If something is agreed with the military leadership, the DPRK propaganda outlets will prepare the populace for improvement of relationships with the West, but the Western propaganda outlets should play their part as well, and stop with their offensive bullshit, because DPRK populace is so indoctrinated into leader-worship, that any kind of offense to their quasi-religious figure is interpreted as an offense to the entire nation, similar to the way the Japanese treat their Emperor. This needs to be a dance of seduction, not a date rape, and I’m afraid that the Americans are inherently incompetent for this kind of diplomatic subtlety. The Chinese could do it, the Russians could do it, but the Americans should stay the hell out because their condescending attitude and their constant need to show everyone how much better their “way of life” really is actually created this unenviable situation, and is immensely unlikely to resolve it. This problem can only be solved by someone who speaks very softly and respectfully, smiles a lot, and has a habit of bowing in respect, but also wields MIRV ICBMs and is willing to use them at any given point. The charming ways of Putin and Xi show the way this is to be done, if at all.

Understanding meritocracy

Every time I say something somebody doesn’t like, there’s a response I can predict with reasonable confidence: I’ll be accused of some bias.

As a response to this, I made an illustration:

This picture depicts one of my photos along with the equipment that was used to capture and process it. I used a Sony camera with a Canon lens, Soligor macro extender and a Viltrox Canon-Sony adapter. The computer is a 15” Macbook Pro Retina (the last one with proper ports), and the software used is Adobe Lightroom. The picture itself was taken with Olympus E-PL1 camera with its 14-42mm kit lens and edited on my other computer, a Windows 10 desktop machine, also in Lightroom. As you can probably guess, every part of that machine was made by a different manufacturer, and I picked them according to my preference.

So, what am I trying to say here? It’s not that I don’t give a fuck about what I use. I’m actually very careful about my gear, and I know exactly why I chose something. The camera is a sensor-stabilized 35mm mirrorless device with a tiltable screen and a high-performance electronic viewfinder which allows me to get 100% magnification straight from the sensor while working in strong daylight or on the forest floor. The lens is a super-sharp unit with large aperture and excellent portrait-rendering of background blur. Coupled with the macro extender to reduce the minimum focusing distance, it allows me to make f/1.8 macro shots which are essentially controlled blur with one sharp detail. The macro extender was chosen because it’s a light plastic tube with metal mounts, and it has electronic connections that allow communication of focus and aperture commands and information between lens and the camera. The Viltrox adapter was chosen because it’s well made, the electronics are as good as the best and the most popular device on the market, but it’s much cheaper; and so on. At first it looks like a haphazard combination, but each component was carefully picked according to my very strict criteria.

That’s what I mean when I say that I’m a meritocrat. It’s the Martin Luther King kind of meritocracy – I don’t care who made it, what label there is on the box, or what color it is. I just want it to be good, to perform well and to give good results. That’s my personal bias: I hate crappy shit. I love stuff that works well. I’m brand agnostic and I can work with anything. And now the controversial part: I have exactly the same criterion for everything, humans included. I don’t give a rat’s arse about superficial criteria. I don’t care about gender, race, skin color, sexual orientation or whatever else, but I hate assholes, I hate liars, I hate stupid people, basically, I treat humans like I treat lenses. I don’t care if you’re a Canon, Nikon, Olympus or Sony. What I care about is how you render images, how you behave under pressures and rigours of daily functioning, I care how you act from day one to decades into the future. In the end, it’s all about the end-result.

Lenses, cameras, computers and people can be either good, or they can suck, and it’s never neatly organized by brand, color or some other superficial designation. Yes, people can suck. They can be worthless. They are not the same, or even alike. The same manufacturers can make equipment that’s great, and equipment that’s shit. Likewise, there are people that conform to the same superficial designation of race, gender or whatever, that can be either great, or shit. Yes, some people are worthless shit. Some people are great. And that’s how I see things. With me, you don’t have rights because you’re human. You have privileges if you’re great. And if I dislike you, you can comfort yourself that it’s because I have some bias against some group you belong to, but that’s never true. If I dislike you, it’s because I think that you, as a person, are a sack of shit.

But yeah, I also think that some groups, in general, are shit. I think there are lens manufacturers that are shit, and I am generally skeptical of anything Sony makes, because they tend to make overpriced shit that looks good on the outside but usually has serious build quality issues, and non-existent after-sale support. Guess what, that didn’t prevent me from buying their camera when they made a good one. So, what’s my punch-line here? You’re not racist if you think the Africans are, in general, aggressive retards without any sense of good taste. You’re a racist if this opinion clouds your judgment about a particular African who happens to be an intelligent, educated, kind person with excellent taste. So it’s perfectly fine to think that most members of some group are sub-par, as long as you keep judging every individual on his own merit. It’s also fine if you initially assume the worst about an individual because he’s a member of some shitty group, as long as that doesn’t stop you from allowing the individual to prove his worth. That’s my take on bias. It’s fine to have it, but you need to be a meritocrat. You need to allow the exceptions to raise up, even if you’re fully justified in having prejudice and making generalizations. Generalizations are usually all justified, but you need to have in mind that those are merely emotional representations of statistical trends, and if you look at the graph of statistical distribution of datapoints within a group, you will see two things.

First, the position of the normal part of the population justifies your prejudice. Second, the existence of datapoints beyond 2 standard deviations to the right justifies giving the group members a chance to prove themselves. This is how it would be possible for a white guy to be racist against Africans, marry an African girl who happens to be an exceptionally smart and kind person, and still be racist against Africans, because he understands that there are rules and there are exceptions. Not understanding the existence of general rules doesn’t make you tolerant, open-minded and liberal, it makes you stupid. Not understanding the existence of exceptions makes you a closed-minded person, to the point of being outright evil. Believe in the general rules, but allow for the exceptions.

The perils of universal suffrage

I would like to clarify my preference for some type of meritocratic aristocracy over democracy.

If number of votes is all that matters, and Gaussian distribution of the population applies, the end-result of universal suffrage will create the rule of the most evil kind of manipulators, who are good at exploiting weaknesses of the majority for their ends. A system of government where one would be required to display significant ability and virtue in order to have a say in anything would yield much better results. For instance, reserving the right to vote for the top 10% of population in IQ, and then selecting within this group those who pass a basic test which proves they are informed enough to know what they are doing, and requiring them to either pay a net positive in taxes, or to have served in the armed forces, let’s just say I would so like to see an election campaign targetting this kind of voters. Essentially, what I would do is require that you can’t make decisions regarding public matters if you’re stupid, uninformed and you’re not a stakeholder. If you pay more taxes than you reap benefits, then you’re the group that’s actually influenced by taxation, and that’s what government is – deciding who is taxed, and who is ordered to go into a war and die. If you have a vested interest in taxing others because that’s where you get your money from, you’re simply not to be trusted with decisions in the matter. You can’t allow the poor people to vote, because they’ll vote to take the rich people’s money and distribute it among themselves, which is easier than working for it. You also can’t allow the unvirtuous people to vote, which is why criminals should be stripped of voting rights, and you can’t allow the stupid people to vote, because they don’t know enough to make good and informed decisions, and they cast their vote based on some stupid bullshit such as “I’ll vote for her because she’s a woman” or “I’ll vote for this guy because he’s black and I’ll virtue-signal that I’m not racist”. That’s not how you can elect good government. You need to understand the policy, the consequences, and the character of the person. Most people are just too stupid for it, and those who can do it properly are rendered statistically insignificant by the sheer body count of fools that show up at the ballot box. So, basically, if someone had served in the armed forces, he knows it’s his ass on the line of fire and will not easily vote for the populist warmongers. Also, if someone earns his own income, he will not easily vote for those who would like nothing better than to squander his money.

Some say that things went downhill for the Western civilization when women got the right to vote, because they consistently voted for the leftist policies. I partially agree, but I think it’s not the women, it’s the non-stakeholders that are the problem. You can be sure that a woman whose assets are on the line won’t vote for tax increases that finance social activism. Also, you can be sure that a woman whose son is in the military won’t vote for warmongers. So basically the problem appeared where you no longer had to own property or pass a test to be able to vote, which returns us to my original criteria – people who are stupid, uninformed and who don’t have a horse in the race should not have a say. Yes, this would divide humans into a ruled class and a ruling class, and that’s good, as long as you can join the ruling class at any moment by proving you’re either competent enough to have a say, or that you’re willing to put your life in the line of fire, by joining the military. If you’re ready to die for the common good, you can vote to elect the government, as far as I’m concerned.

Soul-type diversity in humans

I once mentioned that I’m not an egalitarian, but you would probably assume wrong if you tried to guess the rationale behind this. You see, I’ve seen more diversity in souls, human or otherwise, than you could possibly imagine. Especially, I’ve seen diversity in souls that inhabit a similar body type; for instance, in a “young European woman” body type I’ve seen everything from completely generic, unformed low-astral structures, in great variety of structures and shapes, high-astral (some would call them mental) very sophisticated structures sometimes bordering on outright vajra initiation, and outright Gods on the extreme end – structures that use vajras, not only blue but even higher, as “ornaments”, while the spiritual body itself is of much higher quality, which you can’t imagine before having actually seen it. Also, within the spectrum of very similar body types I’ve seen huge variety in intelligence, from “stupid as fuck”, to “genius”, and in character, from “Satan’s asshole” to “aspect of God”. You can’t be an egalitarian if you’ve seen all this. Also, I’ve seen huge differences in typical soul-types between India and Europe. Obviously, incarnation is not a random thing. You don’t just randomly incarnate somewhere. This doesn’t mean that soul-type strictly follows a racial or a cultural group, but I did notice strong patterns. For instance, after getting used to the soul-types prevalent in India, I was shocked at the much greater sophistication and complexity of the ordinary Italians in the airport in Rome.

You would expect that the ability to see this would be exciting or entertaining. I assure you, for the most part it’s the exact opposite, because the statistical distribution of soul-types seems to follow a Gaussian pattern, which means that most of what I see is a very simplistic, coarse type that doesn’t differ greatly from the soul-types I saw in animals. In very rare cases you see something that’s not actually animalistic, demonic or disgusting. As you can imagine, observing all this, all the time, gave me my wonderful optimism regarding human nature. 🙂 Seeing the same energy-structure in a man and in a dog makes it quite impossible for me to see humans in general as my equals; if anything, I define my equal in terms of a soul-type, not a body-type.

About laws and dangers of the spiritual world

Since, obviously, in the spiritual worlds there are no material laws, we cannot measure the spiritual powers in material units. This, however, doesn’t mean that laws and limitations don’t apply.

One of the limitations is that a being cannot harm another being to the extent greater than the harm it was inflicted upon by that same being. In practice, this means that the very laws of the spiritual world take form of an invisible shield that protects beings from harm, and the only way to invalidate this shield is to sin against another being, in which case this being can retaliate, but only to the justified extent, after which retaliation no longer “goes through”. You will now ask how is it possible for an offence to take place at all if harm is forbidden by the very fabric of reality, but it’s possible. For instance, if someone attempts an obvious use of force against someone’s will, that won’t work. However, if one gives permission and his limits are exceeded, this is a form of harm. We can use sex as an example – you cannot rape someone, but you can exceed the limits of acceptable during consensual sex, and this form of harm can be retaliated against, but one cannot over-compensate.

From this, it is obvious that the main form of harmful attack is performed by trickery and illusion, by luring someone into accepting something that turns out to be harmful. This is nothing new – in Hindu scriptures, this was elaborated in great volume, and it was illustrated how even the Gods can be tricked into granting blessings that can be abused and become a source of great trouble, because once a God gives his word, he is bound by it and cannot rescind it. This allows for recursive complexity, for instance a God grants a blessing to another, lesser being, to grant or refuse access to some holy artefact. This being can be tricked more easily than God, but his grant has the power of God’s own word. Also, the artefact in question can have power greater than its guardian, and the consequences of granted access can go far beyond the scope of guardian’s normal powers and responsibilities. My highest-probability estimate is that this is how this world happened to be created. There’s a special artefact, which is basically a spiritual jewel which was crated as a remnant of God’s will in touch with the Creation, which was to grant the ability to the spiritual beings to manifest their creativity by spawning alternative realities, basically creating the modified laws under which new “universes” can be spawned. Since, obviously, one can’t be allowed to access this thing just like that, some worthy spiritual being was appointed to approve or deny requests for its use. This jewel, let’s say that it’s basically God’s power to create Universes, to control their local space and time, to adjust their laws, and this ability is bound by the desire for the beings to evolve and know God. This jewel was both created by God, and is an aspect of God, which is and isn’t separate from God. Basically, like all high spiritual realities, it contains its own paradoxes. If you will, you can call it the world engine – it’s something akin to an infinitely powerful computer which can render an infinite number of discrete Universes, inhabited by countless spiritual beings, and create realities which are both illusory and real – illusory because only God is real, and real because they can be objectively perceived and tested in all kinds of ways.

Since this jewel isn’t astral in its nature, only a control aperture (my term for this structure, BTW) is located in the astral world, and this control aperture is like a “pointer” to a memory location in programming terminology, or a ssh terminal with root access to the server. If the control aperture is closed, the astral world loses access to the jewel. However, it is the will of God for the jewel to be accessible to the spiritual beings with legitimate claims, which creates and maintains the control aperture, which is guarded by an elder.

How this person got to be appointed to the role, I don’t know. I do know, however, that there was no precedent of misuse, and that he was not inherently suspicious of requests. The problem with Sanat Kumar is that he seems to have been insane, in the sense that he didn’t differentiate between reality and his wishes, and one can’t really tell whether he’s lying. When Sanat Kumar tells you he has a wonderful plan which will create a new way for souls to evolve more quickly, under more compassionate laws, where the majority of those who would otherwise be lost would be redeemed and attain unity with each other and God, he really believes it. There seems to have been something suspicious about it, since he was granted access to the “world engine”, but in a limited way. Also, there were negotiations. He had to accept a time limit. However, he was granted non-disclosure on the exact amount of the limit; so, nobody but him and God can know the exact date of expiration. The existence of the time limit is not protected, however; one can be told that it exists. Anyone is allowed to enter his creation and experience it, by accepting his rules upon entry. I do know that I had a very good idea that it would end very badly, despite the fact that the specifics of the world’s ruleset were not known at the time. I also know that my objection was disregarded by the guardian. You can guess the rest. It all ended badly, and since the thing couldn’t be deactivated from the outside (God gave his word, remember?), some beings attempted to at least help the trapped ones from the inside, in turn becoming trapped, and attracting others who tried to help them.

So, basically, God didn’t directly grant permission for this shithole to be created. In fact, its creation and nature are so immensely against God’s will, that the guardian of the aperture apparently died – the last thing I can feel from him is great remorse, sorrow and regret for allowing this horror of horrors to take place. However, since it was his right to basically sign off on requests with God’s authority, the permission still holds.

You can see the problem. Apparently, in the astral world you can lie if you’re crazy enough to believe you’re telling the truth. Also, if you really believe that something will prove to be better than God’s design, you are believed to be acting in good intention. And God didn’t interfere much, because free will and creativity would be impossible if he immediately blocked everything he didn’t like. The analogy with sex is valid – you accept to bring someone to your bedroom, and if that person turns out to be a psychopath who starts doing crazy and disgusting shit during sex, you can regret it, but you’re fucked anyway. You can’t become un-fucked by wishing it.

I heard an argument why this world couldn’t have been created by Satan, and that’s argument by beauty: essentially, the world contains beautiful things, which Satan couldn’t have created. This argument assumes that Satan couldn’t simply copy and modify a previous structure, inheriting most of the design. Also, I myself made the argument that any being who would be qualified for the role of a devil couldn’t possibly exceed the astral level of initiation, and creation of this world required at least causal level of ability, which is a requirement for modifying the astral mahat-tattva. This argument is much better, and I discovered the basic mechanism that made this possible only recently, and only after years of unmasking layer after layer of deceptions and information-blocks. This world is a paradox – it was created by God, and it truly exists only within God’s spirit, because that’s basically what the jewel is. It’s the intent within God’s spirit to make certain forms of creativity and will-expression possible for the spiritual beings who are below God-level of initiation. Also, the ruleset which was used to create this world started from the astral template, which Sanat Kumar modified, by ordering the jewel to produce a certain kind of results. He was constrained by the necessity of staying true to the wording of the request that he made, and which was granted, so he couldn’t deviate too much into outright evil. Instead, he used ambiguity, things that will be defensible as if having been made in good intent, but which would certainly or almost certainly produce evil. The keyword was “temptation”, because you supposedly cannot show how good you are unless you are presented with a viable temptation for you to refuse or accept. The wording of his commands was such, that he managed to evade punishment for quite a while, and was only caught when he let his guard down for a fraction of a second, when he was completely sure that utmost victory was achieved.

Why am I telling you all this? I’m doing it to illustrate the dangers of the spiritual world. The danger is in consent. Your free will is supreme. Nobody can hurt you or force you against your will. However, with your consent, absolutely anything is possible. You can be deceived, trapped, hurt and destroyed to the last kalapa. In the world based on willpower, idea, consciousness and form, the creative power of a command, or a permission, is not to be underestimated. So, basically, you need to be very careful in the wording of your “spells”, because they are binding contracts. Accepting surprises is potentially deadly. Giving others permission to show you “something” is potentially deadly. Always give yourself the ability to cancel your permission or acceptance of anything at any point if it turns out to be unacceptable. Never allow anything that will modify or inhibit your memory, so that you can’t recall what you accepted or the terms according to which acceptance can be revoked. Why is it relevant? Because you were attracted by something that felt wonderful, for instance a display of the best moments of your potential life, showing you moments of sexual delight or great achievement and satisfaction, and you said “I want that”, you were asked to sign off on a contract which says that you accept all responsibility, that you will hold everyone blameless for any possible adverse consequences of your experience, that you accept the rules of the game, and that you acknowledge that you were informed that what you were shown was an incomplete experience, where only the positive achievements were displayed, but everything you were shown was true. And the next thing you know is that you opened your eyes in an ob-gyn ward, not knowing who you are and how you got here, but wanting to go back to the good place which you could no longer remember.

To be honest, a good number of you reading this are nowhere near that stupid, and you are here because you knew exactly what you’re getting yourselves into, and why. Most of you know who you are.