What is the fundamental nature of this world?

What is the fundamental nature of this world? What is it, in its essence?

I don’t care about convincing the materialists who believe it’s reality, whose building-blocks are particles and forces. It’s not that I think there are no particles and forces; I just think that this universe is virtual, and its forces and particles are arbitrary. They are a consequence of the design parameters. Essentially, when you make a simulation, you first need to clarify your purpose with it, then you need to formulate ways in which this purpose is to be realized, and then you look for the means. The way I think the whole thing was made is that someone stated what kind of a universe-type he wants, the way videogame creators sit down and decide whether they want to make Candy Crush, Crysis or Witcher. Then they design the “universe” as either cartoonish, realistic (emulating the physical world) or fantastic (with magic and weird laws). Only after that’s done, the coders figure out ways in which it can be done, basically by either writing or using an existing game engine. If the engine is well done, it can allow you to explore the in-game universe without constantly bumping into the limits. Bad engines in the 1990 showed heavy pixelation when you approached the walls and other surfaces. Modern engines no longer do that, they show you detailed textures. Eventually, you get to the subatomic particles in one direction, and stars in other, if the virtual reality engine is good enough. That’s why those don’t interest me all that much. Their existence tells you either that the VR engine is well made and that part of its purpose is to pretend to be the actual reality, or that it is the actual reality. I didn’t make my conclusion based on the knowledge of physics, or lack thereof. I made it by observing things that don’t fit neatly into physics, and trying to figure the necessary prerequisites for their existence. But that’s another story. Essentially, I studied physics in 1992, and when it clicked that this universe is software and not hardware, that it’s an arbitrary specific case of a simulation, of a virtual reality, I ended my study and started concerning myself with other things, such as “now what?”.

That this reality is not primary is actually a common theme in Hinduism. Buddhism formulates things in a somewhat different way but leans in the same direction, with its understanding that there are many world-types and that a soul can reincarnate in any of them, according to its karmic structure. Christianity understands the concept of world-types, defining two basic ones, the material and the spiritual, where spiritual is then further divided into heaven and hell, and sometimes purgatory. The way religions see those many different worlds varies; some understand them as separated spaces, and some understand them as overlapping realities, or dimensions of the same reality.

I have a much more intricate way of looking at it, because I have experience with computers and operating systems, which all provide good analogies of layered, complex systems. For instance you have UNIX, which gives you different views of the system depending on whether you’re a user or an administrator. Also, you have the filesystem with various directories, mountpoints and files, and you have the running processes. Only later do you have the graphical layer, the x-windows, and window-managers with themes that make it presentable to the user. So, in theory, on the same computer you can have different user-experiences, simultaneously, and one user can play a videogame, another can watch a movie, and another can edit a picture. There are common services running in the system-space with root permissions, which a user cannot change, and which form the basis for what is possible within the userspace. On the next layer, you have applications which have their own laws, and differ greatly from each other, for instance a word processor from a realistic universe-simulation or a cartoonish videogame. Today, with our modern computers, it’s quite easy to make those analogies and to explain the virtual-universe theory. However, the people who first figured this out thousands of years ago had nothing but dreams to explain it with; they pointed out how dreams can appear to be completely real once you’re dreaming, but once you wake up they look like an illusion and something else looks like reality. Once the Matrix movie came out, those analogies went into main-stream and became ubiquitous and overused, but this movie never really makes you think in the right direction or makes the proper implications.

Based on the way an application interfaces with the user, you can make conclusions about the intents of its designer. A simulated chess board has obvious intent – it’s a way for the user to play chess with the computer without using a physical board. A console-driven image resizing tool also has obvious intent; it is to be used either directly or within scripts in order to create smaller versions of larger images, for either thumbnails or web display. An interactive global map with satellite imagery also has obvious intent and purpose behind it. Same with a moderately realistic videogame.

However, with some applications the intent is not as clear. Witcher 3, for instance, is such a realistic, deep game, it’s more of a fantasy and an alternate life for the player, than merely a game. It’s a combination of a game, an interactive movie in which you decide how the plot goes, and a way to explore an alternative universe. The intent of the game is to connect you to the emotions of the fictional characters. It has intent very similar to the emotionally dramatic movies or music, only more immersive, because you are included in the plot and the decisions are yours, so you emotionally claim them. You can be loyal or betray friends. You can save one person or another. You can help strangers or ignore them. You can stay out of politics or participate in a plot to kill a mad king. You can marry a woman who constantly bosses you around and annoys you, or one who is willing to go through sewers with you. You can kill a witch who manipulated you or offer her sanctuary. Essentially, you can make the kind of decisions that determine the character and the course of one’s life. This makes it not-really-a-game, because the decisions you make there might actually be karmically formative.

The motive for the game designers seems to be to influence your emotions and provide a genuinely immersive experience. However, what if someone pushed that far enough? Let’s say someone wanted to create an experience so immersive, you wouldn’t be able to tell it’s not “real”, whatever “real” meant, because anything you can experience is real, in a way. Witcher is real, in a way, but you know it’s a game. It’s real because it influences your thoughts and emotions, it’s real because you can experience it and participate in it, but it’s not real the same way your computer is real. It’s easy to say that something is an illusion, but if something leaves tracks in the snow, it’s certainly real, regardless of its actual nature. But if you can’t tell it’s a game, it’s a whole different phenomenon. In order to make something appear to be the reality, you need to block someone from perceiving anything beyond the scope of the simulation. You need to block sensory inputs that contradict the illusion, and you need to block all memory of existence outside the simulation. You also need to provide a convincing and gradual explanation for the experience, in a sense of “how did I get here”. The way this world works can be explained in only two ways: it’s either the reality, or it is a simulation carefully designed with the intent of pretending to be the reality.

As I said, I had my reasons for concluding the latter, and I actually had spiritual experiences confirming it in various ways. The Hindu concept of maya wasn’t just pulled out of someone’s ass; yogis formulated this concept thousands of years ago as a result of similar spiritual experiences. It’s actually something that is verifiable, if only by people with sufficient training, or in special circumstances, such as being reanimated after clinical death. But that’s always so – travel to the Moon was also accessible only to the few, and in limited special circumstances. Higgs boson is only verifiable in special circumstances and in a very limited way. The concept that everyone is able to verify everything anytime in science is nonsense. Only a few specialists can verify each others’ claims, and the rest are in a position to choose whom to believe. You can believe the Apollo astronauts, or you can believe the conspiracy theorists. And regarding the nature of reality, the materialists are in the position of the conspiracy theorists, because they need to explain why the “astronauts” are either liars, or insane. I see complete equivalence; however, it’s beside the scope of this article. I’m not trying to explain the exact reasons why I believe this place is virtual. I’m also not trying to convince those who believe otherwise. I’m explaining my line of thinking after I established that this place is virtual, to those who might have similar understanding.

My problem was that it is very difficult to assume that the person designing this place had good intentions. It has all the qualities of a combination of a trap and a prison. What it does is limit you, wipe your memory, and throw you at the mercy of others. It forces you into a very limited tree of options, where most are fatal and you tend to avoid them, and those that are not fatal are spiritually corruptive. It’s very easy to see this as a result of bad intent, and quite difficult to see it as a result of good intent. In fact, I tried very very hard for years to find ways to interpret it as a result of good intent, because the alternative was emotionally unbearable. For instance, you can see this place as a gym, as a place where you lift artificial weights in a controlled environment with the intent of growing your muscles. However, this attempt fails on the inspection of the results. If this place is intended to produce spiritual growth, it fails miserably. In fact, the souls that come out of this place are in worse condition than when they went in. All are traumatized, most are damaged, some are even outright destroyed. Basically, this world teaches you that there is no God (at least not the kind that can help you in any tangible way), that it is more useful for accumulating power to persuade and coerce others than to work on magnifying your own resources. It teaches you limitation and separation from God. It doesn’t teach you to overcome those things, it teaches you that they cannot be overcome in any way, and that you need to simply assume them and work around them. Essentially, it’s similar to LSD, which inhibits your normal neural pathways and forces your brain to establish alternative ones, basically forcing you to see dragons and talk to garden gnomes while ignoring traffic on the street, and those new patterns very quickly supplant and replace the normal ones, turning you into an utterly dysfunctional individual completely incapable of functioning in the real world. So, essentially, the way LSD fucks you up in this world, this world fucks you up for functioning in any kind of a real world that I actually experienced. Essentially, it teaches you to treat social networking, control of resources, societal and natural laws as if they are of supreme importance for survival and prosperity, while at the same time reducing your personal connection with God to the level of religion, of something you can’t base technology on, something that doesn’t feed you, give you protection or provide knowledge and growth.

In the astral world-type, God is the source of light. God is the source of knowledge. God is the source of “technology”, the way of doing things, of making structures and artifacts and spiritual entities. God is the source of nourishment, energy that refreshes the being, gives it strength and focus and energy. In higher world-types, you already learned to see yourself as God, as an aspect of That Reality, because you progressed beyond astral constraints by understanding that God is within, and that it’s your more real self, and you ceased to see God as a source of energy for yourself and your endeavors, instead seeing yourself as a manifested aspect of God, so you no longer draw light from God, you are the light of God. So, this is where the idea about this world as a gym, as a place where you train under extreme load in order to be able to function better in the real world mater, falls flat on its face. If you train to rely on everything but God, your inner instincts grow deformed. You learn to do things the way it’s opposite from useful in the real world, where you find yourself after death. You learn to communicate wrong, you learn to judge things and people wrong, you get to have wrong ideas about what it takes to move forward, and you basically need to un-learn everything you learned here in order to get where you were before you were born in this place. It reminds me of trying to learn how to use rollerblades. Knowing how to walk or how to run doesn’t help. Knowing how to ride a bike doesn’t help. You basically have to pretend you’re walking on ice and learn a completely different way of moving, turning and stopping, and every time you rely on your reflexes, on your normal way of reacting to something, you are in danger of falling. So, you learn how to skate on those, and this skill is useful only for skating. It doesn’t help you walk better, it doesn’t help you do anything else, it’s not universal, and once you remove the skates you’re not much improved, and all that at a price of high probability of injury during practice.

This is a rather unpleasant line of thought, and opens some relevant questions, such as why does such an evil place exist, and who ordered its creation? What was the intent behind it, and why was it allowed? Essentially, why did God allow this abomination to be created, and why did he not put an end to it? There are actually several good explanations, one by the Cathari, and the other by a Christian psychic by the name of Katarina, and put forward by B.D.Benedikt. The Cathari explanation is that this world was created by Satan as an evil mockery, and that God created the Heaven as the real world, and Satan created this world to entrap souls and divert them from God. Katarina’s explanation is that Satan didn’t really create this world because he lacks the ability, but it was he who seduced the souls into following him here, away from God, by tricking them into believing that this world will provide them with the necessary kind of experiences due to which they will evolve and become like God. Also, there’s the Yazidi belief that this world is under the authority of the “Peacock Angel”, the Theosophical belief that this world is governed by Sanat Kumar, and Jesus’ belief that this world is given at least temporarily into the power of Satan, “the prince of this world”. Buddha said that this world is governed by Mara, a Satan-like entity that tries to entangle beings here and make them perpetual slaves. Essentially, I can’t really think of many religions that believe that this world is actually governed by God, and yet that’s the first thing people instinctively assume, that God made this place, that He’s in charge, and therefore that He’s ultimately responsible for all the horrible things that take place here.

I started making progress in my thinking once I allowed myself to stop assuming that God had to be ultimately responsible and in power over everything. Once I did that, I allowed myself to accept the possibility that something is really fucked up and wrong, without automatically blaming God for it. On the other hand, I literally saw God under the thin layer of illusion that is this world. I couldn’t pretend that this world is the reality, or that God had nothing to do with it. In fact, I could more easily argue that this world has no other existence, but as an idea within God’s mind. Yet, this world is a completely fucked up mockery. It’s as if it was designed by Satan, and yet it is maintained by God. This makes no sense unless you stop thinking about those things in religious terms, and start thinking about them in terms of software and operating systems. Someone created the computer. Someone else created the operating system. Someone else bought the computer, installed the operating system, and applies both to some super-crazy and harmful purpose. It’s wrong to ask whether the computers are evil, whether the designers of the hardware and the OS are evil, and why they allow it. Sometimes, things just happen because they can. You wouldn’t think that the result of all the smart and benevolent people inventing the computers, the software and the networking would be porn and hateful chats, but that’s how it got to be used by the end-users. You give them something, and the first thing they test is whether they can eat it, fuck it or whack someone with it.

So, what something ends up being used for is not necessarily by design, and it’s not necessarily condoned by those who made the system. Hell, if you host a botnet and use it to DDOS someone, it’s not necessarily even known by the owners of the actual machines that have the bots installed on them, and even if they knew about it, it’s questionable whether they could turn them off. So, we need to understand that some things can be the result of abuse, and that some form of abuse cannot be easily prevented or stopped by the people whom you expect to be in charge.

So, I gradually worked on disentangling this unholy mess and both figuring out how this came to be, and what could be done about it.

The results sound weird even to me, but here’s how the story goes. Metaphorically speaking, when God created all the relative existence, he wanted to allow the souls access to His creative ability, in cases where they would lack the power and knowledge to create a different world-type. Essentially, it’s like leaving a computer terminal accessible to those who are granted access by the librarian, so that they could access the books in the library. You assume that the librarian will be able to figure out who has honest intentions, and who is there only for mischief, and you assume that people are in the library for honest purposes, especially if nobody before did anything wrong. The security tends to be lax and superficial. So, let’s say this is a special library, and the computer terminal is more akin to the way David Bowman communicates with HAL 9000. You have some kind of an access point from which a superior intelligence interfaces with you and gets your orders. Let’s say this intelligence is merely a thin wrapper over God’s intent and power, directed to serve some specific purpose. Let’s say it’s designed and ordered by God to do what the people authorized by the librarian ordered it to do, without passing judgment. Let’s say this intelligence can create a new world-type as easily as you can open a text document on your computer, or, more precisely, it can be ordered to create a new application to process a new type of document, which is neither text nor music nor video, but for instance a web page containing all of the above. Let’s say it can be ordered to design a music player that inherits all the properties of a normal music player, but instead of playing sound on the speakers, it can print the waveform on a plotter. Or it can be designed to play movies as ASCII graphics. You get the picture. You don’t need to be much of a programmer in order to create apparently spectacular results. What you need is access to this power, an existing template to modify, and a few sentences of instructions. You can essentially be a very limited being, in both spiritual grasp and in power, and yet you can wield God’s power to create universes. Just imagine today’s kids with smartphones – they’re as stupid as rocks, to the point where some believe the Earth is flat, and yet they have a supercomputer in their pocket which triangulates their location from either the base stations or the geostationary satellites in high orbit, completely without their knowledge and completely beyond their intellectual scope, and what they perceive is their position on a map. Essentially, it is today possible to use tools that are both smarter and more capable than yourself, at least in some things, and so it shouldn’t be all that difficult to understand what I’m trying to describe.

So, in order for this nightmare to take place, several things needed to happen. First, God needed to assume that the beings would create other Universe-types in order to explore His infinite creativity, to experience things that would not be as easy in the worlds He created; and he needed to assume good intentions and good behavior, because obviously, according to the karmic law any abuse would have had grave consequences which nobody in his right mind would want to endure. Then, he had to appoint a guardian to limit access to such capability, and He had to trust his judgment and experience. There would then have to be a being which is seriously messed up spiritually, who wanted to prove some very psychotic theory, who is so crazy that he actually believes his theory to be the better way, something that is an improvement upon God’s ideas. Finally, the guardian needs not to take this shit seriously, and to agree on terms that seem OK to him, but which allow terrible things to take place, all the while locking out anyone else, preventing any interruption, or basically anything that’s not agreed with the abuser. And finally, there needs to be a way for the abuser to hide his true intent, and present his intent as noble and righteous, because otherwise the karmic law would break his plan.

So, it’s a death by thousand cuts – it wasn’t that anyone actually agreed for this place to be created. The intent was obscured by snipping it into smaller requests that seemed legitimate and were approved, and the perfect storm was created with the very assumptions that abuse could be detected and prevented by the guardian, that nobody would be crazy enough to abuse the system in the first place, and that nothing could seriously go wrong simply because nothing did ever go wrong before, and even if it did, it could be stopped and fixed.

And that’s how we ended up with a situation that a Universe is created and maintained by God, but designed by Satan, and the system cannot be shut down because Satan was actually given permission by the authorized person, so basically God gave His word to make something possible, and Satan defined “something” with only a few commands, quite basic and non-elaborate, having neither the knowledge nor power to create something like this. But, he could tell the Universe-spawning intelligence to take the astral universe-template, to modify certain parameters, such as limiting personal connection with God, capping personal power to a very narrow band, and forcing interpersonal interaction. “The Crystal”, as I call this Universe-engine, then took those parameters and created the set of necessary initial prerequisites for it to be set in motion; things like particles and forces, and the specific density modification on the astral template that was used. As such, this entire Universe was created in its final form, from beginning to end, the way you can have an entire movie in a file, from start to end, and it’s only connected with once someone watches it, and it could be connected in a certain way and from a certain time-interval; essentially, you cannot incarnate here at a timepoint where the stars haven’t yet formed, or the Earth is still liquid, or there is no life, or life is too primitive to be of interest. But, things can be set up at the control aperture, somewhere in the astral world, in a way that if you start thinking about this place and about ways in which you would live a life here, this is seen as acceptance of terms for incarnation, and as a request to find the closest-matching incarnation possible to live through your chosen experience. Essentially, it’s like a black hole that draws you in if you come close, where “coming close” is defined in terms of merely thinking about it. It’s a nightmare of the worst kind, and this was defined in the terms agreed upon in the beginning, where the “librarian” agreed that everybody must be allowed to join this world, and nothing must be done to prevent it. The librarian saw nothing wrong with the request, but he simply assumed that everybody will be allowed to leave at will, too, as it was always the case everywhere else. Which shows you how simple and reasonable assumptions can be the mothers of all fuckups.

So, how old is this Universe? I honestly don’t know. Time within it is irrelevant, since time as such would exist only as observer-time. You can’t say that a movie file on your hard drive is 3 hours long, you can say it’s 1.5GB big. You can say it has a potential for subjective time-expenditure of 3 hours, if the viewer connects with it and watches it at normal speed from start to end. Before the first souls connected with this Universe-type, its “age” was irrelevant, since it was probably created from start to end in its final form in an instant. From the position of The Crystal, it could observe it as something that exists completely beyond our in-Universe understanding of time and space. It was a movie file on a hard drive, which was created in an instant in its final form, and since it wasn’t yet watched by anyone, the notion of time related to it was meaningless. You could jump to the beginning, where you have a huge particle explosion from singularity, jump to the middle where you have the stars producing increasingly heavier elements, jump some more and you have the evolution of life, and who knows how it all ends; I know only that it ends, that a fixed ending was agreed upon as one of the terms that Satan had to accept in order to gain access.

So, what are the fundamental constituents of this Universe? Atoms, protons, quarks, bosons? Those are to this Universe what pixels are to a videogame. They are the tiniest parts you can see. The true fundamental constituents are a wish for God to stay away and not “interfere”, a wish to live a life without God, an to create an illusion that individual evolution towards God doesn’t matter.

Being forced into things that happen to you against your will is more of a fundamental property of this world than gravity. Gravity is here only because it was part of the solution-set required to create the world without God. It is incidental. But hatred towards God, that’s what this world is all about. It’s here to prove that God can create nothing so good, that Satan couldn’t fuck it up and turn it into its opposite.

More about Korea

Something just crossed my mind, regarding the North Korea issue.

Almost everybody expects this to be a storm in a teapot, as usual; DPRK will make lots of noise during South Korean elections, Americans will bribe them with some rice to shut up, and they will proceed to triumphantly report how the vanquished cowardly America paid tribute to the great victorious DPRK. The usual.

However, I have a possible alternative explanation for both Trump’s sudden conciliatory behavior towards the establishment, and this DPRK situation.

Let’s see what happened when Trump got into the White House. First, the Republican party representatives in the parliament told him, in no unclear terms, that they are not going to follow orders, and they are going to vote according to their private interests, essentially they were bought by the highest bidder and now they have to obey his will, regardless of who’s in the White House, and regardless of what he says is national interest. He also tried to implement his policies, and was instantly blackmailed: they’ll simply invent a story about how he works for the Russians, evidence will be invented as in the case of Iraqi WMD, he will be impeached, and they will have a more pliable President to work with. Essentially, he was shown a brief demonstration and told that his methods won’t work. He’ll have to make a genuine compromise. Also, he was shown real facts, not the shit that circulates in the media, and those facts are much more pessimistic than he thought. This means that the methods he intended to use would not work in any case. However, he was also told that the people in charge know more about this shit than he, and that they have plans for American prosperity that have been going on for decades already. They know the true condition of the American economy, and they already have things in motion. This is the obvious reason for his sudden employment of all the supposed enemies; essentially, they explained to him what’s been going on, and he figured out that they are significantly smarter and better informed than he.

I can imagine it going like this: “Look, Mr. President, we know what you want. You want to get the money and manufacturing jobs back to America. You intend to pressure China to make concessions. However, it won’t work, because they have leverage over us that’s at least as powerful as our leverage over them, and we can’t just go there and pressure them. Obama tried, and they responded by launching a SLBM test just off the shore of California, in the direction of the Pacific. Essentially, we told them that we militarily own them, and they responded by demonstrating that they own us at least as much. We had to concede that they have a point. Also, the thing about getting along with the Russians that you had in mind, it won’t work, because we want to have the Russians in total submission, and they want to get rid of our global dominance and compete on equal terms, which we cannot allow because we will lose half of Europe, the entire Middle East, control over oil, control over uranium, and possibly the culture war. So, we cannot offer them anything they will find acceptable, so we might at least have the hostilities on our own terms, accusing them of all kinds of things and diminishing their cultural influence. For all kinds of reasons, from economy to geopolitics, we need a big war. So, instead of trying to pressure the Chinese with methods which were already tried and which failed, why don’t we just cook up something with North Korea, and for real this time, letting them seriously mess up Seoul, and perhaps Japan and the entire region around Vladivostok and Manchuria. Have in mind that South Korea and Japan are formally our allies, but they are a significant part of the reason why our economy is failing. Think Samsung and LG. Basically, the entirety of our industrial competition resides in this very limited geographic region, which is also politically unstable, what with North Korea, Taiwan and the Chinese pretensions. If we cook something up over there, and North Korea is an excellent excuse because they actually are fucking idiots, we won’t be blamed too badly for our part in the unholy mess that will invariably take place. Take a look at our simulations, both short and long term. Short term, the prices of everything manufactured in the region will jump. Long term, South Korea will have to absorb North Korea. China will have a problem with that and possibly intervene militarily. Who knows what will happen with Japan, but they are already on the way out, so it doesn’t matter one way or the other. Essentially, the entire region will be as business-safe as Eastern Ukraine. Then we can implement very simple measures to sweeten the return of big manufacturing businesses over here, and solve your main goal of economic recovery, and the entire East Asia will be so troubled, it won’t be difficult to introduce risk-based sanctions against companies that work there, which would be difficult to justify in the present circumstances. There will be new jobs, our GDP will rise, we will no longer have a trade deficit with everyone and everything electronic will again be made in America. Ignore the Mexicans and similar nonsense, because the real threat to our jobs aren’t the wetbacks, it’s the gooks. So, what do you say, Mr. President?”

I’m not saying it’s true, I’m just playing with ideas.

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 DPRK 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.