[I possibly am rather lacking in the energy needed for emotion right now. Maybe on such a topic as this that is not a bad thing.]
This article addresses the conflict between the economic worldview and the life-centered worldview, i.e. Economic Man and Spiritual Man. Most of this article describes the Economic Man, the way of life he has created, and its consequences. This article displays the conflict between the two types of man through dialogues between myself and archetypal economic men. In addition to there being a spiritual man and an economic man, there are two basic types of economic man: the “moral” kind and the blatant kind. In the article I have separate dialogues with both.
I also explain what I intend to do about The Spiritual War and I contrast my approach with others who are interested in defending nature: namely, at least for now, Ted Kaczynski. If I must say it, I have insisted on all this being together in the same article since the individual topics would be too weak and incomplete on their own. I have been conflicted on whether to write articles or books and perhaps these long articles provide a fair medium.
For economic man nature is but a plaything. He uses nature for recreation, trophy hunting, and hiding his activities in the woods-- such activities as drinking, blowing things up, and showing off for his friends. Indeed, he takes nothing seriously except for his possessions, the flow of money, social appearances, and gross pleasure. As long as no one is around to care he has no qualms about leaving his litter behind when he is done with it. Indeed, I have seen the evidence more than enough times. He produces much garbage since he has insisted on a world in which everything is cheaply manufactured and then pre-packaged for his convenience, so he does not have to think about a single thing. And, of course, he repurposes nothing. Economic man is destructive, consumption-focused, and short-sighted, and in effect he is a scourge upon the Earth. Nature is just a holding place for his garbage.
That is the kind of person which is dominant in the world today, in the year 2020. It is tempting for me to feel cheated for having adopted a world which is dominated by the economic worldview. People complain about it but they also go along with it. Everyone is complicit. It is basically just a matter of what kind of economic man each person is. In general economic men value sterility in their surrounding environment; though, the extent of this value varies slightly in each person. A big difference between different economic men is their level of wealth. Many economic people are content to just have a “normal” job and, when they are not doing that, divide their time between caring for the house and distracting themselves with gross entertainment and pleasure. This is basically what defines a “normal” person today. Others are wealthier than that and generally spend more time dealing with their wealth and work, in addition to “enjoying” more expensive “luxuries.”
It is easier to complain about the wealthy than the poor since the wealthy have a more blatant impact on the way the world goes and also because their wealth appears to be unfair. But, again, everyone is complicit in the way the world runs, and both wealthy and poor people are, for the most part, economic men. Class warfare is possibly the single dumbest way to divide up people, since socioeconomic class is not a quality inherent to anyone. It does not come from any gene, nor is it necessary to any spirit. Marxist ideologies are dumb because they define people in a dumb way. They make it all about the money. They define people by money. They agitate the poorer people (the working class) by making them feel cheated since they have less money and less economic control over things (since they do not own the things, e.g. the means of production). Marxism is a very limited viewpoint because it makes life all about money. If tonight I work in a factory and have little money I am a proletarian. If tomorrow I work as a doctor and have plenty of money I am bourgeois. This way of dividing up people is so shallow it utterly misses the point of life. This viewpoint is also caught up in the human-created industrial world which in its latest form has existed for [only] 200 years. Marxism is null in a moneyless world-- as is Capitalism. Marxism and Capitalism are two sides of the same coin: they both say that life is all about money. They pretend to be at odds with each other when probably the only difference is that capitalism produces more useless stuff and it makes people fatter. No one really cared about private property until there was a massive number of humans upon the Earth (or any specific region), living destructively, in a dog-eat-dog economic manner. That is the way economic man insists on things being: dog-eat-dog. Everyone has to have their own limited tract of land because no one shares the same goals and trust in one another is low. Even within households people don't share the same goals: that's why the children move out, which they did not always do throughout history. So, relative to the hostile atmosphere and sheer number of people on the Earth it is good to have private property; but, in an ideal world it might not really be necessary. Private property at least would not be an unavoidable part of society like it is now.
An ideal world is not impossible but there never was a sufficient number of people who sufficiently wanted it. That's why I keep saying that everyone is complicit in the way the world is: it's true. People went along with it and never resisted it with sufficient force. It really annoys me to think that people wanted all this human-created misery and that is why it is tempting for me to feel cheated and then become indignant thereby. Why did people want all this cheapness? Why did people want all this garbage? There is no way our ancestors produced this much garbage. Now we swim in garbage. It's everywhere: in the woods, along the roadside, in giant landfills, on the shores of beaches, in the ocean, on lawns, and pretty much anywhere you can think of. Everything is cheap so no one gives too much care for any particular object since when it goes bad or breaks you can just buy a new one. That is the irony of this way of life: people cling so much to money, yet the things that money buys are regarded as disposable. The more that money is valued, the less that anything of value gets produced or cherished.
That's how you know the economic man's priorities are, as I said, the flow of money and social appearances. It's all about looking good and not real value. Politicians tear each other apart not because they have fundamentally different worldviews (they don't) but because they are all economic men trying to put on the best appearance, and the way they do that is by trying to make their opponents look bad. It is all a show of who looks good and who looks bad. Behind this veil these people are virtually empty-- as are most, I am increasingly coming to suspect. Indeed, when the people are just as much of economic men as the “leaders” are, the leaders can make a whole career out of putting on a show for them because they will sufficiently buy into that show. The reason the people buy into the show is that it makes them appear to be “good” people who play by the rules, and this generally protects them from any kind of suspicion or persecution.
The economic man spends an enormous amount of his life's energy just trying to protect himself from persecution-- that is, cover his ass. He constantly has to cover his ass since his entire means of living is destructive. This is part of the reason why I have chosen to live transparently: it is the complete opposite of covering one's ass. That's how you know I am not the economic man. Or, at least, I don't want to be. I don't want to be, but everyone has to play the economic game to an extent now. Depending on where he lives, even the world's most skilled survivalist must either cough up money to someone (e.g. if he owns property) and/or deal with nature being encroached upon and degraded, which results in his way of life becoming less viable. When no money exists, humans need real skills and fitness in order to survive. When human life is dominated by money, then people just do whatever it takes to make money, regardless of the activity's real value relative to survival. The phrase, “living a real life,” applies here because the economic life is a false, arrested life which has nothing to do with anything real and everything to do with delusions and pushing money around, which is a thing that exists purely by humans agreeing with one another that it exists (unlike, say, everything in nature). Plus, only the weakest, most worthless, and most parasitic individuals would be eliminated by the elimination of money. The economic worldview can offer nothing but an arrested, soulless life.
It is not that leadership or even authorities are bad: it's that politics and virtually all other positions of leadership today are games of appearances backed by money, since this is the world that people have demanded.
I am sure there are some people who would like to tell me to just go off and live in the woods by myself. I have previously said that the Earth is perfect but it cannot defend itself. If I go live in the forest free of modern technology then I will be in the same position as the Earth: doomed to die. The reality is that this way of life is becoming more and more impossible. In fact, the reason the unabomber sent people bombs is that his land was being increasingly encroached upon by economic, technological humanity.
If I must say it, there is little point in sending bombs to even the most destructive people. Sitting in jail for life is rather worthless and maybe the whole idea is beside the point anyway, at least for the time being. It certainly is beside my point since I have other ideas.
The Unabomber has not really spelled out the spiritual war- the economic conception of life versus the spiritual conception of life- in quite the same way that I have. He prioritizes the disarming of modern, industrial technology over the elimination of the economic worldview. He basically says that the machine is more important than the man. I am taking the opposite approach, which says that the machine is not as important as who has control over it. Strong-willed and highly conscious individuals have the ability to make decisions about the role each technology should have in life, if any role at all. They might choose to use certain inventions or methods only in very specific situations and leave the inventions untouched otherwise (maybe in a garage, warehouse, or museum). Ted, meanwhile, implies that fundamental change within humans as a whole is unlikely. On top of that, technology always ends up being destructive, no matter how well-intended its creation is. Humans have virtually always had idealistic hopes for the future and in the end the technology they create degrades that future. As such, the number one priority is the elimination of industrial technology. Take the machine away from the man and the toys away from the children.
Now, I know Ted sees differences between different people. He talks about how the leadership must come from people who have certain qualities like self-discipline and not from those who have certain other qualities like just wanting to be part of some group. However, some of his writing is from his time in jail so he has had to gloss over his thought somewhat. For instance, he never says that the people who are not healthy, strong, and generally worthy of leadership are more likely to die in a world without industrial technology but that is the reality and I would be shocked if he has never had the thought before. Indeed, a very large number of people are likely to die if things ever go the way he wants them to; but, as far as I know he has never said as much. Other “hard green” ecological writers are far more explicit on that point, such as Pentti Linkola. In fact, Linkola prioritizes population reduction over the elimination of technology, though he would like to see industrial technology severely limited in use. It is plain to any non-economic person that the human population is out of control. This population level forces all kind of unpleasantness on life, human life and otherwise. So I guess it is a matter of how that population will be reduced. It's worth pointing out that for every other species on Earth an excess of population is virtually always followed by a die-off since the environment can support only so many individuals belonging to a single species. So it is not necessarily any kind of “evil” which desires for the human population to be reduced: it is just an extremely likely inevitability given the way things normally go in nature. Certainly the way humans currently live is not in favor of die-off evasion.
It's worth saying that Alex Jones refers to the Georgia Guidestones as “evil” since decrying population reduction will make him look good to the largest number of people possible. For economic man life is a numbers game and the more people there are the more opportunities he has to profit. In fact, the needier, weaker, and more lacking in free will people are, the more profit is possible, since such people will be open to buying more stuff and clinging more to industrial society. My goal is not to look good to the largest number of people possible nor to profit off them but to be honest. Again, if I must say it, that's how you know I'm not the economic man.
The most beautiful thing Kaczynski said [which I am aware of] is that the highest ideal is wild nature. At least on that point he and I are not only on the same page but also at odds with the economic man, since the economic man would never say such a thing unless it was in order to look like a “good person.”
My Way Forward
So, what is my point? What are my goals? I would like for the truth of all things to be revealed. Everything must realize what it is destined to become. The highest good of all must be achieved. What am I going to do? I will more or less continue what I have always done. I have long cared about the development of higher consciousness and realizing this consciousness through every decision, which is ultimately displayed through the physical world. I have previously stated that the ultimate ideal is to defy the downward decay of time. In order to do this I believe that I must, at least in the relatively short term, be a person “all across time.” So I must demonstrate an understanding of human life in its original form as well as in its current form, and also in all the forms which existed in between those two along the timeline of human life. I must use the tools and tap into the consciousness available to humanity at all of the different times of its existence.
Time, Running, and Winning
Time is the ultimate measure of calculation. A being's level of ascension is measured by its time perspective and by its ability for realization. Realization is the ability to make something real: the important thing to make real, in some form, is what is in consciousness. The combination of time-perspective and realization is seen primarily in four qualities: 1. Foresight, i.e. predictive ability. Foresight is the opposite of short-sightedness. The further a being can see into the future the more ascended it is. The more short-sighted a being is, the less ascended it is. 2. Longevity. How long can you last? How long do your creations last? In general, a being with more longevity is more ascended. Note that Foresight and Longevity can possibly be combined into one but I'll set that aside for now. Anyway, quality #3 is Speed. This mainly refers to, speed of realization. How quickly can you bring what is in thought into physical being? Finally, quality #4 is Timing. This provides a balance to Longevity and Speed since it is tempting to see those qualities in purely material terms, get caught up in the game of optimizing them, and miss the point. It's not just about lasting power nor speed of action but acting with the right timing and also recognizing the timing of all events and developments occurring in reality. A being which is more highly ascended has a sound sense of timing as part of its ability of time perspective.
Isn't it apt that I have devoted the latter half of my life racing against time, by way of running? This is why I am going to continue basically doing the same things I have always done. I must demonstrate that I and what I stand for are real. This is the effect of the unfolding process of life. As such, I am going to continue racing. I have considered racing-particularly trail ultramarathons- to be the most complete activity currently available, at least to me. Racing takes place in nature, it directly uses the body, the expectation is that I will try performing at the highest level I am capable of, it demands physical health, it both is fueled by and is an outpicturing of the spiritual journey, it is both an individual pursuit and is an organized event where others are doing the same thing, running is a practical and extremely basic survival skill, there are many aspects of the sport to master and typically no one is the best at any one of them, there is a breadth of connections to be had with people at races, people get to both compete with and support each other, and I get to both observe and be subjected to how time works. Also, as the events get longer it is harder to hide my true feelings and self since more and more is demanded of me (“more and more” basically referring to more and more of my spirit), every single thing that is important to me, and what I believe in.
In spite of the completeness of racing as an activity, at the end of May 2019 I became conflicted over whether I should continue racing. This conflict began during a 100 mile race: this caused me to progress slowly and feel upset for a long time, though I did end up finishing the race. I did not think too hard about this again until January 2020, and I dealt with this conflict in a race I ran in February 2020, recounted in the article Existential Loss. I basically expressed that all this burning fossil fuel and using life energy on recreation does not seem aligned with the highest. If I value wild nature then I am not helping it by racing. I desire to live a meager and honest existence-- not an extravagant, destructive one. That all bothered me at the February race and I ended up completing 75 out of 100 miles: I moved too slowly to finish on time. After the race I thought how the aspect of the race I was most unconflicted over was that it tested my survival abilities. The temperature range at the race was 9-20F so I gave much of my attention to bodily warmth. At least these long races help me become more fit to survive in nature, since they make me stronger and exercise my ability to be outside for a long time. That reason alone isn't enough to justify racing, however. Can't there be something bigger than that to it? Is there not a reason why I must specifically race and not only do long trail runs/adventures on my own?
Well, I said that the man is more important than the machine and that the Earth cannot defend itself. I have distinguished between an economic conception of life and a spiritual conception of life, i.e. the life-centered worldview. What I must do is fight for the life-centered worldview. In racing I experience this fight not solely within myself, for this outpicturing of the inner spiritual war effects others. I believe I must demonstrate the realness of myself and all I believe in, and thereby awaken the recognition of all those who are sufficiently on the same page and share a similar destiny.
Those in the economic worldview are relieved and even try to psychologically mess with me when I lose. They will show pity in order to make a good appearance for themselves by trying to “comfort” my presumed “disappointment.” Of course, since they are fundamentally different from me they do not understand what the true purpose and priority of my racing is. Other economic men will try to make me doubt myself with statements like, “Getting old, eh?” They love this one pretty much as long as you are older than 16. People believe in all kinds of myths like athletes falling apart when they get to senior year of high school, women being held back by “body changes” at the ages of 18-22, and even bruised, swollen knees being the result of “too much running” when it is much more simply the result of an accident (i.e. a fall). Such are the ideas of “dumb” economic men who are shrouded in mediocrity and hysteria. By this mediocrity people have come to believe that the body is extremely weak and subject to falling apart by the slightest means. This idea of the body's fragility is possibly one of the greatest expressions of spiritual decay which has occurred in humanity. Though, it is true that people's bodies have become fragile by humanity's voluntarily self-poisoning and also by this ridiculous viewpoint. Other people might genuinely think they're being funny when they make their disarming comments but it is actually just cynical undercutting and trying to reign power over me. Very rarely are jokes “just jokes”: they always contain a hint of truthful intention. The economic men also tend to praise me when I win in order to hop on the gravy train of people who currently look good. That is how economic man is: he does not care how much I improved my time by or how aligned I was with my highest thoughts during the race. He just wants to see me cross the finish line first and walk in the house with a big, fat trophy. Who cares if I was able to win the race with a slow time? Winning is sexy no matter what.
That's the economic man's game: just win and look good. If I stuck to local road races I would win very often. Economic people do not necessarily have as much appreciation for a harder challenge and a more competitive field (unless it means a larger reward or higher social status). In high school I took care to tell myself that I would rather run my best and lose than win easily (both things happened many times). I had competition which pushed me to my apparent relative limits and beyond. There was one girl who I raced many times and I beat her, for real, only once (she purposely ran slow the other times to pace her teammates). The day I beat her I was disappointed because neither of us were even close to our best times. I appreciate worthy competition. It is a great honor to give all I have running against and alongside another person. I fondly remember hopefully every person who helped me to run my best. So, I am not all about winning but I do value it. When I win I feel it validates me and what I believe in.
Returning to Order Using the Right Tools
Let me return to the point, which indeed is what I believe in. The only way the Earth has a chance is if humanity either disappears or becomes orderly again. Humanity is not going to spontaneously disappear: in fact, it probably will not leave Earth without taking the Earth with it, So, let us resolve to become orderly again. I intend to contribute to or possibly even orchestrate this by bringing together those who are sufficiently on the same page and helping us all to ascend and become what we were destined to become. In order to do this I must become a person all across time. In order to do that I must use certain tools of the modern world for a very particular purpose. I believe the primary tools I must use to this end are organized footraces, agriculture, and the Internet. I have talked about races. I have also talked about the Internet throughout the last few articles: this tool will be used for encoding the journey and thereby making it transparent to anyone interested. This is important to bringing together the people I am looking for, whom I could basically call “the spiritual men” or “the life-centered people.” If I just go to races people will only see the surface-level actions and not the philosophy of life I present to you here. The whole point of the spiritual worldview is that there is more than meets the eye: it is about what we are and what we believe in. So I must write and in this time period use the Internet to share my worldview and the journey of what I believe I must become. I hope to attract the attention at least of everyone who intends to directly be on a shared path: if not then a sufficient number of people who can coordinate the rest will do. I am not certain that I will interact much with or even meet all of these people. Likewise, I am concerned about how I will bring the spoken word into this picture. Writing is important for establishing clarity, organization, and completeness of thought. The spoken word is important in that it tends to stir the soul far more than the written word. Speech also is better at attracting those who are “on the fence” about the ideas at hand. Speaking is a more powerful demonstration of the realness of a person and what they believe in.
The tool which I've not yet discussed is agriculture. My conflict over agriculture has been quite similar to my conflict over racing. If I value wild nature then I am not helping it by racing nor by using agriculture. Even in its most meager forms agriculture seems to be somewhat separate from and destructive towards nature. So, isn't this a dumb tool? Why is it part of the toolbelt? Because, all things considered, I have nowhere else to turn right now. In the last year I have made very large strides towards eating a diet that is closer and closer to 100% local and also attained directly through small farms. I do better on the “small farms only” part than on the “local only” part. That is because my primary form of sustenance for the last four years has been fruit. I am inclined to find some merit in the Garden of Eden story, whereby the first humans lived in a lush tropical forest. Even beyond that, fruit is just what I feel best on and nutritionally believe in at least given my present way of life. In Fall 2019 I became much firmer about buying locally and from small farms only. The only product from afar which I buy on a regular basis is dates from a farmer in southern California. I've had a lot of conflict with myself about this. If I was just content to cook squash and potatoes my diet would be very close to 100% local all the time. But those cooked foods are not as clean as fruit. When I eat a 100% raw diet my body produces far less mucus and that is key for me, especially as a runner. Why would I not want to breathe more effectively? So I get frustrated with myself for buying food from afar. That being said, I understand that local agriculture and more distant agriculture both are agriculture either way. Burn up, burn up, burn up nature and resources-- just like with racing.
Is there a way around this? It seems to be what I am bound to for now, however much I mitigate the damages. So my hope is that, like with racing and the use of the Internet, the merit of my use of agriculture will be in forming connections amongst people. Not just any people but people with real, substantial survival skills. People with a shared understanding that our sustenance comes from the Earth. People who are focused on practical need and not superfluous lavishness. People who are not greedy nor wasteful and know resources are both limited and need to be cared for (and certainly not damaged wantonly). People who believe in community and working together to accomplish what is needed. People who would like to trust one another and would like for a handshake to signify a meaningful enough agreement. The farmer is the most elevated of all professions and he also is the most persecuted in economic times. Indeed, farmers are lucky to even turn a profit these days. While agriculture is the least “impressive” tool it also, given my capabilities, is the most vital tool and also the one which blatantly binds all people the most. Agriculture is the quiet giant which, for better or for worse, dominates the human-populated Earth.
The purpose of the Tools Across Time is to bring together people of a certain type. A pure and natural brotherhood based upon a shared soul must be realized somehow or this species is doomed. Let me emphasize that this brotherhood must be pure. It cannot come together along the wrong lines. It will not be brought together by empty phrases nor nice-sounding ideas. There can be no coercion nor persuasion. I am aware of the historical role of propaganda and I just do not think that will be good enough here. I want nothing to do with posturing. As such, at least for now I will have no slogans, no symbols, no images, no unnecessary titles-- nothing. I am represented by nothing, which is fine since nothing is synonymous with the void. I belong to nature untarnished and to express this I am unadorned. If you look around this website you will notice there are very few images, though I may end up adding more since images serve as evidence of the fact that I am real. Besides that, I wear no jewelry, no makeup, put nothing in nor on my body which is unnecessary-- nothing. To be nothing, to need nothing, and to impose myself on nothing is one of my impossible ideals which I will never forget even if I must defy it.
I am not delusional in that I realize that those on a shared path might comprise only an extremely small segment of the population. My guess is that there will be two types of people on the life-centered side. There will be those who have a very clear understanding of things and an ability to tap into the void. Then there will be those who are not as capable as this tiny elite but they can at least appreciate and support what this elite believes in. So there will be a small group highly focused on ascension and a much larger supporting group. It's comparable to a musical in which a minority of the actors have specific roles and a majority of the actors sing in the ensemble: both are needed and they perform different functions. This is my current insight into the situation (P.S. I have sung in the ensemble-- not that I need to back down in order to look less “egotistical” to you) (P.P.S. It is possible that a cross country team is a better model than the cast of a musical).
As much as I have been conflicted over it I would like to believe God made me a woman for a reason. Traditionally women (especially from my European traditions) did not lead. I understand why and would like to respect that. But, many men have tried to rise against the destructive system and obviously they all have failed. They mostly intended for violence to ultimately bring about the solution, Now, I am not closed to this idea. But my point is that none of these men garnered sufficient support for their worldview. Moreover, it is possible that their worldview was not strong enough nor complete enough anyway. Their approach was not good enough to permanently overcome the forces of the economic worldview. I also know that just fighting enemies “out there” will likewise not be good enough. So, the merit of my being female is that I have more freedom of expression and fewer social taboos regarding following my heart than men do. I find this disparity in freedom unfair-- not that I am about to provide anyone comfort on the matter (nor any matter). Furthermore, if I have some kind of privilege given what I am, even if it is one that should not exist, I am probably obligated to use it in the right way. Also, the role of women is generally to nurture love by bringing others together, encouraging the expression of truth through the feelings of love which may be experienced by herself or others, and surrendering to the inevitable. Complete victory requires that the battle within is won and that all those partaking in this battle are aware of and helping each other.
Now, the word “help” is dangerous. It assumes a desperation on the part of the party “in need.” So, maybe we do not want to think in terms of “help.” Instead every individual's focus should always be on ascension, the highest use of his energy, and the highest good. If that involves apparently “helping” someone then so be it. But, all kinds of “causes” and fundraisers and “aid” to the “disadvantaged” and whatnot should absolutely not be the point. Indeed, fighting for any kind of “human rights” is not within my intentions. I suspect this will help to keep out people who are trying to bolster their appearance through “morality” and therefore are not really on the same page.
I don't believe people will find unity of goals [beyond the inevitable ones]. You cannot force things, especially people, to come together along the wrong lines. That is totally undesirable. I cannot come together with people on the basis of some nice-sounding words, nor do I want to. The connection must be real beyond apparent economic necessity. It must be natural-- a natural brotherhood. I believe this brotherhood already exists inherently in the soul of each one of its members: the challenge is that it will take conscious effort to make that brotherhood real and apparent in the surface world. That is what is needed for humanity to become orderly: organization by the most highly ascended individuals. Otherwise the economic men will continue eating themselves and the world until perhaps the irreversible destruction is so bad the few healthy ones remaining must move to outer space. I do not care to speculate what the exact result of defeat will be because it is not like I intend on losing and talking about people with a low regard for life moving into space is the exact kind of thing which will stimulate hype amongst those people.
I am not delusional. I understand that I am at war. Yes, there are a few points of unity. As I said, I would like for the truth of all things to be revealed. Everything must realize what it is destined to become. The highest good of all must be achieved. These are the only goals which can unify everyone. Likewise, I believe that everything which exists contributes to my self-realization. As such, there is a kind of indirect unity, but I know it is not consciously intended by all involved. Most people are not directly on my side and probably never will be. They are too sucked into the economic worldview, likely and largely irreversibly. While my goal is completeness as a person “All Across Time,” and I would like for everything to be of some kind of validity or ultimate worth, it is also inevitable that something always has to die-- it is just a matter of what. In general, either economic man must die or life must die. The economic forces and the life-centered forces are always at odds with each other: they are forever in one another's way. Light and dark cannot exist in the same place and neither can the economic and the life-centered. As far as the overall forces go it is mainly life which has been dying on planet Earth. Life is not totally nullifiable since it is inherent and natural. Every economic man dies eventually, and when this happens life wins since death is an inevitability of life. However, as far as the dominant force on Earth goes, economic man has clearly been winning and gaining steam for virtually all of humanity's existence with some possible breaks throughout. When I say that human life has been dying and is now nearing its end, I am confident this at least means that the form of human life will at least have to change radically relatively soon. For this radical change to be anything other than ugly it will have to include the economic worldview being not punished, not gloated over by its conquerors, but simply eliminated.
Confrontation with the Economic Man
I logically expect the economic man to decry me as “evil,” unless I do so much “winning” that he considers it is in his potential interest to support me. I expect his “support” to be nothing but a facade. I am already imagining the confrontations I might have with economic men who have taken notice of my worldview. “You are the economic man and now that I have revealed you you are probably just going to stand there and try to cover your ass because you know you look bad!” Then what? Maybe if he has some grace he will acknowledge that I am correct on matters and leave either nothing more to be said or perhaps something of interest. The most interesting outcome would, indeed, be that a conversation of interest follows. But given what the economic man is he is more likely to fight using his typical ways. He will try to get me to doubt myself and think I am wrong or delusional, or that I will lose. He'll say, “Sorry, but human nature is in favor of the economic forces: that's how things got to be this way.”
I would respond that I know most humans are not on the life-centered side.
“Then how will you win?” He will demand.
My response: “Well, the only truly substantial thing I have at this point is that I must align myself with the life-centered worldview as much as possible and share my journey of doing so. My intention is that along the way I attract the notice of others also destined for this worldview and they not only choose to ascend themselves by it but they somehow come together and thereby form some kind of collective life based on the life-centered worldview and spiritual conception of life.”
“Oh, you are going to form a community? We will destroy your community. Easy.”
I must concede to this. “Yeah, you have a point. Maybe there can't be a community. Instead we will have to live in a kind of diaspora, as we already have for a long time. Those interested in the life-centered worldview have long been tested by hostility and isolation, since the economic forces have been dominant and they are fundamentally at odds with real life. Unfortunately, to a great extent they will have to continue this isolation and live in the simple knowledge that others like themselves do exist. I expect that only the absolute strongest of 'my people' will make it and maybe I want this anyway since I am seeking an ultimate solution.”
The economic man's likely comeback will be, “There is just no way you will have enough people on your side to win. It's a numbers game-- life is a numbers game! That's the way it is meant to be. Get the numbers by any means necessary-- who cares how? Whoever has the numbers is the winner, and winning (at least the appearance of winning-- whatever) is what people really care about. You can babble all day about your 'ascension' and 'being a superior organism' and whatnot but it doesn't mean squat if I've got billions who want to destroy you.”
What can I say but, bravely, “If I am going to lose then I will at least make sure it is a true failure. I will put my entire heart and soul into my life and if I still lose then at least I will have done things the way I wanted to and thereby self-realized. I will be true to what I believe in and, above all, what I believe the highest form of life is really destined for. My highest ideals may be impossible but I will never forget them.”
“Ha. Alright. I think you are an idiot. It is inevitable that you will get in my way, but you are possibly so weak and so stupid that you will not get in my way 'too much.' Maybe you'll even provide a bit of a nice distraction for the human cattle. What frustrates my kind most about you, Kimberly, is actually not your silly ideas but that fact that you generate so little profit for us. That is your real uselessness. You insist on this 'purity' and 'self-reliance' and the only thing you spend a substantial amount of money on is these goddamn races you go to and the only people who profit from that are the 'little' race directors and maybe the DEC since it demands a cut. You never buy anything fun-- nothing manufactured! No drinks, no electronics, not even a lousy meal at a restaurant! Nothing. Virtually all of the food you buy is whole produce directly from small farmers. The farmer is the only person who receives the meager profit from that: the businessmen get nothing! We get nothing but a few dollars from the suffocating regulations which have been imposed upon the farmers. Indeed, we make sure that everyone complies with our desire to profit one way or another, or whose world would this be? Over time you insist on being more and more pure and self-reliant and you end up spending even less money on ever less-complicated matters. You run to get to your job, which is not funded by nor produces profit (except hopefully a few future workerbees), and you thereby avoid burning fossil fuels via an automobile-- and you don't even need repairs for a bike or anything. I find it unfathomable; but, since you look so well-intended and innocent others might consider you to be a “good” person for these actions. Anyway, it's not that you spend nothing, but if everyone was like you, even in the present day with money having its role, pretty soon my means of existence would dry up, and then I would have to actually be honest and physically labor like you! How dreadful. So, just as you regard me as destructive, I regard you as useless. You are utterly useless to my cause, just as I am destructive to yours. At least you are not destructive to my cause. But if you gain too much momentum, you know, I will have to kill you and make it look like you killed yourself. Of course, no one could ever know that I killed you since that would make me look bad. But, let's face it: if people found out I killed you a few would be mad but they would not do anything. People are so loyal to the economic forces now, they would not do a single thing to redeem you. You would just be dead. Still, I insist on the appearance of law and order continuing: otherwise your so-called 'brethren' and any others who feel 'oppressed' and 'cheated' would find it justifiable to rise up defiantly.”
“Brotherhood is another thing I have in this fight, Economic Man, aside from my own soul and insistence on self-realization. You will never eliminate all of the spiritual men. If the spiritual men were not strong they would not have persisted through the millennia of your dominance this long.”
“Really? If the spiritual men were so strong they would not have spent the last few thousands of years overwhelmingly losing! That's why we can't just eliminate you all: you don't appear to be enough of a threat since you're all a bunch of losers!”
“I am ever-subject to the appearance of failure. I know that right before the enemies' eyes I appear to be losing and I always am dealing with the embarrassment and difficulty of this.”
“So then of what worth is your brotherhood?”
“If I individually lose then there will be someone else to take up the mantle. More significantly, we have a life together in the largest and most important sense. We help each other to ascend just by our existence and presence to one another. When our energies come together the effect is synergistic. We have a shared internal blueprint for how our group is to live and ascend, and each one of us plays an individual role in that.”
“Hm, sounds like a lot of sweet nothings. Anything more?”
“There are two final advantages I have over you, Economic Man. One is that, both objectively and spiritually, I am on the good side and you are not. This is clear to any clear mind. I side with the highest good of all. I don't want to destroy the environment which sustains me. You, on the other hand, think only of distracting yourself with short-term pleasure and you focus on controlling the external world in order to do that. You have no heart or you have at least deadened your heart with all manner of things both spiritual and physical. The reason I believe I am destined to win is that you are sided not merely with death but with the ugliest form of decay. You are doomed to decay until you die. I, on the other hand, insist on killing within me anything which is decaying, and I thereby die in glory, just as I will when my physical body one day dies. You are doomed and I half-expect you to say that you don't even care since you will probably die before the absolute worst comes to Earth anyway. It's always someone else's problem or fault with you, isn't it? But that's beside the point here. The simple point is that I am on the side which is fundamentally one with continuation as opposed to decay. Even then, I am not merely about continuation but the upward ascension and transformation of life. Of course, I believe that life is always either ascending or decaying: there is no middle, neutral ground. So, you can't win because your way is unsustainable. If humans do end up destroying Earth it will indicate the ultimate failure of the economic forces, and the other species and planets throughout the universe will go on, some of whom have the capabilities of noting this failure and learning from us. And, yes, it is extremely human-centered and short-sighted to think that humans are not only the most ascended beings in the multi-verse but the 'only intelligent ones.' But let me get to possibly the biggest point of all, which is that I do not even need to be on the side called 'good.' I don't need to flaunt self-righteousness nor anything like it. I am not really driven by the idea of being 'right,' even if I am right. I am driven by a feeling, a sense, and a soulfulness, and my soul is so free that it ultimately has no use for ideas about 'good' and 'evil' nor 'right' and 'wrong.' For me it all comes down to energy and the essence of what things really are. For me it is enough to simply experience and continually ascend my energy and essence, which are the polar opposite of yours. Common human ideas about 'morality' are over-intellectual, bound by language, and fear-based. Any victory I attain is quite possibly beyond morality and beyond righteousness. I intend for my ultimate victory to be conceptual, experiential, expression-based, and ideally even an external result, though I think I have established that external result is the least important factor for me. Otherwise I would be extrinsically-oriented like you rather than like me, which is heart-centered. Likewise you see your comrades just as people who bolster your appearance and approach to life and thereby justify the value of your existence. I don't need to hide behind any 'brethren' nor try rationalizing to people why I am valuable and deserve to live. Maybe part of the reason we're more dispersed than your kind is that we don't need each other for these petty reasons like you do, since such cowardice is anathema to what we ultimately intend to be. Instead we focus on our duty to the highest.”
“No self-righteousness? No way of looking good? I'd be surprised if your 'movement' attracted a single person, you moron-- even if your 'natural brethren' are out there somewhere. Whether they are or aren't, any person you might 'attract' to your movement will probably just see you as a naïve sexdoll anyway. I mean, what are women and pawns of any gender good for (I'm sure you know some of my comrades and masters have quite a taste for extracting the innocence of young boys and feeling powerful by driving fearful obedience into them, but that's beside the point, especially since most of us don't agree with that since it puts on a really awful appearance, at least in the western world)? I guess I don't believe in any possibility of an 'elevated humanity' like you do, except maybe in the case of a few isolated, delusional weirdos like yourself. There is nothing of further use to say... I will continue trying to sell you things from afar, waiting for the day when you either 'crack' and indulge in convenience and pleasure like a normal person or when you straight-up fail and perhaps die. I'll see you in this human-created Hell! Goodbye!”
Economic Man vs. Spiritual Man on Death; and, “Moral” vs. Blatant Economic Man
Another way you know I am not the economic man regards my stance on my own life and death. If I believed the highest good required that I die then I would voluntarily end my life. I have spent a lot of time questioning the value of my own existence, whether I can justify it and if so how. I have long thought that if there was no more room for me to grow, and therefore no value to my continued existence, then the most honorable thing I could do is end my life. Similarly, I once read a statement from an anonymous person: “I would gladly surrender all my creature comforts and sleep in a bed of straw if it meant that a benevolent dictator would eliminate...” corruption (I do not recall what exactly his last word was but it was along the lines of “corruption). That is the exact spirit I am getting at here: sacrificing merely apparent short-term individual benefits for the highest good of all in the long term and forever. It's not about whether it takes a benevolent dictator or a band of free men to achieve the highest good but rather that this ultimate force is being served.
The economic man absolutely would not take part in this train of thought except maybe in economic terms-- especially if he is of the more cowardly sort and the more powerful economic men encourage him to “think of the greater good,” especially if he is decrepit and can no longer produce much economic value. In general the economic man lives in a decadent, self-destructive manner and then is either rather jaded and nihilistic about the end of his life (“I'm just going to live until I die”; “Oh well, I will not live to see that”; “I'll just keep going until the wheels fall off”) or he clings to his life with every bit of desperation and by every possible means, and such means typically consist of “medical technology” which he has gone begging to doctors for. Now, I am not certain of where the variations in Economic Man's attitude toward his own death come from. I am forming an impression that the most blatantly indulgent economic men take the more jaded and nihilistic attitude, whereas the ones who believe they are living a “normal” and “moral” life (e.g. as “simple” workers) fear death more than anyone else, probably because they have lived in such a cowardly fashion. The more indulgent economic men tend to take on larger projects and more risks both with their money and with their self-destructive indulgence, and this provides them with a sense of “having done something.” So, on the one hand they are so satiated with pleasure that they cannot really feel much more than a kind of glossed over, hungover jadedness and nihilism. On the other hand, from the sense of “having done something” bold and risky they feel more fulfilled are not as afraid of letting go of their lives as those who lived in a more routine, even if less destructive, manner. Because, let's face it: do the “moral,” impotent economic men really live more honest lives than the indulgent and generally wealthier ones? No: in fact, the more “moral” economic men probably live the least honest lives of anyone. They lie to themselves that they are doing the right thing since they are playing by the rules of society (those rules, of course, are enforced by more powerful economic men and their lackeys) and appearing righteous enough even in their conflicts with other people. Of course, when it occurs to one of these “moral” economic men that he has made himself look bad he runs off or exudes quite a lot of guilt. He cannot honorably take confrontation: either he is the clear winner against “unreasonableness” and “evil” or he must sulk in guilt until hopefully the other party feels sorry for him and tries to amend the situation somehow. Overall, the “moral” economic men are far more contemptible than the blatant, indulgent economic men. The “moral” economic men regard “goodness” as whatever is in line with the view of the surrounding majority, and one of their major priorities in life is living up to the appearance of “goodness.” The blatant economic men are more powerful and they use the “moral” economic men as their pawns and admirers in order to bolster their power over the external world. It would not surprise me if the blatant, more potent economic men invented Christianity in order to control both the more “moral,” impotent economic men (by playing on their fear of death and need to appear as a “good person”) as well as the spiritual men (with violent coercion). I have heard Christian, “moral” economic men whine about how Islamic terrorists are scary because “they are not afraid to die.” This exemplifies both the “moral” economic man's fear of death and also his utterly pathetic impotence (at least until the opposite is demanded of him by his potent overlords-- maybe). Christianity is a huge conversation and I have simply stated my current impression of the religion in both its origin and its progression to global dominance. In general, both types of economic man are equally at odds with me, and I do indeed have spoken and unspoken conflicts with both.
My Final Word to the “Moral” Economic Man
Above I provided the highest-level conversation possible with the blatant economic man. If I likewise had a final word with the “moral” economic man it would be the following.
“You are an impotent economic man. You have lived a cowardly life in the hope of appearing "moral" and now, after decades of living in a destructive manner that always seemed right to you since it is normal, you are afraid to die. You feel cheated when in fact you are the one who has cheated life by thinking you could get away with some 'clever gimmicks' and mere appearance when in fact there are natural laws, and now the consequences of those laws are ready to gracefully undo you (not that you can understand such a thing). There is likewise a spirit of life which you have done almost nothing to ignite and that is why you have relied on your tricks even as you wither away, for those shallow tricks are all you have. I can see it in your frequent whining that you desire my pity. Pity is a fool's game but you don't think so. You want to be 'saved' by Christian 'grace' when the reality is that you are utterly disgraceful in your contemptibleness.
Now, I am not like your more potent overlords: I have no need to destroy you since you have destroyed yourself-- maybe unless you insist going on destroying in your pursuit of the appearance of morality. I have never been able to have a real conversation with you since you have lived for mere appearances instead of what is real. The only time you and I see eye to eye is when the system and the normal ways threaten your life somehow, like when the healthcare system fails you. Incidents like that make you see that the system which you have been obedient to all your life is not really so good, let alone competent. But even then you and I still do not have the same view of things. You want the system to work: you still believe that western medicine's priority of sterility is the ultimate good. I don't, since sterility is the opposite of life. I don't wash my produce, I've taken no medication of any kind in 6.5 years and I am far healthier than you have ever dreamed of being-- even though, being older than me, you were born into a much cleaner and less-populated world than I was. Unlike you I grew up surrounded by all kinds of electronic gadgets and 'advanced' medical treatments. By your stereotypical ideas I am supposed to be 'lazier' and 'duller' than you. Yet here I am, still emerged into the consciousness of what I am destined to be, which is the opposite of all these man-made toys and the fear and weakness they need in order to be pertinent and profitable. And how did I do it? How did I do it unlike you, you spineless traitor? Because I felt depressed by the weight of this deadening way of life and I decided that I would rather die than go along with it. In other words, I never gave up. I decided that if I had no heart and soul then I wanted to die. I was not going to go along with the materialistic, hedonistic, nihilistic, economic worldview like a 'dumb robot.' Thankfully I did find that I have a heart and soul and that is basically the only reason why I am still here. I am not like you: I will willingly die if it is my place to do so. You, on the other hand, slowly kill yourself by every means of your life, spiritual and physical, and yet when your time comes you refuse to go! You are plagued by meanness and you look to the so-called 'grace' of human technological invention to save you-- to give you just a bit more time, before you have to face the great unknown.
That is an important difference between me and you. Whereas you are always decaying, I am always dying but in a deliberate manner. I am always dying by killing off within me that which is not real nor worthy. I face a kind of “great unknown” on a regular basis. I don't go to a destructive job and then distract myself with sportsball, alcohol, constant food, hype-driven talk, and television like you! Unlike you I find no 'comfort' in that racket. I don't do all that and then claim it's necessary for survival when in the real, untarnished, natural world precisely the opposite is true! I don't go through life developing no survival skills since I am too busy to do so with my job and distractions and then pay other people to do everything for me since I both can and have to do that since I have devoted my life to a worthless job! I make every choice in full consciousness of every internal conflict I have regarding it. I don't lie to myself in such gross black-and-white terms. I don't pretend that a decision does not have some kind of destructive consequence when in fact it does. I don't make myself sick via every aspect of my existence and then complain that I feel cheated. I know that my bodily illnesses and injuries are the natural consequence of every physical and spiritual aspect of life, both those created by me and those co-created with others. I actually face what is in my mind, heart, soul, and yes, even body. I don't ask for pills nor distractions nor so-called 'obligations' to take it all away. I face what is within and thereby I die in glory instead of decaying. That practice- that way of existing- is what has made the difference between me and you. I did not deny my heart. I have refused to see the past, the ways of our ancestors, as inferior and wanton confusion, like I have been taught by the surrounding majority to think. More importantly, I did not become a slave to the material world and live by fear for my physical existence and consequently take an approach of meanness in order to fatten and protect my physical body. I am ready to believe in giving all I have and not fearfully conserving nor conjuring up some safe routine in the hope that I don't wear myself out. The latter is evidently folly since in the end the people who live so cowardly and 'cleverly' refuse to die after decades of causing decay in the Earth, in themselves, and above all in the collective worldview and understanding of life of the human species. By the way, I believe not only that my soul is essentially free but that it even chooses when to die-- at least as long as I live in accordance with my soul. Likewise I believe that people die when they are no longer a sufficient match for the world of the immediate future: as an example, think of mountain men like Hugh Glass dying just as the Industrial Revolution picked up. I know you would like to think I am just saying these things to be defiant for its own sake, as always. But I could just as well accuse you of waving off what makes you uncomfortable. Indeed, that is exactly how you have lived your entire life, or humans wouldn't be slaves to all this hysteria and life-threatening technology now. You devote your life's energies to covering your ass and staving off discomfort. I insist on devoting my life's energies to the revelation of complete truth and ascension of being. I have lived with primary focus on what I am and what I serve-- not what I have, my status relative to others, nor how I appear to others.
Now my indignation has come out, and perhaps this shall be the only time unless it is truly needed again. I am sure the blatant economic man has enjoyed watching this since for the moment it makes someone look worse than he does. Relative to the circumstances of this world I am grateful that you are sometimes so generous with your money but not for having had little of worth to pass on to your posterity otherwise. At least I have the sufficient insight and lack of false pride to thank you for providing an example of the opposite of what I am meant to be. At least until you finally do die I will see you in the moment-to-moment battlefield which has engulfed the Earth; and then, perhaps I will see you only in memory. Goodbye.”
Ability to Express Truth
Possibly the thing I find most frustrating about economic man is not even his destructiveness but how he makes it impossible to be straightforward. Since he is so vested in appearances I must always be conscious of saying anything which potentially threatens the fragile veil through which he lives. The “moral” economic men do not want to hear any possible violation of their “moral” ideas. The blatant economic men cannot stand to be defied in any way since power over the external world is their game. As for my part it's not that I “can't stand” being defied as much as it seems like people make no effort to understand my viewpoint and instead assume the dominance of their “clever,” “hard-headed,” supposedly nice-sounding, materialistic viewpoint. Since they are mostly economic people they lack the subtle insight and connection I have and they must wave off whatever discomforts them and diverts their pursuit of acquisition and power. Economic men are likewise incompetent at understanding the essence of what is communicated. Instead they focus on the hype-driven, dramatic emotion and the form: in other words, the petty side of things instead of the substantial side.
The result is that it is quite rare that I have a genuine, untarnished conversation with anyone. This has been one of the more painful aspects of my existence. No one gets to know how I feel because I'm not allowed to be straightforward; and, since most people are fundamentally different from me they are not capable of understanding me anyway. The economic man constantly expects fear and emotion. If I want to just be straightforward and free of petty emotion I am considered to be “terrifying,” “intimidating,” “cold,” “heartless,” “weird,” “business-like” (seriously?), “not nice,”-- whatever. People actually tell me from time to time that I'm intimidating and without an in-depth analysis of the situation I would guess that my desire for detached straightforwardness free of distraction and unnecessary emotion is why. On the one hand it is really annoying. I often will show an extent of fearful emotion or say things without considering their truth or necessity just to appease people and make myself look “normal.” I emphasize the intellectual uncertainty of situations instead of the inner spiritual convictions. The economic man also expects humor and I find humor to be a diversion of discomforting truth. So, humor is often dreadful to me but I will sometimes feed into it since it is expected. I know-- putting on appearances is what economic men do. But if I look “too scary” they'll come after me, won't they? But maybe that's futile: they already see me as “different enough” anyway. Moreover, maybe it makes sense that I am “terrifying,” since what I stand for is completely at odds with the dominant, economic view of life. If I was completely “straightforward” at virtually any time, conflict would immediately erupt. When you look in my eyes and hear me talk do not forget the truth which lies underneath the surface.
In order to express my thought I had to write out the above fictional dialogues, since most actual economic men would find real conversation in defiance of their worldview totally intolerable if not impossible to understand.
So there you are: welcome to Kim's Paradise, an inner world of vision which I largely keep to myself and hope to make real and even undeniable in some form using the tools given to me throughout time.
I will sorrowfully note that anyone who falls to his knees before me claiming he is the spiritual man or even economic man converted to spiritual man will raise the highest suspicion and likely also contempt within me. Likewise, trying to appeal to a greedy or destructive side of me will lead me to immediately assume you are the economic man. Cynicism, jadedness, appeals to righteousness, buying into hype and hysteria, desire for pleasure, groveling, and complaining will all lead me to doubt in you, though I will still try to sense your essence. If you are the real deal I will know it by your energy, by looking in your eyes, and what you have actually demonstrated.
As for economic men who no longer wish to be so but feel irreversibly trapped, I really do not want to cater too much to you. Certainly I have no pity. I may have sorrow but I am reluctant to express it towards you. If you have the money you might as well buy up plots of land and let it be wild. Since my “cause” is rather independent of money there is probably not a whole lot else you can do for me but I'm not closed to the possibilities. Maybe you can tell your story. Also remember the few unifying goals: the truth of all things must be revealed, everything must realize what it is destined to become, and the highest good of all must be achieved.
Will revealing the economic man and my beliefs about him transform the way I interact with others and carry myself through this world? As far as my personal process is concerned, that is the one of the most interesting immediate things at hand as I come to the end of this piece.
To Spiritual Man
As for any “brethren” out there: I probably do not need to say this explicitly, and I am reluctant to since I said that I do not want to preach and I absolutely do not want to do any posturing nor sound self-righteous. But maybe it will serve the real point, which is that it will solidify things for me.
If you are looking for any direction on what to do, consider following my basic example. Tell your story and record your process. Become aware of your highest ideals and always keep them in mind. Intend to ascend as a being and serve the highest good of all, which ultimately comes down to developing consciousness. Build your body and demonstrate what you stand for in the most complete and aligned way for you. Remember that we are sufficiently on the same page and experience many of the same things, including sorrows: this will help you to overcome self-pity and consequently be strong. Do all this so that we can recognize each other, regardless of whether we actually meet. Devote your every thought, decision, and action to the highest good, which can be sensed if you are pure of intention (i.e. without ulterior motive). This has nothing to do with serving me and everything to do with the spiritual conception of life which is eternal and will exist regardless of what happens to the personas in which we reside. I am providing expression and realization for the life-centered worldview, for it necessarily needs lifeforms in order to do so since the expression of what one ultimately is is the purpose of life.
Bear in mind that this is not about proving anything, and it certainly will not be about punishing, taunting, nor making a fool of the enemy. The objective of the war is to eliminate the economic worldview, simply, completely, and swiftly, with no use of cruelty per se nor excessive emotion nor fear. Note that the objective refers to the worldview and not specific individuals. Likewise, if it turns out the worldview cannot be eliminated then it must be transformed into something good. With or without this objective, the path must be about honesty and transparency; and, consequently, perhaps dignity. Demonstration is not the same as trying to prove something, since proof never really seems to be good enough. Let your own dignity, which you have chosen to cultivate by this path, be good enough.
Do not think in mundane, petty terms which are beside the point. Emotions like happiness, sadness, and anger are of no consequence to spiritual man. Economic man throws around the ideas like some kind of senseless bombs. These concepts bear a weight on people. In their place think of self-realization, sorrow, and indignation. Even then, use the last two only as you truly feel them, and never play them up nor force them. Speaking of “suffering” and things being “tough” and even “challenging” is also counterproductive. It is, though, a bit of a challenge to not do this, since these are such mainstream ways of describing things. At the very least do not think this way in the purity of your own mind.
Remember where you have come from. Embrace nature and increase your ability to survive by the use not of money but by your own ability and energy. As Linkola said, mighty labor is your birthright, especially when it means using a lower technology or at least eschewing it altogether.
I could never say that I am a "regular person" but it is also true that I am no member of royalty: I am out there in the forests, the fields, and the streets, purposefully using my body and even taking on normal jobs, like you. Even if I am basically a leader I will not be carried on a throne: I will continue to propel my body forward by my own energy. While we all belong to the same group we also are all individuals with our own role to play, our own unique path, and our own decisions to make. The liberal point of view is rather undiscerning and basically says that everything and everyone is the same. I find this rather deflating, and maybe you do as well. The reality is that each individual thing is unique and it also can be categorized into a group based on its similarity to other individual things. The liberal point of view basically says that it makes no difference whether you do this or that. That is not the complete truth. The sky is higher than the ground. Likewise, some choices are higher than others. Reality is precise. Nihilism is basically just a form of jadedness which tries to say that none of that means anything.
Since talk is not the point I cannot guarantee that we will talk. I would like to think we will all become aware of each other one day. Whatever the case, remember that togetherness is ultimately about working toward a shared goal.
I have laid out what I believe in. While I must focus on my own self-realization and let that be good enough, I also do have external victory in mind- an establishment of divine order upon the Earth- and that victory ultimately comes down to you. I anticipate the day when I might finally say, “Look at this shining people!”
Finally, morality is not about mere appearances but personal code. The purpose of this personal code is the recognition of brethren and also danger. In December 2018 I wrote out a personal code which I believed would help to fulfill this purpose. At the time of writing this article I have edited and added much detailed to it.
1. Never be jaded. This is the most important of the ten points aside from Number 10. Jadedness refers to giving up, doubting in your spirit and in life, and trying to resign yourself to the numbness and dumbness of apparent material comfort. Jadedness is the opposite of heart.
2. Never be ignorant. This includes, most importantly, your own highest ideas about things. Do not be swayed by the cynical, deflating, smart-sounding words of other people. Your own soul is #1: appearances are not. It may help to remember that the ideal is to defy the downward decay of time rather than get caught up in such decay. This point also means that you must strive for completeness in your understanding of the truth. Let no minuscule detail pass you by, though take care to eschew guilt in this process.
3. Never be presumptuous. Presumptuousness is the attitude of cleverness, trickery, gimmicks, and trying to outsmart life thereby. For spiritual man the path of ascension requires facing the truth and using everything he has. Gimmicks meant to cleverly control the external world will only hold you back.
4. Never take an attitude of entitlement. Entitlement is how people get materialistically mean, greedy, short-sighted, and ultimately destructive. At any time, comfort can be taken away and danger can be introduced.
5. You always could have done more. This is always apparent to a person devoted to doing their best. There is always some way to improve and go higher.
6. You never need punish yourself. This is paired with point Number Five. There is always potential to go higher and if you are mean to yourself about not doing better you will prevent yourself from doing better. Do not bemoan #5 nor punish yourself over it. Simply acknowledge it and decide what you might like to do about it next. Never forget your highest ideals even if they seem to be impossible. Acknowledge and live with it all.
7. It's never over. The glory of life is that it keeps going. Every moment is one of self-realization, no matter how insignificant it seems. Every moment of your life is as valid as all the others. Likewise, there is an endless future which perhaps you, especially if you follow your highest path, will effect in a manner of which you would be proud.
8. Never see yourself as a victim. You are here to self-realize and every single thing in reality can help you do that, even if it appears adversarial. Don't get bogged down in petty, “normal” ideas, especially those regarding emotion and suffering. What the economic man bemoans is not necessarily a problem in your eyes. Remember that some ideas and achievements will take longer to come to fruition than expected so you are not necessarily “failing” anyway. Plus, a so-called “failure” now can set the stage for success later.
9. See, rather than be seen. Getting concerned about how you appear to other people will throw you off balance and cause you to be less than your best. Striving to see the complete truth, however, means that we should know the thoughts of others. As long as you are focused on self-realization and you look outward rather than at yourself (since self-realization requires action) then the thoughts of others can be either of no consequence or transformed and used constructively.
10. Live from your heart. If you do this then the other nine points will come naturally to you. Heart is not about some shallow, desperate idea of “happiness” but about having a superior will to live. It is this will to live which is needed to win the war, both inside and out.
Finally, to everyone, I will reiterate that everyone has a role in everyone else's self-realization, even if there is a “war” between different forms of life. If it's all you can do, consider what your role is in this context. Even if we are at odds with each other, thank you for serving your purpose.