por lo tanto

What is a human being?

Posted on Actualizado enn


What is a human being?

The question is not as easy as it seems, what do we conceive? Or what would it imply the existence itself of a human being? You are speaking about an organism that is relatively new, but whose substances derive from a process that has billions of years of age.
Something quite sad today is that when you ask to the people what is a human being? they give you answers like “I don´t know” or “why don´t you look on the dictionary?”

Very well, here are the definitions:

From philosophy forums:
‘Humanness’ is the result of a behavioral definition: We are human because we do things that we have defined as human.

Ape + Language = Human.

Language is meaningless unless it is communicated and taught to others.

Language necessarily inheres these criteria. The idea of a ‘meaningless language’ is an oxymoron, wouldn’t you say?

(Keep in mind that an oxymoron is an apparent contradiction:
Here are some common examples of oxymoronic expressions: act naturally, random order, original copy, conspicuous absence, found missing, alone together, criminal justice)

Of course one might object and say a child raised without language is still human. Then we could get into Chomsky’s argument about innate grammar. In any case, I see language as that which gives us our human consciousness, without which we wouldn’t have the concept of ‘humanity’ to begin with.

Many will argue against it like their lives depend on that defense. The entire notion of human evolution is really reduced to evolution of language. We need to think and speak clearly… and I assume that people intuitively avoid any possibility to understand that profound implication of language. Because as soon as you accept this argument you have to start paying attention to what you’re saying, how are you saying it… and even how you think.

The thing is that, when you as “a human being”, don´t have a proper development of skills, such as a an effective use of vocabulary, that will determine if you are rejected or not by the society, which implies to have or not have a job, which grants you money, which grants you food…interesting that, in regards to saying something correctly is something that can define you as “an effective or non-effective human being in a particular subject”, I mean, to not be effective in something doesn´t mean that one is not an effective human being

It’s much easier to use language as a tool for projecting your “personality” to the world and stay oblivious to the fact that such use of language has serious and more often than not quite desirable consequences. We become self-conscious when we start to use language. Indeed…. “In the beginning was the word”.

It is important to understand that words are our creation, the very interpretation that we make of reality and how we define this world accordingly to our preferences, likes or dislikes, is actually the basis of what we are living today in our language, if you look at laws, and this is something that has been constantly being repeated by many beings, the very form and structure of laws is very deceptive, why? Because when you look at how we have come to create what is culture today, you can see that there is no consideration of the actual origin of our culture, what were our beliefs that we have preserved to this day, and you can see that if you look at what became of our ethics when someones sneeze, one answer “gob bless you”, yet the ancient belief was that when someone had a sneeze, one had to say something “good” to protect oneself from something evil that was happening to that person.

Other animals have language. Monkeys such as vervets make a range of warning sounds, a true vocabulary, one meaning snake, one meaning hawk, one meaning leopard and so on.

That statement  is interesting because we are speaking of an expression of sound that doesn´t necessarily makes the animal to define itself as one.

In Law (Dictionary definition): A human being- without regards to sex, legitimacy, or competence. This person is the central figure in law, as elsewhere, characterized by personal attributes of mind, intention, feelings, weaknesses, morality, common to human beings; with rights and duties under the law.
This person sometimes called an individual, and often referred to in the law as a natural person, as distinguished from an artificial person.

In Biology: (Info from Wikipedia)


“Humans (Homo sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, and the only extant species of the genus Homo. Humans are characterized by having a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making them capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning. This mental capability, combined with an adaptation to bipedal locomotion that frees the hands for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Humans are the only extant species known to build fires and cook their food, as well as the only known species to clothe themselves and create and use numerous other technologies and arts. The scientific study of humans is the discipline of anthropology.

Humans are uniquely adept at utilizing systems of symbolic communication such as language and art for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families and kinship networks to states. Social interactions between humans have established an extremely wide variety of values, social norms, and rituals, which together form the basis of human society. Humans are noted for their desire to understand and influence their environment, seeking to explain and manipulate phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology, and religion.”

Homo is the genus of great apes that includes modern humans and species closely related to them. The genus is estimated to be about 2.3 to 2.4 million years old, possibly having evolved from australopithecine ancestors, with the appearance of Homo habilis. Several species, including Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus afarensis, have been proposed as the direct ancestor of the Homo lineage. Each of these species have morphological features that align them with Homo, but there is no consensus on which actually gave rise to Homo.

I asked to some people if they know something about Human rights or what do they think that the Human Rights, and I got very interesting answers like “sorry I didn´t study that” (which is quite interesting considering that they are also human beings…) to the person that was able to give the personal perspective and also the full view of the articles…nevertheless what does this articles imply if a human being is conceived as the definition of being attributes of mind, intention, feelings, weaknesses, morality, language? And what does that entails considering that the people don´t know how to describe a human being or what does their own existence implies in this physical existence?

Something interesting about the assumptions of what a human is, are the multiple ideas made over human nature as behavior, when we describe ourselves, we see multiple patterns of movements and ideas that we in anyway really understand within the basis of how our emotions and feelings operate in the mind level, how we construct or came to be as a personality over the basis of our culture, religion, economy, society, politics, laws, psychology, and all of this finding its very structure on the basis of language (grammar, vocabulary = expression) etc., how is it that each one describe a pattern of behaviors, ideas, work, professions believing that, that is who we are…and something really sad within this is that when you look at the very institutions that claim to defend human rights, is that they don´t really know what it is that they are defending, they don´t really understand what it is that they should do or how is it that we are able to bring awareness into the people to make them stand for human dignity, that is the biggest concern of our society today, how we make the human to care about other humans, because we “expect them to feel something about poverty, about wars, as we have defined ourselves within the particular dimensions of emotions and feelings, which are actually the basis of our thinking patterns”. It is said, that what makes us “unique or individual is our way of thinking, and developing things” yet I would like to add here a fascinating overview made by Bernard Poolman over a point that he makes on the “Right to Individuality.”

Bernard Poolman – Day 366: The Human Right of Individuality

“Yes, have a look: this is the One Thing Everyone Desires: Individuality, Free Choice, Free Speech.

Obviously, the Principle of Individuality is the Fact that One can Express it in a Unique Individual Way, but there is One Thing to Consider: If your Individuality Impose on another’s – making them either a Master or a Slave, then Individuality No Longer Exists. Then Individuality Becomes ‘Master’ or ‘Slave’.

Thus, a Fundamental Right for Each One from the Moment of Your Existence within Awareness is Individuality and the Consideration that: If You Express this Individuality in a way that Relates to others with Respect and Equality, with Respecting their Individuality and thus Doing and Participating within All Things in a way that is Best for Other Individuals as well – they’re going to Respond by Respecting your Individuality.
If you Don’t, then you have a World like Now where No-one Respects another’s Individuality, Nobody Respects another’s Right to Life – because Everybody is Scared of Everyone Else, because Each One Knows One Thing: You will Rather Act in Self Interest, because You Already Expect Everyone else to Do the Same. Instead of Reversing it, Instead of Realizing that: “As You Give = You Receive”.

You see, the Message of Jesus was the Ultimate Model of Individuality: “Give as You Would Like to Receive”, “Do Onto Another as You Would Like to be Done Unto” – The Foundation Principle of Individuality. If You Do Not Have this Principle Intrinsic as Your Own Self Value, then you’re Not an Individual – Yet.
First you Must Establish this Principle, then Individuality can be Born and you May at Last be Called Alive.”

And what is interesting is that defense of the rights itself, and specifically of human rights has become a defense for personal interests, because when we describe a human being, it’s almost like seen the people trying to describe their lives, their way of living, not noticing that the way of living is defined by their way of thinking which is in base to their self interests, thinking and perceiving themselves to be the experience of survival and fear…must of the statements made on the defense of human rights is that we should be aware of what we are doing, yet the people don´t really understand what is it that they should be doing to change their current condition, and it’s obvious, because we have no idea of what we are or who we are.

The structure of the human rights has a huge problem in the very basis of its existence, because we don´t really know what is it that we are defending, sometimes we are the intermediaries of the rights, other times we are ruthless beings who exterminate people for a limited resource, sometimes we are beings that abuse for power, or abuse our surroundings, including the environment, on the other hand, we try to make the impossible to recover the environment in which we live, for most part the defense of the rights seems to be based on what we assume is the true human nature, without taking into consideration all psychological processes to which the humans have been exposed over the centuries.

Just imagine what was required to exist in our minds for the first human being to kill another human being. (just one thing – one think, self-interest)

With the passage of wars, the human nature we so desperately seek to defend, changes a little bit more; the Crusades, the Hundred Years War, revolutions, two world wars, you name it, each intended to defend particular interests, and the people were willing to die for those interests seeking to attain the protection of the dignity or the honor believing that they were standing for what was a part of themselves.

The defense of rights has become the freedom to create dependencies to the things that apparently define the dignity and honor of humanity, everything portrayed over the assumptions made over what we are as that human nature, that struggle for the significance and purpose of the ideals that we fight and make wars over, believing that we are protecting who we are or what we are; human rights are portrayed with beautiful words, but nobody follows them to the letter, maybe because we do not know how to do it or must probably, we are doing it, but we are not aware of what we are following as our minds…; the major conflicts that have taken place over the history of humanity have begun seemingly being made over the defense of a particular argument that we ourselves, as our culture, religion, politics, ideology, have believed ourselves to be, because when hearing about human rights, we first think in our human condition, and we don´t really see if that in which we believe that makes us humans, is something that can vouch for the rest of humanity, because what I am afraid is that perhaps we don´t know any longer how to identify ourselves with another human being. (in regards to language, this could be also understood as a lack of true communication = physical communication).

The most significant feature that apparently used to stand for us was empathy, the emotions and feelings that seems to be a point that was “used as a reference to identify ourselves with other human beings” something that apparently had a form of impact on the hippies movements, yet what we see today is that such “identification no sustainable”, because it was never sustainable, as more love one creates, more hate you create, is an inevitable polarity, the empathy cannot sustain humanity; the common sense is the only thing that is accountable in matter of physical matter; yet, the practical common sense is not being allowed to take place as it has been confused with a logic that functions accordingly to the standards of the program, not only with other human beings, but with everything that is here (animals, plants, bacteria’s, etc.)

I guess that the consequence of this, has been that, it is not consider that, our emotions and feelings are activated through the very concepts that we create about ourselves in relation to this world, which we reflect through our language, as more and more we have ingrained our system of definitions, values, morals, politics, culture, society, is more and more difficult to really see ourselves as human beings, as the organism, and even worse, it is more difficult to see other human beings, as what is first in your existence is the knowledge and information that one use to live and survive in this world, that is what is valuable and accountable for your existence “apparently”, because that is the first thing that you learn from the moment you step into a family, instead of learning what is your value as life (which will be the next topic that we will bring within this subject).

In the family the first thing that is shown to you, is to follow the instructions of what is expected from you to be within the organization of the family, in regards to the hierarchical order that this implies, instead of first showing you, or learning your value as life, as human being, that is what should be first. Because if you also see in the very definition that we give in the definition of Human within Biology of being an “Homo sapiens”, the first thing that is said, “the genus of the apes”, yet, that genus is only valuable in the amount of knowledge and information that it possess to define itself as valuable or effective human being.

Something interesting that I have found in my personal process, is that one cannot define oneself accordingly to knowledge or information, by this I mean, it has been tried to bring awareness and interest to the human beings through knowledge and information about this world, about themselves, yet, it is never sufficient, why? First of all, because we are not that, we are not the knowledge and information, if you look at the very point of right to education, right to education implies right to learning, yet, you learn your entire life, if the knowledge that is placed in front of you is pure bullshit, you will learn that bullshit and you will leave that as who you are, an entire program; education is not knowledge, and if you place this into perspectives to the point of copyrights, everything is about of “rights of property as if it was a right of attaining knowledge”; with all of this, the point that I would like to make is that I guess that the only way to bring the human to the realization “I am here, I exist, what is here is what is real and I am existing in this world with other human beings” is to take him to face the only one thing that is able to support him, that is himself, in the process that Desteni provides as the tools of self-honesty, self-forgiveness, common sense, physical breath, and so on.

In regards to giving Charity, and what I noticed in the principle that I first stated, is that I said that “we must guaranty the best way of living for all living beings”, yet I was looking at how activism exist today, trying actually to live a principle of “giving as much as possible to the people to support them”, I mean, that is cool, yet, I guess that the recognition of human rights, also imply that the Human being must give it to oneself, I mean, sounds more like, you know, “give it to them”, yet, what the real principle should be, is that the people has direct access to all the resources so that they are able to express, to create, to give to themselves the opportunity of understanding what they are as life, of course with the tools and the corresponding process, because it is only each one of us, who can give to ourselves the help that we require as we are the only ones that are able to decide what they are going to be, to live; the solution is not of “implementing human rights, but of recognizing ourselves as physical human beings that are responsible for ourselves and each other by living the realization of always doing what is best for all as this is whats is best for ourselves , and for that we need to go through the process of living the decision of standing as Humanity (do onto other as you would like to be done onto you, do what is best for all as this is what is also best for you).

I suggest everyone reading this blog to see this video done by Marlen Vargas del Razo

You see, there is a lot that is being that has been taken for granted, as the capability of standing, yet, what we do is that we blame our mind, the governments and w see it as too difficult, when that is not so, it is one self who decides and the decision that is made from self, implying that there is not knowledge or information implied on the decision, or that there is a voice in the head as the words of another person, to decide to be as the principle: “I am that I am”, implies that one has walked through the programing and is standing as who one id, and within that, the Human rights must be lived, not as laws, but as principles.

Is only one who can decide (to live), and that is a cycle that is trapping everyone, I mean, that is the must “tough” point in a way, in each and every single person, how many people don´try to stop weed? yet they don´t live the decision, they don’t make the decision and they search remedies in knowledge, in people, in groups of assistance in drugs and so on, nevertheless, one will believe that one requires others to do something for ourselves when it is us who have to do it for ourselves, for one to be able to receive assistance and support one must be willing to give to oneself that assistance and support, is obvious, Help yourself that I will help you…it is self, the answer is always self, self honesty is the solution for one to see oneself in what we have accepted and allowed ourselves to be and become.

The implementation of Human Rights is not as important as the decision of the people to live the principles of oneness and equality that they imply, the solution has to come from each and every single one of us, and yes, the laws can help, but only if all of us do it, because it has to be a democratic process, a decision to live in and as Oneness and Equality, that is why my starting point in my research of laws was deluded, because the principle of coercion in laws, implies that, you impose onto another a certain behavior, yet, no one is living that why? because the psychology that was tried to be impose as methodical conditioning is based on the principles of morals, yet the principle of rationality is mold accordingly to our self interest, if you see how we download music illegally, one is able to justify that by saying: “oh, you know, its here, and it should be free” so what the fuck? the morals are based on the principle of a desire, a desire that was firstly projected on the first basis of laws which was religion, and the desire was that of “being good” to go to heaven”, then what we have done is that we try to search positivity in everything that we do to justify our evil, the polarity was not considered at all, and the crime is the result of that, the reflection of that, which was actually used as an advantage to satisfy self interests, by creating a definition of the crime, stablishing a consequence and everyone can agree with that, and live that and be that of a criminal. As more laws are written, more criminals are created -Lao Tzu-

Everyone agreed with that, because, instead of changing the principle due to fear of loosing the dimensions of the heaven, they tried to use the same principle to establish “peace” in this world through war, sounds familiar?, because what one can see if you read a little bit of the research done in psychology in the subject of aggression, “this is justified in the human as a point of impulse based on an idea of motivation and effort, “through the idea that it is a form of love for pleasure (reading, drawing, singing) and love to action (working, and “living”)” How fucked up is that?

If you look in the Criminal Laws, you have this lists of crimes that are classified accordingly to multiple types of actions that may differ in the procedure but that they can be part of the same crime or that is actually just another form of for instance an act of murder, but if it is a murder that was towards an specific person in the family then it is called parricide, something that you can notice is that if it is not present only one of the components on the list that define a crime as such, then there is no crime, if you look at medicine, it happens something similar in terms of how a disease is defined, if you have all the symptoms that are similar to Hepatitis, but you don´t have one of all the symptoms, then you don´t have Hepatitis, you have something else, the same with psychology, if your behavior doesn´t fit in the list of the patterns classified as, for instance bipolarity, then you don´t have bipolarity, maybe you are just crazy…, what I am trying to bring here is that, the classification of each behavior is measure in terms of the intention and direction of one being in a particular situation, if you return to the perspectives on human rights, you can remember that in terms of the very basics of the theory of interpretation, a particular situation will be defined in matter of reason for the mind to explain the direction that one has to take to resolve in a particular direction, in other words, you place multiple definitions that operate in your reality in matter of value and worth and accordingly to such values you interact with your reality accordingly to those values which allow you to essentially always resolve in the direction of your self-interest, and taking here what the morals are in essence as that particular relationship of “the movement expected in particular situations to maintain particular values and so on and so on”, I mean, first of all, a crime is defined by sections of aggravating or mitigating, this means that, the crime that is committed in a particular list of actions is considered to be more harmful or less harmful, if the crime has a particular direction that “from a moral perspective” qualifies the criminal as “more dangerous” than other people, you can see this is also in matter of criminology, in which the observant of the scene of crime has to follow particular signals that indicate to you, what was the direction or also “the intention” within the crime.

What I am trying to bring here is the point that, the system has over and over again “came to the resolution (in matter of their research)” that “they cannot conclusively determine what is the origin of crime”

I will place here the link of a video made by Andre Rossouw in which she points out this particular issue; Scientists cannot prove the equations and relationships based in Reality:


Ethics within Research


yet, they do understand the consequences of directing the input in matter of behavior in a particular direction, such as if you place values in specific interests that are the direct outcome produced from a certain moral basis, which would also be dependent of your social basis, cultural basis, and all of this is considered as if it was not “a matter in consideration over the existence of crime” because they claim “we are equals, therefore, before the law everyone is equal and everyone is judged in the same way” (wtf…?)

Many times I have heard people stating that the manifestation of wars are a reflection of our human nature and that we should take that as part of what makes us human beings…, yet these statements are only made because when we accept and allow the aggression and abuse in the human we can allow the polarity to exist, and we think in ourselves as this positive, good beings that loves and cares and so on.

I would also like to add here some of the research done by Lindsay to see within the dimensions of Human Behavior

“Control indeed is a fact of nature – yet we do not have to allow this fact to control us. Through understanding the nature of control on a behavioral/biological/physical level we are able to come to terms with the reality of ourselves and thus are able to change ourselves and this world into a reflection of this understanding. To work with OURSELVES instead of against ourselves as we are currently doing through being in denial of the facts of nature.

Yes, the control of conduct by the physical and social environment is a built-in feature of the world…we come this way – yet what is to be understood is that WE have built it in, we have molded this physical and social environment in unawareness, in separation, in self-interest as to this relationship, and thus what we see currently is a significantly limited version of what this physical world and thus ourselves have the capacity to become and express. Currently we are destroying this relationship; we are destroying ourselves as there is no relationship without the physical – there is no life without the physical, and the physical has particular laws and methods of control that we must align to or we will surely annihilate ourselves, as is already clearly evident. We may ‘come this way’ but we just about immediately forget this as we are taught otherwise; we are taught to fear, to survive, to compete; we are taught that there are things in this world that are ‘out to get us’ and that we must defend ourselves; we are taught how to be coercive, coercively.” Linsay Craver

We need to see the implications of our existence, the existence of the Human to bring the understanding that, the very existence of the Human Rights would implies to live for that which has allow us to exist, because to serve to all life in Oneness and Equality should be the purpose for which the Human came here in the first place, but we tend to think, that to work for life, is “hard and difficult” as we have related it as a tough task”, yet, when you see how fun is to play with dogs, with the Animals, that is a form of taking care and LEARNING FROM THEM, which is part of learning of ourselves as life, that will change everything in regards to science, and how we “study animals”, instead of realizing that the difference is made over a picture, and yes, we are still not equals to what is here, but it is possible to bring everyone to live as oneness and equality.

Taking the statement made by Bernard in regards to the Right to Individuality, I mean, it should imply like in agreements that one is having communication with oneself to walk a process of changing and really bringing who one is as self honesty here, creating a human being here that do care, then the agreement with other human beings is possible, then Human Rights are possible, because everyone lives that as a principle.

That is what I have looked at, at the moment, now we need some help from ourselves, to understand completely our mind and redefine completely the way we live and the way we live to bring a new entire vision of what a human being is and should be in regards to what is here, and what our existence imply, so that we can get sure that when we stand as living examples, everyone is able to find a reference, the knowledge and information is not who we are, and is not the answer, what we must do is learn from ourselves so that when someone asks, or see ourselves standing in a certain principle, they see and realize the answer for themselves, that Desteni is, Desteni is not something separated a form of “Institution”, is the group of individuals walking in same principles, yet no one is able to save us or to do something for us, we have to do it for ourselves, if that comes as a realization in everyone, we will see the end of the entire structure of our law system, and the new system, the Equal Money Capitalism will be here, will be a fact, will be in each and every single Human Being.

I will bring here some posts that I strongly suggest you to read written by Ken Cousens and Marlen Vargas del Razo, that I consider to be a real support and assistance into the realization of what Human Rights really actually should be.



Also check some perspectives done by the Destonians on Human Rights:




This and much more can be found if you allow yourself to participate on the DesteniIProcess, is the greatest education that you will ever have, better than any University, I have tested it out myself and this do work, the solution is here, those not willing to consider what is here are not taking responsibility for themselves and they don´t give a fuck about other Human Beings and are creating deliberate harm to all of existence, test it for yourself and don´t give away this opportunity, could be the last one as this is your last life…

Perspectives on Human Rights

Posted on


Hi here again sharing some perspectives on human rights, since I read the blogs of Bernard Poolman and Ken Cousens it has made me reconsider my starting point in my research about human Rights, therefore, I will leave the work done here, and I would only like to ask to anyone interested in this subject that please, share comments and perspectives about it, because this is a big topic and I am sure that there are many points that require direction, so please, if anyone can share any perspectives or corrections it would be really nice, because it can give to everyone another starting point in the vision of Human Rights, thank you

Human Rights:


I will really try to make it as simple and practical as possible, because this is a big subject and it requires a lot of information for the understanding of how it works to get through it, so read it with patience please.


En the old times, when the human becomes sedentary, he discovers the feeling of ownness (fear of survival), noticing the magnitude of its territory (dominance and control = fear of loss), the amount of food (fear of survival = the beginning of the agriculture); their property and the family conformation (control and manipulation over the interests); conceiving, for the very first time, the idea of property with a sense of satisfaction (fulfillment of his necessities = The right to life as a polarity of the fear of death).

Private Revenge – This stage is known by the name of blood revenge or private revenge, against unjust attack, the individual protects himself, as the very act of doing justice by himself (what were they trying to protect? Was themselves or their interests, definitions, values, ideas?) The repressive function was in private hands, with the support and help of the community, which recognized the right to exercise the law of retaliation (eye for eye, tooth for a tooth). The group attached to the victim the right to cause harm of equal intensity to that which caused the situation. The first phase of the criminal law comes with this relationship, the relationship between the law of the strongest in defense of what I want, I desire, I need following this sense of the belonging.
When someone defends something, do not put it aside “much less shares it” it is took to oneself as close and near as possible = fear of loss, fear of survival, because the “quality of life” that gives such object is or has been defined as the ratio it is my right to have and preserve, as “my right to life,” what have we done over time?

I will take a fragment of a blog made by Gabriel Zamora Moreno

In the current system property rights have an interesting structure. In Dutch law property rights are sometimes even referred to as ‘three party rights’. The reason for this is that in such rights there are three elements/parties involved, namely: 1) The subject/owner 2) The object and 3) everyone else.

The reason why ‘everyone else’ is part of this equation, is because what a property right means, is that you as owner have a right to use or dispose of your property as you see fit – and, everyone else should guard themselves of infringing on your right to use or dispose of your property as you see fit. So a property right on the one hand gives someone permission, and on the other hand it gives everyone else an instruction. Obviously there are some restrictions to this right and this freedom is not unlimited, however the gist of the definition is clear: a property right is a protection mechanism to protect the owner against… everyone.

One might ask: protect against what?

Let’s again look at the EMS.

In an Equal Money System the resources of the earth are being managed and distributed based on deliberate planning and calculation of what is necessary to be produced and distributed. There will therefore exist a system of production and distribution that will ensure that everyone have what they need and even more – and this on an equal basis for everyone, making sure that not one single being has to exist in any form of lack. On a material level one could say that an Equal Money System will produce abundance on an Equal Level for everyone. This may seem outrageous, but it is really not when considering the actual available resources, and when taking into consideration how much is currently being wasted or withheld through greed – and what could therefore even within this current system potentially be done already.

Would you need protection against everyone in a world where everyone is equally receiving what you receive and where the common law is that whatever is given to you, you must make the best possible use of in the context of what is best for all? The answer is no, unless you are planning to abuse or deceive, because then you know that you are being greedy and are abusing everyone’s trust. In an Equal Money system it will be very easy to correct such behavior and there will be intervention possible through reeducation.

Let’s look at some outflows of property law: through property rights it has become possible to justify and protect the existence of planned obsolescence, which is the process of weakening (sabotaging) a line of products by the manufacturer himself so as to make the product fall apart in time to create a new demand. Property rights give the allowance for animal abuse and vivisection, as in most countries either by law or by custom animals are regarded as property. Property rights give the allowance for an elite minority to control the faith of all through ownership of the resources of the planet in the name of profit, where even the governments have little say. Strangely the law will also say that the ‘free use’ of one’s property should not infringe on the rights of others, however we have conveniently defined these rights of others (such as human rights) to be meaningless, as is shown by the fact that more than half the world exists in conditions poverty.

Property rights thus encourage irresponsible and psychotic behavior. The context for property law and property rights in the current system is the belief that we apparently exist in a reality of material lack, in other words: that there isn’t enough for everyone. This is however not true as is proven through the massive waste that is being produced by the system while on the other hand billions exist in conditions of poverty and deprivation – for nothing.

Therefore property rights are currently protecting those who have too much or who abuse what they have, and are preventing any kind of intervention to stop this greed as these laws (which are upheld under the banner of democracy yet at the cost of the majority) are protecting their right to abuse.

When through a system of decent administration resources are allocated so that everyone receive equally, then property as such will have no more function as the starting point of fear will be removed and there is no more need to protect ourselves against everyone else.

We have placed these values in useless objects we buy and which decompose in short periods of time, while that which has greater functionality or practicality, passed into the hands of more affluent classes = the best strategy to keep what is of them by law relationship (association of property) and through their own laws …example of this is the manifestation of the new wars unarmed, economic wars, where China “now by definition the first potency” for example can be built in another country, acquiring rights of property with the same laws of the country in which it is installed. Another interesting example is if you see how the government is able to take your belongings away through debt.

Mine (Dictionary definition) pronoun
A form of the possessive case of I used as a predicate adjective: The yellow sweater is mine.
Something that belongs to me: Mine is the red car.

The heritage of the previous generations as our vocabulary and the definitions that we place over this entire world, that definitions that apparently belong to us as that which can be seen by the EYE “I”.

Something interesting about the way in which one writes the I, is that is very similar to a line that points to oneself, this can be also be seen on the theory of the interpretation, in which the very act of naming things, of defining things, is a direct relation of one giving reason and purpose for the existence of one thing in a particular situation which makes you, the owner of that particular reason allowing you to move on the dimensions of the situation, of the equation that one creates accordingly to be able to give direction to oneself within that particular situation, what is interesting within this “logic” is that we have defined everything in proportion to our desires, giving value and reason to everything that is “worthy of appropriation accordingly to our interests” I mean the reason and purpose itself of each and every single things in this world can play accordingly to your desires, which apparently gives you the right to owning it because “the human was created to rule and control all the things in this world” (this is also in the bible) “the act of creation”, is properly an act that is not directed by the human, but that it is directed by the mind, you can see it quite clearly in the very relation of the Descartes when he makes the statement of “I think, therefore I am”, which would be also like saying, my mind created me, that is why I am.

Our names have meaning, in regards to a particular reason that plays out as our existence, defined by a name, given to you by your parents; your parents represent the basic formation of yourself within the structure of everything, society, religion, education, MORALS, and so on.

The purpose and reason placed on all things, were done to resolve a particular issue in a particular direction, that is possible through placing values on the things that would represent your direct relationship to this world (word), I mean, we deliberately disregard many things in this world and we only give purpose to particular points that would represent “the solution to our problem” for example, a key by definition is an object dependent of a door as the door is dependent of the key, the key is accessory of the door as the door would be useless without a key, completing the relationship of that logic, you will be able to get somewhere, for you to get somewhere, you need a key, for you to get to an answer you need a question, our entire existence is mold and shaped accordingly to this principles that are reflected on everything in our world (words), (fascinatingly everything placed on direction to our self-interests)

The life is given unconditionally, without keys or doors, therefore the search for reason and meaning on this existence through irrelevant questions of value and purpose, is only the result of the work of culture forming the civilization of the human, those “more civilized” apparently have the right to conquer and have dominion over other cultures that are inferior, because they don´t have all the definitions and values that we have as the greater culture, as the greater civilization, and within that, the “civil-lie” is imposed on each and every single human being from birth, something interesting within this entire point of the heritage, “which we are going to discuss later” is particularly interesting in regards to the “action of making a guaranty, that those things will remain on the position that they are, in the particular order that they have, in regards to “the blood line = family that they belong to”. Our fear of death represents also an absence of oneself as definition of its own existence, as the I (eye) = fear of that which we don´t know, what would happen to me when I die? You lose your definitions, values, purposes, everything is gone, because its irrelevant, I mean, all the relationships that we have molded and shaped in our life, were dependent of the particular relationship that we have within a physical human body and all that it implies, existing on the earth, gravity, survival, “energy”, I mean, if one don´t have a physical body, then most of our definitions and relationships become irrelevant, because our definitions are only able to play its position on the world (words) in which we exist, if one die and our relationships to everything ends. We end as minds, what remains is what one most create as self, if one self is not equal to everything that is here, one doesn´t exist.

Is fascinating that if you see in the very establishment of the jurisprudence, it depends of the act of specific people with specific knowledge and position in this system, solving one problem in one particular direction, 5 thesis solving in one particular direction, gives validity in proportionality of fact to a particular issue which have the same value that “a law”, this means, also the same in the very beginning of the creation of the society, a great council of old and wise people coming together for the definition and resolution of particular issues that would influence the entire system, why? Because they had “more experience and knowledge in regards to the functioning of the system itself” and something fascinating is that if you see within the development of the first cultures, the entire placement had its foundation on the religion, I mean the religion was in fact the government and only the pontiffs, knew each law…

All the religions are a matter of opinion, that is able to be mold, shaped, manipulated, with the course of time (an example of this, is how we have created an opinion “almost like a religion” about homosexuality, when this manifestation is something able to be seen on nature and it was also accepted on Greece) what is happening to the relationship of values today? We are seeing that our Economies are all falling, because all that has value in this world is not able to sustain the true interests behind those values, because we are speaking about the interests of “self” in matter of opinion, and you know, it is said that “No one thinks in the same way”, and what happened was that in the moment that we placed value of superiority and inferiority on something or someone, the interests became more and more reduced to satisfy the interests of a selected group of people, and all of those that didn´t aligned their interests with the interests of that selected group of people, were disregarded as everything else that don´t have value, that is apparently inferior, those that had “a conflict with such relationship of interests” became saves of the greater Nations. With every war that have taken place, the interests are modified, the values are place somewhere else, why? Because the points of control over the resources became more specific, the weapons became more specific, the tactics became more defined in one particular direction as the consequence of survival, fear of death, the promise of a heaven to the satisfaction of a capricious moral life for our own salvation…, I mean everything that is necessary to create conflict is a little bit of manipulation here and there over the values = interests, with propaganda, religion, politics, “sexuality”, and the best understanding of this, is to see how easily is for the people to react to “words”.

The justification of a divine order, a purpose for those remaining in positions of power, was very easy through the principle that the pontiffs played as the “only listeners and interpreters of the LAW OF GOD”, with the inquisition one is able to see the perfect example of what took place for those that “disagreed with the opinion of the church, the moral person, moral society, the corporation, the legal personality which is the state. Understand, the social reason for its existence, is the same that gives validity to its fiction, it’s the society itself; there are no governments (without the people, without the believe of the people in a government), its not real, it’s a fiction, the state it’s the representation of the collectivity of all Human beings, coming together on the basis of religion, morals, culture, psychosexual principles, interests, everything that the people accepts and allows is what makes possible the actual order of everything.

With all of this, is important to look at two words that have represented such “divine order”.

First of all: Justice

Justice – Definition from the Romans: The constant and perpetual will to give to each on his right.

One point that is constant and continuous within the statements of the ideology of the ius naturalists, is that over the assumption that the people possess things, there is a “right by attribution” of the owner which must be protected at all cost, and the effectiveness of the owner to be able to possess and enjoy that which he possess depends of “the society”, now here is where the law enters, because it is possible that another possesses that which “belongs to another by right” is so, that the law can exist, where there is no abuse, there is no law or right. (very interesting)

And this is the statement: The things “must go to the owner”, and get into the hands of the individual to whom they are attributed, because this NEED is the primary effect of things to be of someone, so that you can say “are yours”.

(Check how the word Need is used to describe an apparent “sense of meaning” to the existence itself of the human, as fear of loss)

And within this what is being said is: Giving each his own is a social need, now this is quite interesting from the perspective that the Capitalistic system focus all its attention into the need of fulfillment of desires, wants and needs, but nothing of this constitutes a practical requirement of the human physical body, or life itself.

Second statement: give each his own, requires, first to want to give it, if someone doesn’t want to give to another his right, is obvious that he will not, in any case, if he doesn’t want to give it, it will be applied pressure to make him to give it, and then he will give it, or by the social force, it will be snatch from him; but in this case, he didn’t gave it, it’s not enough that someone wants to give to another his possession, is not less important to know to who pertains the possession, or that it is fairly of the other, because, without knowing it, or he will not give it to its rightful owner, or he will not decide to give it, this knowing corresponds to the practical reason, which consist of knowing what to give, who to give it, when to give it, how to give it and where to give it.

If one analyze this, it is true that is actually not a matter of want to give…to give, but this is using an starting point based on survival, noticing also that by definition the application of “giving its subdued to the idea of giving it just to maintain the original order” what are the duties of this person that demands his right to have the thing returned to his original placement? I mean, it should be obvious that this person must ask the question: But, what if that person also needed it? What if that person took it to also fulfill his/her own need (right)? What if the rights of that person have been violated and when that person see his/her rights violated, it takes them to take from others because when the rights of everyone are not fulfill, no one has actually any right at all? in recognition of what is best for all, the principle here could be very easily changed to a matter of just giving what the other need and requires because you don’t need to survive cause you have been already provided with all your basic needs, therefore, what could you want or need or desire if everything is provided?

It is necessary to point it out, that the principle of authority here, functions as an act that is completely separated from the person doing it, because justice is considered the virtue of him who behaves and acts in a certain way, in this case those who are educated to be authorities. What is fascinating is that, if the principle itself, existed within the recognition of life as all as one as equals, I mean, the right then becomes something which is part of the life itself, and within this, the principle of authority becomes the same as the directive principle of self, where everyone knows what is best for all, and act in the benefit of all life, then, one can really say that justice exist. Isn´t it said that the principle of “ought” in the laws, should be that this are not only accomplished by fear of consequence, but that “they should be accomplished by duty of consciousness of each individual”? What could be better than to give, self-governance and self-authority to each individual standing on the same principles that makes us equals as life? Isn´t that our fucking democracy?

The current starting point: The things are spread, and attributed to different people, that is why we speak of what is mine, yours and yours. And it is pointed out, within the version of several ius (jurists) naturalists, that the justice does not give or attribute things, it follows the principle that these are already distributed, so it limits itself to only maintain a certain order within the system, and we must also consider that the way in which the law proceeds is that: there cannot be an act of justice, where there is not a title over one thing. because as we have already seen, a right is consider that which is taken as a value placed on wants, needs and desires, from the capitalism perspective.

The very existence of justice, depends in itself of the existence of the society, the laws are important, but not because they regulate a behavior in the people, but because the arguments in which they are founded should solve in the direction that is best for all, by preventing unnecessary consequences to manifest. We don´t see this things because, as I said before, if there is no abuse, there is no Justice, a lawyer doesn´t get paid if there is no abuse, a doctor doesn´t get paid if there are no diseases, a teacher doesn´t get paid if there is no ignorance…fascinating Justice we have created, because without anybody existing in survival, then there cannot be laws, there is no real research on prevention of crimes, because those trying to find out a fucking way to bring a change are simply “disregarded because they are not following the opinion of those that do earn money”. If one really considers our current situation, the only way in which Justice is able to exist, is to get sure get sure that everyone is provided with that which is essential for a dignified living, so that nobody steals, and everyone is able to enjoy their “goods”.

The titles of property must then be redefine in its very structure, because is like when you buy food on the market, and you get your buying ticket, which is the title attributing you as the owner of the food that you buy, yet, what can be said of our society today? We demand the fulfillment of that for which we are paying, but we don´t fulfill our duties, our duty is not only to pay with money; you can see this for instance in relationships, you can see the relationships as a business, you have contracts, agreements, and principally money…, if you don´t have money, your agreement is fucked, the situation here is that, we base our relationships on emotions and feelings; if the deal is made over the promise of love (law), what one is not considering is that the very existence of love (law), is dependent of a crisscrossing of emotions and feelings, that make possible the existence in itself of love, the problem with the agency (your partner) is that he/she, doesn´t want the “negative aspects of such relationships” which are the “skeletons on the closet”, so to speak…, we don´t want the negative energy, we just want the promise of the energy of love (law) fulfilled, and something interesting is that, if one see this directly, the agreement in itself cannot actually exist when the deal is made on the promise of love (law), because the person feels love one moment, at the other moment it is angry or maybe happy, if he is not in love all the time, how could such bullshit exist in the very first place? At the difference of one agreement in which one is essentially walking with one person knowing the total implications of how this person exists, and if this person is willing to walk in a process of self-correction, self-application, the agreement would be able to be grounded on a basis that is able to endure conflict and resistance, because the agreement exist on supporting each other to walk through the positive and negative aspects of each other in self-honesty to establish oneself as self-honesty.

I write the word law at one side of the word love, because it actually works exactly the same in regards to our current society, the agreement between the persons “that conform the society”, implies a tacit agreement of co-existing in the same conditions, in every possible way, the agreement is that if one have rights, one have duties, the very principle that makes this rights possible is that the social condition of each and every single person must follow and remain within certain conditions.

The question is: How can a society exist when the persons are completely isolated from each other in their personal interests with no consideration of someone else than themselves? If there is no consideration for each other, the fulfilling of our duties has not been fulfilled at all, and therefore we have no real rights.

What is fascinating is that the consequences of the agreement have been manipulated to place a very small group on the top of the pyramid while placing others out of the possibility of even have access to food; the perfect example of this, is the industrial revolution, that brought for the very first time the concept of unemployment, through the development of industrial machines that were able to make the work of 1 hundred persons, the implication wasn´t necessary a progress but the fact that 1 hundred persons lose their jobs, because the benefits were only able to be perceived by those who were able to pay for them, for those who were able to remain on the wheel of the system; the quality standards that we place on the food, determine how much will be paid to the farmer for his work, and the same could be said of what police should get, or how long will be the sentence that must endure the thief, yet, when we teach a human being to define himself accordingly to his job or profession, what happens is that we have left everyone who is not able to pay for an actualization (education) in his labor, out of the possibility of getting a job in the system, and what becomes important is the relationships that allows you to find a job, and with this we have enslaved ourselves to each other, because for the system to exist we must remain in our positions, someone has to be poor for someone else to be rich…, we have managed to get the balance out of proportion, taking the human being out of the balance of our so called justice, taking the life out of balance, this can be reflected in our entire world today, and the worst of everything is that we believe that there are no consequences, yet, what we don´t see is that this consequences are not something that just affect the human being, it affects everyone and everything, including nature, animals, weather, etc., which only demonstrates that the human being is not separated from what is here in anyway whatsoever.

How is currently defined “the own”, what is “mine”? what has come to my heritage by “need or want”.

The objective of justice is: to regulate how one person should treat another, or a person entitled to be treated in a particular way –John Finnis–

The problem is that the human being is considered to be a “person” – persona, that has a personality, this personality implies that the condition that follows what is defined as the human nature of this being, is entirely dependent of certain interests that make its existence possible, therefore, for it to be able to have rights within the society, he/she have to work to serve the interest of the Nation which is the colectivity of all the Human beings, following certain condition that makes possible the organization of the human resources and that should be distributed to all of those participating in this system, the way in which you demonstrate the value of your personality, the accountability of your personality, your person, persona, is through presenting the symbol that represents your number and value, which is money.

The main point of all of this remains the same, the value has been placed on interests that have been perceived as separated from the human, yet, it is the human himself who has made of his own existence what it is today, because we have also placed ourselves in separation of the very system that we created, denying our creation as if it was manipulated for someone else than ourselves, the perfect example of this, is how we tend to blame the governments for what we have created.

I am not saying that there has been no abuse, yet, it is important to understand that the very criteria that form our opinions, had its basis established on the value placed on those things in which we projected our self-interests, one can notice that what has become of our society today is that, we are coming more and more to the realization of how much we have define ourselves accordingly to what we possess and accordingly to the picture that we have, but this is not something that happened just the other day, this has been since the beginning of the human civilization.

The problem I see is that humanity today, really has no idea of his true identity, we work eight hours, we have the house, the kids, the bills, television, hobbies, and the errands we do every day, and finally begin to believe that that’s all we are. But we are more than our charges or work, beyond being the status of “mother” or “father” beyond being “theist”, “atheist”, “Republican” or “Democrat”, “black” or “white”, “man” or “woman”, what or who we are, after all? We do not know, because every time we hear something we do not want to hear about us, we deny it. We try to ignore it and we project it to someone else to judge them for that. –Anonymous-

At the individual level we know what happens, but what happens when everyone refuses to see what it really is?
“Mankind is trapped in a cycle of fear, hatred and apathy, these human instincts are reflected in political systems and bureaucracies, which very often limits basic rights as the pursuit of happiness. A society whose foundations fear, apathy and hatred, is organized into a system that fundamentally affects the happiness of all individuals. This society represses individual development and maintains a cyclical behavioral pattern of superiority and inferiority and a class society founded on misleading ideals”-Mark Zimmerman

However, even when we demonize our world leaders, we need to understand that they and we are part of the same unit, all governments, corporations, religions, all represent the ideals we have projected separation of ourselves, because they are the reflection of what we project as our desire to achieve a higher state of existence

One of the most important figures that had Rome, and “still preserved” is precisely the figure of inheritance, my heritage, what is mine happens to be yours, from generation to generation, those families that had a pretty generous heritage, they were in “the predicament of needing to justify the possession of the property of interest” through blood relationship, and the only way to achieve this was to let everyone else have the same definition and provide the same legal fiction, this to ensure that the goods that they had did not went to be of the state or some divinity, because both were justified as “mine, yours”, it creates this apparent relationship of respect for yours or mine, because within that relationship of respect, the goods remain in the name or definition of belonging of the person who possesses them, the patrimony that will be for the generations to come, life after life, after life, and one can see that this implies that the roles in our society have remained in exactly the same place, we have repeated the same life’s over and over again because we are following the values of our culture, religion, laws, politics, everything is just an accumulation of consequences that has lead us to change a little bit the picture here and there, but the essence of our values remains the same, because the interest behind those values has remained the same as fear of death and fear of survival.

In religion and politics, people beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue, but have taken them at second hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing – Mark Twain –

The concept of source comes from the words (in Latin) fons and fundo, which means: “the place from which something emanates to the outward”, our acts are consequence of our decisions and choices, and for this the point of self-honesty, in the case where a man steals food to feed the family, the man is self-honest, because following the principle that life exist in all things, can life choose to not be life? the man is only acting as a consequence of what his life requires, then if certain conditions must be fulfilled for life to exist, and if we have become so dependent of the properties, then this must be considered a natural right (not only for humans, I mean, this is something that any life form requires and have access to, just for being here, it is “a right” that is recognized by the Earth, why we humans don´t recognize it?) If that is not so in every single person, then the application of laws is impossible in itself and one could consider that the law in its very structure is broken, why? The justice is inherent to the Equality and vice versa , the conditions by which are determined the fulfillment of the positive orders, must not be just equals in regards to the acts of the individuals, first we must establish equal conditions in every aspect of the life of each individual to ensure the true justice.

So when it is spoken from the starting point of: give each his own, we can redefine this to: (tatarara) Justice is the principle of equal distribution.

The reality is that, there is no way, or possibility for the existence of “mine” to take place, in a field with first of all the Earth being that which existed before me, and being the Earth that which determined the very possibility of my existence only through the existence of everything else here, each plant, each animal, had to exist, to keep the balance of that which was unconditional for all of us, we cannot speak about a right to life for the human, without considering all the living beings in this reality, is not possible! The very existence of the human was only possible through the existence of a universe, a galaxy, Jesus Christ! Stars died so that we could live, we depend of the Earth and we also depend of the lowest point in this reality, all that is here is life, a right to life for the Human is only possible if our duties towards all life are fulfilled beginning with repairing the damage that we have done

The life as we know it, has come to an end, because the survival that we were trying to defend, the life that we have been trying to preserve is not sustainable without the consideration of all that is here, and the only solution to that, implies to give away our self-interest, because as long as we keep the same values and definitions over this entire world (words) the state of this world will become just worse and worse, why? Because everything is out of balance, our so called “justice” is out of proportion to our self-interests, it has existed like that since the very beginning of its existence, of its creation, this cannot continue, this values were never “evaluated” as the value of life, as self-honesty, as common sense, and the world as we understand it or perceived to be, accordingly to the sense that we have gave to it, the direction that we have given to it, cannot longer sustain the ideals that we have established as this Human CIVIL – LIE – NATION, we have tried to restore the values in the direction of “spiritualization” as we did in the beginning, but our believes will not feed us, that is obvious, we all know that…a belief is not able to feed you.

The right to life implies, to give the same life that we have received, considering that the Universe has placed himself here, and that the planet has been here unconditionally for the Human, then the human has a duty that most be fulfilled with the Earth and the Universe, it took billions of years for the Universe to create the Earth and it took millions of years to the Earth to establish all the necessary for the possibility of the existence of the human, it is interesting that everything has been given to us unconditionally yet, we demand more, we demand rights, our greed is consuming everything and we are not considering that our right to life implies a duty with life itself, this is why we are seeing the consequences of how many species are coming to an end, in the same way in which resources are being depleted, because we are not giving the same that has been gave to us, when one give to oneself that life, that consideration of what is here, one change, one is able to learn more from what is here, because you learn from everything from each and every single plant, animal, bacteria, to give them proper care, only when we give that life, that consideration of ourselves as life to everything and everyone else, we will be able to have real life, real right to life, what we are seeing with the (possible) end of the human specie? Is that we are losing our right to life

“Life is within the physical, as when we live we live here on earth, in the physical reality on the physical substance around, among, and within us allowing us to be here. The physical has laws that govern it, these laws are supportive and create life to continue and live on, it adapts and changes to create what will be best for all as we see within nature how it adapts and creates itself to live among all physical elements and conditions to eventual equilibrium and harmony. So life require a certain set of cooperation and understanding within following these laws of the physical as these are guides to live in the physical and continue to function as such as been proving in the physical in keeping life going and adapting to be best for all. Those who see aren’t going to make it in life in the physical, go into the death process to be rebirthed into another form of life where they will be again part of the change, there is no fear of this death, but a point of acceptance of self as change and the fruits are within the change that is accepted, which is new life, new creation, and growth and expansion”. -Gabrielle Goodrow-

Re-definiendo el concepto de familia pt2

Posted on

niño que sueña

(Esto es algo que recientemente estaba observando y solo es un publicación rápida, ire en mayor detalle en el tema en la próxima publicación)

El principio de la jerarquía en la familia, tiene por fin último el establecimiento de una autoridad, esta autoridad ha sido justificada como “las lecciones que debemos aprender de nuestros padres en torno al punto mismo de la supervivencia”, sin embargo, hay otro principio bastante interesante dentro de esa jerarquización y el principio de autoridad a través del miedo, esto es la supresión sexual a través del diseño de la culpa.

La culpa en su existencia misma maneja principios simples en realidad, si tomas tu más profundo temor, este siendo el temor a la muerte, te darás cuenta de que este miedo resuena en momentos específicos en los que percibes tu vida en peligro, esto es igual a ver un mecanismo de alarma que se activa frente a determinadas situaciones, el que va a determinar esas situaciones, dependerá mucho de la cultura, religión, país, etc., pero el principio se establece de la misma forma para todas las personas de todo el mundo.

La culpa funciona de forma muy similar al miedo, solo que esta se activa una vez que esa barrera ha sido cruzada, la barrera de miedos que podrían definirse como diminutos, en un principio uno puede pensar que todas las morales tienen un fin específico de llevar al individuo al perfeccionamiento individual, sin embargo esto no es necesariamente de esa forma, el establecimiento mismo del orden marca que solo “los mejores individuos” pueden encontrarse en la parte superior de la pirámide, estos individuos tendrían que haber aprendido todo el conocimiento e información necesarios que los establece en las posiciones en las que se encuentran como líderes o directores de los que ahora serán los aprendices (aunque de hecho no ocurra así en la realidad), así que esto establece que el resto de aquello que se encuentren por debajo de “los maestros ascendidos” tienen que aprenderlo. Una vez que lo aprenden, “la perfección de ello” es cuando simplemente se lleva por la vía más corta a la realización de una determinada acción, y esto implica = no cuestionar las ordenes, no cuestionar lo que sabes = funcionas solo como un sistema.

La supresión sexual, mantiene a los hijos ligados a los padres y de esa forma terminamos buscando a una persona con similaridades a nuestros padres o hermanos, de sa forma se mantiene la relación del sistema, por eso las personalidades son tan importantes para este, porque de ello depende su supervivencia, dicen que el dinero solo es el medio y no el fin, pues el sistema usa exactamente el mismo principio, la energía que busca tan desesperadamente, es solo el medio, no el fin de su existencia.

Relaciones Maritales: Historia del hombre #74

El origen del divorcio:Historia del Hombre #75

El sexo y la sexualidad: Historia del Hombre #79




Re-definiendo el concepto de familia pt1

Posted on Actualizado enn


No es posible comprender el funcionamiento del Estado sin antes comprender que lo conforma, la familia, el interés superior de la Nación, porque todas las familias en su participación colectiva sostienen a la Nación, crean a la sociedad misma. La responsabilidad por tanto de la actual condición de la sociedad depende de cada familia más allá de solo los individuos.

–          La familia constituye un fuerte consorcio, una fuerte corporación de naturaleza jurídica y extra jurídica.

–          Lo que definía a las familias en la antigüedad era el sometimiento de todos los miembros a la misma autoridad, la potestad de un jefe definido como “paterfamilias ” , que en realidad era más un señor o soberano de la familia que “un padre de familia”.

–          Se conoce como familia al conjunto de personas que “por naturaleza o derecho”, se encuentran bajo una misma potestad.

–          Esta unidad real de la familia fundada en la sujeción a la potestad de un paterfamilias viviente, se escinde en “época histórica”, dando lugar a la formación de otras tantas familias cuantos son los hijos varones.

Los vínculos que unen a la familia son 2 que pueden definirse como el vínculo agnaticio y cognaticio, estos son, el vínculo de los agnados (nacidos después del testamento o de la muerte del padre/ aquellos que entran a la familia por otras vías como la adopción, y no son hijos de sangre) y el vínculo cognaticio (vinculo por sangre), cabe suponer que la familia antigua, abrigase en su regazo a todos los agnados, y que por razones de orden y de defensa de razones superiores a las simplemente domésticas, impusieran a la que después se llamó familia communi iure, la conservación intacta de su propia unidad política a la muerte del jefe.

Asumidas luego por la civitas las fundamentales posiciones políticas de orden y defensa (razones superiores a las simplemente domesticas); la unidad compacta del grupo familiar entre en quiebra, la familia se escinde en tantos grupos cuantos son los hijos de familia inmediatamente sujetos a la potestad del pater muerto, si bien es otorgada a estos de conservar indiviso el patrimonio familiar en un régimen de consortium (consorcio)

Lo que es interesante acerca de “la diferencia” entre la familia moderna y la romana, es que la potestad antes solo recaía en el varón, ahora puede caer tanto en el hombre como en la mujer, sin embargo, esta siempre reside en aquella persona que tiene dinero, ser la persona que provee con el sustento económico, es definida como “la cabeza de la familia”, ahora bien hay familias en las que es tanto el hombre como la mujer los que apoyan con el sustento económico, eso los hace a ambos, “cabezas de familia”.

Otro punto interesante dentro de estas “consideraciones sobre la familia”, yace dentro de los vínculos que definían la familia porque, como ya se había compartido antes, la herencia, era un punto de atención bastante grande dentro de la Estado en aquel tiempo y aun hoy día (la forma única forma de permitir y aceptar la existencia de la relación jurídica de la herencia, es si la permito y acepto en otro, y eso se justifica a través de justificar “el linaje”), porque básicamente lo que ocurre con el derecho hoy día es que se limita a regular la relación entre las personas y sus bienes y las relaciones entre el Estado con los individuos, y estos vínculos, definen este punto de separación social, es decir, tal parece que el linaje del padre fue en realidad solo uno, y desde entonces hemos repetido la misma vida una y otra vez, la misma familia, la misma  cadena genética una y otra vez, heredando el mismo patrimonio con el cual la obsesión llega a tal grado de decir (dentro de los vínculos cognaticio y agnaticio) “si, somos iguales, somos familia, pero no somos “tan iguales”, porque no somos la misma sangre” y por la misma familia, la misma vida, me refiero al orden mismo del sistema, es decir, invariablemente de que se quiera o no, la posición de los miembros de la familia, los roles sociales, el orden psicológico, y demás, siempre está definido en categorías, y estas categorías dentro del programa individual de cada individuo, definen roles sociales, roles familiares, roles internos dentro del individuo como personalidades, las familias se repiten, los órdenes se repiten, sistemas vienen y van porque no hay una verdadera consideración de estos vínculos en un punto de honestidad con nosotros mismos a establecer responsabilidad por estos programas ya que esencialmente todo es realizado por nosotros, y para ello establecemos relaciones con la energía ¿Por qué? Porque  siempre buscamos dentro de esa relación energética el interés personal y me refiero al hecho de que nuestra relación con la madre, el padre, los hermanos, los primos, los tíos, los sobrinos, el primo del amigo, en base a nuestra conveniencia, nuestra supervivencia como sistemas, donde no tenemos que hacer algo más que limitarnos a conservar nuestras relaciones, mantenerlas y alimentarlas, porque de esa forma garantizamos cierta “herencia”, y esta no son necesariamente bienes materiales o genéticos, sino ordenes mentales.

Una vez que el cabeza de familia muere, se reparten todos los bienes en la herencia y entonces la familia entra en quiebra, porque lo que mantiene a la familia unida es el dinero, el vínculo familiar continúa generación tras generación, pero solo si hay dinero, de otra forma, los individuos se separan y ven por su supervivencia en la posibilidad de entrar en otra familia, y el linaje se olvida.

La creencia dentro de la familia se encuentra en el establecimiento del orden social mismo en torno a la división social, porque aparentemente, solo seres humanos específicos pueden hacerse cargo de “los suyos, su sangre”, en lugar de ver por la calidad de vida de todos los seres humanos, y todas las formas de vida en general.

En perspectiva con el Sistema Igualitario Capitalista, la diferencia recae en que la familia no estará definida u ordenada de acuerdo a un orden jerárquico susceptible de la persona que tenga dinero, ya que el valor se encontrara en la vida y no en el dinero, lo cual  implica la asistencia y apoyo de toda forma de vida incondicionalmente, pero ya llegare a eso.

Población: Se entiende el elemento humano que integra una unidad política, cuando nos referimos al pueblo en lo que toca a sus aspectos meramente cuantitativos, estamos hablando de la población.

Definición del Diccionario: La política, es la actividad del ciudadano cuando interviene en los asuntos públicos con su opinión, con su voto, o de cualquier otro modo; Arte o traza con que se conduce un asunto o se emplean los medios para alcanzar un fin determinado; orientaciones o directrices que rigen la actuación de una persona o entidad en un asunto o campo determinado.

La re-educación de cada individuo de este mundo es vital para levantar el elemento humano, porque solo individuos responsables (por otros seres humanos como por si mismos) establecerán familias responsables, de ahí cada ser humano en las generaciones por venir, tendrá una Nación nueva, aquella que hemos construido, porque la realidad es que no podemos ver por el futuro de nuestros hijos individualmente si no vemos por el futuro de todos los hijos de la Nación, porque en tanto haya una familia sin acceso a aquello que querríamos para nosotros mismos, como vivienda, alimentos, abrigo, servicios, salud; sus hijos y nuestros hijos pasaran a través de la misma Nación, la misma competencia y lucha por la supervivencia que hemos dejado como nuestro patrimonio para ellos, el patrimonio de la Nación, le pertenece a la Nación, no a un conjunto de individuos que hemos separado de nosotros como “aquellos, los responsables”, eso no es posible, ya que ellos son parte de la misma sociedad y son de hecho el reflejo de aquello que permitimos y aceptamos en nosotros mismos, ya que el requisito para ocupar posiciones de poder es primero que nada el de ser ciudadano de la Nación.

La identificación de la Nación con la población de un Estado, no solo posee un significado histórico, sino que se mantiene vigente. El gobierno “fue fundado en las bases de la democracia”, sin embargo, “¿Esto se ha mantenido vigente en forma alguna?” ¿Alguien te ha preguntado sobre reformas a la educación, el comercio, la industria, etc.? ¿Cuál es la opinión pública? Es aquella aceptada por consenso de los ciudadanos, podríamos decir que tal consenso toma lugar en el ritual cotidiano de ir a ver la televisión a escuchar las noticias, y crear opiniones al respecto de las noticias.

Hay muchas declaraciones sobre la manipulación de los medios de comunicación, sin embargo, el principio de manipulación implica la aceptación implícita de la persona a seguir un determinado patrón mental que es creado en consideración de esta persona de una determinada realidad, lo que hacen los medios es algo un poco distinto.

Los medios de comunicación presentan una información incompleta, lo que muestran son escenas de lo que  quieren que se vea y de lo cual se pretende que se forme una opinión al respecto, y entonces tu opinión esta dirigida y encausada en permiso y aceptación de ser orientada al punto de participación en la política que se requiere que participes, ¿por qué? Porque esa es la única forma en que el Estado pudo nacer, que la nación pudo crecer, orientada hacia “los intereses de la nación” (por favor, lean el post “los ideales del sistema” en este mismo blog, si aún no lo han hecho, links en la parte inferior) la información es cambiada respecto de la noticia, opiniones son creadas e inclusive hasta creencias (si se quiere), y en base a esa desinformación, hacemos un estadio político, una opinión respecto de la Nación y en ello, la Nación apoya o rechaza ciertos intereses, los cuales mantienen en posición aquellos que requieren ser mantenidos en posición para que el orden del sistema continúe, para que el linaje continúe, para que las familias sigan escondidas en sus casas protegiéndose de otros seres humanos ¿por qué otra razón se emplearía tanto tiempo y energía en la manipulación continua y constante de la completa sociedad cuando simplemente podrían tomarlo todo por la fuerza? Porque un individuo no puede construir un imperio solo, necesita de la completa participación social en los mismos ideales, el movimiento de varias personas encausadas por la misma idea, hace posible la creación del sistema.

Ahora, es necesario ver la realidad de “nuestra participación política”, nuestra verdadera ocupación por la “unidad política”, esta representa un porcentaje mínimo respecto de aquello para lo que es verdaderamente ocupada la televisión que es esencialmente entretenimiento, ¿por qué ocurre este “desinterés por la vida”? Nuestras noticias hoy día propagan miedo continuo y constante en las mentes de las personas, y de esto, las consecuencias son el constante temor de nuestra realidad y de otros seres humanos, lo que impide una verdadera sociedad, así que es difícil hablar de un individuo cuando no hay sociedad que lo defina, es difícil hablar de una sociedad cuando no hay individuos interesados en conformarla… ¿Dónde está el gobierno opresor o liberador sino en nosotros mismos?

La población en muchos estados se ha formado a partir de grandes inmigraciones como en Estados Unidos, Argentina, Uruguay y Chile.

–          Cuando hacemos alusión a una comunidad cultural de idioma, religión, sentimiento común de pertenencia, a la misma historia y al mismo origen, hablamos de una Nación.

El diseño, construcción o establecimiento mental de un gran conjunto de seres humanos en un área determinada pertenencia a una Nación depende de tu consideración respecto de otros seres humanos, porque es en base a nuestra participación en cualquier forma de comunicación, lo que nos hace participes, parte de la unidad política, en esto podría decirse que cualquier ser humano es parte de una misma Nación, el mundo.

Todos sabemos de un mismo punto de origen, ya sea por nuestras creencias, ideas o conocimientos, que apuntan en una misma dirección, la historia de la humanidad comienza en un punto donde todos provenimos del mismo origen, la misma historia, pertenecientes a la misma Tierra, un mismo SENTIDO COMÚN (invariablemente de si se utilice o no), una misma religión = el dinero, aunque no la misma comunidad cultural o de idioma, eso es de lo único que se podría hablar que varía de una expresión a otra, siendo ambas la misma vida de hecho, aquí como uno e iguales.

El gobierno se encuentra fundado en la democracia y la democracia son las personas.

Los países pueden bien no encontrarse de acuerdo con una misma unidad política, una misma economía, una misma sociedad. Sin embargo al mismo tiempo, invariablemente de que lo aceptemos o no, el capitalismo es un hecho mundial, que afecta a todos los países invariablemente de su política económica ya que se establecen tratados de entre naciones y se realizan movimientos de compra venta entre las mismas para la obtención de: materiales, conocimientos, alimentos. Y las reglas, las dictaminan las potencias mundiales del capitalismo, en aceptación y permiso del resto de los países que si bien, no ven o tal vez no comprenden su participación mundial, somos todos responsables del orden establecido en esta nación; el mundo y principalmente la familia.

Esto es todo por el momento, visiten los links sobre el Equal Money Capitalism, el DesteniiProcess, para más información sobre como levantarse como ese punto de responsabilidad en nosotros mismos y en este mundo.

Los ideales del sistema


Los intereses de la nación pt1


Los intereses de la Nación pt2






El derecho sobre las cosas propias, (La Corrupción en la Naturaleza Humana)

Posted on Actualizado enn


La Corrupción en la Naturaleza Humana

Este argumento de la teoría de Kelsen lo vimos en mi escuela hace algunos días, y la verdad está de miedo el argumento aun aceptado (y hasta deificado) por los positivistas, digo deificado por la continua y constante alusión que se hace de este filosofo en particular, ya había escrito un artículo anteriormente en el que hago una cita textual de él, pueden encontrarlo con el título: “El impacto de nuestro sistema legal en la Economía de la Sociedad con escasos recursos (Pobreza)” es extenso, sin embargo si realmente están interesados en una visión más completa de lo que ocurre en este mundo respecto de la situación de pobreza, sugiero a todos ir a ese blog. Dejare el link en la parte inferior de este

El derecho a disponer libremente sobre las cosas propias, lo mismo que el derecho a la conducta no prohibida no es otra cosa que el reflejo subalterno de las normas que estatuyen deberes jurídicos.

Puedo disponer libremente sobre mis cosas, pero solo si tengo dinero, si quiero una televisión, necesito dinero,  si quiero el servicio de cable, tengo que pagar por él y para eso necesito dinero, si se descompone la televisión: una de dos opciones = o pago un curso para aprender a reparar televisiones o le pago a la persona que sabe cómo hacerlo

El “derecho a trabajar” se vuelve una necesidad de supervivencia en cuanto a que requiero del dinero para poder pagar por la reparación, el alimento, el abrigo, la casa, “tengo que pagar por mis derechos fundamentales”.

La lucha por los Derechos Humanos no son otra cosa sino la lucha por el dinero –Marlen Vargas del Razo-

Hobbes: La ley fundamental es aquella cuya abolición traería consigo la ruina del cuerpo social y provocaría una anarquía completa. La individualidad, la abolición de la individualidad sería el fin del sistema como lo conocemos porque en tanto se desconsidere a otro ser humano en búsqueda del propio beneficio, no habrá consideración de otros para con uno mismo así como no ha habido consideración de uno para con otros, en ello cada quien se encarga de “sus problemas, sus cosas y la vida puede seguir”.

Art. 39 Constitucional: La Soberanía Nacional reside esencial y originalmente en el pueblo. Todo poder dimana del pueblo y se instituye para beneplácito de este. El pueblo tiene en todo tiempo el inalienable derecho de alterar o modificar la forma de su gobierno.

Entonces tengo derecho a la conducta no prohibida en tanto cumpla con mis deberes con el estado y otros seres humanos ¿Puedes estar cumpliendo con tus deberes si estas ocupado con tu supervivencia? ¿Por qué existe la corrupción? ¿Por qué se tolera la individualidad y la desconsideración de otros seres humanos donde uno tiene la responsabilidad y el deber para con otros, diciendo que “simplemente no somos iguales” porque esa persona no tiene el título, o las habilidades, o el dinero, o las cosas, o la personalidad que yo tengo y entonces llamo descaradamente “iguales” a las personas que se encuentran en las mismas condiciones que yo porque juntos podemos justificar el abuso de este mundo en tanto nuestra igualdad se pueda ver reflejada en nuestros recursos?

La respuesta a todas esas preguntas y la solución a todas ellas es el dinero. Puedo cumplir (siempre) con la conducta permitida si tengo dinero, puedo cumplir con mis deberes, si tengo dinero, puedo tener derecho a “la libertad” si tengo dinero, puedo ejercer mi derecho de “decidir sobre que producto comprar” solo si tengo dinero; es interesante, no hay un solo trabajo en este mundo en el que no abuses de otra persona, en el que no compitas con otra persona, en el que no dañes a otra persona, en el que no hagas sufrir y preocuparse a otra persona por su supervivencia.

La vergüenza como se ha establecido con respecto a este sistema, que no es la vergüenza que uno experimenta al ser honesto con uno mismo, sino la vergüenza consuetudinaria del complejo social; es fascinante en su diseño porque además de las consecuencias que acarrea en tu consciencia, te lleva a un estado de silencio, a alejarte de ver lo que realmente estas haciendo, es simplemente tanta que deliberadamente la escondemos de nosotros mismos en juicios que proyectamos hacia otras personas basados en aquello que no nos gusta ver de nosotros mismos, porque en tanto alguien más lo esté haciendo, se justifica la omisión de la responsabilidad, se justifica la negligencia de nuestro actuar, se justifica la existencia de un “Estado superior existente en la consciencia y simplemente lo llamamos Nación” en tanto podamos culpar al Dios Gobierno, por su corrupción y sus pecados, justificaremos las “pequeñas cosas, y los pequeños detalles” que constituyen colectivamente el reflejo de nuestra enfermedad = la individualidad

El derecho subjetivo se agota en el establecimiento del deber jurídico de otro de abstenerse de toda intervención en “mis cosas” las cuales se hacen mías precisamente en virtud de ese deber;  jurídicamente aparece un derecho frente a las cosas, un derecho de usar, abusar, etc., pero cuando se afirma que yo tengo derecho a respirar, a trabajar, a pasear, etc., no quiere decir sino que no hay y no existe ninguna norma jurídica que me obligue a lo contrario.

¿Qué hay de un sistema en el que se te pueden quitar tus cosas a través de la deuda? Te obligo o a devolverlas o a venderlas, entonces me quedo con tu dinero, tus cosas (por las que de todas formas tienes que pagar un impuesto proporcional), y esencialmente tu vida en lo que terminas de pagar la deuda; la libertad depende de la cantidad de dinero que tengas, si tienes un buen trabajo (esto tomando en consideración todas las condiciones como educación, contactos, dinero que inviertes en tu presentación personal, etc.) entonces puedes considerar el derecho de llamar a ciertas cosas “tus cosas”.

Ciertamente mi derecho a trabajar también tengo que pagarlo, con mi educación, mi tiempo, y es decir, no faltara la persona que diga “pero yo pienso que el trabajo lo puede hacer todo aquel que se encuentre motivado a hacerlo, y cualquier trabajo es digno”. COOL, Quiero un puesto en la presidencia de la empresa Pemex, ¿Qué onda, me lo dan?… ¿No? Pero tengo la disposición de trabajar, y es decir, quiero un trabajo digno, quiero el sueldo de $120.000.00 Ciento veinte mil pesos (equivalente al de un magistrado), me parece algo muy digno…muy humano a comparación del sueldo de un empleado de mantenimiento de limpieza que “sobrevive un mes” con el salario mínimo de $2.000.00 Dos mil pesos, suficiente para pagar los impuestos de la luz, el agua, la comida, la educación de los tres hijos en casa porque pues, se les rompió el condón y ya sabes, cosas que cuando nos pasan a los que tenemos dinero, pues es como “un pequeño desperfecto” en el cual nos podemos estabilizar y pues salimos adelante, ¿cómo lo logran ellos? La corrupción no es coincidencia es nuestra creación.

“Date cuenta que la pobreza existe porque lo que es dado libremente por el planeta ha sido comercializado y colocado bajo control sin el acceso LIBRE e igual, causando condiciones donde la caridad se organiza como agradecimiento engañoso, para que los ricos puedan compartir un poco de su codicia y justificar por qué son ricos” –Bernard Poolman





La Moral del Hombre en los Tiempos Modernos

Posted on Actualizado enn


Voy a arriesgarme a compartir este punto al cual estoy seguro de que muchos encontraran múltiples y diversas reacciones, y estoy listo para ser atacado y acusado de lo que ustedes gusten y manden, sin embargo mi punto de partida dentro de este blog no es el de apoyar, mantener o profesar, religión alguna, sino un mero punto de observación de la perspectiva moral de las religiones con respecto al ser humano, el deber ser y la moral que es de hecho la norma primera que regula nuestro comportamiento en este mundo, y por lo cual considero la más importante de todas las leyes, desde el punto de partida de la consideración y dignificación de la vida como lo que es mejor para todos.

Esta es una continuación del blog anterior:El punto de partida en la expresión del derecho “el fas”—–( https://arteexpression.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/el-punto-de-partida-en-la-expresion-del-derecho-el-fas/) si no se ha leído aun este blog, sugiero que primero vayan a ese, porque el punto de partida de la investigación realizada para este blog, deriva de aquel realizado en el blog señalado.

Esta perspectiva aquí, es un fragmento de la Biblia Satánica y el fin de compartir esto aquí, será con el simple interés de observar una faceta de la sociedad que, si bien constituye  “a mi parecer”, la representación de la otra cara de la moneda de aquello que no es otra cosa sino el simbolismo metafísico, si se quiere, de la comparación  pictográfica del comportamiento humano basado en la moral.


EL Satanismo representa amabilidad con aquellos que se la merecen en lugar de amor desperdiciado en ingratos.

No puedes amar a todo el mundo; es ridículo pensar que puedes. Si amas a todo y a todos perderás tus poderes naturales de selección y acabarás siendo un pésimo juez de carácter y de calidad. Si algo es usado con demasiada libertad pierde su verdadera importancia. Por lo tanto, el Satanista cree que debes amar fuertemente y por completo a quienes merecen tu cariño, pero ¡nunca des la otra mejilla a tu enemigo!

El amor es una de las emociones más intensas sentidas por el hombre; otra es el odio. Obligándote a sentir amor indiscriminado es algo poco natural. Si tratas de amar a todo el mundo, lo único que consigues es disminuir tus sentimientos hacia quienes merecen tu amor. El odio reprimido puede causar muchas enfermedades físicas y emocionales. Al aprender cómo descargar tu odio y dirigirlo a quienes se lo merecen, te limpias a ti mismo de todas ésas emociones malignas y no necesitarás descargar tu odio reprimido sobre tus seres queridos.

Nunca ha existido un gran movimiento de “amor” en la historia de la humanidad que no haya terminado asesinando un incontable número de personas ¡debemos suponer que era para demostrar cuánto las amaban! ¡Todo hipócrita que ha caminado sobre la faz de la Tierra ha tenido sus bolsillos rebosantes de amor! Todo religioso farisaico asegura amar a sus enemigos; aún cuando es atacado se consuela a sí mismo pensando que Dios los castigará. En lugar de admitir que son capaces de odiar a sus enemigos y tratarlos de la forma que se merecen, dicen: “Bueno, pero por la gracia de Dios, voy a rezar por ellos. ¿Por qué habríamos de humillarnos y rebajarnos a nosotros mismos al sacar una comparación tan incorrecta? Se ha pensado que el Satanismo es sinónimo de crueldad y brutalidad. Esto se debe únicamente a que la gente tiene miedo de enfrentar la verdad —y la verdad es que el ser humano no es tan benigno ni amoroso. Sólo porque el Satanista admite que el ser humano es capaz tanto de amar como lo es de odiar, es considerado odioso. Al contrario, como es capaz de dar rienda suelta a su odio a través de una expresión ritualizada, es mucho más capaz de amar con el más profundo amor. Al reconocer y admitir honestamente tanto el amor como el odio que siente, no confundirá una emoción con la otra. Si no eres capaz de experimentar una de éstas dos emociones, no podrás experimentar la otra completamente.

Tal vez el principal problema de tratar con estos temas “tan delicados, para mentes delicadas”, es el proceder que requieren para asegurar a uno el evitar, “si se quiere”, la crucifixión. Y es que, la necesidad imperante dentro de la pretención de compartir este fragmento, es la consideración, sobre todo de aquellos siguiendo los “principios bíblicos” el de notar, la similitud de este pasaje de la biblia satánica, con la realidad que de hecho vivimos dia a dia, porque (no me dejaran mentir aquellos devotos) nos encontramos en el reino de lucifer.

Ahora me gustaría colocar esto en perspectiva con un fragmento de mi libro de Derecho Romano sobre los aspectos de la esclavitud:

Esclavo es el hombre al que la norma positiva – no la naturaleza – priva de libertad.

El esclavo carece de capacidad jurídica, ya sea personal – conubium – ya patrimonial – commercium. No es sujeto de derecho, sino cosa – res – simple objeto: servile caput nullum ius habet.

La primera consecuencia de la esclavitud es la perdida de la libertad; y la definición de la libertad es: Capacidad que tiene el hombre de actuar de manera libre, sin obligación alguna, estado de quien no esta sujeto ni impedido para hacer algo. Pero hay algo muy interesante con respecto a “la lógica del derecho”, y es que de acuerdo a este argumento, debemos entonces entender que “la libertad depende entonces de condiciones especificas que hacen posible la libertad, es decir, la libertad no es libre, porque la libertad depende de no encontrarse sujeto u obligado a algo o alguien, y ¿qué es lo que hemos hecho? Colocamos a alguien más a hacer eso que no queremos hacer para no vernos sujetos u obligados a hacerlo por nosotros mismos, muchos podrán decir que no es posible realizar todas las tareas que implican la efectiva manutención de nuestras necesidades básicas, sin embargo, esto no es del todo cierto.

Por una parte, aun tenemos que proveernos el alimento aunque sea por medio de la realización de otras actividades que nos permiten tener “derecho” a un ingreso lo cual hace posible la realización de los actos de compraventa para proveernos los ya mencionados, la figura de alimentos en el Código Civil, no solo implican los alimentos con los cuales nutrimos el cuerpo, implica, la educación (porque no solo de pan vive el hombre), refugio, abrigo, servicios medicos (SALUD), es decir, todo lo que hace posible la nutrición del ser humano entra en la figura de alimentos, esto sobe todo resalta en los procedimientos de divorcio o tutela con respecto a la pensión alimenticia (pero eso es para otro blog), y por otra parte, la naturaleza nos da la respuesta – si uno observa la organización de un hormiguero, cada una de las hormigas cumple una determinada labor, pero esta no es una labor egoísta donde uno solo se provee a uno mismo (por lo cual, ya desde este punto de partida “la perspectiva Satánica se encuentra errada con respecto a que no es posible amar a todos incondicionalmente”, pero ya llegare a ese punto), es decir, puedes ver que la labor en el hormiguero consiste en la consideración de una hormiga por la otra, “como hermana” si se quiere, y si uno se permite colocar esto en perspectiva con la labor que nos es posible realizar como humanos, la solución reside en “procurar los alimentos para la otra persona porque eres consciente de que el trabajo que la otra persona realiza, también hace posible tus alimentos”, ¿donde queda en el orden del hormiguero la guerrera, que sale a buscar el alimento, sin la labor de la obrera que hace posible el albergue y refugio para esta? ¿donde queda el alimento de la obrera, sin el trabajo realizado por la guerrera? Es decir, el principio que Desteni lleva a la consideración de todos, es el hecho de que 1+1=2, implica dar incondicionalmente y esto no es “dar para recibir” sino dar para asegurarse de que todos tengan, si la labor de toda la sociedad hace posible el refugio de una familia, la casa se construye no en un año, sino en una semana, y después la labor de todos hace posible un hormiguero suficientemente grande y abastecido para todos, con una ligera diferencia, el trabajo realizado en conjunto, es terminado tan pronto, que al igual que las hormigas o las abejas, solo necesitan trabajar la mitad del dia, y la otra mitad queda para goce y disfrute de cada uno.

Estos son principios simples, sin embargo se han tergiversado dentro de la idea de que la igualdad, es de aquellos que son iguales a las condiciones de mi libertad, los que son “tan iguales como yo, o iguales a mi”

El esclavo tiene capacidad de obrar, esto es, capacidad negocial y capacidad penal. Puede en efecto, realizar negocios jurídicos, si bien todo lo que adquiera con ellos pasa al patrimonio del dueño, sobre el cual, por lo demás, cabe que recaiga la responsabilidad dimanante de ciertas normas –actiones adiecticiae qualitatis. No sólo ingresa en el patrimonio del dueño lo que adquiere el esclavo por negocio jurídico, sino lo proveniente de cualquier otro acto – ocupación, herencia, etc.

La libertad, es una condición; un granjero le da a sus vacas mejor alimento, por que a condición de que estas “tengan esta libertad”, el puede tener mejores ingresos de la carne que venda por ellas, no porque le importe la libertad de las vacas, lo mismo ocurre con los humanos, nuestros granjeros nos dan la libertad de escoger el trabajo que deseemos desempeñar, no porque les interesen nuestras libertades, sino porque el ingreso y beneficios que ven de esto son mayores a si obligaran a cada uno a hacer una labor impuesta.

Algo que es interesante de señalar, es el hecho de que Roma tenía un territorio tan extenso, que aquellos que terminaban dentro del territorio conquistado por Roma, se veían obligados a aceptar la condición de esclavitud, ya que sin el derecho de realizar actos de compraventa, o tener acceso al alimento, no importaba que tan “libre uno se sintiera” si no tenías acceso a la comida, y era preferible para ellos entonces el aceptar tal condición de esclavitud, con la esperanza de llegar algún día a alcanzar la manumisión (o liberación) ya que con ello, adquirían la condición de “liberto” y se les permitía realizar los negocios jurídicos establecidos en las leyes romanas, aunque realmente jamas llegan a dejar de ser esclavos, porque una de las condiciones de la libertad es una figura que se llama “obsequium”, esta obliga al esclavo a mantener una relación con su patrón, donde el patrón tiene derecho sobre sus bienes, alimentos, servicios, labor (según sea artesanal, comercial, etc.), jamás llegan a ser libres realmente, “suena muy familiar a lo que ocurre hoy día en este sistema”, sal de todo reglamento si así lo deseas, pero no esperes conseguir alimento alguno si no tienes acceso a una fuente de ingresos que te permita realizar los negocios jurídicos; (esta es una filosofía personal no oficial) – el billete es todo un contrato, establece una personalidad jurídica impresa en el billete que uno acepta por el simple hecho de tomarlo, tiene las firmas, los sellos, los permisos, todo marcado en sus múltiples dimensiones que hacen posible la “validez del contrato”, si el contrato es falso o el billete es falso, no hay contrato, no hay relación, no hay negocio.

Puede el esclavo cometer delitos, esto es, actos ilícitos que reciben la calificación jurídica de tales. Por los delitos privados se hace civilmente, responsable el dominus, convenido mediante el actio noxalis, si bien cabe a éste la posibilidad de liberarse de la correspondiente condena pecuniaria, entregando el esclavo a la persona perjudicada – noxae deditio.

Una de las partes más interesantes del derecho, es el hecho de que no sería posible la existencia de este, si las personas no pudieran delinquir, inclusive dentro de la Biblia Satánica, Antón Lavey describe dentro de las nueve declaraciones satánicas, en el principio numero nueve: ¡Satán ha sido el mejor amigo que la Iglesia siempre ha tenido, ya que la ha mantenido en el negocio todos estos años!; El cielo tiene también sus condiciones para la libertad, goce y disfrute de este; esta solo es otorgada a aquellos dignos de la consideración y favor del creador, sin embargo, la – dominus – del creador es clara, cada uno es el más aterrador juez, en nuestras propias mentes, el reino de Dios esta en el hombre…vaya felicidad es la ignorancia requerida para alcanzar el nirvana, ignorancia del sufrimiento y condena de millones a morir en inanición, pobreza, enfermedad, todo parte de la obra divina de nuestra propia creación, y muy a mi parecer, nuestra chaqueta mental.

Este me parece uno de los puntos más importantes que marcan la verdadera naturaleza de la Religión, (nacemos pecadores, comandados a volvernos santos), el merecimiento del cielo, la creación, todo forma parte del “acto y gracia del creador”, sin embargo, ¿es este acto de creación, verdaderamente la “acción y gracia de un ser bueno”? necesito ser muy claro en este punto, no es de mi interés el criterio de valor de una u otra religión con respecto a su “idea de lo que es bueno o es malo”, sino la valoración del contenido normativo religioso que marca los principios del colectivo social, el fin de este blog es el marcar que tanto la Iglesia (sea Satánica, Cristiana, Católica, etc) como el Estado, guardan una estrecha relación con respecto al pecado y el crimen; son exactamente el mismo principio, la diferencia recae “solo en la persona” que opina según “las bases de su religión” lo que es un pecado o un crimen y lo que no lo es, esto es otro punto por el cual, la religión es dependiente de la opinión de las personas, (pero bendita sea la democracia, aun en completa desconsideración de que los valores inculcados en un hogar u en otro que son “según el libre albedrío de las personas”, no podrán diferir tanto de un hogar a otro, puesto que serán dependientes de los principios sociales que marcan el funcionamiento del sistema), y la diferencia principal reside en que si bien unas son de carácter coercible (que se te puede obligar a cumplirlas) y las otras no, ¿donde recae aquel “valor superior”, que hizo posible la matanza de millones de personas durante la Inquisición, y que hace posible hoy, la matanza y sufrimiento de otras tantas miles de millones en pro de leyes cuyo “principio se funda en la persecución del bien común” (esclavitud)? Como es arriba es abajo, como es adentro es afuera, ¿que puede ser el cielo, sino un reflejo de lo que hay en la Tierra? ¿Es el Estado (interno y externo) del ser humano, un vivo reflejo de las leyes que ha creado e impuesto para si mismo tanto interna como externamente? ¿Somos la imagen y semejanza de Dios si nos hemos separado completamente de la “bondad” que hizo posible la manifestación de la vida en toda la existencia?

El esclavo goza de personalidad natural. Le es dable constituir relaciones familiares de naturaleza y fines semejantes a las que son propias de los hombres libres. La unión entre esclavos es denominada –CONTUBERNIUM – no difiere en esencia, del matrimonio entre libres, en cuanto tiene una y otro de relación de hecho, de carácter estable y normalmente monogamica. La unión entre esclavos carece de sanción legal, pero los vínculos de sangre – la servilis cognatio – fueron reconocidos jurídicamente en materia de impedimentos matrimoniales y de sucesión legitima, con referencia a aquellos que hubieran alcanzado la libertad.

El esclavo que alcanzaba la libertad no tenía derecho a casarse con un ciudadano que hubiese nacido libre, esto es sancionado y removido eventualmente lo que da pie a que los esclavos puedan casarse con ciudadanos romanos. Sin embargo, no dejaba de ser mal visto en la sociedad porque se consideraba que la línea de sangre (los apellidos) se desvirtuaba por la unión de dicho matrimonio.

(Interesante que actualmente la gente que teme la igualdad, no quiere que otras personas puedan tener lo mismo que ellos, porque aparentemente no lo merecen)

El esclavo puede tener un peculio – peculium – esto es, una pequeña cantidad de bienes o dinero que el dominus le confiere en disfrute y administración, quedando en realidad la posesión y la propiedad en vinculación con su dominus. (Esta figura dentro del Derecho Romano, me parece de las más interesantes en contraposición con nuestra actual forma de relaciones laborales y lo que es hoy bien definido como “la nueva esclavitud en el Sistema Capitalista el famoso “pago al contado en proporción a las horas acumuladas sobre una labor determinada”, y voy a tomar el ejemplo más extremo para colocar esto en perspectiva, China se ha convertido hoy en la mayor potencia mundial, esto gracias a su labor tan barata y a su producción masiva basada en la esclavitud y el miserable salario de los empleados de los grades monopolios, los valores tal vez hayan podido cambiar de “bueno…me parece que si son seres humanos iguales a nosotros”, a que a los esclavos “se les reconocen” algunos derechos aquí y allá, como servicios de salud y de pronto la Constitución puede tener escrito “todos somos iguales, todos somos libres y no se permite la esclavitud”; esto me parece la mayor manifestación de engaño, hipocresía y abuso que haya podido existir sobre la FAS de la Tierra, donde el FAS es la justificación de estos abusos, con respecto a nuestra moral)

La labor de cada uno, aun en el principio de procurar al otro el alimento recíprocamente, sigue siendo de hecho procurarse el alimento a uno mismo, hay un principio dentro de la Biblia Satánica que refleja de hecho lo que hemos permitido en este mundo,  y es el que uno reserva “el amor para aquellos que lo merecen” ¿por qué? porque de hecho sabemos exactamente a donde llegaran los ingresos de nuestra labor, estos no llegan a pertenecernos, los beneficios que realmente percibimos de nuestra labor son solo para nuestra familia, pareja, y allegados, y no necesariamente porque no queramos compartirla con otro o ayudarle, es que simplemente “no alcanza”, y no es solo condición de que la reservemos en nuestro goce y disfrute, sino que la labor no llega realmente a distribuirse en igual proporción, y no estoy hablando del ingreso monetario que cada uno percibe de su labor, hablo de aquellos bienes de los cuales uno se hace gracias al ingreso monetario; donde al ver al Cristiano, este realiza “donaciones de caridad, tiempo, trabajo” a otras personas, no por “amor al prójimo”, sino por temor de la figura Divina a la cual se le procura la felicidad, para “comprar eventualmente una plaza en el cielo”. Sin embargo, el principio de proveer incondicionalmente para todos por igual, implica el principio de que la labor que uno realiza no es solo para la persona a la cual uno le procura el alimento, sino para uno mismo, esto es tan simple como la acción de compartir, es decir, el trabajo de dos personas, abastecerá de alimento para ambos y tal vez para un tercero, el trabajo se vuelve más simple por el simple hecho de que la fuerza laboral implicada es mayor.


Para una mejor comprensión de este punto sugiero a todo interesado el explorar los siguientes links




El punto de partida dentro del “perfeccionamiento”

Posted on Actualizado enn

Hay una imagen que siempre brinca en mi cabeza al estar haciendo prácticamente cualquier cosa, y esto en motivo de una “comparación” con respecto a quien soy al realizar la actividad y quien me gustaría/quisiera/ó debiera ser para considerar esta habilidad desarrollada en su punto de perfección; algo que es interesante acerca de los celos es que están basados en el amor y deseo de ser aquello que de hecho tememos, es decir, es por el temor que existe el amor, porque aquello que quieres ser, es aquello que no obviamente no eres, entonces en el querer y desear llegar a convertirte en algo, es la creación y diseño en polaridad de aquello que no eres y debieras ser para “estar completo”, porque así es como DEBERÍA SER.

La perfección en separación de uno mismo; con este punto me he encontrado ligado toda mi vida, en el estricto sentido de que siempre tengo que realizar un esfuerzo tan grande para alcanzar algo que está allá afuera y que no soy, pero que de hecho ni siquiera es quien soy, porque el esfuerzo siempre requiere tanta energía a diferencia de la expresión en el sentido estricto del goce y la apreciación de uno mismo que realmente no cuesta más de lo que eres porque ya eres eso, por lo tanto no necesitas crear una imagen o diseño mental de aquello que deseas ser y que colocas en separación de ti mismo para llegar a ser lo que de hecho ya eres; en el esfuerzo y el empuje como el desarrollo de la disciplina (que no es lo mismo a el dominio de uno mismo), jamás se trata de ti, como lo que eres, se trata de una personalidad que pretendes ser y que de hecho temes, porque no lo eres, sabes que eres débil con respecto a tu entorno y deliberadamente este sistema se ha desarrollado en ese estricto sentido de valorar aquellas habilidades y diseños en las personas que refuerzan y constituyen millones de engranajes que refuerzan el diseño del sistema sin jamás apoyar o asistir a los individuos. Curioso supongo, y a la vez no me sorprende que el diseño de este sistema de hecho esta encausado hacia todo aquello que el ser humano no es, pero que se pretende que este sea o que deba alcanzar, ¿Qué otro punto o finalidad habría en generar el miedo y el interés personal en los individuos con respecto a un diseño de supervivencia que constituye la limitación misma del sistema y el desempleo? Simple, es la forma en que de hecho podemos generar una deuda, una preocupación por el requerimiento de las habilidades que requieres como individuo para cumplir con las expectativas del sistema, sin embargo, como ha sido explicado ya por el portal, la energía positiva, requiere de mucho tiempo para generarse a diferencia de la negativa que se manifiesta en un solo momento como la directa consecuencia de la liberación de esa energía, la deuda exige que la demanda de energía se cubra, pero jamás llega y jamás llegara a cubrirse; el ser humano no esta diseñado para aquello que se pretende que este sea, y me doy cuenta que jamás seré “suficiente” desde la perspectiva estricta de aquello que necesito como individuo para alcanzar lo inalcanzable (“Dios”), porque en realidad soy mucho más que solo “suficiente”.

Hice un poco de investigación con respecto a este punto y lo que cubriré aquí, en esta mi expresión como la escritura y mi investigación; la exploración de mi mismo, prioritariamente con fines de levantarme como uno e igual como toda la vida por lo que es mejor para todos, (si tienes un problema con ello, toma un boleto, haz fila y espera a que me importe).
En tiempos caoticos como este, que es el fin del sistema capitalista o que se encuentra tan proximo porque no puede ya sostenerse, es fascinante ver que la supervivencia de hecho esta reflejada en nuestros argumentos, sujeta de los intereses de cada individuo. Las perspectivas que son dadas por las personas sobre aquello que “debería ser el humano” para que este mundo pudiera de hecho cambiar, es tan facil ver como este temor que existe a la supervivencia refleje en nuestras palabras, ese punto de superación personal, hablando estrictamente sobre la sustentación de las personalidades de aquellos individuos que exigen al resto su sometimiento a los intereses personales, o a aquello que “creemos que debiera ser este mundo”, se habla de la cultura como la salvación, de la religión como la salvación, de la moral como la salvación, y a la vez lo unico que esta sucediendo es que cada persona esta hablando en pro de su propia supervivencia y sujeta de sus intereses personales, porque ese es el punto de sobrevivir, asegurarte de tenerlo todo para ti y que se joda el resto.

Es fascinante que los psicólogos apoyen la separación y que en teoría todos estemos de hecho aceptando el conocimiento dado a nosotros por una visión científica sin siquiera cuestionarlo, ¿no es de hecho que “el psicólogo debe colocarse en separación de la sociedad para hacer una visión objetiva de la persona que evalúa”? “Con respecto a la psicología, es aceptable que el individuo coloque una imagen/margen de comparación en la realización de sus actividades, con respecto a lo que el motivo de su acción debe alcanzar en la búsqueda por el perfeccionamiento de la actividad que realiza”, sin embargo; en reflejo de lo que de hecho está ocurriendo en nuestro actual sistema y como se acepta que el ser humano haya entrado en la más burda expresión de la egolatría y la avaricia, justificando esta “idiosincrasia”, con la excusa de que esta es una forma de “superación personal” con respecto a ser o realizar un trabajo que valga o que represente la calidad del individuo con respecto a la comparación que este hace de otros seres humanos y el trabajo que estos realizan. Luego tenemos el descaro de llamar a esto, “naturaleza humana”, donde nuestras acciones de absoluto abuso, pueden ser justificadas por el simple uso de la expresión “naturaleza humana”, ¿es también culpar a otras personas parte de nuestra naturaleza?.

Es como cuando escucho a las personas hablar de “superarse a si mismos”, ésta “superación personal”, hablada solo desde la perspectiva de un producto y reflejo de la misma competencia dentro de la política capitalista, es decir, como establecemos esa competencia contra todo lo que existe para ser mejores, en defensa de nuestros intereses personales, en defensa de las personalidades que creemos que nos llevan a la superación personal, a la perfección. Valdría la pena preguntarse si aquello que consideramos que es perfecto o que “nos funciona”, seguiría sustentando nuestra existencia fuera de un sistema capitalista, porque el mismo punto de la superación personal refleja el punto de temor a la supervivencia, es solo debido a los sistemas que como seres humanos implementamos que nos lleva a una supervivencia, cuando nada de esto es necesario; todo lo que hacemos es un “acto reflejo” de nuestro deseo de supervivencia, inclusive en las perspectivas que damos, siempre defendiendo las ideologías, siempre defendiendo nuestros intereses personales, como cuando se habla de lo que nos haría mejores seres humanos y el “deber ser” de este, todo una defensa de la personalidad.

¿Que es el deber ser? ¿que es esto que el ser humano “debiera ser o que se espera y pretende que este sea o alcance”? Volviendo al aspecto psicológico que se acepta de los seres humanos, sobre colocar la proyección de una imagen en su mente, y que mientras esta haciendo una actividad proyecte esta imagen en el diseño que a este le gustaría alcanzar dentro de su trabajo, porque lo lleva al “perfeccionamiento”, como lo que este cree que le hace falta o como “debiera ser” su trabajo para que perfeccionarlo, y es interesante que en este argumento, se encuentra ímplicio el siguiente factor: la persona esta separada de su trabajo, es decir, la acción que esta realiza no es la expresión de la persona como quien ella es en el trabajo, sino un producto que la persona “produce como reflejo de lo que el entorno de la persona exige como perfeccionamiento, como “debiera ser”, como “SUPERVIVENCIA” , ¿Por qué tiene más valor el producto realizado por una persona que la persona que realiza este producto O LA VIDA MISMA QUE NOS HACE IGUALES?, o ¿por qué la fuerza de trabajo es proporcional al costo que esta fuerza aplicada durante la actividad de acuerdo a su demanda o no en el sistema tiene más o menos valor en proporción a la sustentación de deseos y personalidades en lugar a la función practica que estos productos pueden o no tener para el pleno desarrollo y apoyo físico practico de los seres humanos que hacemos uso de dichos productos? Luego se dice que no hay suficiente para proveer a todos ¿donde estan entonces las toneladas de comida que se tiran a diario y como justificamos deliberadamente la muerte de millones sobre millones de personas diciendo que no hay suficientes recursos? ¿También es parte de nuestra naturaleza humana?
Tomando un ejemplo que explica este punto: Cuando educamos a nuestros hijos y les indoctrinamos en el respeto y en como deben comportarse y como estos deben ser, como se espera y desea que estos sean; ¿realmente te importa tu hijo o solo le enseñas a temer lo que tu temes y que esperas que este siga para que satisfaga tus intereses personales? les enseñamos que deben guardar respeto por lo que hemos creado como humanidad y que deben proyectar este respeto a los adultos, pero no nos damos cuenta que al definirnos en nuestra mente y exigir respeto de ellos, no estamos hablando de un respeto que refleje un actuar que vaya de acuerdo a un reconocimiento de la igualdad o de la vida como individuos existente de cada uno, se habla de una religión, se habla del temor a aquello que el niño debe respetar y temer porque “le supera”, ¿cuando tu hijo va a decirte que no acepta eso, si al verte lo que ve es temor, es un ego caminando hacia el que mide 3 veces más de lo que el mide?; es decir, dentro de lo que creemos que va a “mejorar al ser humano” estamos hablando desde nuestros temores y una ideología acerca de lo perfecto y de lo que NOSOTROS CREEMOS QUE ES PERFECTO”, sin darnos cuenta que aquello que uno quiere alcanzar como aquello que NO SOMOS, es un reflejo de nuestro temor a la supervivencia es un reflejo de aquello que nos hace embonar y funcionar apropiadamente en el sistema y estamos llevando a los niños a convertirse en eso, en un engrane que sustenta un sistema que esta viendo sus últimos dias y no consideramos que desde el principio, EL DEBER SER NO ERA POSIBLE Y JAMAS LO HA SIDO, es decir, tan solo viendo el modelo que se acepta sobre el ser humano buscando un perfeccionamiento en algo distinto para aquello a lo que fue concebido en realidad, esto quiere decir que al aceptar que la mente nos domine partiendo de una imagen ¿que estamos aceptando?. Aceptamos la idea de que somos inferiores e incluso imperfectos en comparación con el sistema, cuando en realidad el ser humano no nacio para lo que se pretende que este sea, no puede existir un deber ser, donde el ser no es comprendido y donde se espera nuestra sumisión a los intereses personales, ahora diganme ustedes si ¿tiene sentido “vivir la vida por otra persona”?(esto específicamente con respecto al punto de satisfacer puntos de intereses personales específicamente, el sentido común nos permite colocarnos en los zapatos de otra persona y de hecho reconocer la vida en todo como en uno mismo) hacer o satisfacer los intereses personales de otras personas? cuando la vida ha sido dada a nosotros en igualdad, cuando de hecho no puede existir un yo donde antes se encuentra la vida y la existencia en su totalidad clamando “estoy aqui y estuve aquí antes que tu” así como el resto de las especies que han estado aquí antes de nosotros. tener el descaro de ver a esta existencia y decir que “somos esta” donde no ha existido un reconocimiento y un verdadero cuidad por esta empezando por cuidar los unos de los otros”, no puede quedar mucha existencia para nosotros señores, esa es la realidad, y tampoco puede quedar mucha existencia para nuestros hijos si nosotros no podemos ver que en todas las normas que hemos creado y donde pretendemos regular el actuar del ser humano creando consecuencias abstractas con respecto a un deber ser, sujeto de las ideologías y egolatrías que han sostenido este diseño que nos ha llevado a convertirnos en una raza abusiva, ciertamente algo en nuestros codigos, y en todo lo que hemos diseñado y escrito como normas y leyes, esta definitivamente desfasado de aquello que realmente constituye la actividad del humano como uno e igual con lo que este es en verdad como vida.

¿Porque nuestra existencia tiene tanto sentido cuando nos ocupamos y cuidamos de los animales, las plantas, la existencia y nos ocupamos de otros seres humanos? este sentido en común, no es sino el reflejo de que nuestro diseño ciertamente esta encausado a cumplir o desempeñar otras funciones diferentes a lo que se espera realizar como un perfeccionamiento orientado hacia la “imagen divina mental” que no es en lo absoluto posible alcanzar y no es posible llegar a esta desde el punto de partida como el cual se ha esperado que el ser humano sea, ¿si nos hemos separado cada vez más de lo que somos al pretender alcanzar un deber ser, intentando llegar a la imagen perfecta o el diseño abstracto de un ser supremo, que pasa si hemos ya deja de ser eso que se espera que seamos y si hemos dejado de ser ya ese punto supremo, que queda del ser humano ahora que quiere volver a ser aquello que en un principio no fue uno e igual con la existencia como la existencia que este es?

El desarrollo de ciertas disciplinas y el encause que estas han tenido al perfeccionamiento de dicha disciplina, “las artes marciales”, el desarrollo de seres humanos que dominen sus cuerpos físicos; no porque nos importara la perfección del individuo, este desarrollo fue primordialmente para cumplir la satisfacción de conquistar a otros pueblos y someter estos a los intereses de los conquistadores. ¿donde se justifica el deber ser? ¿Eso es lo que debía ser esas miles de guerras?, ¿era siquiera necesario?

Litigio: El sometimiento de un individuo a los intereses de otro; interesante forma tenemos de preservar la guerra en nuestra cultura y sobre todo contra nosotros mismos señores.

En todo caso, reconozco que me he equivocado al decir que en momentos caóticos como es ahora el fin del sistema capitalista es cuando nuestra opinión surge y surge de tal forma que defiende nuestros intereses personales en pro de nuestra supervivencia, es decir, ¿cuando no ha sido así? el ser humano existe como supervivencia, existe como un ser opinionado de aquello que pretende defender y argumentar como el derecho de tener acceso a sus intereses, la defensa del libre albedrío y de someter a otros al dominio y doctrina de un creador que ya no existe, ¡SEÑORES! DIOS HA MUERTO Y NOSOTROS LO HEMOS MATADO, PERO SOLO PORQUE NOSOTROS LO HEMOS CREADO -MATIAS FLORES-



Participa en la solución, ¡Se la solución!