It is clear that everyone who supports government by paying taxes is a liar and a thief. Everyone who supports modern industry and economy of unlimited growth is a disease giving power to
cancer growth. While it may seem extremely hard not to be a liar, a thief and a disease (apparently it's very hard even to admit that you are), it is only so when done abruptly and alone.
That does not mean it should not be done abruptly and alone. But even when you [think you] are free from slaving to the system, the system will do everything it can to bring you back, even if
I have gone the extremely hard way, so here are my experiences. I am still not completely free, but I know the solution.
Step one: admission
Early in my life I have figured that human politics are generally unfair. Disregarding the fact that tax is theft and implicitly unfair, even the law on taxing is unfair. The same percentage
for everyone would be a fair theft - that way those who earn more would pay more in absolute value but equally in relative value. Otherwise, in extreme cases, those who earn more [and generally work
more] could end up having less in both, relative and absolute, value. That is absurd, but absurdity is commonly promoted as a feature, rather than a flaw of the system, as one learns eventually.
Naturally, the less you earn [and generally less you work], the more you need the government [to take from those who earn more and give to you], and, as you earn more and more, the less you need the government to
give to you. The more you earn [and generally work more], the more you give and less you get back. It's absurd, but it's absurdity by design.
One could argue that the amounts of work done and amounts of money earned are generally disproportionate and those who earn a lot are generally unfair and effectively steal money from their
employees. But even if the practice of wealthy is generally unfair, that is not a reason to discriminate the minority - ie. some high-earners don't have any
employees, in fact, most people who have above average salaries are employers, working for someone else, so that's not a small percentage of population. What are they doing that is unfair?
Perhaps your values are inverted, perhaps you have inflated the value of work (like meaningless paperwork, talks and gambling) and deflated the value of work, but that's another story.
Naturally, those who earn more will generally look for ways to avoid paying taxes.
So people who do not earn much don't like them and complain (even though they too would generally avoid paying taxes if possible), but interestingly, they do not ask for percentage to be the
same for everyone, they actually want the system to be unfair - they want for big earners to give more than they give in both, absolute and relative value.
Regardless of how you got your money (legally or illegally), a large percentage of money you pay for products and services will go to government. This is 25% in a country where I live - that's
much more than I get from government and certainly much more than I need from government (I don't need the fucking government at all).
Why would I want to pay even more then? I don't see doctors, so why would I pay health insurance - I gave much more than I got from it. I don't want pension insurance either, certainly when we
live in times where it's pretty certain I won't get that money back.
The money you give into pension insurance is invested. In my country, ≈65% of it is in bonds (it's borrowed, and not always with a positive interest rate), the rest is in investment funds and
some in stocks.
That means it's not as secure as it would be in a savings account. It is secure as long as the economy is not in a crisis too deep.
Note that a frequent borrower of your pension money may be government (in crisis almost certainly will be) and, if the interest rate is lower than inflation, the government is, once again, stealing
Note also that high inflation is a signal of crisis and, this is when all theft increases in magnitude.
The economy of unlimited growth is poised to cycle between periods of growth and recession, but at its peak it has to collapse.
When it does collapse, your pension will be lost. The human nature, ongoing global changes in climate and environment (extinction) strongly suggest it will collapse this century.
First pensions may be lost less than 10 years from now.
It would be wise then to invest your money into something meaningful. That's probably not a savings account either - money itself will loose value, while basic survival resources will grow in
value, exponentially. It's then wise to invest in self-sustaining eco-systems, not collapsing ones.
We have all been liars and thieves and we have all been disease, but the first step in healing process, is to admit you still are a liar, a thief and a disease.
When I did that, I stopped registering my car, I quit my job. Soon, I have also stopped driving my car.
Note that I stopped driving my car only because I had no money to drive it. To have and to drive a car is not bad per se, especially if your car is your
house (like, at times, mine was, and hopefully again, at times, will be).
It is bad when its used in an unsustainable practice. In 14 years my car had traveled about 150 000 km and it doesn't pollute much, so it certainly did not put a big strain on environment. In general
practice, cars are used daily, most often by a single person to do a remote job (absurdly, to support local life) and people replace cars with new ones just because they, as trained, feel good about
owning a new product, if only for a short time (again, as trained).
Cars make a lot of noise, that's bad for living systems and that's where an electric car should be better, but not when its just a part of unsustainable business of replacing an old product with
a new one.
The design and manufacture of cars is anthropocentric and so is current driving infrastructure. If one doesn't want to support anthropocentric (unsustainable) systems, one should drive an
unregistered low-noise car, not power it with energy where part of money paid for energy is committed to build and maintain driving infrastructure, and one should not use roads that require
Do not kid yourself that a fenced road with a couple of bridges for animals is good - how would you feel if your source of water, food, your mate or playground, is 20 meters across the road, but
you have to walk tens of kilometers to get there. Unaware that there is a way to get there, you may even give up after a couple of kilometers. Note that your meter is a kilometer or more for
some animals. The same animals your life depends on.
Step two: practice
Naturally, if you really are a good person, after you admit that you are an anthropocentric liar and a thief, you will want to change that.
If you try to do that in anthropocentric industrial society, you can't avoid paradoxes. Even though you seek long-term well-being, being surrounded by long-term suicidal tendencies, it's gonna
feel like suicide for you.
More than anything else, if you don't have any savings, it is going to hit you financially.
Driving an unregistered car I was fined 12000 HRK (a lot of money considering average paycheck here is about half of that). This could've been a lower amount if I had shown up in court and
effectively begged for mercy. That's something I will never do - I did not do anything wrong, they are doing damage to me.
Of course, I wouldn't pay and support that practice now even if I could, but I couldn't and my bank account was blocked (frozen) and now effectively owned by government.
Obviously, if one wants to renounce anthropocentric nature, one must also renounce bank accounts.
I thought this may not be a big problem, I could earn money in cash and crypto. You'd think, that for an experienced software developer with a master's degree in computer science and
engineering, finding work would not be a problem. Wrong. Finding job is not a problem, finding work where you won't be forced to support the system is.
But things can become more complicated than that.
I threw away my government issued ID the day I quit my job and I thought I could not be forced to get another one again. Wrong. For some reason, my child needed to get its own ID, but he is
not considered adult by the system, so one parent is supposed to apply for his ID, while the other was supposed to pick it up when it's done. I was supposed to pick it up, but in order to pick up
his ID, I need to show my ID.
He is living with his mother and I was not ready to share my thoughts on government with him, argue about it with his mother, or wanted to force him to be like me and refuse to register as
government's property. So I just got another ID. I do not plan to renew it once it expires, but this is a good example how tight is the grip of the system and how hard it can be to leave it behind.
At time of divorce, even though we both (me and my ex-wife) stated that child lives equally, and will in the future spend time equally, with mother and father, in its final decision the court
wrote that the child will be living with its mother visiting a father occasionally and father is obliged to pay 1500 HRK of alimony to support the child (at that time, this was a double amount
of alimony people usually pay, but I was vulnerable and I agreed to this amount even though I knew this has nothing to do with the child - I'd support my child regardless of any alimony).
It took me some time to realize that in a divorce a father is generally considered guilty and forced to provide mother with money, regardless of whether the money is actually spent on child
support and regardless of where the child actually lives.
At that time and for years after, the child was living equally, one day at his grandmother's house (where his mother lived), one day with me (the houses are close by). Paying alimony didn't seem
fair to me, especially since, in the beginning, I was buying everything for the child (not only toys, but food and books for school), but I never complained.
Things only changed when I had to replace my home works and jobs with a remote job, which didn't make me happier, but perhaps alimony had more sense as my child wasn't living with me anymore.
After I've left the job, I still paid alimony, as long as I had the money.
Now I was living with my parents, and my intention was to resume paying alimony when that becomes possible. If, at any moment, lack of alimony, would affect my child's life I would do something
about it. After all, I was looking for work (and I did work a lot on everything that is on this website), I just wanted to avoid getting a job.
Despite also having a faculty degree and finished courses in a lot of things (all attained while we were married), my ex-wife only occasionally had a job after the divorce (although she generally
did not avoid home work while we were married). She soon re-married, but after a year was gone since I stopped paying alimony, I knew it won't take long before she sues me.
When she did, again, ugly things happened. In court, she implied that my non-payment of alimony has something to do with she getting re-married (obviously, it has nothing to do with
that, I wouldn't even know she re-married if we weren't living close in a small place, I never asked my child anything about her personal life and he's not the one who told me about it, in
fact, I don't remember who did and why), her attorney was hostile as per his job but there also was some woman (I don't even know who she was, possibly social security department) who attacked
me even before the trial started (btw, I was dragged to that trial by police and am also expected to pay for that service).
She asked (yelling actually) how I can live supported by my parents and at the same time not support my child. I didn't reply to that, but, obviously, it was implied, again, that I was
Yes, at the moment I am supported by my parents and I am not paying alimony, but I work with my parents to get my lunch. My child doesn't live with me (and he's almost 18 now, so not even a child
anymore), he lives with his grandmother and, as far as I know, he is, at least occasionally, working with her to get his lunch. I am not avoiding paying alimony, but it should be clear that payment
of alimony is not equal to child support.
I would be happy if my child would live with me and my parents, and I would never ask, let alone force, child's mother or anyone to pay alimony, but for court, that was apparently never an
option even if it could be the best option - no one would be forced to pay anything and the child would be fine.
I would never force a child to live with me, but has the court or anyone in there ever asked the child what it wants and what it feels about all this? No. It's all automatic.
I've stated that I was unemployed, but her attorney stated that I am earning money illegally (he was lying, I wasn't earning any money) and I wasn't even asked to comment on that. The court just
asked me to confirm I'm not registered as unemployed, and since I was not registered as unemployed (I would never do that - as much as I don't like giving to government, I don't want
anything from it) the court probably considered what attorney said was true.
So, once again, I was found guilty. The court stated that I have damaged my child for thousands of money and I got 5 months probation (if I repeat the infringement within the next year I will go to
jail for 5 months).
I don't even have a problem going to jail, but I don't see how possibly could this have a positive effect on my child. A man in jail is a burden for society and that's something I don't want
to be. I know jail is supposed to teach me not to do damage again, but I don't care about damage, I care about damage, so I won't learn anything there.
I realize that in cases like this, a child might think it is the problem, so I want to make it clear for any child reading this - you are never a problem, the system is, and your dad would have
problems with this system with or without you, likely, even more without you.
I don't think it will be a problem for me to continue paying alimony anyway, so far, I have a good record on problem solving. I just hope at least some of the money will be used for child support.
That's how you generally interact with this system - give money, hope and forget. Hope, that someone who takes your money by force will do what they promise they will, and forget, that promises
were invented by liars.
Quickly, my bank account was blocked for the amount of damage.
Afterwards, I have worked even more for my parents and arranged for them to pay alimony for a couple of months. It is a hard physical work, not optimal work for me, but it's better than a job.
However, it seems that my frozen account is now automatically being additionally blocked for alimony amount every month. I have paid the alimony for this month and it still got blocked for
this month's alimony. I'm probably supposed to complain to somebody about this (to my ex-wife it seems!), so again, the system is forcing me to fight in order not to pay double alimony. This is
not justice, this is madness.
While not having money in my bank account, there is a piece of land under my name. It is not in my nature to claim ownership of land, but this is where I've started building a house years ago.
In case I don't earn the money for unpaid alimony, it would be ironic, but not unsurprising, if court eventually orders for that land to be sold in order for unpaid alimony to be paid.
It would be ironic because that land would be inherited by my child otherwise. If that land is lost, he might not inherit any land because my ex-wife has two brothers and she also has a
child with another man.
I plan to actually move out from my parents' house and live there as soon as that becomes possible. While, by current law, as far as I know, such property cannot be forcefully sold as long as
I live in it, I don't think the court would conclude I do live in it (regardless of what they believe) because it's not a finished house by current standards, it's just a concrete basement and not a
registered address - and I'm not sure it can be registered at all because it doesn't have access to main road, and even access to existing road is blocked
by another piece of land. This
usually wouldn't be a problem because it is also under my name, but possibly may not remain for long because my father used it in mortgage to get a loan for his business (I felt forced to sign
that and the only reason I did is because I still had
the other piece of land) and despite hard work, he's struggling to pay all debts, in good part because he owns money to people who care
for people even less than banks do.
Some might say "I might loose land due to sins of my father and my son will loose land due to sins of his father and the 3th son of the 3th son didn't have any land to sin about and
loose". This is how history gets written by absolute gods, which happen to be owners of banks, governments, people and most of land. Truth sold as absolute is as deceiving as
the devil that writes it.
"I lost the land due to sins of my father and my son lost the land due to sins of his father and the 7th son of the 7th son will be happy because he won't have any land to
sin about and loose". That is how history gets re-written when the devil re-marries.
And when along comes a particle promoting truth in this lie infested world, showing man that world destruction is self-destruction, he may even be called anti-christ, what is, in re-written future, a
synonym for the enemy of man and world destroyer, instead of a messenger of god.
Some states are promoted as being better than others. I have been lured myself to Germany and America. But if I would seek a better place, North Korea is a better choice than these two - it's a more
and communism, or even communism
, is better than democracy
, especially when not infested with dirty unsustainable capitalism.
In any case, if I go somewhere, I will seek ways to do so naturally (illegally).
North Korea holds a Tree Planting Day every March. It's an isolated and beautiful country so it's no wonder that devil wants to destroy it. While it didn't need help with destruction of
environment, the country seems to be better in recovering and achieving sustainability. While, in North Korea, illegal deforestation may be punished by death penalty and recycling of materials
has always been a practice, in my democratic country imports of products and services are encouraged, while the most popular export product is work force and people. We are building
monuments to trees and exports, while we issue more and more permits for green destruction, often labeled now as green production.
I have worked hard for years to find the truth. And if no one else sees value in it or any of my work, I may live a poor
life. You might think I'm insane, but I didn't choose poor
life, I chose not to live as a liar, a thief, a beggar, a disease. I accept poor life when I see no real choice and I don't want mercy, I don't need help and don't think I deserve either
help or mercy - you should only pay for work behind truth when you see value in it, otherwise it's a payment out of fear and fake care, because it is not I who fears future poor life, disease
Unless you've already taken a similar path, I am a messenger of your future, my poor life will become your poor life, there's a lot of reason to believe in that. When systems collapse and
you face the truth by force, by that moment I will have everything I want and you will miss every single thing you need.
Poor life by your standards can still be a good and happy life by my standards (but will probably require some isolation from this society), and even if short by your standards, it can be enough
Who cares for standards on a road to hell anyway, if not the devil operating on beliefs in all kinds of promised heavens, oblivious to his own nature. I am not that crazy.
For years now I hear the calling of the ice, places desolate to man, probably because man is not allowed to be cancerous there. Thank god for such places! Thank you universes for having places man
will never be able to conquer and rule. Places the devil doesn't find attractive and beautiful and thus fails to destroy.
Effectively, a parent who is not given formal custody of the child is forced, not to care for a child, but to have a job, while the other doesn't even have to work. In this perverse system, alimony
is just another lie, in this case, pretending to be child support.
In natural world, there are fathers who do not live with kids and their mother and they do not care for these kids - mother does that until they can provide for themselves. That's perfectly natural.
Human individuals are of diverse nature. A father who doesn't live with his kids and in whose nature is not to care for them, should not be labeled bad and forced to pay alimony.
In my world, no one would be forced to pay it.
Every responsible mother is well aware what kind of father her partner would be even before they have kids. I can't help but see alimony as an insurance for irresponsible mothers. An insurance
even responsible mothers don't hesitate to take (in fact, responsible mothers are more likely to take it) - they just need to lie to themselves that this money belongs to them (lying is made
easy in this world, truth is hard). After all, government says it does belong to them, and government doesn't lie.. when it suits them [mothers].
I was married for 10 years and for all these years I never avoided caring for my child, I loved it. When a child lives with you, it doesn't have to do anything, you will get something from
this child - feelings, every second you spend with it (and even if you're not in the same room, just close by). In my case, these feelings were never bad, and even if they sometimes are bad for
some parents, I believe most of them would not regret any of them - at least those parents in whose nature is to care for a child.
But everyone is in a hurry in this world, and everyone is trained to be irresponsible and find success in money - that's why people hurry with marriages and kids and why even the work of
mothers became a job someone has to pay for, even if that money is stolen.
Step three: solution
Basically, every time I had an interaction with the system, I was presumed guilty and punished for damage.
I generally do not ask for help. Only once I have asked government for help, and I didn't get any. My cellphone was stolen and I asked for police to get it back - even though they could, they
refused to help because the cellphone was not expensive enough (it wasn't really cheap either).
They refused to help my dad too when some material was stolen from his yard, even though it was known who did it - they said it was his fault because he did not have a fence around his yard.
I have paid so many fines and tickets on the presumption of guilt [without doing any damage] that I can safely say that life of a neutralum in anthropocentric society is impossible.
I will never avoid payment for real damage. Every time I did real damage I fixed it as soon as possible. And this is damage a lot (if not most) of people would try to avoid paying for. I was
involved in traffic accidents couple of times. One time I hit a car in a parking lot, I've paid for it as soon as I've found the owner. The other time, the road was slippery due
to snow/ice and I hit a car coming from opposite direction, I gave my whole monthly salary to fix that damage. I asked people if it would be ok for small amount to be paid next month so I have
some money for food and stuff, they didn't want to hear it and I just gave them everything, without hesitation or anger.
So I am not an irresponsible and bad man, even if most people are and would be without government. They probably need and want government, I don't. It doesn't do anything good for me, it only
does damage to me.
Surely, not all governments and industrial societies are the same, but as far as I know, none of them would be good for me, just more or less bad.
It is thus my plan to eventually go into the wild and finally live a life where I will not be forced to be a liar and a thief to get what I want. Although there is no wild enough nearby and I'm not
yet ready to go far away, I know, one day, I will either go into the wild, or, as often I've imagined, wild will come to me.
I'm also tired of being misunderstood, as a lone member of species, and, although it would be much easier in the wild for my soul, it would likely be much harder for my body. So if there's anyone
of my species listening, this is a call, of one wild to another. Let's start preparing, not for a place to build a new or better system, but for our return home.
This is not a call to abandon technology (although I'm tired of it too in this society, our minds probably brought it into this world), but to do things our way in an environment suitable for us.
Entanglements are lost with distance and lack of interaction. Quantum entanglement of particles is not different from entanglement of people. In order to sustain entanglement at distance, one needs
to communicate, consciously or subconsciously and even faster than light, as some particles do. But it's not good to force communication, then it becomes fake and lost eventually.
Apparently, my father has lost someone he loved in his past life due to loss of entanglement. In this life, he is ruled by fears, one of them being fear of losing my mother. Due to his
panic, effectively, she is not allowed to go far away from him. Some might see that as a problem, but they care for each other, they live and work together and their marriage works.
What is a problem is when a judge asks a mother whether a father is communicating with a child [over distance] in order to establish grounds for a case or punishment, implying that somehow
communication over distance is an indicator of child care. I do not communicate with my child while he is with his mother ever since I realized its not comfortable for him to talk with me while he's there.
Someone who cares about the child would ask what is the reason for that, because I also noticed he does talk more freely with me over phone when he's not there.
Beside that, I do not like talking over phones and I think he doesn't like it much too, so why force it? You force it when you want to control someone or fake something.
While she did took good care of our child while we were married, she is a liar for quite some time now (I don't think she always was, in her defense, it was probably my polarized behavior in marriage
her a liar), and I don't think it is always better for a grown up child to live with its mother rather than its father.
Some might say I married Venus, the goddess, and divorced Venus, the devil. But that's a lie if even a single word of it is not consumed as relative, let alone whole sentence.
It makes sense to me that, if one wants males to become more male and females more female, generally, for an adolescent male it would be better to live with a father, while for females a
mother would be better (although the child should make the decision). Otherwise, we are teaching male adolescents to become adult women and female adolescents to become adult men. Lately, I see
a lot of women watching football, "that can't be natural" - some might say.
But is it bad? It is a logical step in evolution of homo.beta into homo.sapiens, as it predicts
for differences between males and females to decrease and eventually annihilate
. For me, it's bad not to have a choice.
For that reason, I have created the CRC Log
webpage. However, that page will not be usable to neutralums only, but also
to polarized who will be forced to do things differently. After all, I am convinced that age of neutralums
is upon us, and those who forced us to lie, cheat and steal will soon be forced
to face the truth. Unready for it, they will need all the help they can get.