Da's bij mijn weten mijn favoriete tekst van alle teksten die ik ooit geschreven heb in mijn leven. Niet de belangrijkste zin, maar wel mijn favoriete tekst.

May these warnings be helpful to somebody who needs it. If you are one those children of God who need to find a way out of a sick, dominant, and evil-to-the-core family, think of this as a few road signs. You need to survive, pray, only prayer can save your soul and your life. Fight. Keep fighting when they shatter your ego. Stand up when you fell down. That's fighting. You're not dead until you fell down and you can't get up anymore. Make no mistake, if you want to do God's will Satan wants you dead, because the light is the enemy of obscurity, it's plain and simple. Read the holy scriptures. Just watching videos is not enough. Satan takes, steals, and plays dirty. He wants you to lose your mind. He will attack your identity relentlessly until exhaustion. The exhausted who persevere will win if they use the power of the words of God. Don't neglect the strength in the words that the holy prophets gave us. The power is not in you, but Satan has got power, more than we know, but less than God. Compared to Satan we are just dumbasses. If you keep walking with God you shall overcome all obstacles, even when it seems all odds are against you. If you don't keep walking with God you can fall in a nearly bottomless pit on a sun-shiny day with not an inch of suspicion in your mind. Some day you'll wake up and think: Where is it? Where's my faith? Well, it's gone, you don't have it. Where is it if you don't have it? You don't know. So don't lose your faith. You're not lost until you've lost your faith. I'm a being because I need to have all of that, and I'm knowing, and I'm doing. And all the things that I hold most dear, are all the things that Satan wants to take away from me: my mind, my identity, and my fate.

This is a comment I left in the comments section of a YouTube video called: who is it? looking at the 'doer'.

I can criticize constructively if you allow me. Don't get me wrong, I think you're very gifted, I just think that you need to steer your gifts in the right way, and this is not the right way. Construction workers need to build straight walls, I don't mean to be offensive, but I think you're leaning. You like the things you're good at, like all of us, and you know you like talking, with this, being good at something doesn't mean you're going to reach a good purpose. Doing what you're good at can make you feel worthy and gifted, and everyone needs that, and it can also be reassuring, but at what cost? You're free to use your talents to gain control over the situations that other people put you in, but by doing so you will put other people in certain situations too, of course. Whether they like it or not. You're free to use your skills for a good purpose or a bad purpose. You're free. Don't steer your act into taking the gravity out of the meaning of ideas and words, you're not a bird, you won't fly away, and at the same time you seem very eager to make the ideas receptive to being put in the wrong context, to make matters worse. What I'm saying is: you're young, and you can manifest in just 10 minutes a whole lot of ideas that may seem wonderful and supersmart, and I personally think that it's justified to suspect that you already seek to sanctify yourself this way, but my concern is that it might deteriorate your own understanding of the true meaning of the words you speak. Validating a cinema because the actress is very gifted at talking like a bird instead of validating the true meaning of words, is self-sanctification and greed. I'm a man, and women are advantaged in this argue battle. I write, which makes me a writer. You talk, which makes you a talker. We could say writing is by definition not dialogues, only monologues, whereas talking is usually not monologues. Women know that men are less communicative than women. Everybody knows that (some) women complain about that, and they have the right to do so, don't they? Well, we're biologically and culturally different men and women. What we do need to acknowledge is that writing is communicating. Writing is a form of communication, as well as talking, as well as every form of art, and our society is making the meaning of the word communication equal to the meaning of the word speaking, it has become an unconscious reflex, but it narrows the meaning of communication down to only one form of communication, and by doing so it outcasts people that are unfortunately gifted in other forms of communication. Writing is a form of communication, as well as talking, as well as every form of art. It's all communication, regardless of its shape. Due to the fact that the shape changes, it will come in another way, and it will be perceived in another way. Up until now it makes sense. I don't think you've written as much as I have, but you don't need to, I on the other hand don't need to talk as much as you do, that still makes sense, that's still the way it's supposed to be. We expect people to hear you when you speak, right, I mean they probably won't validate everything you say, but they'll hear you. When you speak people will perceive the things you say in a certain way. They will perceive, and they will receive. However, when I write people don't perceive my texts in any way. They don't receive it, and they don't perceive it. That's the difference. Funny fact (to some people) is the fact that no one ever hears about the ones that lost their voice. Some people think that they will keep getting away with holding up the appearance that the fact that I lost my voice is not due to enmity, but solely due to being poorly skilled at talking. They won't keep getting away with that. My testimony will stand tall. But losing your voice is not something you're concerned about. I think you should be concerned about something else. I think you're steering into a sideway that will lead you to the magnificent discovery of the fact that if you think it's a good idea to wane the importance of ideas, and to wane the meaning of words, you're just gonna fool yourself. Everybody wants to be seen, everybody wants to be heard. I'm still working on that. I try to avoid seeking to connect other people to me, but rather connect me to other people. Whether you look at the one-way street from the point of view of a statue or from the point of view of a bird, it doesn't matter, a one-way street can't possibly connect my ward to yours.

Your generation, 50's, 60's, or whatever is a funny generation actually: You're all like: "Yeah, we solved all the problems, you can come now, there's no barrier in sight..." That's funny, because if I wanna come, the only thing this generation is gonna do is judging me with their morals. So, yeah, you can come, it's up to every individual to decide whether or not it's gonna happen, everyone can do their own sexual revolution. Honestly, where do you think you come from? Who are your ancestors? Did your ancestors have children without sex? Did you ancestors' ancestors have children without sex? Do your children have children without sex? And what about your children's children? What else do you think there is to understand? Diseases? Don't you think morals are a disease? You're the generation that introduced all the morals that condemn our sexual behavior! Somehow on the whole timeline of the history of mankind you're the only generation that became so incredibly prideful it claimed to be the generation that was responsible for the sexual revolution! It's up to each individual to make their own sexual revolution. At most we can claim we made our own personal sexual revolution, not of other people.

I've been a postman for 25 years. During those 25 years I always had a hard time keeping this in mind throughout each day. I always felt like my mind was the only source providing the energy to remember the life-death opposition that this writing is about. I always considered this as a part of the foundation of my faith. My mind was surely not the only source providing the energy to constantly keep that in mind, but it felt like that quite often anyway. A lot of humans don't necessarily object to the idea of doing interesting manifestations of the artistic kind, and yet they always think: the time is not now. But time is a moment. Time is always now. You understand that, don't you? For most people being creative is never going to happen, that's a simple observation, but with a huge consequence. Not living, not doing the things that we should do or that we're called to do, and the lack of being aware of that simple observation, and the lack of understanding the meaning of it has severe consequences.

When for some reason people think about the meaning of the word guilt, I think most people make this common mistake: the first thing they should think about when thinking about the meaning of the word guilt is this: did we or did we not live, did we or did we not do the things that we should do and that we're called to do? That's the first thing they should think about, but it's not the first thing they think about. This mistake, I should say my opinion about this mistake, is a dissonant opinion. This mistake, and my opinion about this mistake, are two dissonant opinions about the base of right and wrong. It's a common mistake that concerns the starting point that we use as foundation to make our judgements about what's right and what's wrong. If we pronounce the forgiver, it sounds a lot like thief or giver. Thieves steal, and givers give. This is something that ought to be taken into account. This is inevitably an important element that should always be present at the base of the concept right or wrong, innocence or guilt. So the most common mistake when the concept right or wrong, innocence or guilt comes into their mind is: "What did I do?" when it's about them, or: "What did they do?" when it's about other people. That's thinking from the point of view of a thief. They should think: "What did I not do?" or "What did they not do?" Use a giver's starting point if you want to be forgiven. Remember: the forgiver, thief or giver. If you could be aware of how tough the guilt is that you will have to face when you neglect this life-death opposition. Remember: do the things you've got to do today, not tomorrow. So don't you think it's a better point of view to think that we can do a lot of things that make life better and bring us back to (or closer to) a state of innocence, rather than to think that you were innocent anyway, and since you didn't do anything wrong anyway you are rightfully staying where you are, because if there's any reason why you didn't mess up it's because you are wise and kind, and other people messed up because they're not. It's the common point of view. But I still think it's the point of view of a thief. That's my dissonant opinion, my giver's perspective. Of course I'm getting a little more into detail. Don't you think it's a better point of view to think that we can do a lot of things that make life better and bring us back to (or closer to) a state of innocence, ... Does this mean we think that we make no mistakes? No, that's not what it means. It means we acknowledge that we make mistakes every day, and we're trying to improve ourselves. We don't tend to pull up a facade to hide the mistakes, which makes me believe we raise awareness about mistakes (including point of views, details, and context). What about the people that are wise and kind, and think that they were innocent anyway, and didn't do anything wrong anyway? They are rightfully staying where they are, so to speak. So where is this place where they're at? I don't believe it's an innocent place, nor do I believe they're innocent people. But these ideas are not conclusive. These ideas don't explain why I think it's not an innocent place, nor why they're not innocent people, but I'm getting at it. The innocent place, what about it? I'll tell you what. People who think my starting point, the giver's point of view, is the right one, what's the place that they are from? Where are they at? Zoom in on the meaning of the word giving. Are we the only source providing the energy to give what we give? No, giving doesn't mean that the one that gives is the source that provided the energy which produced the gift. It means that we have taken part in the creative process to make the things that me made, and it means that there are energies and people that gave us energy in all kinds of forms, and we received that, and after we received it, we can pass it on. On the downside, and this is important, because it changes the whole perspective on the starting-point theory, if I may call it that way, is the fact that we missed out on a lot of things, energies, sources providing energy and whatnot. The misconception here is: the lack of understanding about the meaning of being versus the meaning of possessing (having). When people say: "I am ..." (as part of a whole sentence), we should understand, almost like a reflex, that it actually means: I have, or I possess. When people say: "I am", we should understand, almost like a reflex, that the positive idea of being is an idea that was programmed into the people's minds, but in reality it equals: I have, I possess. They won't say "I have", or "I possess" though, because the people's minds were programmed to think of having and possessing as negative ideas.

Now let me go back to the life-death opposition, what I think we should do in order to be forgiven by the forgiver, the concept of thief or giver. This is how I laid out the base of this principle earlier in the text: Don't you think it's a better point of view to think that we can do a lot of things that make life better and bring us back to (or closer to) a state of innocence, rather than to think that you were innocent anyway, and since you didn't do anything wrong anyway you are rightfully staying where you are, because if there's any reason why you didn't mess up it's because you are wise and kind, and other people messed up because they're not? What's the last part of the principle? The first part is the giver's point of view, the second (last) part is the thief's point of view. Now, what does the thief's point of view come down to? It comes down to BEING. It comes down to this: they say they didn't mess up because they are wise and kind, and other people messed up because they're not. They are this and that, and other people aren't, that's about what we are, that's what it comes down to. It's the common point of view to reject the idea that being wise and kind is about having, about possessing, the common idea is that being wise and kind is only and solely being, and nothing else. I have a dissonant opinion. I believe there are certain energies, entities and people who gave them a sufficient amount of energy and enough height at young age, which made them able to reach an amount of comfort that led to their capacity to pull up a mask and act like they're giving, generous, kind and wise beings. I think the main reason why people are having trouble understanding this truth is because the nature of inequality can be cruel, which is why they just ignore it. Ignoring the nature of inequality is something that narrows the possibility of understanding this down to zero. Even if it's not a common point of view, I believe it will become very clear overtime. It's not because you are wise and kind that you didn't mess up, again, that's not true. It's not because other people don't possess these qualities that they messed up, again, that's not true. Being wise and kind is your mask, the facade that you're pulling up whenever people are around. You were rather possessing energy and comfort, than being. You possess, you have, and you steal other people's energy, I don't know how you keep up managing not calling that messing up but you do. But the other people, the people whose energy you've stolen, don't have, don't possess, and yet they give, they keep giving. They messed up, but not because they're not wise, not because they're not kind, but because you stole from them. If they possess a rock, you suck the water out of their rock, because you suck the last drop of water out of their life, until they're dryer than a stone. Whether we think people are givers or thieves, innocent or guilty, it depends on conditions, and we're making assumptions. We can't rely on being, because when we analyse the meaning of being, it means having, possessing. And we can't rely on having either, because we have come to a conclusion that we don't know the source providing the energy to have what we have, we merely receive. We have to accept that we don't know where all the things come from. What we do know is that stones don't contain water, and people can't survive without water. And thus, not stealing water from the people who need it most is a part of the task of your life, a part of your responsibility.

When I was young Isabel was always handing out presents, and I always received the biggest box. I knew what was in the box already, it was empty, it always was. But the other people always received a tiny box. They were always like: Why he always gets the big box, my box is always tiny, and they were always envious, and they would always treat me like the one that gets the big box, no one gave me anything for the rest of my life. They didn't know my box was empty, we always had to wait until we were home to open it. But I knew it was empty. Every time I received the big box, I saw the other people watching me, and being envious at me, and I knew I was screwed already. And I was triggered already. And there was always some wise guy coming over and say: You always stay so calm, you're a relaxed person, how do you manage to stay so calm? I always knew a way to explain I was only calm on the outside, but on the inside I was exploding. We stay calm on the outside because we have no choice, that's what everyone expects, but I'm getting off topic. That's the only thing they've ever achieved with such stupid comments: getting us off our topic. Isabel on the other hand felt like a queen, she used her ritual of handing out presents to create her own image of most unselfish and most generous person. Not only did I know right away, when I received my box, that the other people were envious of me because their box was tiny and mine was big, but I also knew Isabel felt like a queen because she was the most "unselfish" and "generous" person, so I was triggered not once, but twice. I received a lot of presents, oh yeah I received a lot of presents. You screwed me and you had a lot of fun doing that. You've taken the meaning of the word deceitful to another level. It's all about image. But what is it gonna cost? I know I'm gonna get paid anyway.

We have to accept that we don't know where all the things come from. We can rely on the fact that we do it. Yes, we do it, and we're doing things, all sort of things. We have to accept that we don't even know the details of where the conception of living organisms come from. Even the highest priest, even the wisest scientist has to admit, and has to recognize that he doesn't know the details of where the conception of living organisms come from. We all have to admit, and accept the fact that we don't know it. So do it. Rely on doing what you do, rely on doing the things that you do. Do what you can do, to the best of your capacity, and do it today, not tomorrow.

This is a comment I left in the comments section of a YouTube video called: "You're STiLL more considerate than them" (DevinKeptGoing)

Repentance doesn't come into that house. They will cast their shadows over your life to make sure you ain't taller than they are, they can't stand it, they want you to be little at all costs. Look, mom's a covert narc, and dad's dumb, and saying that it's complicated is the understatement of the year. I know, I've lived through this, but I'm 50yo now. It's not hard to understand, they just didn't make it, they just didn't reach the dreams they wanted to reach in their life, and they will never accept if you make it. That's the reason why they stay like that. If you repent, which is what you do if you wish the best to everyone, and I have reasons to think that's what you do, you're not allowed to stay into a house like that. You're allowed to make your own choice, but they don't allow it. The only thing that they allow, is that you stay there but under their conditions. With this; their conditions decide who you are and who you're not. Ephesians 6,12: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." These evil spirits claim this house as their property, which means that anyone that does repent is not welcome, but if nevertheless you stay there, your true intentions won't be received, you will remain an outcast inside the house of your parents. It will come down to you not being able to be yourself whenever you're there, and they will have power over you. The enmity between God and Satan in the house is not getting softer, it's building up. The problem is the power. I have reasons to think your parents didn't make it, but inside the house they have power over you in ways that you don't know the details of. After all, your parents were there before you were there. They're just abusing your disadvantage. But forget about your parents once in a while, on the flip side, concerning your power, you are young and you need more time to figure out exactly your identity and the power within your identity. That's exactly the danger you're facing right now. They never want you to refine your own identity, to refine your knowledge about who you really are, they never want you to seek your own power, and they know, that if you stay there, they can get what they want.

Also a comment I left in a comments section of a YouTube video

We're not so stupid to think that our problems and our feelings can be separated, because we're smart enough to leave the things that always have been united and always should stay united, united. We do talk about our feelings, but after a while we're also smart enough to quit doing that because we know that the only thing we obtain by doing so is lose our time and our energy. Why? Because, women don't recognize feelings of men as such, because women have certain ideas that define how our feelings should be in advance, and their ideas about how our feelings should be don't match with our real feelings, so when we try to communicate our true feelings anyway, women don't recognize it as real feelings and don't hear us, they think that the things that we communicate aren't actually real feelings, they are blind to our feelings, and actually think that we have no feelings. There is no communication and we have no friends anyway.

Een grens op een plaats tussen een ding dat bestaat en een ding dat niet bestaat. Beschuldigingen die binnenkomen als een invador die het definiëren van de (bewijzen van) de beschuldigingen op die manier doet dat: of je het begrijpt of niet, het is duidelijk gedefinieerd, en je moet (daarentegen) (heel) extreem goed zoeken om die (bewijzen van) die beschuldigingen te kunnen vinden, en je moet (heel) extreem goed zoeken om een element of aspect van die (bewijzen van) beschuldigingen dat niet verborgen is te kunnen vinden.

De fout die je maakt (gemaakt hebt) is zogezegd een concreet feit waarmee je een onweerlegbaar bewijs hebt dat tot gevolg heeft dat je aan JE een andere uitleg moet geven waardoor JE niet meer naar de hemel kan gaan, en naar de hel moet gaan, en die fout is gebeurd op een bepaald moment op de tijd-as, en dus kan dat vanaf dat moment achteraf niet meer veranderen. Ofwel ga je naar het koninkrijk Gods, de hemel, ofwel ga je naar de hel, en DAT IS ALLES. Maar het koninkrijk Gods, de hemel, daar kan je niks aan veranderen, en de hel, daar kan je ook niks aan veranderen, dus het enige dat je kan veranderen, tenminste, je kan er een andere uitleg aan geven, is JE, JE is JIJ. Als je vraagt wie die persoon is, krijg je een ander antwoord afhankelijk van aan wie je het vraagt. Aan JE kan je een andere uitleg geven. Sommige mensen staan altijd vooraan in de rij om aan JE een andere uitleg te geven, zodat niet zij, maar jij naar de hel moet, tenminste, dat is de bedoeling. HUN bedoeling dus. Op een gegeven moment zetten ze je aan om een fout te maken, zodat ze je daar achteraf altijd mee kunnen confronteren, zodat ze altijd een gemakkelijk herkenningspunt hebben waarop ze zich kunnen baseren om aan JE een andere uitleg te geven, een uitleg die verondersteld is je naar de hel te sturen. Zelfs als je op een moment dat plaats heeft lang nadat de "fout" gemaakt werd, kijkt naar het (verre) verleden, naar een verleden dat teruggaat naar voor dat je de "fout" gemaakt hebt waar ze je toe aangezet hebben, zie je dat tientallen jaren voor dat het gebeurd is ze de plannen om je daartoe aan te zetten al aan het beramen waren in hun hoofd. De "fout" is niet dat, de "fout" is niet zo, de "fout" is niet zoals zij zich gedragen en zoals zij denken, en het is niet vergelijkbaar met de manier waarop zij mensen aansturen om dingen te doen. De "fout" is een uitweg, een exit. Zelfs op het moment zelf dat je dat doet wil je geen verkeerde dingen doen, wil je goede dingen doen, maar vanwege de situatie waarin je op dat moment zit kan je op dat moment zelf geen andere uitweg uit die situatie zien dan: doen wat je op dat moment doet. De "fout" is een uitweg, een exit. Ik confronteer op een bepaald moment in mijn leven iemand met een situatie waarin het voor die persoon nog heel moeilijk is om uit de situatie een uitweg te vinden die zijn leven redt, en de reden waarom ik die persoon met die situatie confronteer is eigenlijk omdat ik zelf op dat moment in een situatie zit waarin ik geen uitweg zie die mijn leven kan redden, tenzij de uitkomst van wat op dat moment gebeurt gunstig is. God kan mij geven om goed te kunnen doen voor de mensen. Dat heeft alles te maken met hun eigen regels maken. Ze hebben altijd hun eigen regels gemaakt, tijdens gans hun leven, vanaf het begin. Dus ze kunnen de persoon die al de dingen die ze altijd verborgen hebben openbaar maakt niet hebben. Ik ben die persoon die al de dingen die die mensen tijdens gans hun leven gedaan hebben in de openbaarheid brengt.

Ge reageert niet.
Want uw kop is toe.
En ge vindt het normaal om op die andere mensen te reageren.
Want die andere mensen vinden dat ze beter zijn dan mij.
En gij vindt dat die andere mensen beter zijn dan mij.
Dus ge reageert niet.
En uw kop is toe.
En ge voegt er nog een minderwaardigheidscomplex aan toe.
Simpel.

The only thing that makes you happy is affirming that all the laws of God, all the highest laws, as above as below, are supporting the infallable, clear and undeniable evidence of your truth and my responsibility that absolutely everything went wrong only because of me and my accountability and the fact that I didn't do anything good at all. Because the law says: Gij zult niet doden. The law doesn't say: Gij zult niet doren. Yet above all this the one thing that lifts you up to the sky is the satisfaction that you get out of the fact that nobody understands nor recognizes the meaning of the fact that there is nothing left except acknowledge that people behave like plants.

I totally agree that there is a law that says that things are forbidden, and that when a person does one of these things that are forbidden, afterwards we say: he did it. And indeed, he did it, and not only did he do it, and what he did is forbidden, but he did it at a particular moment in time. If they ask you: what time is it, you're gonna watch your smartphone or your laptop or your watch or whatever, but you're not going to open your book with the laws, because your book with the laws doesn't tell time, you know. Say someone murdered somebody, hypothetically speaking, I totally agree that there are laws that say that it's forbidden. Say somebody, at a particular moment in time, murders someone, hypothetically speaking, then afterwards people will say: he did it, and the thing that he did is forbidden, and he must receive his sentence, and it cannot be forgiven, because the thing that he did is a thing that can never be forgiven. And I totally agree that if I, hypothetically speaking, would kill someone, I would receive my sentence, and what I did can never be forgiven, at one condition. Imagine I'm in court right now and I would tell the judge that I totally agree with all of this, but I have just one question. I'd ask the judge to take his book with the laws. And I would wait until the judge is holding his book with the laws, and then I would ask the judge this simple question: What time is it? And then the judge would probably look at an electronic device and answer me. And then I would say: No, don't watch your electronic device, but open your book with the laws and see if it tells you what time it is. But I know that the book that the judge is holding doesn't tell him what time it is, because a book just can't tell the time. That's fine, but I agree to receive my sentence, because I did it, but what I did I did at a particular moment in time, and I want to ask the judge to add to my sentence that I did it at a particular moment in time. Because I did it, but it happened in the past, and you are sentencing me for something that happened in the past, and a lot of things happened in the past, a lot of things that are forbidden happened in the past, and a lot of things that are morally wrong happened in the past, and all of those things happened at a particular moment in time, but the people that have done those things, things that are forbidden, have never been sentenced for what they've done, and as a matter of fact all the things they did they did at a particular moment in time, and they've never received the sentence they should have received, and not only that but also we don't know at what moment, at what particular moment in the past they did it. Why is that? Because if the book with the laws could tell the time, then the book with the laws could also tell us at what time, at what particular moment in the time these people that have never been sentenced did what they've done. But the book of laws doesn't know what they've done, because the book of laws can't tell the time, and thus the book doesn't know when it happened, nor what they've done. So, they might as well have done nothing forbidden, as far as we know. So in conclusion I agree to receive my sentence, and to never be forgiven, because I did it, hypothetically speaking, but at one condition: that the judge writes in his book of laws the following sentence. It's not a request, it's a condition, because I'm not playing.

"THE OFFENDER STATES THAT HE AGREES ON RECEIVING HIS SENTENCE AND NEVER BE FORGIVEN FOR WHAT HE DID, BECAUSE HE DID IT, HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, THE THING THAT IS FORBIDDEN, AND HE DID IT AT A PARTICULAR MOMENT IN TIME, AT ONE CONDITION, THAT HIS SENTENCE SHALL BE KEPT IN THE BOOK WITH THE LAWS, AND TO HIS SENTENCE SHALL BE ADDED THAT IT HAPPENED AT A PARTICULAR MOMENT IN THE TIME, AND THAT WHAT HE DID IS FORBIDDEN, AND HE DID IT IN THE PAST, AND WE DON'T KNOW AT WHAT PARTICULAR MOMENT IN THE PAST IT HAPPENED, BECAUSE THIS BOOK WITH THE LAWS CAN'T TELL THE TIME, AND THERE ARE SO MUCH THINGS THAT ARE FORBIDDEN THAT HAPPENED AT PARTICULAR MOMENTS IN THE PAST, AND ALMOST NONE OF THESE OFFENDERS RECEIVED THEIR SENTENCE, BECAUSE THIS BOOK DOESN'T KNOW WHEN THESE THINGS HAPPENED, AND WE'VE FORGOTTEN ABOUT ALL OF THOSE THINGS, AND NONE OF THE LAWS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK DON'T CHANGE A THING ABOUT THAT."

I hereby formally ask the judge to add this statement to his book with the laws.

STOP STOP STOP STOP. Arrêtez tout. L'alcool, le CBD, les joints, le tabac, tout. Arrêtez tout, c'est la seule solution. Je sais que changer la culture n'est pas possible, mais ce n'est pas une raison de la valider. Nous reculons devant quoi si nous voulons abolir tous ces produits nocifs? Pourquoi c'est légal de vendre des produits qui rendent les gens malades? Ce sont tous des produits qui interviennent dans les cycles naturels, dans les processus naturels, qui devraient à tout moment rester en équilibre, tant dans le corps humain que dans la nature d'ailleurs. Nous faisons partie de la nature! En prenant ces produits les humains interviennent dans l'équilibre des cycles naturels. Ces produits sont des poisons, et les poisons sont toujours des facteurs externes qui ne doivent pas être introduits dans ces milieus, ni dans le corps, ni dans la nature. L'humain sait très bien qu'il est beaucoup plus doué à détruire la nature qu'à réparer les dégâts, et c'est valable tant pour l'environnement que pour notre propre corps. C'est pareil. Il faut arrêter de dire qu'on peut réparer les dégâts, il faut simplement ne pas faire de dégâts. Dites-moi, quelle meilleure motivation pour vivre une vie saine, que de vivre en symbiose et en harmonie avec la nature ? Je ne connais pas de meilleure motivation, mais en tout cas ce dont les gens qui veulent vivre plus sainement ont besoin, avant tout, je crois, c'est la motivation. Je crois que c'est le principal.

Corrigeer eerst deze fout, dan zullen we verder praten. Je successen en je nederlagen hangen af van je samenwerking met andere mensen, en hangen niet 100% compleet van jezelf af. Ja, maar er zijn altijd kwaadaardige mensen die je willen laten denken dat je zwak bent, en er zijn zelfs kwaadaardige mensen die andere mensen gebruiken om je te laten denken dat je zwak bent. Dus reageren de mensen daarop door op die manier te denken: Ik zou liever 100% onverschillig zijn, want zwak zijn (zelfs zwak overkomen) is niks voor mij, en ik zou liever sterk zijn (en sterk overkomen) en onafhankelijk zijn, want door onafhankelijk te zijn kan ik mijzelf steviger in een positie vastzetten die nodig is om te vermijden dat ik bij de andere mensen zwak overkom. Daarom beweren veel mensen altijd op glamoureuze feestjes dat de successen en de nederlagen van mensen, in het algemeen, in hun leven, 100% compleet aan zichzelf te danken zijn. Want als er nog maar het minste idee is dat hen niet 100% onverschillig laat, en ze dat ook nog moeten toegeven, dan is dat wel enorm zwak van hen, en zoiets moeten toegeven maakt ze heel kwetsbaar. De Belgische manier van denken is zoals een grote boom (er zijn verschillende Belgische manieren van denken, maar dat zijn verschillende takken van dezelfde boom), en dit probleem is van die grote boom een belangrijke wortel. Volgens mij is het een boom die haar schaduw werpt over gans het westerse denken. En zelfs de oosterse manier van denken. Zelfs de ideeën waar vele traditionele oosterse filosofieën oorspronkelijk uit voortkomen, zoals de ideeën van Confucius, staan in de schaduw van die boom. Als Belgische kinderen, Vlaamse kinderen opgroeien, worden ze gevormd en gemodelleerd, opnieuw en opnieuw en opnieuw, en dat is een heel pijnlijke zaak. Naar verluidt zei Einstein ooit: "Zet je gewoon even op een stoel neer, en denk rustig na, en je bent veel slimmer dan je je kan inbeelden." Waarom? Waarom hanteren Vlamingen een ontiegelijk achterhaalde overtuiging over een soort van totale onaanraakbaarheid en onbewogenheid in relatie tot andere mensen? Die overtuiging is deze: Als je succes behaalt, of als je faalt, wat je verwezenlijkingen als mens ook mogen zijn, ze hangen compleet en 100% van jezelf af. Vlamingen blijven tot vandaag verenigd achter die ontiegelijk achterhaalde overtuiging staan. Ja, maar de basis van die overtuiging is dat je je niet moet verenigen, er is geen enkel verenigend aspect aan die overtuiging. Het lijkt me tegenstrijdig dat ze verenigd moeten blijven om achter een idee te blijven staan die eigenlijk een grote pijler die structurele samenwerking ondersteunt ondergraaft. Het is belangrijk om dat te begrijpen, omdat dat een tegenstrijdig element is in de essentie van heel veel vlakken en niveaus van het menselijk bestaan. Het bewijs dat we NIET onbewogen en NIET onaanraakbaar zijn is de pijn die we allemaal gehad hebben wanneer we opgegroeid zijn, die pijn is immers veroorzaakt door het feit dat we geen stenen zijn. Dus de pijn die BEWIJST dat het een ontiegelijk achterhaalde overtuiging is, is de OORZAAK van het feit dat de mensen dat blijven denken, omdat de mensen op die pijn reageren door (als) stenen te willen zijn. Corrigeer eerst deze fout; dan zullen we verder praten, want als de mensen dat snappen, zal de maatschappij er heel anders uitzien. Het is belachelijk dat we moeten zeggen dat je zelf een rol speelt in de successen die je behaalt en in de nederlagen die je ondergaat, iedereen weet dat, maar alleen zeggen dat je successen en je nederlagen afhangen van je samenwerking met andere mensen, is niet het tegendeel beweren. Het is een pijler die structurele samenwerking ondersteunt, gewoon toegeven dat je successen en je nederlagen afhankelijk zijn van je samenwerking met andere mensen. Maar elke keer opnieuw komen er mensen met boosaardige bedoelingen bij jou om je het idee aan te praten dat indien je die overtuiging niet laat varen zij, zowel als andere mensen, je zullen laten denken dat je zwak bent, zodat je niet altijd sterk zal kunnen overkomen. Het is een pijler die structurele samenwerking ondersteunt, gewoon toegeven dat je successen en je nederlagen afhankelijk zijn van je samenwerking met andere mensen, maar elke keer opnieuw komen er mensen met boosaardige bedoelingen bij jou om je trots te maken, door je in te fluisteren dat je zelf sterker bent, en het beter kan, en dat je de andere mensen niet nodig hebt, dat je beter onafhankelijk bent want dat komt sterker over, en dat uiteindelijk al je successen en al je nederlagen in je leven van jezelf zullen afhangen, en van niemand anders. Dan gaan de mensen dat geloven, geloven dat ze sterk zijn omdat ze op hun eigen voeten kunnen staan, muren bouwen, niet meer met andere mensen samenwerken want dat is zwak, en op familiefeestjes aan al de kinderen de boodschap meegeven dat in het verdere verloop van hun leven al hun successen en al hun nederlagen van hun eigen zullen afhangen. Wat dacht je, dat een dikke boom met een dikke rotte wortel niet zal omvallen? Natuurlijk wel. Ze willen alleen het noodlot uitstellen.

C'est de la violence excessive, mais (malchance), la victime est condamnée au lieu de l'offenseur, faute de bonnes intentions des gens qui vivent de l'autre côté de la terre. La violence est excessive au point où les gens de l'autre côté de la terre peuvent le voir, mais (malchance), les membres de la famille de la victime sont aveugles au point de ne rien voir, or (malchance), c'est à eux que le juge s'adresse pour avoir des témoins, or ces témoins-ci disent tous: il n'y a pas eu une telle violence, nous n'avons jamais vu rien de tel.

Les gens de l'autre côté de la terre ne sont pas aveugles, eux, mais mal intentionnés. Ils savent qui est l'offenseur et qui est la victime, mais ils rajoutent à la peine et aux traumatismes de la victime encore plus de violence, parce qu'ils ont beaucoup de haine envers cette famille qui vit à l'autre bout de la planète, et ils ne savent pas s'y prendre à l'offenseur, car l'offenseur a le pouvoir, donc ils s'y prennent à la victime qui lui n'a pas le pouvoir. La victime n'a jamais eu un tel pouvoir. Mais ils supposent, ils supposent, soi-disant, car la victime fait partie de la même famille de l'offenseur, donc comment pourraient-ils faire la distinction entre l'offenseur et la victime? Ah, bonne question. Mais ne faudrait-il pas en premier lieu se poser la question: Pourquoi faudrait-il utiliser de la violence, avant de se poser la question: comment peut-on distinguer l'offenseur et la victime?

I'm going to tell you a story, if you allow me. I'm not an American citizen. People build walls, and walls are mostly built in the minds of people, and sometimes they build real walls, but the real walls are so-called real walls, because the walls in the minds are as real as any wall, no matter if it's made out of rocks or air. Maybe you can see this story as a screenshot of my mind on this topic. I may be off topic with this, but somehow I think the Holy Spirit is giving me instructions on how to bring this about. This is about me not being an American, and about how I somehow feel excluded from an American community because of the place where I was born. Why is that? well, because there's a wall of two things combined mainly. I live in an apartment in Brussels, Belgium, and I'm gonna share my point of view about this with you. The wall is mainly composed of the combination of the idea that there would be some kind of wall but there isn't, but without knowing there isn't a wall. I make it very clear very fast. When I grew up, we watched the TV, and watching TV meant that the American culture entered our living rooms, and there was no alternative, there was no internet, and watching TV meant watching America. European citizens (most of them) will probably not explain this as clearly as I will explain it right now. Of course, our own country was broadcasting a lot of programs that were not nearly as expensive as basically anything that was made in Hollywood, nor did any other country in the whole world for that matter, so, we did like all the kids did, we watched movies that were made in Hollywood (in the 80's and 90's). So what we do is, when we see people on a screen that we like, we have an instinctive reaction to identify with the person we see on the screen. We recognize what we like, and we become what we like. It is a natural reflex, conscious and unconscious. But I'm gonna be honest with you, I don't like these movies, I stopped watching them in the beginning of this century (back then I was 25), but it was already too late, I was already thankful for all the things that I had seen on the screen, for your beautiful country (its nature and environments). I loved the feeling that American culture was not a foreign thing to me, because it felt really natural and very similar to the culture of my home country. What? Yes, I hated the movies, not the Americans in the movies, nor their sense of humor, nor their culture, nor their country. The reason why I hated it is because action movies (that was the main support of the whole Hollywood movie industry) made me nervous and anxious and I was in search of peace of mind at that age. It was too loud, too much and too fast. To me, America is a foreign country, but it doesn't feel like that. The TV screen created a wall because there was no comments section on these TV's, you know, believe it or not, watching a movie meant watching, and that's it. So from my point of view there was a similarity between our cultures but without connection. You know the cars with the tinted windows, that's it. Again, I feel like I'm sitting in my car, and the Americans, again, are putting on a show just outside my car, and they can't see me. The only difference is, now I can slide the window down and say: "Hey, Hi there, hello, yes you, hi, I'm not an American citizen... " The thing is, I don't watch TV anymore for a few years, but I watch YouTube videos instead, and the similarity is striking. I mean, if today was December 1, 1994, I would probably watch a Hollywood movie and say: "Hey I know him, it's that actor from that other movie, you remember the other movie we saw the other night? What's his name again? Jon Clements, that's him! That's the one!" You've got to take that screenshot man, you're not gonna remember it if you don't. You see where I'm getting at, I'm still watching Americans, even though December 1, 1994 was exactly 30 years ago. The distance is fading away though. 90% of the video's that I watch (in this category) are made in America, and I'd love to see more variety. Not because I don't love you anymore, I do love you, but I'd like to be part of it as well. I hope I'm not a stranger, I think maybe there will be a possibility to make the wall disappear at least for a little while, and maybe more European video's will come up, not only in my feed, but in yours as well, I hope so, I've uploaded a lot of video's, it's not your style, I mean you may like it, but it's different, but that's okay, everyone has got his or her own style, everybody knows everybody is different, and that's how it's supposed to be.

If you need to fight a war during a very long time, not only you have to study the details of your enemy, but you must study the details of the problems that occur in the war (the spiritual war) from the point of view of a doctor, from the point of view of finding solutions to the problems in the therapeutic sense, and if the war is very long and very intense, in the long run there's a huge amount of details, and there's also a huge amount of details that are very alike, and if you look at all these details together it can cause nervousness and anxiety, and it's actually also really ugly. When I was a little kid, I was sleeping one night and had a dream, and I didn't quite understand why the dream wasn't good, because it didn't seem like a nightmare, but I saw an image of a huge amount of very little things that looked alike and I thought it was so ugly that it made me very anxious, and I couldn't unsee it. Of course it goes away, but every once in a while it came back, and the anxiety also came back every time I remembered the image that I saw that night, until the day that I understood the root of the problem, which is the simple fact that when too much people don't understand that I have to deal with too much problems for an extended period, without being understanding or empathic, it becomes too much, and then a vision of a lot of very small things that look the same makes me anxious, and it looks so ugly that it disgusts me, even though there's no apparent reason for this image to be that ugly or to cause anxiety. The image of all the small things causes anxiety because (unconscious) I link it up with all the small things that I have to gather and learn to discern.

Asking why is meaningful. Saying don't worry is meaningful. You can't be aware to which extent people are harming other people as long as it's not you that they are harming, it's just a psychological fact, not feeling the actual being attacked is like not seeing it, which means basically that it's like not being aware of the existence, the presence of the pain and problems and hate, here and now. Can you change that? As long as you're not a victim, I guess not, unless you're working in a hospital or doing something similar. But you can understand what I'm saying though, I think. Asking why is not that meaningful though, it's better to look at the way people who have trauma are processing things that happened in their lives, things that went really wrong, from a therapeutic point of view. You can really learn a lot from people who have been processing the things that went wrong in their lives through the art that they're making. As a matter of fact, a lot of artists use the art they are making as a way of processing the awful things that happened to them. Everyone can study that, pure minds are able to understand way more about that than they're usually even aware of. That's a better way of thinking than: Watching what happens and asking yourself why, of course we ask ourselves why, and we keep doing that, but after a while we need to turn that page and say: Okay I'm gonna consider these things from another point of view now. The problem with just watching what happens, and thinking it shouldn't happen, is that after a while you get the idea that by doing so you're actually helping, which you don't, and it's very contagious behavior, because if you're just standing there, other people are gonna see you standing there, and they're gonna copy your behavior, and they're gonna think that it's okay to do nothing because it's exactly the same as what you're doing. Maybe it's not okay, but at least it doesn't feel like it's not okay if you are not the only one doing nothing. We need to dig deeper, much deeper to catch a glimpse of the true magnitude of the problems in the minds of the humans. Usually most people are avoiding other people's problems at any cost, that's why it's not surprising that humans have developed a very sharp sense to know very accurately what they need to know to see the problems that they really want to avoid at all costs. It's a lot of playing dumb in order to avoid putting energy in doing something useful. And then they say: Why is it? What is it? Where does it come from? How does it happen? But you don't want to help, because you can't, and it's too difficult, and what do you gain from it? If you're one of those people, make way for people that want to help other people that are struggling, because bystanders are usually not helpful. Not participating is only useful to those who can afford to not participate, and to those who cannot afford to participate. The last reason is just not being qualified for the job, whereas the first reason is just an excuse.

Ik ben de generatie van de kinderen van de generatie van Urbanus, als je begrijpt wat ik bedoel. Als je liever hebt dat ik het zo zeg: Ik zie in Urbanus een soort van vaderlijke projectie, dat is dus een beeld dat ik projecteer vanuit mijn hoofd, dat is duidelijk. Ik heb gans mijn leven in loopgraven gezeten en tegen de generatie van mijn ouders gevochten eigenlijk. Als ik Urbanus zou bekritiseren zou het misschien erg harde kritiek kunnen zijn, omdat ik van zijn humor hou, anderzijds zou het ook in de andere richting hard kunnen zijn, nog harder zelfs, naar mij toe dan. Ik bedoel, ik weet niet in welke richting de pijlen die ik afschiet gaan vliegen, ik weet ook niet in hoeverre Urbanus door een pijl geraakt gaat worden of niet. Er zijn een paar interessante dingen te vertellen als we kijken naar het unieke standpunt van iemand als Urbanus, die niet ernstig wordt genomen, en daarvan een troef maakt. Na 20 min stelt deze mevrouw aan Urbanus een vraag over dat zijn humor veel mensen aanspreekt omdat het laagdrempelig is. De periode wanneer Urbanus het liedje Bakske Vol Met Stro gemaakt heeft, dat is de periode waarover Urbanus hier spreekt wanneer hij op deze vraag antwoordt, en ik ben omstreeks deze periode ook geboren trouwens. Dus dit is, kort samengevat, wat Urbanus hierop antwoordt: "Voor de kerk en de pastoor, respect voor het geloof was al lang vergaan. Er was iemand gestorven, iedereen had daar ruzie mee. Zo een slechterik. De pastoor die voor de begrafenis instaat vraagt aan nonkel Maurice: "Wilt gij die speech schrijven, want als daar echt niemand is, dat is mijn job hè." En nonkel Maurice klaagt over de overledene omdat hij bij hem ook nog een rekening onbetaald achter gelaten heeft. En daarop zegt de pastoor: "Nonkel Maurice, vergeet niet, over de doden niks dan goed hè." En dan op die begrafenis haalt nonkel Maurice een papiertje uit zijn zak: "Hij is dood! Goed!" Dat is zo, soms, familie..." Veel mensen van uw generatie wensen hun kinderen dood. Op deze manier. Uw beschrijving is heel juist. Die overledene, die begrafenis voor die overledene, dat is geen overledene, dat is een levende persoon die iedereen haat. Urbanus zegt dat die overleden is, maar dat is gewoon het verhaal dat hij er van maakt. Er is zo een persoon, hier in Vlaanderen, die zogezegd overleden is, maar tijdens zijn leven nooit dood geweest is, en nog steeds niet is. Hij is alleen innerlijk overleden, niet zijn lichaam, voor alle duidelijkheid. Dat is alleen maar een vicieuze cirkel waar die persoon in geboren is, omdat het moment waarop die Vlaming geboren is, hij zo erg door zijn eigen ouders en familie gehaat werd, dat zijn ouders en familie, die invloedrijke machthebbers waren in de katholieke kerk, hun macht in die kerk misbruikten (en misbruiken is een vorm van gebruiken) om de kring van haat die het kind als een dode bestempelt en als een dode behandelt en ziet (een dode in een levend lichaam dus) steeds groter te maken zodat het kind als een rat in de val zit. In het Engels noemen ze dat: closing ranks. De gelederen sluiten. De manier waarop mensen reageren wanneer ze een mens zien die allerlei problemen heeft is hen ingegeven door de angst om bij het probleem dat ze zien betrokken te worden. Dus al die mensen sluiten de gelederen eigenlijk, de dode in het levende lichaam botst zonder één enkele uitzondering op angst, lafheid en afwijzing. Ja, maar niet alleen zijn jullie bang en laf, jullie hebben ook een prachtige manier om de ideeën die je gedrag bepalen te rechtvaardigen. Jullie denken altijd: Hij is maar... Hij is maar... Hij is maar, inderdaad. Hij is maar de koude dode pechvogel die elke dag het gezicht van zijn ouders moet blijven zien, en het gezicht dat hij ziet als hij naar zijn ouders kijkt, de woorden ontbreken mij daar om dat te kunnen beschrijven, ziet hij alleen maar omdat de corrupte (eerder perverse, maar soit) natuur van zijn ouders hen belet om hun blik al was het maar even naar binnen te richten om naar zichzelf te kijken en te zien dat omdat ze zo'n natuur hebben en daar niks willen aan doen liever het voorrecht en het plezier willen blijven genieten dat ze uit het emotioneel misbruiken van dat kind halen omdat hen dat het gevoel geeft dat ze de baas zijn en dat ze groot zijn. Ik ben een ex-postbode, maar als postbode weet je dat je gehaat bent als je op elke hoek van de straat aangesproken wordt op deze manier: "Hé facteur, daar ben je weer met je facturen." Ja, want aan de postbode kan je in principe zeggen wat je maar wilt. Een postbode is eigenlijk een soort van Urbanus, maar dan een droge. Dat is ook iemand die niet ernstig wordt genomen. Ja, omdat ik alle andere mensen er van beschuldig dat ze verantwoordelijk zijn voor het feit dat ik niet uit een cirkel geraak (waarin ik een dode in het lichaam van een levende ben) die zij vereeuwigd hebben. Nu, de slechte zijn, en iemand zijn waar iedereen ruzie mee heeft of had, zoals die man waar Urbanus mee lacht, Jezus was hetzelfde lot beschoren hoor, hij werd gekruisigd omdat hij geen glimp van goedkeuring had voor de intimidaties van de meest invloedrijke machthebbers. Hij was de slechterik waar iedereen ruzie mee had, niet meer of niet minder. De pointe, de punt van de pijl, is dat die mensen die zogezegd alleen maar laf, bang en afwijzend zijn, maar verder ogenschijnlijk complete buitenstaanders van die cirkel zijn, om precies dezelfde redenen laf, bang en afwijzend zijn als de redenen waarom de ouders en de familie dat kind verstoten.

Vous voulez la guerre? Vous pouvez choisir votre chemin. Je dois l'accepter. Je dois m'en foutre. C'est dire la même chose. Réfléchis bien. Choose wisely. C'est juste des discussions. Ma vie, c'est horrible comme ça, quand ce sera la guerre, je ne serai pas là, et je n'ai rien à voir avec ça. Si on me dit que j'apporte des mauvaises nouvelles, eh ben, je suis un humain, et je pense ceci, identité, et je suis comme ça, et c'est juste moi qui pense ça, et ça, et ça, et je pense comme ça, parce que ça sont mes idées, et ça n'y change rien de toute façon, de toute façon, ça c'est bien, et ça c'est mal, et ça c'est Dieu, et ça c'est le diable, mais en fait je reste comme ça, qu'attends-tu de moi? Et les mauvaises nouvelles, c'est toi, et je serai parti de toute façon, quand ce sera la guerre, et je n'ai rien à voir avec ça.

Les meilleurs films de tous les temps, c'est tous les films de James Bond, tous les films de The Lord of The Rings, et tous les films de Harry Potter. C'est absolument les meilleurs films, c'est mes favoris, je les adore tous. La meilleure scène de tous les temps est le Robert De Niro, ou est-ce que c'est Al Pacino? Je crois que c'est lui plutôt. Bref, dans cette scène, il joue le grand patron devant le miroir avec son arme à feu et il s'admire dans le miroir, comme nous l'admirons tous, et il dit: "Are you talking to me? Are you talking to me?" J'adore cette scène, c'est inoubliable. Les années 70 c'était le top, les années 80, là ça descendait déjà un peu, et les années 90, ça c'était les losers, les arriérés. Le meilleur groupe de tous les temps est The Beatles, c'est le top absolu, c'est absolument interdit de dire quelque chose de mal de The Beatles. C'est normal, c'est le meilleur groupe pour toute l'éternité. J'adore The Beatles, mais mon favori, c'est Led Zeppelin. Par contre on ne peut rien dire de mal de Queen non plus. Non, tout le monde aime Queen, tout le monde adore Queen. Tu te souviens de la chanson: "I want it all, I want it all, I want it all, and I want it now!" C'est inoubliable, tout le monde les adore, mais le meilleur groupe de tous les temps est The Beatles, on ne peut pas dire le contraire, ce qui ne pose aucun problème parce que tout le monde est d'accord. Quant au meilleur guitariste de tous les temps, ça restera toujours Jimi Hendrix, personne ne peut dire le contraire non plus, et ça ne pose pas de problème non plus. Personne ne conteste qu'il est le meilleur guitariste de tous les temps. Abba aussi mérite une place au top évidemment. Qui n'aime pas Abba? Tout le monde les aime. Tout le monde. C'est mes favoris.