What is 'Proba'? It signifies 'attempt' in Polish, and that is a common response. However, there exists a broader understanding of the concept of an attempt, which closely aligns with the idea of striving for success. We are compelled to make an ‘attempt’ to outperform our rivals, as when discussing probability and competition, it is the only action available to us. We must endeavor to advance from our current position to the elusive point B, regardless of the probabilities involved. It is also important to remember that as we progress further, our chances diminish, yet we should always endeavor to make an attempt. Furthermore, it is essential to continue our discussion concerning the real world—a world driven by the intent to destroy one another in the race. This is the most ruthless game in which we participate. It alters the notion of 'Proba,' because this is not merely an attempt to achieve a goal—it is your life.

The further one advances, the more achievements become integrated into one's life. It becomes the purpose for which one wakes up in the morning. It evolves into one's dreams; most importantly, it transforms into the raison d'être of one's existence. An attempt to outcompete you is an attempt to harm your life. This changes how seriously we consider the concept of achievement. Nothing matters but the constant exponential improvement that shapes our worldview and the progress we seek in the material world. Only then do we realize why competition is so serious. People do not aim to achieve things merely for the sake of achievement; rather, it becomes what they live for and what they would be willing to sacrifice their lives for. This is a completely natural occurrence faced by all outliers in their pursuit of the feeling of reflecting on their journey. The main implication of this concept is that we regard our success as our life, yet there exists an infinity of individuals striving to attain the same achievement in the same manner you aspire to. This marks the true beginning of the lesson—when you recognize that you are not in control, and as a result, you change comprehensively in all aspects of your life.

As time progresses, it becomes essential to recognize that for every achievement you pursue or feel destined to attain, countless others are striving for the same. This does not imply, in any sense, that such goals are unattainable; rather, it is possible to exclude the majority of individuals as fundamentally incapable of achieving the desired objectives. This may be the case when an individual possesses limited skills and background, rendering any progression from point A to point B merely a distant aspiration in many fields. Fortunately, everyone possesses unique strengths in which they can excel well beyond the average person, thereby providing opportunities for continual improvement. The error lies not in striving to advance but in endeavoring to do so in a domain outside one's inherent strengths. This fundamental realization marks the initial step toward understanding the probabilities involved; for instance, from a hypothetical group of one million people, only 250,000 may hypothetically remain as viable prospects.

Our objective now is to ascertain the means to attain the 75th percentile among a hypothetical cohort of 250,000 individuals. We will leverage all available resources to enhance our education and skills, with the aspiration of making substantial progress relative to our competitors in reaching this milestone. This process may require years or even decades of persistent improvement, contingent upon our specific aims. It is also important to recognize that only a limited number of individuals within this group will succeed. Even after attaining considerable success, the ultimate aspiration of becoming number one remains an exceedingly formidable challenge. At a certain level of achievement, the concept of exponential growth begins to significantly influence progress, rendering each subsequent advancement toward this hypothetical point B increasingly difficult. There is a stage at which individuals occupy the top percentiles attempting to achieve their goals, having been trained by leading experts, educated at premier institutions, and most importantly, dedicated to the pursuit of reaching this elusive point B. The higher one advances into percentiles of wealth and power, the more improbable it becomes to surpass competitors, rendering the achievement of such goals nearly impossible.

Our objective is to transform our lives into a process focused on achieving this goal: reaching the top position. We must live with the purpose of what we seek to accomplish. We aim to maximize every available advantage and will progressively undertake a process of making sacrifices in our lives for this achievement. It is essential to understand that, at certain stages in our journey, we will be alone, as it may be necessary to sacrifice our social lives to reach our objectives. The level we desire to attain necessitates such sacrifices for continued progress. Over time, we will gradually advance into the top 90th percentile among 250,000 individual competitors. We will achieve great success, but our ultimate goal will still not be reached because there are still twenty-five thousand hypothetical individuals we must compete with or eliminate.

We ultimately come to understand the extent of corruption in the world as we ascend to higher levels. This corruption gradually infects us, akin to a curse. The further we progress on our journey, the more compromised we become. We will ultimately reach the 95th to 97th percentile at the apex. At this juncture, all advantages derived from education, skills, background, and the moral corruption of the soul are exploited. Everyone possesses equivalent education and is equally corrupted at the core. Conventional advantages are fully utilized; yet, the top position remains elusive, even among approximately 7500 individuals who have maximized every possible advantage. Presently, everyone boasts the most comprehensive education and background, with knowledge and capabilities approaching perfection. They possess intelligence surpassing the average by a significant margin. There exists a realm beyond the conventional or available methods to enhance one's likelihood of achieving this state. Our current goal is not to maximize our probabilities through conventional means, as this is now impossible due to prior exhaustive efforts. Instead, our focus shifts to the mind, perception, and the spiritual dimension of reaching point B.

As we aspire to attain the 99th percentile position, we increasingly engage in self-delusion. The sole means of achieving this feat is not through external factors, but through a gradual internal belief that we are the chosen ones to accomplish a specific achievement. Our mindset progressively shifts from an interconnected worldview to an inward focus as we ascend to higher levels. We cease to perceive ourselves as competitors to those below us, develop increasingly egoistic and narcissistic tendencies, and most notably, come to believe in our own invincibility. The emerging norm will be the conviction that we are destined to become number one. We consider ourselves descendants of what we perceive as divine beings, and we are self-sustaining. Our beliefs may influence our perceptions of the world, and gradually, our reality will no longer be shaped by conventional probabilities. Instead, we will retreat into our inner worlds, where competition appears nonexistent because it is probabilistically impossible to genuinely outcompete in the traditional sense, since at the 99th percentile, all that is hypothetically maximized is achieved equally by all individuals.

The ultimate objective of our pursuit is to attain a specific goal; however, individuals often retreat entirely inward. There comes a moment when one realizes that the only way to reach point B is to deceive oneself into believing that this unattainable point has been achieved. It is important to remember that the figures presented are not based on tangible reality but serve merely as illustrative tools. In truth, becoming number one is impossible, as there is always, statistically, someone capable of generating greater wealth than oneself. To reach the position of being number one, it is essential to recognize that one is competing against future contenders who aspire to this status. The probability of maintaining a permanent number one position is inherently impossible. The same principle applies to any other field in which one strives to be the best. Consequently, we may believe that we have achieved point B because the soul cannot comprehend that it has not succeeded and is incapable of achieving it after the sacrifices made. The culmination occurs when one becomes so deluded that they gradually lose touch with reality, ultimately leading to the realization that point B is unattainable. Soon, one may feel weightless, and with rapid descent, find oneself in free fall.

Our delusions shall become our own executioners. We will, in time, disregard the risks to our position and gradually become more unhinged. Ultimately, we will forget the existence of competition and overlook the fact that we are in decline. We will live under the false conviction that we still possess the same power as before, deceiving ourselves into believing it. We observe the clouds far below while attempting to convince ourselves that they are merely our imagination and that we remain untouchable. Eventually, our achievements will diminish in comparison to our rivals and adversaries. Our status will be jeopardized, and we will gradually realize the severity of the situation, ultimately leading to panic. One word now characterizes us: ruthlessness. It is not driven by a desire for success, but by something even more—a final bid for survival. We are now engaged in a struggle for our lives and our former status, because following this path transforms our lives into our accomplishments. Panic will escalate into hysteria, during which we ruthlessly seek to eliminate any competitor who might usurp our position. This period is when we are at our most dangerous, fighting until exhaustion.

Eventually, we perceive the cold air of the clouds surrounding us as we gradually become aware of our descent. Regrettably, there exists a point beyond which, once we reach our maximum potential, recovery becomes impossible. Our wings are so fatigued that flight is no longer attainable. Regardless of the wealth, power, and status we once possessed, it is essential to remember before aspiring to great heights in any field that such a point exists. Over time, we are overtaken by competitors and gradually fade into obscurity. Numerous criminal investigations may ensue if we survive to that stage; however, subsequently, there is no viable means of reclaiming our former momentum. No matter how exceptional we are, or what achievements we accomplish, all eventually succumb to decline. The higher one ascends, the more severe the fall. There is a point at which we must accept the unavailability of retaining our previous position. Ultimately, all that may remain is a name inscribed in a history book. A name that some may read, attempting to decipher our lives, but in the end, that becomes all that remains. One day, your life will reach its final chapter, regardless of what you have achieved. Whether by one’s own hands or through gradual decay, life is finite.

The statement I have just presented delineates the inescapable cycle of success. It is the unavoidable consequence for any individual endeavoring to reach point B, as there will ultimately come a day when one deceives oneself into believing that the pursuit of success has concluded. If the cycle does not culminate in a positive outcome, why then do we persist in striving to attain our objectives? Why do we choose to continue living if nothing holds significance? As previously articulated, perpetual improvement is essential. Often, we fail to recognize the actual point B, and the true purpose lies in maintaining the ongoing effort to progress, rather than merely understanding the cycle. It is crucial to comprehend the inevitability of the cycle so as not to become discouraged, but rather to inspire hope in deciphering and anticipating future circumstances. The mind risks descending into madness without a purpose; hence, it is vital to envisage a future. The most perilous act an individual can commit is to be aimless. We must learn to live with the knowledge that success is governed by natural laws, yet continue to strive for exponential growth, for the significance extends beyond ourselves. Society at large will witness the most profound impacts from individuals who adopt this mindset. They understand the cycle: in the end, no one truly wins, yet their influence remains indelible within the sphere of commerce. Their accomplishments revolutionize technology and their respective fields, establish empires, and elevate themselves to imperious status. They construct centuries of progress within a few years through unwavering dedication.

This cycle process represents the most effective methodology for fostering innovation, and you will be remembered for the impact you generate. In our pursuit of excellence, it is essential to establish a broader objective—a luminous aspiration, a light-driven ambition. Not for its own sake, but as a contrasting ideal. Our goal should be to achieve a significant positive influence in the world through diplomacy and innovation. This external objective complements our internal goal of continuous progress. The distinction between the inner and outer worlds lies in the fact that the inner world cannot naturally comprehend anything beyond itself. Its intentions are invariably constrained by selfishness and self-adulation. Its purpose is to improve and enrich oneself. Therefore, we articulate an intention to impact the external world, as point B can symbolize the positive influence created on the world. It is also important to recognize that one can never attain a final stage of impact, since the distance to point B is always conceptually infinite. Nonetheless, the desire to influence the world guides individuals toward greatness. We must aspire to become the most influential individuals in the world, not for personal gain, but to effect positive change. This constitutes the ultimate objective of our outward journey. We should strive to become the most powerful and influential persons on Earth, not for selfish reasons, but to make a meaningful difference. This embodies the true purpose of our existence in the external world. Once again, it must be emphasized that the external world is distinct from one's inner world; however, when setting high goals, individuals are destined for greatness.

An additional factor we have neglected pertains to the duality inherent within our moral personality. Individuals constantly contend with the dichotomy of light and darkness. These two aspects, previously identified as the inner self and the outer self, are components of a more profound layer—the inner dark mind. This aspect is often confined, unbeknownst to us of the severity of this oversight. The goal of the inner dark mind is to rebel, albeit not in a constructive manner. It seeks merely to acquire power for potential abuse, aiming to commit acts such as murder, assault, and other wrongdoings. The more we suppress it, the more perilous it becomes, with its desires escalating. Our objective is to express these impulses safely or, at the very least, to minimize harm to our current circumstances and society. From the perspective of the inner mind, our rational response is to shield ourselves from this irrational force, contemplating the potential consequences of acting without rational deliberation. Externally, we endeavor to mitigate the impact of this inner dark mind. Every individual possesses the capacity to become a deranged murderer; however, equally, they possess the capacity to attain sainthood. Our motivation to advance beyond our present state is also to provide a secure environment wherein our inner dark mind can operate with controlled actions. We may incite our dark mind to contemplate methods of destroying the livelihoods of competitors and adversaries, among other ‘controlled’ actions. Our aim is to permit the beast to emerge when it is rational, yet restrain it from developing a mind of its own.

Mastering the regulation of the darkness within us is not solely about permitting controlled episodes, which can potentially foster personal development, but also about maintaining a necessary counterbalance. It is imperative to understand the reasons behind the existence of darkness and the irrationality and impossibility of eradication. Initially, one must acknowledge that notions of morality are entirely dependent on personal interpretation and societal standards. As we strive for advancement, we will eventually reach a stage where all conventional methods have been exhausted, and controlled corruption of the soul becomes a requisite for progression. This is not a spontaneous choice but a strategic move driven by our inner darkness. Recognizing that this state becomes normalized at a certain point, it is essential to understand that, at this threshold, everyone is on an equal footing. Moreover, it is important to consider that the belief that darkness does not exist within the world or ourselves is mere ignorance, given that our inner darkness influences us profoundly, and others are similarly affected. Remaining ignorant of this fact renders us vulnerable to exploitation by the world. The individual who truly comprehends the darkness in the world and knows how to manage it productively understands how to harness their inner darkness. An important question arises: if darkness stems from an alternative rationality, why does it often manifest without explicit motive? I will address this query shortly, as I wish to examine game theory and collusion first.

If we are on equal footing with our competitors, we must understand the decisions we can make. For instance, consider a two-by-two matrix with two options available to us and two options available to our competitors. We have the choice to cooperate or defect. In an ideal and morally perfect world, both individuals would cooperate, resulting in the highest possible mutual benefit. This principle reflects communism, which is regarded as the highest form of rationality. However, in the real world, it is irrational to cooperate when it is possible to disregard laws and defect to attain a higher reward than that gained through cooperation. I utilize the Prisoner’s Dilemma Payoff Matrix from economics to illustrate this concept, and I have programmed a visualization below.

Our analysis reveals that there are circumstances where engaging in actions deemed immoral may constitute the most rational choice. This perspective suggests that, since the subconscious often governs the dark aspects of the mind, all individuals possess an inherent propensity for malevolence. Additionally, I wish to explore a different viewpoint that emerges following the conclusion that humanity is intrinsically thus, namely, the concept of 'light' previously discussed. It is essential to understand the concepts of third parties and rationality, including both absolute rationality and emotional rationality. Our aim is to distinguish the notion of the most efficient, rational pathway from A to B—paths that are deemed rational by emotional judgment but ultimately lead nowhere or even regress. This distinction is pertinent to morality, as we have recognized that in certain circumstances, non-cooperation is rational; thus, it is equally important to comprehend when such non-cooperation is irrational. We must evaluate whether an action will genuinely advance our progress or merely satisfy temporary desires. It has been previously established that one's most significant impact on the world is achieved through innovation and the will to create a better future. Consequently, deviating from this path is considered immoral. Based on this understanding, we define irrationality as any action that does not conform to absolute rationality. Wasting time is therefore immoral, as it hampers one’s capacity for achievement, which correlates with progress both personally and socially.

My current objective is to analyze the concept of third parties, also known as individuals or entities that exert no influence on the attainment of point B. Any attempt to access or cause harm to a third party is regarded as the utmost sin, as there exists no rational justification for harming or exploiting such entities. It is imperative that we construct morality from the foundational principles, emphasizing three aspects: neutrality toward third parties, the moral obligation to pursue success, and the essential elements necessary for engaging in mutually beneficial relationships (which will be addressed subsequently). We should conceptualize third parties not merely as benign individuals, animals, or creatures, but also as objects. Initially, we will explore the concept of complete freedom. What would transpire if we isolate the mind entirely, devoid of all restraint? When the mind is free, it does not imply it will commit acts of violence; rather, it will exhibit indifference to any action unless there exists a discernible connection to something. If the mind is constrained by other individuals, it will be inclined to seek vengeance. It is important to recognize that, by nature, we tend to manipulate others and have been manipulated, both directly and indirectly, by others. This suggests that, if granted total freedom, the mind would pursue vengeance. The most perilous aspect of this is that such a desire is rational to some degree. The mind seeks to restore its previous position after being wronged by others and thus replicates the initial process. However, it is crucial to understand that, regardless of how rational it may seem to pursue vengeance against third parties, such actions are irrational from an absolute rational standpoint. Such pursuits do not facilitate progress from point A to point B.

It is imperative that we cultivate empathy gradually, starting not with humans but with the most fundamental form of life: insects. This inquiry does not pertain to mosquitoes, which may pose harm or exploitation to humans, but rather to defenseless insects such as isopods, which are harmless to us. It is essential that we refrain from intentionally causing harm to them, as they are considered third parties within this moral framework. Our aim is to comprehend that if an entity is inherently harmless, we are morally obliged to avoid inflicting harm upon it at all costs. This principle will subsequently be extended to larger animals, including mice and rabbits. Our objective is to establish a contrast to the darker aspects of the inner self. Accordingly, we must develop the luminous inner self from the ground up as autonomous thinkers. The goal is to cultivate empathy for all third parties, and under this premise, causing harm to any living being that does not rationally warrant such harm is utterly immoral, especially when the harm is unnecessary in the context of moving from one point to another. Our empathy must grow at the same pace as the darkness within us, thereby counteracting it and positioning our mental state in a neutral moral condition: the most stable state. History repeatedly demonstrates that many highly moral individuals eventually succumb to extreme darkness, and this is because these two states must be perfectly balanced for stability. We must recognize that many factors threaten this moral equilibrium. Now, as we have come to understand the concept of third parties, some may inquire why I am not a vegan. From a rational perspective, meat consumption is not inherently wrong. Protein is vital for human health, and throughout human history, meat has been an important resource. We must understand that, from this rational standpoint, meat is entirely acceptable regardless of the moral stance against harm to third parties without reason. Nonetheless, this does not justify hunting for sport rather than for survival. Harming for sport is inherently immoral under our newly adopted moral framework, as there is no rational justification for such actions.

Our moral values must not only manifest in the tangible aspects of life but also account for the indirect pain hypothetically caused by one's actions, even in less frequent instances, without relying solely on absolute rationality. The perception of suffering inflicted without proper justification should not be confined to real-world scenarios but should also extend to the media we consume. Consequently, it is considered immoral to engage with violent media for entertainment purposes, as fictional characters may hypothetically endure pain due to the viewer's engagement. There is no rational justification for participating in such content if it promotes pain without grounded reasoning. Therefore, it can be concluded that consuming most forms of media, including video games, movies, and television shows, is morally questionable. The primary reasons are twofold: first, that there is no rational basis for consuming media solely for the purpose of entertainment; second, that entertainment itself can be perceived as inherently immoral, as it distracts from efforts to innovate or expand our understanding of the world. Entertainment diverts our attention from reality and may, over time, contribute to an inner negative transformation. One may only recognize the adverse effects of such media after significant exposure, understanding eventually that each hour devoted to entertainment is a moment robbed from the world, as during this time, one could have achieved something meaningful, while the darker aspects of the subconscious ego may have stolen this potential. This perspective emphasizes the necessity of reevaluating our engagement with media to align with higher moral and spiritual values.

We, as individuals bound by this new moral code, must also extend the concept of metaphorical pain to encompass thoughts. If we contend that engaging with violent entertainment is immoral without absolute rationality, then it is imperative to apply the same standard to thoughts, as contemplating inflicting harm without absolute rationality equivalently constitutes metaphorical pain. As moral beings adhering to this worldview, we are obliged to consider any and all thoughts that are violent and devoid of absolute rationality as morally impermissible. It is unacceptable to imagine or fantasize about causing harm without absolute rationality. This prohibition also extends to emotional harm and all other forms of harm lacking rational justification. Furthermore, we must recognize that, analogous to entertainment, thoughts without absolute rationality are immoral because they deprive oneself and society of the potential progress that could be achieved through rational contemplation. By no means do I prohibit philosophical thought; however, if a daydream is deemed to lack absolute reason, it is considered immoral. Our current conceptual framework may thus encounter numerous false positives, which is acceptable since moral perfection is unattainable. It is essential to understand the cyclical nature of moral progress, acknowledging that our lives experience fluctuations—periods of advancement and regression. At various points, we have been considerably different from our present self or future self. Nonetheless, we must endeavor to adhere to these principles as much as our circumstances allow.

I wish to elaborate on the concept of the moral obligation to succeed. We are inherently endowed with a destiny to attain greatness. Regardless of the circumstances that shape our paths, we are compelled to succeed absent failure. Our most significant impact on the world arises from the achievements we attain and the innovations we introduce within our respective fields. As individuals of esteemed standing, it is imperative that we recognize our moral duty to succeed across all facets of our lives. It is essential to understand that the purpose of our existence is to succeed, and that our greatest influence emanates from our successes. Consequently, this moral obligation should not be confined to conventional notions of success but ought to encompass all dimensions of life, including spiritual aspects. While we will not address the spiritual dimension within Proba, given its secular nature, such concepts are considered in the fundamental teachings of Oboukhovism. The primary emphasis should be on the moral imperative to broaden one's knowledge of the world. As free thinkers, we must aspire to understand the world more profoundly than we comprehend ourselves. My objective is to inspire you to explore alternative ideas beyond mainstream narratives, doctrines, and belief systems, and to investigate the diverse possibilities that exist within the realm of thought. It is crucial to comprehend all ideas—whether favorable or unfavorable—and to strive for learning not solely for entertainment but to expand our current knowledge base. We should pursue learning not only out of desire but also because it constitutes a moral obligation. Neglecting to learn is morally wrong, as it deprives individuals of opportunities to acquire information and the potential for innovation that such knowledge may foster. Therefore, neglecting the pursuit of education is a moral failing, as is the failure to think freely. Free thinkers hold the conviction that they are morally obligated to deepen their understanding of the world and the universe. Moving forward in Dystopia, we shall consider the third cornerstone of morality: mutual benefit.

What is a dystopia? Is it the most adverse form of government we can envisage, or is it something more intimately connected to our own circumstances? Could it be a distant totalitarian regime, or does it more accurately reflect our current existence within a so-called democratic state? Subsequently, we come to realize that the latter is true. Our reality is more dysfunctional than we often acknowledge. The more we experience life, the clearer it becomes that governmental institutions exhibit minimal concern for our well-being. We observe corrupt lobbyists influencing policy decisions, and we see politicians whose criminal conduct rivals that of underworld figures. It is imperative that we begin to challenge the prevailing notions of cohesive sociality and understand once and for all how little governments truly care about us. We will commence this inquiry by contemplating the concept of mutual benefit.

What is mutual benefit? It occurs when both parties have a vested interest in cooperation, and that interest is mutually advantageous. We should adhere to the guidelines for such collaboration if the mutual benefit outweighs the potential negative consequences of not engaging in it. This principle applies not only to personal relationships but also to governmental structures; however, this concept is often one-sided, with a party not reciprocating enough. Currently, our understanding posits that if mutual benefit is equitable and balanced, failure to reach an agreement is considered immoral. In such a case, it is not only immoral but also irrational on an absolute scale. It is essential to recognize that the concept of loyalty is founded upon mutual benefit, thus making the entire premise of Dystopia centered on mutual benefit and its absence (governmental exploitation of its citizens). The notion of mutual benefit is sufficiently straightforward that it operates on a subconscious level. It is based on the expectation of reciprocal advantage in exchange for one's actions. However, within our current context, this is frequently absent. We do not engage in mutually beneficial relationships with governmental entities. Instead, we are subjected to strict regulations, compelled to pay exorbitant duties, and are expected to remain unwaveringly loyal to the state. In exchange, we receive a limited, often ineffective array of social services, are entangled in numerous conflicts in which we have no stake, and are burdened by an excessively large, dysfunctional governmental framework.

It is imperative that we comprehend the perspective of the politician. A thorough understanding of the rationale behind corruption and the underlying logic for many individuals is essential. Society, to a significant extent, is founded upon corruption at higher echelons of success. This phenomenon aligns with the natural process discussed in Proba, yet this self-interested reasoning is ultimately destined to undermine even the most democratic institutions. Regrettably, it is not only a rational response but arguably the most rational course of action. Recognizing that this is one of the primary mechanisms for individual advancement, one may conclude that all governments are inherently corrupt at their core. This core is not confined to structural elements but encompasses the individuals involved. Rooted in internal rationality, individuals tend to prioritize their self-interest, often subconsciously striving to maximize their position at any cost. This behavior may manifest in various ways; in one form, it can be considered a corruption of the soul. It is important to understand that at certain points, this pursuit of self-interest is entirely rational. The external world is governed by the interactions of each individual's internal world. Consequently, even those who appear altruistic are driven by self-interest grounded in absolute rationality and subconscious motives. The reason underlying the indifference of governments towards their citizens can be attributed to the natural process whereby politicians pursue their own self-interest on a subconscious level.

We observe the dysfunctional nature of governmental systems; however, we often overlook a fundamental fact: it is all intentionally designed and operates logically from an absolute rational perspective. We acknowledge that all individuals are inherently self-interested. This innate trait of human nature, combined with the notion that, through absolute rationality, corruption is frequently not only prevalent but may also constitute it as a rational choice an individual can make. With this understanding, our initial reactions may prompt us to assign blame to the elites for their misconduct, until we realize they are merely like us. On a rational level, they are the same individuals as ourselves, and we would behave similarly if placed in their positions and circumstances. It is important to recognize that this system is unbreakable, not due to its ingenuity, but because its dysfunctionality is intrinsically embedded within it. We need to learn to navigate this system as politicians do, with the aim of attaining power. We must master the art of imitation, and ultimately, we will become those who hold power. Life constitutes a challenging endeavor, and it is rational to acknowledge and accept this fact. We should expand our understanding of self-interest to encompass the groups surrounding us. It is essential to focus on friends, family, and loved ones. We must discern whether true loyalty exists and understand how those loyalties relate to self-interested governmental structures.

Assuming that self-interest is a universal characteristic, it follows that there will inevitably be instances where the self-interest of one party conflicts with that of another. It is essential to acknowledge this reality within governmental frameworks and relational contexts. At a certain point, betrayal may become a rational choice. It is vital to recognize that genuine loyalty is a concept without existence. Our perception tends to prioritize our self-interest over that of others. Consequently, it is prudent to examine the reasons behind the existence of mutually beneficial relationships between individuals and various institutions or governing bodies. No act is based solely on allegiance or loyalty, as from a purely rational standpoint, feeling loyalty toward a state or an individual is irrational. It is important to maintain a disposition devoid of attachments, guided exclusively by mutual benefit. This does not imply that reciprocity is inherently negative; however, one should never give more than one receives. Reciprocity should not be anticipated unless there is an expectation of reciprocation; otherwise, such behavior is regarded as exploitation. It is crucial to understand that if something is offered but remains limited relative to the effort exerted, one must avoid being manipulated into offering more. This principle should inform our conduct in daily life and across all conceivable situations. While relationships are not inherently detrimental, it is important to recognize that unbalanced relationships lack authenticity. The same principle applies to familial relationships—if one does not receive more than one gives, those individuals should not be considered family. The consideration of prior commitments plays an important role, usually with limited exceptions. Such exceptions are primarily applicable if an individual has previously contributed significant value that has yet to be reciprocated. It is beneficial to redefine the concept of family, shifting from traditional lineage to individuals who share extensive mutually beneficial relations, to the point where they are closer than mere friends. We must acknowledge that family can be a construct formed by individuals whose similarities and aligned intentions allow them to coalesce into a cohesive whole.

We must recognize our own isolation while acknowledging the significance of mutually beneficial relationships. The natural tendency is for individuals to retreat into their inner selves; although society often stigmatizes isolation, it is essential to understand that it can frequently represent the most rational choice. We must realize that, in this world, the only genuine concern for us originates from our inner mind. This inner mind involuntarily seeks new perspectives, achievements, progress in life, and ways to mitigate unnecessary pain for ourselves and others. It should not be regarded as an adversary but as our sole trusted confidant. We must acknowledge that loneliness is an illusion fabricated by misconception, and the only substantive remedy lies not in external connection but in introspective retreat into the inner mind. When we recognize that we are never truly alone but always in the company of ourselves, loneliness dissipates. It is not loneliness itself that stems from isolation, but from the pursuit of external connection. Without engaging in this pursuit, the concept of loneliness itself diminishes. In this newly isolated world, our primary objective must be to cultivate self-love and self-acceptance. Recognizing that our greatest ally resides within us, we should develop an appreciation for our true selves. This endeavor transcends transient thoughts; it requires emotional reassurance and the cultivation of a profound bond with our inner mind. The more we immerse ourselves in this process, the more apparent it becomes that the only genuine illumination arises from the second aspect of our inner mind, which is innate. We must perceive this internal light—not for superficial notions of morality or virtue, but as a contrast to the darkness within and without. It is vital to nurture this light as a counterbalancing force to achieve mental stability. Once we understand that constructing our own morality fosters the growth of this inner light, clarity emerges. This process is partly supported by the commitments we make to avoid causing harm to others and our conscious rejection of superficial entertainment when we truly observe this inner light intensify within us.  

As we develop this aspect of ourselves, we come to recognize the inherent dangers present in the world. It will eventually become apparent that the inner mind offers a safeguard, whereas the external world often operates as a corrupt and ruthless arena. Some may question what drives individuals to adopt extreme ruthlessness; however, when considering reality, such behavior frequently emerges as the most rational choice available. This is so compelling that it is unnatural for such a profound life experience not to cause significant transformation in an individual. The longer we live, the more we perceive the truth that the world is fundamentally malevolent. This realization fundamentally alters our approach to society and the world, which is why we place great value on our relationship with ourselves. We must comprehend that anyone outside our immediate circle or a genuinely mutually beneficial relationship is likely an adversary or someone in disguise. This understanding aids in eliminating exploitative, one-sided relationships and safeguards our liberty. Nonetheless, it is essential to acknowledge the benefits of mutually beneficial relationships. We should grasp the concept of the production possibilities curve. Why do we risk our safety by engaging with others? The maximum achievement attainable alone is still less than what can be accomplished through collaboration. Therefore, the institution of family exists. A family should be regarded as the highest form of mutual benefit. From a rational standpoint, we recognize that there are two categories of individuals in relation to us: family members and business partners. I would suggest discarding the notion of friendship entirely, as beyond a certain point, we transition from being merely business partners to forming relationships that are nearly as close as familial bonds. Our mutual benefits are so intertwined that one person's success equates to the other's, and a failure in one signifies a failure in the other. It is important to understand that friendship is not a concept grounded in rationality without mutual benefit; if such mutual benefit exists, it would be more accurately described as a business partnership or familial relationship rather than traditional friendship.

My intention is now to demonstrate that friendship is inherently irrational and that such a concept frequently lacks genuine existence. As we understand, if any mutually beneficial relationship is considered material, it should typically be viewed as a business partnership or a loosely connected coalition among individuals with similar interests. The notion of friendship, therefore, serves no material purpose. When contemplating emotional bonds and connections, we must not neglect the inner mind; instead, we should prioritize our internal self as our true best friend. Reflecting on the past, it becomes evident that so-called 'friends’ or friendship-like relationships tend to be transient and rarely endure unless they transition into familial relationships, as previously discussed. At no point do traditional friendships provide a valid justification; our understanding that individuals with material benefits are effectively business partners, and those with whom we share long-standing or familial ties are considered part of our family, leaves little room for the concept of friendship. Once we forge a strong enough connection with ourselves, external influences are no longer needed. We can act as our own therapists, friends, and most fundamentally, lovers.

My intention is to further elaborate on the concepts of vested interests and familial structures. It is understood that all individuals act based on their self-interest and tend to form loosely organized groups, from which mutual benefits subsequently emerge. Nevertheless, this aspect is often perceived as inherently malicious; while this may hold true in many instances, it is not universally applicable. The purpose of the system is to recognize that humans are intrinsically self-centered. Our current economic framework has been constructed with this understanding in mind, a notion influenced by one of the figures I hold in high regard: Adam Smith. The economist pioneered the understanding of leveraging self-interest to promote social cohesion. For example, a person driven by selfish motives to amass wealth to purchase a mansion must establish a business and develop a product so effective that it yields substantial profits. Such a concept should not be regarded as malevolent but rather as rational. It does not imply optimal efficiency; we previously assumed that a perfect world would be purely communist. However, in reality, due to inherent self-interest, such structures are unfeasible because human nature is fundamentally selfish. It is essential to comprehend that this self-centeredness not only hampers economic growth but may also engender positive effects that are not immediately apparent. Our society is founded upon coalitions striving to achieve shared objectives, driven by selfish motives, which can significantly expand social interconnectedness. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that these dynamics can have outcomes opposite to our expectations. In some cases, organized crime may be considered rational for its members or higher-level affiliates. Such coalitions engage in criminal activities motivated by the selfish desire for financial gain, which may be rational from their perspective; however, they do not benefit society and, in fact, gradually erode its fabric. It is important to recognize the dual nature of this phenomenon, applying a balanced understanding. We must accept that the underground economy cannot be wholly eradicated and that selfishness can yield both beneficial and detrimental outcomes depending on the methods employed.

A comprehensive understanding of how syndicates operate serves as a prime example of mutual interest and benefit. This comparison extends to family structures. Societies inherently tend to establish hierarchies. We will initially examine this similarity among various structures before proceeding further. It is essential to acknowledge that even if a monarch is removed, a new leader with comparable authority invariably emerges. They may bear a different title, but their power remains essentially unchanged. As we transition from traditional medieval hierarchies, an increasing concentration of power is observed among high-net-worth individuals and the political elite. They represent the new rulers of the world. Although societal ethics have evolved and become more considerate of citizens since medieval times, hierarchies continue to persist. We are no longer the absolute oligarchy of the past, yet we function as an oligarchy in which collusion between large corporations and the state is more evident than ever. Revisiting the concept of family, it is evident that the bonds are not solely based on blood but also on vested interests. Similarly, syndicate structures operate on shared vested interests, with mutually beneficial relationships clearly observable. In redefining the notion of family, the similarities between familial bonds and syndicate relationships become apparent. It is also pertinent to consider that once an individual is regarded as family, they should not be seen as a separate person, as they lack individual physicality. Although controversial, this perspective underscores that beyond a certain point, individuals from diverse backgrounds become unified into a single entity when vested interests are aligned and mutually beneficial relationships are firmly established. This principle can be extended to romantic relationships, viewing two individuals not as separate entities but as two halves forming a complete whole. The same logic applies to familial structures discussed earlier. Our objective is not to exploit our positions irrationally but to acknowledge that causing unintentional harm to your other half—or to the other halves within familial bonds—is fundamentally irrational.

Once such a level of connection is established, genuine loyalty exists. When we regard all participants as components of an incomplete whole, we must acknowledge that the risks encountered by one individual can impact us all. We must comprehend that what happens to these individuals also occurs to us, as we are the same person divided into smaller parts. Our aim is to foster empathy for other parts, understanding that the inner mind is not singular but interconnected in a collective consciousness. This collective consciousness must learn to accept and love itself. We, as individuals, ultimately achieve unity once connected through this collective consciousness. For this reason, we should deem any necessary risk as valuable for the purpose of expanding the collective. We have developed this loyalty for the first time and now must realize that our intention is to serve not only ourselves but the collective consciousness. This does not imply complete dependence. We must understand that the collective consciousness may become unruly and attempt to pursue interests different from ours. When such situations arise, we must recognize that the mutually beneficial relationship has been compromised. We must understand that all family structures are coalitions, and the term "coalition" clearly indicates their transient nature. We must always bear this in mind and not fear detaching ourselves from the collective once our trust is betrayed. We are not a cohesive whole if we possess conflicting interests. We are distinct individuals if such circumstances occur. However, if this relationship continues, we must recognize that attempting to dismantle it while it is operational is unethical, given the significant mutual benefits we derive. Any effort to disassemble it during its operation is irrational from the members’ perspective and thus unethical, because rationality and ethics are intertwined. We must find comfort in the collective consciousness while our interests are safeguarded and be willing to sacrifice even our lives for the sake of the coalition. Nevertheless, we must always ensure that reciprocal benefits are provided for any actions undertaken that mitigate our struggles. Regrettably, such structures often deteriorate into tyranny, and we must consider this possibility further.

We can all envision the natural cycle of power and abuse. It begins with a group that holds power and exploits it, establishing a skewed mutual benefit relationship where they receive less than those in power. The longer an individual maintains their position, the more likely it is that they will eventually decline due to the natural process of success. Oppressed individuals will often attempt to overthrow such an individual; however, the most common occurrence is the reestablishment of the previous position by the oppressor, who then abuses it in the same manner. It is imperative to broaden the concept of abuse beyond severe violations to include even minor infringements. Even slight deviations that advantage one party in the mutual benefit relationship constitute abuse. There are two possible manifestations of such abuse: irrational and rational. Moreover, one must remember that a coalition is temporarily unified under a single individual; within this unity, individuals may perceive greater opportunities and exploit their position either to attain benefits comparable to external gains or to depart entirely. Exploiting this mutual benefit relationship can be considered abuse; however, in some cases, it is rational because the relationship itself is inherently irrational, leading to better outcomes. This type of abuse typically involves the pursuit of maximizing financial gains rather than physical harm. Nonetheless, it is crucial to recognize circumstances where such abuse is purely irrational and unethical. When acting as a single individual, inflicting physical or emotional harm upon oneself without any benefit is unjustifiable. Additionally, considering the family as a whole, any harm inflicted upon an individual constitutes harm to oneself, rendering such behavior irrational and unethical. Furthermore, harm inflicted upon an individual should be weighed against the harm avoided by mitigating greater threats; if the harm caused is less than the potential damage prevented, it may be justified. This concept will not be examined in detail in this summary but is relevant only in exceptional circumstances and should be regarded as a last resort.

As members of a family, we must advocate for mutually beneficial relationships among all individuals. This approach aims to safeguard the integrity of these reciprocal relationships. However, once a crisis ensues, there is limited remedial action available. Nonetheless, it is essential that we not overlook the significance of romantic relationships. Family structures bear similarities to romantic relationships in terms of mutual benefit and interest. Moreover, it is prudent to view romantic relationships as singular entities rather than a dyadic connection, while also acknowledging an additional critical factor. This factor is the understanding that romantic relationships should be devoid of hierarchical structures. The distinction between solidified coalitions and romantic relationships lies in the fact that romantic relationships should not be considered finite. Such a perspective is irrational, given the necessity of a safety net beyond our steadfast business relationships. The key difference is that when we recognize romantic relationships as infinite, we must regard their mutual benefits and interests as perpetual. Even if superior opportunities arise, these relationships should still be considered finite, as the absence of a safety net poses significant risks. If we regard romantic relationships as the highest safety net, characteristics such as attractiveness should not be prioritized above all else. While subconscious biases may be present, it is vital to regard this relationship as our most robust partnership. It should not be classified as a coalition akin to familial structures or straightforward business relationships; rather, it embodies the highest form of each. We possess the most comprehensive and integrated business relationships, the most loyal familial bonds grounded in mutual benefit, and most crucially, the deepest connection our mind can form to achieve wholeness. Our conception of romantic relationships is that they represent the relationships from which we derive the greatest benefit. These relationships are intended to be closely intertwined with the ruthless realities of power, to facilitate mutual financial expansion and influence. Consequently, these relationships are deemed rational. From this perspective, it is irrational—and hence unethical—not to seek or pursue such relationships. Furthermore, we must consider the concept partially discussed in 'Proba': that the world is not an inner mind but a ruthless arena of competition for achievement. It is imperative to understand that such competition extends into relationships, and this warrants further discussion.  

It is imperative that we do not forcibly establish connections in romantic, familial, or professional relationships. Such relations should not be pursued with intent or undue effort. We must recognize that, regardless of our desire to control the world, events unfold according to natural course. It is not appropriate to blame oneself for the occurrences within the world. My aim is not to hinder these mutually beneficial relationships; rather, it is to demonstrate their advantages. In the context of romantic relationships, it is often improbable to form such bonds, and even if an individual endeavors to attain them, one should never force a relationship without mutual benefit, simply because it is considered immoral not to pursue a relationship. It is necessary to clarify that striving for a romantic relationship is only immoral and irrational if such a relationship is a viable option; if it is beyond one's power, it is entirely appropriate to retreat into one's inner world. When opportunities are available, as discussed in Proba, we understand that competition must be engaged in. Our intention should be to strive without being burdened by the mental strain that such effort can entail. This principle aligns with addressing loneliness: we must not force connections that do not yet exist, but we should recognize and appreciate mutual benefit. The same applies to relationships in general: acknowledging their benefits without attempting to enforce unequal or exploitative dynamics that could lead to abuse. It is important to understand that, while relationships can be advantageous, there are individuals for whom the harm would outweigh the benefits. In such circumstances, romantic relationships are irrational; the same applies to familial bonds and business arrangements. Our goal is to discern when such connections are beneficial and when they are not. As free thinkers, we possess the agency to shape our destiny and construct the world we envision. We must not accept anything as fact without careful research, and the same applies to this discourse. My intention is not to persuade but to present logical arguments concerning what is rational and irrational. Each of us must decide which types of relationships are rational in our lives and whether they genuinely offer benefits.

We must now consider how this interconnectedness pertains to society at large. Our aim is to conclude the process of understanding the coexistence of these ideas—namely, the interplay between our self-interest, the loosely affiliated coalitions of individuals, and the relationship between mutual benefit and mutual interest. As observed, all these topics are inherently interconnected. By expanding our reasoning, we can comprehend that the world encompasses both darkness and light. Feelings of isolation may prompt us to retreat inwardly; however, the irony lies in the fact that a significant portion of our inner mind contributes to darkness. It is not merely the dark aspect of our mind but also our perception itself. While darkness exists within us, it is crucial to recognize that our perception of the world shapes our reality. We may desire the world to change until we realize that we possess control over our perception. It is possible to perceive the world as bright and devoid of darkness by ignoring atrocities and self-deception; yet, such an approach does not reflect the truth. We are not truthful to our perceptions. As previously noted, this moment leaves us vulnerable to exploitation. Nevertheless, we should avoid falling into complete pessimism, as such a stance leads to the realization that, regardless of how good or evil the world may be, it remains a dystopia. Conversely, we might also conclude that our perception is at fault; as observed, perception can be influenced in either direction. Believing blindly that everything is fine is irrational, just as the opposite stance is equally unhelpful. Our new stance is to accept the world as a hybrid of dystopia and utopia. We cannot deceive ourselves into believing that one is entirely real. Instead, we must acknowledge our isolation without succumbing to fear. We should understand the dysfunctional nature of the world and learn to utilize it to our advantage. We must avoid fixating on the notions of pure evil or pure light, for these are constructs of our mind. Nothing in the world exists in a purely deterministic state, as we might irrationally believe. Thus, we should neither be pessimists nor optimists but rather find a position in between—somewhere stable, where conflicting forces coexist harmoniously. This understanding is essential to remember.

We partly inhabit a dystopian reality; however, we must learn an important lesson. This lesson involves accepting our current circumstances and finding hope even amidst the darkest times. Such hope will serve as our guiding light and stand in contrast to the surrounding darkness. Reflecting on our years and the state of the world reveals who the most dangerous individual truly is. While we may wish to fear them, over time we understand that the greatest threat comes from ourselves. We possess the power to ruin our lives more profoundly than any external force. We are capable of deluding ourselves into extreme actions. Most crucially, we are responsible for constructing this dystopia through our actions. Simultaneously, we recognize that we are also attempting to build a utopia. We have been willing to innovate the world and advance technology. From a rational perspective, this pursuit is driven by self-interest — the pursuit of wealth and fame. Yet, we comprehend that these endeavors have far-reaching impacts. We envision a perfect world we aspire to create, even as our actions contribute to its destruction. A part of us constantly seeks vengeance, perhaps motivated by the suffering we believe we have endured. Consequently, this part desires death and destruction upon the world. We exist in a paradoxical state where we desire greatness for the world yet simultaneously wish to destroy it entirely. Over time, we come to realize that these opposing tendencies can harmonize into a stable condition—a state that propels society forward while gradually eroding its fabric. Such stability occurs when the impact of our actions is balanced by the harm we do—an unintended consequence, as the more good we do, the more evil we inadvertently commit. Recognizing this, we must understand and accept this intrinsic order, which appears impossible to eradicate. Our aim should be to maintain this harmony and mitigate the effects of our actions. As time progresses, it becomes evident that this dystopia is not solely constructed by external entities but, most importantly, by ourselves. It is not merely our perception but also our deeds that shape reality. Nonetheless, we also generate a luminous aura that surrounds us, endeavoring to bring light to the world. The sooner we understand this paradox, the better we will grasp the true nature of dystopia.

What is enlightenment? It was the dismantling of old dogmas in favor of new rational ideals during the 18th century. However, we must now turn our attention to our present time. The archaic ideas that infiltrate our society pose significant challenges. Many individuals now recognize the pure irrationality of conventional religions but find themselves lost as individuals. Since the most perilous act a person can commit is to be directionless, my aim is to offer a rational philosophical worldview that can mitigate this issue. I begin this discourse not with a religious doctrine but by articulating the rationale behind many modern perspectives. My objective is to construct a framework that consolidates the most rational concepts and strengthens them with a new form of religion. The distinction is that I will never employ fabricated evidence; all evidence supporting my points will be derived through hypothetical arguments. It is essential to understand that we do not intend to replace science. Our goal is not to promote conspiracy theories but to enlighten individuals with rational truths. Additionally, we do not seek to declare our movement or ideas superior to others, nor do we plan to impose our views forcefully without reason. Instead, we aim to build an exclusive membership of a new family grounded in the constructs discussed in Dystopia and Proba. We are united by our understanding of rationality, morality, and, most importantly, the will to succeed. We never seek to establish a formal structure, as such a framework would be susceptible to exploitation; therefore, we avoid centralizing this movement. We must be as fluid as water as we navigate the world, functioning as loosely bound coalitions working collaboratively. Our intention is to empower our members to shape the future and determine the doctrines they wish to follow, encouraging free expression in constructing these frameworks. As members of Oboukhism, we must foster mutually beneficial relationships and maintain indirect financial ties. I do not intend to conceal the financial aspects of our actions but to ensure transparency for newcomers. Regardless of our level of isolation, we must recognize that success alone is improbable; thus, we build our collective. We must honor our members by adhering to the rules set forth in Dystopia and strive for opulence for the greater good of the coalition. We will commence with an understanding of hypothetical godlike levels of achievement.

What is a god? We will consider that being a god is a perspective, just like success. It is a state of being that is impossible to attain; however, we can envisage such a state. It is only relative to the progress a species has had to overcome. Due to this concept of a god, we can think of it very similarly to the idea of point B—an impossible point that represents the pinnacle of achievement. We may then define a god as an individual who has achieved point B, having accomplished all that was attainable. It is essential to understand that this concept is only relative when considering the journey such a being must have undertaken—the progression from single cells to a disembodied state, and ultimately, the highest hypothetical form of existence. Such beings can be regarded as gods because they represent the highest form of existence relative to their starting point. A god is an individual who has achieved point B. It is important to comprehend that even if individuals do not possess a natural lifespan and were to live for eternity, the state of godlikeness would still remain infinitely distant. Regardless of the achievements in life, we will never be considered gods, as, as previously stated, point B continues to recede. Even over a trillion years, this point remains unreachable; however, the concept of a being who has achieved point B—the god—is not merely fictional. It embodies a state of desire for continuous progress. The core notion of religion, for instance, is the idea of an entity that appears perpetually present—something that cares and wishes for one’s success. Our intention is to expand this concept—not for mere belief, but for the realization of achievement. Without role models, humanity often lacks motivation, goals, and the mental framework to pursue greatness. Some individuals turn to gurus who promote get-rich-quick schemes, while others look up to seemingly successful persons who appear to have everything. Relying on such role models can be a significant mistake, as they must have achieved what you aspire to attain. It is crucial to recognize that many so-called gurus generate wealth through selling courses, and the outward appearance of composure they project is often a façade. When we realize the imperfections and deviations of these individuals from our aspirations, we may feel isolated. Ultimately, we come to understand that there is no perfect role model for us, and we realize our genuine solitude in the world. This new concept of a god is not intended to promote a new cult; rather, it aims to serve as a role model for you.

We now understand that divinity resides within us, yet it is also a testament to achievements attained through the infinite power. It is imperative to recognize the proximity of such a state, as this understanding will serve as a guide in our pursuit of progress. The true mentor is not the counterfeit guru or the individual with superficial composure, but rather this state of self-awareness. In essence, we must become our own mentors. We should acknowledge our closeness to this hypothetical self. The concept of God is merely a construct existing within our minds, reflecting our purest intentions. It will direct the path to success in any chosen field, and most importantly, this godlike state of self guides one's journey towards transcendence. Such a path is only attainable through a mutual connection with one's sole mentor. This hypothetical individual is someone who is akin to us but has achieved the maximum potential within our circumstances; an individual with whom we can relate when we find ourselves with nothing. Our current aim is to develop a broader framework in which we understand this God as simply a gateway between us and the higher rational. This God has the sole connection that is possible to the higher rational, which manifests in existence. The higher rational is a state encompassing all knowledge of all existence and any substance. It is the highest guiding principle that can be utilized to elevate the individual to transcendence. Our connection with this divine entity would afford us gradual access to progress in our lives. The most innovative frameworks we will create are thanks to this higher rational, as societies are built upon this knowledge, and most importantly, this knowledge exists in an infinite capacity— a state without boundaries. We must comprehend that our purpose is to advance as much as possible in order to attain this godlike state, but we must also remember that complete achievement of this state is unattainable. The greatest immorality lies in the self-delusion of believing we have reached point B; this is the most unethical stance. To believe that one has achieved achievements within the infinite power equates to accepting failure. The primary requirement is to adhere to a moral code of neutrality towards third parties, and to do so as sincerely as possible. We must all endeavor to attain the highest moral standards based on our new framework. Our goal is not solely progress or status, but also to disseminate wealth through our coalition. We must ensure that third parties are not harmed by our actions or those of others, and we must prevent such harm by all necessary means.

Our new understanding of this concept of God reflects a deeper comprehension of ourselves. From a materialist perspective, we may consider ourselves atheists, as no individual is likely to reach point B; however, from a hypothetical standpoint, the concept of God is fundamental to progression in life. While we may adopt a secular stance, this idea does not conflict with previously discussed notions or with our most probable secular worldview. Such a worldview would not only advance the individual but do so at an exponentially increasing rate. Our current focus is to understand the prerequisites for this progression. As members of Oboukhovism, we must advance in all aspects of life that are accessible to us—achieving the highest levels of financial stability, influence, and—most crucially—knowledge. We are tasked with educating our members on the intricacies of every advanced technology that can be utilized to promote the development of our state. Nonetheless, we must never neglect the inner state of the individual. It is essential to recognize that neglecting oneself equates to neglecting God and the values to which one must adhere. To illustrate, I advise you to approach a mirror and close your eyes—aiming to see beyond the physical. The goal is to envision the future and the individual you can imagine. Your mind may be filled with hypothetical points along a continuum, but you will realize that the concept of point B and God remains inaccessible visually. God does not possess a human form or physical manifestation, making it impossible to perceive as an individual. Nevertheless, you can sense the next step that must be taken. You may perceive an aura of protection and encouragement towards your success. It is crucial to remember that we can never visualize or depict such a being without constraining the divine power; thus, the concept of God must remain the elusive point B—an impossible state that no being, past or future, will ever attain. As we comprehend this, we understand that our purpose is merely to follow the next step in the journey guided by this divine presence—a journey toward point B. This is why deviations from the path are regarded as unethical, for you have been specifically chosen for this journey. The essence of Proba is the commitment to endeavor in life—to make every effort to progress in knowledge and approach this hypothetical state. Such pursuit is perpetual. Ultimately, it will be recognized that this endeavor constitutes the entire meaning of existence; without it, life is merely an void of nothingness.

Our subsequent step involves recognizing the honor associated with being chosen. It is essential to comprehend that the deity you envisage has selected you to attain greatness and that you are predestined to reach a ‘finite’ state, a term used for reasons of obviousness, given the impossibility of the concept of infinity. It is imperative that you expand your understanding of this belief system. Morally, you are obligated not only to learn, achieve, and prosper but also to broaden the philosophical framework upon which this text is based. You are ethically compelled to do so in alignment with your own ideals and methods of success. Our goal is not to destroy any social system but to ascend to the foremost position within this society. We are guided toward success and must comprehend that true failure is worse than death. As individuals, failure is not an option; success is mandatory. We must eliminate traditional notions of religion and concepts of an afterlife, as they may impede progress. It is necessary to understand that life is finite and that there is nothingness beyond it. Using the computer as an analogy, specifically RAM storage, our minds function similarly by storing information via electrical signals, akin to computer memory. When an individual dies, the electrical charge dissipates, and so does the memory. Although a future breakthrough might enable the permanent recording of memory, presently our minds are temporary repositories. We must grasp that nothing, not even seemingly eternal things, last forever. For instance, the trees we observe will eventually die, and rocks will ultimately become sand. Ultimately, there will be no Earth, no Sun. Acceptance of the finality of existence and life is crucial, instead of attempting to escape these realities. Fleeing from such concepts is irrational and significantly hampers individual progress. It is vital to comprehend this truth as early as possible in our pursuit of reason, understanding, and advancement. Failing to understand this leads to an unavoidable delusion—the logical fallacy where the mind deceives itself into believing that falsehoods are true, thereby distorting reality. As exemplified by individuals who delude themselves into believing they have achieved Point B, they will ultimately fall due to their self-deception.