The Arena of Superstition
A Book About Things…
By
Jabarri Lewis
1
Copyright © 2016 Jabarri Lewis
All rights reserved.
ISBN:
ISBN-13:
2
Contents
1
SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS & OPINIONS ARE NOT THE SAME 5.
2
HEALTH-BASED PERSPECTIVES3 9.
3
SELFISHNESS & SELFLESSNESS 12.
4
THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT DEBUNKED 15.
5
STRATEGY OF THE ELITE AND SYSTEMIC OFFSETS 17.
6
REMOVING YOURSELF FROM EARTH. IS ANYONE OUT THERE? 20.
7
THE PROXY 25.
8
CONSUMPTION 31.
9
EARLY MORNING TERRORISM IN FRANCE 34.
10
CULTURAL MYTHOLOGY & COLD SCIENCE 39.
11
TERROR MANAGEMENT THEORY & POLICY 46.
12
CONFRONTING THE NATIVES 51.
13
ENVIRONMENTAL DEMANDS 55.
14
WE LIVE HERE 59.
15
INCENTIVES & DEPRAVITY 68.
16
WHEN CLOUDS CAST A SHADOW 78.
17
DARKNESS & CHILDS FEAR 83.
18
MATRIX THEORY 93.
19
A VIEW OF SEXUALITY 99.
20
PEACEFUL CHILD VS. VIOLENT PARENT 104.
21
ELECTRIC FEEL THEORY 119.
22
YOU ARE NOT AN ATHEIST 123.
3
Prior Acknowledgements
You can only currently perceive agony or terror after death if you let your superstitionist
objectives persist while alive. The beliefs are perceived as becoming, much more real to the people
that merit superstition. It’s a common understanding within the science community that although
in absolute terms a single theory cannot be proved to be true to a degree of 100%, it can come
close. Therefore, the highest percentage in my view of science is 99.9%. Obviously, inference has
revealed certain tests to have the same outcome every single time. Yet, the science community
understands the outcomes to be identical rather than “the same.” This is the modesty and respect
science has given its opposing viewers, Why 99.9% rather than 100%? One tenths of a percent has
been kidnapped from science and incarcerated to the views of superstition. 100% means, there are
no more possibilities. 99.9% however, means anything is game. Science seems like it is rather rude
or in a way, condescending, but this is simply due to the mountain piles of evidence weighing up to
claims of superstition to a rapidly increasing figure. But, when considering the offense taken by
superstitionists, how does each person in the argument know when to be offended? After all one
person is right and one person is wrong. We know this because it is impossible for two
contradicting assumptions to both be true in the same context at the same moment. These essays
will express how beliefs of superstition intrinsically hold less merit than the beliefs of a non-
superstitionist. Why? Because, a particular superstitious view differs from other views in any way a
person’s imagination can make it differ. A non-superstitionist understands the flawed nature of
imagination. This is one of the main reasons the non-superstitionist has come to fruition. It is very
important to understand that atheism means “disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of god or
gods.” The label of atheism does not contradict the belief in vampires, Bloody Mary, flat earth
models, or griffins. Atheism is a narrow contrivance that is only meaningful in the arena of
religion. Superstition is generally defined as excessively credulous belief in and reverence for
supernatural beings. Supernatural means attributed to forces outside of nature. We are bound by
natural law as I will explain. Gravity is a natural law we are bound by. There is no natural law that
works on one person and not another. Not only is a supernatural explanation a noninferential-
based claim. But the supernatural explanations actually have no way of gaining merit because as
will be mentioned, claims with no bounds can never be validated, because when a non-
superstitionist attempts to test the claim, the borders of the board can always be extended further.
Some call it “moving the goal post.” It’s like having a basketball game in which the out of bounds
line moves to keep the ball live. Many times we are anti-social with our contributions. The wisdom
of Gandhi says “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.” Our contributions must be
socially relevant and thoughtful in order to reflect the change we want to see. Consider combat
sports, “He imposed his will”, they say. Intellectually; did he? Or did he impose the will of his
culture. Is this man alone? Is he even thinking? Is he fighting because of the fear of losing
resources; or is the fight for the rejection of becoming socially, culturally, and intellectually
ostracized? I’m not a man in a suit nor are my credentials impressive. This is the perspective
4
1. SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS & OPINIONS ARE NOT THE SAME
“The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of
Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline luggage.”
-Mark Russell
There are so many opinions about what is considered natural and what is
considered supernatural. Science has continually been confused with
pseudoscience in a dogmatic misleading way. The definitions just don't suffice
and we prefer to align things in accordance to our wishes and preferences;
rather than accepting the questions we ask and hence accepting the answers
the world gives us. But, underneath the esoteric and sometimes confusing
sounding terms lies a particular type of ‘anxious’, to figure out, or know things.
So much that we can narrow them in or, perhaps widen them out to the
important question: What is real and what is fake? All the information is there,
yet we can’t seem to connect the dots. The traditional methods we choose to use
to answer such questions have been unreliable and misunderstood. The
framework of traditional comprehension- such as things we feel are intuitively
correct, are not compliant with the framework that the world itself has actually
revealed to us.
Many people rather rhetorically propose the question: “What is normal
and what is abnormal? What is love and what is hate? Who are our friends
and who are our enemies? This can be simplified to “what is right and what is
wrong?” As a long lover of many different branches of science such as
forensics, evolutionary, physics, and astronomy- I've come to the conclusion
that my favorite organism is the human being. It just seems like there's nothing
else out there like them. Although this is said rather apologetically, this is the
only motivation I need. This is why it matters to me. The degree of importance
isn’t derived from my own specialty, but from the empirical and study-able
world around me. It’s not me that’s special, it’s the world that’s special, and
science has revealed us to be in fact- a part of the world which in turn- makes
me special. Events that hypothetically take place outside of the natural world
are irrelevant to the human that needs the natural world to coexist in synergy.
5
The association to nature makes us valuable, and the opinions of manmade
doctrines no longer hold up against the scrutiny of natural world inference.
Therefore when we curiously search for answers to a given question, the world
and specifically the natural laws, must be incorporated into our algorithms. In
other words, the natural world is the limit of human capability to extrapolate
simple truths from a complex system. In later essays “cold science” will be a
brief subject of conversation. I started noticing that problems were being
solved in small unrelated pockets of the world, and this makes me wonder how
a method that we all owe our existence to can be so rejected by so many people
and shrugged off as “cold.”. Somewhere throughout history it became okay for
our preferences to hold more merit than the reality we are surrounded by.
"How do I know that we are real?”
Hence the nature of metaphysics. People are actually thinking- about how
their thoughts are not really theirs and convincing themselves through
thinking-that they don't really think! This reality has been inter-reflected
through so many different mediums so many times that the metacognitive
nature of ones mind has moved itself far beyond fathom ability. Our level of
knowledge was accumulated late, but we have it now. We can construct a
labyrinth of starvation, pollution, disparity, death, torture (directly and in
many other subtler forms as will be explained), inhumanity, and piertroduction; and we can trace our steps back to the grim dark history we come
from. Or we can build a world where the landscape of knowledge has many,
many peaks with an atmosphere of pure organic possibility, and no dark
valleys. Where the ocean is that of a specific circuitry.
Our frightened, yet courageous flights towards what we want to be true
coupled with or our willingness to except the results of our harsh and vivid
interrogations of things, constitutes human ambition to make sense of things
that define the “type” of people we are. The blind satisfaction coupled with our
stubborn disinterest of greeting falsehood in the ring and still remaining
champion is in my own opinion, the only hindrance that dominates all of us.
Myself included. Many people understand this. There’s an anxious feeling that
comes when we attempt to find out something that we were anticipating,
6
whilst simultaneously there’s a non-interest when we consider the possibility
of the unwanted answer; such as an HIV test; we are ambitious towards the
news that we are healthy, but resentful to the opposing possibility of being HIV
positive, or ideas of what happens the moment after we die, or opening the
front door to police officers not knowing if they’re going to tell you that your
child was caught stealing at a store, or if they came to tell you your child was
gunned down in the night. A belief being intimidated is the inevitable nature of
what truth means. The truth is true independently of a particular belief.
Whether you believe the world is flat does not alter the spherical reality. Even
though challenging your own traditional mentalities can be interpreted as
personal destruction, I see beliefs being intimidated, challenged, and
interrogated as major construction to all, being that the scientific method is not
a traditional elitist tool but an adaptable process usable by anyone whom
excepts its validity. Imagine a world where beliefs weren't challenged.
We would still think aids came from homosexuals. This was disproved
when it was challenged . We would believe demons and ghosts caused
sickness, that the rain was gods tears, that an indoor umbrella was possessed
with bad luck, that a broken mirror can give you a 7 year doom, that an angel
is flying over the silence of a dinner table, that people that have hallucinated or
had a bad dream have been abducted by aliens, priests healing the paralyzed
with a simple touch, or attaching your own hair to a doll giving people control
over you through the medium of the doll, black cats, splitting the pole, statues
that impregnate women through a mere touch, we would've never discovered
the placebo effect, or islands of any sort. The function of volcanoes, polygraph
tests, space shuttles, satellite communication, compasses (in which their utility
evolved into modern navigation systems), air travel, hybrid cars, open heart
surgery, bulletproof vests, parachutes, and so on.
Policies based on false assumptions rather than inference have more less
always been understood as flawed. Economist Thomas Sowell can testify to this
extensively. Throughout these essays I will demonstrate how the root
psychology, the reinforcers of particular trains of behavior, and the attribute of
fitness is to blame, because policies are the aftermath of specific thoughts. If the
7
thoughts are skewed, the flawed policies remain persistent.
NONSUPERSTITION is reference|response to the cultural, intellectual,
and social climate. The relationship between their intentions, there function,
and their outcomes. It will also be a coined train of thought by the end of this
book. We will model perspectives and theories together in which, should help
the reader understand the strength and importance of a non-superstitionist.
The original title was, “Disconnected”. Although the title has been changed,
disconnected still fits the vibe|theme of these writings as a representation of
the zeitgeist. Our languages, our cultures, our values, our preferences, our
relevance to the world, and our respect for the ecosystem that we're apart of
are nothing but-disconnected. The shorter word disconnect first showed up in
English in the mid-1700s as a verb meaning to destroy the logical connection
between things or to cause things to become disjointed. The current definition
of the word disconnected is: not connected to something (such as a power
source) or not having parts joined together in a logical way. In 1961 the
definition was to withdraw from society or reality. This is the perspective.
8
2. HEALTH-BASED PERSPECTIVES
“When health is absent, wisdom cannot reveal itself, art
cannot manifest, strength cannot fight, wealth becomes
useless, and intelligence cannot be applied.”
― Herophilus
Our approach to learning has become boldly disconnected; to the point
where we as a population have begun to value the new found artistic methods
of learning more than the knowledge itself. It has become secondary and the
affairs that attempt to impute knowledge have turned into freak shows; and
preferably. To put this into another context, we have gave importance and
purpose to the train ride, rather than giving thought to the experience that's
waiting for us upon reaching our destination. Or recognition that the train is
headed off of a cliff. Maybe we just weren’t born with enough oomph. Slowly
began to self-proclaim intelligence. Claiming that our school classroom was
beneath us. Whilst most people don’t know that antibiotics oppose no threat to
viruses; or that humans DO use 100% of their brain, just not simultaneously.
Because for that to happen you would need to feel every single emotion and
feeling that your brain is capable of and that would result in seizure; or that
anything that alters your mind even only chemically is a “drug”. They don't
even know that red is the opposite of green.
Take for example our current knowledge of the human anatomy.
Generally we understand that artificial ingredients in our diets are worse for
our health than 100% natural foods. (100% natural orange juice vs.
concentrated orange juice, There is a clear distinction in every way from taste
to texture to nutritional value).
9
(Left to right: Apple, grape, orange. Natural juices are placed to the left.
Artificial juices are placed to the right.)
The dichotomy of organic and artificial nutrition at this point in time is
very much known. But the obesity epidemic suggest otherwise. The word
circumstance has a few too many connotations of rarity. The fact of the matter
is that the increase of obesity is a rather common circumstance and not a rare
one. To merge an animal kingdom perspective; Obesity can stem from one of
three things: Number one being an excess of food. About 12,000 years ago a
major change in human affairs took place. This change is referred to as the
Neolithic Revolution. For ages and ages man lived in tribal congregations called
“hunters and gatherers” in which an excess of food was perhaps better than
having gold. The harvest and the hunt served as a reciprocal risk of a preferred
congregation between human and the land that nourished him.
Surely this multi-generational understanding or preference couldn't have
just dissolved from our genes by the implementation of economics. Prior to the
Neolithic revolution there was a certain amount of scarcity when it came to
hunting live food and gathering fruits, vegetables, grains, and in some cases
fish. But this natural scarcity is nothing of the sort when compared to the
scarcity developed from economic insecurity. Natural scarcity has never
plagued entire nations with violence, starvation, disease, and social unrest the
way economic scarcity has. So food production in a modern economic context
can only be wasteful with the excess considering 30% of all food production
never enters a human stomach or any other stomach for that matter. So
although there is enough food in terms of amount- to be considered abundant,
nutritionally most of us are malnourished. Number two can be that the
10
environment has low predation. An abundance of food would not push a
species to the brink of obesity if there is also a high level of predation. If
natural predation is very sufficient then there wouldn't be enough time to
become obese; but when predation is no longer the limitation, then an
abundance of food coupled with insidious nutritional value can easily
transform is self into a plague of obesity and many other health conditions
given the right (or perhaps wrong) biology. If food has to be acquired
economically and status is acquired through economics also, is it really that
crazy to think that food perhaps can fall into this parasitic category of excess
waste? Perhaps humans wouldn't opt for their own predation. A byproduct of
tactical predation is also resource limitation. So what if, we can set these
limitations without the predation? There is just no internal limitation.
Something literally vital that we need to build with has been separated from us.
Genetically our bodies are shaped to support us. We are born equipped
with our minimal needs and as we grow every single thing about us sharpens.
It seems like knowledge just doesn't work this way. Where is the disconnect
between the knowledge (things that we know) and its implementation? Do we
possess a hindrance of capacity to learn more than we can actually do?
Throughout my research I found there is actually obese behavior. Things like
valet vs. walking; searching for the closest parking spot; buying too much food
because it’s on sale. And the sickest one I've heard yet is lack of dieting, lack of
cooking organic food at home, and lack of exercise because there isn't enough
time. It's almost like they're expecting time (whatever one assumes that may be)
to manipulate itself so they can get into shape as absurd as that idea is.
11
3. SELFISHNESS & SELFLESSNESS
“My son's the most precious thing to me; he's changed me
from being selfish to selfless.”
-Ricardo Antonio Chavira
I once saw an obese veterinarian; and it dazed me how this person was
constantly improving the condition of different animals, including an intense
diversity of species, while maintaining his/her own unhealthiness. This made
me realize that people weren’t as selfish as I had been told. I also noticed how
obese parents were equipping their children with behaviors that would put
them on the path to walk in their parents footsteps of obesity. Thankfully this is
almost never the intention. This showed me that selflessness also was not the
cause of obesity. Modern science has shown us that the behaviors that led to
obesity did not start in the person. It stemmed from something else. Something
similar to a butterfly effect of a past pressure. A series of events, limited options,
limited choices, and circumstances have manifested. I use this analogy to
further clarify my point: The stars of the system begin to line up and like a
game of chess you can only move pieces in certain places and you must abide
by the rules because you go to prison for cheating; and don't be a poor sport
when your competition check mates you-Because as we both know, you’re not
selfish.
Are these consequences of our human nature? Are we by nature
intrinsically self-destructive? How can a society possibly end up in a zeitgeist
in which obesity is now a larger danger than starvation? Considering In the
U.S 1/6 people are starving, more than 2/3 of people are overweight or obese. 1
in 20 are considered extremely obese. Imagine giving this information to
someone that lived 100 years ago. Imagine telling someone that died in the
year 1900 that obesity is more persistent and dangerous than starving. They
would think you (the biological extension of them) were unconditionally
demented.
Fairly recently we have learned that obesity has direct links to heart
disease, stroke, high blood pressure, diabetes, some cancers, gallbladder
12
disease, breathing problems, sleep apnea, (when a person stops breathing
during sleep) and asthma. Inversely none of these leads to obesity. For instance,
there’s no connection between asthma or heart disease being the cause of
obesity, yet they are the outcomes of obesity. It would seem like common sense
to change our habits to better our conditions. If we currently competed with
other nations for the best public health statistics instead of competitions based
on GDP and conspicuous consumption; we wouldn't even place in many areas,
and in most areas we’d place dead last. We put guns, medicine, ideas, and
health in the hands of unqualified dimwits. This failure has turned many
things upside down. The military-industrial complex has been given 30 times
the amount of government funding that has been given to the NASA program.
Programs based on forest preservation and biodiversity have received
close to nothing. Tax cuts are continually pumped into the pockets of the rich
as worldwide poverty continues to increase almost exponentially. What we for
some odd reason call the "land of the free" is the biggest home in the world to
the prison population. Political figures have continued to support racial based
13
action against well deserving immigrants from Mexico as if they themselves
are not immigrants.
The welfare state has demolished many capabilities of household
parenting by assuming that higher welfare payments are better for the kid. It
was found that these higher payments increased the child’s dependency and
illegitimacy. Welfare has even robbed many households of two parents by
lessening the difference between work and unemployment. It was also reported
that the 4.7 million families currently receiving Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) already have spent an average of 6 years on
welfare. The average length of time in which families are receiving these
benefits is 13 years. The result is a cultural prominence of single-parent
households. Being buried to our necks in debt is currently seen as natural. If
these are the consequences, our biggest fear should be the consequence of the
consequence.
14
4. THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT DEBUNKED
“It used to be thought that the events that changed the
world were things like big bombs, maniac politicians,
huge earthquakes, or vast population movements, but it
has now been realized that this is a very old-fashioned
view held by people totally out of touch with modern
thought. The things that really change the world,
according to Chaos theory, are the tiny things. A
butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazonian jungle, and
subsequently a storm ravages half of Europe.”
-Neil Gaiman
We only understand things through the fallible, emotionally fragile, and
in many cases unreliable structure of our fluctuating perceptions. Within
several fields of dynamics, emerges a theory called The Chaos Theory; A
contribution to Non-Linear Dynamics. Non-Linear meaning not as precise as
we expected. With a shallow study of this you will find a phenomenon known
as The Butterfly Effect. To summarize this; the butterfly effect is the theory that
a butterfly flapping its wings can possibly be the cause of a tornado or any
other seemingly unrelated outcome. The most unremitting factor at hand is the
climate. It is the most persistent and the only property that is universally
measurable. There is no way, given the current state of technology and science
to determine the cause of an effect absent examination of the environment, or
the tangible elements/compounds that create existence itself.
Consider the Earths closest neighbor, our only natural satellite The Moon.
It has no atmosphere unlike the abundant, dutiful biosphere that we have back
home. With the change of these natural conditions of the Earth and Moon, let’s
hypothetically say that a random pack of dandelions and a random butterfly
inhabited the moon somehow. Let’s say they were just special. The butterfly
flaps its wings, but can’t move. The only difference between the possible
outcome (hence the butterfly effect) and the impossible one (hence the
butterfly effect) is the actual conditions that relayed the message (if you will).
The butterfly effect is a scientific impossibility if there is no atmosphere. It does
15
not mean that it is absolutely impossible. Being that changing the climate
changes the outcome. This is why roses don't grow in the desert and cactus do,
and sun flowers don't grow in Antarctica. Both flowers can be grown but the
climate is what decides not the flowers themselves. In my debates on the
butterfly effect I wondered how something with so little proof had so much
merit to people. Once again this showed me that the problem or the fallibility
was in the human first, not the theory. The theory is either true or false,
independent of the human. The confusion only exists within the person. The
world is not confused about its own interplay. We are the ones confused.
One of the beauties of scientific methodology is the self-correcting
mechanisms within the methods. Science will not lead people to believe that
water freezes at 32 degrees Celsius; because the experiment shows this theory
to be an error. Without science there would be no way to know. It’s selfcorrecting. Our brains are not self-correcting in this manner. If this is not the
foundation of our knowledge and truth itself, I don’t know what is. Millions
and millions have spent their entire lives attempting to prove the legitimacy of
Greek mythology, European folklore, Western myth, and Butterfly effects.
Ashamedly, they’ve made it this far because the claims had no bounds. Now we
put every word, every claim, and every hope to the test. Also, what if the
butterfly is inside? Where would it have to be? I hope the troubles are clear.
16
5. STRATEGY OF THE ELITE AND SYSTEMIC OFFSETS
“There are two types of poor people, those who are
poor together and those who are poor alone. The first
are the true poor, the others are rich people out of
luck.”
-Jean-Paul Sartre
I wish the word system was emphasized more to the public through
academia. A group of things functioning in synergy. This term has been
marginalized to computer programs and various electronic systems. Put more
simply: Electronic junk. But systems are much more than crafted metallurgy.
They are also the mechanisms that support and enforce the process of life.
Some seem simple and some seem perplexed. But the complexity is a persistent
part of both. Complex systems require a certain amount of atmospheric
privacy; in physics (as well as biology), this is referred to as isolation. It's
helpful to regard this isolation as the safety of a system in work.
The capabilities of a system in work have boundaries. Things they cannot
do, things they cannot affect, actions they simply aren’t capable of acting, and
distances they can’t reach. Their imperfections will run for the remainder of
the operators’ life. As unfortunate as that may sound, these systems also
spawned a miracle. They planted a seed in a vast galactic ocean of potentiality
and on the only planet that we have ever known to have flourished life; a
species known as human beings or Homo sapiens have come to be. But
something was wrong with them; they just seem so unaware of their
fallibilities. They look at a table surface and come to the conclusion that it’s
smooth. They see a star that looks stationary and they came to the conclusion
that stars don’t move. It just seems obvious.
There’s an old quote that ill paraphrase: to any organism in the ocean, the
water will be the last thing they recognize, until you take it from them. Once
you remove yourself in this manner, it becomes incredibly apparent what we
are surrounded by. This is a perspective that can only be understood from the
outside looking in. Consider the global economic system; no one necessarily
17
chooses to have pollution or subject other nations to child slave labor. These
are just byproducts of an external system with actions, reactions and interests
of its own. Humans are not idiotic by choice; but in many cases idiocy is a
result of an external system with its own obligations being implemented upon
humans with no understanding of the system. 2 men fight until the death over
a particular resource and we claim two things based on this. First we assume
that they both want to fight over it; this is a cop out excuse. This has always
been a way of the elite covertly implying that they are elite because the
competitions they’ve won were %100 voluntary alleviating the competitors
will of any external pressures. They view society in a light of “he asked for it.”
We say things like, “you don’t have to fight”; but at what expense do I not have
to fight? I might not get a particular resource, but is it possible that I can lose
my humility or respect amongst my piers? Will my children feel protected
under my supervision? The fight is much, much deeper than a mere box of
cigarettes, yet the elite assume were fighting for nothing voluntarily.
Secondly they assume that competing is the only way. A common
argument I hear is; “people naturally want to compete.” The truth is people
want to be taken care of and they don’t want to live in an unpredictable state of
scarcity. If they have to compete to take care of their families then they will. It
is not a matter of human nature intrinsically forcing people to compete.
Imagine standing by a swamp; food and shelter is on the other side. The elite
basically will see someone swimming to the food and then say “You see! These
people just like swimming, its human nature for them to want to swim in a
swamp.” This is hogwash. Most people, believe it or not, are not competitive. At
least not in a cutthroat by any means strive for dominance way. Competition is
healthy in certain categories, but for survival day in day out; dollar after dollar,
meal after meal, job after job; is this safe for the person going through it or the
people around that person? Does this have to be the universal route for every
single person in the world to be taken care of? In the eyes of the “Father of
Capitalism”, Adam Smith; it is precisely the route towards collective progress.
Underneath the face of this idea, lies an entire perplexed system that interacts
with itself in certain categories. There is no path towards success when
understanding the mechanisms put forth to “give life” to the system. Yet many
18
still see merit in these market theories, regardless of how often or categorically
the experiments fail. A system is still in place in which most people barely
make half of what they need for basic survival. The angst associated with living
in a psychological state like this is very revealing when someone is
systematically coerced into spending their last nickel. The emotional recourse
is frowned upon by the institutions and forbidden to poor people. They
presumably don’t have the authority to behave violent and kill someone in a
robbery in hopes of gaining property that can be turned into economic
currency to suit their survival. Yet the governmental and corporate complex is
void from this principle. So as the prisons literally fill up beyond capacity and
we look at the violence that seems simply pointless. We must understand two
things.
Violence is never pointless. There is always a point to it. This should
reflect a serious problem within the system. If the system is producing violence,
the system must be changed. People are NOT naturally violent given that their
community is taking care of them. Violence does not occur to a particular tick
of a biological clock. 90% of all crime is committed for money in one sense or
another. This is undeniably a result of the systems incapability to take care of
the people it claims to be helping. A systems approach can’t be boldly seen
from within the system, but if you can simply remove yourself and look at your
community and read news reports from an external position you can clearly
see what the outcomes of the system are. We can thus, infer how the
mechanisms behave independently and how they behave when connected to
other mechanisms. This is called systems thinking. In every area of study, the
systems approach gives a more valuable interpretation of complex phenomena.
19
6. REMOVING YOURSELF FROM EARTH. IS ANYONE OUT THERE?
“There may be aliens in our Milky Way galaxy, and
there are billions of other galaxies. The probability is
almost certain that there is life somewhere in space.”
-Buzz Aldrin
You are now removed from the planet earth. You come from a planet
where there is no such thing a war. Small fights yes, but people from different
continents coming in mass to kill each other simply doesn’t happen. Your goal
is to make sure no one starves; there are no thieves, no gangs, and no prisons.
No class stratification, no depravation, no structural violence, and no broken
families. How can you get families to grow by congregation rather than
growing linearly? Lastly making sure different belief systems are celebrated. If
you peeped in on Earth, what would you think?
Life from another planet may just watch us scatter and destabilize
ourselves until we end up buried, flooded, or poisoned. They will most likely
use an extremely integrated telescope and they will have the same view we
have of ants when you pollute their farm with a chemical. The only thing that
will be considered "obvious" about humans from an extraterrestrial perspective
is that at some point in time they just quit helping each other. There are things
about us that are only understood culturally. Things they just wouldn’t know.
How will they make sense of the gold and diamond teeth in a person’s mouth?
Or the alligator skin car seats in a millionaires Rolls Royce. What could they
possibly think that was for? Will they be able to tell the difference between
eastern Indians and Egyptians? Are the pyramids even that wonderful from the
outside looking in? Will they see an antelope head in an old man’s barber shop
and assume that he worshipped the antelope, or sacrificed it; or was it an expet?
Will they look at airplanes and assume that we were an ancient thing that
tried to leave the planet using airplanes? Roughly 6600 satellites have been
launched into space from Earth; 3600 of them are still in the orbit, 2600 of
them are mechanically dead and are now just galactic debris. Will they see the
20
remaining 1000 of them and assume that the airplane is what placed them
there? Life from somewhere else will most likely see obese bodies everywhere
in the west and chronically ill skinny bodies in the east and will probably
presume an imbalance of some sort. But how would the imbalance account for
all of them dying? If they stumbled upon a planet of dead corpses that had no
familiarity with theirs or any that they know, then they would have no way to
determine the cause of our extinction. Maybe the correlation can be
discovered, such as radiation or a natural disaster. Given that they can
interpret the aftermath of such events. Maybe, and just maybe correlation; but
surely not causation. I mean, think about how complex human affairs are. Do
you really think they could with pinpoint accuracy conclude how we lived in
our extreme perplexity and so on? What If they uncovered our language? The
equivalent of a modern person trying to make sense of ancient hieroglyphics;
But no assistance from historians, graphologists, or anyone else can help. No
pragmatic understanding and no one from this planet can give their help.
What if they just don't get it?
If we were them, we would need a scientific understanding of Earths laws
and an understanding of the species that Earth can support; and the physics of
receiving something from this position. For instance, we were not here for the
lifetime of the dinosaurs, but using scientific inference, methodology, and
examinations of animals that exist now; using examinations of fossils,
footprints, comparisons of bone structure, and location we are able to come up
with a plausible theory with tangible supporting evidence. We have none of
these earthly produced fossils for any other world but our own.
For ages and ages, we've not had a single fossil that suggests intelligent
life currently exists on another planet. Yet the modesty of the idea can be
realistically extended to a giant figure when the number of planets that exist
coupled with the very few that we have explored is modestly accounted for.
When looking at the world from outer space you can only see a seemingly
intelligent system of complexity, but the complexity reveals no specifics. No
architecture, no streets, no people, no animals, just complexity. Imagine
looking into an ocean from a mile above it vs. looking around while in the
21
ocean. Let’s propose something; most of us have had our fair share of sights of
shooting stars. With some appearing to move sideways and others down. Not
“in” but “down”. Let’s assume that one of those shooting stars was a UFO. One
full of Martian kids on a cosmic field trip.
Yet the conditions of their equipment could only handle the mutual
conditions of “space” and their own planet. They fly extremely close to our life
station; dangerously close; we can even see them with our naked eye
sometimes. But they look back and see nothing, their vision and equipment
can’t seem to penetrate into the bounded isolated biosphere. They have the
same vision of Earth that the Voyager Spacecrafts had of Saturns largest moon,
Titan in the year 1980(Photo located below).
22
(Mosaic of Titan from Cassini's February 2005 flyby. The large dark region is
Shangri-La. The name Shangri-La is understood as a mythical paradise in
Tibet. This mosaic of Titan's surface was made from 16 images. The individual
images have been specially processed to remove effects of Titan's hazy
atmosphere and to improve visibility of the surface near the terminator (the
boundary between day and night). The images were taken with the Cassini
spacecraft narrow angle camera through a filter sensitive to wavelengths of
polarized infrared light and were acquired at distances ranging from
approximately 226,000 to 242,000 kilometers (140,000 to 150,000 miles)
from Titan.)
23
Our instruments can’t penetrate to the surface; if there is one. If the
Martians on their own Apollo mission were as close minded as the Earthlings,
they would say we don’t SEE life on the planet earth therefore there is none.
Meanwhile the Earthlings being bounded to their own set of atmospheric
conditions, from their biology to the materials and construction of their
equipment; Are uncritically saying and believing the exact same spurious
assumption, but they never propose that their environments may be the
antithesis of the others survival.
Should we be complacent with the idea of us and them not having to take
a parallel risk to verify each other’s existence? Is the exploration worth the
reward? I wonder what their movies about us will be like. Will we be evil to
them as we paint them to be? Will they force fright upon themselves before
they meet or have an idea of a single one of us? Will they paint us as mere
animals? With no emotion, no compassion, no linear heritage. (I say this
loosely because animals show all of these traits) Will they understand that our
bonds with our family are deeper than our relationships with strangers? How
vivid will they investigate us? Our physical dimensions? Our Hair color? Our
eye color? Skin color? Muscle tone? What are the biggest differences they do
see if any? We regard our biggest differences in our gender.
Will this even be a distinguishable difference to them or in their view,
will height be the true difference? Will they even regard us as important?; or
will the very few Siberian tigers be of more interest to them? Our “obvious”
approaches have a venomous effect on our progress. We now crave an
artificial adventure that deters us from the natural adventure. The
understanding of what we are and what we are a part of. When you remove
the atmosphere, you remove the chaos out of the private system of complexity.
24
7. THE PROXY
"Earth is abundant with plentiful resources. Our
practice of rationing resources through monetary
control is no longer relevant and is counter-productive
to our survival."
- Jacque Fresco
We seem to have a rigid final understanding of what we aren’t. But no
one really emphasizes what we are. We are organisms. Unimaginably complex
people that all require the same nurture. From each other and the habitat. The
microscopic differences are mistakenly viewed as more deserving of love or
punishment; or socially unacceptable even when the difference doesn't cause
social damage. We tend to see each other as growing up and out of certain
behaviors and into other ones, suggesting that we are changing.
This fallacy is furthering our differentiability in the wrong direction.
Hypothetically, and understand I’m being relative. If you had a chance to
connect all humans to the same machine. A diagnostic test on humanity. What
would this machine say is wrong with us? And will the machine even be
necessary? If all humans were simultaneously connected to this machine it
would most likely note extremely unhealthy concentrations of everything.
People in this region are happy, people in other regions are dystopian minded.
People are healthier in this region and unhealthy in others. Skinny here and
obese there. Peaceful here and rage full there. Religious here and welcoming
there. Greedy here and giving there etc.
This machine would say that some of us are phenomenally
comprehensive, unbelievably creative, and undeniably elite. Our closest
primate relative in which we share %99.6 active genes with is the chimpanzee.
Although a recent study put forth by national geographic suggested that
humans have more physically in common with the orangutan. (This genome
sequence shows a fusion of two primate chromosomes)
25
(these are the magnified chromosomes of a/an human, chimpanzee, gorilla,
and orangutan, in which the human chromosome 2 is fused; left to right for
each chromosome)
Nevertheless we have less than 1% genetic difference but we are clearly just a
little more special (per say). But how? Where does this implied specialty
display itself? Do chimpanzees come together in mass to kill each other? No.
26
Do they eat a diet that they know is bad for them or support biologically
negative habits out of an accumulated addiction, or for the sake of culture? No.
Do they risk stunt-based injury for status? No. They would never bother with
those things. The glowing question is “Are humans that smart?" and if they are;
smart relative to whom?; And are chimps smart relative to each other, and just
“dumb” relative to humans?
It’s worth bringing up Natasha. A 25 year old chimp considered very
unique. Natasha has a very high IQ relative to other chimps. She has skills of
locating objects underneath a few shuffled containers. People can barely guess
correctly with the old man in San Francisco doing the same thing. An ability to
repeatedly escape the chimpanzee enclosure using planning skills. An ability to
disable an electric fence by throwing branches on it and observing the sparks.
Once the sparks stopped, Natasha knew the fence was disabled and proceeded
to climb it. She has the ability and skill to wield a special tool to avoid a trap
while locating hidden food.
Humans see this as un-spontaneous; purposeless, low minded monotony.
Not enough thrill. I wonder if they're aware that they can do more than
monkeys can in their spare time. Maybe humans should take on a chimpanzees
mindset, they seem like they have grasped the fundamentals and they seem
uncontrollably respectful to their species and habitat. They don't run around
and beat other animals up for fun. They're not smart or dumb enough to have
that thrill. They hunt, they harvest, they learn, and in their free time they play
together and rest together; seems very simple right? Maybe it’s too simple.
Maybe we just can’t handle having less smart stuff within us. What if the
development of the cerebral cortex was a bio evolutionary malfunction? Some
type of contamination that nature would never inflict on itself (being that we
are inseparable from nature). As a matter of opinion I think a personified
version of nature would religiously and specifically regard the Homo sapiens
as traditionally “Satanic”. Only stealing and never giving. No compassion for
they're environment. Just exploitation. They don't even care about the only
thing they WILL have for the entire duration of they're life. Their spoiled and
they appreciate nothing of depth. Just shallow exploited material products.
27
Things they should've been using to build each other up; but they’d rather
persist with breaking each other down. Going to war with each other and
spreading diseases amongst each other.
Likewise having a wave of cures for diseases that go unapplied. Claiming
that certain cures are just too expensive. Stealing from each other imprisoning
each other and perennial troduction. Making fun of each other and doing
everything aside from listening to each other. Now zoom out as that vast ocean
of possibility vanishes into a heaping pile of metaphorical pulp. Evidently the
entire thing was obvious. We have a current preference for individuality.
Implying that we ourselves are the building blocks of a community, (which I
am not disputing), but sometimes we believe we are less than that when we are
lonesome. We continue and we strive to emancipate ourselves from the masses.
While only capable of using the tools available through arbitrary parameters of
the proxy. Hence your brief flicker of a moment in this world and your
capacity on many different levels holds intrinsic dependency to the proxy. But
what is the proxy dependent on? Surely it needs to acquire something to
maintain dominance and order. What is the leeway?
Not ideologies, not religions, and not tyrants. Being that these things are
only recognized by human beings; yet we still maintain dominance over other
species. Sure animals recognize and understand who and what predators are
but the subtleties of a terrorist they catch no whim of; they understand who
mama and daddy are but cannot fathom a tyrant. You can definitely worsen
but not dehumanize those who are not human.
So the argument of us being "animals" that are naturalistically segregated
is neither the common denominator nor does it account for the dehumanizing
attributes we impute upon the world. We did this through slavery; a while ago.
We expressed this differently through animal domestication. Animal farming
for things such as clothing products, food, and pointless un-utilizable
souvenirs. Through the withholding of knowledge and resources for untenable
reasons. Through continuation of false integrity systems. Through generated
scarcity within economic practices (specifically monetarism). Trying to reach
legitimate sustainability and grasp some sense of pride and self-worth while
28
bounded to the gravity of an invented game. I wonder how long it's going to be
until nature no longer wants to play with us. I wonder where "help" is going to
come from when we need it most. I wonder how low we have to whisper or
how high we have to scream to command a favorable response. I wonder how
often we must pray after we waste it all. If you’re assuming that somehow these
things will save our environment, why haven’t they saved any other
impoverished nations? Many with very concentrated religions and preferences.
Sure, god can receive the extremely concentrated prayers coming from a
specific region. But how many got measurable responses. Absolutely none.
There’s not a hint of any help. Not governments, not prayers, not business,
nothing. If the trends continue, we will be screaming and begging to the point
of submission. And nature will go unresponsive to our screams. Our prayers
are mute to the laws of our planet.
The connection (if there is one in some dimension) is too contorted and
too persistently incompatible to understand what we want. Just as a man
pouring his heart out to his dead wife and she imaginably looks back in his
eyes but feels nothing. No translation system can relay the message. And her
body deteriorates regardless of how bad the man prays that she wakes up.
Now-Transitioning back to nature. A concentrated elite group of people and
industries have, for the most part unlimited access to valuable resources. But
how can this be if we live on a finite planet where resources are limited by
nature. Think about that, unlimited access to limited resources. Confidence in
this will one day be regarded as a sickness. The conductors of this proxy are
self-appointed through their classes. A type of competitive structure in which
the best players win the game. Consider what this really is though; let's say
hypothetically instead of an economic game resources were handed out based
on an athletic form of competition. If this had come to fruition then would it
not be equally as sickening? Or what if resources were accumulated through
the medium of mixed martial arts fights. Is this not demented? Do you really
think that decorated fighters would dispute a competitive structure that weighs
this heavy in their favor? What if this also came with a strict psychology in
which the guys who fought best were also considered the smartest, or the
29
hardest workers. Is it really sane to not dispute people being able to accumulate
+44% of the world’s wealth through their favorable circumstances in the ring?
Is this Humane? Or more importantly, is this sane?
30
8. CONSUMPTION
“Economics is all about consumption. People either spend
money now or they use financial instruments - like
bonds, stocks and savings accounts - so they can spend
more later.”
-Adam Davidson
For a modern economy to thrive, you need growth. You need resources to
produce and with no boundaries or inference incorporated into resource
output. Not only is this a mathematical breeder of resource overshoot, but the
expansion of the system itself is intrinsically expansive. And by design more
economic consumption demands more resource consumption. We need
nutritional goods for our bodies so obviously we will need to consume in that
manner. But outside of food what is it that you only realistically have to buy
once in your whole life. Something of external utility. Is this even feasible? Just
imagine quality goods being improved to near perfection. With technical utility
and access abundance being the goal. What would happen to the economy?
Perfect goods being sold. No intrinsic obsolescence, just maximization of
product integrity. After a certain amount of time. Profit would slow up.
Everyone is satisfied. No reason to spend money as often being that your
products are now made to last.
The proxy is now weaker. GDP is now slowing and the economy
technically "crashes". Normal people are freed and released from their
economic climates. Products are mechanically manufactured with the highest
amount of intrinsic recyclability. Their components scatter minimal pollution.
Many Native American tribes had a deep identification or self-respect for their
land. Their fables are allegorically meaningful and they demonstrated a careful
consensus. Disrespect of the land was considered disrespectful to everyone. Yet
the human affairs of early civilization were much more controllable than those
of today. Our technology has exceeded our practical use of it, and we now have
a global system that promotes infinite, conspicuous, and cyclical consumption.
If an economy had its eye on becoming sustainable, the first step is limiting
31
consumption. Not to the degree of generated scarcity, but a strategic allocation
of resources that ensures todays and tomorrows health. The current system has
historically been so wasteful that many people assume a scarce state of
resources. This is due to the monetary system implication that this artificial
economic scarcity is only in place because of real natural scarcity. Native
Americans had an estimated population of 12 million in the 1500’s. Yet more
Americans are starving now than any Native Americans worst dystopian
nightmare could ever predict. In 2014 it was reported that 6.9 million
households experienced very low food security. Native Americans faced
natural scarcity but nothing to this degree. If the gold standard had been
implemented in the year 1500 rather than the 1800’s there’s a very high
chance most of us current poor people would never have lived to witness it.
Big Thunder (Bedagi) Wabanaki Algonquin
"The Great Spirit is in all things, he is in the air we breathe.
The Great Spirit is our Father, but the Earth is our Mother. She
nourishes us, that which we put into the ground she returns to
us...."
George Copway (Kah-ge-ga-bowh) Ojibwa Chief 1818-1863
"Among the Indians there have been no written laws. Customs
handed down from generation to generation have been the only
laws to guide them. Every one might act different from what was
considered right did he choose to do so, but such acts would bring
upon him the censure of the Nation.... This fear of the Nation's
censure acted as a mighty band, binding all in one social, honorable
compact."
Lone Man (Isna-la-wica) Teton Sioux
"... I have seen that in any great undertaking it is not enough
for a man to depend simply upon himself."
These are felt in a special way and the astonishing thing is these views
were brought to fruition and popularized among the Native American culture
even prior to the Industrial Revolution. Before business truly became business
in an economic sense. Capitalism has run so deep into our psychology that it
has changed our language. The word “individuals” did not apply to persons
32
until the 1700’s and prior to the 1800’s the word career was a term used to
describe a horses race-life. It’s worth noting these Natives were people that
never witnessed radio transmission. They never witnessed air-conditioning,
neon lights, polygraph tests; they had not even a clue of the Egyptian pyramids.
They hadn't even seen a brick house yet. I regard these types of circumstances
as informatively fantastic.
From the same soil lived a notable man named Charles Manson, “I can't
judge any of you. I have no malice against you and no ribbons for you. But I
think that it is high time that you all start looking at yourselves, and judging
the lie that you live in." He also said, "No sense makes sense. You know, a long
time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy." I used to
brush every word that dear Charlie said right out of my hair along with all of
the other sane people, but now when I think about what he was saying, I can't
say that he was wrong.
33
9. EARLY MORNING TERRORISM IN FRANCE
"It's the nature of thought to find its way into action"
-Christian Nestell Bovee, a New York writer of the 1800's.
The list of terrorism seems like one that unfortunately will travel far into
the future and even further into the past. From The Sicarii, who were a first
century Jewish group who murdered enemies and collaborators in their
campaign to rid their Roman rulers of Judea. To The Hashhashin, whose name
evolved into the English word "assassin," who were secretive Islamics active in
Iran and Syria from the 11th to the 13th century; but a more modern view of
terrorism is a very dark vision. Perhaps because it’s closer to us in time than
the Sicarii.
In 1793, a secondary 11 month era began. During the French revolution
was an especially dark time referred to as the “reign of terror. Before there was
Osama bin laden, Saddam Hussein, or Dylan roof. There was another set of
terrorists. Arguably the first group ever referred to as terrorists. The Jacobins.
During the French Revolution there were two opposing parties; these were not
the only ones but they are definitely worth noting. They were a rather passive
but invulnerable a party known as The Girondists. Their mannerisms were well
accepted and for a lack of better words they "fit in" better than many others did.
It was reflected in their clothing, their posture, and there ideologies. Their
intentions were ordinarily pure. And they were far from unscrupulous. If you
were to meet one back then you would find them in our own terms to be
“standup men.” Women would be included in this but in 1790 France; things
were rather different than they are now in 2015. There were empresses,
queens, and princesses, but back then they acquired their political positions
through the inherited dominance of their male counterparts, in a much more
direct way.
Then came the Jacobins. The Jacobins favored changing France from a
monarchy to a democratic republic. In the 1700’s, such an interest was
considered radical. These radicals sentenced thousands to the guillotine,
including Marie Antoinette, widow of King Louis XVI. Their Ulterior motives
34
were nothing less than condemned by the Girondist Party. The Jacobins knew
this. The Girondists proposal for territorial safeguards went unaccepted. They
began to realize the path that their enemies’ auspiciousness would lead them.
The star they were watching through a telescope was now visual with the
naked eye alone. Their prior concentrated power became threatened. The
revolution was in motion and seemingly inevitable. A war with Austria
commenced and ended in absolute failure for the French. The Girondists
supported the war and upon losing accepted no responsibility being that they
technically could not make the decision to send a nation to war, regardless of
how much they influenced the decision, they left these worries for the king.
In October 1792, Jean-Nicolas Pache, the Minister of War at that time
left the Girondists and joined the Jacobins. The War Office became the meeting
place of the Jacobins; and Pache also put his influence in many ways at their
disposal. The trial and execution of the king solidified a revolutionary path. A
linear path of necessary change that brought on unpredictable consequences.
When Pache joined the Jacobin party, he was removed from the war office and
elected as the new mayor of Paris. This transition enabled the Jacobins security
and they accumulatively inherited power over the commune of Paris.
1793 was an easily predictable time of destabilization. Jean-Marie Roland
or simply "Manon" lead the Girondist party as a Minister of Interior in 17921793. In the midst of the "Reign of Terror" just after resigning from his
position, he was attacked. He left his family and escaped from Paris; and in his
absence, was sentenced to death. There was a hit out on him, to use the mafias’
language. His wife was captured and killed. Upon receiving this news he
wrote.
"From the moment when I learned that they had murdered my wife, I
would no longer remain in a world stained with enemies."
This note was found attached to his chest upon discovery of his corpse.
Along with his cane sword shoved through his chest and heart. The revolution
expanded; they had reliable prominent leaders, they had control over the Paris
commune, and their clubs had solid backing all over the nation. Their military
35
forces increased and they had a powerful influence over the National Guard.
On June, 1793, the National Convention was coerced by the Jacobins and the
Paris Commune into demanding the arrest of 22 leaders of the Girondist party.
Needless to say, they were all apprehended, and killed.
Some of them even chanted the Marseillaise (translation on following
page) until they were gone. The Marseillaise was only one year old at this time,
though it wasn't officially declared until 1795. On the grand scale the "reign of
terror" was a dark place in history but to a Girondist living in the late 1700s
the terror was a little more terrible.
Even the national anthem of the French Republic encapsulates the
mindset of the people from that time. The first original six verses were written
by one person but he understood the place of his peers and spoke for them
boldly. The same way a musician from this era can make a song that
represents, corresponds, and appeals to a specific population. To use our
language, they knew what was "in style." The fact that it was actually accepted
by the population is even more extraordinary. The revolutionary associations
the hymn held were politically undermining. The last thing anyone in power
would want is promotion of a "revolution". Being that this song was composed
in the midst of one; it was a dangerous annoyance to many political figures.
Napoleon banned this song during his empire. Louis XVIII banned it during the
Bourbon restoration in the year 1815. The content was just too revolutionary.
It was then authorized after the July Revolution; it was again banned by
Napoleon III and not reinstated until almost 50 years in 1879.
36
The Reign of Terror made its mark and it keeps its historical pivot just
outside of our sight. And briefly we get glimpses of this linear format of
repetitious terrorism. It seems terrorism always comes to fruition via political
portals. Our peacetime is interrupted because of the conditions of a current or
past wartime. This is why people say “learn your history, so it’s not repeated.
Has this wisdom-filled phrase ever shown itself to be valid? How do we
explain the seemingly everlasting perennial wars? The July Revolution of 1830
sometimes referred to as the Second French Revolution sparked a small but
grand artifact. Eugène Delacroix, a French painter, painted an image. An image
commemorating the July Revolution, in which he personally witnessed, called
37
"Liberty Leading the People." An allegorical woman known by the French as
Marianne is seen brandishing a musket rifle in one hand and the national flag
of France in the other. She is seen as leading the French over fallen bodies
towards liberation. Suggesting the collective kamikaze is necessary for liberty.
Such a prideful and noble relic, that a variation of the woman (a woman that
looked very close to the goddess of liberty) was sculpted and given to the
United States as a gift in the 1800's. But gods, goddesses, and divine
representation were far from abnormal.
(Above is the painting called “Libety Leading the Peope.”)
38
10. CULTURAL MYTHOLOGY & COLD SCIENCE
“My eyes are constantly wide open to the extraordinary
fact of existence. Not just human existence, but the
existence of life and how this breathtakingly powerful
process, which is natural selection, has managed to take
the very simple facts of physics and chemistry and build
them up to redwood trees and humans.”
-Richard Dawkins
The Native Americans, Greek, Chinese, Northern Australians, Irish,
Ancient Sumerians, Pagans, and Kiwis all supported theism stemming from the
cultural mythology of the demographic. Even currently, the social order seems
magnetically religious. Persisting indomitably through our thoughts and even
resonating with our circumstantial vulnerability. We even gravitate towards
these in the face of their debunking. But emerging is a useful phenomenon. A
possible enlightenment. Something empirical. Something that doesn't create
reality, but interrogates it. The scientific method.
In the past couple of years I began to see how people who thought that
they weren't in favor of the scientific method were boldly referring to it as cold
science. Cold meaning, not like us, or not enough warmth. No empathy, No
compassion, and No feelings. Encouragement of secularism has been harshly
vilified by almost all religious populations. Their identity to their religion is
jeopardized by empirical uncovering. In recent history, scientific progression
highlighted religious fallibility.
Religion is faith based. Faith means belief in something with no proof or
evidence. (Faith will also be discussed in later chapters) If you were on trial for
a murder, which you didn't commit then I guarantee you would want your
case to depend on evidence and proof rather than faith from the jury to your
guilt; because the decision is actually important. This is the exact same way we
need to approach nature and the environment we share. Creation on any level
is not conducted by religious demands but by natural standards. Creation is not
a free-of-principle event. All creation must follow a blueprint set by natural
39
law. Science does not create the laws, but attempts to understand them.
Airplanes, boats, medicine etc. resonate with this. Science is the only reason we
even exist today; I’ll explain: in terms of population.
(Notice the tremendous increase just after the industrial revolution began)
Prior to the industrial revolution (hence science) we weren't able to
control the land through agriculture, animal domestication, and various other
methods the way we do now, so the population correlated with the available
resources and methods at that time. Looking back before the 18th century the
idea of overpopulation is not even reasonable.
Roughly 6.5% of all people that have ever lived are alive right now and you
are one of them but what would your chances be if the industrial revolution
never happened. In the 1700s there were 610 million people on this planet.
There are now about 7.2 billion. The increase after the 1700’s was nothing short
of exponential. (About 11 times higher) So if overpopulation truly is the
problem, I would much rather take my chances and live overpopulated than to
erase the era that enabled my life. Being that most of us, if not all of us would not
40
be here right now if it weren't for the emergence of science. The population
increased at a figure of 300 million people from the 1600’s to the 1800’s. if you
add this 300 million every 200 years like the population pattern has shown to be
prior to the industrial revolution, the grand figure would not reach 6 billion
until the year 3400. Hence, if the industrial revolution never had occurred then
a person who was born in the year 2000 mathematically would not have been
born until the year 3400. Excluding science would postpone your birth for
roughly 1,676 years. Your existence is owed to science without a single doubt.
We went from hunting and gathering to harvesting and producing. This
enabled 2 things. Sustainability of the demographic and agricultural
expansion. Now this has evolved into an industrialized process called
Globalization. It was not initially predicted to be this way although the effects
have still persisted. Does religion hold a place in population causality? Of
course not, nevertheless; should religion be banned and outlawed in the name
of science? No absolutely not it should simply be directed to its place where it
can be utilized best.
Politics is clearly not the best utilization of a religion. Being that personal
actions made by the recognized monarchs are inevitably subject to fallacious
compartmentalizations, or bonding of religious standards put forth by the
religious literature and the personal actions of the clergy. Being that they both
possess the same multi-interpreted premise of more deserving and less
deserving based once again on elite arbitrary parameters. The ideologies are
contextually wonderful and the allegories are moving and inspiring even to an
atheist. But what do they tell us about our planet? What do they tell us about
our diseases? About our snakes? Our pigs? Our oceans. Our sheep. For a long
time I rejected other people's religions from my studies. Slowly throughout my
social experience I realized that I couldn't reject them in real life. It was too
mysterious. It was two intriguing and eventually I cracked. So I read the bible
and I subscribe to a monthly bulletin for Buddhism, in which my Japanese
family members practice. Within just the first few pages of reading the bible I
noticed that there were extremely spurious connections between the Earth as it
exists in the literature, and the earth as it exists in reality. It has also ripened a
41
geocentric foundation strongly and confidently for generations and ages. But
leaving our religious paradigms for empirical naturalism has taken the mask
off and revealed the heliocentric truth of our universe. Excluding our spiritual
explanations has literally lifted us. But the most notable part of this is the fact
that the religion created the Geocentrists and not the other way around; being
that the geocentric approach is false in grand astrological terms it only leaves
room for: more questions, a loss of trust and confidence, and an inevitable
necessity for vivid interrogation of the book. Geocentrism grandly is provably
wrong; the quantifications supporting this claim have been proven publicly so
I won't go into those in this book. Geocentrism is described as having or
relating to the earth as the center. Or the belief that the earth is the center
point of the solar system.
After the telescope came to fruition observers noticed that other planets
had their own moons. The first observed planet that holds this true aside from
earth is Jupiter as Edwin Hubble discovered. Earth was not the center of these
moons. Hubble’s discovery was not just a discovery of science but a proven
truth. Consider this: the planet earth has 1 moon and the planet Jupiter has 60+
moons, Haumea has 2 moons, Neptune 14, Uranus 27, and Saturn 62. Why is
the tiny spec in space with only one moon so much more special to the
universe? Also why do the 2 planets closest to the sun never alter their orbits to
include earth in the center? Yet the religious literature still suggests that earth
was created for us, then destroyed for us, then refurbished for us, and we are
now “awaiting”.
This showed me that religion is not a trivia but a very complex &
disconnected psychology. Many of the things within scripture are simply
wrong. So a value system can’t possibly be adequate when its entire
orchestration is based on ideas that are presented as fact, but are absolutely
false. To change the context a bit: What does this say about the religious values
promoted? Are the values derived from correctness? You see the questions that
I demand from the supporting beliefs of God are asked no more harshly than
the questions I demand from any other claim. Being that the premise of the
spirituality is in linear harmony with a false interpretation of the world. Most
42
of the values from all religions are positive but it is this "religious self-denial of
the allegory" that makes most religious people seem like delusional extremists
to the ones attempting to understand the values. Because to except the
characterized prophet as a real person or any other biblical character from any
other story as real, but to not believe in the said environment that this “real”
person existed in is intellectually spurious so when people tell me they believe
in Jesus but they don't believe the earth is flat when the Bible promotes them
both equally I have nothing to work with. I only suggest that the values be
associated with the values and the allegorical environment of religious
literatures be understood just as that. The separation of the two helps the
values persist as values. When they are joined they both become fables. And no
more values can be absorbed by a person with questions.
For more specifics I recommend The Flat-Earth Bible © 1987, 1995 by Robert
J. Schadewald
Also just to highlight how stubborn we are as humans. The constitution
written in 1776 has for generations been criticized for its antiquity. Much of
this criticism has also come from politicians. But the religious scriptures hold
more stubborn egos. Proof of this is on the very last page of the bible. I’ll leave
you to it. The bibles scientific integrity is minimal in terms of true reality. But
they are empathetically understandable when considering their astrotheological origins.
It may very well be criticized today for its antiquity, but was considered
very efficient at the time of its emergence. The number 7 mysteriously acquired
relevance. Not through hogwash fairy tales such as the seven-year doom given
to you through a broken mirror; but through the interpreted heaven that we
now call outer space. The Greek word for "heaven" is “Ouranos” (the same
word relative to the name of the planet Uranus), in-coincidentally the 7th
planet from the sun. Which suggest the refurbishing of the literature. If these
ancient researchers had no clue of the moons surrounding Jupiter they
definitely would have no clue of the existence of Uranus beings that Uranus is
even beyond Saturn. There are the seven deadly sins and the seven contrary
virtues humility against pride, kindness against envy, abstinence against
43
gluttony, chastity against lust, patience against anger, liberality against envy,
and diligence against sloth. The ancient seven heavenly bodies and their days
the moon is Monday, Mercury is Wednesday, Venus is Friday, the Sun is
Sunday, Mars is Tuesday, Jupiter is Thursday, and Saturn is Saturday. The seven
virtues are faith, hope, charity, fortitude, justice, prudence, and temperance.
The seven stages of the soul in Sufi are compulsion, conscience, inspiration,
tranquility, submission, servant, and perfected. The Native Americans who
discovered the seven endocrine glands which are pineal, pituitary, thyroid,
thymus, adrenal, pancreas, and gonads.
"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had
made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which
he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it:
because that in it he had rested from all his work which God
created and made."- [Genesis 2:1-3]
“For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As
I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest:
although the works were finished from the foundation of the
world. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this
wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. And in
this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. Seeing therefore
it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it
was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: Again, he
limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a
time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not
your hearts. For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not
afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore
a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest,
he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let
us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall
after the same example of unbelief.” [Hebrews 4:3-11]
The fact that the biblical world has seven days implies that these writers
had knowledge of the 24 hour equinox. Some people even believe that the 7
days of the week were already established, though we read the scripture and
assume the sacredness of the bible is “making predictions.” This understanding
44
could only be derived at from 2 places; the planet earth in which takes 23
hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds to rotate on its axis; and the planet Mars, in
which takes 24 hours 39 minutes and 35 seconds to rotate on its axis in Earth
time. We are realizing that the relationship between human relevance and the
mystification of the sky and its debriac inhabitants could only develop from the
inside out. So it’s not 100% incorrect. Just in need of calibration, as is anything
antiquated. The perceived entity of god in every grand religion when traced to
its foundation holds an intrinsic astro-theological relationship with nature.
(God is constantly referred to as the Sun.) The real life astronomy mystified
people and their only recourse was to personify it, so we were then created and
I quote "in gods’ image". We are humans; so according to the absolute biblical
dynamics he must've been at least similar to us. Maybe a little better per se, but
at least relative. So what characteristics did he have that we lack? And the
questions continue to infinity for someone who needs more than "faith" (belief
absent evidence) to believe.
Faith is dangerously congratulated and promoted strongly. Even in the
face of glaring undeniable disproval. This is why the separation between belief
in the values of Religion and The belief in Religious literature in its entirety is
necessary. From this point on, let’s assume that this is understood.
45
11. TERROR MANAGEMENT THEORY & POLITICAL SUPERSTITION
“Who knows what true loneliness is - not the
conventional word but the naked terror? To the lonely
themselves it wears a mask. The most miserable outcast
hugs some memory or some illusion.”
-Joseph Conrad
So why different religions? Why not a universal one if any? Why do we
even need one? In social psychology there is something called "terror
management theory" TMT. Humans desire life whether it is their own or the
preference to procreate; life is desired. Death is an inevitable consequence of
life. When you fuse these two truths together you end up with an inner conflict
called terror. And people will accept anything before they except their own
terror. What if there was more terror on the other side of mortality.
This is referred to as hell. It is terrible there. Being that human’s desire life
and most religions promote possible pleasure on the other side of mortality
rather than more terror is perfectly ripe to gain support from people. If
absolutely everything that was in the Bible remained in the Bible, but you
subtracted all notions of heaven and hell how much control would the Bible
have over you? How much will you then believe in it? Where would your faith
go? Do you believe in it because you actually see the reality of it around you or
do you want to believe in it because of your inner-conflicts? The terror
management theory suggests that self-esteem is a personal subjective measure
of how well you are living up to your cultural values. In addition self-esteem
gives meaning to your life as an individual; cultural values gives meaning to
life itself. But cultures can also magnify this theory.
They can respect and even honor a religious kamikaze. Blending a real
life terror with a theoretical pleasure and people’s minds are so diluted by this
dogmatic extremism that this is the option they root for. Out of all the things
people can be doing throughout their lives and they literally choose to sacrifice
themselves rather than trying to live a healthy life for as long as they can. It
makes perfect sense when you consider how terrifying the punishment after
46
death is. So where is the place for us to grasp ourselves? Has our culture
consumed us and have we lost control of our direction? Yes. But the compass is
not far from our reach. Throughout my time as a music producer I understood
that when I would start off on a project I had a linear idea of how it would end
up and 100% of the time the outcome was different than what I expected and
this is incredibly powerful considering that I had 100% control over the
production. Although this does not explain culture per say, I am trying to
demonstrate human unpredictability and the importance and necessity of a
reroute.
When a plane takes off it doesn't just end up on another airports runway
by aerodynamic nature. The very first direction is not the entire route to the
destination. The plane needs to be turned and rerouted. The altitude and
autopilot need to be edited for bad weather circumstances. The plane needs to
change for the entire duration of the flight. So when you look in the mirror
and tell yourself you don't need to change; think about where a plane would
end up if step number one was the only step. The constructive necessity of a
reroute is one that should never be overlooked. Never is said emphatically.
Signs of this ideal are loudly echoing through political literature such as
the constitution and all ancient religious literatures. The United Kingdom has
no Constitution unlike the United States of America. Yet their overall crime
rates are 16% lower than they are in the United States. In fact, in the category
of violent hate crimes United Kingdom is 20% lower than the United States. In
the category of worry about being robbed or mugged the United States is 7%
higher than the United Kingdom. In the category of worries of your car being
stolen the United States is a whopping 32% higher than the United Kingdom.
Worries about burglary 13% higher. Worries of property being stolen from
your car 41% higher. Illegal drugs 13% higher. Corruption and bribery is
double in the United States than in the United Kingdom. Violent crimes such as
assault and arm robbery are double what they are in the United Kingdom.
Property crimes such as vandalism and theft once again 13% higher than they
are in the United Kingdom. I wonder how much different the statistics would
be if the United Kingdom adopted the United States Constitution in 1776;
47
additionally for giggles, we can call this hypothetical literature the United
Kingdom Constitution; but if this literature is hypothetical and statistically the
absence of a constitution leaves the public better off in many areas what
purpose does the United States Constitution serve? What would the USA be like
if our Constitution was only hypothetical? One can say that the absence of a
constitution can’t account for all of these, but isn’t the constitution the premise
of America? In the United Kingdom anything that we would consider
constitutionally applicable is sourced within other mediums; such as national
and international treaties, court judgments, and statutes; but are these
documents arriving from the same level of public willful servitude?; or are
they necessary due to the structurally coercive nature of sociopolitical
ratification. I say sociopolitical emphatically. No political decisions are made
based within absolute political guidelines. This is why politicians have no
interest in changing laws that are no longer enforced. This means that there is
always a social attribute to political ratification. A homosexual politician has
no interest in voting against laws that support his social class. Regardless of
how retroactively positive or negative the consequences of that decision are
predicted to be. This is why it is important for our leaders to be socially
diversified. This is the intrinsic error of documents like the Constitution. The
sociopolitical views of the elite in the 1700's fundamentally mirrored each
other's. If most of government officials were motorcycle enthusiasts, then the
laws would reflect accordingly. But if they outlaw motorcycles, then the
motorcycle enthusiasts within the citizenry will be rendered socially inferior.
They have now lost the game being that they have no political representation.
The only way for them to put a piece back on the board is through a
revolution. Their political elasticity is absent; therefore engaging a political
route is self-defeating. In a structure in which 51% can render out 49% of
people’s interest, the more even the numbers are the more danger the conflict
can possess. The losers’ demands of a 99%-1% outcome within a middle-class
population are neglectfully ignored at best. Being that the 99% will remain
unthreatened by the opposing census alone.
If the situation at hand seems morally antiquated in comparison to the
dominant group or if it possesses notions of religious values that are not in
48
accord with the dominant ones of the time and region, then the losers will most
likely seem like nothing but a political inconvenience. The merit of any
political structure will decrease in a time of unfavorable participation. This is
part of the reason Native Americans and the Amish communities are exempt
from areas of politics. But why? The Amish Society accounts for almost nothing
within the system in proportion to the rest of the population. Generally they
live materialistically minimal and they just want to be left alone. They rarely if
ever continue their education past eighth grade; but even the low cultural
importance of 2 inferior groups was not enough to bring them together. In fact
they became enemies briefly. I recommend you research the “Hochstetler
Massacre.” Native Americans under the command of the French proceeded
multiple home invasion murders and arsons. Over 200 Amish lives were taken
in this genocide.
Native Americans on the other hand are the receivers of the bloodiest
genocide to ever have taken place in human history. Aside from the casualties
caused by the market system structure. Treaties published in the mid-1800s
encapsulate European guilt brightly. This was the entire premise of the
Supreme Court case between the Seminole tribe and the United States. Why
else would they welcome a case made by the most socially inferior people of
the land into the judicial system that they created? The place I grew up in is
called Tuolumne County. Tuolumne meaning "the land of mountain lions" or
"many stone houses". It is the land of the Mi-Wuk tribe. There are Native
American medical centers, native casinos, native housing authorities, and
native education programs. I couldn't find anything of the sort for the Jewish
populations in Germany; given the genocidal parallel between them. Maybe
the Americans are just a little more giving. Or are they? Even the name
America was given to the Western hemisphere by Martin Waldseemüller a
German cartographer. In honor of Amerigo Vespucci. An Italian cartographer
and explorer of the mid 1400's. The British added the United States part
centuries later.
The arrival of the Europeans in the Western Hemisphere was an
extremely positive thing, if you were European. All you saw was opportunity
49
and possibilities. The natives’ beliefs were similar but not parallel to religious
beliefs of the invaders from the eastern hemisphere. They identified nature
with no intellectual understanding of its functionality. The ramifications of this
ethos are ever-prevalent in the current era. Many people feel that they have a
particular relationship with the clouds also as we will discuss in later chapters.
50
12. CONFRONTING THE NATIVES
"We humans long to be connected with our origins so
we create rituals, science is another way to express
this longing, it also connects us with our origins and it
too has its rituals and it's Commandments, it's only
sacred truth, is that there are no sacred truths."
-Carl Sagan
The Natives’ personification of nature is what comprised the universe and
the humans that were actually people were the minority in this context. They
referred to other human beings as Innu. This means real people. Environmental
forces such as the wind, the rain, the sun, the earth itself, streams, plants,
mountains, and animals were referred to as other-than-human persons. They
believe that the sun encouraged vegetation to either grow or burn out. Some of
the plants grew fruit and the Native Americans felt nurtured and rightfully so.
They were fully aware of their privileged position in the food chain. There was
a sense of elemental forces being gods with very complicated preferences and
personalities. This psychological framework rendered the natives inevitably
defenseless when they became the consequence of British greed.
The British wanted gold as the natives wanted divine nourishment and
environmental purity. Trade was understood as beneficial but at the cost of the
environment was out of the question. After all, they identified with their land.
The relationship between man and land is even evident in the names of streets
and neighborhoods currently. Small isolated areas with all Spanish names; or
all Native American names. This is ripe to be seen as much more than a
coincidence. When you consider many of the local and international
monuments left here from history. When the Native Americans saw the first
French boat come to shore, they understood this to be an other than human
entity. Scholars of Native American history referred to them as “ancestral
progenitors.” This Assumption was literally deadly. They were mystified by the
sail used on the boat and most of the natives understood the boat itself to be a
moving piece of land; a mobile Island. After all at this point in time they were
only familiar with their own miniature boats or canoes in which they only
51
used in local ponds rivers and non-tidal lakes with minimal currents they
wouldn't dare assess the ocean and chance a title wave nor would they risk
“falling-off” the side of the earth. These rivers and lakes were also with the
routes that Native Americans took to trade with each other. On the other side
of the world technology was producing ships, making the ocean commutable.
Nevertheless, upon this British arrival they created a relationship of
reciprocity. They traded advanced stage weaponry (from the Native Americans
point of view) for maps of the land, beaver skin, deerskin, and corn. Looking
back at it now it's clear to see that these trades were not parallel even remotely.
Only trading hatchets and copper instead of firearms suggest that the
Europeans understood the magnitude of the dominance they were preparing to
inflict. They also brought along with them hemorrhagic fevers (very similar to
Ebola). Along with many other epidemics such as measles, chickenpox,
influenzas, and mumps. We don't consider these things deadly at this point in
time because we've come up with a process to diagnose and treat the
sicknesses, but at one point in time they were considered plagues.
The treatments unfortunately did not exist in the early 1600s. All of these
sicknesses existed in Europe before they existed in America. This hints that the
Europeans brought it with them so not only did the Europeans ban natives
from their own homeland through coercion and genocide, but they brought
the first European paradigm to the western hemisphere. A paradigm that was
nowhere close to mature enough to be absorbed by a new found land. Looking
back at this from a current point of view you can see that the biggest threat to
Native Americans was their own beliefs.
Whether they were culturally culminated or whether they were possessed
through religious inevitability. Their downfall and near extinction was not
primarily because of the beliefs of the Europeans. They held much emphasis on
the values manifested from mystification. Ancient antiquated frames of
reference that no longer had absolute benefits nor was there merited
sufficiency. So who do we blame do we blame the first person to ever introduce
the framework of modifiable religion and its intrinsic fallibilities. Do we blame
the individuals who don't except the evolutionary characteristics of the ideas
52
presented. Do we blame the people who except their prophet as carnal, but
don't except the world that they lived in as equally real? What is really worth
blaming?
Is it worth blaming the millions upon billions of individual people for
what they assume they choose to believe; or the foundational psychological
vertebrae that brings to fruition and perpetuates ancient ideas absent the
recognition that their premises are evolutionary? The same laziness was
committed when I was a kid when I asked what the moon is made of. Instead of
telling me a real answer, they replied, "cheese". Again when I asked where
babies came from. Instead of a real answer and I really do mean real answer. I
was told god.
I asked for the real answer because if I were to ask for the truth and the
truth was not distinguishable from the mystified medium that we receive the
truth from then there is no Way to determine that the answer is real in terms
of empirical reality. This is important because we need for our framework to
relate to us directly in a tangible sense. To put this into another context when
you go to the dentist you must be numb because you cannot pray away the
pain. Another proof of this is that when you get sick you take medicine instead
of praying for your health or condemning the attack of harmful demons. If it is
believed that God truly did flood the earth then it subtracts merit from the real
causation of the flood. Either you accept that god literally caused the flood or
you are simply replacing the words “Natural Law” or “Nature” with “god”.
For example the people who perished and the ones who survived; but
experienced; Hurricane Katrina folks whom were deeply embedded in
religious material and identified their existence and demise to a flood had to
have felt undeterminably sacrificial. Just imagine experiencing Hurricane
Katrina in a time in which no modern technology existed and people in
Louisiana have no clue that any other place in the world even exists. So even if
a flood did happen at some point in the past, it still does not constitute the
Christian Myth of Noah as valid. Nature itself could’ve caused the flood. So
there is no necessity for supernaturalism. Being that god has no role in the
chain of events, and if you believe that he does; you are simply replacing the
53
word Nature with god.
Hurricane Katrina: A 7 day naturally spawned event of unwanted purity
was commenced. The aftermath was nothing short of terrible but I saw one
piece of hope in the watery wreckage. All of The mainstream media outlets
referred to it as a natural disaster if they didn't take consideration to the
hurricane and they only focused on the construction of the levees that broke
they still chose to refer to it as a disaster. Of the roughly 607,000 words that
exist as of now in the English language they chose the word disaster to
represent a flood. Yet we don't look at the intense waves of the Antarctic
smashing against glaciers and call that a disaster and we also don't look at 100
foot waves in the ocean as disasters but when they hurt people it affects us and
we consider them disastrous. This is how I know that with our efforts
combined with our capabilities we can come to conclusions incorporated with
empathy using our natural medium of sympathy and intellectual capacity as
the tools.
I understand this may be hard to internalize; but when it seems like
something disastrous is hurting people, we have a tendency to outlaw and
condemn the event itself which is pointless or we religiously acknowledge the
event with a parallel between the actual event that presented itself empirically
and the biblical event that seems similar. The unfalsifiable nature of not just
biblical literature but ideologies that we have stumbled and will stumble upon
repetitively, need a direction. And I don't mean a direction in a metaphysical
sense, I mean actionable direction. What will we do? The same orientation I'm
suggesting we use with each other can also be used throughout existing
religions to comprise a universal understanding of our terrestrial relationship.
Focusing on our commonalities rather than our differences.
"The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our
blood, the carbon in our Apple pies, we are made in the interiors
of collapsing stars; we are made of star stuff."-Carl Sagan
54
13. ENVIRONMENTAL DEMANDS
"Absorb what is useful, discard what is not, add what is
uniquely your own."
-Bruce Lee
Step number one to respecting each other is respecting each other's
environment. This is a fundamental absolute requirement when it comes to
relating to each other constructively. We learn more and more about ourselves
and we nurture and Flourish through the common playground of the
environment. Disregard for the environment is blatant disrespect to the
inhabitants of that environment. So we need to ask ourselves the question:
what does health-based conductivity demand from the environment and what
does it demand from us?
From the environment it demands minimal pollution, minimal resource
exploitation, support of bio diversity, life-support systems on the incline rather
than declining, an environmentally respectable amount of material comfort
and most importantly sustainability. And what does it demand from us; an
educated public, a low or no stress economic system, detaching status from
materialism, a parallel manner of reaching conclusions, accepting science as
the empirical route to efficiency and sustainability, and setting sustainable
humane parameters that allows sustainable and humane behavior to be
supported and rewarded.
The carcinogenic attributes of monetarism will inevitably lead to 5 things.
1. Resource exploitation- Being that growth is the measurement of
successfulness. And resources are being irresponsibly sold while more efficient
methods and products made with higher efficiency, intrinsic recyclability
(other than intrinsic obsolescence), and minimal waste are underutilized. .
When considering the efficiency of technology coupled with a system that
praises consumption, you see how the abuse of resources for production of
goods is fully credited to nonstrategic automation. Now we are stuck in a place
rooting for both of these contradictory aspects and resources and energy are
55
simply being wasted.
2. Continual War- Because it's too profitable and the attribute of scarcity
will inevitably lead to conflict. People who don’t have much will be willing to
fight over the scarce resources they do have. So when a people come with
intentions of exploiting those resources which is exactly what a “growth
economy” does. The conflict will prevail. The unfortunate thing is war has
become so perineal that peace is now understood as “the moments before the
next war.”
3. Class stratification/ discrimination- Poor impoverished families enable
upper classes through labor exploitation which is soft slavery; and taxation
which is theft. These classes are distinctly separated through the use of these
tools. Many economists attribute the act of labor without a gun to someone’s
head as non-exploitive, because the immediate threat of death or physical pain
is absent from a particular exchange. And some even go to the extreme as to
reduce all trade to a theoretical voluntarist perspective, reducing all the
mechanisms of the market system to the idea of literally passing a pencil to
someone as they pass a dollar bill back to you. This is a truncated frame of
reference that literally excludes all other factors and circumstances of the
market to, “free voluntary trade.”
4. Unemployment- The inevitable yet natural rise of technology;
mechanization and cybernetics are far too productive and efficient in
comparison to human labor. Look at any producer and compare the amount of
people working in that field currently to the number of people that worked in
that field 75 years ago. Machines don't need lunch breaks, vacations, or any
personal satisfaction. A machine is an employer’s dream come true. When you
consider cost efficiency of a business, the first thing that comes to mind is “how
much do I have to spend and how much profit can I anticipate?” Many people
forget that cost efficiency is a mechanism that is used to dictate retirement
pensions, salary and hourly wages, vacations, health care through employers
etc. The cost efficiency mechanisms cannot allow a very populated city which
has capable technology that not only displaces human labor with no structural
safety net (which means less money for a person, which means less likely to
56
stay healthy and survive), but also increases productivity
5. Natural gravitation towards power- The state as we know it has a strict
market responsibility to stop monopolies. Inversely the state also bails out
corporations who suffer the losing end of a monopoly. As you may know
political lobbying is ensuring that money can buy influence so the incentive to
maintain dominance over others is a natural outgrowth of a system based on
competition. Removing the entity of the state does not guarantee that this
natural gravitation towards power consolidation will be designed out because
removal of the state does not change the incentive of dominance. In order to
rid the system of this unfortunate sickness we have to get rid of its
psychological place. Simply removing the state is like taking a pistol away from
a serial killer and thinking he'll never kill again because you took away his
weapon. It needs to be understood that the problem is not in the weapon the
problem is in the game. With this understood what are our options?
Given the state of science. The technical evolution holds a prominent
relationship to the interest of human health. Whether the occurrence is
medical and benefits you in absolute terms directly or whether we use it with
intentions of relieving us from the scarcity driven naturalistic walks of life
indirectly. Such as windmills to generate electricity to power the heating
system in your house and ocean tides as well if you’re fortunate enough to live
close to the beach. Or methods of minimal pollution to convert our practices
towards healthy sustainable bio diversity; to encourage natural eco systemic
cleansing processes. The only measurable denominator that denotes and infers
the composition of a healthy human or population is the environment. The
resulted behavior acquired through the ecosystem if you will is coined
environmental conditioning. Two broad angles must be approached and both
exist within each other.
The absolute natural and necessary set of needs or commonalities that are
required by the human organism to survive in its current biological condition.
The relative set of properties required by a specific community or a
specific circumstance in order to ensure social stability and personal health.
57
Which transfers directly into the social stability of the community and public
health.
If these two factors are not assessed and gaged through a medium
unbiased, or through a process in which currently existing mishaps can be
converted into direct support for a healthy community, the problems and
solutions will continue to be misplaced and the integrity of positive outcomes
can be dimmed as the integrity and fruition of negative outcomes can be
foreseen and perpetuated. Can I say for certain that every existing mishap of
today can be politically molded into a guaranteed benefit for tomorrow? No.
Can I say for certain that we don't have to fear a nuclear war and a possible
6th extinction tomorrow? Quite frankly, no. Can I say that starvation won't
exist in even 100 years of "progress" if we don't change our system?
Apologetically, no. This is the line of questioning that deserves our devotion.
However, we are locked into a paradigm of misunderstood, misaligned, and
distorted value sets. We have been given a fixed set of eyes and a singleangular vision that disables us to differentiate between things like affordability
and deserving.
Primarily because the mechanisms within this system have no means of
measuring what is deserved without calculating what is afforded. In this
climate they are inseparable. It promotes a psychological indoctrination that
won't support its own evolution. In the words of John Mcmurtry, “We are now
in the midst of the cancer stage of capitalism.”
Imagine a fish that lives in a lake and the contents of the lake begin to
change but the fish’s genes won't adapt to the emerging environment; the
passing of genetic information has a survivalist duty of letting growing cells
know what form they need to take to prevent gene death. If the adaptation is
not made then the parasites will kill the host. The ecosystem on the grand scale
is everything but consistent when the timeline is considered and planetary
operation is understood in a continuum context. Not a culturally favorable
context such as “yesterday” or “tomorrow” or the “day after tomorrow.” These
are simply measurements that we are equipped to use to determine our place.
Rather than the impossible task of determining our time.
58
14. WE LIVE HERE
“Our entire system, in an economic sense, is based on
restriction. Scarcity and inefficiency are the movers of
money; the more there is of any resource the less you
can charge for it. The more problems there are, the
more opportunities there are to make money.”
-Peter joseph
Recently I noted four different reports of oil companies dumping toxic
waste into people’s water supplies. They are all public record.
The publications are titled:
1.
BP, Chevron Accused Of Illegally Dumping Toxic Radioactive Drilling
Waste Into Louisiana Water.
2.
Texas County Tries to Stop Illegal Dumping of Oil Waste.
3.
Natural gas companies fined for dumping, Town of Owego.
4.
Ohio company accused of dumping drilling waste.
The underestimated effects of pollution are nothing short of empirically
ignorant. The damage is so prevalent that when we actually understand how
much strife and suffering is in the future waiting for us we will wisely
gravitate towards the best method of correction that we know currently, which
is the scientific method. The next stage in our technical evolution will hold a
newfound location routed from mutual empathy through the environment and
longevity of good health. It will focus on cleansing the ecosystem and
emphasizing the importance of organic clarity. If you still misunderstand this
here is a common experiment with the mathematical example that may help
you grasp this.
59
Exponential growth patterns
Bacteria grow by division so that 1 bacterium becomes 2, the 2 divide to
give 4, the 4 divide to give 8, etc. Consider a hypothetical strain of bacteria for
which this division time is 1 minute. The number of bacteria thus grows
exponentially with a doubling time of 1 minute. One bacterium is put in a
bottle at 11:00 a.m. and it is observed that the bottle is full of bacteria at 12:00
noon. Here is a simple example of exponential growth within a finite
environment.
This is mathematically identical to the case of the exponentially growing
consumption and burning of our finite resources and fossil fuels. The
important question though is, when was the bottle halfway full? Most people
think that the bottle was halfway full at 11:30. This is mathematically
incorrect. The exponential growth patterns Aforementioned show that the
bottle was halfway full at 11:59. So let's say theoretically instead of bacteria we
were talking pollution. Do you really think that you would be even remotely
aware of how much pollution you were in the midst of? Because if halfway to
hell is at 11:59 and you thought it was at 11:30, I firmly believe that you
would be there before you were even able to fathom the dangers of the route
you were on. To put this into another context, it's like not knowing that a cliff
came up until you were free-falling off of it. I hope this point is drilled in. The
epidemic of starvation is a problem that is firmly curable through the medium
of science.
Incompatibilities & Ecological Affairs
Using desalination plants and hydroponic plants we can create a an abundance
of Nutritious produce coupled with nutrients from the ocean and clean
drinking water for roughly 19,billion people. Keep in mind the current
population is 7.2 billion. The gravitation towards science is imminent. So
hypothetically if our bottle hence the earth was to become 100% full of
bacteria or pollution the ecosystem will self-destruct itself to its extinction.
60
As pointed out earlier, systems hold a severe importance to isolation
because too much interference will affect operation of the system. In order to
relieve any environment consisting of 100% pollution, this isolation must be
subtracted from the scene to a certain degree. This isn’t hard to imagine; when
your bedroom has a funky scent, maybe from that guy or girl you brought
home from the club, you open the window to relieve the atmosphere of an
unpleasant scent. Hence absolute depletion of the ozone layer will relieve the
earth from pollution but this is not worthy if there is a dead ecosystem.
Consider a house that's windows must stay closed in order for it to be livable.
This house is the only place that is oxygenated. If you fill the house up with
poison gas then the inhabitants of the house will die and if you deplete the
windows that protect the house from externalities and contain the oxygen you
need, then consequentially you die.
So globalization for instance increases exponentially the amount of
poison in the house. And the amount of poison in the house depletes the
windows needed for the house to remain livable. So rather than the
unnecessarily wasteful methods of globalization, Food production can be
localized by the state and in some cases by the county. If there were 300 of
these agricultural plants in this country then every single person in the United
States would be fed with ease. This is much more efficient, safe, healthy, and
productive than the 14,350 Mc Donald’s restaurants that we have instead.
(statista.com[2014 statistic])
The productivity of automated vertical hydroponic agriculture is
undeniably elite and necessary when you consider the 3.2+ billion empty
stomachs we currently have in the world. 1 billion of them are children.
Recent social science has shown us that when it comes to the ingredients of a
healthy society the commonalities are not limited only to natural resources
being available for us to consume. That scope is a common one but it is too
interstitial to understand the relative ramifications of a healthy society. The
typical approach towards the market system is compartmentalized in its
psychology, operating and persisting with outputs with no sustainable
inference of the natural world. This supports the assumption that it's working
61
successfully in its intention or the assumption that prosperity is the only
outcome of market functionality. The negative byproducts are even looked at
like a constructive destruction that will "help" people achieve a better or more
useful line of employment. Assuming that they just needed to be "let free" from
the employment that theoretically was holding them back. Being that between
80% and 90% of all jobs now exist in the service sector I wonder what type of
employment (and understand I'm using the word employment by its generally
understood definition) we consider better or more useful. Also the service
sector is an entire collection of industries based on the lie of servicing people
according to their individual preferences. For instance you can go to a
restaurant and order whatever you can afford off of the menu and you can go
to a clothing store and buy whatever shirt you want to according to what type
you would prefer. This is the localized view that people choose to justify how
the market actually does support and cater to the healthy condition of the
population when in fact it caters to the disconnected individualism within the
community. So at this stage the integrity of the current economic model thrives
from a completely individualized|disconnected public that believes that the
economic decisions they make throughout their life are being made in a nonresponsible detached manner from everybody else's. Often forgetting that we
are oriented within the bounds of a predetermined system that’s taken on a life
of its own and that has its own outcomes independent of an individuals’
intentions. The structural violence and the strategic propensity to dominate
partly shows that this system is a natural outgrowth of an ancient warring
psychology. Natural outgrowth is said emphatically. First you nullify by
monopolizing power. At this point in time we recognize this as the state, but a
strong point in reference to the state is that consolidation of power and
industries funding this power to support them are perfectly ripe for a
monopoly of power to come to fruition. The state is a shapeshifter that can take
different forms and materializes at will.
Then you divide through a medium in our case this is a political structure
in which people are not enabled to create their own chapters but are coerced
and manipulated to pick sides of existing ones by influence of the monopoly.
Creating an illusion that their representation is legitimate and from birth, their
62
social mobility is pivoted and people are led on to believe that there is a
subgroup of people out there that stand in direct contradiction to the ideal
world that the other group is rooting for. Both sides agree that starvation,
poverty, war, and pollution are bad, but under this ancient psychology, the
directed competitive nature of scurrying for dollars reinforces the superstitious
premise that cutthroat competition is the only way. Constant references to the
natural life cycle unfolding in the animal kingdom are brought up but nobody
questions why. To explain this rabbits have not adopted a warring psychology
because their food is not scarce. They thrive on vegetation and their food does
not run from them or attack them back when they try to eat it.
In the path to their diet there are no limitations due to competition but
rather abundance. Wolves on the other hand are carnivorous, and in nature
there is more vegetation than there are carnivores. So throughout their whole
life they hunt and live in packs (hence subgroups) to maximize the odds of
dinnertime. It has nothing to do with wolves being innately violent or innately
competitive. So it does not suffice to argue that “violence” is natural to any
particular animal. The range of domesticated animal species proves this point
further.
Their competitive nature will be set by their environment and not the
other way around. They will remain competitive as long as the competition is
reinforced. If there are 10 wolves and one dead Buffalo then the chances of
aggression between the wolves are high. If there are 10 wolves and 50 dead
buffalo’s, the chances are the exact opposite. If these exact conditions were set
through generations. The food abundance would be equivalent to the food
abundance of a rabbit. Imagine that; wild wolves behaving peacefully like
rabbits. Or humans finally behaving like humans.
Access Abundance and Utility
This is why access abundance is the biggest way to lower chances of
aggression within a population. The competitive nature of acquiring scarce
resources generates aggression, it is a dynamical outcome. Now it's important
to understand that I'm suggesting an access abundance and not an excess
63
abundance. Demand of access is not the beginning stage of everybody "owning"
everything which I would hope we can all agree is one of the most wasteful
ideas fathomed. Just think about it; can this system confidently support the
worlds people to the point that they will be enabled to possibly own one of
everything. Can this system really support 7 billion billionaires?
Not only will this system not work in the midst of its own decline, (as
we’ve seen imminently) but it couldn’t work if it completed all of its tasks to its
full capacity or potential. With that being said what is people’s basic incentive
to claim ownership over things. Number one is utility number two is ease of
access. I'm sure not everybody would like for their toilet to be next to their
bedroom if they can have a choice but nobody complains about an indoor
bathroom because they have a legitimate value to the ease of access. Nobody is
protesting light bulb producers because their light bulbs are spherical rather
than triangular because they hold value to its utility. Nobody is boycotting
apple cell phones because they are rectangular and the users would rather
them be spherical because they hold value to the utility of the phone. If making
a cell phone spherical improved the utility of it then people will gravitate
towards it, but if the spherical design of a cell phone damages or decreases the
Utility, this loss of utility or efficiency will discourage the value of the product.
This is the basic framework. The monetary system produced something
that we understand to be materialistic status. People literally are respected and
worshipped for the car they own or the ring they wear. Is this not demented?
People no longer have to live based on the commands of a royal monarch but
positioned in replication as a king and now days queen according to the
relative aspirations and independence of the people. Status by materialism is
the ultimate pollution to people’s logical relationships towards products.
To put this into another context the ease of access added to efficiency and
utility coupled with status produces a very bold confusing grey area that
dilutes what people think their preferences are and doesn't allow them to
understand why they just keep buying shit. This has been prevalent in my
experience. In the neighborhoods I grew up in I watched people spend the last
penny in their pocket for their 10th pair of shoes. Or how about all of the
64
people driving gas guzzlers (and if you drive a Geo Metro it is still in the long
run a gas guzzler) that keep them broke because they have been infected with
status. There are many easy cheaper safer and more humane methods of
transportation that have been far from implementation, but the disease of
status coupled with the lack of reasonable transportation, does not recognize
that. So hypothetically if we were to subtract the properties of status from
products then the only ones that would have value are the ones of optimum
utility, efficiency, and ease of access. The product itself would be better because
it would not have to conform to patent laws or copyright laws. The romantic
superficiality coupled with corporation adornment is a hindrance to
progression of products. If the public responds more powerful to the properties
of status rather than the properties that comprise good utility, you end up in a
system in which companies are serving and strengthening the superficial
nexus of the consumer and his or her individual status. Rather than meriting
products for the utility they serve.
This superficiality has been prevalent throughout the automotive
industry, the oil industry, and arguably the most remembered case of this was
in the mid-1950s when cigarette companies strengthened people's preference
for status rather than simply delivering the public a product that was good for
them.
65
(1930 ad for Luckies Cigarettes; advertised with physicians to calm the
unhealthy uproar of cigarettes)
This is just naturalistically wasteful. The ethos of ownership has attached
itself to our psychology in the exact same way. In our modern system only
thing ownership can do is solidify access. The superficiality is inseparable from
the conspicuous consumption. Anybody working in the fashion industry knows
that clothing is being sold that is quite frankly uncomfortable but they feel like
they need it because of status. Literally choosing discomfort and appeal over
self-respect and modesty; but wait there is an even deeper disconnection. Not
only do people except their own discomfort as a ramification of upward status,
66
but people have accumulated a preference of discomfort even if more problems
in the long run are manifested from that discomfort. Such as women's dresses
being bad for their back, or shoes that men and women both wear that are bad
for their feet and promote an uncomfortable posture. Or the gold mouth grills.
They believe that this discomfort makes them better and is the route to selfempowerment. In a discussion I had with someone, (they'd rather remain
anonymous) they argued: "What’s wrong with having nice stuff?" I responded,
"What’s wrong with having modest but optimum stuff?” They were under the
impression that I was saying people should stop making nice things. I’m saying;
"What’s wrong with cell phone companies collaborating to produce a
shatterproof, waterproof, virus proof cell phone without the dam apple logo?"
Of what utility does the logo being on the phone serve? Why can't commercials
give attention to products according to their utility and efficiency rather than
the popularity of corporations? Why do you as a consumer need more than
that to make a choice? Where is that extra appeal of the product coming from?
If this extra appeal is subtracted why is it so hard for you to make a decision? Is
it because now your decisions are not made according to a predicted channel
of logos and artificial romanticism? It's harder to make the choice now because
now you actually get to make the choice.
Now you have to choose quality over popularity. I think that's the tradeoff that just about anybody would be comfortable with. Rather than giving the
illusion of choice because you can go to Best Buy and choose between 70
different televisions. The fact that you have no say over what products get put
on the shelf hints that the choice has already been made.
67
15. INCENTIVES & DEPRAVITY
“Without change there is no innovation, creativity, or
incentive for improvement. Those who initiate change
will have a better opportunity to manage the change
that is inevitable.”
-William Pollard
Consumers will then be incentivized by something else. So if the dollar
bill the most indomitable addicting form of status was removed then what
would incentivize people to do anything? Let's consider inventions so we can
get a grasp of incentives and materializing products in response to and
according to our incentives. The evolutionary stages of inventions are not ones
that can be remotely predicted. They are created accumulatively. So if money is
the only universal incentive people respond to how do you explain penicillin,
the slinky, Wheaties, sticky notes, the coordinates of mauve, plastic, corn flakes,
pacemakers, chocolate chip cookies, ice cream cones, potato chips, teabags,
aspirin, silly putty, safety glass, Velcro, x-ray imagery, (the x stood for
unknown at one point) stainless steel, Teflon, superglue, vulcanized rubber,
popsicles, the microwave oven, and matches. All of which were invented by
accident as paradoxical as it sounds. So where would these inventions stand on
a chart of incentives.
Perhaps the specific circumstance of creating something due to
experimentation or necessity rather than inventing something for the purpose
of saving money or to make money coupled with legal clearance and cost
efficiency is just much more constant. The point is the products will come
whether on purpose or on accident. All we can do is focus on our incentives
and inclinations. We cynically look at each other as irrelevant, but view
ourselves individually as being more relevant to nature than nature is to us.
Feeling like we deserve our "place" in the world. Feeling like nature imposes
itself with a careful step around human beings. So we suggest imposing
ourselves on things with a careful step around public relevance. There is a
video of president Obama playing soccer with a cybernetic robot. It's sickening
68
how this happened before we applied cybernetics to the average work
environment of the service sector; Why? because there was no public
relevance within the incentive. Many creations never patent. It almost seems as
if the patton was not the objective of the creation. But the creation itself was an
imperative of a creative mind. When people have less pressure on them, their
minds are remarkably just more creative. Stress and strife lessens us. Us said
emphatically. At this stage, inventions and the creative framework needed to
create and contribute will not come from human depravity and starvation. The
3rd world has never, nor will it ever statistically outdo the developed world
when it comes to invention. This is grandly due to their lack of literacy or
numeracy skills, a universal attribute of poverty.
The incentives of a population are in fact secondary to the depravity of a
population. The incentives are a response to the depravation. Some incentives
happen to lay on different sides of the law. Nevertheless, depravation will
spawn a particular range of incentives. So whether a man happens to be drunk
behind the wheel of a car or in his bedroom with a gun is irrelevant to the
simple realization and principle outcome of being deprived. So for people to
be correctly incentivized or if they're to be given the opportunity to think
creatively they need a particular climate. I say this apologetically, this climate
will not come from this book nor will it come from me as an individual; but I
do suggest that syncretism be supported. If musicians can collaborate with
music then I think intellectuals which all of us have the potential to be should
be able to collaborate ideas rather than shun and disrespect the ideas of people
they don't like, or ideas that contradict personal beliefs regardless of their
validity. Ideas and the favoritism associated to them needs to be filtered
through a particular medium. I suggest something called "Intellectual
etiquette".
Intellectual Etiquette
Intellect is described as the ability to think in a reasonable or sensible
way. This does not mean use the largest words you know. The Guide is you
come to the conversation (conversation said emphatically, because debates are
pointless) with measureable inference. Making sure things are not being taken
69
out of context or twisted into something never intended. If people had
intellectual etiquette they'd realize that most of their beliefs would not be
considered the anathema of other people’s beliefs. I wonder why discussions
derived from or based on faith end up with two people believing the exact
opposite. Why do we see things so much different from one another? If a
thermometer says its 86 degrees, what is there to discuss? If you disagree with
the results, you either interrogate the weather or interrogate the thermometer.
But it makes no logic as to question why someone believes what the
thermometer says. What other method is more precise? Faith? Inversely when
faith is included, we are now interrogating the person; and if faith rains
supreme, then we will inevitably have more conflict and fewer answers, being
that you are interrogating people’s identification. Based on doubt rather than
inference. Imagine questioning an army ranger’s ranger patch or a Brazilian
jujitsu black belt on the merit of “doubt”. You can put their skills to the test
because the rank of black belt is not a faith, but a testable measure of skill.
Therefore testing his black belt rank is more respectable than simply
accusing him of not being one through interrogation. Examples need to pertain
to no less than the minority of the circumstance spoken of. To drill it in, it does
not suffice to make a case based on the minimal chance of a given
circumstance. The foundational argument should not pertain to the minimal
circumstance unless that circumstance is of the argument. For instance I
cannot argue against life vests because 1 person was able to survive 17
minutes underwater. This same fallacy is used publicly regarding drug and
alchohol treatment|punishment. Reason and evidence should be deemed the
intellectual vertebrae. They are simply necessary. Well, where does faith come
in at? And how far can it take us? And how do you come to a definitive
conclusion when the premise of the argument rests within faith? How does
faith apply in a circumstance in which 2 people have faith in opposite
directions? What exactly are we arguing for? What exactly are we arguing
against? Are we actually making progress or are we just trying to consume the
faith of others?
Carl Sagan often spoke of a phrase that goes: “Every link in the chain must work,
70
including the premise.”
Many religious people persist with a certain view of the world that is
presented as a fully linked chain. The premise itself initially holds no intrinsic
validity. Therefore validity is only apparent within the other links. The
contradictions between non-superstitious theories and supernatural
subjectivism is not based on a catalystic grand piece of evidence, but the range
of evidence. The followings of the scientific method lead to another place. They
lead to a place that helped you understand the weather. It tells you when the
snowfall will begin. It tells you where to catch the fish. It helps you navigate
through an ocean via submarine, and has literally made us fly, and guided us
to other worlds that no other era of people have dreamed of actually doing.
None of these valuable connections are possible when we climb the links
of the other chain.
Intuition is described as a natural ability or power that makes it possible
to know something without any proof or evidence. Faith by dynamic is a
product of intuition. Intuitionism is greeted respectively and understandably, I
believe many things on faith, none of which are intellectual, because my
faithful beliefs simply can’t past the screening test. Is it intrinsically capable of
provability or falseness? Imagine someone presenting a faith based idea to you
that doesn’t even have the capability to be proven false. I ask you, what is
purgatory like? Now prove it. Just give me something empirical that you can
defend your argument with. Something? I hope the troubles are clear.
So the debates surrounding UFOs, deities, the merging of ancient and
current mythology to reality, lockness monsters, leprechauns, Bloody Mary,
Sasquatch, Little Boy Blue etc. are blabbering distractions, not intellectualism.
It’s interesting how even young toddlers who rarely tell lies claim to have seen
these things with sincerity. How did they come across it? Legit interaction or a
mind game? They always seem to have nightmares or hallucinations of things
that have been externally presented to them rather than accumulated through
71
an actual experience.
There are no stories of someone chanting “Bloody Mary
and witnessing Sasquatch appear in the mirror. They only claim to have seen
Bloody Mary. Nor do they claim to see hobbits in their closet; only “the
boogeyman”. I wonder why the claim always fundamentally resonates with the
descripted urban legend. Have your children honestly witnessed a real urban
legend or have they been tricked to the point of incomprehension. Did they
have a real episode or are they mentally recalling an old horror flick that they
never quite figured out? Is their claim an intellectual one or an emotional one?
More simply is their claim derived from their intellect/inference or their
emotions? Which side contributed towards the claim more? If you accept that
it is an emotional one, what would make it an intellectual one? The answer is
in the inference principle. In the 19th century, German folklore even
introduced the Gnome. A small mystical dwarf that protected monuments,
churches, and land. Many Germans even had faith in Thor; the god of stormy
weather and thunder. What validates these claims? The book they came from?
If that’s the only evidence then I should be able to say anything I want to say in
this book absent proof or reasoning. Would that act hurt or help validate the
claims I’m making. A mere book is not proof unless the claims hold up
factually. An even more persistent one as of the last few centuries regained
popularity recently.
72
(Count Orlok, the first theatrical vampire; he was created from influence of
Bram Stokers 1897 book “Dracula”)
As introduced by John William Polidori; The Vampire. So many children
and even adults accept a reality of vampirism and decayed corpses in which
rise from the grave at night and feed on human blood. I wonder what William
Harvey would think of this, being that he discovered the function of blood.
Some even claiming to be one. I guess the mortal within is why none of them
ever mentioned killing someone for their blood and no blood drained animals
have been found. One Romanian legend even says that to find a vampire you
must find a 7 year old boy and a Whitehorse. The boy will be dressed in all
white and whichever grave the horse stands closest to… lies a vampire.
73
There was a case of small rather occultist groups dedicated and
convinced that they were vampires. Carefully admitted, but never quite
claimed to have the vampiric characteristics that could be measured. They
didn’t deny having warm blood, never claimed to not have a reflection, none
drank blood for their survival, and sunlight didn’t incinerate them. They never
denied the things they had no control over. Why? Now they have moved on
and converted themselves to a different type of vampire. A psychic vampire.
And what do you know, they don’t need to drink blood nor do they crave it.
They thrive off “life force”, and once again we have moved to an undetectable
claim of provability. They were all very much alive. No longer claiming to be
dead; and actually preferred their own reflection. Where did the reflection
come from? How did they retrieve it? Did they travel backwards along some
immortality continuum? All of them are also presumed to be personally (if that
works) “different”. Consider popular science fiction and horror genres. Are all
zombies in any zombie flick “different”? Are all of the aliens different? Are all
of the vampires different? Or is this a person’s attempt to find internal
harmony between popular culture and East European folklore. Why are they
all of a sudden different? And why are all of their differences so harmonious to
the people outside of vampire culture? They seem to be well liked and admired
to “normal” people. It almost seems liked they’ve been created by just that.
“Normal people”. I would never call them liars because that just isn’t
intellectual etiquette; but neither are questions that have no capability of
giving verifiable answers.
In a recent discussion the subject of virtual realities came up; existing
empirically throughout space time or dimensionally outside of this space time.
I won't go into complete detail being that the discussion lasted for hours but
one of this guy’s arguments was that I can't disprove his theory therefore His
theory holds merit in the absence of inference. If I was to explain to you an
animal that never existed you would have to except my claim as the animal
still not existing until I have inference to support my claim. I have no footprints
no photos no videos no bones no witnesses no nothing; just a claim. The
inference principle is not just an arbitrary guideline that must be followed for
the sake of salvaging broken claims. But it is a catalyst or event of transforming
74
something that holds questionable virtual truth into a claim that holds
unquestionable empirical truth whether the particular belief is antiquated or
whether the belief is prominent to the culture, the Inference Principle is an
intellectual pillar and unless arguments comply with it, our ideas will remain
lost in the vocabulary rather than being proved and used, or disproved and
trashed. It's understandable how people detect a scent of maliciousness from
this point of view but that is not at all the intention nor is it the advocation. The
inclusion of strict unbiased methodology or rather minimally biased methods
are just as necessary when it comes to interrogating the world and finding out
the truth of its interplay as machinery tools detect and manipulate things
beyond human biological perception. Humans are too complex and they have
entirely too many inputs and very few outputs. Whereas a thermometers only
input is temperature. Science is a way of simplifying, extending, and grasping
human perception. Personally I don't see how anybody can not be advocating
for this, I mean just imagine if calculators spewed out incorrect answers
because they were biased or thoughtful of a student’s necessity of passing a
test. Or how about if a man was considered a mathematical genius and the
calculator could only give minimal performance.
Or the algorithms can be unbiased, and they can give you the truth
accorded to the values of the equations entered. Earlier on I mentioned
something called “cold science.” I don't know about you, but I would prefer my
science frigidly cold, no warmth, no empathy; strict methodology, algorithmic
equations, and evidence is what I want from science. Picture that the
predictability of a successful skydive is 3 in 100. If science wasn't cold and the
numbers simply reflected your optimism then you could calculate 92 in 100
an inevitably successful jump. Is this sympathetic calculator helping? Is this
better? This is why science must remain cold or not like us (warm) because we
don't want our optimism reflected in numerical probabilities. Because if
numerical probabilities are arising from optimism rather than methodology a
pessimist would remain immovable and terrified to chance anything because
his calculator will always give him extremely low odds. The unbiased scientific
method can boost his numbers to an accurate and understandable figure.
While simultaneously keeping the optimist in his exaggerated calculation,
75
honest. Obviously this figure wouldn’t –be- numerical in value, but conscience
in value. So the dynamic duality between methodologies and optimism or
pessimism comes to this. More optimism or pessimism put into any given
equation equals less dependency upon methodology. Hence the more skewed
the projection can be.
So optimism and pessimism being the fillers of faith and doubt literally
render methodologies useless. The debates surrounding natural selection the
Big Bang theory creationism atheism theism etc. are intellectually victimized by
the war between methods and guesses. If there is any war worth fighting, it’s
this one you can sign me up and I will fight side-by-side in alliance with
methods. It's well understood that we are inhabitants of a finite world. A place
where contrary to most beliefs anything is not possible. Natural laws are the
limitation. To anyone who feels belittled by this. I’ll let you know the
parameters of the natural world extend much further than you may believe or
than you may be able to see with the naked eye. But in this 5 extended sense
reality, superstition is not in tandem with natural laws. We are in tandem with
natural laws because we are bounded to the same set of 5 extended senses. And
by the way emotions fit into the sense of extended touch. Being that physically
you can only extend your mechanical arm or send a signal to a particular
device that imitates your sense of touch. Emotional events can affect a human
in many identical ways that physical events can affect a human. Such as the
effect of malnourishment on the body and the effect of emotional depravity on
the brain.
Methods also are governed by limitations of natural law, but human
imagination multiplied by human optimism is governed by pseudo-laws that
fluctuate in accordance to personal preferences, and exist arbitrarily beyond
natural law. Considering the fragility of human minds and the "easy to
influence" aspects of immature mentalities, drawing any type of equivalence
between an unbiased process of interrogating the world ; and over 7 billion
imaginations is nothing short of hilarious comedy at best in the context of
provability. A lot of imaginations consider science a specific type of malicious
evil that is used for nothing but disapproving resonant ideologies. I'm telling
76
you now science does not give a damn about trying to harm religion. In a
world of dualities many people feel the need to choose a side. Dark vs. light,
good vs. evil, non-theist vs, theist, science vs. intuition, and death vs. life.
77
16. WHEN CLOUDS CAST A SHADOW
“This is the great object held out by this association;
and the means of attaining it is illumination,
enlightening the understanding by the sun of reason
which will dispel the clouds of superstition and of
prejudice.”
-Adam Weishaupt
Clouds being of the sky has always been a resonant idea. The sky is defined as
the space over the Earth where the sun, moon, stars, and clouds appear. It is
also frequently referred to as a Celestial dome. Celestial meaning positioned in
or relating to the sky. Relativity shows us that things are observed differently
from different places relative to a particular point.
So what really is the sky? From a dog's perspective a squirrel jumping
from branch to branch in a tree appears as being in the sky yet the roof of a
house that is higher in altitude than the tree is not considered to be in the sky.
If you were to remove all of the water from the Mariana trench and 10 people
where to go to the deepest crevice and look up. The things that are below the
current sea level would be considered as- in the sky. Imagine that. The sky
expanding below the sea level.
Many times we feel like something is waiting for us in the clouds on the
days we feel optimistic. This is not a “theistic religious” idea. Myself, a nonsuperstitionist even feels beyond euphoric at the thought of essentially being
within the pink and orange clouds of a sunset. But the sky by definition does
not stop at the last layer we decided to give a name to. Our eyes cannot
separate the space in which the moon exists from the space in which the
clouds exist. The 5 sense illusionary reality tells us that the moon and sun are
at roughly the same distance. But the 5 sense extended reality that science has
revealed to us is that there distance from us is much more vast than our eyes
can see.
78
When looking up, clouds even seem to be hinting emotion. They seem
relatable to us during our times of euphoria, yet when we are upset they tend
to look a little more invidious. I'm still questioning which one is truly
influencing the other; if possible. The colors look exotic and many of us assume
that there is something up there with a mind of its own. Some type of
idiosyncratic ecosystem that makes sense only to the clouds themselves; which
is why we consider them externally or rather- extra terrestrially special.
Sometimes they seem to just be on their way. But they are much more fragile
than us. If there is no moisture in the sky, they can’t even materialize into
existence. This is why the moon does not have its own clouds. No atmosphere
equals no sky. The direction of up is still available but the sky is not there.
According to the definition that we have come up with for the word sky
our eyes are a lot blinder to these atmospheric layers then we used to think
they were. But our crave to relate to something close yet outside of our reach
makes them seem like they are “of something external” or “unlike here”. It's
very hard for people to absorb the concept of forever so we convert our
mystification of the clouds to a personified importance in which when our
bodies can no longer function we can continue to live through the clouds. We
make sense of them through us. Many religious scriptures even say that we
would literally live in the clouds. It’s hard to understand what they mean. Are
they speaking of heaven in a biblical sense or are they saying that when our
empirical bodies decompose we will contribute subatomic characteristics and
matter to the ecosystem. When we are no longer here we will contribute to it
and it will continue its operation long after my species becomes extinct I say
this on behalf of everything that lives.
The shadows on the other hand are nothing of the sort. Sometimes dim
and hazy, sometimes bold and appearing black in color. The darkness doesn’t
come from them in the same sense that light here comes from the sun, but it is
them. Darkness doesn’t come from anywhere, it is the effect of absent light. The
clouds are not a mystery. We can see them because of light waves from a
source being reflected off of the cloud particles in the sky back towards our
eyes. But when the light is absent there is no telling what is happening in that
79
darkness. Nor can we tell if things are happening at all. Our night vision
equipment has a maximum distance of roughly 200 yards, or 183 meters.
(Below is the functionality of night vision technology)
If the darkness extends further than this, we cannot see any deeper into it
with night vision. This is why echo sounders and satellite altimeters are used to
determine depth of the ocean. It won’t help. I’m asking you: “what is beyond
those 200 yards?”
Another capability comes from Thermal imaging.
(Next is the functionality of thermal imaging technology.)
80
A technology that operates by capturing the upper portion of the
wavelength spectrum; ultraviolet being at the bluish end of the spectrum and
infrared being at the other reddish side of the spectrum. Between these two
points is a very small category that we interpret as visible light.
(Below is the wavelength spectrum; notice the very small portion of waves that
your eyes can see)
81
The IR (Infrared) side of this spectrum is emitted as heat by objects instead
of simply reflected as light. Hotter objects, like human bodies, emit more of this
infrared wavelength than cooler objects like lizards. The infrared waves are
converted to electrical impulses and the data is converted into an animate
scene. The denser a cloud is, the darker the shadow is. More clouds there are
the more darkness there is. It is a natural duality. When clouds are flooding the
sky, we can only assess them through the tunnel of darkness; their shadow. In
fact the night itself is nothing more than the geographical region in which the
shadow of earth is.
Radar technology or Echo location are both possibilities of making sense
of the darkness. Light is the fastest thing in all of the observable universe. Radio
waves move with equivalent frequency. Consider walking through a pitch
black basement with nothing but a flashlight the light that is emitted from the
flashlight hits objects in the path of the light and reflects light off of them back
into your eyes but the spots that light never hits remains dark and shadow. To
put this into the perspective of radar the light would be radio waves and the
flashlight would be a device called a magnetron. And our eyes would be the
magnetron receiver. Obviously this entire experiment would not be directly
visible because radio waves have too different of a frequency to be seen by the
naked eye. Nevertheless, There is three problems at this stage of our radio
technology one is the radio waves come through to our receiver and let us
know where objects are how big they are and what their distance is from us
but they don't tell us what it is that we are detecting. Secondly there are areas
that still register as shadows if you will buy objects blocking the path of the
waves we send out. Thirdly The waves don't go around objects but hits objects
and comes back towards our receiver so we can't send waves out and let them
search on their own and come back to our receiver when they have found
something as Utopian as that sounds to a scientist.
82
17. DARKNESS AND CHILDS FEAR
“Look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try
to make sense of what you see, and wonder about what
makes the universe exist. Be curious.”
-Stephen Hawking
I recall my first interaction with science or more notably usable science
came when I was a child there was a show on TV that was about solving
murders. It was called Forensic Files, a show that emphasized the use of
scientific knowledge and the use of scientific methodology to solve crimes. This
forensic methodology released two things one was it made the public smarter
and gave them frames of reference to solve problems they might need to solve
on their own it made people self-sufficient it was legitimate knowledge and
legitimate technique that was given to the public and in that sense we are now
further educated. It ultimately helped people understand what happened in the
absence of light where witnesses didn’t matter.
What this also did was it made the insidious people a little smarter it let
them know what to be on the lookout for and then the weapons began to
evolve accordingly. Shell catchers became popular. How? As an insidious
reaction to the precision of forensic science. People went from killing people
and attempting to hide the weapon they used to the weapon becoming stronger
and people began to hide the entire body itself. Next people began to go as far
as hiding the entire scene of a murder covering up the tracks so sufficiently
that the forensic evidence suggests they were never there. The next emergence
is yet even more frightening; the insidious minds mixed with the scientific
method has Turned normal locations into murder locations and then turning
the murder location back into a normal location. The secrecy steadily
increased.
Then they began to hide the entire existence of the person in the first
place claiming they never knew them or in more tribal times claiming that
person never existed. After all these events were taking place long before the
social security number existed. These exact same malicious intentions are
83
going to bury our earth one day but not buried in the sense of being
underground but these intentions will bury the history of the earth. Every
single movement, intention, goal, and failure anybody has ever had could be
forgotten; and if any other form of life that possesses human intelligence at the
very least will never know we were here and we will be gone forever from
everything to the final stage of forgotten. Can this happen to me? I thought
about this and I couldn't help but to think in depth about this idea of forgotten.
If you know something at one point in time and at any point in time after
the time you knew it you did not know it anymore then it's fair to say you have
forgotten it. If we are fairly modest with our assumptions and another form of
life views us with a respectable amount of importance or intelligence then they
should communicate with us. If we add a little more modesty to this and they
live in a type one civilization then we will be very interesting to them
considering that we are not far from a type one civilization ourselves.
Comparatively if we came across life on a different planet that closely
resembled us but look like they were somehow stuck in the 1500s they would
be of much interest to us.
There is an inside joke between me and my folks that pokes fun at how
angry anthropocentrists and religious people would be considering they
believe they are of maximum importance to the universe|multi-verse; yet they
are not fit for any other known place in the entire galaxy but one small speck
of it. If it was put here for them shouldn't they at least be able to freely navigate
around the majority of it. These are very sensitive and important concerns of
what we are and what we want to become. The darkness has always placed
itself between us and an understood destination. Even the uncertainty principle
is darkness in the context of observability. Also the darkness depending on
where it's at and how close it is to us has given us little emotional triggers. Such
as nyctophobia the fear of the dark. This is basically summoned by somebody’s
brain perceiving negative things that could or would happen in the dark. It
terrifies them. And oddly it shares a familial resonance with death which will
be spoken about more in later essays. Another emotional trigger it has given us
is nyctophilia the preference of the nighttime or the preference to be in
84
darkness or finding relaxation in darkness. I should mention here while its
somewhat relevant that if you are scared of Chucky then you have pediophobia
(the fear of dolls). If you fear Pennywise from Stephen kings, It-you have
coulrophobia (the fear of clowns). And our imaginations continue to misplace
little pockets of fiction into our real world. Nevertheless, they are false.
The unfortunate mythical properties of the dark have bent people out of
shape in an almost permanent way. I'm still trying to find out which person is
more skeptical the one that believes the darkness is assessing them or the ones
that believe they are responsible for manipulating the properties of darkness.
This mythology has crept so deep into our psychology that it even gives us
nightmares sometimes. Most of us can remember terrifying nightmares that
we've had as children so if you can remember yours ask yourself how scary did
the dark make your nightmare? I can even remember vividly a borderline
hallucination I had when I was a kid looking at the silhouette of the vacuum
cleaner in my bedroom and I slowly watched it morph into the silhouette of a
human.
This scared me to inconceivability; sometimes I would even hallucinate
monsters being in the dark. The mysterious or unknown properties of shadows
and darkness have been provably fundamental to the vulnerability of a fragile
imagination. For years and years I've seen so many children claim to have had
nightmares in which the things they describe all are manifested from shadow
like or dark origins. A majority of them claim to have seen something in their
room when the entire room is dark; but never when it's bright and they can
verify what they're seeing. They also never report distinctive details but this is
not due to the immature senses of adolescents as much as it's due to their
fragile brains replacing the anti-visual properties of the dark with their most
prominent frame of reference of the dark which to most kids comes from a scifi or horror movie. The morbid connotations of the word dark are even
employed in the genre name Dark Comedy. In which the humor is farce,
rather-grim, and morbid. This arose from Gallows Humor; which equally is
grim and ironic humor in a desperate or hopeless situation. One can
philosophize that “dark” comedy can no longer be considered “dark” during the
85
nighttime. But is this just the toying of words? Or in the dark, do our brains
except things that they normally wouldn't under daytime conditions. Do we
have more open arms to morbid humor in the nighttime? In the Halloween
season even a great deal of haunted houses are only open during the night.
This is just one example of how being afraid of the dark has been woven deeply
into our culture. We even use darkness in our fashion to increase the
probability of an unfortunate empathy. If we want to feel hidden we wear very
dark shades in which I have personally worn. This is even acknowledged in the
style of a woman's make up. Just imagine black lipstick, black eye shadow,
eyebrows painted black, hair dyed black, black jewelry, and black clothing. If
you came across this person what would you think of them and ask yourself
how much of what you think of them is coming from them and how much of
what you think of them is coming from somewhere else.
Now darkness and shadows are very mysterious in their nature but this
mysteriousness is an early-stage of something we call fear. When I think about
what would be the scariest thing in the world the scariest thing ever I imagine
the ocean being black no transparency no thermal detection systems no echo
location just dense blackness that can't be penetrated or escaped from. This is
where heaven lies for a very lot of people, and to these same exact people hell
exist in this place too. If you limit the space in which you think, you will
inversely limit the space in which you can feel. Don’t let your traditions or
superstitious beliefs drive you towards self-impertinence. Because you can only
currently perceive agony or terror after death if you let your superstitionist
objectives persist while alive. The beliefs are perceived as becoming, much
more real to the people that merit superstition. It’s a common understanding
within the scientific community (or inferential-based modeling of natural
phenomena) that although in absolute terms a single theory cannot be proved
to be true to a degree of 100%. It can come close, therefore the highest
percentage in science is 99.9%. Obviously the gathering of inference has
revealed certain tests to have the same outcome every single time. Yet, the
science community understands the outcomes to be identical rather than “the
same.” This is the modesty and respect science has given its opposing viewers,
Why 99.9% rather than 100%? One tenths of a percent has been kidnapped
86
from science and incarcerated to the views of superstition. 100% means, there
are no more possibilities. 99.9% however, means anything is game. Science
seems like it is rather rude or in a way condescending, but this is simply due to
the mountain piles of evidence weighing up to claims of superstition to a
rapidly increasing figure. But when considering the offense taken by
superstitionists, how does each person in the argument know when to be
offended? After all one person is right and one person is wrong. We know this
because it is impossible for two contradicting assumptions to both be true in
the same context at the same moment. Beliefs of superstition intrinsically hold
less merit than beliefs of a non-superstitionist. Why? Because, a particular
superstitious view differs from other views in any way a person’s imagination
can make it differ. A non-superstitionist understands the flawed nature of
imagination. This is one of the main reasons the non-superstitionist has come
to fruition. It is very important to understand that atheism means “disbelief or
lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” The label of atheism does not
contradict the belief in vampires, bloody Mary, flat earth models, or griffins.
Atheism is a narrow contrivance that Is only meaningful in the arena of
religion. Superstition is generally defined as excessively credulous belief in and
reverence for supernatural beings. Supernatural means attributed to forces
outside of nature. We are bound by natural law. Not only is a supernatural
explanation a noninferential-based claim. But the supernatural explanations
actually have no way of gaining merit because as mentioned in prior essays,
claims with no bounds can never be validated, because when a nonsuperstitionist attempts to test the claim, the borders of the board can always be
extended further. It’s like having a basketball game where the out of bounds
line moves to keep the ball live.
It's very unfortunate that I have to dedicate a section of this towards non-empathy. This
non-empathy principle is actually hardwired and thoroughly woven in through different sections
of the culture. Mixed raced cultures such as the American one are approached with the nonempathy principle in a much more persistent manner than countries like South Korea where the
population is nowhere close to as diverse as ours is. There’s 3 focuses that show we don't have a
culture but a mirror, opposite, of a culture, which is unconditionally and universally demented.
87
The Criminal Justice System.
Criminal justice in itself is a very paradoxical phrase. It basically suggest
that you're justice comes through the punishment of somebody else which is
not justice it is not humane it is a sophisticated warring mentality that makes
people think that revenge is justice. The exact same primality behind the eye
for an eye mentality. It’s important to understand that eye for an eye is not
merely an action, but a psychology. It is a system that steals the rights of people
that have been accused of stealing the rights of somebody else. A downward
cycle that promotes nothing but the growth of crime and rules implemented by
unqualified elites. Not only can we separate revenge from justice but the
structural mechanisms of the system itself simply do not work for what they
claim to be accomplishing, and that's what I emphasize. Prisoners with
children are not given enough time with their children which in the long run
hurts the child not the prisoner. In the short the punishment of the prisoner is
worse for the child then it is for the prisoner being that the lack of a father
figure is directly correlated to the high probabilities of eventual incarceration.
Prison is popularized as a deterrent for a crime which I believe holds true to a
certain degree but I don't think malevolence accounts for the world’s largest
prison population. Prison will only remain a deterrent to crime if the prison is
heavier in the balance between incarceration and the external economic
pressures. In a sane Society the actual prison should always remain larger than
the population of prisoners. But when there is a need to expand the prisons this
shows that the producers of criminal behavior are system orientated externally.
The prison complex has always expanded in proportion to the expansion
of the cultures imbalance. The United States is the most internally segregated
nation in the world and it is much more than a coincidence that our prison
population is reflective of the imbalance; and is also the largest standing at
25%. Since the war on drugs commenced in the 1980s the prison population
has increased by between 700 to 800%. If you were to explain this to
somebody that never lived past the 1950s they would think you were
unconditionally demented. If I showed up to your house with 10 of my friends
lots of guns and a bulletproof vest and I forced you out of your house into my
88
car and into a cage in my basement I would be looked at as a sick person
regardless of what I was upset at my victim for. It is immoral for me or any
government unless a person needs to be isolated for the public’s safety. Similar
to the medical need to quarantine somebody because their medical condition is
a danger. Jail is not a place to send people for smoking weed because smoking
weed is not a violation of anybody's rights. Just a copout pathetic excuse to
keep incarceration rates high so some billionaire can keep his money coming.
The laws have become ridiculously specific containing the public’s
freedom to a very narrow expression. This does not produce safety, order, or
organization at all but instead enables the expansion of the prison complex
and the profit of the current plantation owners. People in the prison business
profit off of prisoners in the same manner that economic businesses profit from
customers it's wrong it is upside down and completely backwards and we are
intellectually past this. I propose the removal of the dollar bill. With no need
for profit what incentive is there to keep citizens incarcerated.
Education
1 in 5 children are diagnosed with ADHD. This is a government excuse to
justify the anti-intelligent nature of a school classroom. In a martial arts
classroom ADHD does not exist, likewise in basketball gyms. To help visualize
what learning is you must first understand that learning is not linear but a
very fine infinite web with infinite paths to any single point of it. We have
inherited only one of these paths. We have seen where we've come from and
we can easily see where we are going. Until this point the progress of
education has always persisted and dominated the progress of schooling.
Now days schools are becoming more and more like correctional facilities
incorporated metal detectors armed security guards and the new trend is to
have police officers on the campus. I'm sure the people that are skeptical of
bulletproof vest, pistols, and Tasers being so close to them are only even more
disturbed by the fact that these are now closer to their children; but after
events like Columbine Massacre, Virginia Tech massacre, and the Sandy Hook
Elementary School shooting and the 142+ school shootings that have happened
89
Post-Sandy Hook Massacre (just to name a very limited few) what do we do?
This is the ultimate question to any animal that reproduces. On the grand scale
of human affairs the only question that truly matters is: How are we going to
protect our children? If men with bulletproof vest and weapons along their
waistlines can't protect our school as the many newly released videos on the
Internet have boldly illustrated, what do we do for our children's protection?
Considering the insane amount of labor most parents have to dedicate their
family time to; homeschooling is becoming a less and less likely option.
Government schooling provably produces much more conformity then it
does free thought. Formal schooling goes back to the 1600s in which the court
of the Massachusetts Bay colony suggested that every city of at least 50 families
had an internal elementary school and every city with at least 100 families was
to have a Latin school. This was to ensure that kids received information about
their Calvinist religions. FOX News couldn't insult the human intellect nor
propagandize and set limitations to free thought better than this diseasecausing institutionalized framework we call school.
Prior to the inclusion of local public schools in 1647 the telescope was
created; four of Jupiter's moons were discovered the ring around Saturn was
discovered. We educated ourselves through vast distances, we built
civilizations, we created social systems of interaction, we invented medicine,
we taught entire tribes how to hunt, we learn to harvest, we learned very
advanced geometry, the microscope was invented, we built a roughly 13000
mile wall in china. This is over 3x the distance between Los Angeles and the
North Pole. We also learned a phenomenal thing called language translation;
all absent what we have now. Video games, ignorance, and conformity are 3
things that government schools direct children towards. Even though a careful
gradient of these can be conversely constructive. The children aren't the ones
responsible. They don’t know how to grow plants, they are close minded to
bilingualism, they are jingoistic, they don't obey the laws of nutrition, they
don’t know what sharing means, they don’t know who their parents are, and
apparently their parents don’t either.
90
Environmental Hazards
I use a mental principal of war being bad. I throw this principle out of my
brain when I think of how bad a nuclear war can turn out. A nuclear war
makes a man shooting an AK-47 look friendly. The first nuclear weapon was
created in 1945 the negative effects of nuclear activity were not understood
until decades later. The weapons are sophisticated and ephemeralized to a
stage that can slap our planet into oblivion. Pipe Bomb Massacres, mini guns,
targeted poisons, are the monuments of science coupled with twisted scarcity
driven propaganda, and something many people call “evil.” I hope us as
humans are sane enough to say no to our own kamikaze. Our ecosystem is
closed and it should not be turned into a gas chamber. If you are one of those
people that still believes that the dollar bill has some type of intrinsic integrity,
then you should look around at all of the negative things happening in the
world and understand which ones are being funded.
You will come to find that all of the problems are being funded and all of
the solutions are not. This is why we will not see change in the world unless we
have a value system change. The monetary system is truncated, destructive,
wasteful, and inconsiderate of the ecosystem. It is inconsiderate of bio diversity,
inconsiderate of life being organically oriented and supporting purity, and as
disregardful as the monetary system is to the habitat it has its own preference
of growth and conspicuous or perennial consumption; when people actually
want sustainability and modest interactions with each other rather than the
cutthroat mentality of profit, cost efficiency, and status seeking its way into
places it has no business being. If the air you breathe is polluted it will affect
your body in a bad way if the water you drink is polluted the same effect will
happen. The point is you only comprise integrity through the medium of the
environment; if we don't take care of our environment we are not taking care
of ourselves. If we want to sustain ourselves we need to sustain the place we
live. We need to sustain our intellectualism. We need to sustain our culture.
And perhaps we can bring to fruition, a symphony of cultural harmony.
The suggested solution is called a Health-Based or Natural Law Resource
Based Economy. The indomitable aspect of science is what makes it what it is.
91
Even when experiments fail, science progresses. From every A to every F a
teacher gives a student. Science will continue in utilizable dominance. I wish I
can say more but to the people that don't believe in science; or believe there's
just no merit, I recommend searching the Internet and watching a lecture
given by Peter Joseph called Economic Calculation in a Resource-Based
Economy.
The science is real and it's proven all around us. In the big picture we are
nothing but a single grain of dirt on the cosmic beach of something, all we
have is this little grain of dirt. We should take care of it. If this is not enough
incentive for us to help each other change the world, I don't know what is.
92
18. MATRIX THEORY
“The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty
of their dreams.”
-Eleanor Roosevelt
(It’s important to understand this; the belief in the beauty of an idea is not the same as
validity or merit. For someone to believe, in the beauty of their dream, does not require
of them to literally accept dreamy schema as being subject to taking place in real space
because of a superstitious interpretation of what a dream is.)-Jabarri Lewis
The harmonious truth is that “anything” is not possible. In philosophy,
naturalism is the “idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural
or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world.”
You can clearly see that whomever came up with this definition was
giving a mutual cordial to the naturalist and spiritualist. Claiming that it is an
idea or a mere belief, when in practice it is %100 proven and overwhelmingly
obvious as I will explain. Within this definition I suggest that the word operate
be followed by “and govern the world.” Many people have connotations of the
word government and they probably imagine a bunch of hysterically lazy
people wearing suits and who can recite the constitution extemporaneously.
This is not the case here. But in a loose context it will suffice; in the same way a
government is understood as an organizer of a civilization, the governing laws
of this cosmic millisecond-yet infinity is natural government codifying
properties to natural laws. The scientific community and the spiritual
communities can all only look at mutual evidence. The same fossils, the same
animals, and closely the biology; unless you are a remarkable zoolingualist. The
subjects go as far back as man does. Or rather as modern man does. We can
talk evolution vs creation, or the rather unsophisticated subject of natural
selection vs divine imposed morality; or we can get to the roots and discuss the
battle of beliefs between science and theism.
Every single day new discoveries are being made literally in the science
lab and our vivid yet undemanding interrogation of the world has given us
93
answers that a scientist or “natural philosopher (as it was once coined)” living
in the 1500’s would look at and probably assume he was living in utopia
relative to the state of science in the 1500’s; Very infantile relative to where the
method of science is today, nevertheless extreme discoveries are only found by
people who don’t resort to emotional rejection of them. For instance, William
Harvey the anatomical and physiological physician of the mid 1500-1600’s
was trying to understand the human body, so him being savvy of the anatomy
of small reptiles and amphibians; picked up a snake and cut it in half. The
blood flowed until he pinched the artery. His first assumption was that the
heart generated blood, but after calculating this possibility he found that if
blood was being generated, in a short time his body mass would be 7 times
what it was. His calculation ruled this out and when he pinched the artery of
the snake the blood stopped flowing. He was the first person to ever know with
minimal uncertainty that blood is being circulated and the heart is what keeps
the river flowing. His contributions to anatomy even led him to become the
physician of King James 1 and Francis Bacon. We can imagine getting a call to
do a job for a rather important person, but the thrill of discovering and
contributing not just to science; but to knowledge is the true prize.
William Harvey was able to say that he discovered the function of blood
and its purpose to the human anatomy. This was a time in which witchcraft
was outlawed and actually illegal. He was sent to investigate one of four
women who had been accused of witchcraft. They were said to control things
including even animals through telepathy. She was unaware that he was a
physician, and he entered her home as a wizard. She puts a saucer of milk on
the floor and called for a frog. Her frog came and drank the milk. She went to
get drinks for them and when she left he killed and dissected the frog. It was a
normal frog. No supernatural properties whatsoever; given that William
understood how to search for supernaturalism. When she came back she was
angry about her frog that had recently became a mere corpse. William told her
he was sent by King James to verify or falsify her witchcraft status. He reported
back that she was not a witch. Just a lady with an ex-pet frog and an
imagination. She was found not guilty of witchcraft, and thankfully she lived
through this. This is a prime example of scientific philosophy saving someone
94
from religious philosophy.
The imagination is the worst and best tool to use when trying to make
sense of what seems superstitious; but where do the parameters stand? Indeed,
we need to set some type of boundary to the imagination if logical conclusions
are the goal. Many times I have debates and more importantly; discussions of
this Matrix argument. In principle this argument is no different from a
spiritual claim. “What if nothing is real and we are plugged into another
dimension that we interpret as existence but we are not really here, it just
seems like we are?”
“What if this is all just a dream?”
We interpret things through “sense data”- the information we receive
through our senses. Hearing, sight, feel, smell, and taste. I wish we can add
thinking to the list but the brain can twist and misconstrue sense data to the
point of sense malfunction. The other senses do this too but when one sense
lacks, another one can assist whereas brains think in a syntactical manner. The
way a person puts his words together is his syntax. The way thoughts occur is
the same, the train of thought people take is just as automatic as their speech is.
Regardless, the point is clear when someone mentions ants; then you feel
them, yet they are not on you. Or when thinking of how a man in a movie
kidnapped someone and you begin to see silhouettes of humans in low lit
rooms etc. Even in a recent study, a third of subjects claimed to feel real pain in
the same part of the body as the victim they were watching. They are not hurt
at all; yet their brain is telling them that they are. This is why our brains need
to be used with sense data, not absent sense data. A brain being used absent
sense data is simply a dream or hallucination. Our dreams are a collection of
subconscious properties that are being played back to us imaginatively. We
mix them up and they become on average a mildly coherent scenario. We can
fly for hours and we can run at faster speeds than airplanes while dreaming. I
even killed chucky once with a shovel in a bed store that my grandmother used
to take me to. So how do we know that this is the real world and our dream
world is the faulty one?
95
One reason is because you can’t see someone else’s hallucinations and
you can’t simultaneously be in the same dream as someone else based on the
based on the same principles that won’t allow you to see someone’s thoughts.
The only way you could is if your sub conscience mirrored someone else’s and
you both could experience the same properties simultaneously in this given
dimension. Or you both would have to have a physical encounter with the
exact same dream property. For instance, 2 people would have to be burned or
anything in the same dream or dimension; but the ambiguity remains high and
it is still paradoxical; because simply waking up to this world and not to the
dream world would imply that the dream isn’t real, whether you wake up with
a full back tattoo or not. Waking up from it falsifies the claim that it’s a real
place. We understand when we are dreaming because things aren’t governed
the way they are here in reality. So when kissing a girl and she vanishes into
water you know the laws of reality are being contradicted. Such as the moon
taking on a shape of a trapezoid, people walking on water, or someone choking
because their eyes are covered.
Reality is this. This is reality. I’m firm on this, but these are just
meaningless words without verification. If I hit you while you are awake you
will bruise up, and the effects of my actions here in reality will be measured,
validated, and interpreted through sense data. Yet if I approach you In a
dream; even though it isn’t really me- and I hit you, you might feel a sudden
sensation and you may even have a “dimensional” bruise. But upon waking up
you will look and see that there is no bruise, at least not from my replicated
image striking you. Also if you question me about why I hit you in your dream,
there is no line of questioning that can prove that I did it. Plus nothing can
make me aware of your experience but your testimony. Even if I really did
sneak into your dream and I stole on your ass and you woke up bruised from
my punches, studying my hands in reality will show you that I didn’t punch
anything. The burden of proof always lays on the one to make the initial claim.
The one that makes the claim has the duty of providing validity and relevance
to his or her claim. Regarding the age of yourself in your dreams is also wacky.
Sometimes you have kids and sometimes you have fame, yet in reality you
realize have none. You don’t wake up feeling agony because your dream kids
96
have been lost in another dimension. You might be 25 in one dream and be 10
years old in an even later dream. Yet when you wake up to the reality you are
still the same age and same person. Even dying in a dream is subconsciously
inconsistent, being that you are still able to have another dream. This implies
that the death was not real, but it was an illusion of death. And quite frankly
the law of death says it can only happen to you once.
Laws are constant. That’s what makes them laws. Another way to gauge is
to detect gravitational forces and if there’s certain things that this law is not
governing-that would suggest it was “out of place.” Gravity will never just
experimentally let go and pull back when it feels like it. It’s a force based on
mass and distance of 2 given objects. The only way to remove the gravity from
it role is to remove the mass associated with its force. Or to simply be in
another place or dimension. So this government of laws can actually validate 2
things. It tells you exactly where you’re at. It provides a natural foundation for
your senses to sharpen and adapt themselves to.
Your senses work the absolute best here in reality (and best is far from the
word I’m looking for). Nevertheless, this is where they developed. This is why
your dreams don’t seem as precise and vivid as real life. The only option I can
think of to transfer non-sense data into a property of reality is to take a picture
on you iPhone while in a dream and email it to yourself in real life. If that
message pops into your inbox then you have inferential evidence of another
dimension, and just like evolution; science would have no choice but to accept
and interrogate it. This implies heaven and perhaps an entire new dimension
for us to explore. Something better than the cosmos. Personally I think its
%99.999999 unlikely but if the experiment can be done id sign up for it.
Imagine any object in reality, this object can be validated as real by a
group of people in which all can mutually sense its properties within the laws
governing us and this item. We can sense it here because we are also here. If
we want to lock it in a safe and pick it up later, we can. Dreams are not
continuum oriented like reality is. Depending on who you are you can call
them brain malfunctions or brain exercises. A good way to think of dreams is
to think of a tv screen with static on it. This tv screen is your brain; and
97
although there is no coherent image on the screen, looking and thinking long
enough can place an image on the screen that your brain can distinguish from
the static; but the image is only visible to the individual viewer according to the
properties they mentally send to the screen. Stand in a mirror; You can close
your eyes and visually imagine yourself with 3 eyeballs and wearing a
diamond covered scarf. The thoughts going on in your head are properties of
your conscious thoughts absent your 5 senses, your eyes are used to visually
sense things and you are visualizing an image without using them. Therefore,
you can insert whatever you’d like to the scene. Yet nothing about this implies
reality. Opening your eyes, you will see that your brain has completely failed
you. No Inference equals no validity. Equating the matrix to reality is
scientifically irrelevant. We are here and this is real, there is no alternative to
reality.
98
19. A VIEW OF SEXUALITY
“Women are systematically degraded by receiving the
trivial attentions which men think its manly to pay to
the sex, when, in fact, men are insultingly supporting
their own superiority.”
-Mary Wollstonecraft
We continually try to redefine the nexus between men and women. Men
are called perverts and women are called whores or sluts, and as soon as you’re
born grown women put their breast in your mouth. Other mammals also use
breastfeeding for their young. Contributing to their sexual experience as
youths, yet barrier after barrier has been set holding cultural limitations to a
natural circumstance. How can we mature out of a sexual nature inflicted
upon us at/by birth? In fact it is this same nature that brought us here. There’s
many different historical references of sexual desire being ignoble to the
premise of life that god had planned for us. Promoting purity, cleanse, and
spiritual consolidation. The mixture of promiscuity with the divine thesis put
forth by that nation’s prophet was viewed as a spiritual contamination.
Implying three things: One is that every person who falls for the desire has a
soul in the first place, two it implies that they are voluntarily giving it up, and
three condemnation and ostracism towards promiscuity. In early hunter
gatherer societies the woman played a vital role in the survival of tribesmen.
Supervising the children, domesticating animals, and gathering fruits. Early
Native American stories even suggest that some women-gatherers were much
better than the male hunters at fishing.
This isn’t hard to imagine. This is a time when there was no trading, no
electric lights, no modern medicine, and no Europeans. Other societies around
the world had indomitable religious psychologies against the equality of
women. Some Middle Eastern scriptures promoted insurance that they never
do the work that the man does and that her temple or body was covered unless
in the event of sexuality with her husband, in which culturally many men were
prompted to marry multiple women. A tradition that has been held through
99
arguably all mammals for much longer than the tradition of monogamous
marriage has. The dichotomy of men and women has not always been
understood but has been reinforced as well.
THE QURAN STATES
“Allah curses those men who make themselves resemble women or
those women who make themselves resemble men.”
“Any woman who perfumes herself and leaves her home is cursed by
the angels and deprived of the blessings of the Almighty Allah
until she returns home.”
These types of scriptures have been supported through the ages and
women have developed an understood cultural subservience to the man of the
house. Inversely the man has adapted his preferences to this cultural dogma as
well. Asserting masculinity in places it has no place being, as well as places it
simply isn’t necessary; like the color of your jacket or the shape of your car
spoiler. The recent women’s rights movement was a very tremendous stage of
women earning a different type of respect. The respect only queens and
princesses received. Economic mobility in which was out of direct control of
particular males was granted to women and replaced the prior need and also
the preference of having a man in the household. Introducing a vision of life in
which the benefits of government aid, unemployment, child support, and the
like lessened the difference between being employed and unemployed. The
woman’s historical desires have now changed being that the economic affairs
shift her preferences another direction. Economic security and status have been
the new pillars of marriage. She is now forced into living all aspects of her life
in the footsteps of her fellow man, yet there’s a category that makes them beg
for their natural womanhood.
The woman has been deprived of her womanhood by the foolish practices
of men. If the system doesn’t work for men, why test it on women? What
problems has a political structure actually solved? None. So of what relevance
is giving women the right to vote? As if there is any true value in being able to
participate in a failed experiment. Men voting for centuries has been a perfect
display of democratic failure. Most women feel they have been granted some
100
type of legitimate equivalence, and their initial response is one of subservience
to the economic proxy. Women have now replaced the preference of a man in
his natural state with a preference of a man who resembles the elite men in
whom she is submissive to economically.
This is understandable; obviously women would prefer their men to have
money; but what did they prefer before money was invented? Women being
forced to play the man’s game have pushed her away from her traditional
womanhood and into promiscuity to find this lost feeling of a man belonging
with her. She’s willing to fulfill sexual desires of hers and of others with
practically no limitations. Her natural preferences have been forced away and
her mating criterion has been decreased down to a dollar amount, a man’s
particular car, or anything else irrelevant to the reciprocity and congregation
of men and women. The desire is so strong that full institutions have been
created for the sake of sexual expression to relieve people of incarceration for
acts that would be considered taboo by a system that didn’t directly approve of
them. The adult entertainment industry may be looked at as nothing more than
traditional rebellion, but it is overwhelmingly evident that it’s necessary.
Promiscuity has even been supported in hopes of population stabilization.
Thomas Malthus an English Economist of the mid 1700’s to mid-1800’s
proposed policies of prostitution to encourage people that wanted sex to do so
without chance of having children. His theory on population was wrong;
nevertheless, sex was still the proclaimed solution. Many prefer handcuffs, hair
pulled, behind smacked, choked; the women have come to prefer these from
traditional womanly subservience and as a balancing mechanism between the
lack of an economic womanhood and a yearning for sexual domination being
that throughout all of women’s history they have played a vital role to the
household. The responsibilities and importance of women in a man’s life has in
the last 90 years been abruptly taken from them.
They went from playing the important role of caregiver to the man and
the family they created together, to being forced to only stay relevant by taking
on the social role of man. The revolution of social affairs and the way they take
place in today’s culture suggests that the role women used to play regardless of
101
how vital it was is not economically relevant today. Women are longing for not
any relevance but a modern relevance. This illusion of relevance has made
many women not hold on to what they had, but in fact has made them even
more willing to throw it away. We see Oprah and we see a success story. A
success story that came to fruition according to the social system that does not
promote womanhood, but promotes a psychology of women’s adaptation to
manhood. Nature says be a woman, while social conductivity says, “be more
like a man.” Traditional modern women’s subservience has increased to peaks
that were once considered taboo. Adult categories capture this; submission,
hardcore, dominatrix etc.
These categories are perfect guides for women and men to find their
common sexual desires. Even an adult language has been invented to gauge
what sexual activities women and men prefer. The institution and in often
cases the sexual act itself is tiptoed around cautiously with fear of ostracism or
more often, to help women to rid themselves of a man behaving as a sexual
annoyance. We call indecent exposure a crime.
In the same way that darkness is described as the absence of light and
good is described as the absence of evil; this branch of
criminality/condemnation is cultivated from the absence or rejection of
sexuality and/or the rejection of the subject itself in academia due to the
traditional belief that sexual subjects are not of public inquiry. When it is in
fact the number one thing on a majority of people’s minds. Especially young
people. The policies have pushed the attribute of having a respectful sexual
interest in a woman or man’s body into a malicious category of indecent
exposure. This train of thought is derived from the assumption that the human
body in its natural state is of less purity than when it is hidden by clothing.
More rather, the idea of the naked body being a mere distraction from an
outfitted civilian; who’s culture tells him/her that he/she is not good enough
when on display. It is not “bad” to be naked, but due to the public dogma
surrounding sexuality, it becomes a crime when everyone else is clothed. The
culture adapts to these laws and then nudity becomes taboo. So not only do the
laws change on paper, in a way that makes something harmless, illegal but
102
they change the values of the people and through incarceration and slander
they give off an association that says, being nude is wrong or naughty. Now
we’ve come to a milieu in which being covered up is a form of freedom and is
the “correct or right” way to live. And being “nude” is becoming more and more
synonymous with being “locked up.”
Yet we never think maybe the clothing is the deterrent of natural sexual
affairs. Our sexual nature is compressed and diluted to a degree of communal
recommendation. The LGBT community has soared in the name of cultural
defiance. Many walk around nude at the festivals and gatherings. A
controversial but necessary movement that has an end goal of happiness and a
grand respect for self-representative sexuality. I can respect this. In fact I can
root for this. The minutia of this circumstance may sometimes be annoying or
involuntarily eye catching but nevertheless the humility and sonder within the
movement is admirable; but in the case of men’s and women’s relations, our
need to survive economically has systemically pushed our sexual exhibitions to
the other side of the moral justice. A horny man is viewed as “nasty” and a
horny woman is viewed as “slutty”. A penis is no longer worshiped for the
benefits and pleasure that it can bring to the woman anatomy and vis versa It
is now viewed as a dirty, sinful, insidious part of a man that should be
contained. I’m not promoting having sex with everything walking. The point is,
our nature is calling us into action and our culture is telling us we are bad for
it. I can’t speak for everybody but to those that identify with this, I’ll speak for
them we are not perverts and we are not sluts. We appreciate nudity because
women’s bodies are beautiful. The women would agree the opposite. We are
men and women. Our bodies are biologically compatible. Therefore we have a
permanent mutual attraction. We don’t view sex as being gross. After all it’s
the pleasurable process of life; it should be done safely as anything else should,
and when people have the natural urge to exhibit sexuality they should be
allowed to without fear of cultural ostracism separating them from their
human nature.
103
20. PEACEFUL CHILD VS. VIOLENT PARENT
“I object to violence because when it appears to do
good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is
permanent.”
-Mahatma Gandhi
Before I get into this I want everyone to be familiar with Occam’s Razor.
This is a logical. and problem solving principle that has been used as a referent
throughout this essay|book. “Among competing hypothesis the one with the
fewest assumptions should be selected.” This is a way of saying if the hypothesis
complicates the test more than a hypothesis subject to the exact same test
complicates it, then the one with fewer complications should be selected.
For instance, the premise of a flat earth model begins with a rejection of
all the information that NASA has given us. The pictures are claimed to be
fakes created by NASA in order to hide the “true flat earth phenomena” from
the public in order to keep the spherical earth “conspiracy” alive. Now what
does this mean? This means that when 1000 theories applied to different
situations in the same context all agree with each other and all accurately
explain natural phenomena; an additional theory can only be validated if it is
both more accurate; and in tandem with the accuracy other theories. For
instance, if I had a theory that the earth was flat and not spherical; then this
theory can only be validated in the same context, up until it contradicts rivalry
theories that have higher accuracy. So if the force of gravity was theorized as a
pushing force rather than an attractive force, but the gravitational effect
illustrated with precision that it was the cause of the spherical nature of a
given planet then the claim of gravity being a pushing force would either have
to be rethought and re-presented, or thrown out due to lack of accuracy.
Because if a single theory explains thirty things, then a rivalry theory must also
account for these thirty things more accurately and as mentioned prior, it must
be in tandem with other accurate theories. So if the force of gravity were to
explain the spherical nature of planets and the spherical nature of the planets
accounted for weather patterns and seasonal changes etc. then a theory that
104
accounts for none of these things or accounts for them with less accuracy
should be trashed. Why? Because a flat earth model complicates things more
than it understands them. Also if you reject photo evidence of a given theory,
then photo evidence cannot be considered validation of your own theory. It’s
like claiming that photo evidence isn’t proof, and then relying on your own
photo evidence as proof of your claim (ignorant flat-earthers). The content of
this essay is considered controversial; unlike this flat earth example, many of
the ideas actually have rather-competitive disagreements that are worth
speaking on. Please don’t take the offense|defense of this essay|book as
disrespect.
Section I
Often times, perfectly capable writers are criticized for having a lack of
experience or not experiencing the situations of their writing first hand. This is
the paradoxical nature of creating literature. I was born in the year 1990, and
many people consider this alone to be a sufficient reason of why I can’t write
about history, slavery, prison, etc. Simply being bound by a 25 year 1st hand
time lapse has, in many people’s eyes, excluded me from the conversation.
Driving me into an intellectual war as an underdog. This reminds me of,
perhaps the biggest underdog in history; Thomas Baker. A U.S soldier who was
wounded in combat during World War II in the Battle of Saipon. He was
injured and when another injured soldier attempted to bring Baker to safety,
he insisted to be left behind. He was given a pistol and his unit took one last
look at him as they made an exit. He was propped up against a tree and was
given a pistol with eight bullets. When the American Army retook the position,
they found the pistol. It was empty and there was eight dead Japanese soldiers
around Baker’s body.
These chapters are those 8 bullets. Your brain is the pistol, and the dead
soldiers are a reflection of a cultural sickness that for a very long time has been
attempting to control the way you load your ammunition. We are propped up
against this tree and the bad ideas are attempting to continue to swarm your
culture. All I can say is load your ammunition and use your pistol.
105
Living in a place where you are a predator|parent is perhaps better than
living in a place in which you are the prey|child. Predators don’t have to
worry about getting killed by the prey. We have never heard of a wolf being
killed by a rabbit, but the opposite circumstance is a very common one. What if
the food chain was covertly re-categorized in a way that wolves were given the
psychology, status, and behavior of a rabbit. While other wolves were able to
remain wolves. What if some biological wolves were covertly tricked into
thinking and behaving like rabbits. Feeling entitled to having baby after baby.
With no regard for the rest of the pack. What if these wolves were starved and
deprived for so long that they actually felt entitled to a meal consisting of grass.
Eating a zebra meal with the elite wolves seems unrealistic to them. The weak
wolves are intimidated and the investment into a meal of zebra without
repercussion or theft of the meal by the elite wolves isn’t even an option and
there is a 99% percent statistical chance of failure and never becoming an elite
wolf. The zebra meal is not even within the scope of opportunity in the same
way that a one-hundred thousand dollar house is not within the scope of a
person with one thousand dollars in the bank. Or in the same way a nutritious
meal or health care isn’t within the scope of a homeless man, or in the same
way dental care isn’t within the scope of a person with no money. Or in the
same way that voting is not within the scope of a felon. While the possibility of
opportunity may present itself in abstraction, it might as well not even be
there; in the same sense that a voting booth might as well remain an
unattainable abstraction to a felon. This is a glimpse into the psychology of the
deprived. Yet, the deprivation begins its pathogen much sooner than many
people realize. I have two main intellectual interests:
1. Macroeconomics and its effect on the ecology
2. The cultural ramifications of economics and its relationship to social
conductivity
When I look at the differences between the way children in different
cultures grow up I can’t help but notice with precision the ones who will
succeed and the ones who will fail. The attributes are common and most people
see this also, which is actually a relatively new phenomenon considering the
106
rise of internet information and the convenience of video cameras in
everyone’s pocket now days, I’ve seen many other people watch videos of
events that once took place only behind closed doors. A man whipping his
daughter with a belt in the middle of the street to simply humiliate the girl in
front of the entire world including her friends, so maybe she’ll have to find a
“better” crowd to hang around. It’s understandable when considering the
insane state of the culture. But does this actually bring a better crowd? Or does
it humiliate the girl on social media and push her into a permanent cast of
embarrassment?
Another woman was cursing her daughter out for bullying a girl at
school. Which is almost understandable. The brightness of this situation shows
itself by the fact that the mother is morally aware of the fact that bullying is
wrong. I commend that, but attempting to teach this lesson by simply
threatening and cursing out a child is wrong by any standard.
On the following page are the 10 phrases said by the mother that shows
an absolute failure of the lesson attempted.
107
1. …“shutup, shutup, shutup”…
2. …“who the fuck was you bullying today?”…
3. …“You know I know when the fuck your lying right?”…
4. …“im finna beat your mutherfuckin’ ass”…
5. …“Do you know what the fuck bullying is?” girl replied “yeah” mother says
”shutup”…
6. “…how do you feel if I bully your mutherfuckin ass? How you feel if I
whoop your motherfuckin’ ass?”…
7. “…she put her hands on you? That shit didn’t motherfuckin’ hurt you.” Girl
attempts to speak and mother says, “shut the fuck up…”
8. “…all because your stupid ass want to motherfuckin’ be a badass and a
motherfuckin’ show off in front of some motherfuckin’ girls who was bullying
and talkin’ about your motherfuckin’ ass and had your motherfuckin’ ass
crying….”
9. “You finna get your ugly ass in the house…”
10. “…And guess what, you finna get a motherfuckin’ ass whoopin’.”
I wonder who this girl’s mother claims is responsible for this
circumstance. These are the extremes that people will go to in order to “teach”
their children a lesson. But what if the lesson simply didn’t work. This type of
verbal abuse and threatening approach towards children can be a measurable
hindrance. The creative nature of a gullible young mind can be guided and fed
to grow, or it can be tormented and damaged to death. When parenting is
considered you can see certain negative behaviors taking place long before a
child’s incarceration takes place. A German study reported; people who as
children experienced the tyranny and powerlessness of frequent spankings
developed a disproportionately greater interest later in life to own guns. They
also preferred harsher prison sentences and the death penalty for prisoners.
108
The same study consisting of 45,000 9th graders revealed that those kids that
were beaten by their parents were five times as likely to commit repeated
crimes or to use cannabis, and missed school four times more frequently for
ten days a year or more.
We have this diluted and blurred view of what a cultural norm is here in
the United States in many categories, most likely due to the industry of abject
slavery being formally abolished here in the United States, coupled with the
initial legitimate wealth that slowly became an illusion of wealth that spread
globally and interested outside nations in a utopia called “democracy.” The
entire time western societies were focused on wealth and dominance they ran
the psychology of the youth into a cultural retrograde. The intellectuals
persisted but the name of the game was never progress, but power it was.
Meanwhile the Scandinavians (North Europeans) were busy as the first to
illegalize teachers hitting students in the 1950’s and 60’s. Between 1979 and
1983, they outlawed spanking by parents. Crime rates, gun ownership and
prison populations have been falling ever since. Why didn’t we do this first?
Even in Sweden, schoolyard fights are rare, and when they happen they are
treated like major problems. When I was in grade school, a fight was so
common that sometimes it wasn’t even worth watching. Many of the kids
would simply keep walking by. They were gone for 3 days and they were both
back at school as hostile towards each other as they can be. This is the way our
system handles violence. A timeout from school that seemed more like a minivacation. Nevertheless, within Scandinavian culture or perhaps policy, police
violence is strictly controlled and meetings are culturally understood as events
in which agreements are arrived at.
The more important area of interest is the household. Kids in other
countries are guided by parents to study and educate themselves. Guided is
said emphatically, because literally telling a kid “study and educate yourself” is
an empty phrase. It’s important to understand that qualifications and skill sets
no longer (if they ever did) hold a 1 to 1 correlation. “Qualifications do not
always translate into stronger skills. While only 1 in 4 of U.S. college graduates
reach the top-end of literacy skill, more than 35% reach that level in Finland,
109
Japan, and the Netherlands. As Andreas Schleicher explained, “We typically
describe people by their formal qualifications, but this data suggests that the
skill value of formal qualifications vary considerably across countries.” 20
percent of U.S high school students don’t graduate on time, and the U.S
graduation rates only remained competitive due to lowered standards,
unenthusiastic|monotonic alternative schools, and dominantly the removal of
exit exams which is literally a lowered standard. And this doesn’t even touch
upon the contemptuous attitude of an underpaid and overworked teacher.
If a parent is uneducated and content with being uneducated then they
will have very limited skills and tools to pass on to their children. If a wolf
gives birth to 2 pups (on average a wolf would have between 4-6 pups,
nevertheless the example still holds) then these pups will have an easier time
learning how to become good hunters by watching the behaviors and
techniques of the knowledgeable adults rather than watching the other lost
pups. The point is the brains that don’t know much have less to teach. So
although a person’s body gets bigger and matures in a given way, the ability to
teach can remain in a stage of infancy for a person’s whole life. So although
the primary focus is the children, subjecting them to an external institution is
never better for them than an educated, peaceful, creative, and focused
household. Yet, given a paradigm in which uneducated people are teaching
other uneducated people, there’s not much to work with. This link in the chain
must be replaced.
Another study put forth very disturbing information regarding 37
families — 36 mothers and one father, all of which were audio recorded for up
to 36 hours in six days of study — researchers heard the sharp cracks and dull
thuds of spanking, followed by in some cases minutes of crying. They’d
inadvertently captured evidence of corporal punishment (which is punishment
applied specifically to cause pain), as well as the tense moments before and
after. The recordings feature a mother spanking her 3-year-old son 11 times
for fighting with his sister, prompting a fit of crying and coughing. Another
mom hits her 5-year-old when he won’t clean up his room. One mom slaps
her child when he doesn’t cooperate with the bedtime routine. Many people
110
justify this behavior (the adults behavior) by saying; it’s simply necessary as a
discipline and a “spanking” is different than “abuse”. The question at hand is: Is
hitting children better than not hitting them? In a 1998 Research preview it
was stated that “Self-reported childhood abuse and neglect overall, 68 percent
of the incarcerated adult male felons reported some form of early childhood
victimization before age 12, either physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect. The
most common type of reported victimization was physical abuse. Using a
measure of “very severe violence.” The study found that about 35 percent of the
sample reported severe childhood physical abuse. Sexual abuse and neglect
were less commonly reported and often occurred in combination with other
types of abuse. About 14 percent reported some form of childhood sexual
abuse. Fewer than a quarter of the sample reported more than one type of
abuse or neglect. These are just the ones that were reported. When you take
into account prison politics and all the people who are no longer here to report
or who weren’t surveyed, the figures in this study are very generous.
From 1980 to 2013, the prison population has increased by seven to eight
hundred percent. The jail population has quadrupled. Parole has quadrupled
and probation has tripled. The justice system has literally been overflowed with
abuse being that the causality of incarceration can be extended to parental
abuse. San Quentin State Prison is 1,200 inmates over capacity, with a %137
population rate. If this is not enough evidence try this; did you know the effects
of adults hitting children, are symmetrically in tandem with the effects of
sexual assault. So if you (like me) agree that the effects of sexually assaulting a
child are beyond negative and beyond justifiable, then we can also agree that
the identical effects of children being hit can principally be categorized as
wrong, because the same effects arise. Sexual assault is any type of sexual
contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.
Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced
sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and
attempted rape.
The failure is a political one of course but the cultural one is even more
gross. If you were to put your hands on anyone then you will be approached
111
perhaps in your own home by men with guns and bulletproof vests, and if you
don’t follow them to the animal cage they have reserved for you, they will force
you. If you defend yourself from this force, they will kill you. The important
part of this is the fact that police come into the picture at all. If me and my
buddy decide to have a fist fight then the police will break up the fight and
take us to our reserved animal cages. Yet a parent can assault their child IN
PUBLIC and it’s okay. No citizens say a thing, and police officers watch and the
culture hides these sickening child-assaults behind the word “parenting.” No
assault charge, no battery charge, no domestic violence; Nothing, just a
principle of parenting.
Many times as a child I remember being dropped off at someone else’s
house and my grandmother would give another person “permission” to assault
me. Now looking back I ask myself: Did I assault anyone? Then why is someone
granted the authority to assault me? A kid responds with the word “no” and
this kids parents respond with an assault. Is this not absolutely and
unacceptably insane?
Prior to the 1870’s it was a common-law that a husband had the right to
“physically chastise an errant wife.” I’m sure women understand that being hit
is not better for them by any means. It does not take a social science genius to
understand this. Just a review of the golden rule or perhaps the 1st rule we all
learned. Consider living in a time in which parents are awarded authority to
assault their children like now. It is the equivalent of women living under the
aforementioned common law. Living in a milieu in which laws protect them
from being hit by husbands is not only a favorable one, but is actually better
for the health of women. If there was a common understanding that kids
shouldn’t be hit, and we lived in a place in which child assault is frowned
upon, then going back to a milieu in which child assault is acceptable would be
noticed as equally demented, as the common-law prior to the 1870’s was.
Would women like to go back to being assaulted by their husbands? Of course
not. Would children prefer to be assaulted by their parents? Of course not.
112
Section II
In early human history there was a sense of community for a few reasons
as I will explain throughout this Section. The word father did not exist
although the word mother did. The children were looked after by the
community and they all understood who their mother was. The men were
referred to as Uncle because polygamy has always out-popularized
monogamy. Nevertheless, the tribes all understood that children should be
protected. Along with old people, dogs, horses, and buffalo herds. There were
worries and dangers to remain cautious of, but the child-related dangers of the
past are not even remotely what they are today. We’ve remained together in a
familial sense for the most part, but living separated in different households
has made people feel individually entitled to the rules of the home. A persons
entire family can tell them that a specific approach towards their children is
wrong, but the economic irrelevance of the outsiders or perhaps the lack of
“contribution” to the household itself is perfectly ripe to be conducted into an
oligarchy.
The Native Americans had “Chiefs” but the oligarchical nature of today’s
“chiefs” is nowhere close to equivalent to the ones of early native history. The
chief was not “voted” in nor was he appointed according to who his father was,
unlike the kings and queens were in the middle ages. “Chief-hood” was not
hereditary although many people and scholars suggest it was. The chiefs were
appointed based on the respect and contribution he gave to his tribe. In some
cases it happened to be the best hunter, warrior or the best healer. The ones
who made discoveries and led their natives to victory against the insidious
elements, and in many cases the ones who claimed to have divine ties to
natural affairs became the chief. When many chiefs were young and tribes
began to wander off and create their own sub-tribes, they were able to keep
peace with the “outsiders” because the Chief was the one who had history and
respect amongst the Chiefs and families of other tribes. They separated but they
were still a family. The tribes who were not known or who were considered
trespassers had to face many tribes rather than a single tribe in times of feud.
In short, tribes were much, much greater in numbers than mainstream history
113
depicts them to be.
The more isolated the communities became the more the values changed
and hence, the more different the children grew to be. The parent or “chief” of
the modern household is granted the position of leader by mere pregnancy or
by mere proclamation. Giving credence to the idea of “my house, my rules.” It is
not necessarily “earned” the way the position of chief was earned in a Native
American tribe. Consider this; if we can agree that violence, threatening, and
verbal abuse is not a healthy environment for the growth of children, and they
are constantly subjected to it by their parents, then we can also agree that with
a child’s abusive parents is not the best place for them. But children cannot run
away like adults can. Another important question is, who is to say where the
line of violence can be drawn at? If a man smacks his child on the hand for
touching something, or a man hits his child on the bottom for getting bad
grades, or he snatches his child by his/her shirt for back-talking, or he uses a
belt for a “good lesson”, or a slap upside the head for being too silly, or a shove
to the chest for contesting his elders, or a slap to the face for disobeying. Which
ones are violent and which ones aren’t? To anyone trying to rationalize any of
these examples into being acceptable. I’m afraid your attempt will reveal itself
as invalid. They are all wrong and they are all violent.
As a child I spent a very brief period with my father in Vallejo California,
I remember a time I brought bad grades home and while I was sitting in my
room he kicked the door open, he put my report card up to my face and
screamed, “What the fuck is this bullshit?!”He smacked me with his hand
(while still holding the report card) and continued to slap me for maybe 4
seconds. It seemed longer at that moment but it wasn’t actually a long time. I
remember falling into a pile of clothes and standing up dizzy, as he walked
away and closed the door behind him. He came back, threw a book at me, and
told me “here, read this bullshit.” I was reading the book he gave me and 3-4
hours later he opened the door and said this,
“You read that shit for 30 more minutes and then you can bring your ass
up outta here.”
114
This is why this essay is being written. At one point in time I was down on
my luck with not many friends and I needed something to love; so I looked
around for a pet and I knew I was going to have to train this pet to live in the
same house as me and this pet would have to learn the “rules”. I went to
craigslist and found a litter of Pit bull puppies. There was a litter of 5 and I
called the lady who owned them. By the time I got to this lady’s house there
was only 3 of them left. 2 girls and 1 boy. I took the boy because I didn’t want a
litter of my own, being that I could barely afford to take care of the one I was
getting. Nevertheless there was love needed, so the scarce money was not a
deterrent for my preference to love something. Fast forward 10 months; I have
a dog now, and every now and then he poops on the floor. I feel angry and I
used to feel this urge to hit him to “teach” him the lesson that he needs to do it
outside and not in the house. When I raise my voice at him his ears go back
and he lays on his back in fear of being hit. He understands that I didn’t like
what he did, but of what relevance is my dislike of his actions if he doesn’t
understand how to do it right? So how could a slap get my point across to him?
I use this example because when I was in school I would sometimes ask
my family for help with my school work and they would tell me to ask my
teachers because they hadn’t seen this work in so many years if they’d even
seen it at all. So when considering them being at the time just as uneducated as
I was, was it proper behavior for me to have been hit, or punished for having
bad grades? When they would’ve failed the class along with me if they were
enrolled in it! This is the line of questioning that is relevant. Relevant to
progress rather than dominant relationships and condescending
proclamations.
The problems in this world are not being created in the White house, nor
are they being created in the science lab, nor in prison, and nor in the
classroom. They are beginning right in the household. We can argue that the
school classroom is dimmed and unchallenging, but is it the schools fault? If
kids were taught in the household prior to the classroom then the collective
knowledge of the students would elevate the learning and teaching potential of
the schooling system. Imagine a modern 5th grade class being given the
115
curriculum of a modern preschool class; the institution would have no option
but to elevate the knowledge base, because the knowledge of the students
collectively contributes to the curriculum. It’s important to understand that
schools are stuck with irrelevant curriculum’s because parents brush them off
and assume that it’s not their “job”. “It’s a teachers job to teach”, they say. Kids
are going into kindergarten clueless of what the ABC’s are and can’t grasp
simple number equations when they are MUCH more than capable of grasping
them. When a kid learns rather-slow relative to the other kids then he/she is
assumed to be a slow learner. This is NOT the case as much as it is a problem of
a “Late Learner”, and the burden of a late learner lays with the parent of that
kid. It is not the teachers job. It is yours.
If you are one of the people that think that education is a teachers job,
then logically you should also believe that your husbands sexual satisfaction is
a prostitutes job. Or that your kids health is the doctors job. All of the
institutional-ism is irrelevant in this context; it’s YOUR job, period.
Section III.
To set the pillars of the next point I want to make. The links in the chain
of closed door culture (or the culture within the household) are temporarily
holding but noticeably rusted and deteriorating. The weak links in the chain
must be replaced with sturdier metal. This chapter will reference the cultural
indoctrination’s specifically applied to children. When I was a child I
remember my grandmother shedding tears on Christmas when I was 11 or 12
years old. And now that I have a better understanding of her admirable
struggle I can see that he tears were running down both of her cheeks for 2
different reasons. She was shedding tears of thankfulness because, she was able
to give me and my uncle Kiyoshi a good Christmas day. She was thankful that
her coworkers bought me presents that she couldn’t afford to buy. She was also
shedding tears because she was experiencing an event that her bank account
told her she would never experience. This was a Christmas but when I put my
grandmothers struggle into perspective, it was a “miracle.” Now that I’m an
116
adult and I understand that money is becoming more and more scarce, I’m
more aware of the ramifications of leading a child on to think that there is a
specific day reserved for putting toys under a tree for no apparent reason,
simply because a subculture says today is the day we buy things and give them
away. When I think about the things I was given on Christmas day every year I
understand more and more the reason I was expecting to receiving something.
At the same time just before Christmas break I would receive a report card that
was a failing one, but Christmas in my eyes was a day of gifts. And this is
where the malfunction lies.
Many people that are familiar with my activism know that I am not
against giving gifts. It’s actually commendable to me. One of the features of
local production within the post-scarcity economy I’ve been promoting comes
from the “Gift Economy”. I like the non-selfish element of the holiday. But the
selfish element of it is so bad and destructive that its actually worth it to give
up the current holiday and replace it with something a little more thoughtful.
It’s not necessarily the idea of Christmas per say, but the cultural ideological
association. At 25 years old I was living in my cousins basement and I was
basically embarrassed to go upstairs while everyone was opening presents
because I was unemployed and flat broke. And I couldn’t afford to participate.
My dog stayed in the basement with me so the basement door stayed closed.
After every wave of present opening someone would open the door and throw
away the trash. The boxes of the children’s toys were thrown to the bottom of
the steps and I’ve never seen so many tools that were intellectually and
educationally hindering to a children’s progress. A nerf gun, a Barbie doll, a
ninja turtle toy etc. the question I ask myself when I see people “go out of their
way” to- with good intentions- make a child “happy” on Christmas: “Is this
helpful to the child? “The same thing was done to me as a kid and my values
were molded into thinking happiness came from “stuff.” It is not a particular
malevolence, nor is it a particular benevolence. In the same way that giving a
unhealthy and non-nutritious soda to a thirsty person is not malevolent in its
intention, but is not benevolent in regards to its outcome. so consider what the
correct actions are because we’ve evolved our culture into hitting kids being
confined to “parenting”. Dumbing young girls down with Barbie dolls has been
117
confined to “making them happy”. Giving nerf guns to toddler boys has been
confined to just “letting them be boys” as if the values weren’t forced on
him|her. Putting make up on a young girls face has been confined to “her
beauty”. In a world where children are handled as cultural scraps of a
communal junkyard, a value change must occur. If it doesn’t, you can expect
the continued increase of crime, mental illness(which has also become a
crime), and the violent chapters of human culture will continue to unfold.
118
21. ELECTRIC FEEL THEORY
“When the game is over, the king and the pawn go
into the same box.”
-Italian Proverb
Most of the theistic religious institutions have proposed an idea of eternal
life or perhaps a resurrection. But what does this really mean? Does this mean
that your consciousness can live forever with your personal attributes or
characteristics living eternally within the conscience; or does the consciousness
become perhaps less conscious after death, relative to how conscience it was
during life? What makes the conscience that you have, yours; and if it was to
live on bonded with your personal attributes existing within it, then in a sense
wouldn’t you be able to live forever?
We must be familiar with the 1st law of thermodynamics that is always
assumed to say “no matter can be created nor destroyed.” This assumption has
rarely been specified. What it states is the total amount of energy in a closed
system cannot be created nor destroyed but this does not account for the
different forms energy can take. And many people use this to combat science
under the impression that all systems are closed.
“A way of expressing the first law of thermodynamics is that any change
in the internal energy (∆E) of a system is given by the sum of the heat (q) that
flows across its boundaries and the work (w) done on the system by the
surroundings:
ΔE=q+w
This law says that there are two kinds of processes, heat and work, that
can lead to a change in the internal energy of a system. Since both heat and
work can be measured and quantified, this is the same as saying that any
change in the energy of a system must result in a corresponding change in the
energy of the world outside the system. The current of energy is fixed in regard
to its levels of potential, also this does not imply a finite limitation. In other
119
words, energy cannot be created or destroyed. If heat flows into a system or the
surroundings do work on it, the internal energy increases and the sign of q or
w is positive. Conversely, heat flow out of the system or work done by the
system will be at the expense of the internal energy, and will therefore be
negative.”
For instance, when a house burns down and there is less of the house
after it burns down then there was prior to it burning down, we assume that
the burning matter is being deleted out of existence; when in actuality it is
being broken down into smaller and smaller particles, and the matter that the
house once was is changing form. The matter of the house is not being
destroyed, and the resulting ashes and smoke particles are not being “created”
from nothing but a transformation process is taking place. Under the right
circumstances energy can convert itself into particles and these particles seem
to come from nothing. For instance, solar energy can hit a solar panel located
on the top of a roof to power a television set inside of the house. This energy
hits the solar panel and transforms itself into light particles called photons;
these photons come from the screen into your eyes and you see an image
consisting of light particles. These particles did not exist inside of the TV prior
to the energy circulating through it. And these light particles did not exist
within the energy prior to the energy making contact with the solar panel
(being that this experiment is practical at night time also).
I described the possibility of another dimension including heaven, the
matrix, hell, and everything in between. It’s important for people reading this
to understand that this is not about that at all. This is the evidence that the
consciousness can live on after biological death. The personality of this
consciousness cannot be penetrated at this time; nevertheless we generally
understand what a consciousness is, even though the minutia of our definitions
differ from belief to belief. The human body has energy flowing through it and
the brain possesses an electric circuitry. The average power consumption of a
typical adult is 100 Watts but, the brain consumes 20% of this making the
power of the brain quantifiable at 20 W. When this circuitry is gone you are
considered “brain-dead”. A mechanical support system can keep your heart
120
pumping but once that 20 W circuitry is gone, it will not come back whether
your organs are still being supported by machinery or not. “Brain-death is
death”. No more consciousness, no more personality, no more awareness, and
no more thoughts. Your consciousness lives within the electrical current
circulating throughout your brain. The 1st law of thermodynamics tells us that
energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but it can take different forms giving
the illusion of creation or destruction as explained in the solar panel & photon
example. So if a person takes their last breath and then they die. The electricity
within their brain is gone, but it cannot be destroyed. It can change form
depending on the circumstantial environment that it is released into.
Think about it. Everything you see around you consist of energy, that at
some point in the past and possibly-inevitably in the future would’ve been the
circuitry of a human brain. The conscience of a human brain must exist within
the circuitry because when the circuitry is gone the conscience simultaneously
disappears. Nevertheless, an electric space heater on a low setting will use
roughly 600 watts. The fascinating thing is that in theory, it would take the
circuitry of 30 human brains to give off the wattage of a low set electric space
heater. Imagine with 30 people standing around you, what would you relate
the heat you feel to? Probably an electric space heater on a low setting. We
cannot say where the conscious goes, and we cannot dissect the personality
from it, but we CAN say that it is an electrical force, the conscience is
inseparable from electricity, and that it does not go away in the sense of
deletion; but it changes form; and it WILL continue to circulate the system we
inhabit. Consciousness is all around us. We are inseparable from all other life
we see and all other life that anything living has ever seen. Quantum Theory
has proved a solid basis, being that it has never failed a test. The superstitious
remnants are irrespective to nature. The law of attraction, claims of telekinesis
(this is physically moving things with your mind such as in the movie Matilda),
and prayer hold no merit because the laws of nature won’t facilitate things
according to your own personal thoughts. What if the acclaimed supernatural
phenomena was a form of communicative static within the fields we exist in.
121
To a degree in which things that are naturally governed by laws, for an
instant, are relieved of those laws and impossible things become possible
within the disconnect. As perfect as this makes things, this still does not merit
prayer, because the chances of this subatomic fluctuation coming in contact
with you mid-prayer are 99.9% unlikely. But what if it did happen and your
prayer, fused with something beyond natural boundaries, made subatomic
quantum jumps throughout space and time that forced your prayer into
physical action. Predicting where this double-warped space would be is
beyond fathom. Maybe the kids spoken of earlier were visualizing the warped
static area created by quantum effects rather than a “ghost.” There’s no
evidence to call this idea a theory, it is just a suggestion nevertheless, theories
are being compiled to understand what it is we are experiencing. It could be a
ghost or it could be something else we decided to give the name ghost to. We
certainly have done this by simply calling nature, god. Currently quantum
theory is attempting to understand “ghost-like occurrences”. It is making
incredible progress. I once heard a friend of mine say, “I don’t believe in
coincidence, I believe in god.” Coincidence means, “a situation in which events
happen at the same time in a way that is not planned or expected. I couldn’t
believe the simplicity of my friends statement, Is a coincidence really that hard
to fathom? Is it really that much of an impossibility that something we didn’t
plan to happen or expect to happen can still happen?
Imagine trying to “plan” the weather. What is there to plan? Planning is
irrelevant to a circumstance that lies outside of your reach. You can make
assumptions based on patterns and inference. But if I plan the weather to be
120 degrees F in Antarctica and -50 degrees F in Iraq, you realize this isn’t a
planning kind of game, and attributing any external governance to the cause of
an effect (in which effects are also causes, if they weren’t than existence
would’ve remained in a stage of subatomic infancy) is simply mistaking an
internal mechanism for divinity or demise. Being that effects are also causes,
one cannot argue that an externality is even necessary. If causes are
understood as causes, and effects constitute more causes, then the potential of a
causal trigger is always and infinitely apparent. And thus, an effect is
inevitable.
122
22. YOU ARE NOT AN ATHEIST
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can
be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
Often, or rather- dangerously often, particular ideologies are
constructed in an evolutionary way. This is, in the same way the laws of nature
can produce a particular organism, the definitive, syntactical borders within a
given ideology exclude particular preferences from certain trains of thought.
Which is why it is very hard for a Greek man who literally believes in Zeus
(the Greek god of the sky) to see an type of value in a particular view that
suggests that their world view is inconsistent with one that people claim is
more reasonable.
“We also have a very strong need to believe we are being consistent with
social norms. When there is conflict between behaviors that are consistent with
inner systems and behaviors that are consistent with social norms, the potential
threat of social exclusion often sways us towards the latter, even though it may
cause significant inner dissonance.” – Sourced in the back of the book.
It’s worth bringing in Consistency Theory. This is very simple. It has to do
with the cognitive dissonance that occurs when past consistencies fall out of
“alignment.” This strive for internal consistency is the beginning stage of
curiosity. Curiosity is a basis for incentive. And incentives reveal a connection
between & prediction of a particular range of ones actions. Maybe different
people and different world views are inevitable. And if they are not
intrinsically, then it is still likely that a simple miss telling of a story can pass
through many generations, while intermediate generations are assuming that
the miss telling is either gone in the past or absolute currently. It has
historically, always come to fruition at a later time in a violent way, in the
name of superstition. Acting out a Holy War that takes place purely mentally.
The pathogen reveals itself when the immune system of the religious and
superstitious infections kicks in. This immune system is called Atheism. As
argued as the term is currently, its rather easy to understand. It is easier to get
123
a perceptual view of you consider these two sentences.
I am an atheist. I am a person who does not believe god exists.
These two sentences are synonyms- The definitions are arguable due to
semantics and contradicting religious definitions. They are hard to keep up
with, and many people give up the reading of scripture up to support things
they feel are intuitively correct. To me something being intuitively correct is
like branding it “no studying or evidence necessary.” The rivalry of atheism and
religion has been a bigger show than the ideas of either group themselves.
Being that these are both rather absolute terms, the atheist claiming to be in a
position of not believing in god, yet it does not permit them to have disbelief
towards Bloody Mary. Atheism is a rather narrow term when taken
pragmatically. In the west Atheism tends to mean “not believing in the
christian or catholic god.” In the middle east saying, “I’m an atheist.” Is
synonymous to saying, “Hey, sever my head and put me on CNN.” It’s
impossible to unify even a few religions due to the differences|contradictions.
Many religions claim subservience to the one and only true god. Tupac Shakur,
a poet of the 1980-1990’s even held a spiritual belief that god is black. Many
religious people refute this, probably because a great deal of them are not black
but also because the idea of god has expressed the god to be immaterial. It’s
crazy how he felt at liberty to make such radical claims as if its respectful to
throw out all biblical scriptures to simply “make” god resemble him.
Agnostics on the other hand is not so absolute. Agnostics are people who
believe that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of
God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither
faith nor disbelief in God. Agnostics are currently being left in the
philosophical wreckage for a few reasons. Sound waves. These are beyond
material phenomena. Along with radio waves, shadows, and dreams. a person
does not need material of sound to understand what sound is, shadows are
arguably the opposite of what shadows are. Yet we still can uncover functional
properties of things in which there is no material. Agnostics believe that
nothing is known or can be known of the existence of sound. Nevertheless it is
still better than the other traditional options because it doesn’t require belief in
124
the supernatural. Not being convinced of a particular theory is much better
than being required to believe in fiction or myth.
“Is there beauty in there?”
Atheism has certainly taken on a life of its own. The Pew Research Centers
2014 Religious Landscape Study found that among U.S adults, religious unaffiliation increased from 2007-2014 by a figure of 6.7%. In fact, atheists are
more likely than U.S. Christians to say, they often feel a sense of wonder about
the universe (54% vs. 45%). But that ‘wonder” does not come from Atheism.
That same wonder is found by many different people, in many different places.
Astronomers explore the sky, Marine biologists explore the ocean, and just
recently we’ve begun to explore the intricate labyrinth of the human mind.
None of these came from atheism or religion. Catholic priests historically have
never prompted telescope use or geodesic travel. Gravity is actually never
mentioned in any of the scriptures. They never held emphasis on exploring the
ocean, in fact certain religious myths have terrified its followers of the ocean
due to anticipation of an armageddonistic flood.
Now I will bring up another pathogen of traditional religion. It lies in
Outgroup Homogeneity Theory. “We tend to classify people who are not in our
in-group as being similar to one another. ‘They’re all like that’ is a common
reference term. In contrast, we see people in our in-group as being more
individual. We thus tend to use a set of stereotypes for people from different
countries, cities and companies. These generalizations lead us to discriminate
uniformly towards people from these groups.”
To continue this, imagine being classified to an inferior group that
collectively feels violated or whom feels their freedom is being compromised.
Why is there always an eventual Rubberband Effect when it comes to a
particular religious domination? The answer is, Reactance Theory. “This says
that when people feel that their freedom to choose an action is threatened, they
get an unpleasant feeling called ‘reactance’. This also motivates them to
perform the threatened behavior, thus proving that their free will has not been
compromised.” The main barrier that people are stuck behind is the
125
inconvenient but necessary explanation to Activation Theory. Also known as
‘Arousal Theory’, activation theory describes how mental arousal is necessary
for effective functioning in that we need a certain level of activation in order to
be sufficiently motivated to achieve goals, do good work and so on. The YerkesDodson Law points out how people need a certain amount of activation to be
motivated but not have too much stimulation. We have an upper limit to
activation, beyond which we become overly stressed and fall into satisficing.
People will seek activation through different types of stimulation, including
novelty, complexity, variation and uncertainty. At a low level of activation,
performance is decreased due to three factors: A lack of alertness, dulling of the
senses, and limited muscular coordination. These in turn can lead to increased
error or accident, and slower completion of tasks. Under-activation also leads
to boredom and seeking of alternative stimulation (including by sabotage),
unless the person has a low activation preference, where they are happy to
daydream or otherwise be lazy.”
Fundamentally this is a problem of incentives. Basically what will we do
or what are we here for if something external is not demanding something of
us? The semantics around the word conscience are blurred. Many people feel
as if, because they do certain things with intentions and requirements of their
doings, that the same governance is apparent to them as well. We understand
how a soda can is made yet when explaining evolution and changes in species,
the grand time scale and with pragmatic language becomes inconceivable. So
they say, “I don’t personally know why I’m here but a conscience, something
similar to my own is governing me as well, therefore a creative designer is
apparent and he is demanding of me, in the same principle way that I am
demanding of water.” We feel like the world needs us.
This is where the coined Non-Superstitionist comes to fruition. A partial
explanation it is, yet when you understand the disease of religion and the
immune system of atheism; it will become evident that Non-Superstition is the
medication or anti venom. The simple explanation is; it is a hybrid straight
forward open view. Somewhat comprised of a fusion of Atheism and science.
Many scientists are atheists and vis versa but in the last century we’ve seen
126
bold links between the two. This book was an attempt of fusing them both
together to comprise non-superstition. Atheism does not rule out Bloody Mary.
Therefore, fairies, goblins, and vampires are still on the game board of validity.
Non-superstition and its values in the future will get the checkmate. And will
remain the last piece on the board. In an abstract way, non-superstition can be
thought of as new. Although its predecessor Atheism is literally ancient. It has
been traced to Ancient Greece in the 5th century BC. Diagoras of Melos is
understood as The First Atheist, and other men who claimed to be ancient
atheists are Theodorus of Cyrene and Euhemerus. Epicurus and Lucretius, who
are often described as atheists, believed that the gods existed but that they were
unconcerned with human affairs: a position better described as Deism than
atheism. A side note concerning Euhemerus (4th century BC) is worth bringing
up. His views and writings of his time gave an impression that has since been
coined Euhemerism. This basically suggests that mythological events are
interpreted as having originated from real historical events or personages. A
common argument that surrounds the nature of the earth, is who started it?
Our biases have led us to believe that someone had to set things going. I’m very
tempted to address this but, there are many other books that can give the
reader a glimpse into this. And I don’t want to indimidate people out of reading
this book because there’s “too many pages.” Therefore, I recommend: Stephen
Hawkings A Brief History of Time & The Grand Design. The aforementioned
argument is called infinite regress. The atheists|theists both use this argument.
“Who started the big bang, it had to have been god!”- says the theist
“If god created the big bang, who created god?”- says the atheist
This is an infinite regression that attempts to move further back in nature than
the established theories allow us to go. The scientifically illiterates often don’t
understand the situation. Which is why infinite regress is credible in their eyes.
A dictionary definition of deism is- The belief that God has created the
universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself
through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion,
such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical
127
conduct. The truncation of this ideology shows itself in the definition. Read it
closely. “…rejects the supernatural aspects of religion…” Deism does not reject
the griffin, the Greek Nemean Lion, or the kraken. The non-superstitionist
does. It’s hard to believe that a ridiculous term like deism can actually “mean”
something. It undisputedly says, God created the world and the laws that
govern its function. Therefore, saying that the world is governed by laws, is
simply interpreted as being governed by god. This is nothing more than a
constant interchanging of the word nature with the word god; an intellectual
hijacking it is, but any person on either side of this ideology can see its
apparent invalidity.
What is a “Blessing?”
A blessing can come in many different forms. There are many different
paths towards the roots of the word bless, but they all are so closely related that
I will use certain ones to get my point across coherently for convenience. Blōd
or ‘blood’ was the old English origin. Basically meaning to mark or consecrate
with blood. The meaning was influenced by its being used to translate Latin
benedicere, meaning; to praise or worship. When you combine the roots of
‘blessed’ together, you find blēdsian (an extension of the word ‘blōd’) refers to
blood. Benedicere; praise and worship. And the later English word ‘bliss’ joined
together to make a specific type of sacrifice that often ends in death (because
the sacrifice is your blood. Blended with praise and worship; and topped off
with ‘bliss’ meaning extreme happiness. This is a pathogenic mechanism of the
religious psychology. A short walk through a social media outlet reveals so
many oblivious people, saying things like, “Did you wake up today? Ok then,
you are blessed.”
It shocks me how the work that monarchs have done to mold their
religions to a humane model is reduced to simply being awake. Therefore a
man in prison who stays in one room 23 hours a day and is being fed slop, who
will never see his family again is “blessed.” The paradigm within a religious
world is so demented and superstitious that death is viewed as a sacrifice to
people that are not interconnected. If Siamese twins could only live if one dies,
and if one does not die sufficiently early then they will both die, then the
128
sacrifice one would make is a valid one, because they are interconnected. And
the loss of one life saves the other. But to argue that a man being slaughtered
on a cross in Israel is the “sacrifice” that granted me life thousands of years
later in 1990 in the west is not just merely unconvincing, but it is so
inconsistent with reality that it would have to work up to receive the generous
label of “unconvincing.” Humans have “sinned” before this hypothetical
“sacrifice” and have thus “sinned” after. Whatever you constitute ‘sin’ to be…
The LSD Paradox|Effect
This brings me to the LSD Effect. Many times something “real” to people
simply refers to a common experience. When a skydiver or mountain climber
finish their deeds they often say “that was unreal (they say this in many other
circumstances but I’m using a skydiver or mountain climber for convenience).”
Why unreal? Maybe that word is linguistically more practical but it is still
wrong. The word should be “uncommon.” This title may be somewhat comical
but it should be understood with a small explanation. There are stars in the sky
that look like pinpoints of light to our naked eye. We understand the stars are,
or once were, real. But the un-commonality of particular star is much greater
than the realness of antiquated scriptures. The disconnection that lies between
a real star and an ancient scripture, is realities knockout blow to the written
myths. The drug LSD is known to make its users hallucinate, and it’s almost like
a true jump between worlds. The effects of your perception of the world are
skewed. Subconscious things can be physically visualized, rather than them
being optical illusions. People that abuse this drug have a very difficult time
grasping things and understanding what is real and what is not. The LSD
experience can make a person see things that they would consider out of the
ordinary. Such as a black cat growling like a bear instead of meowing. I
could’ve used a cardinal or anything else but black cats have superstitious
annotations so I’ll stick to them for convenience. Say you are on LSD and you
see a black cat, and you audibly hear it deeply growl like a bear. You remember
taking LSD so you understand that it’s not real. Next, you are sober. And you
see another black cat. This time the cat is a real one. Your brain recalls the
most prominent memory of a black cat, and your brain puts the entire scene
129
together in a coherent manner. You hear more growls which are false yet the
new scene is in tandem with what it was previously. Knowing the effects of
LSD, you find that you are stuck in a real place as your mentality continues to
entertain false occurrences, making it very difficult to understand what is real
and what isn’t. I have used it and from first-hand experience I can say that it is
a massive difficulty. When you are confined to the real world, and you
entertain superstition, the superstitious remnants can dilute your clarity of the
world. And you begin to self-create an interpretation of the world that includes
myth, falseness, and superstition; it may seem valid when you consider the
consistency your brain needs to remain stable, or to not go crazy. But this is the
paradox of the LSD Effect. How can a world put together using the remnants of
overwhelmingly falsified myths somehow constitute a valid world view.
Regardless of how many people agree; it does not make a particular view valid
or real. Being in a dream, and “dream people” telling you that the dream world
is the real world does not validate the claim made by the dreamers.
“At home I lay down and sank into a not unpleasant
intoxicated-like condition, characterized by an extremely stimulated
imagination. In a dreamlike state, with eyes closed (I found the
daylight to be unpleasantly glaring). I perceived an uninterrupted
stream of fantastic pictures, extraordinary shapes with intense,
kaleidoscopic play of colors,” Albert Hofmann described in his 1980
autobiography.
Once I was watching some movie with a family member, and the movie (I
can’t remember which one it was) had so much CGI and magical aspects that I
said, “why can’t they just keep this movie more real and still make it a good
movie? How come when a boulder is about to fall on the main character he
can all of a sudden make himself disappear? Why couldn’t the movie stick to a
modest exaggeration for filmic purposes?” My family member replied,”
Because that would just be boring.” Boring? I’m still trying to understand what
this means. But if I had to address this, I would rather generally say, the
borders of reality go much further than we presumed, as science has vividly
shown us. The borders of reality overlap by far, the borders of superstition.
Honing in on reality will increase the wonder and potential within the
intellectualism and imaginations of the world, the phrase “broaden your
130
horizons” seems appropriate. Less superstition will without failure, broaden the
horizons of reality; but until we give the remnants of our ancestors an
intellectual surgery, we will forever be confined to the pathogenic innerprison that we can call “The Arena of Superstition.”
131
Sources & influences include
The Grand Design- Stephen Hawking. A Demon Haunted World- Carl Sagan. A Brief History of
Time- Stephen Hawking. Best Things Money Can’t Buy, Jacque Fresco. TZM Lecture Series, TZM.
Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan. Life In The Universe, Carl Sagan. Book of Genesis (Bible). The Flat-Earth
Bible © 1987, 1995 by Robert J. Schadewald, . Black Rednecks & White Liberals, Thomas Sowell.
Theory of the Leisure Class, Thorstein Veblen. The Story of the Middle Ages, Samuel B. Harding.
Quran http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/05/7-facts-about-atheists/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerism http://www.medicaldaily.com/your-brain-drugs-truthabout-where-lsd-trips-take-your-mind-and-body-287852 www.worldometers.info/obesity.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm. www.Globalissues.org. www.pgpf.org.
www.Thezeitgeistmovement.com.. https://www.thevenusproject.com/en/. https://www.nasa.gov/.
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/early-settlements/essays/native-american-
discoveries-europe. http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2013/07/spanking-and-crimerates. http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/28/would-you-record-yourself-spanking-your-kids/.
http://visual.ly/10-top-countries-leads-world-education.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/13/24-7-wall-st-most-educatedcountries/15460733/. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Quentin_State_Prison.
http://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/fs000204.pdf. Source:
Boundless. “The Three Laws of Thermodynamics.” Boundless Chemistry. Boundless, 14 Oct. 2015.
Retrieved 20 Dec. 2015 from https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-
chemistry-textbook/thermodynamics-17/the-laws-of-thermodynamics-123/the-three-laws-ofthermodynamics-496-3601/
Any information that is not listed here is easy to find in public databases.
132