Essential Realizations III

I  would have been grossly mistaken to have failed to consider all the possibilities before reaching any conclusions.  That's one thing we must learn, one way or another, when encased within situations such as these bodies and this material world represent. That's one of the realizations which dawned on the wiser heads in the tribes of human zoo specimen which are kept on this giant reserve (more on that later).  The reality is that it isn't due to the peculiarities of "objective reality" being such as to outstrip the figments of a subjectivity which has, itself, outstripped the biological basis of its own existence (by which it was presumably "selected").  That is, it isn't that the mind has lost its bearings in the pragmatic conditions by which it was of survival value, the ability to face the harsh, chaotic-seeming deterministic world of objects foreign to the organism and which it must strenuously attempt to model in order to assist in the survival of the organism.  Indeed, one wonders what survival value some "subjective mental traits" even have.  It seems that some think there is a subtle survival value in "religiosity" and some think that there is actually only evolutionary dead weight in that trait, the "god gene" as it were, and that it is perhaps at best a sort of genetic weakness that, in our particular evolution (but not necessarily in all possible forms of such evolution), had perforce accompanied the other precursors to the modern scientifically capable mind.

Perhaps it was in fact genetically unavoidable, and it would be an interesting subject to investigate what are the theoretical possibilities which could be teased out in consideration of such a subject, just taking for granted for the purposes of investigation the "standard model" of human existence as being the product of evolution in the worldly conditions in which his earlier ancestors bequeathed to him their legacies, similarly bequeathed to them by theirs, until we gradually see over long periods of past time an organic, sometimes gradual sometimes sudden, regression toward perhaps the early genesis of life itself from some primordial ooze.  Perhaps "Q" was there and, giving some ironic lessons to Cpt. Picard, created life on this planet by rubbing his fingers in said ooze, which inevitably led to the evolution of human life, the development of space-faring humanity, the flagship USS Enterprise, etc, so that that very scenario in a strange causal loop, implies directly that the future pre-exists the past.  Or there could have been any number of other possibilities at the beginning, including "biblical" literalist possibilities, some of which can be construed to literally imply that a race of beings created humankind here, some "Elohim".  Whatever the case, even just taking the standard model that carries the least baggage from any human sources of prejudice, whether from science fiction, religious fiction, or some other fantasy, it would be quite an investigation to see whether, for example, the "religious mind" were always a precursor to the the "objective, scientific mind".  

I think the truth would be unsettling for almost everyone who discovered it, or even dreamed of it.  What if the truth is a mixture case?  What if in fact religious texts are almost never what people think they are, and are not even close to what they once were when they were originally written in some form?  What if, however, they are not entirely wrong either?  What if they contain elements of truth and yet are themselves, on the whole, rubbish?  Yet what kind of truth and what kind of rubbish?  That might be more complicated than people would like to believe also.   What if, for example, the entire metaphysics of most minds could be wrong, and they could possess a trait, perhaps genetic in origin, which treats of "objects" entirely too  impersonally?  What if personalism, panpsychism, and metaphysical idealism all are the ultimate reality, but that a given psychism, such as modern humankind's, is generally incapable of fully embracing such a reality, and for various reasons?  What if it is just to abstract and arcane an understanding of reality, though it would be accurate, to be "worth it" to the average man in average circumstances?  It would for him simply create "extra hoops" that he'd have to jump through in his mind so that, while he must still nonetheless have to negotiate all the same problems in life, now has possibly thrown off his concentration or performance in some way due to this, in his mind, superfluous considerations as to the metaphysical considerations which, to him, have no direct bearing on what "turns out" in the basic world of day to day facts and actions?

That tends to be the same attitude men often have concerning history, religion, and science also.  They don't "pay the bills", as it were.  And unless you have the propensity to become a great authority in these subjects (or a sufficiently useful adjunct to those offices, up close or extended indirectly), or in any other such abstract subject, then you will perhaps find that your labor of love will have to mix with some other labors of necessity.  That might be for some, as it was for me, until the day came when I was "fifthed out" of house and home, and also out of work and normal life.  Indeed, from the look of the social landscape, everyone was fifthed out one way or another.  And it is just the beginning. This sort of thing is of extreme morbidity and doesn't revert, cannot revert, to pre-existing conditions.  Fifthery is every bit the serious crime and sin I say that it is, and it will be demonstrated to even the blind in the immanent future. But let's say that the many who shared similar labors of love, and who investigated the possibilities of the past and the present, as well as the future, in each their own field, all could be right or could be wrong, but let's say that there is, determinably within the structures they explore, a "right answer".  And let's say that it is something most will never find palatable to realize, because it  "outstrips" their psychical structures as they are, not even just because it is "impractical" or "unsavory" for them as an exercise, but for some deeper reasons that they would find even more impractical and unsavory!

But before going into that directly, why not set up the stage, without Q around to muck it up this time, perhaps.  Actually, he might be mucking it up in reality, "out here" in the "real world" even now, considering what a degree of "science fiction/fantasy" it turns out to be, but leave to the side for now.  What is Man's original form?  Is it like this humanity, with its apparently "nasty, brutish, and short" characteristics that has marked its history for so long, no matter what developments came along due to a few kind (or not so kind) sages? Many sages would have just hid away in the mountains or disguised as "useful" potato field harvesters.  Possibly for good and "practical" reasons, considering what tends to happen to "useful" people otherwise.  But looking at the overall history of humanity, or "human-kind"  here in this domain called "Earth", it is very grim, indeed.  And there is no consolation whatsoever but in the minds of those who simply are not able to bear any more the evil facts of life, and turn away to worlds of phantasms.  But is all that is phantasm what "turns away" from the world?  No.  Some turn toward the world, to investigate just some of it, or some aspect, or to fixate upon some of its attributes and dismiss others, or to try and distill some part of it and filter out the rest, and so on.  Sometimes a human's inner states can complement some relation to the world.  Many scientists and artists are like this, and even more than a handful of philosophers and priests.  Indeed, any specialist of any kind, and any specialized form of human lifestyle, embodies some degree of this focus within detachment toward the world and the experiences in it and of it.

But whatever about the ameliorative aspects of looking away or being "experience averse" to such a world, and due to whatever reasons it is that such occur, we are to look here at a specific possibility of interpretation of these dynamics which may yet subsume all others, for simply the fact that is is the most truthful, and therefore can absorb within it all other aspects of any truths connected to it, directly or indirectly being in full agreement with them, and indeed perhaps even explanatory of them in some cases so as to be, in effect and with respect to them, "even more true", taking their truth further than they would themselves suffer to go.  That historical and also modern reality of humanity's evil-doing is only made to look worse when we consider that he has developed entire traditions around the idea of combating his own evil.  You'd think that'd be a saving grace of some kind, but look at the results.  Those very traditions exist merely as fronts for even worse evils!  It would have been better if he never learned the words "crime" and "evil" and "unjust" and "wrong" and just knew how to growl and grunt if he didn't like something.  Less hypocrisy and duplicity that way!  But what is a thing or phenomenon except some lesser form of what it would be like if it were a perfect form of its own essence?  And what is "perfect injustice"?  Read the  Republic, and then turn to the "Last Days of Socrates", and look closely there and you'll know what "perfect injustice" is. The dynamics have not changed since those times about 2.5 thousand years ago.  If, that is, those texts are dated correctly.  In any event, they don't seem anachronistic so let's presume they are for now.

Hideous to behold.  Mind bending.  Gut wrenching.  And you don't have to go looking around in all the worst places, but there are plenty of displays available in the common places.  Let's just say that based on what is gathered in evidence, there is a lot more where that came from.  The "Inquisition" (a large event, both in space and time, not just Torquemada's exploits, but all as officiated directly and indirectly by the Papal Entity), the exploits of Genghis Khan, the workings of all serial killers (especially of children), the full scope of all degrees and kinds of child abuse perpetrated by family and other custodians of children (teachers in public schools, CPS agents found among them, both institutions of mass kidnapping and a trauma all their own), wars perpetrated simply for profit and social control or out of mere aggression, and that alone would cover a nice big fat chunk of terra perfida.   I personally can't blame a soul for wanting as little to do with it as possible.  But is that how it is with life then?  Do not all life forms here want to have "as little" to do "with it" as possible?  Most certainly it is.  It's just as if the entire nervous system were designed as a sort of paranoid motility enabler.  That's for good reason judging by the way the other animals in the free range, open air gulag-zoo have it.  Humanity just takes the dangers and increases them, while making the painful dichotomy between apparent joy and beauty amidst horrors and terrors all the more painfully palpable and apparent.  When they're not busy creating specialized refuges from the "downside"of that dichotomy.  It seems, however, that those who most enjoy such refuge are the guiltiest of making them such a desirable commodity through the actions they inflict on the rest who are lower in the pecking orders they serve to enforce within their own and other species of life here.  I think the second part of this paragraph would be justified by the first part, but some have blinders on that just don't let them see that.  Perhaps they are well-ensconced somewhere on a plunder-toilet or in some part of it, and so they just don't "feel" this sort of evil the way others do.

Maybe they have near infinite credit for doing nearly nothing at all, or maybe they are trusted with evil weapons to "defend" the country and community, though they are its worst enemies.  Maybe they simply lack the ability to "feel" anything, but have the compunction and wherewithal to "do" almost anything, for a quick and fleeting sense of feeling as their victims writhe under them, feeding on their victims' warm glow of feelings the way a cat enjoys the mouse kicking in its mouth over and over again releasing it and capturing it again for this purpose.  Maybe they have a low grade mentality, so to speak, and such things as spoken of here are never more to them than a distant storm cloud, for their minds lack the volume and texture to be able to project the fullness of their reality.  It seems these above-mentioned types are the "all too many" specimens to be found in the lamentable "all too human" species.  And in the realms of fifth column action, they all work together, each playing his own part in a silent accord, with invisible strings orchestrating them all together, in one big transcendental handshake of evil will.  I SEE YOU. What of those who turn to some sort of religion to guide their mental trains onto better tracks? Some even seem to have more wholesome tendencies, wanting to do honest work and trade honestly with one another, wanting to fall in love, wanting to have and raise families, wanting to coexist with others who are the same in these ways, wanting to be fair, wanting to win honor and respect, wanting to defend all such values, sometimes with their own lives?  Some of them share religious affiliations which seem to affirm their values as being authorized by the ultimate forces of the cosmos.  What of them?  Taken as such, the second part of this paragraph does not resemble the first part.  But this is not entirely a mystery.  Taken as a whole, most religious texts and religious systems, in fact basically almost all of them to be fair, possess a similar dichotomy in their contents and in the personages of their participants. 

But rather than get pulled into the discursive investigations of those turgid and messy waters, what of that all-encompassing signification that subsumes all these others as though the "key" to their interpretation?   Clearly, duplicity is a common feature of all these aspects of the world, no matter how one looks at any of its parts in relative seclusion, or even in opposition to one another "as though" they were not genuinely of the same original wholeness.  That said, it could be said fairly that they yet coexist in the same "realm of reality" and are found, as phenomena of experience, to exist as manifestations of the abilities and tendencies of entities found in the same classes of beings. Good men, evil men.  Good days, bad days.  Good religions, bad religions.  Yet all in the same world, all in the same sort or aspect of thing in that world.  And the question arises, are they truly good, and in some surprising ways, are they truly evil?  Anyone who has read any significant number of things I wrote in this blog, and have written for a number of years consistently in this respect, should know what I think of all this.  But what if we just looked at all this evidence and let ourselves steep in it and wonder to ourselves, do any of these systems of thought and do any of these traditions and lineages of human conduct within the world truly capture the overall essence of the world and humanity's place within it?  I'd say some come tantalizingly close, and without getting into their specifics I'd say that they all who come this close also have some amazing parallels in what they admit and how they frame it, and what they claim and how they argue it, and what they omit and how they avoid it.

They have seemingly been developed as a stop-gap in the way human beings operate in the world, so as to funnel their tendencies to sometimes go further in their thought and deed than some controlling forces would like them to go.  So they are led down a path that promises more than it delivers, though it delivers some tantalizing tid bits more than would the typical creed.  They may admit of the world's miserable condition, and may admit of human responsibility.  They may admit of there being "supernatural" influences that bear on the question of humankind's abilities, proclivities, and the institutions of limits upon it.  They may admit that there are "natural" forces in play which bear down on the human situation, and even his own basic condition, such that they may as well be "super" natural, as they are a natural force which is far superior to a human's purview or power.  At least to a normal human.  Perhaps there are entire classes of humans, such as the perfectly (or near-perfectly) unjust who inhabit superior refuges from the pervasive difficulties allowed and even enforced upon the rest.  These entities are suitably called "archons" by some.  "Controllers".  "Men about town" perhaps, but the upper crust of such.  Usually they have very illustrious positions within their human city-state pecking orders, but often they are unknown to the public, though they are not "unknowable". They seem to be even more "untouchable" to the hands and minds of the typical person than are even high officials and humans of wealth and repute.

They seem to exist just as empirically as anything else suggested by the evidence available to anyone curious.  Yet most are not very curious about such things.  They prefer to pay money to have such things cast into a specious and fantastic mold of appearances having at best a certain entertainment value at the movies, multiplied by various directed energy (light, sound, psychotronics, group mind dynamics), so as to permanently tuck such ideas about such beings away as something to ooh and aah about at the theater, but to consider "resolved" there upon leaving.  What of that dichotomy?  It seems that instead of serving a function which awakens human people from the depths of ignorance and dull stupidity, artists and their combines simply invert that function of art and all the more ensure that people will be lulled down to just the right level of being duped.  They are working as Project Mockingbird affiliates, as part of Project MK-ULTRA's evil fruit, many times in tandem with Project Monarch and Cointelpro/Northwoods-type operations.  A whole class of people who think they are the upstanding personages of 3 paragraphs above are enlisted into this franchise of centralized social control, now recast as the science of social engineering "for the safety and security of all".  Haha. What a joke that is.  Good people working as lackeys for evil people are not "good" people in fact, and their not knowing the full scope of their involvements due to the heavy amount of bullshit blown into their faces through propaganda and delusion-reinforcing propaganda they chose to consume uncritically does not excuse them, nor does the fact that their involvements may be quite compartmentalized.  When the murderer and traitor hangs, his hands hang with him, both of them, the dexterous and the sinister.  Don't kid yourselves.

Oh they might think critically about things, they might ponder things, but they are usually the same critical thinkers that decided they could devour a most grave piece of propaganda, and devour it in one bite.  Then use what version of that they have digested, with the help of specialized handlers, to "critically examine" everything else that comes their way.  I wouldn't call that critical thinking at all.  That's a very specious, very truncated version of the action called "critical thinking", because real critical thinking doesn't fail to question such exceptions to itself, it has no exceptions!  It is aware of the problem with such things, and let's nothing through without due examination.  And it has something other than "feelings" to use as criteria.  Not that feelings aren't important.  But if anyone has the "feeling" to accept a system of doctrine or dogma, whole hog or in part, just because their feelings say it is true, then they are... stupid.   Just plain stupid.  Foolish to boot.  Especially if someone sold it to them as being authored by god the almighty.  And written down in a book, to be magically safeguarded for thousands of years, to be kept for your timely perusal one fine day.  That's a serious plate of bullshit.  But people should be entitled to believe what they want, one supposes. They should not be, nor even feel, entitled to form groups who operate covertly under false pretexts of their "common rightness under god" and using color of authority in the public sphere, combining their private and state-sponsored coordinated efforts to harass someone, anyone, for any reason.  Certainly not on any basis of false claims, indeed malicious accusations that wouldn't have borne scrutiny, and mainly in the demonstrable purpose of securing conditions in the life of the person so as to make him more easily compromised and rounded up and treated as a criminal, which is all clearly an entrapment scheme in which the entrappers are dirtier of crimes in all cases!  It's a joke, a folly, a ridiculous venture into role-playing being the good guy with the white hat, when they are nothing more than a miscreant mob with a petty agenda no different in its repugnant evil and criminality than any other such mob actions taken against people for "not fitting in".  Many of the "good people" of the sort I have described are part of such enterprises.  They are well connected, they are well supported, and they are well compensated.  Just one subspecies of homo perfidis.

What of that all-encompassing view that subsumes all these other views into it and explains them better, making them more certain of their own lights?  The world's duplicity has many forms, I've only here outlined one series of components in just one array.  But this handling of these elements fits neatly into a larger concept that gives them all better coherence, and helps explain the incoherence of those inferior and false views that crop up speciously within different domains of human discourse, which amount in fact to a mere chatter which is a side-effect of the entities themselves, not a true "discourse" on any aspect of reality truly.  Well, let's just lay it out.  They're "not wrong" about being created.  They're "not wrong" about being guilty in a fundamental way, fundamentally flawed.  They're "not wrong" about there being a powerful creator-being who is responsible for all of these conditions, including the guilt enforced upon them because they are puny and sometimes disobedient. They got those things right.  Just look at the condition of the world where the visible actor is humanity!  I've even outlined a deeper issue with humanity that is revealed only on a meta-scale where the entire enterprise of not being unjust, and being honorable, is merely a useful front for an even more vile form of injustice, which I've called elsewhere a "metaracket", a subset of metacrime (not metacrime in the specious sense of its institutionalized forms, but including it).  They're even "not wrong" about their "holy" books being inspired by their creator-entity, who did and does have active priesthoods on Earth in different places.  They are usually "not right" about being, in each case, the "special and authorized" representatives of this creator-entity, but when they are close to being "not wrong" in this particular matter in some cases, it is simply since this creator-entity does play favorites depending on how a subspecies and specimen performs, how it fulfills the agenda of this creator-entity.  It's because they're "meta-lackeys".  The craftsman keeps different tools for different jobs, and sometimes does not clean or polish some of them due to the nature of their use.  But they are his "selection" of choice.


They're more "not wrong" than they even know and admit!  But what they are "not right" about are many things.   They are "not right" that their god is "good".  He is not good.  He's the author of evil and its primary beneficiary, in every single interpretation of their own doctrine and dogma, no exceptions.  I've proven this.  They're "not right" about this creator-entity being the ultimate being, either.  It didn't create "everything".  It didn't create "free will" (which I've shown in previous writings is thoroughly misunderstood by almost everyone who uses the term).  And in fact opposes freedom of will, for its fundamental form is the ability to choose among ambiguously similar alternatives, and if some of these holy book-believers will remember, the original sin constituted listening to the argument that was made to seem better, or choosing the alternative that was made to seem better.  Not that such an absurd story properly reflects any fundamental sort of situation of choice anyway.  It is absurd, and I've proven this. It's more like drugging someone, imprisoning them, brainwashing them, promising  great things for obedience and dreadful things for disobedience, making them a very tempting offer to escape through a third party who was similarly "set up to fail", and then calling it a moral lesson!  It's utterly stupid!  I'd shit a gold brick before this sort of nonsense would pass as a sort of divine activity.   Even by his own admission in such texts, which are not gold bricks but do seem akin to excretions of another sort, he admits to being the author of evil!  His own apologists admit it. He's basically a powerful tyrant, nothing more.  Perhaps he can intimidate and dazzle children, but I'm not impressed with his stature as a moral being.

Not that one needed his own involvements during the course of history, nor his own admissions, to make such a case against him.  Look at the damned place!  It's an insult to human intelligence to claim to a human being that the human being is guilty, but that he was made in all his respects and capabilities, and given simply one basic law "obey".  What a damned joke!  Yet it is also ridiculous to suggest that humanity is intelligent, if given such a situation they don't see it for what it is, yet within their own legal traditions even have a name for it:  EXTORTION.  It's not even a meaningful quid pro quo.  It's like some story of a ridiculous person who literally tries to pick himself up by his own bootstraps!  A "god" creating an agent who is supposed to be under ideal conditions, yet given both capability, inclination, and tempting circumstances to try and mislead him from those conditions. What kind of stupid evil game is this?  That's what sadists do to those they happen to manage to confine in wood shacks in secluded forests.  And then he somehow authors confabulations about beings even superior to man in their intelligence, grace, beauty, and spiritual depth and complexity, somehow spuriously becoming narcissistic and coming to hate their own undoubted creator on some random fling of fancy?  That story is so stupid that it refutes itself!  It's like a half-assed excuse someone comes up with when they don't even feel that they have to give a damn about being credible anyway. And no wonder.  It's all about being infinitely gullible in these religions, at root.  And no sensible, credible thing ever came from an absurd root unless it was forcibly grafted onto it!

"Oh hey, I made you this way, and put you in this condition.  I totally could have just made you appreciate all this as a normal faculty and could have made you a biological robot.  But I wanted to make you "like me" and possess an arbitrary will (as if that's an improvement...).  Now here's a chance to fuck it all up.  There's something called moral judgment, and you can exercise it, deciding for yourselves what's good or evil based on your own judgment, which no doubt must have some information leading into it or it wouldn't even be capable.  So here's a sense of when things are harmful and painful, when they are gainful and pleasant.  Here's a conscience so you know when you've been the former to someone who was the latter, and vice versa.  You can feel guilty or angry accordingly.  BUT ALL THAT IS A SIN UNLESS I DO IT.  Now, if you do it, which seems reasonable enough to do and is rightly called a sort of basic knowledge (kind of like common sense, really), then I'll kill you (but only after a long torture, then I'll send you to hell for an eternal torture). But if you DON'T, and you just obey me (which I've now given you the dubious power to have to choose to do, making it a riskier thing than if I just made you obey, which would make more sense since that's what I made you to do and intend for you to do (out of my "love and wisdom") any way (or else suffer) then you'll become by some vacuous process exactly what I wanted you to be and could have made you to be in the first place.  So here's this awesome "temptation".  This makes it more credible that you are worthy of obeying me, since you chose against such a tempting offer.  How magically neat in my own mind that is! Isn't it amazing!?  Bow and worship in awe...."  Makes zero fucking sense, frankly, except as a twisted sort of psychological torture experiment.

This is not tenable.  It makes no damn sense, at all.  Yet it clearly is the point at issue.  But what else ever is with a tyrant, in the end?  The tyrant gets to be any way he wants, and be treated any way he wants.  Everyone else must be treated by him any way the tyrant wants, and must also take it any way the tyrant wants.  What a fucking deal.  Who could say no to an eternity of that.  In fact, you can't even say no!  No one that I know of asked to manifest in a world which was constructed by this meta-asshole, and he doesn't seem to offer even a refusal to exist as an alternative.  What a "good god" you have there.  I don't deny he exists, at least in concept.  People think of this sort of personage as real, even if it were apocryphal to some creed's mythological basis, and so they admit this being some sort of existence in their own minds, and that is not a power to be disregarded.  Indeed, this myth is, in substance, a story about what happens in the human mind with respect to issues of authority, morality, judgment, agency, consequences, and the essence of what existence means overall and "in the end".  All of it hinging, for the sake of  humans at least, but even of the drama unfolding in their creator's mind, upon the decisions of humans in their own minds.  Supposedly constructed just this way, it must be remembered, by the very "god" who has a beef with anyone who tries to get around his Hobson's Choice .  It's more like an evil Hobson's Choice, take one horrible possibility or another.  It's like he's brainwashing someone to be an assassin, offering him an eternity of wonderful things if he'll obey on command, but an eternity of horrors if he won't.  That's after what is determined to happen in this life as a consequences of his obedience or disobedience.  What a racket.  If it isn't holy when "Allah" offers it to Muslims, then it isn't "holy" when Yahweh offers it to Jews, or when Jesus (supposedly) offers it to Christians.  Naturally, those who cuck to such vicious forms of authority are "actually" made that way, and don't have an alternative in fact, and all discussions of such are ephemeral make believe.

But what of the fact of such an opportunity, conceivable right here in the mundane world in the forms of tyrants who exist right here in it (who resemble their patron god, and for obvious cause)?  That's usually a racket within a racket, as saying "yes" to one usually means saying "no" to another, or another branch of what is essentially the same, and naturally they attempt to arrange it so that saying "no" to one puts one at extreme odds against that group merely for not drinking their Kool Aid. And also, naturally, to make the maximum profit from their extortion process, it is arranged so that saying "no" to one must mean saying "yes" to another racket.  It's the sort of racket identifiable in any identity politics of any scale of social construct, from the family to the nation state to the "human species" as a whole.  It's clearly a deep issue of this world, and not an exceptional condition which crime fighters especially deal with "as such".  Rather, they tend to deal with the competition, themselves racketeers par excellence.  Society being the overall racket.  I speak of fifth columnry, but that's a formal exercise. Fifth columnry is the actual norm.   I speak of the idea of a social existence with a fifth column of corruption invading it because in a world of inverted norms I am forced to speak as if I am speaking in a world inverse to the one I'm in so as to retain coherence while criticizing it, because as one would expect from such a racket, it demands possession and control of all discourse concerning it, especially as it pertains to coveted and contentiously distributed statuses such as "honorable" and "just" and "wise" and "right" and "good" and "beautiful" and "true" and "real" and "genuine" and "authoritative" and "divine" and "sacred" and so on and so forth!  But it was NEVER a good world and NEVER will be.  It was always a pseudo-plagiarism, a mockery, a con job.

It's author, a con artist of the original sort, a sham par excellence.  Perfectly unjust, and with all the attributes and attributable actions which go with such a status. And this is THE TRUTH and it WILL NEVER BE OTHERWISE until the end of the world and its maker.  The "religious" role-players are right about there being such an evil phenomenon, but they are wrong about their place in it.  They are guilty of aiding and abetting this hell hole's evil rackets and other crimes, and adding a false front to its structures, with polish and aplomb.