The Biggest Lie Ever Told: Civilization

Consider that the world is made of people, minds of a sort, which are in many forms.  Let's say humans are just one sort of  people, a person being a sentient being capable of relating to another sentient being with empathic consideration, consideration in the broadest sense of 'being cognizant'. So now that we have defined a world as a domain populated by people, and also constituted by them, we can discuss the sort of world we have in mind.

Let the world be understood as being qualified by the sorts of relations which exist between these people. Let the natural environment itself, the context of their situation, also be a sort of person. Let all aspects of their existence have a personal character, to include all properties of experience, even the sense that some experience is of a thing, which can be taken to be, as it were, a "mute person". Persons in some sense are mutable, can become so.  That would be one extreme property of personhood, namely, thinghood.  A person is a being with interiority that is private, but an individual is a "thing" with a public address ('address' as in purchase in and of a person's existence for being reached by another person, not the number on a house per se; the 'being seen' of the seen being, for example).

Our world has some properties which we call "material bodies", and these exhibit a very variable sort of personality, which is only related to us through our passive experience of them, or our active effort upon them.  These are the elements, compounds, minerals, masses, and all their varieties and phases. These don't relate to us very directly in ways we usually find convenient except within a certain narrow framework of relation.  Ground is stable enough so we can walk on it.  Water is fluid, we can drink it.  Air is gaseous, and we can breathe it.  Light is stimulating to our retinas. They don't relate to us in active ways beyond these primitive sorts for the most part.

Some bodies are complex, such as those we directly control with our volition.  These also directly impress upon us a stable set of experience modalities, which are the means by which we organize relations to the world of other bodies, relating to them more or less personably according to the character of the feedback we receive when we express ourselves to them through our bodies.  The elements are cognizant of our bodies per the elements in our bodies, and we are cognizant of them through the way that our bodies react to those elements.  Thirst, hunger, aspiration are the desires for water, food, and air. Beyond these needs, the body has tertiary needs, which all reflect some desired relation to elements in the environment.

Then there are the more complex bodies, which may or may not reflect personality as we understand it on our level.  Minerals, plants, animals, and all other sorts of life.  Let us not forget energy forms such as heat, electricity, magnetism, and so on, which are elemental forms of personal expression that are manifested by things in their lower denominations of personality, and which can complexify in aggregate (e.g. brainwaves).  When we get to the human level we interact with an understanding that we have a shared nature of some kind, at least in being bodily situated in a kindred fashion.  As with all other things, the kinds of things involved are considered in terms of the relations they have, the nature of their interactions.

That humans coexist is obvious.  What they discover as they grow up is that they came to exist in their bodily forms through reproduction, as they were "borne forth" by their parents, most directly by their mothers.  They were taken care of by them and others until they could learn how to do this more and more on their own, until they were "grown up".  Then they learned how to repeat this cycle, and either did so or didn't, and in either case lived with more or less success in whatever they did besides this. Minimally, they needed to survive in relation to their less personable environment, which they all had in common.  They also needed to relate to each other to make this more feasible, and less problematic, insofar as their living conditions required them to relate through a complex situation created by environmental pressures, reproductive processes, and the need to develop a greater and greater sense of the stability of these factors in mind when surplus psychical awareness existed beyond the utility afforded by any practical efforts. They have to cultivate sanity, which is a stable, sustainable, and adaptively evolving mental condition which transcends merely reactive interactions with the environment, to include its own body and lower mental aspects.

But in all this people found it necessary to schedule their efforts according to expected results, including rotations of work and rest, vigilance and ease, expression and perception.  This must be related to the environment so that productive effort is a stable result.  This political economy would be the psychosocial equivalent of what sanity is for the individual person.  In relation to one another people must agree in their actions and efforts so that they do not interfere with one another and, if mutually desired, assist one another to reach results not attainable otherwise.  That would be the ideal and abstractly stated condition of their best relations with one another.  It seems that this could be arranged no matter what each wanted to do, and no matter what any group wanted to do, as long as it was always done so that the basic rule of non-interference was followed.  This is where things get complicated.

Some people found that what they wanted was already created by others, and wanted to take a share of the results of creation without contributing to the production.  Some wanted to avoid work because they thought of other people as means to an end rather than ends in themselves, so they wanted to have it so that others were like trees, providing fruit for them to take without requiring any further work but to take it, or perhaps only to command it forth.  In other words, they didn't really relate to others as persons in the first place, not as persons engaged in creative effort.  They for some reason saw only partially what was going on, lacked the perspicacity for ethics as well as any motivation for forward engagement in productive effort; they lacked empathy and industry.  Perhaps they lacked industry because they never learned it due to a lack of empathy which would be required to learn how to work.  They lacked a certain basic intelligence in that regard.

Perhaps they lacked empathy more generally, but only those who had enough empathic cognition to get by could get away with trying to let others take their slack while they took a share of rewards.  They passed on their genes because they were successful thieves, and their wretched culture was sustained biologically and also socially through the pressures of their influence in all strata of society.  This being is the thief, a particular way of saying a predator, which is really a subset of the being called a parasite.

When they learned how to systematically arrange their preferred way of life over others, it became a way of life for those who had to endure this enslavement.  Unless they were put down, the criminal elements eventually took control because that is what their lifestyle requires in order for others to serve their needs properly according to the nature and habits of these tyrants. They must teach others to submit to their requirements, whether by direct force, persuasion, or some mixture of the two.  For this not to occur, they must be resisted, and culled from society.  They break the fundamental rule of an ideal society, in that they interfere with others' actions, namely by taking away their incentive for their efforts, and adding a burden of concern, fear, and instability to all their works.  They became defined as criminals, as defective persons, and treated accordingly, or else they take over society and make themselves an exception to such rules, often under the pretense of being stewards of the public safety (i.e., a protection racket).

Thus a more subtle version of criminal took control of society and used his more uncouth cousins as a foil by which to distance himself from any villainous reputation while maintaining the benefits of the criminal lifestyle of a parasite living on society "as a whole". He managed this through institutions which all in society had to agree have a function which pervades all society, though located in a finite space, and which is controlled and staffed by a finite number of persons, who are a small subset of society, but whose permission to act unilaterally was distributed across all of society, or some subset of it. This process occurred when people built cities, and these institutions were called offices of authority, institutions which were structured to have broad application over groups of people, and to have intergenerational and transpersonal significance and endurance of validity, but which were not necessarily vested in a group or lineage of people who had demonstrated a profound and environmentally tested set of virtues which forged justification for legitimate leadership.

These offices of authority were ideally to be staffed by those who were best suited for the tasks they were nominated to perform.  In reality that was never actually the case.  The tribal, nomadic power structures simply and greedily demanded "first dibs" in all such power, and so old power was instantly corrupted in demanding the right to found and staff cities' offices of authority.  Corruption was the birth of office, not a merely ancillary, if unfortunate vicissitude of its promulgation over time.  From the beginning of civilization, the egos of the previous generations who had power in nomadic periods were also inherently corrupted so the offices they set up and/or usurped as though their own rightful reward were founded in that soil of corrupt character, however magnificent in power of one kind or another, no matter how beheld and treated by those who accepted as legitimate what in fact was not.

In this way from the beginning the environment of criminality which was created by social entropy was a threat to social purpose, and was typically ejected by force only in ways which scapegoated the losers in the hierarchical scam of power, leaving the winners looking like do gooders and heroes. The strongest wolves made an example and sacrifice out of the weakest of their fold to keep their own ranks culled and to impress the sheep. Those losers reformed as hierarchically structured banditry and brigandry, as a criminal subculture, and many colonizing nomadic forces emanated in this way from their stabler social origins. Some nations were more developed and already learned that the treating other nations who were weaker as though some sort of slave could sometimes be sustained for long periods of time, and did so.  They often used pretexts for war to justify galvanizing and further enslaving their own populations as part of an effort of enslaving other populations.  They learned to use criminality, on the streets and outside the city walls, as well as foreign threats of other kinds, as excuses to impose their wills on their own native populations as a "necessary interference".

Other nations would have done the same, often enough were, and through this provocation would resort to actions which made for a further justification for this synergistic system of international and intranational tyranny.  All forms of civilization cultivated in these conditions were co-opted at inception, and so were doomed to slavery from the start. The crime family tradition was ensconced in civilization at its very start and never released its grip to this day.

The city was always a rent game scam that became more transparently so over time, but was from the beginning fated to be such due to its the corruption of its founding, as well as from the steady evil of a criminal environment which ruled over all human action, either more from within the walls of the city, or else more from without, but always both in some ratio.  All that modernity has accomplished is a furthering of the sophistication and thoroughness, as well as the opacity of this system of evil. And the world's history, its cultural and social structures and artifacts, all are symptoms, effects, results, evidence and reinforcements of, inducements for and recapitulations to this systemic evil which is their cause and purpose, though all this is actively dressed up to be other than the case.  And that is the active disease of man, this his delusion which is a feverish warping of his mind and which is culturally cemented into his being, and which prevents him from even knowing that he is sick with an infestation of parasites which eat him into oblivion, destroying his mind and soul until he really is just a thing of muddy insignificance, except that his is a mud that an evil master can command to take any chosen and debased shape, and this he does.

That evil-minded master of mankind rules it to this day.

The Immanence of the Eschaton is Here

What I Have Become: In Spite of the World, not Because of It

I am a philosopher. I did not decide to be called this as a job description, but it was a career path I chose before I even knew of its existence as a possible "thing to be doing". Exactly "what" philosophy is, actually is a topic of philosophy, in the domain called "metaphilosophy".

The point is that before I even knew that such a thing was possible as "philosophy", I was doing it. This is something I know now, but did not know throughout my childhood and teenage years until I came across the subject by way of a certain math teacher in 9th grade who compared some of my thought experiments with those conducted by Rene Descartes in his "Meditations on First Philosophy". I was later to study that work in earnest before, and later during college, but chose to simply continue in my own thoughts for a few more years at least before drawing his book from a friend's shelf.

That's how I generally preferred to do my work, or anything else for that matter. Call it an INTJ thing. I get some data, I get a big picture, I work all the possibilities, I check the data again, I refine this until a tight loop gives me the greatest likely set of possibilities. I proceed this way in terms of theoretical interpretations of facts, whether concerning facts out of reach in the same or in other dimensions to the facts which are more immediately accessible.

Well, that's like being born to do philosophy! I could have done it the entirety of my life, noticed that it had something to do with "wisdom", noticed I "love wisdom", and never thought about it much past that, never called what I did every day "philosophy" (love of wisdom), and never cared whether others knew of me "as a philosopher" per se, etc. I really loved doing it, and so for all those years I wasn't talking small talk with village idiots, not appeasing schoolyard bullies, not trying to fit in with clusterfucks of mediocrity or pseudosocial macrostructured cults of organized brain death (society... riiiiiggght...), I was simply doing my work, enjoying it, and always improving my craft.

Later I ran into problems with the diseased and corrupt "world" and so my work in philosophy got a bit "rough around the edges" as I had to combat the psychical trauma of being in various ways brutalized by what I studied, and at the same time having to use a mind and heart thence compromised by such brutality to study itself and work through the damage and press on. So I became a psychologist, specifically a depth psychologist.

That's when I started reading more voraciously, and then started amassing a great deal of note-taking. All while surrounded by a giant, and I mean gigantic ARMY of organic booby-traps, or as Ouspensky would call them "organic portals", or as the Gnostics would say "physical men". I had a lot of work to do, juggling research with survival, both physical and mental! In this crucible I forged my soul by the will of my Immortal Spirit, in and from which I AM a True and Eternal Sovereign even in the midst of this flesh and earth.

But that was to go beyond the boundaries assigned for me by the "psychical men", who are basically turnkey demons who are the wardens of a world of obedient "androids", which are programmably controllable, artificially intelligent, organic machines which appear human. In other words, most of humanity. The criteria which distinguish these beings from Human Beings proper are discursively articulable, and have been in other treatises, but won't be laid out here.

Suffice it to say that Sarte meant these when he said "other people".

The Context into which I Became: This Spited World of Hierarchically Embedded Evil Minds which Parasitically Devour the Good Spirit
Why do I outline my development into becoming a self-acknowledged philosopher who then branched out into various fields of research and activity, various lines of work and art, to become a Gnostic apparent (not covert, but publicly admitted and overt)? To prepare the reader for understanding how I am to be contrasted with the psychical men and the physical men who are their fodder, into the ranks of neither of which do I fit nor under which will I submit.

I am a Spiritual Man, a Son of God, and I am fully aware of the fraud which is being perpetrated metaphysically, occultly, and even blatantly and visibly, BY DEMONIC SCUM, against Me and all Others of My Kin, and have brought suit against the evil foe by all means before My Father God the Judge who brings Justice Eternal, and in declaration of Our Innocence and that of our Mother Spirit whose error was slight and is corrected, although THE EVIL MINDED have proven their perpetual lust for error, being the incorrigible debris from which We are to be sifted as Wheat from chaff.

I have but to point at the follies of man's evil throughout history to verify factually the general truths which constitute the further explication of that lone sentence. Here I will not, and besides it has been done better and very thoroughly by many others.

I wish to draw the sincere reader's attention to the fact that such things as we have seen in the world are manifestations of a fundamental conflict between "evil" and "Good" in absolute terms, not merely in the relative terms to which lemmings and hardened peasants cling. In fact, I have enlarged on Alfred Whitehead's definition of time as "an opportunity for events to occur" and stated that these events are actually "moral decisions to be made."

The Absolute Fruits of these decisions will be received after the day of "Harvest". But that is too much into the vein of depth eschatology. Let's get back to the concrete manifestation of these events as they unfold in "telic time" (a concept I developed in the same cast as Aristotle's "final cause").

We live in a world where Absolutes are fractally distributed across echelons of agental minds, who parse out time as the expression of their wills to execute moral decisions, either in their own sovereignty, or at the behest of another's. In these events, there are only the plethora of "Good"-serving decisions, and their detractions in the form of decisions which stand against them, called "evil".

In our modern world, the history of these conflicts have concentrated and accelerated "time" into an increasingly dense series of telic shocks which manifest as structured dispersals of "karma", in the form of events which concentrate rather complex chains of cause and effect into more critical masses of holistic manifestation sweeping from the most individuated particular to the most general archetype. Leaving aside the metaphysics of these accelerations, let us just say that they were inevitable, just as was every significant decision ever made, or which ever will be made, the aggregates of which decisions simply are these manifest events.

When decisions to be made are Truly Moral, and the minds which make them are properly aligned to the ultimate sovereigns which hierarchically transduce power from the greatest among their types to the least, then a complete resolution of a conflict of their wills can and WILL manifest as a "final confrontation". It is not merely scripted "predictive programming", it is metaphysically inevitable (and I have proven that the contrary of my claim is self-contradictory in many other writings in various forums online, and in unpublished notes).

We are, in this modern age, right now, at the very BRINK of these events. I will reveal to you now a CRITICALLY SIGNIFICANT AXIS of how this will unfold.

In the battle of Good against evil, the assailant against the Good, evil, has a simple methodology: Divide and conquer by relative superiority, hoping that "in time" this will yield an absolute victory. Therefore, it must cut off a fragment of the would-be victims and surround them with relative numerical and other relative superiorities in order to be victor over them. 

Temporal, dynamic advantages are then converted into material, static advantages which can be strategically nursed into a boa-constrictor-like hegemonical conquest or else a sudden, sharp tactical coup-de-grace. Whatever works best is the only rule for evil. It is a META-survival issue. "Time" as the opportunity to make truly informed and well-considered, morally correct decisions, is distorted so that a person of Good Spirit is given no proper chance to express the True Nature Within, and is actually making the decisions of the inferior pseudo-spiritual beings which program it with false alternatives, deceptive and inaccurate feedback, and all with an ulterior motive which is to "manufacture" a falsified appearance of a being which is willingly accepting the fraud enforced upon it.  In other words, the Spiritual Being per se is not truly allowed to defend Itself in a battle which is waged against It in the worlds of false karmic economies of bribery and threat, thereby coercively and fraudulently induced into relative and counterfeit paradigms of pseudo-morality. It is anesthetized to the Truth about Itself, Its Origin, Its environment (Its imprisonment), and who Its foes are, who pretend to be Its caretakers, friends, bosses, overlords, gods, etc.

This is the way of the evil forces, which is to use deception, circumstances, momentary opportunity, idiosyncratic weaknesses and relative strengths, and basically all the arts and sciences of Sunzi and Machiavelli combined into the technocratic advances that benevolent yet foolish geniuses will supply them (like Mozi, Archimedes, Tesla, etc).  This means that NO MATTER HOW LONG A "TIME" such a Being is entrapped here, there will be no proper time spent here as the Being that It is.  It is being given a falsified version of what it means to express Its Nature, while not being allowed to do what that True Expression would really entail. Given falsified modes of expression, or "these feet of clay", and given worlds in which these falsifications are glorified as the original reality, this is already a great fraud. But these "bodies" are also designed to maximize the exploitation of the Spirit whilst minimizing Its chances of Expression Proper, and to that end even the actual goings on within the falsified worlds are themselves further falsified, so that even the false beings which inhabit these worlds, the "physical" and "psychical" men, are themselves deceived!  

So today, all the old evil tricks are still employed: petty and trite coercion through threats and intimidation, bribery, fraudulence of every kind, underhandedness of every sort. Little fish being used by bigger fish, little parasites by bigger ones. Visible ones by... invisible ones. But without even needing to resort to the metaphysical, let's just look at how the Crunch toward Ragnarok has overtaken what was formerly a "Slouching toward Armageddon".

We are in a worldwide, utterly fraudulent tyranny. We live on a "Prison Earth". This isn't just a Gnostic Doctrine, it is an empirical fact. But it is only so for those who are able and willing to face facts, and it is only significant as a liberating device for those who aren't on the evil side of interpreting them. This is the Ancient Truth of the World, and those who Know this are the Good (who oppose it and defy it) and the evil (who thrive within it and need it to exist).

That is why that in this world, which is like its origin from which it is a mistaken offshoot, things have a fractal distribution.  So therefore since the whole is an inversion of its origin, and an imitation, so even in its parts it manifests inversions of the pretended norms of propriety. So therefore in this prison are many methodologies, such as macro-scale counterfeiting of currency, of symbolism, and of mass events, to say nothing of what is accumulated as the written testimonies of all such things in the libraries we are allowed to see. We are told that things are a certain way, and things are by some ineffable law "proper", and yet the firm foundation of everything that goes on is a complete inversion of what is claimed. Religions commit every sacrilege and are the dens of corruption, governments spawn wicked deeds in a systemic way but call criminals those who oppose them, economies are systematic modes of enslavement and abuse but they pretend to be efficient and equitable means for people to trade their goods and services fairly, education is a factory which mass produces ignorance, illogic and delusion, medicine takes away health and induces sickness, and so on and so forth. So in these ways I have already gone directly through the veil from the metaphysical and occult to the manifestly apparent and "physically tangible", and these have proven to be two aspects of the same world of phenomena.

But instead of honing in on any of those major modes of systematic evil, and may others have and are still, I will here focus on one which is "all around you" and which "feeds upon you" and which is literally and metaphorically "perched on top of you from birth to death", and which is "just outside the limits of your sight" (yes, I'm quoting the street preacher from "They Live"). I speak of the masquerade of "free societies" which are supposedly "natural expressions" of a "common human nature" and in which things are systematically honest and sincere, but only sometimes do a few rotten apples threaten to spoil the whole bunch.  Rather, the entire structure is rotten, and is designed to exploit good apples and spoil them into putrid decay while teaching them to to submit to such atrocities as being the give and take of being human, of the "human condition", which is a total lie. And it is the "human condition", but it is not the Nature of God which is expressed within it.

Organized Stalking：The Exoteric Expression of the Systematically Evil "World", That Instrumental Collective SCUM against the Face of which I Have Expressed Truth

If you aren't a mere physical puppet, nor a psychical one, nor any of their puppeteers, nor an actual AGENT in this evil empire of utter depravity, which is worldwide and techocratically administered and which pervades EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE, then you owe it to your Soul and Spirit to follow these links:

THE SYSTEM'S ORGANIC, PSYCHOSOCIAL ARCHITECTURETHE SYSTEM'S ADVANCED TECHONCRATIC STRUCTURE
ONE PERSON'S INTERPRETATION OF THESE PHENOMENA
The first is the overview which is rather sophisticated but thankfully for the new student doesn't use overly precise terms, although the insights which the terms describe are categorically accurate.

The second is an overview of the technological and multifaceted implementation of the apparatus of the system of mind-over-mind coercion, which you may need to "right click" and "translate" to read.

The third is a consideration of these evil phenomena from the point of view of someone who considers these matters from a point of view which manifests some Gnostic influences, and which attempts to consider a spectrum of interpretations which range from the physical to the spiritual.

The REALITY which I Have Helped Facilitate

When the age of "Oil and Water" is over, when the SEPARATION OF GOOD AND EVIL is complete, when there are no deceptions and frauds which are not isolated into their origins, and when there are no mind-over-mind coercions except those willingly and knowingly agreed to by all participants (those are all evil), then the Good are all freed to submit only to their own Best Conscience and freed to know Friend from foe, THEN THIS is the "Great Apocalypse" which directly precedes THE FINAL MOMENT, the Full Immanence of the Eschaton.

I have been living my life striving to know THE TRUTH, and not to submit to the world's brainwashing, browbeating, intimidation and falsification of minds.  I did this because it is in My Nature to Be THIS way, and to be revolted at the alternative.  Because I have and because I WILL express my True Nature.  I won't be twisted into a self-mockery as the world prefers, but I'll see it for the mockery that it is, just as it cannot stand.  It pretends it wants us to express our natures, but it wants some of us to suppress ours, and it pretends it is great and mighty, but it is fragile and insecure.  It pretends it is evolving to allow Dignity and Liberty to express, but it is adapting and conniving to overcome these for the Good and inflate the vanity, hubris, caprice and prerogative of the evil.  By living my life standing against these things in the face of what seems like an endless sea of complacency, indifference, and wicked complicity I also in fact stand for what this world PRETENDS to steward and love: Dignity, Liberty, Beauty, Wonder, Truth, Love, Beneficence, Generosity, Peace, Power, Evolution, Consciousness, Knowledge, Wisdom, Grace and all of the Divine Bounty.

We live in a world where if someone won't stand against he evil which perverts all these into mockeries and entrapments, then how can anyone truly express them?  A proper person does BOTH, and while I've not done either to the ideals which would be sought, I've striven for them and done so as visibly as possible in an age when so doing allows such actions to be seen by many more than ever in history.  I spend my time refining ALL these facets of True Expression in a world hell-bent on perverting and corrupting these endeavors. I like to think that in a world that truly aspired to what is Right that my manifesting as I have would have been ironically comical, yet disturbingly surreal because not meaningfully possible.  Indeed, my very existence, let alone the actual content of my Essence, runs against the grain of that futile hope and dream, but reveals that we live in a world where these endeavors which have been for eons are articulations of the grim Truth concerning this world, and the world only feigns bemusement, while harboring a much more maleficent understanding of what I represent in their hellish domain.

This is not a "sacrifice", but in fact I would have sacrificed my very Spirit if I had done otherwise!  I did it because it was RIGHT BY MY SPIRITUAL CONSCIENCE, and so this is what has "saved" my Spiritually Ennobled Soul, ennobled by ME, the Spiritual Hammer which has reforged it AGAINST THE WILL AND GRAIN OF THE WORLD WHICH WAS THE SUPPOSED ORIGIN OF ALL, but which MANIFESTLY IS NOT.  I am a living testimony to a HIGHER REALITY, which has already engulfed this world but which the world is too terrified to face, but also too terrified to ignore... I simply have focused on this Truth no matter what, and soon so will the entire world be forced to do the same.  And between being Willing by Nature and being forced by Divine Fiat is an INFINITE GULF, and the TIME THIS WORLD HAS BEEN ALLOTTED was simply that array of experiential manifolds of opportunity for each being within it (and the world itself) to express each and all's true nature, and with each thought, word, deed build a bridge across that gulf, or else build a wall against it.  The former show others the way while making their own way, the latter try to prevent the inevitable, while working to deny others their right to strive for the Best and Highest.  I have facilitated the building of every Bridge just by building my own, and defied every wall in the same process of overcoming those who would have prevented me if they could.

The Reality is that NOW AND FOR ETERNITY that gulf IS CROSSED by ME and this is but the final step into that Higher Reality. I have helped those who wanted to do the same even just in doing this, and I have even helped "my enemy", by showing him that not only is it futile to try and prevent the Truth from Expressing and Returning to Its Origin, but it is also wiser to build a bridge for himself than a wall, and better to have loved the Truth and hated the lie, which lies are the bricks which build those walls of falsehood, which walls by GOD will be smashed back in on him to crush and bury him before the gulf spreads to consume him for an eternity.

I Don't Want Your "J.O.B.S." (Jury-rigged Obstructive Bureaucratized Slavery)

If the workers are properly sheltered, fed, clothed, and given a fair participation in the other goods of the economy (by a sufficient wage), then it makes as much sense to build devices to protect a land from natural catastrophe as the proper calculations of cost and benefit indicate.

All the other bullshit aside, notice how the "provide jobs" rhetoric just never goes away...
A decent human being needs only certain things in order to exist, and in that to be happy, healthy, prosperous and safe. Those things will require some effort, and sometimes ingenuity. They may require more than one person, or special persons, and these human resources may imply the need for many other types of resources, such as training and education.

The infrastructure required for such processes are as varied as the tasks and personnel involved in them. But in the end, only these activities can be called "jobs", which are tasks assigned to a person, perhaps by their own plan or someone else's, which lead to the attainment of some goal which was mentioned at the outset in paragraph one.

So the question is never "why" is someone doing something, in general. In general it is to fulfill one of the above-mentioned goals, to be happy, healthy, prosperous and safe. What is required to fulfill those aims, again, depends upon the person, the society, the culture, the environment, and so forth.

But if the issue of "good to create jobs" comes up, that is like saying that people working is good for its own sake, and that's not true. Work is not "good for its own sake". It is good for the sake of what it produces. As long as the minimum needs of a person are met by their work, and as long as they have free time to do other things besides rest, that free time can be spent as they see fit. They might do research about the forces in their world, personal or impersonal. They may better prepare for their future in various ways. They may further inspect or improve their work. They may amuse themselves and distract themselves in various ways from their weariness of some of their labors by "de-stressing" in different venues of enjoyable activity.

The bottom line is that what makes work "meaningful" and "good" is that it accomplishes the goals of the person's needs, and doesn't go against those, whether in the short term or the long term. We haven't even begun to talk about the larger scale of human work because I don't think that people actually grasp the simplicity of this sub-"micro"-economic level of work, which they might call "home economics". If they understood this PROPERLY, they'd understand more easily why "making work to create jobs" is not ever something worthwhile in and of itself. Jobs are NEVER the proper goal of ANY effort, they are the assignment of EFFORT so as to complete certain types of NEEDED OR DESIRED WORK. Jobs are only a means to an end.

Only after that is understood can someone understand whether or not their governments and other institutions are actually ripping them off and making them do senseless work. The most important example is in the SHELVING OF USEFUL TECHNOLOGY.

What makes technology useful? It saves work in some cases. It also makes new works possible which otherwise would not be, or makes them practicable (because of saving work, given the resources available at the time). Sure, 100 men can dig a good trench, but one man and a back hoe is much better, especially if you need 100 men for other things anyway. Perhaps you need those 100 men for some part of an infrastructure of society that makes that backhoe's design and production possible.

But some people just don't like the implications of saving us from work. They want those 100 men to be dependent upon them for their wage, to be "busy" doing something, ANYTHING, instead of thinking and reading and discussing the matters of their world. They want more easily managed human beings, and they want them for uses which are not actually reputable, and those uses are more justifiable when these men are busy breaking their backs for their necessities rather than reading books in the shade for the same food.

That's right. So much food is available, so much space, so much technology for production and housing and infrastructure, that if EVERY ABLE PERSON did some aspect of these tasks, in general terms, we could have most of everything we have right now at about 1/10th the work we actually do. The mechanisms of shuffling this truth out of the minds of people are hidden in the structure of the means of propaganda and cultural hegemony by means of institutions of "authority".

But people are very easily hypnotized by such bullshit, so it works, and they work, even if it means nothing and gains them nothing.

See, children of earth, men of clay, it was discovered that once technology surpassed a certain limit of complexity and efficiency, these two became synergistic when devised in certain forms. This technology is actually the ultimate meaning of the word "techne" (craft or art), which is the MEANS to reach an end. When the MEANS is very efficient, then the end is reached almost without perception of the means used to reach it. It comes almost at the speed of thought. Think of the technology of your nervous system as it enables you to surf the web right now using a body which you instruct almost without effort to do the things you intend! Your body/brain device is a very efficient means to the end of many things your mind intends.

But if the technology which enables human necessities to be met is allowed to become TOO efficient, then people will be busy enjoying themselves in the various ways they do in their free time, and "making trouble" in some cases... See the point? But making trouble for whom? Their neighbors, themselves, society "in general" etc. So what has happened is because YOU are considered corrupt by those who have access to this technology, they have decided to keep it for you "in trust" because you've accepted, tacitly and implicitly, or even blatantly and explicitly, the "guilt theologies" used to create your current socioeconomic purgatory. That is what I do understand. You have accepted your prison on so many levels that really it is your home.

BUT IT IS NOT MINE, AND YOU ARE NOT MY KIN NOR AM I YOURS. You mindless slaves and idiots can keep being toilers for naught, sacrifices in war, drooling participants in pseudo-culture and perniciously mind-destroying "recreation", but I have nothing to do with you, and you have nothing to do with me. You are controlled and your fates devised by your masters, but I refuse to share in them with you, and I don't heed your masters.

I am not judged by you, nor your masters. I am not one OF your KIND. I am not an evil wretch, needing to be "saved" from my own nature, nor trained to be better, nor needing some freedom from my sinful ways through the admonishment of other, certainly not the types who are offering these services in the world today. No, and hell no. I don't need or want to be patronized by such beings, and don't want to associate with those who toil under them in delusions which have no sway over my mind, heart and soul in any way. I have studiously discovered these facts by my own laborious investigations about what is going on in this world.

I would be happy to spend my remaining time of one year in this world's societies, in order to discover how to properly survive in some environment which is reserved for myself alone, in which to live out my days in peace. I would use that time to learn all I could about that environment, how to survive in it, and I would bring with me only the tools required for that purpose, RATHER THAN continue to endure the constant torture of being with the "rest of you damned people".

What tools would I need? Not that many, and I'd be happy to justify that my efforts in society to be a productive member were sufficiently hindered by every conceivable fraud and corruption within its "venerable institutions" that I should be allowed exactly 1,000,000 US dollars for my purposes. After this I would spend my remaining year in your "world" doing what it took to prepare for my departure, and nothing else. I would, in exchange, no longer bother the world with my viewpoint, my paradigm, my words, my ideas, my behavior, my desires and needs, my "way of doing things" (non-submissively), and my demeanor, bearing, countenance, presence and person would be also kept to my own private doings.

I would consider it a point of honor to use as little of this money as possible, only enough to ensure that I had properly designed a self-sustaining domicile, capable of enabling me to live out my natural life without any further involvement with your "world". I would probably make a "house" capable of persisting in the environment as long as I will continue in my current body, and put most of my efforts into making that as technologically advanced as possible to maximize the simple and desirable goal of living in an environment which is not harsh to my body, mind, soul, and Spirit. Mainly, this would be for the purpose of cultivating my Self so that I am prepared to depart from this filthy place you call your "earth" and return to my Origin in the right Spiritual Condition, pure and untrammeled by your poisons of each of these bodies, gross and subtle, material and energetic.

I would have a library of works to study, in all fields which interest me. I am quite sure that in a proper "world" I would be capable of producing any of them myself. I have a right to study these works. I would be able to choose from any of the libraries of the world, especially from those which are hidden by those who have stolen from the world's knowledge in order to keep people in ignorance. But if that is not possible (because of the shame and cowardice of such groups of people involved), then I'll just hit the Library of Congress.  I would learn the Truth of many things discoverable only by empirical and logical research, thanks to the confederation of the intellectually honest, among whom I am in Good Standing, and I am certain they will not mind if I look over their shoulders to add to my own research and education, because they would KNOW, as GOD is my witness, that I am not willing to use my knowledge for evil.

I would need to ensure that this domicile was maximally efficient, with minimal need for maintenance. I'm not coming back even to say "hi". I'd need to design a proper water collection system, a horticultural system for all my needed plants for food and medicine, and so I'd need a proper seed storage system as well. All that would be researched by me as well.  I would be fed by my own efforts, thanks to the kindness of my plants with whom I'd live.

I wouldn't need to hunt, wouldn't need to kill anything unless it attacked me, but just in case some wild animal or insects do attack, I'd need certain sorts of defensive systems. This will depend upon the environment into which I'd go in order to exile the world from myself properly.  I would only require such tools (weapons) for self defense, the only reason I ever need any weapons of any kind.  I would be safe by my own vigilance.  If none attacked, I wouldn't need to defend.  Indeed, this is an unfortunate tax upon my time and attention, but a somewhat unavoidable one, given the nature of this "world".

Shelter, Food, Defense, Cultivation.  Clothing is not a big deal at all.  Sufficient clothing for the rest of my life could be brought, and this sort of toil is as ancient as weaving.  I'm not going to bother learning that craft, because I really do have other things to be busy with than making clothes.  That's one of the benefits of technology, remember!  In fact, if it were healthy and possible, I'd just buy a store of food to last the rest of my life without need to grow any so that I could focus my horticulture on entheogenic medicine or herbal-chemistry.  There are many important salves and potions which are needed by those who do my sort of works.  For example, martial arts is not only about self-defense, but is literally a mode of spiritual practice incorporating transformation of the gross and subtle bodies.  Alchemy.

To this end I would need a scientific laboratory to conduct my studies of the works of knowledge I would bring with me, and to conduct further research into the various fields of study, mainly for my own edification, because I enjoy learning about such things, because I enjoy KNOWING REALITY.  I don't enjoy "working" for despicable fools and criminals.  I do enjoy studying chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc.  I would have much more time for these worthier pursuits without the "world" breathing down my neck and pretending to know how I should best go about it and to what purpose, mainly by using the age-old tactic of controlling my shelter availability, food supply, and rights to self-defense.  Those resources then under my own control and in a self-sufficient mode for the rest of my life, I could concentrate upon the more important cultivation of my Self for which my time was properly meant to be used.

I would have room in both space and time for each of my associated areas of study and cultivation. Basically I would be a hermit, and a very VERY much happier one than ANY THING I COULD BE IN YOUR DAMNED WORLD.  Someone once asked me if I wanted to be a "Pied Piper".  HA! Does this sound like the desire of such an Archetype?  It isn't.  I can't be bothered with mice or their manipulators.

I would be happy to live this lifestyle of peace, study, cultivation, reflection, and sublimation of the body into Spirit, ALONE, for the rest of my life on this earth, but preferably as far away from it as possible.  If it is globe, I'd rather be on a habitable planet or moon elsewhere.  If it is a domed area, I'd like to leave the dome.  If it is a dimension, then I'd like to be outside of it.  But if I have to be "in here with you", then I want to be as far away as possible, in as remote and inaccesible a place as can be found for this purpose.  I'm sure the world wouldn't miss me or the resources required for this purpose.  In fact, I'm sure that any pensions for disability that I may now claim or in the future, for the rest of my life would afford the majority of the balance of that fund that I would use for this purpose.  The rest would be returned.  I bet it wouldn't all be expended, and even if it would, it must be remembered that this loot was stolen from my Spirit, and from the innocence of many.  I won't be silent about that for as long as I live, so why not get away from me by letting me get away from you? Then you wouldn't have to hear about it any more.  Of course, the usual practices of murder by assassination are in your repertoire, but why implicate yourself any further in your guilt?  But of course, there are other means to settle "our beef", world, if you want to insist on your being right and my being wrong...

But until such a situation is possible in Good Faith, I will continue to exist and work "within" the system, but be NOT OF IT. I will continue to notice every evil lie, every wicked deception, every cowardly subterfuge, every insipid scheme, and I will continue to analyze them, demonstrate their nature and their existence, and go on and on about them in the hopes that I will disturb those who live in blissful ignorance or otherwise are the damnable beneficiaries of such evil, and I will continue beyond even that until there is nothing left of such wickedness.

Or if you think I'm wrong about this and you think you have the guts, why not challenge me to a duel? I know, never going to happen. But if I win, I get what I want, if you win, you can assassinate me. Deal? Why not make a pact with me in blood, with one of your knights as the opposing force? We'll see if he can defend this farce and this mockery better than I can assail it. It wouldn't have to be a duel of mortal combat in the normal sense. It could be any contest, as long as both opponents were in agreement as to their foe, and were each given the appropriate resources to prepare for the Battle. Why not you, "up on high", who think yourself the King of the World?

Positive Reality and Duality Part II: Beyond Philosophy, History, and Normality

"A deviation of a hair's breadth at the center leads to an error of a hundred miles at the rim.
When the effort is so slight, why should you hesitate to set things right?"
~Laozi

The question of what the significance is of differentiating apparently indistinct possible worlds is not merely a matter of metaphysical investigation "for its own sake".  The context in which this matter has here been broached in Part I is a very ethical, read "spiritually" significant endeavor.  It really does matter, in some cases, to split hairs, and to do so in a way which "sets things right".

To the questions philosophical which pertain to this endeavor, the metaphysical issues of "identity" and "essence" are quite relevant.  "Who is splitting the hair?"  It matters what sort of being exists and asks questions, not merely what sort of recorded questions, attempts at answers, and criticisms have been compiled by what appear to be biological androids capable of passing a cultural hegemon's version of a "Turing Test" for loyalty to the status quo of what is permitted to be understood and discussed within his empire of learned fools.  In terms of the power of silencing dissent as to what is "on the table of discourse", Foucault's analysis of the archaeology of power over knowledge, or knowledge management as a means to secure power over others, is a pertinent line of discourse. His observations are not the only voice on this topic, but it is indicated in various other tones and contexts by thinkers and writers going back as far as Plato, Kongfuzi ("Confucious", not to be confused with "Confuses Us"), Bruno, Paine, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Luther, Xunzi, Mozi, Laozi, Zartosht (Zoroaster), Szasz, just to name a few "Big Names".  There is a SHEER TON of literature on the subject of the interstitial relations between power, knowledge, and social norms.

In this literature a common theme arises where there are noted to be restrictions placed upon the raising of certain questions, and it is often posited that, whether rightly or wrongly, certain "brute facts" ordain those restrictions, overriding "The Truth" of the matter, becoming a sort of ugly truth in its own right, by the sheer fact that such a coercive influence is possible.  The economic and specific living conditions of people, for example, are brute facts which dictate a great deal about what sort of state of mind they are likely to obtain, what tools and facilities are available for their application of their minds to efforts of learning and contemplation, and what sort of complications may arise so as to cut short or otherwise delimit the quality and quantity of their efforts.  Their are social forces which are at work, on macro and micro scales, from the familial to the class structural, to the cultural and inter-cultural.  

These and other forces exert their casting and framing influences on the works of living beings, no matter what their degree of sentience and other physical, mental, and spiritual capacities.  This is not generally acknowledged to be "for the better", except by those who are resigned to some paradigmatic fantasy that declares human societies to be dignified in some way beyond the scope of any individuals which may exist either in them or outside them, a mindset described by Rand as "collectivism".  But to be clear, we are discussing the efforts of the individual, of the single and immutably unique person who, in the context of these forces which surround and impinge upon him or her, must usually conduct their best efforts in spite of these forces rather than as a true and proper harmonic of them.

It matters to the Lover of Truth, who is ALWAYS AN INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGN in his own right, as to the questions to be decided in his mind concerning what is real and what is fake, what is true and what is false, what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong, what is beautiful and what is hideous.  It isn't up to anyone else, no matter how many of them there are, who they are severally or collectively, or what they think they are properly up to doing about it.  It is up to this individual to decide, to realize, to act upon his decisions and realizations according to his own best judgement.  There is no exception to this principle of Liberty in the proper sense which defines the spiritual basis of Sovereignty as a concept.  Only this person lives his life, and only he may decide how he will live it.  Others may object all they like, but they cannot change his right or power to decide this matter for himself, not even if they destroy his body, for in this they merely deform the "portal of expression" of his Spirit into this world, they don't and they cannot touch his Spirit as such.

That is a fundamental position which answers for me what the value is in splitting this hair, whether or not there are other and metaphysical evils which underlie the phenomenal appearances of our world, and also what they are and what is to be done about them.  The position that I realize that it is not only up to me, but it is up to only me to do this work, for it is a unique work which is an expression of my very own Spiritual Essence which has as one of its hallmarks and touchstones the Love of Truth.

Love, which is a transitive verb requiring a proper object, implies that there is an evaluation of what is best.  It is impossible and senseless to speak of loving things "indiscriminately".  That is not love at all, but the caricature of a person who is nothing more than an empty tube through which the world passes without meaning.  When I love, which is to say when I Love, I resist.  Namely I resist the possibility of ignoring or passing over something, and I enter into it more.  This automatically implies that by contrast I have neglected something else, and this is simply a fact about which there is no sensible debate.  The meta-discourse on the senselessness of speaking of unconditional love is outside the limits of this essay, but rather it is assumed that the reader understands that such a notion is considered a falsification of the very essence of what the term "love" means.  

But by way of a nod in the appropriate direction I could use as a simple example the fact that I forgive the distraction from what else I love by this one thing that I love, simply because in virtue of some specific feature of this thing, and in some specific way and time, I love it more than anything else, or else I love it as a symbol or channel by which I love something even greater or other, but which only this being and nothing else has had the power to symbolize or otherwise offer connection.  My selectivity and focus upon this feature, this salient aspect which is loved more than what is therefore loved less by implication, is in no way altruistic or "other serving" or self-abnegating or "unconditional".  It is the very opposite of all these.

In the case of knowing what sort of world it is in which "we" really live, I must confess simply and straightly that I have a very personal and interested condition by which I am motivated to approach it. I am not satisfied with someone's story about what reality is, but I am going to find out for myself.  I am not satisfied with someone's insistence on what is right, but I'm going to decide for myself.  The Truth of matters, in short, is not decided for me, but by me.  I do indeed Love Truth, and I am very interested in making sure I'm not settling for a poor substitute. But to anyone else who will settle for someone's story, or someone's insistence, I say then you may do that all you please, but you will not substitute your choices for mine, nor your fate or destiny for mine.  To each, truly, his own.  So if the reader doesn't care, let him be careless and go his careless way.  But for me, I will split this hair!

Since in Part I it has already been demonstrated that there is an intelligible distinction between two possible worlds where the phenomenal appearances are identical, at least for large spaces and times vis-a-vis a normal human lifespan and intelligence (broadly speaking).  Therefore there is perhaps even no distinction for some people's lives which way this goes.  But as I've already just explained, for the Lover of Truth as I have pronounced him, there is a profound distinction.  It is not a distinction of appearances anyway, so the complaints of those who small minds or petty lives fit neatly and indifferently into the horrific folds of either universe may be ignored without any burden of explanation.  They can say I think too much, they can say I am "ratcheted too high in my vigilance" about this and that, and they can basically make asses of themselves all they want by conflating their conformation to their world regardless of its underlying realities with a proper basis for criticizing someone who is not bound by their unfortunate embeddedness. 

Perhaps they are the ones who are metaphysically truncated in some unsightly way so that they are unable to delve deeper than the surfaces of things at all, but in truth this is not likely in this universe, because the rampant and blatant evils in our world are commonly enough known by all that it really doesn't take an obsessive interest in ponerology to go beyond the surface.  The surface is so hideous as it presents itself that it even goes through the motions of caricaturizing its hideous evil in the culture, analyzing its corruption in the literature, rationalizing some of its monstrosities in various institutions of authority.  The topography of human society is built on this surface in such a way that it wouldn't even have the shape that it has unless this depth of evil within it were a fact, however it is then processed by those who have squatted their fleshy dependencies upon it.

At the end of all that drivel is the {} of incoherence, which wears on the mind of the metaphysician of the soul, the metaphysicist of the real.  He notes that the world "doth complain too much" about his own efforts, which needn't detain them if they have "better things to do", and likewise he often asks no special reward for his efforts.  Indeed, he can often demonstrate the value of his realizations in some of the more superficial layers of his research, often at the drop of a hat in any situation, no matter how petty, especially the longer-lived he is and the more familiar he perforce becomes with such picayune circumstances.  He could do this in his sleep, and still properly express a masterpiece of observation, logic, and perhaps even a touch of humor thrown in due to the absurdity of pointing out the obvious to those for whom, all too commonly, common sense is uncommon.

Then there are those who simply fear the "rabbit hole" which is implied by these massive, suffocating standing waves of absurdity!  They perhaps cannot even get their nose up far enough from grindstone to which they avidly cling so as to even perceive just how much of the world is a "rabbit hole", nor how their sinking ship of delusional normality is no less doomed to plunge deeper into its unholy depths.  Perhaps they think themselves safely on the beaches somewhere on the rim of the rabbit hole world which they go to great lengths to rationalize into one of the world-approved absurdity-conformable paradigms into which they have been developmentally embedded in this, and perhaps many previous lives, assuming that their souls are more than cardboard cutouts.  Even in this case, they can be grimly assured that the fleet of sinking vessels in the center of Rabbit Hole Lake have their moorings attached to the delicate necks of the delusional dwellers upon Rabbit Hole Beach.  It won't matter what your class of seating on the sinking ships of delusion, nor your quality of estates on the beaches of denial... you are going in the rabbit hole of "what lies beneath" no matter what.  The difference between those who do this blindly, and those who do it consciously, between those who do it with cowardice, and those who do it with honor, is the Love of Truth.  It is either in you, or it ain't.

Positive Reality and Duality Part I: Beyond Heraclitus

“If the mighty fravaṧis of the just had not given me aid . . . to the Druj would have been the power, to the Druj the rule, to the Druj corporeal life; of the two spirits the Druj would have sat down between earth and heaven” 
~Zartosht

The science which takes as its subject a field of issues concerning "existence as such", Metaphysics, as many aspects and topics within it.  It has been in existence itself for quite a long time, as long as anyone ever wondered and tried to understand why one thing seemed, and perhaps even did, lead to another (causation, one of the topics of Metaphysics).

In this science, which is also performed by the philosopher himself or herself as an art (as are all sciences by those who specialize in doing them rather than just teaching or learning about them), there are methods and techniques which aid the Metaphysicist (or Metaphysician, depending on the sub-specialty), examples from which have been seen here and there throughout the world down through the ages.

One that is often heard in modern circles is a "deep question", really a "meta-question", which "probes backwards" from the issue of consideration, asking a rather pointed question in the form such as follows:

  "In the consideration of the notion 'x', how would the world be any different right now if 'x' didn't exist"

Of course, this is trying to suggest to us that if 'x' were in fact real, then the world would have been affected by this fact so that, if 'x' suddenly were not real, then something in the world would be 'un'affected by 'x', and so would be different right now.  This is an important question to ask because it implies that assumption, namely that there is a way to detect the effects of 'x' being real.  It puts the person on the spot who presents the notion of something 'x' but cannot assure us of any reason to believe it is real.  As will later become important for our particular consideration, this presupposes that 'x' is a cause whose effects bear markers in their appearance which are distinctly peculiar to any truth of the assertin that 'x' was their cause, i.e., the usefulness of this question is restricted to cases where phenomena are the effects of causes only if those effects bear evidence peculiar to that causal origin.  Those phenomena being present or not should not, per se, be judged sufficent evidence of the existence of the hypothetical cause 'x' unless it can be shown that their presence would not be possible otherwise, and also that their abcense is not due simply to the muting of the effects of 'x' (since perhaps 'x' exists as an interrupted cause!).  This will be elaborated later below.  But let's first take a broad look at this sort of question and how it might be practically applied in some forms of scientific thinking.

For instance, if people didn't commit crimes, prisons would not exist, since the purpose of prisons is to incarcerate convicted criminals.  So we can be assured that, whenever we see a prison, that criminals must have also existed.  This might be useful in archaeology since we might not be able to find evidence of criminals directly, but perhaps we can have an idea that they existed by finding evidence of the existence of prisons in the structures still in the physical record.  We might even be able to discover a lot of things about the prisoners, and hence the criminals of those days, and therefore what the nature of law and crime were, some aspects of that people's culture, including how they treated their criminals.

All those ideas can be explored because in supposing that 'x', in this case "criminals" existed, we should be able to find 'y', which is some logical result of 'x', whether an effect of it (in this case) or a cause of it.  In this case we would suppose the existence of 'x' from the evidence of 'y', since we think that where there are prisons, surely there were already criminals to put in them, because prisons are the effect of a cause, criminals who societies desire to imprison! In related fashion, if we wanted to be sure that such a society had no laws, we would expect to find no criminals, and so we would expect to find no prisons (for some criminals may become prisoners).  

So if someone wanted to be assured that such a society had no laws, he should certainly be able to answer a question put to him which ran like this "how would that society be different than ours if it had no laws of any kind, formal or informal".  The answer would be that "It would have no prisons for the incarceration of criminals, since there are no laws to break, no criminals, hence no sentences of imprisonment for such, and so no such places for the fulfillment of those sentences".  

Of course this is not a perfect course of argument for either side, since in fact "prison-like" structures may exist with no relations to any notions of propriety and recourses to its infringement, such as places to hold dangerous animals who were never a member of society, broke no laws.  Laws may have existed, and perhaps people never broke them, or perhaps they had no punitive imprisonment.  Yet, this prison-like structure exists.  We'd have to differentiate punitive prisons from prisons which withhold natural forces, such as cages for animals, and dams for water.

Moreover, it may be the case that prisons did exist, but took forms much different than we'd expect, or else were destroyed before we could find them later, so perhaps laws existed though evidence for them does not.

So it is not a perfect "magic bullet" sort of approach to interrogating ideas, whether those in our own minds or those presented by others, but it at least enlarges the means by which we can explore them productively.  Neither of the above two situations prevents us from taking a useful approach by asking "Did this ancient society have laws?  If not, then surely punitive prisons did not exist.  Is there evidence that any did exist?"  Then, if no "Can it be shown that it is for other reasons than the non-existence of laws?"  For example, is it because they had no concept of crime, but did have laws which everyone obeyed, and because disobedience didn't occur, crime was not defined for them?  Did they have laws, and criminals, but no punishments?  Did they have punishments, but imprisonment not being among them?  Did they imprison criminals, but not in ways which we'd expect or understand? Did they imprison in the ways we'd understand and expect, but has all evidence of such since vanished from the physical record?  If the answer to the question about whether these structures existed is yes, then:  Are these really punitive prisons?  Were the "laws" broken really just informal prejudices common to the whole society but not formally codified into strictures, rules, and positive laws?  Are these really "prisons", or something else entirely?

This example shows us that many considerations enjoin even a simple exercise of hypothetical thinking about a rather empirical, and seemingly simple, issue, so imagine if things get "metaphysical"...

In philosophy it is often the case that "intangible" or "insubstantial" or "abstract" or "religious" ideas, concepts, entities, etc are sometimes asserted to exist, and those who wish to present arguments against such will sometimes ask why they should believe such a thing.  They ask, basically, "if such a notion were not real, how would the world be any different now?" If there cannot be presented a convincing reason to suppose that it would be any different, then the critic feels fine remaining in his default position of keeping his mind unchanged on the matter, of not accepting this new idea or belief about it.  After all, nothing would change in his life if it were not true, and so for all he knows he lives in a world where it isn't, and this wouldn't seem any different from the world he is in right now, which is the one he was in as an unbeliever, and so why change?  The world remains the same either way, as far as he can tell.

That's a sort of defense for those who feel put upon by the profferings of proselytizers, and one can understand their unwillingness to "play along" and invest meaning in ideas which didn't belong to them when that rather should be the burden of the one presenting those ideas.

Of course sometimes it may be the case that the world wouldn't seem any different if the phenomenon in question didn't exist, but not because the beings which are supposed to exist don't have any causal power when they don't exist, but because if they didn't exist then the world would have invented them, because in fact the world has a causal power of its own which is in a feedback loop with the entities/forces/beings in question.   It is like this:  if they didn't exist then the world would have found a way to ensure that some simulacrum of them did exist, because the world is an agent of a common principle with those forces, and not merely an effect of them.

So that means we think in this case that the metaphysical beings in question exist along with our apparent, as we say "physical" world of phenomena, as co-causal agents in how this world behaves, as a sort of reinforcing cause which is also an effect of the world's ongoing activities.  As it stand in this case, we might ask a new question:

"If the beings would have been invented if they didn't exist, then how do we know if they in fact are in existence as inventions or as naturally, already existing?"  In other words, "What if they did already exist?  How would the world be different?"

These and many other interesting metaphysical questions and considerations can be raised and explored, even without entering substantive content into the formulas here used.  Indeed, these considerations kept in the abstract, purely metaphysical form in which they are here presented can be the source of reams of theoretical exercises in thought, and would be worthwhile to conduct on their own merits for those of us with such a proclivity.  But what happens when we add certain kinds of contents into them?  That's when things get interesting, and far more interesting than just the question of what crime and punishment were like 8,000 years ago in China.

What if the issue were to know an answer to the question of what would be the difference between a world were evil existed beyond the domain of "what evil men do", and the world where no such causes of evil existed, and to make it very strict, the only evils which ever exist are those which are performed by men who are in fact evil.  What is the difference between these two worlds?

In other words, would it matter to our perceptions of our observable world whether or not men like Dr. Ewen Cameron were performing their evil experiments merely under their own inclinations, or does it make a difference if they are funded as part of a project in a group which secretively redistributes public money in order to create a de facto justification for what they do in the midst of those upon whom they do them?  Surely there is some difference, if in the first case he were simply doing his deeds of his own accord and were not legitimized by some relationship to a government agency working with his expertise as a resource, then he'd quite possibly be considered a criminal, if not an outright evil man by those in his profession as well as the public at large.  In fact this is still the case as lawsuits have been filed and won on behalf of some of Dr. Cameron's victims.  It is just that it would perhaps be more obviously, more blatantly the case if he were not semi-legitimized by the agencies involved in his research.

But even right here we have an abundant enough set of elements to call "evil", and the consequences they have wrought are sufficiently odious so as seemingly not to require any further, more remote causes, even if such were to be in themselves perhaps more sinister in their own natures, motives, intentions, goals, etc.  But what if such did exist, would we be able to detect a difference in the phenomena which concentrate around the dreaded subproject of Mk-Ultra in which Dr. Cameron partook?

If not, it may be argued by those who want to dismiss conspiracy investigators as misguided crackpots that their theories or suspicions, etc, are all unnecessary, possibly delusional excesses of thought which are worthy to be shaved off by Occam's Razor which states that whenever we are trying to account for the "why" of a thing, we should hypothesize no more entities to be involved then are necessary, so that if there are two possibilities for such an account, even if both may be true, we should prefer the simpler one.

That may be a fine point to make, but it would be foolish to assert that such a method of epistemological simplification is an iron-clad rule about how to think, research, or understand what is "truer" in the investigation of the why's and how's of phenomena.  After all, what if the simpler explanation is simply not true, and the less simple one happens to be the case?  What someone handy with Occam's Razor would suggest is that the burden of proof is upon the one in favor of the less simple explanation, and therefore let him scrounge up the evidence, and let his evidence satisfy stringent standards of evaluation.

That may be okay as well, but even if he doesn't have evidence, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and that means anyone has the right to suppose it does and to search for it.  It also doesn't mean that being unable to find such evidence is an indication that it for sure doesn't exist.  It also doesn't mean that the simpler explanation is true.  It just means that the person who wants to sit pat on it has found a nice excuse for ignoring the testimony of others, or even their evidence, if it doesn't meet his own standards, which themselves may be adjusted perhaps to ludicrous degrees of insensitivity to even blatant manifestations of the phenomena which his "simpler" account does not recognize as real.

These "Skeptics a la Mode" do exist, and they clog up the works in discussions about anything whatsoever.  This same sort of rock-headed mentality which mistakes sullen and stubborn ignorance for epistemic sobriety (or dogmatic loyalty), is found in every aspect of human knowledge and belief. In the end, it is most a form of rationalization about whether or not to be open to new evidence.  The specialist in epistemic razor blades just happens to be the someone who prefers to keep his mind a certain way and seems to prefer the evidence for thing to come to him rather than to seek it out himself, and he'd prefer that you get the memo on what he is willing to accept (we'll assume he doesn't have gut feelings, intuitions, psychic powers, heightened perceptions of probability fields, moral inspiration, and certainly not a Nous, so we'll assume he won't be interested in any such evidence on our part, indeed he often finds these attributes can even be considered as having the power to taint even solid evidence which is found by their inspiration or means).

Really, in the world of knowledge and the seeking of it, who cares about this toad on a rock in a swamp in the middle of nowhere?  Let him be.

As for us, what can we make of such a question, even if not taken to such a silly extreme of improbable investigative utility as the pseudo-skeptic finds normal for himself?  Well, we might ask ourselves that question and consider various possibilities.

1) What if we lived in a universe where the existence of such metaphysical causes of evil have special means of hiding their presences?

2) What if they had a methodology to reinforce evils which exist in man already, but prefer to do so in such a way that man thinks he is doing them himself, so they can keep man in a special state of ultimate culpability, manipulability, and ignorance?

3) What if their non-existence would be impossible (in this universe) because man's existence in his current form in this universe is directly owing to their existence as a partial cause, and so it is a moot question in fact?                                                                                                                                  

4) What if the point made in 3) is so strong that even if the metaphysical evil beings didn't exist now there would be enough inertial force in the effects formerly special to their involvement that man would coast along just as if it were unaffected except perhaps by a brief disorientation and then pernicious (and radically more culpable) resumption of the evil paths we see in the phenomenal world? (That would be an effect of their sudden non-existence, it could be argued, but it would be a hard one to detect as such an effect, being that the cause is so obscure, occult, and opaque so that even (at least?) most of those involved in the ongoing evil on the surface wouldn't have understood it).

5) What if the "machine" of human evil is run so efficiently that 4) happens from time to time in order to "kick start" and/or "upsurge" the outpouring of some energetic benefit which accrues to the meta-evil beings who thrive on this arrangement, and that this could only be possible in this particular way (with this particular level of efficiency), if they kept it a secret even from those who are involved on the "upper layers" of such conspiracies of evil as we see extant and pervasive in the world?

Then in fact, we may have, from our perspective, a world "no different than" the world in which "meta-evil" doesn't exist, and yet it would be just as evil overall, if we had a case where 5) were true. Yet it would be a very different world in fact than a world where such meta-evil didn't exist, and it seems to make a great bit of difference to the question of defining and labeling such people as to whether or not they are sane, so at least it directly affects them if their Love of  Truth pits them against such meta-evils (as well as their lower-rung evil hegemonies), since for something in their very essence, their very spirits, it matters what this Truth is, but for almost all involved in the circumstances, the world appears just as if there were not such "evil forces" behind the evil forces already "taken for granted" in the world today.

Sadly for those in this scenario, they are not only likely to be called various names and given various labels, in other words ostracized, or at least marginalized, if not outright persecuted and massacred (although it apparently has happened in the past!), but they are, in case of 5), in possession of a world-view which is The Truth, and it is everyone else which is delusional about these matters which they disingenuously deem "controversial" and "fringe".

That said, simply stating the possibility of conceiving of such a world does not in itself demonstrate its existence, or that we are here living in such a world.  How, then, could someone convinced of such a state of affairs discover the existence of such a world (in general), that he is living in one (in particular), and WHY, OH WHY would he burden himself with such a demonstration, knowing that most others would be immune even to the most powerful evidence he could present, even to the point of dismissing piles of documented facts, strung together with logic so forceful that even to understand it is to agree with it, and to disagree with it is to contradict one's own self?

That will be the topic of Part II of this epistemic foray into the realms of occult metaphysics.

THE NASTY LITTLE SECRET OF THE MASSES AND THEIR OVERLORDS

I knew this was possible on a metaphysical level long before I realized it was actually going on literally, in the world, using mere flesh and blood agents. That's because at first a Spirit Being entrapped in the flesh is deceived into taking the physical as primary This might be called the "monopolization of perception through antagonistic embodiment in a developing body/mind system, through chronic developmentally euhypertrophic, psychospiritually dyshypertrophic alteration of said body, or , a.k.a. growth and maturation of the body, which is actually a long term form of trauma which finally decelerates into some manageable, soul-deformed and spiritually inhibited mockery of a being (an "adult"). Project Monarch just turns this into more of an exact science which "completes the marvelous produce of nature" and brings it into the desired "techne" of those who manipulated the vinyard and winepresses, and the aging barrels and final venues of the "grapes of humanity", grown on the vine of a corrupted form, and in a vinyard which is "not in my Father's Kingdom". Ouch, metaphysical squatters, bootleggers of existence? Falsifying human existence to serve perverse ends which include feeding on the very souls of those who have been herein entrapped? Think that there isn't a penal code for that just because you haven't seen it written down in one of your public or private and secret rule books of pseudo-law?

Just like an Nuremberg, "ignorance of the Higher Law" will not be an excuse.

This goes on through natural laws, but only as they are screened through the manipulation of the DNA of said bodies, and this is actively done precisely so as to ensure that the "mature specimen", individually and collectively, is a controllable and manageable laughingstock version of what it is taught that it is, namely a "noble being", the "crown of the animal kingdom". This is laughable by definition. The royal height of being an animal? Can you imagine this is really how people are taught to think of themselves? In most cases, it is actually an accurate description.

Yet the "alternatives" are to become simply embedded in the traditional noise of the human swamp, and go through the motions of various epochs of soul-humiliation and spiritual torture as is manifested by the many racks of tomes devoted to this subject which are called "human history". That includes not only the commonly inculcated mores, such as what is on the menu, what is okay to do to children, what is fine in the marketplace, etc, but includes also the longstanding institutions which pretend to hold for the public trust various ideals and their applications for the common good, such as those which claim to uphold justice, order, peace, prosperity, and truth in all its deformed, redacted and heavily truncated parodies. I'm talking about the big buildings with people in them who sit in special rooms and play this game of charades with the people not in the rooms, which is that they have "authority", when all they have is a mockery of that concept.

That is what they tell each other when they conquer each others local establishments (each other's nations or other forms of "turf"), and so what makes any of them think that they are not in fact just another of the same long line of mockeries which have been slogging it out for eons? GET REAL with the pretenses! You're all "crime families" and you damn well ought to KNOW that by now.

It should be noted that if you are reading this, then probably you are already able to understand some of what I'm talking about, either because you have been a victim of it (and have been injured by it), are a part of it (you are one of "them") or most likely some combination of both, which comes in all shades and proportions.

It is rare that a person is actually high enough in the evil hierarchy of manipulated pseudo-existence that they don't feel the pressure of a higher agency breathing down their pathetic necks, and it is perhaps just as rare that a Divine Being herein entrapped has a direct and enhanced connection to their Source of Origin, which is to say is Truly Religious, and more than that is perhaps a strong conduit of spiritual energy of the Divine and Original kind (not the perverted, deformed, and corrupt, non-viable kind of energy).

When it happens to be the case that these people are in the same world, they cannot be on friendly terms, and I made the reasons for this clear in my metaphysics and ethics, because the logic of their antivalence is inviolable by any pretenses or any other measures by either side of this irrevocable divide between them, the divide which measures the difference between what is Real and fake, True and false, Good and evil, and in the deepest meaning of those terms, as well as these, Beautiful and hideous. I have not gone into the metaphysics of this in detail because of several reasons.

But here perhaps is the main, petty, pathetic reason, which will NOT work with ME. And it is no surprise to me, as it is always that case that this does happen, and especially to those who speak the Truth this far into the domain of evil (this earthly world), and so therefore when it DOES happen, it becomes PROOF POSITIVE that this domain IS evil. This particular sign of the cowardice and duplicity, hypocrisy and utter criminality of the evil beings in question, who happen to style themselves as "proper", is often called gangstalking.

Aside from the betrayals of those who feigned support but in the end were malignant defenders of their own evil perversions, cowardice, and other comfort zones of the ego and body, there are those who had all along been behind the scenes and never properly able to put up even the flimsiest pretense of being "friends". They are the "them" who are always there, happy to turn on that cell phone app that says "do your patriotic duty and harass THAT guy" or whatever other excuse is provided. No doubt, tax money or, more generally and appropriately to say, funny money off the ledgers of the fraudulent FED printing presses, has trickled its way into the accounts of such commonplace miscreants. Did you get a kick out of thinking I didn't SEE YOU for what you were?

It wasn't difficult, people are rather bad pretenders even when it is their full time job, because in those cases they are simply crude hedonists with a psychopathic neuropathology, partly acquired and partly a genetic defect in their innate character, which makes them stand out with a certain "hollow" and "tinny" characteristic in the moral and spiritual radar of people who experience these hyena-like filth in person.

Well, we always knew what you were, no surprises there, in the end. We aren't the ONLY ones who see you for what you are, but for now you are allowed to persist in the illusion that you are running amok without anyone to stop you, so that you will fully expose your moral culpability. And by the way, don't get your hopes up that you can turn a new leaf and "join the other side", it doesn't work that way. The ranks of the righteous cannot be enriched by demonic cowards. We have no need of you, no want of you. When your body is, by all manner of typical and in truth inevitable means "decomposed", you will face the real nature of reality, which is actually properly hinted at in some of your utterly mutilated religious texts, which are also perforated with lacunae and distortions of all types, and filled with all manner of psychospiritual poisons and booby traps. But still yet, a few passages are accurate, and should have served as adequate warning.

Such as the one about everyone reaping what they have sown, and the other about how you will know a tree by its fruit. You, the wicked, won't know YOURSELVES very clearly in this meantime, but IN THE END, you will be decidedly distinguished from the righteous by a sort of perfect cut on a metaphysical level, which by its force enables you to see your own nature, as if in a perfect mirror, before you are by that same force cast into the hellish directions of destruction which all lead to an oblivion which will not be the merciful end of that process, like physical death is here in some cases for a spiritual being, but rather it will be the capstone experience of that process, which is the result of being weighed in the TRUE SCALES of justice, above this world and by far above it.

But continue on with your evil charade, thinking it is just going to go on as usual without repercussions, as you have always thought, eon after eon. You're never told about what happens to those of you who are already "bagged" from existence, but that's because you'd probably panic and turn on your masters if you were, and besides this is not something that is necessary in most cases, as the result ends up the same, or in any event as desired by the True Heavenly Authorities, which I can assure you do not have formally and governmentally recognized offices in this world, and for the most part never have.

The great masses of people, even and especially the ones that think silly things like "Jesus died for our sins so we could be saved", they will be swept aside in this conflict as nothing more than the bulky mass of the corpulent putrescence of the the evil overlords of them who fed them that nonsense, because sleep badly knowing instead the Truth, which is that no Divine Personage ever came here to "die for" the gigantic army of demonic trolls, imps, servile moral dwarven deformities which constitute the overwhelming masses of human people, and almost every last one of those who rank above the common herd, who manage them from within their depraved hierarchies of manipulation and deceit.

But yes, I realized the metaphysical aspect of all this, and I took it seriously as the evidence which was already empirically available stacked heavily in its favor, especially as competing theories all imploded under their self-contradictions. This in turn made it more obvious what sorts of other manipulations were going on "in the flesh" and in concrete terms, and this is information which has always been available to anyone who would bother to think, read a book, visit a library, ask people questions, meditate, reflect, seek truth in sincerity in all matters, etc. The material was everywhere abundant in the difference between what people claim is the nature of society and their own selves, and what they evidence in their behavior and the results of their actions.

Further, the very fact that these honest pursuits were prohibited by the personalities encountered everywhere could have been information in itself. Peer pressure against seeking truthful information, under whatever guise, is nothing more than an evil attempt to prevent the truth from becoming known. It is an immediate, PRIMA FACIE display of moral and spiritual cowardice and depravity, whether it is shouting out others who speak up with crowd chants, or it is slaughtering anyone with an alternate view or information than what you want out there, and rounding up all their literature and other information and artifacts, deforming their status and meaning, hoarding and burying them, or otherwise plundering evidence of the truth so that your lies could remain dominant.

And most humans just went right along with the program, being the lowest slime of the slime lords themselves.

Here's that link:

GANG STALKING (the sport of hyenas and other dogs)