DIY-AV

In the old times ( say Egypt ) human life was subject to institutions which represented a sort of a hybrid between state and church. It was necessary to use religion to justify government because the government was just that bad.

As governments improved in their efficiency ( not intentions ) the need to claim divine right became less and less acute and the church started to decouple from the government into a separate institution. US constitution explicitly separated church and state because it felt the state was now so efficient it had no use for a crutch like church at all.

And then came the corporations. Just like early governments depended on the church for their legitimacy so did the early corporations depend on governments for theirs. Governments explicitly granted corporations human rights thereby establishing their legitimacy in the then government-dominated world. And just as the church was eventually superseded by the state, which it itself enabled, so is the state now being superseded by the corporations which it enabled. Realistically the power of corporations probably eclipsed that of governments around the time of WW2 or so.

Fascism is a socioeconomic system in which democracy and capitalism are merged into a mongrelized monster which is neither democratic nor capitalist and is utterly tyrannical. This is the system we now “enjoy” universally across the “western” world. This is the same kind of symbiotic relationship that hundreds and thousands of years ago the Church enjoyed with the State.

The prevailing view among intellectuals is that Governments and Corporations are both legitimate forces for good when sufficiently separated and that it is this link between them which is something to be fought at any cost.

I must be absolutely clear that I agree 100% that this link must be fought at any cost, however I think it is also worth questioning whether when separate Governments and Corporations can be considered forces for good.

After all at the time of the writing of US constition which mandated separation of church and state the Church was considered overall a force for good – and today it is viewed as more of a force for boy fucking, mind fucking and tax loopholes. This is probably because when divorced from the power ( physical force / guns ) of the state the fake luster on an institution such as Church begins to wear off. Would the same also hold for other institutions affiliated with the state and including the state itself ?

As a Libertarian/Anarchist I have been at the very least familiar with ( if not supportive of ) the notion that all government is “bad” or at least “the less government the better” for a while. Also I have been exposed to some works discussing the evils of corporations, but it was only this week when some liberal that I was debating fascism with said to me something like “all corporations are always bad”. This caught me off guard.

As an Anarchist my position is that while Church, State and Corporations all cause immense harm Church and State produce nothing of value – they merely redistribute other people’s resources. Corporations on the other hand produce enormous amounts of valuable products. This surely puts them head and shoulders above Church and State, but now that isn’t saying much. To be morally more upright than a serial child rapist does not automatically make you a good person.

So this I believe is the question us Libertarians and Anarchists should be asking. We already know what Liberals think about corporations, but that unfortunately is irrelevant because they just want to replace corporations with Governments, which is going back hundreds of years and choosing the GREATER of the two evils. To be consistent Liberal fuck-tards would then have to replace governments with Churches and call that progressive.

If you are reading this you are probably proud of being above and beyond the whole democrats versus republicans joke, but chances are you are still in the Governments versus Corporations debate. In that debate I think it is equally dangerous to find oneself on any one side and trapped in an “us versus them” mentality, just as most people are in the republican vs democrate nonsense. We must not lose the forest for the trees and take a broad look at the bigger picture. Those examining the link between corporations and the state are on the right track – but that is not enough. MORE questions need to be asked.

Can corporations be “fixed”? Can they be “humanized”? Can they exist without patronage of governments? Can they replace governments, finally putting governments in the graveyard of history, where they belong, without plunging into a mad max kind of post-apocalyptic scenario? And finally – to what extent are corporations inherently international and a force for irreversible globalization?

These are just some of the questions – I hope you can come up with more. This an area in which a lot of badly needed understanding and thought appears to be missing, at least from the surface. If you find any worthy material on the subject please let me know. Thanks.

We are self-aware beings and most of us would never be able to explain exactly what self-awareness really is.   We face the same problem when trying to understand just what the government is.  All of us have spent our entire lives living under governments.  And the education we received has entirely come from people (parents and teachers) who have also spent their entire lives living under governments.  We can’t step outside the government to see it – we accept it as we accept ourselves – without questioning.

Objectively you are a domesticated animal.  You have certain features that dogs for example do not – such as ability to browse the internet for, but fundamentally you are an animal.  You are self-aware in the same exact way as a dog is self-aware, and you don’t have a soul any more than does a rat or a cockroach.  That’s probably not how you have thought of yourself?  Your government is not what you think of it either.

While a human is an evolved animal, the government is an evolved MAFIA.  And while with animals the evolution tends towards greater intelligence with mafia it is towards greater tyranny.  The mafia to the government is what a mild benign growth is to a stage 4 cancer.  The government is a SUPER-MAFIA.  Modern governments are actually WORSE than the governments of the past.  Modern governments are “advanced” in the same way as a cancer can be “advanced” in other words – that is NOT a good thing.  Modern governments consume as much as HALF of ALL resources of the host on which they parasite – this is far beyond what any mafia or cancer could dream about.

We believe that the government “loves us” in the same way as a wife believes that her abusive husband BEATS HER because he loves her.  We believe that our government is “good” in the same way as hostages believe the terrorists who have kidnapped them are “good” ( this is known as Stockholm Syndrome ).  I could explain in detail exactly how the government accomplishes these feats of mind control but that is beyond the scope of this article.  In this article I am simply going to assume that you are currently at a point where you see the government as a “necessary evil”.  And the point of this article will be to show you that it is not necessary at all.

For more insight about the nature of government:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLCEXtpTNYU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

If you are not into metaphors a succinct way to define the government is an entity exercising A MONOPOLY OF VIOLENCE over a given territory.  The governments were responsible for ~ 200 million deaths in the 20^th century alone, and that number does NOT even include wars – just the people directly murdered by their own governments.  Needless to say the governments are absolute CHAMPIONS when it comes to murdering people, making even the Church look like an amateur by comparison.

The question we ultimately want to answer is – is a monopoly of violence the only thing that can save us from each other?  Let’s start by asking a simpler question – is violence the only effective means of control?  The answer is no.  The real means of control is FEAR.  Violence is only a means to achieve fear, and whether it is the most effective means is open to debate.

Fear is entirely in the domain of the mind, while violence is entirely in the domain of the body.   Wouldn’t it be more efficient to induce fear by acting directly on the mind?  It would.  And that’s precisely the direction in which governments, as they are getting smarter, have steadily been moving through the course of history.  As Noam Chomsky has said “propaganda to a democracy is what violence is to a dictatorship”.

Humans are herd animals.  Humans will do just about anything simply to “fit in”.  Would you rather be tossed in prison or left all alone deserted on an island?  Most people would choose prison!  Being ostracized ( depending on how this ostracism was implemented ) could be very bit as devastating as being physically left deserted on an uninhabited island.  A physical prison with bars, or an island without a boat can be effectively replaced by …  a microchip.

An implantable microchip (or an equivalent information technology, such as iris scan etc) could ( and probably will ) realize the most extreme form of tyranny known to man.  No prisons, no cops, no guns – just sheer fucking terror that doesn’t let you sleep at night.  That’s the direction our government is going in.  While undoubtedly extremely dangerous in the hands of the government, these powerful technologies could be a blessing in disguise when you consider how they can be used not to strengthen, but to REPLACE the government.  It is about time we put governments where they belong – in the graveyard of history.

Suppose that there is a database storing ALL information about your life – every single thing you have ever done.  Suppose this database is public and linked to your implantable RFID chip.  Suppose also that this information can be instantly accessed from any iPhone – or for that matter that people have sunglasses with a built in heads up display and earphone that automatically gives them a readout summary for anybody who comes in their field of vision.

Now suppose that you are going on a date and your date gets a readout on her sunglasses that you murdered your first wife with an axe – do you think your date will go well?  Suppose you are applying for a job and your interviewer gets a readout that you robbed your previous boss blind – do you think your interview will go well?  Now suppose you are trying to rent an apartment and your landlord gets a reading that you have been evicted from your previous apartment because you never paid your rent – do you think you will be able to move in?

You see there is no need for prisons, cops or punishment of any kind in order to encourage people to behave in a manner that is best for everybody – all that is needed is access to information.  In other words KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

A government ( or Church for that matter ) is an institution which primarily manages information ( disinformation to be more precise ) and force is only employed when information management fails.

In the old days there was scarcely a way to manage information at all – so violence had to be used virtually 100% of the time.  Then came the printing press, then public schools, then television – these increased the powers of the government to manage what people think to such an extent for the most part it was possible to replace violence – and only use it when people fail to watch TV for 5 hours a day or fail to attend public school for 12 years or other such delinquents.  This is the paradigm in which we are now, and it has been the paradigm for the last ~50 years or so, and yet in the last 20-30 years there has been an EXPLOSION in information technology ( first internet, and then mobile internet ).

Every time the information technology advanced in the past society had to eventually restructure itself to cope with that shock.  Of course the powers that be tried to stifle new technology by burning books etc ( today by opposing net neutrality ) because they realized that new technology made old social order ( and therefore THEM ) obsolete.  But technology cannot be stopped – it always prevailed in the end – but not after some struggle.  The power does not willingly relinquish control – it fights to the death.

We are now in such a period where our current social order is light years behind our current technology because technology has in the past 20 years been evolving much faster than any society could.  WikiLeaks is just one example of the current social order colliding with the reality that it is already obsolete.  The reality is that a monopoly of force is no longer needed.  What we need is open, decentralized, peer-to-peer information sharing.

For example every individual could have a Wikipedia-style encyclopedia written about him and shared via a bittorrent-style technology.  His entry of course would be updtatable in real time.  Everything you have ever done would be in your record.  If you started getting in the red because of all the negative shit you have done and people started to increasingly avoid you – you would be more or less forced to make up for your tainted reputation by doing volunteer work, donating to charity ( such as education for kids, or health care for elderly ) or otherwise redeeming yourself somehow.

Technology could thus do away with not only government, but also with the church as well – because there would no longer be a need to fear the punishment in the form of prison OR in the form of hell.  Instead you would quickly develop a very genuine sense of morality and guilt, which you would share in common with your peers.

There would be no need for any laws as well, not even a constitution, or for that matter any enforceable rules – because there wouldn’t be any official body tasked with enforcing anything!  Instead the people would themselves enforce their own vision of morality on each other MOSTLY THROUGH BOYCOTTS and other forms of denial of service, although they would certainly be free to use lethal force if they felt their action was justified and wouldn’t reflect too badly on their wiki.

For example if somebody broke into your house you would simply shoot the fucker in the face.  Your wiki then would say that you shot in the face the fucker who broke into your house – that’s it!  It would be up to the people who do business with you then to decide whether they feel it was morally reprehensible on your part or not, or whether they want to do business with you or not.

What there would be is a document listing a set of theorems or axioms or priorities that every member of society is encouraged to understand.  It would state what is and isn’t desirable.  For example it would state that violence is “not desirable” however openness of information takes precedence so the use of force to enable the making of vital information public if necessary is justified.  These would not be rules or laws but merely suggestions designed to help people make up their own minds more rationally.  This document would then in a sense be like the bible.

Companies would be treated exactly the same way as humans – no more limited responsibility shit for corporations.  If a certain company for example dumps toxic waste in a drinking water supply – not only will that information be made available, but also if you choose to do business with this company it will also reflect on YOUR personal wiki that you have been doing business with polluters.  And it goes without saying that the CEO who made that decision wouldn’t live very long because anybody who whacked him would get a big credit on his wiki for being a vigilante.

Projects such as wikipedia have proven that a system can be highly organized and at the same time completely decentralized.  The power to make decisions as well as the power to use force can finally be given to its rightful owners – we the people – without descending into chaos.  These powers MUST be taken away from the most tyrannical institutions known to man – governments.  Don’t expect politicians to EVER admit that we don’t need them – use your head – it’s a choice you have to make for yourself.  We don’t need the government to spend our money for us and tell us how we should live and die – we can figure that shit out on our own.

Most people seem to believe that the purpose of public education is to prepare an individual for life.  In reality nothing could be further from the truth.

The reality is that the interests of an individual are fundamentally the opposite of those of his government ( or just about anybody else for that matter ).  Entrusting the education of individual to the government ensures the individual will get sacrificed.

What an individual needs is ability to think critically.  What the government needs is obedience, reverence and absolute lack of any capacity for critical thought in an individual.  We are all born with an instinctive thirst for knowledge known as curiosity, and the primary goal of public education is to crush it.  Few things are as joyful to a kid as discovery before he enters the public school system and few things are as dreaded by an adult as education after he leaves it.

Public education is structured roughly as follows.  An authority figure ( teacher ) presents students with “facts”.  The students are to memorize these “facts”.  The students are then given “tests” which test the student’s ability to ACCEPT information from the authority figure without questioning.  Any attempt to question the “facts” results in punishment.  In this carrot and stick fashion the school “educates” the student into always accepting information from the authority figure and never questioning it.

How would legitimate education ( as opposed to what we have now ) have been structured?  Students would have been allowed to pick a topic of their own, research it and present their findings, discuss and debate it with other students.  Instead of paying for classrooms with steel bars on the windows, security guards and metal detectors ( prison anybody ? ) the government should be paying for new computers and broadband internet access for students’ HOMES so they could have uninterrupted access to a variety of information.

This will never happen.  The government will continue to pay unqualified unionized teachers and security guards to keep students imprisoned memorizing meaningless information like historical dates and other trivia, while at the same time fighting tooth and nail to keep people as far away from thought provoking information as possible by opposing net neutrality and free speech any way they can.

The department of education doesn’t exist because politicians’ hearts bleed for children.  The school day, year and the number of years in school keeps getting longer not because the government wants kids to learn more.  Its just that the more brainwashing the government can perform on an individual early on the more stealing, cheating and oppression it can get away with later on.  In the meantime the government gets to take the credit for providing this “wonderful service” to the public when in reality of course it is the public itself paying for everything ( including the steel bars on the windows, and then some ) while the government provides only the lies.

The department of education is the government’s first line of defense against free human spirit.  In fact it is a life support mechanism.  Those who let their children attend public school are either poor or stupid.  But then again it is the government that makes people poor by taxing them and stupid by “educating” them.

This is no coincidence of course.  Because the government purports to provide “help” to individuals its primary goal must be to make the individual helpless – both financially and intellectually.  The Fed for example officially has a mandate to maintain inflation.  The effect of inflation is to destroy people’s savings, or in other words make people financially helpless.  Who would need the government if you could pay for your own education, health care etc ?  But that’s another topic …

Evolution and Capitalism are driven by the same underlying mathematical force.  There is a negative feedback loop which dictates that the average efficiency of competitors over time must constantly increase.  This efficiency increase is not result of any NEED for such efficiency – it is merely a mathematical consequence of the competition within the ecosystem, and as we shall see, it is not always desirable.

Marx has lamented that capitalism must reach a point where the supply will exceed demand.  This will result in an economic crash.  Of course we have already reached such points on numerous occasions already.  Great depression was a good example of this when FDR ordered enormous quantities of products to be DESTROYED to reduce the supply of goods.  The current crisis has similar underpinnings with many more houses built than were needed.

Marx could see this coming.  Of course he was not the first one to recognize this.  Workers who had been laid off and replaced by industrial machinery have been the first.  Luddites preceded Marx by about half century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

And Marx’s writing was in a sense a response to their movement.  Marx explained that these were not isolated instances or hiccups but rather the very nature, or DESTINY of capitalism if you will.

But fuck economics – what about philosophy ?  Well it’s the same – only much, MUCH worse.  While efficiency in economics means economic output, GDP, etc in evolution it essentially means INTELLIGENCE.

Intelligence of organisms has been increasing not because there was an objective need for it but simply because it was inevitable.  Rain drops don’t fall on the ground because they like the ground more than clouds – they have NO CHOICE.  More intelligent beings kill, eat, displace or at least enslave the less intelligent ones.  The evolution therefore has taken a course that eventually resulted in man.

But can there be too much intelligence?

YES!  When intelligence of living things starts to exceed certain limits life begins to CRASH in the same exact ways as economy crashes when production outstrips demand.  So how long before we reach that point ?

Well unfortunately we have already BLOWN BY IT.  No, not the average person, but the more intelligent people such as Nietzsche and Myself are already on the wrong side of this equation.

Nietzsche was an optimist of course – if he wasn’t, nobody would read him just like nobody reads me; reason being I am not an optimist.  Nietzsche recognized that human life is a terrible mistake but he believed that it is possible to TRANSCEND the state of being human and become UBERMENSCH.

Well, it might be possible for an ultra-intellectual like myself but it certainly has nothing to do with the prospects for humanity as a whole.  That is because Ubermenschen don’t reproduce – they recognize life for what it is and refuse to commit the crime of child birth.  Nietzsche did not have children and neither do i.

Instead what’s going to happen is what Marx said would happen – only with evolution of mankind.  The crashes due to over-intelligence will get progressively worse and evolution will STALL (this might have already happened, that is irrelevant).

Best of all the evolution will stall ( or has stalled ) PRECISELY at the point which Nietzsche recognized as absolutely the worst to be in and was desperately wishing for humanity to clear as soon as possible.  We will be ( are ) stuck at the precise point where we understand everything that is wrong with LIFE ITSELF but unable to do anything about it.

To be able to do anything about it we would have to become far more intelligent – which would be impossible because to get there we would have to pass through even more intolerable ( than current ) levels of awareness of reality.  Nietzsche has said that a man is a rope hanging across an abyss with the beast on one side and Ubermensch at another.  What I am telling you is that this abyss will never be bridged and we will be hanging here FOREVER.

Nietzsche has also commented that only man of all animals can laugh because only man of all animals suffers so much that he needed to invent laughter.  Well the suffering can only keep increasing and the only way to stop it is to stop living.  Thus we will be ( are ) left in eternal agony for the whole mankind – hell on earth.

Humans will never become the Ubermensch Nietzsche was wishing for.  We will never be able to put aside our animal side and develop into pure reason.  That’s because our animal side does not only hold the fear of death – it also holds the will to live.  Fear of death and will to live are actually both the same thing and mutually exclusive at the same time.  You cannot will to live if you are not afraid of death.  But you also can’t will to live if you can TRULY understand that life leads ONLY to death.

Fortunately animals can NOT understand this.  Interestingly enough humans in their majority don’t understand this as well, and in the Nietzsche BEAST-MAN-UBERMENSCH terminology most humans should be classified as beasts, well, in case of modern man more like sick pathetic animals really.  It takes a certain level of intelligence to grasp the absurdity of life to the full extent.  This is the level of intelligence at which life becomes impossible.

The only way for humanity to exceed such level of intelligence would be to lose the fear of death, but then we would also lose the will to live, so in fact there is NO way to exceed this terminal level of intelligence for the humanity as a whole.  Of course individuals like Myselef and Nietzsche do exceed it but we take our DNA with us to the grave.

Our eternity squarely looks like this.  There will be dumb fucks at the bottom like mexicans today that are going to multiply like rabbits.  There will be people in the middle like Nazis or Neo-Cons that are going to bomb them with Napalm and White Phosphorus.  And there will be people on top like Nietzsche and myself that are simply going to kill ourselves.

But that’s only one scenario – the scenario of Capitalism.  But evolution can also take a Marxist turn !  Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” described just that.

In “Brave New World” humans were grown in test tubes to which alcohol was added to make sure they grow up retarded.  People were grown in grades from Alpha Plus ( highest ) to Epsilon Minus ( lowest ).  The ruling elite was made up from Alphas and Alpha Pluses.  Betas and Gammas were middle-class and Epsilon were Janitors etc.

Huxley was brilliant, however what he described is not at all science fiction – it is going on RIGHT NOW.  The majority of population is, on purpose, being kept dumb in present society.

This is accomplished by a variety of means – department of education, fluoridated water, other neurotoxins such as aspartame and amalgam dental fillings, good ole SAD ( standard American diet ).  The SAD diet consists almost entirely of substances which are narcotics for the brain – substances like sugar, which are both addiction forming and stupor inducing.  And then you have your psychiatric prescription drugs – FORGET IT.  Huxley’s brave new world is HERE.

I remember my childhood – the world was perfect.  Sure I lived in a totalitarian dictatorship ( USSR ), sure I had no money and often no food – that did not matter.  All that mattered is that my parents informed me that they were the best parents in the world and they only wanted what was best for me – nice !  My world view has been built from scratch completely to the specifications of my parents.

Growing up I started discovering “mistakes” in my world view.  Government and parents had told me, for example, that drugs were evil, but that turned out not to be the case.  By that time I was already living in USA, which was supposed to be nothing like USSR; this also has proven to be a mistake.  At the time I had forgiven the government for deliberately lying about drugs, as for my parents I assumed they didn’t know any better.

Reading Noam Chomsky I realized the government was completely full of shit.  Interestingly enough nobody ELSE could see it.  Perhaps they have never heard of Chomsky ?  I could only conclude others were not as smart as me.  Then I saw the movie Zeitgeist and realized 9-11 was an inside job.  Not only was the government full of shit – it was also a homicidal maniac.

Once I knew 9-11 was inside job I started asking what else was the government up to?  Turned out the government was all over the place – lying and cheating and stealing and murdering and torturing everywhere and everybody.   This was the government we have elected – why have we elected it?

I then tried to open up the eyes of the people to the reality of what was going on and that’s when the biggest surprise came – they wouldn’t have none of it !  They did not want to know !  They didn’t want to know that 9-11 was an inside job, that the war on terror was a scam, the war on drugs was a scam, that basically everything the government was up to was a scam – they simply didn’t want to hear about it.

There is a saying that the people always get the government they deserve and at that time I realized it was true.  Hitler was elected by popular vote and lead Germany to WW2.  Bush was elected by popular vote and ran the 9-11 inside job, followed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, now having spilled into Pakistan … and then he was RE-elected.  The government was merely a symptom – the problem was with the people themselves.

Then I realized that all the values that my parents taught me were bullshit as well.  I was taught to feel about money much like I was taught to feel about drugs – that it is “evil” and something I should keep out of my mind.  I was also taught that blacks and other races were just the same as white people.  I was told that I am supposed to not be selfish and think about other people’s needs and all the rest of the BS that we are all required to believe.  I finally understood that all these were lies.  But worse than that – I understood that MY PARENTS LIED TO ME.

At this point I knew I was being actively drowned in a cesspool of lies.  My parents were simply the last ones – I already knew everybody else was lying to me at that point.  My government lied to me through the teeth, my teachers lied to me, my girlfriends lied to me – EVERYBODY WAS LYING ABOUT EVERYTHING AND ALL OF THE TIME ! ! !

I heard George Carlin talk about bullshit.  It wasn’t this exact standup:

In the one I saw Carlin said that without bullshit our society would collapse.  Now whether Carlin knew it or was simply joking is irrelevant – because in actuality what he said is a scientific fact.  Not only is bullshit endemic, not only is society addicted to it, but in fact it is as necessary for life as oxygen.

Children are systematically lied to by the parents and adults systematically lied to by the Government and everybody loving it !  But how could this be ?  Weren’t people supposed to have an inner drive to find out the truth ?  Why is it that all they are doing is run away from the truth – any form of the truth ?  It seemed incomprehensible, but sure enough there was a reason.

To understand bullshit you have to understand religion:

Religions collectively are by far the most successful lie in history.  It works because people don’t want to believe what is painful and choose to believe a lie instead.  I was never religious and frankly throughout most of my life I didn’t even realize that religious people actually existed – at the very least I didn’t realize they were more commonly found than cannibals lets say – I just couldn’t imagine that somebody could be so fucking stupid as to believe that ludicrous BS.  But as obviously ludicrous as it is – even very intelligent people believe in it in MASSES because EVERYONE is trying to avoid the pain of the truth.

So it is easy to understand the lie of religion ( nobody wants to believe that when they die they COMPLETELY die ).  It is also easy to understand the lie of 9-11 ( nobody wants to believe that their government would murder them by the thousands without blinking ).  But what about the other lies – can they also be explained in this fashion ?

It works like this – when you are getting old and starting to think about death you need something to distract you – so you make babies.  Of course you know these babies will eventually get old and start thinking about death themselves but that don’t matter cuz by then you won’t be around.  You want those children to love you so you tell them that you love them.  Of course you don’t REALLY love them or you wouldn’t punish them by subjecting them to DEATH which is inevitable once they are born.  You just love YOURSELF and want to be entertained and helped when you are old.  You “love” your children only insofar as they are fulfilling their purpose.  Kinda like you love a girl when she sucks your dick but if she doesn’t you could give a rat’s ass if she was run over by a fire truck.

Now obviously you can’t tell any of that to your kids because they would then fucking kill you.  Problem is – even if you don’t tell them – its just not that hard to figure out !  So how can you make sure they don’t figure out that you set them up and tossed their entire life away just for entertainment ?  Easy.  You use the fact that they are young and suggestible and you pack their heads full of insane nonsense along the lines of “life is beautiful” and “you will live a long and happy life” etc.  You also teach them various bullshit notions about how people are supposed to help each other ( meaning they are supposed to help you ) etc.

I know what you’re thinking.  You’re thinking ” i fucking WISH i was that slick and evil !  I would be the president ! ”  Well, you don’t have to tell me – I know you are dumb – but fortunately for you it doesn’t take any intelligence to pull this off at all !  In fact the dumbest parents that can’t keep a job at McDonalds usually don’t have any problems with it.  Why?  Because everything has already been figured out for you before you were even born.

The algorithm that you are to follow is contained in the fabric of the society itself as well as in that of your own family.  You simply do to your children what was done to you and what others do to their children.

A person grows up packed full of lies since day 1 – lies pertaining to his birth ( that he should feel “lucky” to have been born ).  As time goes by he adds another set of lies pertaining to his death ( that when you die it hasn’t all been for nothing ).  In addition to this as previously mentioned and mediated by the state run “education” system the person acquires a third set of lies pertaining to his government ( that the government isn’t just a more sophisticated version of mafia ).

A person has now achieved a critical mass of lies such that any logical examination of any complex issue inevitably leads into some sort of a lie that a person has accepted as the core of his being.  And that’s it.  You can’t figure out any social issue without recognizing AT LEAST the true nature of the government, or parents, or birth or death.  Ideally you would have to understand the true nature of ALL but in reality people are willing to understand NONE.

And this is why none of the problems in society, in the grand scheme of things, will EVER be fixed.  There is a mechanism built into humans that prevents any possibility of understanding the nature of these problems and therefore prevents any solutions.

Human condition is fundamentally a perpetual lie engine.  Because a human can never come to grips with the fact that his life is ultimately meaningless and that life is all about suffering he creates offspring.  He then amplifies his own lies using the offspring to keep himself from realizing the truth he already knows.  The offspring then keeps the lie alive.  Rinse and repeat.

There is only one FUNDAMENTAL lie – the denial by the person of the nature of the human condition.  But a lie cannot exist by itself – every lie must be supported by other lies.  Those lies must in turn be supported by other lies.  Because a lie cannot be supported by truth and because there is at least one lie that a person, EVERY PERSON, can NOT afford to admit UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES it mathematically follows that lies must be multiplied into infinity – and that is exactly what happens.

Only a person that can recognize that life is VIRTUALLY PURE SUFFERING WITH NO HOPE OR PURPOSE can ultimately find truth.  When you accept this single truth the whole reality that you were told to believe in falls apart like a house of cards that it is.

Philosophy is a failed science.  Each philosopher starts out with the goal of finding a new meaning to life – but there is no meaning – therefore every philosopher simply produces ( if he is good enough ) a new illusion.  Philosophy is no different from religion – it is another form of mental masturbation – only on a more intellectual level.

Every person when dedicated enough can deceive himself – it doesn’t matter if your IQ is 80 or 180.  In the first case the deception will be uncomplicated and performed by uncomplicated mind.  In the second case the deception will be of unimaginable complexity and pulled off by the genius mind.  But either way it will be accomplished because where there is a will there is a way.

Every single lie that persists in the world can be traced back to this single primordial lie through the chain of necessary lies that hold each other up much like dominos knock each other down.

If you take the Bible itself – what is the original sin ?  It is sex !  Why ?  Because sex makes babies.  And making babies REALLY IS THE ULTIMATE SIN.  All suffering in one’s life is caused by one thing and one thing only – one’s conception.

So in a sense religion that labels sex as the ultimate sin IS CORRECT !  The only way to break the vicious circle of lies is to stop having children and to become extinct ( Germans and Russians re doing this as we speak ).  Of course there are better ways to not have children than abstinence, but don’t forget that we live in a world of lies so we cant really SAY what the truth is.  We can only make it into a pretty story about the apple, Adam and Eve and dress it up so that nobody can understand what it really means.

After all, religion just wants people to feel guilty – they don’t want you extinct – how would they then make money off of you?  No they NEED you to sin – that’s what keeps them in business.  Priests need sinners like Jews need white supremacists, otherwise the holocaust card couldn’t be played and Israelis couldn’t bomb Palestinian hospitals with white phosphorus incinerating women and children alive.

I will end by saying that the words Life and Lie are virtually the same – because LIFE IS A LIE.  And since life itself is a lie so must be everything in it.

When I was a kid I started noticing the problems with what we call morality, and ever since these problems have been harder and harder to ignore.

For example, where I lived there were no “organic” food so people who wanted clean food would get their own house in the countryside and grow some food there.  We had such a house and at some point had chickens there.

When the chickens were still little fluffy blind yellow things we had them living in a box in the house because they needed to be warm.  They were very weak.  We tried to help them survive as much as we could, and when one of them would die we would be quite sad about it.

And then when they were all grown we slaughtered them.  I was there – I watched them run around without heads with blood everywhere.  I was about 10 or 12 years old.  Something about that was clearly wrong.  We loved them when we needed them to be healthy and we butchered them mercilessly when we decided it was time for them to become dinner.

Years later I started noticing a similar pattern in politics.  Watching the news when it came to foreign relations every time some place would get bombed or hit with a hurricane or earthquake the talking heads would count how many AMERICANS were dead.  The news might be something like “800 people killed in Asia by Tsunami – but no Americans – so everything is OK.”

There was something clearly wrong with that as well.  What is the difference between an American and not American ?  Of course such a question nobody wants to answer.  That’s why I raised a different but similar question on a certain forum – I asked why we care about victims of Haitian earth quake but not victims of the war in Iraq for example?  To my own surprise some dumbfucking shithead actually started explaining why Haitian people were better people than Iraqi people.

But that is insane.   Haitians aren’t better than Iraqis.  Grown chickens aren’t better than infant chickens.  And a dog isn’t better than say a hyena.

Yes you can domesticate a motherfucking hyena, but if you saw one somewhere in Africa you would probably shoot it without thinking.  On the other hand if somebody shot a dog for fun in front of you somewhere in San Francisco you would be horrified !

Now the official story about morality will have you believe that we feel compassion for beings depending on how intellectually or emotionally evolved they are.  For example the official story goes that Human is more intellectually and emotionally evolved than a Cactus therefore killing a human is wrong but cutting down a cactus is not.

Too fucking bad this logic falls apart completely as soon as you move away from Humans vs Cacti and try to apply it to real world problems like Haitians vs Iraqis.  That’s when it’s time for good ole DOUBLETHINK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

Because we must believe in the world around us in order to exist in it, even though we know it is a fraud.

So what is the truth ?

Noam Chomsky, to the general public, is mostly known for his analysis of media control and propaganda.  He started however in Linguistics, and his contribution there is important also for the field of Artificial Intelligence.  What Chomsky said is that Humans are born with a certain framework of language hard wired into us.  When we learn to speak a language it fleshes this framework out.

This framework is not language specific.  We can learn any language, or we can learn multiple languages – but we can only learn human languages!  We can’t learn the language of dolphins for example.  And dolphins can’t learn our language.  That’s because dolphins are born with their own framework of language ( or let’s call it communication ) and we are born with ours.

Language is part of the way we think.   I can think in two different languages personally but I can only think as a human.  You can think of it like this:  Language of humans always has she shape of the human brain – but it can have any color.

So what about morality?  I think the situation with morality is exactly the same.  There is an enormous evolutionary advantage to having the capacity to communicate – that’s why we have that capacity.  Similarly we have the capacity for morality because it is advantageous from evolutionary standpoint.  Next I explain why.

First of all – what is an evolutionary advantage?  To understand what is an advantage in the game of evolution we must first understand what the goal is.  The goal is to pass on your genetic code.

Now why would being a good Samaritan help you pass on your genetic code?  Actually it wouldn’t.  It would help pass on the genetic code of the person you helped.   Here is when we have to ask though – how similar is his code to yours?  In terms of raw numbers – 100% similar.

That’s right.  If space aliens abducted both of you they would hardly see any difference.  So you may have different shape face and color hair and eyes – but you both have a face, and you both have eyes, and they both serve the same function – which makes you both quite different from say … a cactus, doesn’t it ?

So what’s the numbers for the Cactus then?  Actually in terms of DNA humans are about 60% similar to a banana.  How can this be?  Well for example the molecule of chlorophyll that makes plants green is identical to the molecule of hemoglobin that makes blood red, with only a single atom out of about 100 in the molecule being different.

On the other hand when we mate we only pass on 50% of our DNA, and the other 50% comes from the other parent.  So you see from evolutionary perspective saving your neighbor’s life is quite a good deal considering he has about 100% of your DNA.

A good deal, but not good enough.   Because if that was all there is to it we would all be bananas.  In actuality what I described above is not evolution – it is merely survival.  Survival is a necessary condition for evolution, but it is not sufficient.  The other requirement is COMPETITION.

Why do we need competition?  Why not just live in harmony with each other?  Well because somewhere on another continent there may be another race, which DOES have competition which causes only the strongest to survive.  One day this stronger race comes over to your continent and KILLS ALL OF YOU.  That’s why.  That’s actually also what happened to Soviet Union economically.  A system without internal competition inevitably loses the competition externally.

So what would happen if we were all purely competitive with no consideration for each other?  We would be extinct.  We would all kill each other.  Let’s say you wanted something to eat – you would simply eat your neighbor – or your wife, or children.  Unbridled competition therefore is incompatible with survival.

What we need is BOTH.  We need COMPETITION and COMPASSION.  We need to take care of our neighbor but at the same time we need to put ourselves FIRST.  This is the behavior pattern which maximizes long term evolutionary performance.  AND THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT WE ARE GENETICALLY HARD WIRED TO DO.

But our genetic hard wiring is only like the US. constitution.  It is abstract – it has to be this way or it wouldn’t be able to ADAPT to changing conditions.  After all the US constitution has been around for about 200 years and there have already been many amendments.  On the other hand our genetic code has been around for tens of thousands of years and it still works without any changes!

So we’re born with the constitution, but we still need LAW.  As we grow up we write this moral law for ourselves ( with the help of those around us ) with the constraints that it must be morally constitutional.   However what is constitutional is subject to interpretation ! ! !

Also with respect to morality we have a situation where we don’t actually have the original text.  Instead all we have is the laws that have been written and we can try to reverse engineer the constitution from these laws.

There are many human languages, superficially very different, but fundamentally all the same – and by analyzing the similarities between them we can understand what the genetic framework is.  Similarly there are many different moral codes.  Criminals have their own moral code for example.  Muslims have their own moral code etc.  By analyzing the similarities between these codes we could get SOMEWEHRE in the quest for uncovering our moral constitution but ultimately our results would be tainted because SOCIETIES which have as much influence on morality as genetics do – are under THEIR OWN evolutionary pressure ! ! !

So we take a different approach.  We will simply analyze logically what such a genetic constitution SHOULD HAVE BEEN based on the evolutionary pressure which gave birth to it, and see if real world moral codes fit with this framework.

GAME THEORY is a branch of Artificial Intelligence which deals with exactly these kinds of problems.  Using game theory it should be possible to mathematically calculate ( using computer algorithms ) this answer, but unfortunately I don’t have the working knowledge required for this.  Instead I analyzed it logically and here is the answer:

The genetic moral constitution basically says that we must determine genetic likeness of every living thing to ourselves and prioritize everybody according to this likeness.  In addition to this we must prioritize those of young age over those of old age (because younger persons will have a greater chance of passing on their genetic material ).  That’s it!  Everything else is subject to interpretation by the individual and/or society.

Now there are two problems with this.  First how do you encode the directive to ascertain genetic likeness?  You cannot write down the instruction “take the DNA to the lab and print out the results” because such technology didn’t exist when our genetic code was written.  Instead the same directive had to be expressed in ACTIONABLE terms.

One such actionable directive is comparing the LOOK, SMELL and BEHAVIOR of other beings to our own.  Another is geotagging so to speak – remembering who is most often around you and assuming that they are your closest relatives.  Certainly animals are programmed to remember who their mother is based on who is the first being they come into contact with.

The second problem is “likeness” cannot be efficiently QUANTIFIED except for the case of mother.  We can never really know therefore is the glass half full or is it half empty?  Are black people more similar to us because they have all the same features and behavior – or are they more different form us because they have a different color?  These are NOT things that our moral constitution spells out – these are the things we must decide for ourselves.  It is this flexibility that allows us to arbitrarily decide that Iraqis are more different from us than they are similar because we don’t hang around them as much.  It is this flexibility that allows us to hate homosexuals because they walk and dress funny.

The bottom line here is that whether we feel compassion for another being or not is determined by a SUBJECTIVE perception of LIKENESS, and NOT this creature’s intellectual capacity for experiencing emotional pain or terror.

Our modern society attempts to label discrimination as immoral – yet discrimination is the FOUNDATION of morality !  Humans discriminate against absolutely everything !   We discriminate against race, sex, color, age, political orientation, profession, education, citizenship etc. etc. etc.  This is not an accident.

When studying foreign languages I have realized that WORDS often hold the key to forbidden knowledge.  The English word TO LIKE is such a word.  According to dictionary.com to like means to prefer, to find attractive.  At the same time when two things are ALIKE they are SIMILAR.  This proves what we already know, but most of us are in denial about – that we judge others based on their similarity to us, NOT ON THEIR MERIT.