Spirit Science: The Chaotic Infinity of Spirit Temporarily Incarnate in a Deterministic System

When I tell people that I am both a Christian and a scientist (but not a Christian Scientist, LoL), I often get puzzled stares in reply.  How does one reconcile those two?  Aren’t faith and reason mutually exclusive to eachother?

Well, no, not really.  There are several philosophies that embrace both faith and reason, two of which are very dear to me: Gnosticism and Deism.  Also, when it comes to creation stories, I favor Intelligent Design over strict creationism, simply because certain versions of Intelligent Design acknowledge the validity of Evolutionary theory, both stellar and biological.  Finally, I also believe in reincarnation, an Eastern mystical idea I think was woefully omitted from mainstream Christianity, in which I have very little faith, due to the fact that the canonical Bible is moreso the revisionist product of oppressive ancient political regimes than any inherently valid history, philosophy, or morality.

While meeting with a Deist discussion group, the question was posed: “Since Deists are often considered atheists by traditional religions, have you as a Deist ever been forced to endure any abuse from traditional theists?”  After a few minutes thought, my response to this was: “Actually, as a Deist, I have taken far more abuse from self-righteous, know-it-all Atheists than any variety of Theist.”

What most atheists refuse to recognize is that Atheism is in itself a leap of faith. One cannot prove that there is no God any more than one can prove, conclusively, that there is a God.  It is logically impossible to prove a negative.  Think of it this way: If I were to tell you that the apples from my tree were the best-tasting apples in the world, how would you go about invalidating this claim?  You would have to taste apples from every single tree in the world, compare them to mine and find one superior, a task which would probably be impossible within a single human lifespan, to say nothing of devising a system for rating the taste of apples objectively.

And the same thing applies to proving or disproving the existence of God.  The universe is vast.  Humans have been studying it for hundreds of thousands of years, and still haven’t completely figured it out.  We thought we had a pretty good handle on it when Newton enumerated his laws of physics, but then Einstein figured out that those only work on Earth, and there are objects in deep space like pulsars, quasars, and black holes that violate Newtonian physics, which is why the Special Theory of Relativity and General theory of Relativity had to be created.  Einstein was never able to create a unified field theory to unite the micro with the macro that fit with observable data.  But suffice to say, science is a work in progress that is taking thousands of years, and may never be complete.

And many Atheists will attack the straw man of this idea of a benevolent God.  If God exists, why is there so much suffering in the world?   Well, just because God isn’t what you want it to be, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.  Maybe God transcends or is beyond human morality.  Maybe God doesn’t give a damn about Planet Earth or the human race.  Maybe God is a psychopath.  But in any case, saying that there is no God just because it doesn’t work for you personally above all others is akin to a spoiled brat saying he has no parents just because they won’t buy him a Ferrari.

Thus, the only really logically defensible position is agnosticism, which is a simple admission that one doesn’t know whether God exists or not.  But I like to think of my ontological viewpoint as consisting of both knowledge AND belief.  There are things that I know and can prove through repeatable demonstration, and there are things I merely believe through circumstantial evidence and intuition.  And finally, there are my hopes, dreams, and wishes to which I cling.

There is also Chaos Theory and the Anthropic Principle to consider, in addition to Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.  Perhaps the universe merely appears ordered because we are viewing it through a human lens, or perhaps this pocket of order in which we find ourselves is not truly reflective of the ultimately chaotic universe in which we live.  There are many Black Swans that could potentially pop up to challenge our currently accepted ontological models.  Think of it this way:  In a truly random sequence of numbers, the subsequence “12345” is bound to occur by random chance.  But this doesn’t mean that the entire sequence is ordered, even if we could only perceive the part that is.  Chaos, by definition, can contain random pockets of finite order, but order cannot contain any chaos whatsoever.  Thus, chaos is ideologically superior to order.

Many atheists will cling to Occam’s Razor in order to rationalize oversimplifying complex ontological problems.  But aren’t things actually getting more and more complicated the more knowledge of the microcosm and macrocosm we uncover?  How often do you crack open a sophisticated, newly-engineered piece of technology and find a simple mechanism driving it?  So maybe the simplest explanation isn’t always correct.  Maybe that’s just a way that people with access to privileged information try to convince those denied the facts to stop asking questions.

What I have found is that many atheists, via their amoral and insensitive behavior, often become so invested in there not being a God, Karma, or Cosmic Justice, that they refuse to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary, in what becomes a kind of reverse Pascal’s Wager.  On the other hand, some Christians treat the crucifixion as a blank check to do whatever they want, as if Jesus Christ died 2000 years ago so that they can be assholes today.  The point I guess is that both Atheists and religious fundamentalists rely upon dogma, often because it enables their selfish behavior.

Atheists also like to point at atrocities committed by organized religion as a way to discredit it.  This inevitably includes mention of The Salem Witch Trials, The Crusades, and the Inquisition.  But these attacks only apply to organized religion, not necessarily personal faith.  Besides, atheists have the egregious human rights violations of Stalin’s, Mao’s, and Pol Pot’s authoritarian communist atheism to answer for, as well as the tyranny of post-agricultural society, and scientific abominations like nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare.

But this paper isn’t meant to be a criticism of Atheism, or religious fundamentalism, both of which which I feel dig their own hole and thus need no further chastization, but rather, it is a defense of faith from those who would say that all faith is unreasonable.  It is my position that one can be both faithful and reasonable at the same time, as long as one has the proper framework of knowledge and belief.  So bear with me, because this is going to take some biographical storytelling to explain, as many of my ideas do.

I’m not much into ministry, because I think that convincing others of your beliefs is just another way of rationalizing them.  Instead, I try to celebrate diversity and acknowledge that everyone is one their own unique spiritual path.  I don’t pretend to be on the ultimate path, and I think that all paths eventually lead to the same positive place even if some take more detours than others.    But I do urge others to be prosocial in their morality, no matter what faith or lack thereof they may choose.

I haven’t always believed in things like God, the soul, karma, reincarnation, the afterlife, or cosmic justice.  In fact, hardship and injustice were what caused the dark, faithless times in my life.  And yet still, I rejected Nihilism, the Will to Power, and other philosophies that would enable my depravity and tyranny.  Instead, I searched for meaning, and slowly, the pieces of the puzzle came together.  Most of those pieces were books, and a few of them were people.

The first book to ever fill my heart with spiritual inspiration and joy was the Tao Teh Ching by Lao Tzu.  This book was not given to me purposefully.  My father, the Machiavellian executive, in a classic Lex and Lionel Luthor moment, gave me the Art of War by Sun Tzu at the age of 13, thinking that it would help me succeed in the world.  But I found the book to be quite boring, and, returning it to its boxed set, there I found Lao Tzu’s tome.  I was enthralled by it, and have been reading and recommending it ever since.  In fact, I have purchased and given away more copies of this book as a form of ministry than any other book written by a human being, as it is one of my favorites.

But the Tao never fully satisfied my visceral desires.  It was a book about how to be a monk, and win by losing.  The book seemed to only satisfy my right brain, leaving my left, more analytical mind wanting.  And in a materialistic society such as America, I found my Eastern values constantly being disrespected, and myself constantly offended by such a two-dimensional system.

That was when I started studying Kabbalah, numerology, gematria, astrology, and Jewish mysticism, and specifically the work of Aleister Crowley.  The thing I loved most about Crowley’s philosophy was the emphasis on the existence of the Soul, aka the Higher Self, whose higher conscious will was supposed to be exhalted over the baser urges of the body such as hunger, chemical dependence, emotions, material greed, and the sex drive.  Here we see one of my first exposures to Cartesian dualism: the idea that there is a material will and a spiritual will, and that one should be held in higher regard than the other.  Also the idea that the material world simply isn’t real, or is the projection of a false God.

It was through my study of the Tree of Life that I became exposed to the work of a man named Drunvalo Melchizedek, and the concept of Sacred Geometry.  Drunvalo is a very great man, and I credit him with bringing me into the light, by giving my left brain the proof it needed that God exists.  His work was all about the patterns and structures in nature:  The Phi Ratio, the Golden Mean Rectangle, Metatron’s Cube, and the Flower of life.  These things all related to the patterns in nature, molecular structure, cellular structure, plant growth, even galaxy formation that seemed to suggest that there was an underlying order to the universe, and that this order did not render itself by random chance.  The watchmaker’s argument began to ring truer as new information came to light.

But it wasn’t just the science Drunvalo presented that contributed to my personal philosophy: it was the history as well.  For Drunvalo told a story about the Fall of Man, which I considered crucial to my own theology.  It was he who introduced me to the concepts of Luciferian Dualism and Unity Consciousness.  Because Earth has fallen from God and Unity Consciousness, it has become a Luciferian planet, where all living beings are in competition with eachother, rather than synergizing through cooperation.  The idea that “I” am separate from everything and everyone else, rather than “I” simply being a unique facet of the same jewel that embodies all of creation, is the Devil’s delusion, forced upon us all by the illusion of materialism, finity, and mortality.

At the same time that I was maintaining a private study of spirituality and theology, strictly to satisfy my own thirst for knowledge regarding the subject, I was also enrolled in a very research-oriented scholastic institution, dissecting brains and learning experimental design and statistical analysis.  Taking apart a brain and mapping its neural network, and knowing that the entirety of a human being’s thoughts, opinions, and beliefs were contained within, could easily drive one to some very depressingly deterministic conclusions.

But instead, I simply recognized that the brain was merely a tool of the soul.  It is a material thing just like any other, the avatar of our soul in the material world, but I refused to believe that a person’s brain and body are the entirety of their being.  Instead, I see them as vessels.  Very complicated and beautifully articulated vessels (especially when we are referring to beautiful women, whom I relate to the engineered perfection of European sportscars), but mere vessels nonetheless.  The true essence of one’s being was the soul, and what is a soul but a facet of the Divine?   So, even though I respected the scientific method as it applied to materialist systems such as physics, chemistry, and biology, I thought of these systems as secondary in importance to the spiritual realm, which I consider the driving force behind consciousness, and life itself.

Basically, I believe in a force superior to the brain, and layers of existence on top of the mere physical.  A whole system of mental, emotional, and spiritual planes.  And maybe even a bad plane beneath the material, that some people get sucked into when they die, like: “Aggghhhh, oh no!  I shouldn’t have been such a douchebag!”  The universe needs a toilet, I think.  I like to believe that some sinners can be redeemed through some sort of spiritual salvation, but let’s face it: some people are just going to Hell. I used to think Hell was a dumb idea until I became awake to the way some people treat eachother. Now I’m all for it.  Maybe not forever, but I do think some souls could benefit from punishment.

I also began learning how to think rationally through internet discussion.  Merely proffering an idea did not make it valid; that idea had to stand up to the relentless analysis of some very ruthless minds on the internet, and I had some of my ideological children horribly maimed by the logic of others in this way, until I learned to think more objectively and not be too attached to my ideas.  The internet, I think, can be a crucible for ideas, which is good, because it won’t allow bullshit to fly for too long, at least not completely uncontested by contrarian thinkers.

It was at this point in my studies that events in my personal life brought me to become a Christian.  Romantic failure, legal persecution, and financial misappropriation had made my life a living Hell, and this caused me to, for the first time ever, empathize with Jesus Christ as he was crucified.  And I realized that those who suffer for the benefit of others carry a certain divinity to their grave.  As much as I wanted to take revenge upon those who had slighted me in one way or another, I realized both the futility in doing so, and the far greater reward of living and letting die.

But my personal Christian theology was a very Gnostic one, both because I rejected the canonical gospel, and because I valued the use of entheogenic substances in my spiritual journey.  Marijuana, psilocybin, LSD, MDMA…  these were all cognitive tools that I used to explore myself, the material world, and the Astral Plane.  In other words, I knew God through experience.

Also, if Satan and God were at war, and the Fall of Man was a consequence of that war, then Jesus was the reconciliation of God and Satan, the Alpha and the Omega.  The Spiritual and Material.  The left and the right.  The light and the darkness.  Through the salvation of Christ, God’s son, man was allowed to ascend from Hell and be healed by the light.

I also have great respect for the Hindu system of reincarnation, which I believe is something that most enlightened beings subscribe to as well.   Through past life regression and conversation with my Higher Self, I began to uncover the agenda of my soul, which has always been that of liberator.  In every life I have lived on Earth, I have fought for freedom.  I have died on many battlefields and come back stronger every time.  Some of my battles were political, some social, some economic, some material, and some spiritual.  But it was always my faith that made it so easy to sacrifice myself to a cause, the knowledge that nothing material would ever truly hurt me more than selling out my values and acquiring bad karma would.  In other words: to compromise one’s values is seen as carrying far greater spiritual consequences than the mere material consequences of taking a stand: imprisonment, injury, death, etc…

Conversely, there are those who have lived many lives dedicated to oppression.  I believe these types of people are those who are so stuck in the moment that they are blind to the bigger picture.  Maybe they buy too much into the illusion of the material.  So, I believe that human history is the story of souls reincarnating themselves over and over on this planet to fight the same battles in a neverending progression towards paradise and enlightenment, with some people being more effective to this end than others.

But of course, there are far better places to be incarnate, and far more powerful forms than human to take.  And I believe that this is where the idea of the “afterlife” comes in.  For once you are done with Earth, there are many other levels to move to, just like a worm becomes a butterfly and takes to the skies in a new life.

Just as you were once a lower form of life, you are destined to become a higher form of life.  And the material world is like a school, or maybe even a work-release prison.  Karma is your grade, and how well you do is what determines whether or not you graduate, or are released.  The idea that the material, external world is more real than the internal world of the spirit, to me, is laughable.  We are all playing Satan’s game, Satan, AKA Samael, God’s wisest Angel, the Tester of Souls.  The weigher of hearts against a feather.

And out of respect for Satan, and the very idea of paying the Devil his due, I respect physics, science, chemistry, biology, and all the other deterministic systems in which I find myself temporary entangled, mostly due to the intricacy of their design and the fun that can be had playing this game.  Satan made the physical universe, and is the master of everything material.  But God’s invention is far superior: the Spirit.  My faith in God is what makes me see the value in basic morality, so that my Spirit will not karmically be weighed down to this physical plane forever.  Because there are higher levels of consciousness to be achieved, and we will all get there eventually.

Though every person is a universe unto themselves, being incarnate in the physical realm breaks our solipsism by exposing us to the problem of other minds, which is why we have to be on our best behavior in our interactions with others, in order to avoid bad karma and keep a clean conscience.  How interpersonal conflicts of agenda are resolved is what defines a society.  This is where politics come into play, as well as economics, and we must carefully scrutinize our social infrastructure in order to route out systemic injustice and promote harmonic human interaction.  Unifying the world both in spite of and in celebration of cultural differences is obviously key to this goal.

But ultimately, because I believe that God is an anarchist, a facilitator and not a ruler, I believe that the point of life and consciousness is to eventually become Gods in our own right, and foster the evolution of beings less spiritually evolved than ourselves.  We are all moving towards a higher level of consciousness, and that will entail more autonomy and ability to create our own life, and our own theatres upon which it will perform.

Spirituality and great works are the path to true freedom, whereas atheistic, nihilistic, scientific determinism is a prison of ignorance in which we confine ourselves.  To believe otherwise is to believe that humans are merely biological machines, with no meaning or purpose in life but to work, consume, and reproduce.  When in reality, there are contributions to make: art, music, literature, and applied science.  Cures to disease and the solutions to environmental problems.  New technology to make life safer and more enjoyable.

I hope my faith and reason coexisting prove that it is possible to retain old school spiritual values while still being progressive politically and a futurist and transhumanist technologically and scientifically.

Namaste.

The Rise of the Psychopath in Modern Society

What is a psychopath? A psychopath is someone who is born with no capability or a reduced capability to empathize with others. He or she does not share a common conscience with his or her fellow man. A sociopath, on the other hand, is someone who learns insensitivity to others via negative life experience. In the new DSM-V, both of these terms have been reduced to the term “Anti-Social Personality Disorder”, which I believe is a misnomer, since those who have this condition can often be VERY social, in a manipulative, self-serving way. Also, the idea that ASPD’s have no emotions is not true, in my experience with them. ASPD’s have plenty of emotion, but they are hyper-sensitive to their own emotions, and insensitive to the emotions of others.

As someone with an interest in economics, government, sexual politics, social psychology, and evolutionary psychology, I have wasted entirely too much time dissecting human behavior, as well as thinking in the macro about society in general. Perhaps these efforts are an attempt to understand humanity as much as they are to understand my own personal life, and the behavior of individuals within it. Both the dissecting analytical and creative visionary natures of my mind will not allow me to ignore how the individual’s actions affect society in general, nor will it allow me to avoid inferring general sociological conclusions from specific human situations.

I am not a hypersexual person, nor am I a greedy materialist. I find meaning in my studies, my art, and my work, rather than gross materialism or sensualism. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to be loved, provided for materially, and accepted socially. But in providing for myself and seeking social acceptance, I do try to keep an eye on the impact my behavior is having on my environment, from trying to reduce my carbon footprint, to trying to be righteous in my social actions, and having an ultimately positive impact on my community. I try to be just as sensitive to the needs of the planet and others as I am to my own needs. I do not seek to exploit others or be exploited by them.

But it seems as though people like myself are a dying breed. Manipulative, aggressive, exploitative psychopaths and insensitive, self-centered, conceited solipsists are taking over the world. For one thing, the dominant society on earth, Western society, is completely based on rewarding selfish behavior. We have built a society that rewards and propagates, more than anything, selfish, manipulative Machiavellianism. Who are the captains of industry, government, and society in America? The quiet, nerdy scientists who make everything work? The artists who look deep inside their souls to create something culturally relevant? No, these people are slaves who are exploited by an owner class of sleazy, manipulative executives who are merely glorified salesmen, incompetent managers, and crooked authorities, propped up by scientific powers they don’t fully understand.

smart_rich

Before the advent of civilization, the cerebral yet physically weak were beaten down by the impulsive and physically strong. But now that man is ‘civilized’, these impulsive reptiles have stopped killing the beta nerds, recognizing their value, and instead dominate them socially, economically, and governmentally, not destroying them, but exploiting their talents and enslaving them in subservient roles. These traditionally dominant bloodlines have devised a whole system of force, economy, and government in order to do this. Alpha insecurity about beta intellectual and moral superiority causes them to saddle betas with artificial handicaps, such as debts and criminal records, enforced by the fascist system. Basically, the personification of Western society is a bully that robs a nerd for his lunch money. And who is the woman in all this? She is a willing accomplice to the dominant alpha male, even if regret of her collusion causes her to make false rape allegations post hoc.

Americans have created a society where being a good person and being good at getting what one wants are diametrically antagonistic agendas. In this modern world, truly no good deed goes unpunished. Morality is often in conflict with both the law and business as usual. This is generally bad in that it creates a world where only the morally worst people rise to the top, whereas the morally decent people are ostracized and stripped of social, economic, and political power. This trend can be exemplified in business, politics, and even human sexuality, which itself is a huge factor in the evolution of the human race.

family_religion_friendship-81368

If men create patriarchy through acts of government oppression and economic exploitation, then women create matriarchy through sexual liberty and the social power structures it inevitably entails.

Unrestrained sexual liberty combined with existing social conventions, constructs, and institutions will destroy the human race if we let it. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy sex just as much as the next person, but I believe sexual behavior should be tempered by social conscience and responsibility, as very intense emotions are involved. So the potential for subterfuge, manipulation, and building oppressive social power structures through sex exists in the same way it exists for drugs, oil, or anything else humans want. Desire is the root of all suffering and it is through desire that people are subverted.

Unfortunately, there is no place in traditional romance for a man who is uncertain, who questions himself and everyone else, who is a skeptic. Instead, romance is dominated by over-confident, under-thinking macho douchebags, and women make it that way by allowing such people to twist their arms and talk them into contrived, often-times abusive relationships. A man has to be a manipulative psychopath to be loved by women these days, because of the female privilege and sense of entitlement. And which males are best equipped to give a woman what she wants? Those who have obeyed and gone along with the tyranny, thus winning resources through conquest.

As a conscientious objector to fascist whoredom masquerading as romance and sexual liberty, I look down upon the relations between the sexes and I say this:

Women are too conceited, spoiled, and self-centered, and it costs them their best opportunities. They have made it to where men have to jump through hoops and climb mountains to obtain their love, not realizing that the cost of admission they have set filters out the decent and the honest, and favors the aggressive and manipulative. If women weren’t so self-focused, they would fall in love with men before they were bribed by them, and pursue the men they found attractive, instead of gamely waiting for some opportunist posing as a knight in shining armor to come up with an approach to win them over, thus fulfilling unrealistic romantic fantasies.

Men, on the other hand, are too sexually driven. They so badly want to take it to the hole that they discard honesty and suppress their feelings. They end up in relationships with incompatible people just because they want to get laid. There is no brotherhood among men, and men steal and poison eachother’s romantic opportunities ruthlessly and mercilessly, often employing underhanded tactics in doing so. Basically, in order to meet in the middle, men need to be more passive, and women more aggressive. Romantic competition, traditionlly a contest of piousness, has become a race to the bottom, where the best man no longer wins, but the most ruthless. Sexual strategies of males have proven that “science is the rape of the natural world”, as Ian Malcolm would say, by creating a kind of artificial, “manufactured consent” as Noam Chomsky would say.

How is it possible that, statistically, women have more sex than men, and with more partners? The answer is simple: most single men don’t have sex very often (in fact, studies show that 20% of men have 80% of the sex), but a certain type of single man has a lot of sex with a lot of partners: the manipulative psychopath. The reason that more psychopaths are born every day is that existing social conventions and constructs regarding romance favor the psychopath. A man who can quickly, detachedly move from one target to the next will do much better than a man who is sentimental and has to contend with his own feelings and the inevitable sting of rejection. Thus, the emotionally insensitive outbreed people with feelings.

So the story of the American family is quite simple: Alpha male conquers world by dominating beta males, then with his stolen resources, he wins the solipsist female, and together they have babies that are even more selfish than themselves. This is how selfish genetics propagate themselves, with a little help from social constructs that encourage selfish behavior.

Women keep fucking psychopaths and having their babies, simply because they find emotional stoicism sexually attractive or due to simple material concerns, and, not wanting to put themselves through the headache of actually getting to know someone through proper romance, women seek out, through participation and selection bias in their romantic standards, men with these dominant attitudes specifically, for sexual play. Passive beta males, on the other hand, are left in a social prison of involuntary celibacy, unless they are able to make themselves so useful to the alphas that they might throw him their leftovers.

Often times, females will impregnate themselves via alphas, then settle down with a wealthy, stable, or loving beta and get him to raise the kid that isn’t even his! This is a perfect example of how women want one guy for his genetic material and another guy for his resources, which is why alphas often attempt to have wealth in addition to desirable genetics. I believe these attitudes are artifacts of pre-historic rape culture, whereby even modern men and women are acting out primitive gender roles, possibly due to inherent instinct. Whereas in pre-historic civilization, women were objectified by men, in modern society, women objectify themselves. But women are not objects. Objects are not subject to moral scrutiny.

In the past, women who tolerated or even enjoyed rape were far more likely to pass their genetics to the next generation than women who resisted, because those who resisted were simply killed, obliterated by men’s physical dominance. This is why many women still enjoy being dominated today. Aggressive women and submissive males are considered statistically anomalous mutations, even in modern society, and there are various psychological theories to address them, the most disturbing of which is modern gender relational theory, which often attempts to label as transgender or homosexual anyone who resists being confined to the gender roles defined, not by intrinsic human nature, but by obsolete social construct.

The Limbic system is the Reptillian brain. It enumerates the baser urges in the form of behaviors. In some humans, this structure plays a more dominant role in driving human behavior than others. The evolved human has a cerebrum, or a neo-cortex, through which all decisions pass. Those with more inhibitory neurons in their frontal lobes are more likely to scrutinize things, including their own or others’ behavior. This is what we call “thinking cerebrally” as opposed to merely acting impulsively, through instinct.

Evolutionary psychology tells us that selfish, manipulative people will have more sex with more partners than selfless, non-interfering people. The effect this ultimately has on the human population is to create more selfish, manipulative offspring. And thus society collapses and human civilization declines. Sexual liberty has unleashed a hoarde of demons upon this planet.

Female solipsism and hypergamy, combined with a governmental and economic system that promotes the worst of the worst has made romance a shallow, classist, materialist contrivance. When sex is awarded through bribery that is paid for via violent or unethical conquest, the victorious and dominant males in this system are merely participants in a more refined version of rape culture, and the female winners are mere fascist whores. Men often jock their “game”… but what does this word imply? That females are mere animals to be hunted. Any relationships started in this way are doomed to failure and encourage infidelity. When we act impulsively, without planning, we are not likely to be satisfied by what we get for very long. Women on the other hand have developed this ideology that monogamy and commitment are about ownership rather than simple respect for their partner’s feelings.

Perhaps romance should be approached from a more top-down perspective, a kind of meeting of the minds to determine compatibility before sex ever happens. But the nature of social power conflicts with such a civilized approach to dating. Social power is often in conflict with moral values. People are loyal to the people who make them feel good or support them materially, rather than being loyal to ideologies, such as peace, love, unity, and respect. Thus, in an overly- sensual, materialist society, social power is a function of immorality rather than merit.

Even those liberal enclaves who say they are dedicated to love are not often actually dedicated to the ideal of love… they are dedicated to eachother, the people to whom they have grown close over time… but for strangers, they reserve their hate. This is the easiest way to spot an enclave of groupthinkers… They support eachother in error, but will not support a stranger in being correct.

Personally, I’d rather be hyper-critical than hypo-critical. What’s funny is that the word “hypocrite” literally means “under critical”, as in they didn’t employ enough critical thinking, or they didn’t criticize enough, thus they became a hypocrite.This is why certain scenes that are based on “supporting eachother”, AKA “dick riding” become full of people who are hypocrites: because they haven’t criticized themselves or eachother, they have philosophies that are logically inconsistent. It’s kind of an “emperor wears no clothes” situation. I see a lot of that going on in the hippie/burner world, and pointing it out will only get you ostracized.

Even peaceful hippies are dependent upon war and empire for their sustenance, a fact which many liberals are in denial of. America’s wars are all resource wars, and the only way to stop them is to curb demand, and yet sensualists and materialists carry on their decadence in escape of this most basic of grim truths and harsh realities. And this begs the question: Is your touchy-feely positivity really all that positive if it comes at the expense of the under-privileged, either on the other side of the world, or in the ghetto across town?

There is nothing worse than a spoiled person who does not realize they have an exploitative relationship with the world. They think that prosperity is something that happens with minimal effort just because they were born into the driver class of a tyrannical system. They don’t realize the extent to which their prosperity is the result of the efforts of others.

Manipulation often takes on an appearance of positivity when critical thinking is undervalued. Just because someone is outwardly, superficially good to others, doesn’t mean they are a good person. Most people will act like saints when they want something out of someone, but this doesn’t mean they aren’t actually devils inside, wolves in sheeps’ clothing. Even someone who is outwardly positive may not have good intentions.

Also, actions perceived to be “negative” can have a positive impact on society. Killing Hitler, for example, is generally seen as a positive action, even though it was a brutal act of war, as the overall effect on the greater good was positive, in that it was in everyone’s interest to have a world with no Nazi genocide. On the other hand, supporting an over eater, while outwardly positive, may have a negative effect in the form of enabling an overweight person to put their health at risk with poor eating habits. Often times, people are spared the truth, because keeping them in the dark is seen as “for their own good”. This is really just a chickenshit way of avoiding confrontation, as keeping someone in an inaccurate worldview is NEVER for their own good, and can often be quite destructive to that person’s relationship with reality.

A person who “goes with the flow” will usually be rewarded in modern society, even if that flow is wrong. Those who stand up for themselves or others will often be saddled with stigmas and burdens by a system and a society that deliberately seeks to quiet the critics, in order to keep the gluttonous orgy of Western civilization going. This is why the Romans crucified Jesus, people who refuse to snitch do time in prison, and honest ethical people often find themselves in poverty. Civil disobedience and activism are often seen as valuing one’s impact on their community moreso than their own personal fate.

And so, what can the cerebral, capable, morally upright people do to combat this domination by psychopaths via their overpopulation and construction of power structures to marginalize and exploit us? Well for one thing, we must examine ourselves, and route out selfishness. Meditation and self-reflection will bring about a better understanding of ourselves and eachother. But this needs to be combined with an obsession with fairness, equality, and social justice. Knowing that social conscience is deliberately being punished, starved out, and bred out by the system, we must make efforts to cultivate it within ourselves and eachother, and whenever possible, institutionalize it! Quite simply, Americans need to change their values, and what is valued by them.

What is more important to you? Being rich or being ethical and morally correct? Your standard of living and comfort, or your lofty ideals? And how far are you willing to go to promote basic morality and pro-social behavior, even in the face of material and criminal punishment, as well as social ostracization? How much are you willing to sacrifice for what you believe in? These are questions we must all ask ourselves, and if we are to have and value integrity, we must respond in a certain way. Pro-social behavior in the form of cooperative initiatives for genuine positivity are important to the survival and prosperity of the human race, and should be valued more highly than the riches of Croesus. The more people take a stand against the materialist, tyrannical system, the less it will be able to sustain itself via our compliance.

But there are many self-serving philosophies that humans cling to as an excuse to shirk their social responsibilities, and many of them are spiritual or religious as well as political and economic. The idea of Justice in the afterlife is one, as is karma, the idea that “what goes around comes around” eventually. Neither one of these ideas is based in any evidence whatsoever, but they conveniently provide us rationalization to look the other way from social and systemic injustice. But what if there is no God or afterlife? What if we must do Justice NOW, or good deeds will go forever unrewarded and bad deeds forever unpunished? Gandhi himself thought that the Hindu caste system was inhumane and unjust, even as Westerners use their poor understanding of ascetic Eastern philosophies to rationalize letting injustices lie.

Perhaps dogmatic morality should be abandoned in favor of a more pragmatic situational ethics. Maybe victims shouldn’t be blamed, they should be recompensed by appeasing their personal sense of justice and restoring what was stripped from them. Promoting social justice is just as important as ending systemic injustice. What we need is a system that encourages good behavior instead of bad behavior, while at the same time treating social problems as public health issues rather than private shames and public melodramas. But public attitudes need to change from their current lassiez-faire state. Such attitudes only cause the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, both materially AND socially.

There are also a lot of victim blaming and “God only helps those who help themselves” type mentalities that help people not only rationalize their selfishness, but hold others at fault for being too selfless or idealistic. Often times, when an individual has a problem, society brainstorms a way to blame the victim for his own problem instead of helping him solve it. This is social negligence, plain and simple. Society should exist to support the individual as much as the individual supports society, otherwise the relationship between the constituent and his group becomes exploitative. And there are many problems which can only be solved with cooperation, therefore it is the fault of the uncooperative that problems remain unsolved. And yet uncooperative people will often blame others for their personal problems even if they couldn’t possibly solve those problems themselves. And too often in America, problems are exploited rather than solved.

These are the attitudes that need to be fought against, otherwise the human race will find itself overrun by psychopaths and their bad behavior, pillaging, raping, and hurting those of us who still have feelings. Humans, especially those in the free world, need to learn self-restraint, willpower, and sensitivity to eachother’s needs, otherwise, we will destroy ourselves and eachother with selfishness and greed. The world will become more dog-eat-dog, and society will give way to mere chaos. And life will become a race to the bottom, where only the most ruthless sociopaths win. The anti-psycho, pro-social attitude is the progressive attitude. This is what separates humans from animals: the higher conscious will. The drive to become better than human.