Five Refutations of Christianity

Five Refutations of Christianity

By Alraune

Christianity has been a cancerous growth in my family's side from day one. It has taken me many many years to realize this. I was just about to realize it, but then I had given up (out of fear) and headed back towards Christianity when I finally saw the light.

My brother, a minister and die-hard Christian, who was struck by a vehicle and incurred some brain damage, went from feeding and preaching to the poor to trying to kill me with a butcher knife (due to the brain dmaage changing his personality). I now know without any doubt in my mind that the Christian "change" and baptism of the Spirit is nothing more than a state of mind.

That moment, combined with many thoughts and problems I have with the Christian faith have led me to believe that Christianity is a false religion.

Christianity, in my opinion, is an evil curse, created by black magicians in order to subdue whole peoples: "cursed is He who hangs on a tree". The very acceptance of it requires the acceptance that one is under the power of a curse (the Fall of Man), and so I recommend people stay as far away from it as possible.

What follows are five points of a fifty-point refutation I will be providing over the course of time. Unlike many atheists and agnostics my refutations will not be tackling the problems of Christianity from an outsider's perspective, but rather from an insider's perspective, where I will be specifically showing how core Christian theological doctrines, more specifically the doctrines of Calvinism, are in gross error and are indefensible by any honest human being.

All Scriptural references are to be understood in their proper context in their original languages. Where various translations are noted the name of the translation is given.

The Problem of Support by Fallacy and Unfalsifiability

By examining the Christian faith one would think that someone had a book open before them listing all of the possible fallacies of logic one could commit, in which they intentionally tried to fit them all into the support and defense of Christianity. Christianity uses the fallacy of division and composition in order to defend its doctrines. It takes a bunch of separate documents written by some forty authors over a period spanning more than a millennium, then calls them a whole, and claims that what the whole states is what all the parts intended based purely upon insufficient data, in that it presupposes that God inspired the texts and meant for them to be taken together, and then uses those texts to support the idea of inspiration.

Christianity uses the fallacy of argumentum ad hominum by labeling those who disagree with the claimed truths of it as possessed, influenced, or blinded by the Enemy. It uses genetic fallacy by claiming that unbelievers are unable to understand due to their total depravity or fallen nature. Christianity uses appeals to force and prestige such as "God blinds people to the truth." It is guilty of petitio principii, or circular reason, in that it claims that the Bible is the truth of God because the Bible says it is the truth of God; that Jesus is God because the Bible says so, and the Bible is authoritative because Jesus says so; or the Bible is true because the Church said so, and the Church has authority because the Bible says so.

Furthermore, Christianity presupposes its own inability to be non contradictory, or in other words, if anything contradicts the Bible, then either the Bible is correct and the contrary evidence is wrong, or one or the other is misunderstood, but never considers that the Bible itself and/or the Christian faith could be and is what is contrary to the evidence (learned theologists know this is a key view to hold).

Finally, even if one were to suppose that Jesus rose from the dead, it does not then follow that just because the Bible says He endorsed the Scriptures, that He actually did endorse the Scriptures as the word of God, especially the New Testament Scriptures which were undeniably written after His supposed lifetime, and which serve as the only record that He ever might have endorsed the New or Old Testament Scriptures in the first place.

The Problem of Free Will and Predestination

Free will is a prerequisite of self-awareness, for you are not truly self-aware unless you self-determine it. There is no self-awareness until self-determination is acquired, because you, yourself, must make the determination that you are aware.

Free will cannot exist alongside any sort of predestination. In order to be free to exercise one's own will one must have the ability to be self-determined, and freedom of self-determination requires at least a sort of semi-causation; that is, if one is forced to act, or rather compelled toward self-determination, then one must be both fully capable of choosing to act in any random number of ways within the realm of possibility, and be capable of choosing to not act at all. Such things may well be possible in a realm containing causality (a topic too large to discuss here), but it would be an impossibility along side predestination (Eph. 1:11) because predestiny automatically implies limited ability in self-determination to such an extent that one could not have chosen to act or not act in any other way other than the way in which they acted or did not act, meaning that any choice they thought they had was merely an illusion.

The main thrust of the argument here is not that of causality and free will, or whether or not free will does indeed exist (I believe it does), but as to the implications predestination undeniably has for the Christian faith. If an individual is not free to choose to act in any way other than the way in which they are going to act, then they really have made no choice in the matter at all, and they are predestined for eternal life or eternal damnation based upon judgment for actions which were entirely outside the realm of their actual control. Such a situation would make man something akin to an action figure, and God something akin to a child who caused one action figure to assault another, after which, punishment was exacted on the first action figure for the evil the child projected upon him.

Free agency, would be reduced to a form even less than that of a rat in a cage who is free to do whatever she wishes, but who is going to be killed the following day regardless of what choices she makes. Such a situation is unjust enough and in itself implies the act of either God showing favoritism or drawing lots for His favorite rat to be spared. Under either situation described, justice and judgment would be a mere illusion that was really a matter of choosing based upon one's own preferences or random selection, and not based upon any element concerning the object of judgment

I, for one, refuse to allow God to be reduced to the status of a mad scientist or a play-acting child, and I most certainly refuse to rebel against the common sense which tells each and every one of us that free will is as real as we are. To reject free will is to reject one's very self-identity, for your identity becomes wholly what it was predetermined to be, and not what you made it. No amount of mental gymnastics disguised as reason or desire for the hope and necessity found in faith is capable of convincing me that I must reject the self-determination of conscious beings.

The Problem of Unconditional Election

The doctrine of unconditional election (Jn. 15:16) creates a number of problems in my mind, the greatest of which would probably have to be the obvious partiality (ie. favoritism) of God, for if such divine selection is done based upon not what man has done or not done, believed or not believed, and God is not showing favoritism, then the selection process is nothing more than the luck of the draw, or the casting of lots.

One of the problems with the obvious favoritism of unconditional election is that it is a direct contradiction of the supposed impartiality of God (2 Ch. 19:7; Ro. 2:11). If God selects you for eternal life or eternal damnation without basing it upon anything on your part, such as who you are, what you did, or at least what you intended to do, then not only does it follow that God is not fair (which I am not claiming I have a right to say He should be), but also that we could not believe in God unto salvation even if we truly wished too, meaning God is not deserving of worship from all (who would worship a God who rejected them, but a mad and obsessed man?), and both believers and unbelievers were forced into the destiny of eternal life or eternal damnation in the first place (having no freedom to choose concerning the matter), rending the reasons for faith and morality outside of subjective human experience or social pressures to actually be moot points.

Unconditional election (and damnation) means that I could not have believed in the saving power of Jesus Christ unto salvation even if I had wanted to. It means I have no choice in the matter whatsoever, and those who believed and loved me will eternally be separated from me based upon the whim of God and nothing that either of us actually did, or even intended to do had anything to do with either of our fates. Either God simply favored them and some strangers among them over me—to which they may decide on their own if that is acceptable for their God to do to all of us—or God simply randomly selected them out of the luck (or unluck depending on how you look at it) of the draw.

If God were not supposed to be omnipotent, I would be able to draw an analogy that my human nature could understand (which is all that God or man could expect of me), in that I could reckon God to be that of a fisherman who happened upon a sinking passenger ship, and who was able only to save those whom He happened to pluck from the water at random. However, I know that the Christian God is supposed to be omnipotent (Job 42:2; Mt. 19:26; Lk. 1:37), so there is no excuse for this supposedly just God's refusal to save all of mankind, and His failure to at least spare the women and the children before some pot-bellied shepherd is a good indication that most of the men and women who He would condemn are more worthy of honor and respect than He.

The Problem of the Doctrine of creatio ex nihilo

If God is infinite and eternal, then it follows that God is all there ever was, all that ever is, and all that will ever be. If God is all that ever was, then there was nothing by which for Him to create any thing from, and it is a logical impossibility for any thing to come from Nothing whether God created it or anyone else. If God is all that ever is, then nothing could possible exist besides God. Furthermore, if something could come from Nothing, then there is absolutely no good reason to suppose God must be eternal, for God, the universe, or even a slug could have suddenly appeared out of nothingness.

If God is that which is infinite and eternal, then we can reasonably assume that Nothing must be that which is the absence of God, which would be impossible, since one cannot fashion something without coming into contact with it in some manner or another, never mind God's attributes of infinity and omnipresence. Even if we allowed for God to mysteriously create something from out of Nothing (abandoning all Reason which we used to support the conclusions concerning God and His existence in the first place), we would still be compelled to conclude that Nothing was actually created out of something, which was the Mind of God (the point of causal contact) – the something which formed the nothing into something, or imagined it. Therefore, it becomes necessary for us to conclude that either God is not infinite and omnipresent or God is incapable of creating something from Nothing. Put quite succinctly, if zero is the value of Nothing (or the absence of value) and one is the value of God (or value), then 1 + 0 = 1, not 2 or any other value.

This leaves us with only three other possibilities if we are to assume that God must at least be eternal: either that which is, is God in whole, and the act of creation is merely an act of transformation (pantheism or atheism); that which is, is God in parts, or creatio ex deo; or something which was not God existed besides God – creatio ex materia.

No matter how we approach the subject, if approached with reason, we must conclude that the traditional monotheistic concept of God in conjunction with the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is an irrefutably irrational view. To simply declare that "we do not know how it is possible," in this instance, specifically when the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo as the means of creation used by an infinite eternal monotheistic God flies in the face of the law of non-contradiction, or principium contradictionis, is to deny reason itself and negate the validity of honest theology (to say the least).

The Problem of Contradictions in the Bible Texts

The premise of contradictions in the Bible is that if the Scriptures contain any contradictions, then they are false, which implies imperfection or lying, which would mean that the Scriptures could not be inspired by a perfect and good God. A single contradiction or blatant mistake would be good and compelling reason to conclude that the standing Canon is not trustworthy as it is, and that the book in which the contradiction or mistake was discovered is wholly suspect of having not been inspired by a perfect and good God. Furthermore, it would mean the same for any other supposedly inspired author who dared to endorse the alleged uninspired author or book.

Many accusations have been made that the Bible contains contradictions or blatant mistakes. Of course, the various ways in which these contradictions are worked around are either that we are not dealing with the autographs (originals); the unexplained is not necessarily unexplainable; the interpretation is fallible not the revelation; the passage is out of context; the passage is difficult and should be interpreted in light of other, more clear passages; the passage is obscure and so it should be viewed in favor of the entire Scriptures and not in opposition to them; the Bible, although inspired, contains human characteristics so it will have human expressions and exaggerations; the truth in the Bible is in what it reveals, not what it records; the Bible uses common non-technical language; both rounded and exact numbers are perfectly alright; generalizations and general truths are perfectly acceptable; and the Bible is a progressive revelation, so what God reveals later supersedes what He previously revealed.

I deem many of the ways in which known contradictions are escaped to be nothing more than parlor tricks. For example, if it is acceptable for there to be errors because we are not dealing with the autographs, then it would also seem acceptable to reject anything which is not the autograph but rather is a mere copy, as not being fully inspired, meaning that the entire Bible, as we have it, cannot be considered to be fully inspired. If the Bible, as we have it, is not the fully inspired word of God, then there is no reason to trust it as a faithful representation of the fully inspired word of God. The implication of this is, of course, that we cannot trust the Bible, as we have it, as being or even containing the full and accurate communication of God to man concerning Himself or anything else.

While I will admit that supposed contradictions in numbers seems rather trivial, and that most of the apparent contradictions are along the lines of such trivialities, so that they might not qualify as disqualifying characteristics to many less anal-retentive individuals, I do believe there are enough blatant errors and contradictions which exist in the Scriptures we possess to disqualify them as inspired by a perfect and good God.

One of the most undeniably blatant errors found in the Scriptures is that in which Matthew incorrectly attributes the prophetic utterance of Zechariah to that of Jeremiah.

"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." -Mt. 27:9-10 (KJV)

How could anyone be expected to believe that a perfect God would forget which one of His prophets he used to communicate a prophecy directly related to the conspiracy concerning the death of His own Son? This blatant error is usually circumvented by pointing to some obscure passages in Jeremiah (Jer. 18:1-6; 19:1-11; 32:8-9) and claiming it in conjunction with the prophecy which is actually in Zechariah (Ze. 11:12). The problem with this excuse—and that is what it is—is that Matthew only quotes from Zechariah and quotes nothing which can be directly attributed to Jeremiah, whom Matthew directly attributes the prophecy to.

The explanations given which try to excuse this error, which I have heard, are four: 1) the Syriac does not give a name and 'Jeremiah' was a later addition, 2) Jeremiah wrote the final chapters of Zechariah, 3) the prophecy was spoken by Jeremiah, but written down by Zechariah, or 4) Jeremiah is the first book of the prophets and Matthew was referring to the entire collection of the Prophets (a solution offered by Lightfoot and based upon remarks in the Talmud).

There are several problems with these excuses, not the least of which is wondering when we shall admit that all of the excuses for the contradictions found in the accepted texts of the Bible, when tallied, might be considered to point to an obvious lie. These excuses can be dismissed because we know that Zechariah was likely written after Jeremiah, meaning that it is unlikely that Jeremiah wrote the final chapters of Zechariah, or that they could have been one and the same person. Furthermore, we know that Jeremiah is not the first book in the collection of Prophets, but rather Isaiah is and was (Sirach lists Isaiah before Jeremiah), not to mention there is no other example of such a usage. We also have no reason to suppose that Matthew would have known that Jeremiah spoke the words and Zechariah only wrote them down, or that a good God would intentionally try to confuse us by having Jeremiah speak them, Zechariah write them down, and Matthew attribute the words to Jeremiah.

We are then left with one other excuse for this blatant contradiction by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, which is the idea that the name 'Jeremiah' was a later addition, however, according to St. Augustine, Bruce Metzger and most scholars, the reading 'Jeremiah' is firmly established; therefore, this excuse also fails to adequately explain an obvious error.

Many other errors and contradictory statements can be found throughout the Scriptures, but for now we shall be content to list but three other of the more obvious contradictions found throughout the Scriptures:

The contradiction of Christ – Jesus made contradictory statements in the Gospel of John (John 5:31-37, 8:17-18), which remain contrary to one another when taken in the context in which they were intended. In chapter eight, Jesus plainly bears witness to Himself and intends Himself as one of the two necessary witnesses to collaborate a true testimony, which He states in chapter five to be an indication of false testimony, while implying that God the Father is a man (John 8:17 – a theological nightmare), and ignoring the fact that He and the Father are one (John 1:1-3), thereby bearing dual testimony of Himself by proxy.

"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." -John 5:31-37 (KJV)

"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also." -John 8:17-19 (KJV)

The contradiction that God cannot be tempted with evil – God cannot be tempted with evil (Ja. 1:13-15), yet in the Gospel of Matthew we read that Jesus, who is God, was tempted by Satan (Mt. 4:1-11), who is most definitely an evil entity as are all demonic forces, or devils. So if we are to take James to mean that God cannot be approached by evil with a tempting thought, then it becomes clear that this is indeed false, and a contradiction, but if we are to presume that what James is indicating is that it is impossible for God to fall into evil, then we can conclude that there is no way in which Jesus, who is God, could suffer temptation in the same manner man suffers temptation, which would contradict Hebrews (He. 2:16-18, 4:15), because it would have been an impossibility for Jesus to actually choose to fall into evil, unlike it is for men (barring the difficulties concerning free will and predestination). Either we must conclude that there is a contradiction in that God can be tempted with evil, or we must jettison the theological position that Jesus is God.

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." -Ja. 1:13-15 (KJV)

"Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him." -Mt. 4:1-11 (KJV)

"For verily he [Jesus] took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." -He. 2:16-18 (KJV)

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." -He. 4:15 (KJV)

The contradiction that God tempts no man – God created all things (Re. 4:11), God made man (Ge. 1:27) and if God made all things (1 Co. 8:6, 11:12), then God must have also made evil (Ge. 2:9). Man is evil (Ge. 8:21; Mark 7:20-23), he is totally depraved (Ro. 3:10-12), and he only desires to do evil continually (Ge. 6:5), yet he tempts God (Mt. 22:18; 1 Co. 10:9) in contradiction to James (Ja. 1:13), and is tempted by God through his own desires (1 Co. 10:13), which God must have made if God made all things (Ac. 17:24-28), thereby contradicting James (Ja. 1:13) once again, which claims that God tempts no man. If God made man and God made all things (including evil and temptation), then God tempts man by proxy regardless of how many theological hoops you jump through, as God is the author of all things (Pr. 26:10; Eph. 1:11, 3:9).

God cannot tempt with evil, nor does He tempt man: "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." -Ja. 1:13-15 (KJV)

God created all things: "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." -Re. 4:11 (KJV)

God created man: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." -Ge. 1:27 (KJV)

Again, God made all things: "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." -1 Co. 8:6 (KJV)

If God made all things, then it stands to reason that God must have also created evil: "And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” -Ge. 2:9 (KJV)

Man is evil: "And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." -Mark 7:20-23 (KJV)

Man is totally depraved: "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." -Ro. 3:10-12 (KJV)

Man only desires to do evil continually: "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." -Ge. 6:5 (KJV)

Man, who is evil, and who only desires to do evil, tempts God: "But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?" -Mt. 22:18 (KJV)

But God cannot be tempted with evil: "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:" -Ja. 1:13 (KJV)

God made all things, and having made all things He would have had to also have made man's desires, especially since man, who is evil, lives in, moves in, and has his being in God: "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." -Ac. 17:24-28 (KJV)

Man, who is evil, is tempted through his own human desires, which were made by God: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." -1 Co. 10:13 (KJV)

God cannot tempt man, yet He does so by proxy, having made man, his desires, and being that in which man moves, and lives, and has his very being: "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:" -Ja. 1:13 (KJV)

Again, God made all things: "The great God that formed all things both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors." -Pr. 26:10 (KJV)

Therefore, God is the author of man's sin, his sin nature, and his evil desires: "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:" -Eph. 1:11 (KJV)

Many contradictions can be found throughout the Bible texts (numerous books have been written about it), and what I have presented is by no means an exhaustive list. The ones presented here have been just a few of the contradictions that I deem to be the most serious and perilous condemnations which clearly indicate the Scriptures cannot be inspired by a perfect and good God, and that the Christian faith must be a very great lie. I intentionally chose these contradictions because they are areas where theological disagreements arise among Christians, proving that no one can agree on how to resolve these blatant contradictions which are commonly referred to as "difficulties" for no other reason other than the fact that these various factions refuse to accept the obvious – that they are defending a lie!

Final Note

I encourage all non Christians to read the various systematic theologies and core theological doctrines of the Christian faith, understand them, and read the various problems and contradictions found in them. I encourage Christians to do the same and to learn how ridiculous the hoops one must jump through to maintain these doctrines become. I further encourage Christians to investigate where the core Christian doctrines come from and how we got them. If told the Bible, ask who gave the Bible authority, if told the Church, ask who gave the Church authority, if told God, then ask what evidence we have the authority comes from God. You will realize very quickly that the authority for each thing is circular and therefore a lie! Test me. Try me. Prove my last statement incorrect.

If the authority for the Bible comes from Jesus, the only evidence of that is the Bible, so that evidence fails because the support is circular. Jesus cannot support the Bible because the Bible says Jesus supports the Bible; otherwise I could claim to be King of the World because I have a document that says I support it, and it claims I am King of the World – it don't work that way. Even if Jesus did rise from the grave and is God, it does not follow that because the Bible claims He endorsed it, He really did endorse it.

If authority for the Bible comes from the Church, the Church cannot claim it has authority because the Bible says so – that is the same problem.

You might think such evidence is good enough, but I don't believe anyone who believes that has really thought through the implications of accepting such logic, nor are they willing to apply it in other places.

On the Nature of Society

The Dialogues of Jeff & Kim: On the Nature of Society

by Alraune

Our conversation continues in the small apartment occupied by our young couple, somewhere in Pennsylvania.

Kim: Here is another mass-produced beer.

Jeff: Thank you.

Kim: Since you claim the way things are run are so horrible, why don't you just make your own home-brewed beer and be a small bug in the system?

Jeff: You make an excellent point, and I move closer every day to implementing such things, but the fact of the matter is (for example), if enough people simply made their own beer, the people for which this society was truly designed and intended to benefit would outlaw the making of such. They'd never allow it if it really threatened their money and their power.

Kim: I don't know about these elite people you speak of, but I think you are probably correct in thinking that someone (probably the major beer manufacturers) would push to outlaw home-brewing if it got to be a threat to their profits.

Jeff: Yes. Thankfully it is not a threat because it costs too much, so if one chooses they may take that route, at least as things currently stand.

Kim: But couldn't we just say that they dominate because they make a good product for cheap and so people are willing to pay for it?

Jeff: Yes we could, and I would go for that, but the fact of the matter is that corporations and individuals—I'm not really speaking about beer right now—still use government to make profits by outlawing things or suppressing things, and that is not right. It is no longer the law of supply and demand when they use their money and power to squash the competition.

Kim: Yes. I suppose you are right.

Jeff: Such people are no longer playing by the rules of supply and demand, but instead are trying to cheat the game by buying off the referee. And that speaks directly to why I say society is not designed to benefit us, but to benefit a small few.

Kim: So are you going to tell me what society is supposed to be for and why it is not being used for that purpose already, or are you going to make me wait all day?

Jeff: Yes. I will. Now, what did we say the purpose of man was?

Kim: If by the purpose of man, you mean our purpose as humans in this life..."The purpose of this life is to sustain our existence in the least intrusive manner necessary in order to attain the greatest possible abundance of personal and communal experiences of a positive nature."

Jeff: And by the “least intrusive manner necessary” we mean "the least intrusive manner of necessary self-sustainment,” correct?

Kim: Yes.

Jeff: Well, society has no useful purpose to any individual human being unless it is purposed to aid in the acquisition of the purpose of man; that purpose being what we just cited.

Kim: So you are saying that the purpose of society is also to sustain our existence in the least intrusive manner necessary in order to help attain the greatest possible abundance of personal and communal experiences of a positive nature?

Jeff: Yes, that is precisely what I am saying.

Kim: Well, wouldn't progress be part of that?

Jeff: Yes it would.

Kim: Then I do not see what your problem is. I mean, I understand there are imperfections which need fixed, but you claim the entire thing is broken and never was intended for that. I just don't see it. Furthermore, it seems kind of hypocritical for you to be accusing society of all these wrongs while sitting in a house, drinking a beer, sitting on a chair, and listening to the radio.

Jeff: Look. Just because some dude who works for a major radio or television station tells you something, you shouldn't just go out and repeat it, because frankly, that's what that accusation of "hypocrasy" of your's just was, and we both know it. I am not saying the things we produce are wrong. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. I am saying it is how we obtain them and who benefits that is wrong. Furthermore, so long as I or anyone else has no choice in the matter, arguing that I utilize things made in the system is a meaningless argument.

Kim: You do so have a choice!

Jeff: Tell me, I'd love to hear.

Kim: Just leave. Drop out of society if you don't like it!

Jeff: And be arrested as a criminal, a vagrant, or mentally ill. Yeah, sure. Because that's leaving it. Having society come and lock you away for refusing to be part of it is hardly what I call a choice.

Kim: Well, then move to another country.

Jeff: It's all the same wherever you go. Different governments and cultures, but the same system. There is no where to go, Kim, so don't play that card. The fact is, I don't have a choice, and neither do you.

Kim: You're sounding like an anarchist again.

Jeff: What is it going to take to get through your head that I am not bashing your precious television or your running water or any of that? It's the root purpose of it all, don't you get that? I'm saying it is what stands at the heart, not what you see on the surface. I don't hate society, I despise the wrongful and manipulative purpose it is used and intended for.

Kim: So you want society to fall?

Jeff: No.

Kim: Then what do you want? You are confusing the hell out of me.

Jeff: That's because you are giving me all your pre-programmed defenses before you even bother to hear what I'm actually going to say. It's alright. You can get them all out and then we can have an actual conversation.

Kim: Don't do that to me.

Jeff: What?

Kim: Your "you are being programmed" hoo-dee-do. Don't even start.

Jeff: Fine. I am sorry if I offended you. I just want to speak without being labelled an "anarchist" or accused of hypocrasy or any number of things. Can we debate the matter and both leave attacks on the messenger out of it?

Kim: Yes. Let's do that.

Jeff: Fine. So tell me then who you think society is supposed to benefit?

Kim: I suppose the majority.

Jeff: And why so?

Kim: Because you can't make everyone happy, so the best thing would seem to be that society should seek to aid the purpose of this life by doing what is best for the majority.

Jeff: So if you believe society is supposed to benefit the majority, then why do you suppose anyone would "sign-up" for it, knowing that sooner or later they would not be in that majority?

Kim: Well, maybe it's not supposed to only benefit the majority then. If the purpose of each and everyone of us is to live as long as possible in order to have as many positive experiences as possible, in the least intrusive way, then I don't see how anyone in their right mind would want to be part of something which only benefited the majority, since you are correct. Sooner or later you will not be in that majority, and the benefits do not necessarily outweigh the negatives if the majority chooses to benefit itself in a way that greatly screws you.

Jeff: Like taking their tanks and their bombs and blowing people up so they can heat their homes in the winter?

Kim: Yeah.

Jeff: And maybe locking you away "just in case" because they just so happen to be blowing up your grandparents over in some foreign country where you originally immigrated from?

Kim: Yes.

Jeff: Or maybe taking your children because you smoke pot, and the majority don't think you should?

Kim: Well yeah, but the majority don't care if people smoke pot.

Jeff: Which would be evidence of why society is not meant to benefit the majority.

Kim: But it can't be intended to benefit the minority, because that's just as bad as benefiting the majority! Society should be in place to benefit the whole.

Jeff: Now we're cooking! It is my belief that the purpose of society is to aid in the sustainment of the existence of the whole of its members, in the least intrusive manner necessary, in order to help as many of its members as possible (all preferably) attain the greatest possible abundance of personal and communal experiences of a positive nature. And if possible, to improve upon the ways in which it seeks to carry out that mission.

Kim: Okay. I can agree with that, and I knew that's what you were eventually going to say, but how is our society (or any society for that matter) not doing that?

Jeff: Well, first let's look at how society aims to achieve anything in the first place. Our civilization, our society, is made up of four great pillars: economy, government, morality (or religion), and science and the arts as well as the dissemination of them (ie. education, language, etc.). Those four things are the tools any civilization uses to achieve its purposes.

Kim: Okay. Now, I'm not accusing you of being an anarchist, but are you suggesting that we should do away with those things?

Jeff: No.

Kim: Good.

Jeff: But I am suggesting they are all used improperly and that is why the world is screwed up. I would also suggest a complete revamping of the pillar of economy. I would not recommend any economic system that currently floats around out there as a solution (especially socialism). I would suggest something entirely different. Furthermore, I would state that the heart of the problem I speak of is that economy, government, religion, and the arts and sciences, particularly the dissemination of them via education, are all used to control us in a very intrusive, ignorant, and malicious manner.

Kim: That's quite the statement. What do you have to back it up?

Jeff: How about two very well respected and prominent philosophers, just for starters.

Jeff reaches for his cell phone and thumbs through it.

Jeff: Here's Socrates...I'll read to you directly from Plato's Republic. Socrates is speaking with Glaucon.

Socrates: And how can marriages be made most beneficial? That is a question which I put to you, because I see in your house dogs for hunting, and of the nobler sort of birds not a few. Now, I beseech you, do tell me, have you ever attended to their pairing and breeding?

Glaucon: In what particulars?

Socrates: Why, in the first place, although they are all of a good sort, are not some better than others?

Glaucon: True.

Socrates: And do you breed from them all indifferently, or do you take care to breed from the best only?

Glaucon: From the best.

Socrates: And do you take the oldest or the youngest, or only those of ripe age?

Glaucon: I choose only those of ripe age.

Socrates: And if care was not taken in the breeding, your dogs and birds would greatly

deteriorate?

Glaucon: Certainly.

Socrates: And the same of horses and of animals in general?

Glaucon: Undoubtedly.

Socrates: Good heavens! My dear friend, I said, what consummate skill will our rulers need if the same principle holds of the human species!

Glaucon: Certainly, the same principle holds; but why does this involve any particular skill?

Socrates: Because, I said, our rulers will often have to practise upon the body corporate with medicines. Now you know that when patients do not require medicines, but have only to be put under a regimen, the inferior sort of practitioner is deemed to be good enough; but when medicine has to be given, then the doctor should be more of a man.

Glaucon: That is quite true, he said; but to what are you alluding?

Socrates: I mean, I replied, that our rulers will find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects: we were saying that the use of all these things regarded as medicines might be of advantage.

Glaucon: And we were very right.

Socrates: And this lawful use of them seems likely to be often needed in the regulations of

marriages and births.

Glaucon: How so?

Socrates: Why, I said, the principle has been already laid down that the best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior as seldom, as possible; and that they should rear the offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if the flock is to be maintained in first-rate condition. Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion.

Glaucon: Very true.

Socrates: Had we better not appoint certain festivals at which we will bring together the brides and bridegrooms, and sacrifices will be offered and suitable hymeneal songs composed by our poets: the number of weddings is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the rulers, whose aim will be to preserve the average of population? There are many other things which they will have to consider, such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too large or too small.

Glaucon: Certainly, he replied.

Socrates: We shall have to invent some ingenious kind of lots which the less worthy may draw on each occasion of our bringing them together, and then they will accuse their own ill-luck and not the rulers.

Glaucon: To be sure, he said.

Kim: Oh my God! That sounds like eugenics. And what was that about using medicines on the general public and lying about it? And that stuff about festivals and sacrifices and the pairing of the less worthy with the less worthy. That's not freedom! That's total control.

Jeff: Oh, you're quick. But hold it there one second. Allow me to quote a man who is considered one of the greatest philosophers of modern time. I am sure you have heard of Bertrand Russell, the man who wrote A History of Western Philosophy?

Kim: Yeah. I know who that is.

Jeff: Here's Bertrand Russell in his book, The Impact of Science on Society, where he says on pages 49-50: "Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy...It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche [Fitche, as you know, was a prominent philosopher of the German Idealist school, and a proponent of German nationalism] laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished."

"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."

"Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."

Kim: Holy s—!

Jeff: Hold on. I'm not done yet. Here's Mr. Russell in his book, The Scientific Outlook, "In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviorism, and biochemistry will be brought into play...All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called 'co-operative,' i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them."

"Except for the one matter of loyalty to the World State and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative..."

"On the rare occasions, when a boy or girl who has passed the age at which it is usual to determine social status shows marked ability as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation will arise, requiring serious consideration. If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it."

Kim: Did he just say they need to kill anyone who gets too smart for their breeches?

Jeff: Yes. That is exactly what he said.

Kim: Okay. I'll have to let these quotes you just read me sink in for a little bit. That's some pretty wild stuff. I can hardly believe such prominent and well-respected men really said those things. And to think, so much of our modern society is based upon and shaped around the ideas of these men.

Jeff: Precisely my point.

Kim: But just because they said some crazy things doesn't mean we are really doing them, does it?

Jeff: Just because Socrates and Russell actually did make those statements, does not mean they are being implemented, but they are being implemented nonetheless. However, that is not the point I am trying to make anyway, so it doesn't matter whether you believe those things are actually being carried out or not (although they are and have been for quite some time, and I urge you to research the matter for yourself). Those quotes were read to you to give you a glimpse of those things, but more importantly to show you that our society, our civilization, is a well-thought-out machine. It is planned and ordered, and neither you nor I are anywhere near those who do the actually planning and running of society. Furthermore, if you read the works of those who mold and shape society with their philosophical arguments, you will see that the four pillars we spoke of are not used to achieve the ends we stated society should seek to achieve. Society is not for the benefit of the whole, it is for the benefit of the guys up top.

Kim: I think you are hitting me with too much at once, Jeff. Let's stop for a little bit, maybe even call it a night. I really need to let this stuff sink in.

Jeff: Okay.

Kim: You'd better stay here tonight. You've been drinking for quite a while now, and you look like you are ripped out of your mind.

Jeff: It's the only way to live.

Kim: Alright then. Let's crash out and we can continue this discussion tomorrow.

On the Purpose of Man Part 2

The Dialogues of Jeff & Kim: On the Purpose of Man Part 2

by Alraune

Our young couple is just beginning a brief exercise in personal enjoyment when Kim interrupts.

Kim: Wait a minute! I think I want to tackle the issue of what it means to prolong your life so that you can have as many positive experiences in this life as possible for as long as possible.

Jeff: Ok. I'd love to hear it. This means I get to be the critic, right?

Kim: Yeah sure... I mean, I think I agree that our purpose in this life, barring any metaphysical explanation, is to have as many positive experiences as possible. Actually, I kind of like that, because you sort of rationalized the old saying, "If it feels good, do it." Now I can give people an explanation for my philosophy on life both from my heart and from my mind. I think I like that.

Jeff: Well you're welcome. I didn't arrive at that conclusion because I wanted too, but because it was the best I could do outside of metaphysical explanations. Granted it sounds alright, but you have to admit it seems sort of pointless in the grand scope of things if we don't turn to metaphysics to give the "what" a deeper meaning through the reason "why".

Kim: Agreed. However, I think we should take this as far as we can go without getting metaphysical because it keeps us honest, and we don't bring any preconceived prejudices to our questions. Like what you were saying, how both religionists and physicalists alike seem to base their philosophies of what this life is for and how one should act upon their preconceived notions on what exactly death is and whether or not there is an afterlife or such a thing as universal and equal justice.

Jeff: Yes. I agree. It is people who are overzealous about their belief concerning what happens at death or afterward who seem to kill the most people without hesitation. Consider the crusades, the inquisition, modern terrorism, the Darwinian eugenics of Hitler, eugenic concepts which force sterilization or killing on individuals and groups in general, greedy corporations, etc. It's people playing God because they think they know what's going to happen at death or in the hereafter who screw us all over in this life. People should be free to believe whatever they want concerning death and the hereafter, but once those unprovable beliefs start adversely affecting the rest of us, then we got problems. So long as the question is open-ended, we should all live like it is.

Kim. Yeah. So anyway, you got me thinking about what it means to prolong your life, because I knew you were going to bring up eugenics and stuff.

Jeff: I have too. I could care less if people think they can breed their family into a better breed of horse, but when they start saying that the rest of us need to die or be sterilized (like they do to africans and other minority groups, and also poor white folk) because we are wasting the resources they are entitled to because they are somehow "more fit," then I have a major problem with their psychotic conclusions, especially since I understand societies, how they are run, and what they are formed for.

Kim: As I was trying to say before you interrupted me with another one of your rants about "the man" and how they are trying to kill us all...

Jeff: And they are.

Kim: Ok, Jeff. Can I finish a thought?

Jeff: Sure.

Kim: I don't think eugenic policies that encroach on the lives of others are right, but I do think there might be something to be said for the survival of the fittest concept. Maybe not the mentality, but the concept.

Jeff: Go on.

Kim: Well, everything really does have a "survival of the fittest" type push behind it. I mean, if you are a dumbass you're going to get yourself killed, that will be the end of your genetic line if you didn't have any offspring. If you don't watch out for yourself, same thing. So, it would seem that it is at least a philosophy in play concerning extending your own life and the life of your genetic legacy, which is sort of self-directed.

Jeff: I agree so far.

Kim: And I also see how some might think that getting rid of the competition and the so-called "bottom feeders" will help extend their lives and increase the amount of positive experiences they have.

Jeff: Careful you are wondering into the land of the psychotic murderers.

Kim: Yes. However, there is something wrong with such people (as you said before) because they are trying to have positive experiences by unnecessarily providing others with negative experiences, and also they are violating the "sharing" of positive experiences concept that we were talking about.

Jeff: Yeah, they're crazy alright. If the people they want eliminated are really all that inferior (such as myself), I say let's let natural concrete forces decided, not a handful of inbred egomaniacs with a whacked out metaphysical philosophy who believe they have a right to rule because they happen to be more downright evil (not necessarily clever or intelligent as they would like to think) than the rest of us. Being more intelligent, more evil, or more clever does not equate to more fit, but rather—as is the case with the eugenic-loving types I speak of—less of a correctly functioning human whose natural intelligence and cunning happen to make them extremely dangerous individuals who often turn into mass murderers that have a fetish for justifying all the death and suffering they promote cloaked under the banner of a misguided metaphysical outlook that in all of their intelligence they are too stupid to realize is actually metaphysical. That being, that they are so whacked-out that they either assume they know there is no afterlife, or there is no judgement in it, or they are so screwed-up in the head that they don't care if there is any universal justice. Such people would have you believe the majority are less fit because they are naive, but I say the majority of people are mentally healthy and thus fit, and what appears to the sick to be naivete, which should be taken advantage of, is actually the healthy human behavior that these inbred scum lack. Most people don't think their leaders would do them evil because their not supposed too, and all healthy and well functioning humans know that, but those broken and malfunctioning egomaniacs look down at them like they are stupid rather than asking themselves if maybe what they are perceiving as stupidity is actually their own flaw in that they find pleasure in seeing others suffer and thus are capable of conceiving of cruel and terrible things which the rest of us would never entertain.

Kim: Okay Jeff, did you get it all out now?

Jeff: I'm just getting warmed up. And I suppose many of the types I am describing would suggest I throw meaningless words and concepts out there such as "justice" and "well-functioning" – people such as Jacques Ellul who wrote The Technological Society back in the 1960s, who talked about the Brave New World some very very sick technocrats would like to see us all living in because they are stuck in a primitive "survival of the fittest" mentality. But I'm ranting...

Kim: Yes you are, and you will have to elaborate, but hold it for now. Ok, so prolonging your life means being fit to survive (eg. be smart, stay healthy, etc.), but not knock as many others out of the game as possible, because it's not a game or competition, but rather an experience.

Jeff: Well, if it is not a competition, then how do you explain various things such as some plants growing talling than others, blocking out the sunlight, and consequently killing the other plants?

Kim: Are you saying the plants did that on purpose?

Jeff: Well, your Darwinian eugenicists would anyways. I'd say those plants weren't out to ruin the lives of the other plants, but rather were simply more enthusiastic about having a positive experience. Although I am not sure how you are going to explain away the inability of those plants to share because I don't have that answer myself.

Kim: Well, for starters how about you can only share what you do not require yourself, if you share more than that, then you fail to survive yourself. How is that for starters?

Jeff: Very good point.

Kim: Thank you. Which goes back to what we were saying a conversation or so ago, and which gets to my point: the prolonging of life in such a manner as to adversely affect others via the justification of survival of the fittest ends when you reach the point of sustainability. Once you reach a point of sustainability you no longer have a drive (or you do not an adequate justification for one) to put your positive experiences over that of others, and if you are well-functioning and intelligent, your drive should then be stronger to want to share your positive experiences with others, since we all know that we all require each other in order to continue to have positive experiences (everything supports the other in this world).

Jeff: Yes.

Kim: So prolonging your life means doing what is actually necessary to sustain it, not what you think might be necessary (like killing off the bottom feeders so you have food). The keyword being necessary, that is you don't step on others unless you have absolutely no choice.

Jeff: So you are saying that so long as there is another route which you're capable of taking which does not immediately hinder your sustainment, you should, if you are well-functioning, seek the alternative route to any which might encroach upon others?

Kim: That's exactly what I am saying! And the more focused you are on having and sharing positive experiences, in contrast to personal survival, the more "fit" you will be to think up and act in ways to sustain yourself without causing the negative experiences of others.

Jeff: Wow! I think I might agree with you, and I think we can find plenty of examples of this nature. Most animals, as we said before, don't fight simply for the sake of fighting, in fact if they are not sick they try to avoid conflicts unless they believe it is absolutely necessary.

Kim: Yes. And we have now exposed another major problem among societies and individuals, which is that they fail to cease surviving upon sustainment, and hence we have greed and the like.

Jeff: They are stuck in their lower and less evolved mindset.

Kim: No, I wouldn't say that because I think all life "gets it." I'd just say such people are, as we said, "sick." They are so focused on their survival that they forget what it is all about, which is, as we said, to live as long of a life as possible and enjoy it in as positive a way as possible, but to also share the positive aspects of life with others.

Jeff: Well, some would just say they are experiencing those positive things with their loved ones and they are justified in screwing the rest.

Kim: True, some would say that, but that doesn't mean their position on the matter is correct.

Jeff: How so?

Kim: As I said, we all need each other. At the heart of things we are all really one. I know that sounds a bit New Agey, but it is true.

Jeff: Yeah, but you're not saying we need to give up our individuality to be one.

Kim: No. I am not.

Jeff: Well, that's the difference, and it's why I disagree with the direction that movement is going in. We might all be one, and I agree, but we are also ourselves.

Kim: True.

Jeff: And you know? That's why I say we are all hypocrites. I say that because life is one big contradiction where we have to find the perfect balance between one extreme or the other in order to live as happily and as healthy as possible. We need to be individuals and communities, looking out for #1, but sharing with as many others as we can, trying to live positive, but forced to ocassionaly be the cause of the negative, etc. It's one big mind screw if you don't get the fact that that is how things are supposed to be.

Kim: I couldn't agree with you more. I wouldn't go so far as to call all people hypocrites, but I do understand and concur with what you are saying.

Jeff: So what have we established here, then?

Kim: That the purpose of life is to prolong it by sustaining it in the least intrusive manner possible so that we all can have as many positive experiences as possible while this life lasts, part of which is to share those positive experiences with as many others as possible, as a means by which to extend our own quantity and quality of positive experiences.

Jeff: So then you are saying that you are primarily defining the prolonging of life for the purpose of experiencing life as "the least intrusive manner of necessary self-sustainment"?

Kim: Yes. Though I would not separate my definition of the prolonging of life from your concept of the purpose of life, but rather use it to more correctly define one portion of your philosophy. In other words, I would say that "the purpose of this life is to sustain our existence in the least intrusive manner necessary in order to attain the greatest possible abundance of personal and communal experiences of a positive nature."

Jeff: I like it, very good. And it's only...Let me see...Thirty-three words. Thirty-three words to live by, and it fits right in with my take on society, cultures, and civilization in general. I think you could even use that statement to express what true (not religiously dogmatic) morality and immorality are. That is, morality would be that which is least negative and most positive for the individual and community as a whole, although it requires the individual to actually think about what is necessary and what is not and to maintain a focus upon intending and trying to create the most positive outcome. Are we asking too much of the individual? I mean, asking them to actually think and care and all?

Kim: I'd like to think not. We just need to quit projecting our own opinions about what happens at death and afterwards onto others and start worrying more about living with one another in the here and now. It is perfectly alright to form an opinion about such matters, even express them, but if that is all you think about and you base your life upon, so that the way you treat others is inconsistant with the reality, then well...

Jeff: You are the living dead.

Kim: Exactly. And as the living dead you are wasting your own life and usually ruining the lives of others. We could be putting all of that energy into finding new ways to be less and less intrusive and creating more and more peace and happiness.

Jeff: Yeah. Maybe people would be less worried about acquiring money and possessions to propel themselves and their genetic line forward and oppress the little man, and more worried about having fun, loving others, and lifting people up? Maybe instead of talking about reducing the world's population we'd be talking about expanding out into the stars to have more positive experiences and to discover more wonderous things? We wouldn't be competing anymore than we had too, and instead we'd be cooperating as much as we possibly could.

Kim: Sounds plausible, but didn't you basically assert that there is not a basic good in humanity?

Jeff: Wow! You're going back a few conversations, but you are right, I did say that. That is precisely why the things we are talking about are not happening.

Kim: Then how can you expect them to happen?

Jeff: We have to change the entire system. It's not that people are bad, it is that they are taught to survive and thrive in a bad system. It's this Cultural Mandate crap and all the other stuff, and the very structure of society and its misguided purpose.

Kim: How so?

Jeff: Did you ever read Plato's Republic?

Kim: Parts of it anyways.

Jeff: Well you should read the entire thing. And don't get some so-called intellectual to explain it to you, just read the thing for what it says. It's really not that difficult to read and understand. My point being that it sheds quite a bit of light on how our society operates and where it is going, but I'd really only call it an introduction to the whole scam. That's why I said not to rely on someone who has been schooled by the system to explain what the text is really supposed to mean, because they'll give you the official "spin" they have been taught, but if you keep digging and combining what you learn with what you have personally experienced you will very quickly understand just what sort of "jig" is up. But the issue goes much deeper than that, you have to start asking questions about what the purpose of society and civilization itself is. Once you understand that, then you'll understand why I call what we have a scam.

Kim: Well why not enlighten me?

Jeff: I intend too give you my understanding, but I really do emphasize the importance of studying such things on your own. It is probably one of the most important issues for anyone to take the time to fully understand, yet most don't even bother. Most are just born into this way of life and they take it as the gospel truth without even blinking. They think this is all they know and this is how they know to survive so they never bother really looking at what makes things tick and why we have this set-up we call "the system". And they wonder why the world is so screwed up and everyone is stressed out, but they just try to make things better from within that framework, never even considering that the entire framework is the problem.

Kim: Don't we all have a general understanding of what this system is for though? I mean, progress, Jeff – hello! We have electricity and everyone gets food at the grocery store; we have running water, etc.

Jeff: Please don't do that to me.

Kim: Do what?

Jeff: You are repeating what you heard and were told. I know that because they told me the same thing in school and on the television and in the books.

Kim: Well, wouldn't you call running water, plumbing and medicine progress?

Jeff: Sure I would. But how did you get those things?

Kim: Through the progress of society.

Jeff: Yeah exactly. You got running water and your plumbing and your medicine and your automobile because someone died so you could have it. Someone lost their life and their freedom so you could have it. Someone spent sixty hours a week pushing a button repeatedly for fifty years and missed out on most of their life including many experiences with their children and grandchildren so you could have a hot shower. Not to mention all the bull they had to put up with from cradle to grave that would have most likely been a fraction of the bull put up with three hundred years ago – the everyday bull that comes with this way of doing things. My point being, not that progress is bad, but that the system we use to attain it is. It benefits a few at the expense of the many. It's not right and we all know it isn't.

Kim: Well no system is perfect and we have to have the negatives in order to get the positives. We'll get it straightened out sooner or later.

Jeff: No we won't.

Kim: How do you know that?

Jeff: Because you need to understand how the entire thing is designed, that is how I know that. It is not designed for the benefit of the many, Kim. Our society, all modern societies are designed for the benefit of a few. And once more, if you are one of the many who does not like all the bologna, then you are the bad guy. You are deemed some sort of danger to the few. Your running water is given to you to keep you healthy enough to work and to keep you quiet. That is all! It's not for you the person, it is for you the worker and the consumer. If you think it's there to make you happy and provide you with progress, then try shutting it off once. They have codes and laws against that you know. It's not for you, it's for the few who need the resources (including human resources) of the many.

Kim: I get the feeling I am going to regret this, but I will entertain your thoughts. Go ahead!

Jeff: Well first I think I am going to need one of those mass produced beers, provided to me in one of those mass produced glasses.

Kim: I thought our system was bad?

Jeff: There you go again. I didn't say the "stuff" it makes is necessarily bad. I'm saying the way we get it and who it is intended to benefit is very likely at the heart of the issue concerning happiness for all of humanity and maybe even all life.

Kim: Well that beer sure seems like it is benefiting you.

Jeff: You gotta think bigger than me Kim, bigger than me. I'm just a consumer. You think I'd be allowed to benefit myself by whipping up a nice batch of grain alcohol for my personal enjoyment?

Kim: No. That would be illegal.

Jeff: Precisely. I drink what I am told to drink. Sure, I can choose between any number of given choices, but it has to be those choices and there is a reason for that.

Kim: So you don't kill yourself or add a burden to society by accidentally poisoning yourself.

Jeff: The first answer has nothing to do with it. I could accidentally kill myself a thousand ways and you don't see them taken from me. It has nothing to do with me and my welfare, Kim. But the second part of your answer is partly correctly. It is for the benefit of society, but I still maintain that the purpose of society is not for the benefit of you or me or anyone we likely know, or even for the vast majority. But how about that beer?

Kim: Ok. I want to hear this then.