crap

Apparently I need to write in order to survive. Not for any economic reasons, but for sanity? I’m not sure if it is that or fostering a delusion of meaning in my mind. If this life is all there is, ha I ask like the answer can ever be found. I will never know if this life is all there is, but I can use rational thought to look at the scurrying homicidal humans and understand where some of the ideas come from. I can see that they coddle eachother and manipulate with ideas like religion, so this life most likely is all that there is. The entire idea that this life is not all there is was created in order to sell religion. The religion was sold so well, because of our epistemological limitations on knowledge. We can never know if this is all there is, we will never know when consciousness first manifested or even if consciousness is just reified human superiority complexes. What if all animals possess a consciousness, why can I read the facial language of a dog or cat? Haven’t I seen a dog’s attempts at stifling their expression of guilt in order to avoid being blamed for something they thought they could get away with? How did life come about, we have good rational ideas on this, some good theories. But the fact of the matter is that we can never have the answers to these questions.
If this ignorance is a part of the human condition, then I can see why religion springs up. By looking at the lessons of religion, by looking at the stories of gods and goddesses, and through etymology of deity’s names we can see the imprint of family. Although these stories come to us only because they have been transcribed, which besmirches them with an earthly impurity, this means that the individual was literate which represents a class indication. We each have our own creators our own Mom and Dad. Our own mother earth and father sun in each of our subjective worlds. Odds are our creators will die before we the offspring have died. The creators of the past on most occasions would teach their offspring how to survive and would pass on their mythos. Where did these mythos come from? The creator’s creator of course! Contemporary forms of ancestor worship such as Shintoism represent a background of one of the first examples of sacred ideas.
The reason these stories must have been told is in order to focus the mind on survival in order to continue the process of creation. If the human condition is uncertainty(epistemological limitation that science claims to have overcome), passionate ambivalence(Philip k. Dick’s short story The Chromium Fence), or contradiction(Dostoevsky’s theme); then it seems reasonable to understand the mythos of humanity as a survival tool. First of all to encode key cultural rituals of a certain time/space in to a sacred mythos(such as a prohibition on the eating of pig) is in order to protect the family/tribe. Humans are not eating if they are paralyzed by uncertainty.
Parents are gods, after all they created you. If living gods tell you a sacred idea, how can you disparage it? This worship of ancestors, because our creators are most often our teachers became canon. As the cycle continues down the line, until someone codifies the sacred idea and the idea becomes a millstone necklace. The idea is used as a cudgel and the idea is used as a mask for its’ antithesis. The codification of the idea transmutes it from sacred to profane.
What was once the internal strength of a tribe/family and a set of encoded morals and survival rituals becomes a tool used to fight the world outside the tribe/family. To seek power in the classical realist terms, to subjugate other families. The families at this point are controlled by the class of people that could codify the ideas in the first place.
But it doesn’t fucking work. There is idea trading, there is language trading, there is genetic material traded in the form of miscegenation, a word that would not exist if it weren’t for man’s innately(for lack of a better contemporary word) racism. It becomes apparent that we don’t have a good word to unmask the idea of racism. Which in a dictionary means prejudice, discrimination, or hatred towards a different “race” I am using this word here to mean the hatred of any “other”.
The tribes are illusory they were a necessary construction for humans’ early survival along with their mythos. Survival tools, tools meaning they were created by humans for humans. It is not a tool that humans innately respond to group identities. Response to group identities is an a priori or instinctual feature of the human condition.
The “race” is illusory, to argue that the 200,000 years that represent the human diaspora and subsequent collapsing back in have left some kind of different “races” is based on a confluence of nationalism(which I use as synonymous with group identity in the context of this crap) and fear of those different than self. Language is a very strong divider among humanity, but we all speak a language that is derived from the same source. Physical appearance is a very strong divider among humans, but we all came from the same original adam in Africa and eve in southeast Asia. The idea that the social construct of “race” can first of all be readily identified, and that second of all it should be considered sacred is as old as human tribes/families. Who is the one making these judgments? Who decides who is what race?
Race is not a social construct they say! DNA they say! Well how many races are there? Then you must elect a single person’s genetic structure THE structure of the (insert racial label here), then what? Is it a spectrum? The idea is absurd. I only obsess about race because it is one of the tools that is pervasive in this time/space I exist in. Many will say otherwise, the country I am a citizen of outlawed slavery over one hundred years ago, my country outlawed de jure segregation 65 years ago, my country outlawed de jure discrimination 45 years ago. But in that past 45 years the prison population has quadrupled. The joke that a “black” human says to another “black” goes something like this: “Justice? Yep, go to prison and you’ll see that: just Us”.
The idea of an Us and Them, is not a tool. The idea of statehood, sovereignty, the western conception of the social contract; they’re all constructs. They are tools created to achieve some end. There are those that argue our institutions as tools have failed us. That the institutions we have created are not like the Golem or the Frankenstein monster, but instead like a fleet of slave machines that slowly gained self-awareness. What if the human brain just represents a controlled set of patterns? If a tool we created was stuck in its’ own loop or pattern, couldn’t this be understood as simulated brain activity?
Because it is naïve to believe that some one or some cohesive group is controlling these patterns. Why in 2001 were 74% of people incarcerated for drug crimes “African-American” when this social category makes up 13% of the United States population?
There is not some demagogue out there paying off police, judges, and juries to bust dark skinned united statesians. They are not told at their jobs(at least in most situations, and it is prosecutable) to seek out dark skinned united statesians. Then why is it this systematic re-enslavement of dark skinned united statesians is taking place?
It is my belief that the phenomenon referred to as “racial profiling” is a scar left on the psyche of the united statesian. A people were taught to believe it was ok to enslave other people that were proclaimed “others”. They were taught that these humans were actually sub-human, they were animals so it is ok to treat them as such with slavery. Then when justice was sought, in the babysteps justice takes(which I am not criticizing, if a few things had been different we would still be living under the totalitarian spectre of “racial hygiene”), when these sub-humans were given equal protection under the law, the group did not internalize the change. To many these dark skinned united statesians represented animalistic tendencies, sub-human qualities. They had been taught this for so many years and this assumption was used to justify social control measures such as narcotic and anti-immigrant laws, the dark skinned united statesian retained its image as the model of the criminal.
Now we are stuck, we are mired in the reified diarrhea of our ancestors’ mythos. How are we to break away from this social construct of race in order that it not be used to prosecute ends of murder and oppression if we are still so stuck in it that we need to reform what the idea of justice means?
Has not the institution of slavery then enslaved or at least imprisoned our minds? We cannot let people be incarcerated because of their race, this is genocide in the long term. But if we must remain ever vigilant how are we to transcend race?
I just used the word genocide, but if race is a social construct doesn’t that make genocide an obsolete idea? My response to this is that race being a social construct, it can only be ascertained through self-identification. Of course the limitations on this are myriad, and the most pronounced of which is that in order to self-identify the category must already be an idea. Most likely in the process of self-identification an individual(in our mechanized world) would be choosing a box next to words that represent a “multiple choice” of racial identity. For many years there was not a “multiracial” box on these forms.
It is much easier to understand my main point by looking at the idea of the multiracial box. An individual with one parent who self-identifies as “black” and another parent who self-identifies as “white” is presented with an insurance application/job application/tax form/loan application/housing application/driver’s license application. This form has options for black or white, but what is he/she?
The individual either chooses one thusly attempting to suppress part of their own self-identity and fosters an idea that this individual is an “other”. They are an other in their own home, they do not have a “race”. Thus implying that the institution who created the form judges multiracial individuals as less than human, because they do not have something every other human has: a race.

Trusting the past and not scrutinizing the tools is has left us may turn us in to the machine.

I do not offer this critique without an alternative. The alternative I offer is a way to use our tools to sublimate our nature. A world government, a supranational entity much like the EU(before the EU created an office for a president[big mistake]). An entity founded upon a written set of laws limiting the power of the entity. The entity would be incorporated through plesbicites in any country that wanted to participate. In this fashion we could use the tool of the state to harness the power of nationalism in order to foster the idea that all humanity is one family/tribe.
This is of course just another crusade or religion. This idea is just another idea that if it took hold in a few countries would not be voluntarily adopted by so many countries that it would just create another division. This division would be used to prosecute wars in the furtherance or “defense” of the supranational entity. Although this idea seems to be the antithesis of anarchism, it seems to have a lot in common with anarchism. Both ideas would need a mindset change among humanity as a whole, the only difference being that in order for anarchism to work every human would have to experience a mindset change, in order to establish a supranational world government only a majority of each state would have to experience a mind change. Both options are idealistic unfortunately.
How would one cause a mindset change? We argue and disseminate ideas, we convince and evangelize. We’ll reason with people and show them logic. This is all fucking bullshit, its propaganda and it always is. The only way a mindset change like either of these things would happen is with a massive and I mean MASSIVE media apparatus to condition humans over and over and over. You can call it convincing, or marketing, or preaching, but its all conditioning. Every one of us in our own little skinner box, in our case pushing the button to change the channel rather than get the cheese.
So if you ever see anarchy or world government on the rise, just remember that the only way that is possible was with a huge effort at mind control/marketing/conditioning. The only way such an effort is possible in our current reality is with huge amounts of “money” another tool that has imprisoned us. So question their motives, because the people at the helm of such an effort are the same ones destroying the world in furtherance of greed.
Any solution I have of course is just from the frying pan in to the fire. I just see that our current system is clearly broken, capitalism is so inherently contradictory its sickening. While we think that we’re fine tuning this institution, there are so many suffering that the institution must be broke. The organizational basis of humanity at this point in space/time is personal greed/objectivism. If we came up with another way, wouldn’t that way still be rife with contradictions?
Then am I at odds with our means of social organization, or am I at odds with humankind because of the epistemological limitation on our knowledge that is a universal feature of the human condition?
Is my ambivalence and disillusion in itself a microcosm of the globicidal social organizing principles whether they be based on greed, love, hate, etcetera?
Then is this all just my own simulated brain pattern/loop of solipsist masturbation?

The Jesus we know did not exist

All quotes are from the book “The Jesus Mysteries” by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
Its not so much that he didn’t exist, but most stories about him are in fact lies.
A lot of people have been talking about Jesus lately on GNN in various posts. Some people(a majority of Christians) think that the Old Testament and New Testament is not only canon, but meant to be taken literally. This gives rise to things like interpreting revelations as truthful prophecy and belief in completely unreasonable assertions. So I thought I’d set the record straight with a few quick quotes from a book I recently read through. You see it seems that Jesus may or may not have existed. One thing is for sure he was not immaculately conceived, that's right “Christians”, to conceive: a female must have their egg fertilized by a sperm. Who’da thought that in order to get pregnant, one must have an egg fertilized by a member of the same species and opposite sex. Strange that history if full of gods impregnating women. One of them is Zeus(hes the guy on the roof of the Sistine chapel[even though it is supposed to be Jesus’ supernatural father]). The demi-god is as old as conceptions of god.
Ok well lets say that you are in fact dumb enough to believe that a woman became pregnant without fucking. Lets move on to some other interesting historical facts.
What does this look like to you:
(There should be a fish here, but I have trouble putting graphics up here)
I have a suspicion that you said “Jesus fish”, when in actuality it is more accurately described as a Pythagoras fish. It is really just a symbol that is sacred to pagan(pythagorean and other belief systems) geometry. The ratio of height to length is 153:265 ”...a formula known to Archimedes in the third century BCE as ‘the measure of fish’. It is a powerful mathematical tool, being the nearest whole number approximation of the square root of three and the controlling ratio of the quilateral triangle.”
Lets look in to this whole “fish” thing a little more.
“In the Gospel of John, Jesus miraculously helps his disciples land a large catch of fish. This supernatural feat was also performed by Pythagoras in a legend recorded by Prophyry. Pythagoras miraculously predicted the exact number of fish that would be caught, but the story does not record what this number was. In the gospel account Jesus makes no such prediction, but we are told the catch numbers exactly 153 fish. This seems on the face of it to be an irrelevant fact that the gospel writer included just for dramatic color. But scholars have concluded that it is mentioned deliberately and is highly significant.It is likely that the number of fish Pythagoras predicted would be caught is precisely 153. The Pythagoreans were renowned for their knowledge of mathematics and regarded 153 as a sacred number. It is used in a mathematical ratio that Archimedes called ‘the measure of fish’ to produce the mystical symbol of the vesica piscis or ‘sign of the fish’—the intersection of two circles which yields a fish-like shape. This was an ancient Pythagorean symbol that was used by early Christians to represent their faith. The fact that this mystical fish symbol can be produced from the number of fish that were caught in the account of Jesus’ miracle strongly suggests it has been adapted from the original miracle of Pythagoras and that this miracle story encoded sacred geometrical formulae.”
So Pythagoras is one of the original God-men. He was said to be able to still wind and raise the dead. Still, what does that prove?
“Other of Jesus’ miracles were also attributed to the Pagan godman[Osiris-Dionysus]. Asclepius who was followed by Hippocrates, the ‘father of medicine’ was said to have cured the sick and raised the dead. He was known as the ‘lover of men’. A comparison between the wonders of Asclepius and the miracles of Jesus was a standard feature of Pagan anti-Christian writings. In reply, early Christians described Jesus as the physician greater than great Asclepius. The Pagan Celsus and the Christian Origen argued with equal conviction as to the relative merits of Asclepius savior or Jesus savior. Many of the inscriptions to Asclepius were taken over by early Christians by simply replacing his name with that of Jesus.Many of the great prophets of Osiris-Dionysis were renowned as wandering wonder-workers who performed exactly the same supernatural feats attributed to the wandering wonder-worker Jesus.”
Early christians basically plagiarized the lives of other godmen.

Dying and Resurrecting Godmen

“At the heart of the Mysteries were myths concerning a dying and resurrecting godman, who was known by many different names. In Egypt he was Osiris, in Greece Dionysus, in Asia Minor Attis, in Syria Adonis, in Italy Bacchus, in Persia Mithras. Fundamentally all these godmen are the same mythical being. As was the practice from as early as the third century BCE, in this book we will use the combined name Osiris-Dionysys to denote his universal and composite nature, and his particular names when referring to a specific mystery tradition.”
The specifics of Jesus birth, death, and resurrection are all plagiarized.
”-Osiris-Dionysus is God made flesh, the savior and ‘son of god’-His father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin-He is born in a cave or humble cowshed on December 25 before three shepherds-He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism-He miraculously turns water in to wine at a marriage ceremony-He rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while people wave palm leaves to honor him-He dies at Eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.-After his death he descends to hell, then on the third day he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven in glory.-His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days-His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread and wine, which symbolize his body and blood.”
Did you think they were talking about Jesus Christ/Jesus of Nazareth in that last paragraph?Guess what….they weren’t. Those things happened to godmen that existed BC(which stands for before Christ[which means before Jesus existed]).

Diabolical Mimicry

“Pagan critics of early Christianity, such as the satirist Celsus, complained that this recent religion was nothing more than a pale reflection of their own ancient teachings. Early ‘church fathers’ such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, were understandably disturbed and resorted to the desperate claim that these similarities were the result of diabolical mimicry. Using one of the most absurd arguments ever advanced, they accused the Devil of ‘plagiarism by anticipation,’ of deviously copying the true story of Jesus before it had actually happened in an attempt to mislead the gullible!...The obvious explanation is that as early Christianity became the dominant power in the previously Pagan world, popular motifs from Pagan mythology became grafted onto the biography of Jesus. This is a possibility that is even put forward by many Christian Theologians. The virgin birth, for example, is often regarded as an extraneous later addition ‘borrowed’ from Paganism in the same way that Pagan festivals were adopted as Christian saints’ days. This theory is common among those who go looking for the ‘real’ Jesus hidden under the weight of accumulated mythological debris.Attractive as it appears at first, to us this explanation seemed inadequate.”

They sum up the thesis of The Jesus Mysteries:

“The traditional version of history bequeathed to us by the authorities of the Roman Church is that Christianity developed from the teachings of a Jewish Messiah and that Gnosticism was a later deviation. What would happen, we wondered, if the picture were reversed and the Gnosticism viewed as the authentic Christianity, just as the Gnostics themselves claimed? Could it be that orthodox Christianity was a later deviation from Gnosticism and that Gnosticism was a synthesis of Judaism and the Pagan Mystery religion? This was the beginning of the Jesus Mysteries Thesis.”


Fight it for as long as you can “Christians”, but most likely your godman did not exist. In fact most likely he is just an amalgamation of godman archetypes assimilated in to an ancient Jewish culture.
I want to talk about the piece that I found the most interesting and that is “30 pieces of silver”.We all know that “30 pieces of silver” is what Judas get for betraying Jesus. Did you know that this was most likely stolen from Socrates? When Socrates was put on trial for corrupting the youth the judge said if he paid a fine he could live and get off with exile(similar to copping a plea). Socrates stated he would give 1 copper(or whatever tiny throw away denomination) just to be a smart ass and give the judge some shit. As it turns out one of Socrates’ disciples offered the court “30 pieces of silver” to save Socrates life. Although it was done with nothing but benevolence, this follower betrayed Socrates on a deep level. Because payment implied that he was guilty of something and would be perceived as recanting his beliefs. Is it coincidence that the New Testament has 30 pieces of silver?

I leave you with this quote from The Jesus Mysteries:

“The Jesus story does have all the hallmarks of a myth, so could it be that is exactly what it is? After all, no one has read the newly discovered Gnostic gospels and taken their fantastic stories as literally true; they are readily seen as myths. It is only familiarity and cultural prejudice that prevent us from seeing the New Testament gospels in the same light. If those gospels had also been lost to us and only recently discovered, who would read these tales for the first time and believe they were historical accounts of a man born of a virgin, who had walked on water and returned from the dead? Why should we consider the stories of Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Atis, Mithras, and the other Pagan Mystery saviors as fables, yet come across essentially the same story told in a Jewish context and believe it to be the biography of a carpenter from Bethlehem?”
Take a close look at this picture:
4th century amulet