CHAPTER FIVE
A POUND OF CURE
I would not expect very many believers to have read this far. Or that anything I’ve said to really change their minds about anything. Another of the many reasons being that though I’ve heard of followers of some cult being deprogramed, I would imagine that it would be much more difficult to do while the brainwasher still had access to their minds. Though some people do manage to leave cults even on their own. Which probably doesn’t make a lot of difference. Besides, when it gets right down to it, it isn’t necessary to “fool all the people all the time.” All that is really necessary is to fool enough of the people for just long enough. Now for those believer’s minds that I have changed, I am not one to leave people hanging. So there are some additional philosophies and information that I would like to talk about that may not have been covered or covered very well in this book so far. Though you aren’t out of the woods yet. And as for everybody else, be warned. Most of you are going to come to know how the believers probably felt. With every ounce of denial, anger, self deception or even superciliousness that you could imagine a believer to have felt from what I have written so far.
One of the many reasons being because though you yourselves may not be believers, you have been exposed to the various forms of cultural and supposedly moral philosophies since birth that have been heavily influenced by religion. Which could make it difficult for anybody to look beyond. Now in this last chapter I will be covering a necessarily limited number of different topics. I wish I had space for more, but such topics weren’t the main point of this book. Also, though each of them would be deserving of an entire book by themselves, being constrained by space, I will try to be as direct and to the point as possible. But as for the topics that I do mention, don’t fool yourself into thinking that I haven’t thought about them in much greater detail than I have room for here.
The first topic I would like to talk about that organized religion is often against is euthanasia. Though there are some places that allow for it, at least for now it most often is not allowed. The main problem I see with it is that if, for instance, somebody was a quadriplegic and decided to end their life, other similarly afflicted people might feel pressured to do the same. Even thought they may not want to. Despite this, I say that people should have the right to make up their own minds. Some people who have found themselves in a hopeless situation have even been forced to go through the painful process of starving themselves to death. What kind of fiend would make somebody go through all that. We treat dogs better! Another example of that kind of cruelty is where doctors let somebody suffer to death from rabies rather than end their lives. In cases like this, to end further suffering, I would consider giving such people a lethal injection without the patients or families knowledge as to when exactly it was going to happen.
There is another point I would like to make about mercy killing. First of all, people kill each other all the time. Through crime, wars, police actions, legal executions, etc. So let’s take the word “killing” off the table. That leaves us with “mercy.” Well I would hope that anybody who has a problem with the idea of mercy would find a nice tall building to jump off of. It also amazes me that somebody would force someone else to live a life that they themselves wouldn’t want to live. Now if doctors don’t want to deal with killing people that have come to know, they should create a specialty to deal with such things. They could call such a person a euthanasitist or something. Who would council and provide as painless of a death as possible to people unfortunate enough to need such services. Also, rather than having such services show up on a family’s bill, it would be better for the family’s doctor to charge the family extra for services rendered and pay the euthanasistist themselves. Though I am in favor of single payer universal health care coverage anyway.
Another issue often apposed by religious organizations where emotional stupidity raises its ugly head concerns abortion. Being opposed to it is insane just on the basis of there already being too many people in the world. Speaking of insanity, I remember seeing something on TV that was talking about a doctor who performed abortions being murdered. There was this sick, twisted asshole (who was probably religiously motivated) standing in the street in front of the clinic where this doctor worked. It may have even been where he was murdered. I don’t remember. But this vile creature was holding up a trophy and offering it to anybody who would kill another doctor who performed abortions. With filthy scum like that in the world, rather making a case for a right to life, it makes a case for the right to nonexistence.
There are some additional ways to look at the abortion issue rather than from an overpopulation standpoint. First, take a proportionally sized picture of an adult woman and a fetus and place them next to each other. The rights they should have are proportional to their size. Another thing is that a mouse or bird knows much more about being alive than a fetus does. As does a cow, sheep, pig, fish, etc. But most people don’t care much about killing those. Though the antiabortion morons might say that killing those is a matter of survival. Well with the overpopulation problem, guess what! Besides, a fetus can’t miss something its never known. There is also the life of the child to take into account. Which I would be willing to bet would often be less desirable than the lives most abortion opponents had to deal with. Now a fetus may develop into a human. But the fact remains that it isn’t one. So if a woman wants to end her pregnancy, she should be allowed to do so. Though if it is to be done, it should be done as humanely as possible.
When a fetus actually becomes a baby, it brings up the topic of parenting. Here in the U.S. we are facing a real dilemma because many children are being raised by single mothers. Which is unfortunate because I think fathers have a valuable role to play in raising children. One of the things that would help promote the male and female family structure is if the media was as interested in promoting it as they are in promoting single parent family units or even homosexuality. Something else that is unfortunate is that these days, even if a child has two parents, chances are that both parents have to work. That gives a child much less opportunity for guidance by a parent. Instead, parents often have to hope that children can learn the right kinds of things from friends or what they see on TV.
Another problem is that parents themselves are often screwed up in various ways. Which I am trying to fix. Yet another unfortunate problem is that besides religion and the media, a large proportion of anything in the way of morality that is taught in school is geared toward making people a tool of government and industry. It’s like having a fox teach a chicken how to be a chicken. Or in the case of religion, having a parasite like “god” and its followers teaching humans how to be human. I would suggest that parents discuss morality with their children. Such as less evolved animal motivation compared to human motivation and how it effects human society. In doing so, parents also may learn something.
Another thing parents could talk to their children about is behaving honorably. Because there are things that are practically customary in our society that is counter to honor. Like telling children or teaching by example that it’s alright to do whatever is necessary to succeed. Which too often involves immoral behavior. Having too often been the victim of thieves myself, such an attitude has apparently translated into doing whatever you want to get whatever you want that somebody else just happens to own. Now I’m no angel. I have stolen things myself. Mainly from having fallen in with the wrong crowd in my youth. Though I have never stolen anything from a friend or acquaintance. Neither have I ever stolen anything really expensive or anything through violent means.
Also, being pissed off about the way the world works, I can’t say it is impossible that I might again be part of the problem in this respect and steal something again. All I can do is try to avoid such temptations. Which one person in a certain economic situation might be better at than another person in the same economic situation. So taking all of this into account, in speaking to your children, you should emphasize that they should try to avoid being put into a position where they might have to steal to get what they need. You should also tell them that stealing to get what they simply may just want can’t be justified at all.
Another point of honor people should talk to their children about concerns aggression. For example, in the media, being an aggressive “two fisted, take no shit” kind of guy is often lauded. One of the problems with that is that somebody may pick fights with someone because they are smaller or because there are more of them than there are of those they wish to pick upon. I would also like to point out that to pick a fight with somebody just to see if they are worthy to be a friend is not only immoral, but a little bit gay. Though if somebody starts a fight with you, it would probably be a good idea to give them a good one. If for no other reason than to keep them from wanting to do the same thing to someone else. Now when it comes to people teaching their children to be aggressive, it’s likely because they would do it because they don’t want them to become victims. Though to me it seems to be a very tricky path to tread to teach children to combat aggression without making them aggressive. So parents should also teach their children, for the health of the society that they themselves depend on, that they shouldn’t make other people victims.
Parents should make them aware of how the temptation to do so can be caused by being in a bad mood or wanting the thrilling brain drugs it gives to those who are mentally disabled in that way. It should also be pointed out that being aggressive may not actually “prove” anything. Such as being “manly.” Because an aggressor is mentally prepared for aggression. Where as the person they decide to be aggressive against may not be. Another thing is that some people may teach their children to be aggressive for the unfortunate reason of their own insecurity or maybe even homophobia. There is another aspect to the “hit first and ask questions later” type of personality that is too often idealized in the media for entertainment value. One unfortunate side effect to this is that anybody behaving in such a manner would tend to make a government or elitists in general think that people in general are deserving of whatever mistreatment they may want to impose on them. Despite all of these problems, I can’t deny that there could be a positive aspect in a way to all of this aggression. That being because I’ve heard it basically said that depression can be caused by anger directed inward.
But despite the possible health benefits of unleashing it unjustly on others, I think it would be better for people to be depressed in that way. Though I’m no expert, I would have to assume that there is a better way to keep people from being depressed. Or maybe it is something that we can evolve our way out of after clearing away all of the garbage that society is now mired in. So to sum all of this up, people should teach their children to be prepared and to be aggressive only when it is unavoidable. One last thing parents should teach their children about honor is that if you have nothing else, it is good to be able to say that you at least have that.
The next topic I would like to talk about concerns drugs. As I mentioned earlier and as any religious nut can tell you, the brain produces its own drugs. Which can be as mentally harmful as anything you could buy. And sometimes worse. The important thing is learning how to honorably coexist with them. Then there are other drugs like tobacco and alcohol. Though there are even worse drugs out there. It would of course be best if people didn’t feel the need to take any drugs. The main reason that many probably do so is out of boredom. But another thing parents can tell children is that there are far worse things than being bored. For example, the power of the mental slavery drugs can produce was shown in an experiment I once saw something about. They took some rats and gave them two levers to push. One lever would give them food and the other lever would give them cocaine. They couldn’t receive both. If I remember the experiment correctly, all of the rats starved to death.
Even a supposedly harmless drug like marijuana can have problems. I know because I used to smoke it in my youth. There had been plenty of times that I was “jonsen’ it” for a joint. Though I don’t smoke it anymore. Mainly because I can physically handle it anymore. These days, the desire for it never even crosses my mind. Another bad thing about weed is that I have had things stolen from me probably because somebody wanted to get high. I also know that it is good at sucking a large portion of ambition out of you. Unfortunately, many people are apt to take some drug for one reason or another. So it would be nice if somebody invented some drug that didn’t have some of these problems associated with it.
As for the issue of legalization, though there are good arguments both for and against it, I would prefer to be against it. After all, religion is legal. Corruption is practically legal. But we are not the better for it. Another point is that the corporate whip is bad enough. Being a corporate junkie wouldn’t help matters much. It also seems to me that there should be a limit as to what degree and in how many different ways it is legal to numb the pain. Despite my personal feelings and the other things, unfortunately, decriminalization and government control seems to be the best way to go. Because the reality is that prohibition just doesn’t work. Now besides effective parenting, another thing governments should do is try to create more recreational activities to help dissuade people from using drugs. Though the most important thing governments could do is provide people with employment that gives them a decent living. And which doesn’t leave them at the mercy of whatever slumlord that crawls out from under whatever rock they happen to me hiding under.
There is an unfortunate kind of behavior that the bible mentioned here and there that I would next like to talk more in depth about. It concerns prostitution. I of course am not happy about it. And as with drug use, I think every opportunity should be taken to discourage it. Probably the best way to prevent prostitution would be to support and provide work for those who are in danger of going down that path. Even if they are young runaways. Because though some may actually choose this lifestyle, I would have to imagine that most choose this lifestyle because they simply have no alternative. Or because the alternatives society provides are equally bleak. I hope you don’t mind my going off on a bit of a tangent here, but the main reason for that was stated by president Calvin Coolidge. It also helps explain why the slumlords I mentioned earlier get away with the things they do. He basically said, “The business of government is business.”
But to me, the business of government is taking care of the people. Also, the vile way some businesses have treated people are astonishing. Take for example the Irish potato famine. Even though from what I have heard, Ireland produced four times the amount of food necessary to keep people from starving to death. Though it was apparently better for business to let an estimated one million people starve to death. Had it not been for emigration, the number would have doubtlessly been higher. For more examples about business, you need to find a documentary called “The Corporation.” I found it a little overly long. But most of the things it has to say are right on the mark. Seeing how “pimp” governments are often more interested in helping the exploiters rather than the exploited, it’s no wonder that many turn to prostitution. So unless things fundamentally socially change, it is unlikely that we could completely do away with prostitution. Though it would be a good idea to discourage it. But the way society in general and the legal system works, in my opinion this discouragement often goes too far.
So I say prostitution should be legalized. (which as you can guess would be unpopular to at least some religious organizations) In doing so, regular health examinations and condom use would be required for them to keep their licences. This would also lessen if not eliminate the need for prostitutes to peddle it on the streets. All of these things would help put the predatory pimps out of business and make things safer for those they prey upon. Prostitution could also be taxed. Which is difficult to do to a pimp. But as it is now, in many places, young girls and sometimes boys are enticed or coerced into prostitution by pimps. As you probably know, these pimps sometimes beat them, get them hooked on drugs, take an unfair proportion of their money, etc. Who out there would say that we shouldn’t do whatever is necessary to stop such things from happening.
There is another topic that I would next like to talk about that for obvious reasons the bible had little to say anything about. Technology. Though technology is the cause of most of the problems that now plague us, technology itself isn’t the problem. It is all of the moral sabotage that is found in the bible and in other religions. Unfortunately, technology isn’t very compatible with primitive ways of thinking. For example, as I said before, many people use religion as a justification for their behavior. Even though they may not be practicing members of any religious organization, they will still do whatever they want and leave the results in the hands of the gods. I see this same sort of thing being supplemented by a belief that technology will eventually solve their problems. But nothing works as well as responsible behavior. Another problem with technology is that whether it is good or bad isn’t taken into consideration all that much as long as there is money to be made.
So to fix any problems with technology, we need to look at the concept of money. I have found things in the bible that were both for and against it. Though the kind of power that comes from having it in abundance is most often praised or at least justified in the bible. One exception to this was something I think the apostle Timothy said. Which, basically stated “the love of money is the root of all evil.” But that isn’t completely accurate. Because surely evil existed before money did. What is actually the root of all evil is the desire for humans to fulfill whatever desire they may have. Though money is an extremely excellent amplifier of evil. Unfortunately I don’t see any way to do completely without it. Though if ants and bees can form a mutually cooperative society without it, I think we could do better than what some primitive small insects do. Despite obvious failures, I think we could form a society in which money doesn’t play such a fundamental role. A society where the increasingly scarce resources needed to provide an often opulent lifestyle isn’t wasted on parasites like lawyers, overpaid business executives, economic gamblers, landlords, etc. Instead, giving a greater reward to people with actual value to society. Like doctors, physicists, technological engineers, technicians, etc.
Obviously, when the importance of money is controlled, one of the positive aspects would be to more easily control the destructive ends toward which technology is pushed. Though to help technology along in the absence of the driving influence of money, it might be necessary to create something like a powerful “Department of Innovation and Improvement.” Where those with new ideas are encouraged. And for the sake of society, the desire to improve things would also be encouraged. Another thing is that after obvious things like food, shelter and water, probably the most important thing for any society is simply people having something to do. Fortunately, the greater your education or technical ability, the more options you have as to what you want to do. The satisfaction you get from that work would likely be greater than that of a simple laborer. As long as you aren’t driven like techno-slaves.
Though it is also obvious that those who benefit from the way society works now would probably resist change in any way they could. Which when they have all the power of the media, police and military behind them, makes them a formidable opponent. On top of that, the system I propose would be so alien to most people that their “knee jerk” response to it would probably to think of reasons why it wouldn’t work instead of thinking of ways in which to make it work. Such a system, as I mentioned before, would elect leaders by lot among those who may wish to be involved. All would serve for the same four year stretch that we now use. Those chosen by lot, at the top, would be an oligarchical council of twelve. With one chosen by lot to have the power to break ties on issues that they vote on democratically. There is of course much more I have to add on this topic. But this isn’t the place for the nuts and bolts of it. Though I know it would work better than our current system. Unfortunately, as I said before, it initially would probably take the power of a dictator to clear away all of the misguided ways of doing things. This society would be more along the line of a Socialist government than anything else.
I prefer this approach to the status quo elitist approach. After all, the most likely differences between the well educated or rich elite of this country and the poor or less educated are probably just due to circumstances. In fact, if there actually was a eugenics program initiated, most of the so called elite probably wouldn’t fare very well. The kind of society I envision would add another item to the idea of supply and demand. Which would be the cost to the environment. Now I hope you don’t think that I seriously expect to be given the opportunity to change the government or the way society works. But I do have a plan. Though you still have to wait until later to see what that plan is and more fully know why it is necessary.
As I mentioned before, another impediment to any real change is the cozy relationship that often exists between religion and government. Which is no surprise. Seeing how they are both basically in the same business. That being gaining or maintaining control over people and gaining wealth. I am surprised that sometimes the one has tried to remove the influence of the other. Because when religion and government support each other, they can double their hold over people. The reason being that if for some reason the one’s hold over the people is lacking, there is the different approach of the other to take up the slack. With both religious and secular leadership seeking wealth, power, an easy living or any combination thereof, it’s no wonder that they would help each other to obtain these things. This is probably the main reason why that here in the U.S. religious organizations are mostly exempt from having to pay taxes.
The relationship between religion and government reminds me of a story I once heard about a Russian king who lived long ago. I don’t remember his name, but not wanting to pass up any trick to control his people, he apparently he decided to infect his subjects with a particular form of religion. It’s possible he did so to help put an end to any strife caused by differing religious factions. But I think a more likely reason was that he thought it would be easier to hold on to one leash than many. Now knowing that religion would help him control his subjects, this king next had to decide what religion to infect his subjects with. His choice boiled down to a decision between the Christian or Muslim religion. But this king apparently liked to drink. And the Muslim religion didn’t allow drinking. So he chose the Christian religion.
Just think. The deep religious faith that many of those people probably have in Jesus is due to alcohol. If things were otherwise, no doubt there would be many these days who would use their equally unjustified faith to justify suicide bombing. The subjects of controlling people and suicide bombing brings up two other subjects. One I have talked a little about before. Which is the Jew dominated media and their influence in the financial world. The other is terrorism. Not that I believe everything I see on TV, I remember seeing something on it once where they said that even one of the prime ministers of Israel had himself in his youth planted at least one terrorist bomb. Which probably killed innocent people.
From what they said, the reason it was done was to drive out the British who were acting as peacekeepers. And from what I know of the Jews, it isn’t that hard to believe. As if the Jewish mafia wasn’t bad enough, (if you make a distinction between the two) we also have people like that to deal with. Having such people around with so much influence is not something I would tolerate if I had anything to say about it. Another thing is how morally justified can we be to fight terrorism when even these “friends” of ours are willing to use such methods. Because, as the old saying goes, “when you lie down with dogs, you’re bound to get fleas.” Which is a philosophy that holds much significance in other instances.
The idea of terrorist bombing brings to mind a philosophy that I have often seen on TV. I have even seen it more than once in cartoons. A philosophy that if it isn’t Jewish, it at least plays into their hands. This philosophy states that if you use the same overly severe methods against an enemy as they may use against you, then you are no better than they are. For various reasons, I don’t make any distinction between Israelites and Jewish people here. So with Israel having resorted to using terrorism to gain their goals, it’s no wonder that the Jewish dominated media would want to suppress any urge for others to respond in kind. I on the other hand am not interested in being more polite in warfare than an adversary. In any conflict, I would be more interested in winning. Besides, if you have to refrain from using similar methods that an enemy may use to make yourself better than they are, then you have serious problems.
Another thing to take into consideration as for how to respond to an attack is the reason behind it. Also, I for one am not responsible for the state of the world. When people are treated like sheep, how much cruelty are the sheep deserving of for the state of the land on which they were led to graze. Though I try to do what I can, there is only so much I can personally do. For example, I am not willing to walk around naked just because this government-corporation decided to take a gigantic shit on the American people and have basically slave labor from impoverished third world countries make our clothing. Along with about everything else. So if I had my way about it and an attacker decided to kill innocent civilians, the civilians of whatever country the attackers may be hiding in had better be ready to experience even greater reprisals. Now to avoid conflict, the best way isn’t to put yourself into god’s hands. The best way is to put yourself into your potential enemies shoes. Try to use open, unselfish and honest reasoning. That way conflict would be less likely to arise to begin with.
Getting back to the Jewish problem, no doubt there are probably some of you out there who think that despite all of the things that I have said concerning them, that I am being too hard on them. Well here are some additional things to consider. Though I can’t say for sure that it is true, according to something I saw on TV, when Israel was involved in a war with its neighbors, president Nixon was apparently ready to unleash nuclear war if Russia sent in troops to help Israel’s enemies. Just think, ending the world over the terrorism using “chosen of god.” Also, it may have even been in that war that some Israeli planes and helicopters tried to sink a U.S. navy surveillance ship. Presumably to blame it on their enemies and sucker the U.S. into getting more involved on the side of Israel. Another interesting thing is that though the captain of the ship received the congressional Medal of Honor, it was given to him in a back room somewhere. Yet another interesting thing is that though there was an aircraft carrier near enough to help them, for reasons that I find suspicious, no help came.
No doubt religion is a major reason for our virtual slavery to Israel. Which no doubt they would call friendship. But you should know by now the cost of their friendship is far too high. For another example of the cost of this friendship, take these things into consideration. During the Reagan administration, the U.S. sold weapons to its worst official enemy at the time. Iran. Which interestingly enough, according to a news story I saw about it once, was done through a country that Iran hated even more than us and was in a better position to attack. Israel. (But with Israel being the slave masters of U.S. military might, Israel didn’t have much to fear) It’s probable that these weapons were sold to fulfill a back room deal to gain the release of U.S. embassy hostages. But what is known is that our share of the money from the sale of those weapons was used to secretly support another U.S. ally. It is also an open secret that the U.S. had at times flown in drugs from those and other U.S. allies to sell here to support those allies. Though it is hard to prove because as you could imagine, the U.S. would be better at keeping secrets or keeping people from talking than any organized crime syndicate could.
It is also known that at times the U.S. had allied itself with criminal organizations to obtain some goal. Such as it probably did to sell the drugs here that the U.S. brought in. Because these criminal organizations would likely be protected to some extent in their sale of these drugs. Otherwise, it would seem unlikely that criminal organizations would have bothered. Now just suppose the U.S. aids Israel in a less open manner by allying itself with another criminal organization. Namely the Jewish mafia. Which is an organization that Israel probably finds quite useful. Of course, I can’t say this is true, but given the extent to which this government is apparently willing to support Israel, it is a definite possibility. Yet another thing that makes these kinds of things highly plausible is that here and there, over many years, I have seen news stories of, seen documentaries or read about the U.S. doing things you would expect from Stalinist Russia or North Korea. There is something else that supports the U.S.-Jewish mafia thing. Which is that as I said before, according to a couple of things I have seen about the matter over the years, despite the support that Israel receives from the U.S., Jewish criminals here can emigrate to Israel to escape our justice.
Another thing about the Jewish mafia is that to me it is just anothe